Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
90..119
CHRISTOPHER A. BEELEY
Introduction
A surge of new interest in the Holy Spirit has touched on many areas of
Christian theology, spirituality, and church life in recent decades. This
renewal follows a long period of neglect, particularly though not exclusively
in the mainstream Christian West. For much of the twentieth century theologians focused overwhelmingly on Christological projects at the expense of
the Holy Spirit, from new quests for the historical Jesus to the works of major
theologians such as Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, and Hans Urs von Balthasar.
Meanwhile, different streams of reection inspired by the work of Hegel and
Schleiermacher considered the Spirit in such close connection with universal
human experience that they failed to give it the prominent place in modern
theology that was initially promiseda result that served in part to fuel the
Christological reaction mentioned above. Some have argued that the lack of
sufcient attention to the Holy Spirit correlates with an overemphasis on
church structures and authority over individual charisma and grass-roots
religious movements. For certain Eastern Orthodox theologians, these concerns are ultimately tied up in the controversy over the lioque clause in the
Western version of the Nicene Creed, which they argue subordinates the
Holy Spirit to the Son and thus promotes the kind of extreme hierarchical
authority represented by the newly ascendant international papacy and the
modern Roman magisterium. The renewal of Christian pneumatology in
recent years draws on a number of different factors, including the rise of
Pentecostalism and the mainline charismatic movement and new works by
Christopher A. Beeley
Yale Divinity School, 409 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA
christopher.beeley@yale.edu
2010 The Author
Journal compilation 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
92 Christopher A. Beeley
just what that means. A third complication is how we are to compare Basils
work with other fourth-century theologians: above all the Nicenehomoousian framework of Athanasius and the full Trinitarianism of Gregory
Nazianzen (the popular label pro-Nicene for all such positions being less
helpful than it is assumed to be). Basils reputation as an ardent defender of
the divinity of the Holy Spirit and its consubstantiality with God the Father
depends to a great extent on Gregorys Letter 58 to Basil and his Oration 43 In
Praise of Basil. In Letter 58, Gregory describes his recent defense of Basil
against charges that Basil has failed to confess the Spirits full divinity. Most
readers have taken Gregorys account at face value, ignoring the sarcasm with
which Gregory is in fact criticizing Basils for his refusal to confess the Spirits
divinitya rhetorical force that is conrmed by Basils angry reply.6 Similarly, in his memorial oration for Basil, Gregory depicts Basil in terms of his
own, strongly Trinitarian position, chiey in order to bolster his position in
Basils former community; the piece is not an example of unadulterated
historical accuracy. When we add the fact that Basil and Gregory collaborated
in the early 360s, it becomes even more imperative that we examine Basils
doctrine on its own terms, without assuming that he agrees with Athanasius
homoousianism, Gregorys fully Trinitarian doctrine, or any other extrinsic
framework.
In Defense of the Holy Spirit
Basils teaching on the Holy Spirit rst appears in reaction to the radical
subordinationism of Eunomius and the newly ascendant orthodoxy that was
established at the council of Constantinople in 360 under the sponsorship of
Emperor Constantius. Eunomius and the council represented an extrame
branch of the theological tradition that stemmed from Eusebius of Caesarea,
while Basil represented a more centrist version of the same tradition, the
so-called Homoiousians, who included Basil of Ancyra, George of Laodicea,
and Melitius of Antioch. In his Contra Eunomium, Basil refutes Eunomius
claim that the Spirit is third in nature to the Father and the Son7 and is a
creature (dhmiorghma, pohma).8 While he agrees that the Spirit is third in
rank and dignity to the Father and the Son, Basil denies that it is therefore
third in nature to them and a creature. On the basis of the Spirits names and
activities in Scripture,9 Basil argues that the Spirits nature is holiness,10 and
that divinity coexists in the Spirit by nature.11 A decade later, in the De
Spiritu Sancto, Basil further explains that the Spirits names, activities, and
blessings indicate its greatness of nature ( ) and unapproachable
power,12 concluding that the Spirit is divine in nature ( jsei),
innite in greatness, mighty in works, and good in blessings.13 Although
some wrold regard such terms of divinity as plainly indicating Basils
meaning, Basils primary way of explicating the status of the Holy Spirit is to
speak of the communion with respect to nature that the Spirit shares with
the Father and the Son14a Eusebian term that Basil brings to bear against
2010 The Author
Journal compilation 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
94 Christopher A. Beeley
progressed;30 however, the texts normally cited as evidence of this change do
not bear it out. On the contrary, when Basil comes to face the Pneumatomachians more squarely in the early to mid 370s, his anti-modalist tendencies
become even more pronounced. In Letter 210, for example, composed around
the time of De Spiritu Sancto, Basil writes that the nature of the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit is the same, and the Divinity is one. Read out of context,
this passage may appear to be a statement of Nicene consubstantiality. Yet in
this passage Basil is arguing that each of the three persons exists uniquely and
completely, on the analogy of human beings who, as distinctly existing
things, have the same nature (they each exist as humans).31 This is the same
view of generic similarity or sameness between distinct things that we found
in the Contra Eunomium.
