It has been claimed with reason that the doctrinal standpoint of St. Basil is identical with that of the English Church, with the one exception of the veneration of relics and the invocation of saints. 702
1. The Holy Eucharist. The remarkable passage on the spiritual manducation of the elements in Letter VIII. is commented on on p. 118. His custom as to frequent communion and his opinion as to the reserved sacrament are remarked on on p. 179.
A significant passage is to be found in the Moralia, Rule XXI., that participation in the Body and Blood of Christ is necessary to eternal life. John vi. 54, is then quoted. That no benefit is derived by him who comes to communion without consideration of the method whereby participation of the Body and Blood of Christ is given; and that he who receives unworthily is condemned. On this John 6:54, 62, 1 Cor. 13:27, are quoted. By what method (ποί& 251· λόγῳ) we must eat the Body and drink the Blood of the Lord, in remembrance of the Lords obedience unto death, that they who live may no longer live unto themselves, but to Him who died and rose again for them. In answer, the quotations are Luke 22:29, 1 Cor. 11:23, 2 Cor. 5:14, 1 Cor. 10:16.
2. Mariolatry. Even Letter CCCLX., which bears obvious marks of spuriousness, and of proceeding from a later age, does not go beyond a recognition of the Blessed Virgin as Θεοτόκος, in which the Catholic Church is agreed, and a general invocation of apostles, prophets, and martyrs, the Virgin not being set above these. The argument of Letter CCLXI. (p. 300) that “if the Godbearing flesh was not ordained to be assumed of the lump of Adam, what need was there of the Blessed Virgin?” seems quite inconsistent with the modern doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Of any cultus of the Virgin, St. Basils writings shew no trace.
In order to say something under this head, Ceillier, the Benedictine, is driven to such straits as to quote the application of the term “Coryphæus” to Damasus in Letter CCXXXIX. Certainly St. Basil saw no reason to congratulate the Westerns on their “Coryphæus,” so far as intelligent interest in the East was involved. Fialon 703 sees the position more clearly, so far as Basil is concerned, though he assumes the Councils to have given more authority to the patriarch of the ancient capital than was in fact conceded. “Si Basile ne va pas, comme la majorité du Concile de Constantinople, jusquà traiter lOccident comne étranger; sil ne pretend pas que 1empire appartienne à lOrient, parce que lOrient voit naitre le Soleil, et que cest en Orient que Dieu brilla dans une enveloppe charnelle, 704 ne voudrait il pas, dans lordre religieux, lunion indepéndante, qui, depuis Constantin, rattache, dans lordre politique, ces deux parties du monde Romain? À ses yeux lOrient et lOccident ne sont ils pas deux freres, dont les droit sont égaux, sans suprématie, sans ainesse?”
In truth Basil appealed to Damasus as Theodoret to Leo, and as Chrysostom to Innocent, not as vassal to liege lord, but as brother to brother. In Basils case, even the brotherhood was barely recognised, if recognised at all, by the western prelate.