Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 8 (Augustine: Exposition on Psalms)

Whatever the case, there is no doubt that Basil soon engaged in the practical work of the diocese and became very useful to Eusebius. Yet, Basil’s very vigor and value seem to have caused alienation between him and his bishop. His friend Gregory provides no details, but one may infer that he felt Basil was being mistreated. Basil’s own allusions suggest he felt slighted and neglected. The situation grew serious. Bishops who had objected to the tumultuous nomination of Eusebius—and who had only with difficulty been persuaded to support the legality of his consecration—were now ready to consecrate Basil in his place.

However, Basil showed both wisdom and magnanimity. A division among the orthodox clergy of Cappadocia would be dangerous to their cause. He would accept no personal advancement at the expense of the Church. He retired with his friend Gregory to his monasteries in Pontus and won the battle by fleeing the field. Eusebius was left unmolested, and Basil’s reputation stood higher than ever.

The seclusion of Basil in Pontus seemed to present an opportunity to his opponents in Cappadocia. According to Sozomen, Valens himself was moved in 365 to threaten Cæsarea with a visit, fearing that the Catholics of Cappadocia were now deprived of their strongest champion. Eusebius wanted to call upon Gregory and leave Basil alone. Gregory, however, refused to act without his friend and, with great tact and good feeling, succeeded in reconciling the two offended parties. Eusebius at first resented Gregory’s earnest advocacy for his absent friend, seeing it as the impertinent interference of a junior. But Gregory appealed to the archbishop’s sense of justice and his ability to rise above the common reluctance of high dignitaries to accept counsel, assuring him that he had written with the intent to avoid offense and to remain within the bounds of spiritual and philosophical discipline.

Basil returned to the metropolitan city, ready to cooperate loyally with Eusebius and to use all his eloquence and learning against Arian aggression. To the grateful Catholics, it seemed as though the mere knowledge of Basil’s presence in Cæsarea was enough to put Valens and his bishops to flight, and the news of the revolt of Procopius, brought by a furious rider, seemed a secondary reason for the emperor’s departure.

X

There was now a lull in the storm. Basil, fully reconciled to Eusebius, began to consolidate the archiepiscopal power he would later wield as his own over the various provinces where the metropolitan of Cæsarea exercised exarchic authority. In the meantime, the Semi-Arians began to share the hardships inflicted by the imperial power alongside the Catholics. At Lampsacus in 364, they condemned the results of the councils of Ariminum and Constantinople and reaffirmed the Antiochene Dedication Creed of 341. In 366, they sent deputies to Liberius at Rome, who proved their orthodoxy by subscribing to the Nicene Creed. Basil had not been present at Lampsacus, but he had met Eustathius and other bishops on their way there and had undoubtedly influenced their decisions. The deputation to the West consisted of three bishops with whom he was in communication: Eustathius of Sebasteia, Silvanus of Tarsus, and Theophilus of Castabala. For Eustathius, this was an opportunity to regain a position among the orthodox prelates. It is unlikely the deputation would have accepted the homoousion without Basil’s persuasion; yet, it is singular—and indicates how slowly the Church awakened to the danger of degrading the Holy Spirit—that no profession of faith on this subject was demanded from the Lampsacene delegates. In 367, the Council of Tyana accepted the restitution of the Semi-Arian bishops, promoting peace. The compilation of the Liturgy that forms the basis of the one bearing Basil’s name may very probably be referred to this period.