Basils anti-modalist approach is clearest of all in his homilies from the
370s. In Homily 15 De de the Holy Spirit possesses goodness, benecence,
and life by nature ( jsin), existing together with (sunousiwmnw) the Father and Son.32 Here again, the Spirits divinity lies chiey in
its self-subsistent goodness and life, rather than in its possession of the
goodness and life of God the Father. When Basil next makes a comparison
with re and heat, he likens the Spirit not to the heat of the Fathers re, as we
might expect, but, signicantly, to the sanctication of creatures by the Spirits
re.33 What it means for the Spirit to exist in the blessed nature and to be
theorized in the Trinity (which might otherwise sound Athanasian) is that it
is singular ( ) rather than one of the groups of things (sustmata)
like the ministering spirits,34 or, as Basil further argues, that it is above
creation because it is a sanctier rather than sanctied,35 and it exists in
heaven and is completely with God, distributing gifts authoritatively and
working out of its own power ( ).36 In Homily 24 Contra Sabellianos, the anti-modalist strain becomes even stronger. Arguing that the Spirit
has afnity of nature with the Father and Son, Basil stresses that the Spirit is
not the same thing as the Father or Son and that there is no confusion of
prosopon.37 Rather, the three are theorized as perfect and self-sufcient in
themselves, inseparably joined to each other38 as three distinct things (pr gmata) that have existence with (sunousa) one another, as the baptismal
tradition demonstrates.39 In ne, the Spirit must exist properly and distinctly,
else there is no Trinity.40
Basil thus argues for the divinity of the Holy Spirit, rst against the Eunomians and later against the Pneumatomachians, by applying a traditional
anti-modalist framework, emphasizing the Spirits singularity and selfsubsistence as holy, sanctifying, and hence sharing communion with the
Father and the Son in its nature.
Problems and Limitations
Commentators have long recognized that Basils treatment of the Spirits
divinity is not without signicant qualications and limitations.41 Even
2010 The Author
Journal compilation 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
96 Christopher A. Beeley
characters ( ) of the Father and Son are fatherhood and sonship,
terms that reect their eternal relation to one another, Basil merely calls the
Spirits sanctifying power,56 a phrase that denotes the Spirits work toward
creation and, moreover, a quality that Basil believes all three persons share.57
Indeed, Basil generally recommends confessing ignorance about the Spirits
mode of existence (trpo ).58 Although he recognizes the
Father as the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit,59 the idea does not
inform his otherwise generic view of the Spirits communion in nature with
the Father and Son. Basil does not seem to hold that the Father conveys to the
Son and Spirit his divinity, or that this generation forms the basis of their
communion of nature.
The ambiguity of the Spirits nature is especially visible in Basils treatment
of creation, which is more complicated than the categories of Divinity and
creation might suggest. For Basil, the Spirit does not share in the Fathers and
the Sons work of creation per se, in the sense of bringing things into existence, but rather it perfects the thingsabove all, rational beingsthat the
Father and the Son have made. Basils clearest and most important discussion
of this question comes in a famous passage of the De Spiritu Sancto. Here Basil
argues that the Father is the original cause of all things (
), the Son the creative (dhmiougik) cause, and the Spirit the perfecting
(tekeiwtik) cause.60 The Spirits perfecting work consists in the preservation
of the harmony of the angelic heavens,61 and the sanctication of rational
beings.62 Similarly, Basil interprets Gods breathing into Adam not as an act of
creation, as the text of Genesis indicates, but as the conferral of grace for
holiness, which, after it was lost, Jesus later restored by breathing into the face
of the disciples.63 In this respect Basils view of the Spirit has not changed
since the Contra Eunomium. Here again Basil works against the obvious sense
of the biblical text to sustain his case: When Job said, The Spirit of the Lord
who made me, I do not think he was referring to when he was created, but
rather to when he was perfected in human virtue.64 The Spirits attenuated
role in creation thus corresponds with Basils comparison of the Spirit to
lower angels who have lesser jurisdiction and a smaller range of activity than
higher-ranking ones.65 The same view persists in the Hexaemeron and Basils
other works of the 370s,66 thus spanning his entire career.
Sanctication and Asceticism
Throughout his corpus, Basil identies the Holy Spirit primarily with the
work of sanctication and the Christians progress in virtue. In Basils view,
human beings fulll their purpose to become fully the image and likeness of
God chiey through the mastery of the passions.67 Accordingly, he routinely exhorts his readers to adopt an ascetic lifestyle, a tendency that
Wolf-Dieter Hauschild has called Basils distinctively monastic theology.68 The
regeneration that is achieved through the control of the passions, moreover,
is accomplished preeminently through baptism, a theme that looms large in
2010 The Author
Journal compilation 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Conclusion
When examined on its own terms and within its multiple contexts, Basils
doctrine of the Holy Spirit is complicated and puzzling in several respects.
On the one hand, he seeks to defend some sense of the Spirits divinity
against Eunomius extreme subordinationism and the doctrine of the Pneumatomachians; yet, on the other hand, his pneumatology is sharply qualied
2010 The Author
Journal compilation 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
98 Christopher A. Beeley
by his wider cosmological and ascetical views. On the whole, we can best
describe Basils pneumatology as an unresolved composite of several different elements. The most descriptive single characterization would be to say
that Basils doctrine represents an incomplete homoiousian position, that is,
a type of Eusebian theology that has become xed and skewed in certain
ways. Basils Trinitarian theology is Eusebian-homoiousian through and
through, from his early Contra Eunomium to his death in 379; he is a fundamentally anti-modalist theologian, and he does not become a homoousian, as
has been claimed. The consistency of Basils pneumatology before and after
his break with Eustathius shows that he remained under the inuence of his
former master much longer than is normally recognized.
We can further explain the idiosyncrasies of Basils doctrine as a particular version of Origenism. This can be seen above all in Basils agnosticism
about the Spirits generation. Basil professes ignorance about the Spirits
mode of origin, he says, because he wants to teach only what the Scriptures
explicitly say about the Spirit.83 Whereas the Scriptures speak exactly and
clearly about the Sons begetting,84 Basil does not believe that they make
clear the generation of the Spirit. All that can be determined from Scripture
is that the Spirit is beyond creation and that it cannot be part of all things
that were created through the Son (John 1:3), since there is only one Holy
Spirit and it possesses the unitary nature85 (the anti-modalist argument,
again). Basils approach to the problem for the most part follows that of
Origen.86 Moreover, the Spirits restricted role in creation and its proper
scope of action in the perfection of rational being repeat the doctrine of
Origen even more closely.87 Basils famous economy on the divinity of the
Spirit was therefore less a judicious exercise of caution for the sake of ecclesiastical peace than a specic, and by the 370s an especially reticent, form of
Origenism.88
Finally, we may note the generic tendency of Basils view of the divine
nature, which appears to be informed, at least partially, by Stoic and Platonic
conceptions. Basil denition of being ( ) and hypostasis ( ) as
indicating the common versus the particular, as in a living being of any sort
compared to a particular human being,89 supports a generic view of the
divine being, as we saw in the comparison to differently ranked angels.
Accordingly, Basil does not regard the particular characteristic of God the
Father as having any special bearing on the divine nature itself, so as to make
it his divine being in a primary sense. Basil thus refrains from asserting a
strong doctrine of the monarchy of God the Father, such as we nd in
Gregory Nazianzen.
To be sure, Basils pneumatology has several enduring strengths, yet most
of them are better represented by Gregory Nazianzen. Given such complications and limitations, it is not surprising that Basil has had such difculty
convincing his more strongly Trinitarian critics that he was not, in the end, all
that far from Pneumatomachians like Eustathius.
2010 The Author
Journal compilation 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Trinitarian Issues
I have argued elsewhere that Gregory belonged to the same homoiousian
tradition stemming from Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea in which we have
just located Basil, and that he had little if any contact with the work of
Athanasius.107 Yet it is equally clear that Basil and Gregory developed this
tradition in rather different directions. We can characterize the difference
most succinctly by saying that Gregory fullled and completed the homoiousian tradition with a full confession of the Trinity, while Basil took it instead
in a direction of studied ambiguity. As Gregory and several other contemporaries recognized, Basil was neither sh nor fowl compared with the
clearer (Eusebian) alternatives of the Homoians and Gregory Nazianzen.
As a representative of the homoiousian tradition, Gregorys doctrine is also
fundamentally anti-modalist, even more than it is anti-Arian or anti-Eunomian108although he is certainly opposed to both. The central tenet of Gregorys Trinitarian programand hence of the identity of the Holy Spiritis
the monarchy of God the Father, a principle that Origenist-Eusebians had
originally directed against so-called modalist monarchianism. Accordingly,
Gregory holds that the monarchy of the Fatherthe Fathers eternal generation of the Son and the Spirit as the sole cause and principle of the Trinityis
the root of both the divine unity and the distinctions between the three
persons.109 For Gregory, unlike Basil and Gregory of Nyssa, the divinity of the
Son and the Spirit is therefore that of the Father, in a causally primary sense,
rather than a generic divine essence that all three persons share without
reference to source, like angels or human beings. Gregory thus espouses a
monarchic, rather than a generic, view of the Divinity or divine nature.
Because the Father eternally conveys his Divinity to the Son and the Spirit in
generating them, Gregory can afrm that the Spirit is consubstantial
(homoousion) with the Fatherthat it is not merely a divine nature but shares
the same nature as God the Fathera point that all three sets of opponents
denied.110 The consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit is thus an implication or
result of Gregorys basic doctrine, rather than its foundation, as it is often
imagined, and mainly operates as a cipher for the monarchy of the Father.
Closely related to his focus on the divine monarchy, Gregory gives
unprecedented attention to the Spirits unique mode of generation, which,
together with the Sons begetting, he regards as central to Christian theology and spirituality.111 Whereas Basil professes ignorance along Origenist
lines, Gregory develops the same tradition in a new direction, by reading
the Spirits mode of generation in the words of Jesus himself, thereby
2010 The Author
Journal compilation 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
NOTES
1
For recent accounts of the present renewal, see Bradford E. Hinze and D. Lyle Dabney,
Introduction, in Hinze and Dabney (eds.), Advents of the Spirit: An Introduction to the
Current Study of Pneumatology, Marquette Studies in Theology 30 (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2001), pp. 1422; Jrgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal
Afrmation, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 114; and F.
LeRon Shults and Andrea Hollingsworth, The Holy Spirit, Guides to Theology (Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008).
In the last century: see Henry Barclay Swete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church: A Study
of Christian Teaching in the Age of the Fathers (London: MacMillan, 1912), pp. 230254;
Wolf-Dieter Hauschild, Gottes Geist und der Mensch: Studien zur frhchristlichen Pneumatologie (Munich: Kaiser, 1972), pp. 285289; R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine
of God: The Arian Controversy 318381 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), pp. 772790; Michael
Haykin, The Spirit of God: the Exegesis of I and 2 Corinthians in the Pneumatomachian Controversy of the Fourth Century (New York: E. J. Brill, 1994); Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy:
An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004),
pp. 211218.
For an explanation for my preference for the term Trinitarian over pro-Nicene, see
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Christopher A. Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God: In Your
Light We Shall See Light, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2008), p. 10 n24.
Louis Bouyer, La spiritualit du Nouveau Testament et Peres (Paris: Aubier, 1966),
p. 178.
As Anthony Meredith observes in The Pneumatology of the Cappadocian Fathers and the
Creed of Constantinople, The Irish Theological Quarterly Vol. 48 (1981), pp. 196212, at
p. 198; see also Philip Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press, 1994), p. 264.
Basil, Ep. 71.
Eunomius, apol. 25.45. See also Basil, Eun. 2.34: Eunomius disparages the Spirits nature.
Eunomius, apol. 20.
Eun. 3.14.
Eun. 3.23.
Eun. 3.5
Spir. 19.48; see also 9.22: the Spirits titles in Scripture reveal its supreme nature.
Spir. 23.54.
jsin koinwna. Eun. 3.2. See also Spir. 18.46; 19.48; 27.68. For a catalog of
Basils various statements of the Spirits communion in Spir., see Drries, De Spiritu
Sancto, and Ysabel de Andia, La koinona du Saint Esprit dans le trait Sur le Saint Esprit
de saint Basile, in eadem and Peter Leander Hofrichter, eds., Der Heilige Geist im Leben der
Kirche: Forscher aus dem Osten und Westen Europas an den Quellen des gemeinsamen Glaubens.
Pro Oriente 29 (Innsbruck: Tyrolia-Verlag, 2005), p. 83. For similar statements concerning
the Son, see Eun. 1.18, 27; 2.12, 28.
See, e.g., Eusebius, eccl. theo. 3.19.4, on the communion of glory of the Father and Son. For
Eunomius denial, see apol. 26.
Eun. 3.1.
Eun. 3.2. Basil also compares the stars of different glories (1 Cor. 15:41) that have one nature
(that of being a star), and human beings, who are gloried in different degrees in the many
rooms of Gods house (Jn. 14:2) yet have natures like one another.
Ibid., 3.3.
Spir. 26.63.
Eun. 2.34; Spir. 16.37; 26.63; ep. 52.4; 251.4.
See, e.g., Spir. 10.24; 13.2930; ep. 226.3; 236.6.
Here Basil still has in mind Eunomius statement that the Spirit is third in nature. Eunomius does not explicitly deny the Spirits glory in the Apology, though he does by implication in the Expositio dei: nothing divides Gods glory (2.9); not even the Son participates
in the Fathers glory, which is incommunicable (3.1117); though cf. 4.58: the Spirit
transcends all creatures in nature and glory (4.58).
Eun. 3.1; see also 3.3, 6; Spir. 23.54.
The denitive treatment being Eusebius Contra Marcellum and De ecclesiastica theologia
from the late 330s. Anti-modalist literature continued through the 340s and 350s and would
eventually include Basils own Contra Sabellianum et Arium et Anomoios. In Spir. 7274 Basil
lists Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Eusebius among his
theological authorities, with no mention of Athanasius.
The Son is a living and active essence (Eun. 2.17).
Eun. 3.5. The same point underlies Basils famous argument that the Spirit should be
classed in the reality (pr gma) of sovereign Divinity rather than in that of servile creation:
for Divinity has virtue by nature, i.e. intrinsically, whereas creation must achieve it by
freewill (Eun. 3.2). The distinction between the two pr gmata of God and creation was
conventional in homoiousian circles and does not necessarily reect the inuence of
Athanasius.
Spir. 26.63.
Eun. 2.24; see also 1.23.
It is indicative that Epiphanius, who represents the more Athanasian/Paulinian side of the
Antiochene church, accuses the Homoiousians of holding the same doctrine of Spirit as the
Pneumatomachiansi.e. a subordinationist one (Panar. 73.1.7).
See esp. Drecoll, Die Entwicklung der Trinittslehre des Basilius von Csarea. Sein Weg vom
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
to the waters that have been made, so that they can produce life (Hex. 2.6, on Genesis 1:2).
See also hom. in Ps. 32: the Word gives existence to all things, while it is the Spirit that
makes rational beings holy.
hom. in Ps. 48; see also Spir. 1.2.
Hauschild, Gottes Geist, p. 285, following Drries, De Spiritu Sancto.
See esp. Spir. 10.36; 15.35.
hom on bap. 2.
Spir. 16.40.
Pneumatology of the Cappadocian Fathers, pp. 203204.
E.g., Eun. 3.4.
Spir. 16.35.
Spir. 15.35. See ep. 2 to Gregory Nazianzen.
Eun. 3.5; see also Spir. 26.61.
See Moralia 60; Long Rules Pref.
Spir. 26.6263.
Ibid., 24.55.
Ibid., 16.39.
See On the Judgment of God; Long Rules 7.2.
On which, see Harriet Ann Luckman, Pneumatology and Asceticism in Basil of Caesarea:
Roots and Inuence to 381 (PhD. diss., Marquette University, 2001).
Eun. 2.7; see also 1.1 on Basils general intent to follow the Scriptures; 2.2; and passim.
Eun. 2.15.
Eun. 3.67.
Origen, princ. pref.4.
Origen, princ. 1.3.
Basil himself cites Origen as an authority at Spir. 73, along with Eusebius, Gregory Thaumaturgus and others. The tradition of inuence is here well laid-out.
ep. 214.4; 236. Cf. the earlier distinction between being and particular properties
( or ) in Eun. 2.28. Basils scheme appears to be more Stoic than Platonic,
although the matter is debated. Reinhard Hbners article still commands the eld:
Gregor von Nyssa als Verfasser der sog. Ep. 8 des Basilius. Zum unterschiedlichen
Verstndnis der bei den kappadozischen Brdern, in Epektasis: Mlange patristiques
offerts Jean Danilou, ed. Jacques Fontaine and Charles Kannengiesser (Paris: Beauchesne,
1972), pp. 462490.
or. 1.7.
makara ri do, or. 2.36. For other early confessions, see or. 2.3638;
3.6; 6.4, 1113, 22.
It employs only biblical terms, speaking of the Divinity (qeth), while avoiding the
contested language of being ( ).
See, e.g., or. 22.12; 31.33; 40.41, 45.
or. 11.6.
On the different uses of the term Pneumatom coi by the three Cappadocians, see Beeley,
Gregory of Nazianzus, pp. 29 n88 and 157 n14.
Pnemati
).
Or, the holy and divine Spirit (
or. 12.6.
Or: the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God (Qen tn Patra, Qen
tn , Qen,
, t t , ); or.
33.16.
See or. 31.3.
or. 34.8.
See, e.g., or. 38.9.
or. 41.9.
or. 31.29.
Denitively launched into current Trinitarian thought by John Zizioulas Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary
Press, 1993).
These include references to Arius (or. 21.13) and the Eunomians (or. 29.14).
On the communion of human beings with God, which is most prominent in the personal
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
poetry, see or. 41.12; carm. 2.1.11.1226 (De vita sua); 2.1.39.91; 2.1.48.69; 2.1.83.3; Gods
communion with human nature in the incarnation: or. 38.13 = 45.9; believers communion in
Christs baptism and cross, carm. 1.1.10.60 (see also 1.2.22.76), in the sufferings of God, or.
26.12; carm. 1.2.34.239; in the Holy Spirit, ep. 168.1. On the NT meanings, see above, n. 43.
On Gregorys relation to Athanasius, see Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus, pp. 277283; on his
relation to Eusebian theological tradition, see pp. 309316.
For textual references, see ibid., pp. 209, 219220.
The idea appears in the early statement or. 2.3638, cited above. For a full discussion of the
monarchy, with references, see ibid., pp. 201217.
or. 31.10.
This is especially evident in Gregorys most important treatment of the Trinity, or. 25.1518,
where the very existence of the Divinity itself is seen to be dependent on the unique
identities of the three persons.
Jn. 15:26; and cognates: t , , or. 31.8.1618; t :
29.2. In later orations, Gregory uses as synonyms pronai (25.15) and prodo (25.15;
39.12), and, interestingly, ! , being sent (25.16). Gregorys use of the Aristotelian
term t prblhma, emission, in or. 29.2 is merely rhetorical.
Given the number of texts that have been lost, it is impossible to say whether previous
Homoiousians made a similar move. The precedent of Origen is difcult to assess for the
same reason. Marcellus and Eusebius employed the term, with reference to Jn. 15:26, in their
debate over the unity versus plurality of the Trinity; however, neither arrives at the
signication that Gregory does: both apply it equally to the Sons generation, while Eusebius
interprets it as referring specically to the Spirits mission in the economy (Marcellus, frag.
6768 Klostermann; Eusebius, eccl. theo. 3.45). The earlier witness of Asterius, to which
Marcellus refers (Asterius, frag. 59), is unclear from the text that remains. An important
contemporary witness is Epiphanius, who in the late 370s uses the term in a way remarkably
similar to Gregory, if not as strongly and clearly (Panar. 37.4.9; 67.56.10; 74.4.1 and 74.9.910.2
[from the earlier Ancoratus]; 76.44.7); it is unlikely that Gregory knew Epiphanius work.
See or. 31.78.
Gregory confesses the Trinity in simple, biblical terms, as opposed to those of pagan Greek
philosophy or literature: Limiting ourselves to our own terms, we admit the Unbegotten,
the Begotten, and the One who proceeds from the Father (t
,
t gennhtn, t Patr ), as God the Word himself says somewhere (or. 29.2). See also 25.16: the unique characteristic (") of the Father is unbegottenness (
), of the Son, begottenness ( gnnhsi), and of the Spirit, being sent
( ! ).
or. 31.1.
Although baptism is the paradigmatic instance of divinization by the Spirit, the Spirit also
works in the believer before and after the sacrament. See or. 31.29.
or. 31.28.
carm. 1.1.3.1314.
As in or. 31.28: From the Spirit comes our regeneration, and from our regeneration our
recreation, and from our recreation our acquaintance with the honor of the one who
recreates us.
See the testimonia of Scripture given in or. 31.29, which comes after the argument from
divinization.
or. 41.11.
See esp. Jn. 14:26; 16:12.
or. 2.39: God can be known only by the work of the Spirit, who puries and illuminates the
theologian.
carm. 1.1.3.14.
A theological and spiritual superiority which Karl Holl observed in his 1904 Amphilochius
von Ikonium in seinem Verhltnis zu den grossen Kappadoziern (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr), pp.
159, 163, 167.
For a composite summary of Gregorys pneumatology, see Martien Parmentiers Oxford
dissertation, Saint Gregory of Nyssas Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, printed in
# $ F ro Vol. 58 (1976), pp. 41100, 387444; Vol. 59 (1977), pp. 323429. On
pneumatic language in Gregorys baptismal and eucharistic theology, see Monique Alex-
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
andre, LEsprit saint: sacrements, vie spirituelle, eschatologie chez Grgoire de Nysse, in
Andia and Hofrichter, eds., Der Heilige Geist im Leben der Kirche.
Not in an automatic or instantaneous sense, for the water of baptism gives life only if one
is sanctied. Maced. 105. References to Gregory of Nyssas works are by page number to the
Jaeger series, Gregorii Nysseni Opera, except where indicated otherwise.
Martin Laird, Gregory of Nyssa and the Grasp of Faith: Union, Knowledge, and Divine Presence.
Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
It may also speak against the works authenticity, which, in my view, has not been conclusively demonstrated. In addition to the anomalous teaching on the Spirit, the work
expresses little of Gregorys characteristically contemplative spirituality, which would be
expected in such a summary work. It obviously bears a sort of Gregorian provenance, but
it is not certain (nor is it impossible) that it comes from Gregory himself.
See Maced. 94; Eun. 20406; on the model of Basil, Spir. 21.5253.
See Maced. 98, 105, possibly in connection with Athanasius, Ep. Serap. 1.9, 23. Like Athanasius, Gregory also does not equate image and likeness, as do Basil and Origen (princ.
3.6.1). An interesting exception to Gregorys normal pattern is his treatment of the Spirit in
or. cat. 2, which presents an almost exclusively anti-modalist position, arguing for the
Spirits distinct subsistence but not its unity or co-equality with the Father and the Son.
Maced. 100.
Maced. 104.
instit. 42.8f.
See deit. 573C (PG vol. 46).
Maced. 90. See also Eust. 6: In reply to Eustathius report of Macedonian accusations of
tritheism, he announces his method of approach simply: Let the Scriptures decide.
E.g., Maced. 92: The Holy Spirit is called divine by both the Scriptures and the fathers. See
also the strange argument in De Deitate Filii et Spir. Sanct.: although Gregorys opponents
claim that Scripture does not say divinity with reference to the Spirit, on account of which
it is therefore not divine (573C), the divine nature is inexpressible anyway, and divinity
signies seeing, which surely the Spirit does (576A). Or, alternatively, the Scriptures plainly
show the Spirit to be simple, like the divine nature; therefore it is divine (Maced. 92).
Maced. 9496; see also Eust. 1314.
E.g. in the Life of Moses.
Martin Parmentier concludes that Gregory of Nyssa has no systematic and coherent
opinions on the problem of grace and synergy. Martin Parmentier, Gregory of Nyssas
Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, p. 416.
E.g., Antirrh. 221223. See Eusebius, HE 1.13.13, 15; Dem. evang. 4.15.
or. dom. 3.
Maced. 102103; see also Eust. 16.
Hence it is possible to write an accomplished study of Gregorys mystical theology with
hardly any mention of the Holy Spirit: see Walther Vlker, Gregor von Nyssa als Mystiker
(Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1955). For further analysis, see Beeloy, Gregory of
Nazianzus, pp. 303309.
Basil, ep. 159.2 speaks of conglorication, but not co-worship. In Gregory of Nyssa, Maced.
968, the worship, nature, and activity of the Spirit are linked with the Father and the Son.
For recent attempts to justify the creeds shortcomings by way of Basil and/or Gregory of
Nyssa, see Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy, p. 257; Meredith, Pneumatology of the Cappadocian Fathers.
Pavel Florensky, The Pillar and Ground of the Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve
Letters, trans. and annotated by Boris Jakim from the Russian original Stolp i Utverzhdenie
Istiny; intro. by Richard F. Gustafson (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997).
Florensky reads the entire fourth century as being miraculously shaped by the Nicene
homoousion. He thus accepts the conventional view that the Cappadocians are staunch
homoousians and de facto Athanasians, against the homoiousian tradition in which they in
fact stood. See Pillar and Ground of the Truth, pp. 39, 85.
See Sergius Bulgakov, The Comforter, trans. Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004, from the 1936 original), pp. 2840; Thomas Torrance, The
Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Churh (New York: T&T
Clark, 1988), pp. 319322; and Robert Jenson, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (New York: Oxford
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
University Press, 1997), pp. 152153 and passim. Jensons citation of Basil, Spir. 16.37
inclines toward a more distinct appreciation (p. 153). See also John Polkinghorne, Faith in
the Holy Spirit in idem. and Michael Welker, Faith in the Living God: A Dialogue (London:
SPCK, 2001), p. 72, which follows Lossky; and John McIntyre, The Shape of Pneumatology:
Studies in the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), chap. 4, which adopts
Barthian lenses.
Including Barth, Rahner, Jngel, and even Balthasar, who relies extensively on Gregory of
Nyssa.
Among other works noted here, see the recent attempts to incorporate Cappadocian
themes by Lucas F. Mateo-Seco, Teologa Trinitaria: Dios Espritu Santo (Madrid: Ediciones
Rialp, 2005) and Ren Coste, Lvanglie de lEsprit: Pour une thologie et une spiritualit
intgrantes de lEsprit Saint (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 2006).
For a full account of Gregorys position and the surrounding interpretive problems, see
Christopher Beeley, Divine Causality and the Monarchy of God the Father in Gregory of
Nazianzus, Harvard Theological Review Vol. 100 no. 2 (2007), pp. 199214; and idem.,
Gregory of Nazianzus, pp. 201217.
On which, see Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus, pp. 194201 and passim; and the similar
denition (without reference to Gregory) in Jenson, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, p. 160: To
say that the Holy Spirit is without qualication one of the Trinity is to say that the
dynamism of Gods life is a narrative causation in and so of God.
A similar reading of Eastern Orthodox pneumatology that omits the Cappadocians in favor
of Gregory Palamas and the Macarian homilies is Marie-Joseph Guillon, Lexprience de
lEsprit Saint en orient et en occident, pref. Olivier Clment (Saint-Maur: Parole et Silence,
2000), chap. 2.
Jrgen Moltmann, The Trinitarian Personhood of the Holy Spirit in Hinze and Dabney,
eds., Advents of the Spirit, pp. 302314, at p. 305.
E.g., Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3 vols., trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), Vol. I, pp. 279280, 322323,
385; Jenson, Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p. 152. Here we must include Bulgakov as well:
Comforter, pp. 29f.
E.g., John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p. 183; Zizioulas, Being as Communion.
The Augustinian framework causes problems, e.g., for Pannenbergs understanding of the
Spirits personhood (Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p. 429; Vol. II, p. 30), despite his criticism of
it (Vol. I, p. 316). Likewise affected is Thomas Weinandys proposal for understanding the
Spirit as the one in whom the Father eternally begets the Son (The Fathers Spirit of Sonship:
Reconceiving the Trinity, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995).
See Gregory Nazianzen, or. 29.16; 31.79; and Beeley, Divine Causality, p. 208n60.
or. 30.21; 31.33.
Rowan Williams, Wort und Geist in Klaus Kremkau (ed.), Das Religise Bewustsein und der
Heilige Geist in der Kirche. Beiheft zur kumenischen Rundschau 40 (Frankfurt: Verlag Otto
Lembeck, 1980), pp. 7794, anthologized in English as Word and Spirit in idem, On
Christian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2000), pp. 107127, introduced a theme
later developed by Sarah Coakley, Why Three? Some Further Reections on the Origins of
the Doctrine of the Trinity, in Coakley and David A. Pailin, eds., The Making and Remaking
of Christian Doctrine: Essays in Honour or Maurice Wiles (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), pp.
2956.
A point beautifully illustrated in Gregorys or. 31.29.
On this point Staniloae is especially strong, and serves to correct an error of Losskys:
Trinitarian Relations and the Life of the Church in idem., Theology and the Church, trans.
Robert Barringer, forward by John Meyendorff (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary
Press, 1980), pp. 2225. See also the comment of Rowan Williams to the same effect: Spirit
is the pressure upon us towards Christs relation with the Father (Word and Spirit, p.
109; see also p. 124).
The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit,
LOsservatore Romano, Weekly Edition, 20 September 1995, pp. 3 and 6; reprinted in Eugene
Rogers, ed., The Holy Spirit: Classic and Contemporary Readings (Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell, 2009), pp. 8290.
Ibid., pp. 84, 87.