The Affirmation of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit

in Basil the Great’s De Spiritu Sancto

-----------------

A Research Paper Submitted

to the Faculty of Sacred Theology
University of Santo Tomas

-----------------

In Partial Fulfillment
for the Requirements in the Course
The Trinitarian Doctrine of the Cappadocian Fathers

by

Sem. Jacob Suico

Redemptoris Mater Seminary – Archdiocese of Manila

December 2017
Manila, Philippines
 The Affirmation of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit
in Basil the Great’s De Spiritu Sancto

by Sem. Jacob Suico

Abstract

Writing against the Pneumatomachi, Basil the Great takes up the identity of the
Holy Spirit in his De Spiritu Sancto. Unlike Gregory of Nazianzen after him,
though, we read that Basil did not write an explicit affirmation on the Paraclete’s
divinity and consubstantiality with the Father and the Son. We find, of course, many
of Basil’s assertions where he firmly points out that the Holy Spirit is God. These
are demonstrated in his concept of isotimia (equality of worship and honor) and
the Holy Spirit’s divine action in the history of salvation. Given this, we may say
that Basil clearly affirms faith in the full divinity of the Holy Spirit using equivalent
expressions.

Main Problem:

How did Basil the Great affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit in his work De Spiritu Santo?

Sub-problems:

1. How does Basil prove the Holy Spirit’s ontological equality with the Father and the Son?

2. How do the actions of the Holy Spirit in the economy of creation and salvation point to
his divinity?

3. How does the Homotimia assert the Holy Spirit’s divinity?

1
Introduction

Until the middle of the fourth century, the theology of the Holy Spirit has been very
elementary compared to the advancement of the theology of the Son in the second century
onwards. We can take two considerations1 to explain this. First, the figure of the Son has pre-
eminence over that of the Holy Spirit since, in the level of our abstraction from God’s Self-
revelation, we recognize the Son first before we “perceive” the Holy Spirit. The enigmatic concept
on a pneuma makes it difficult for us to directly conjecture anything about the Spirit. His eternal
presence, has been “clouded”, so to speak, by the Son’s more identifiable and more tangible
presence. A second factor can be attributed in direct consequence to this. As we know, there was
an on-going dispute on the Son’s divinity, particularly, the Christological questions chiefly led by
Arianism. The Church was too occupied in combatting the perilous threats of the heretical
doctrines. The zealous defenders of monotheism (i.e., Subordinationism and Monarchianism) were
ready to accuse anyone who would state the Son’s divinity as a ditheist (or polytheist). We can
conjecture that the supporters of the Spirit’s Godhead (if there were any) were, in some way,
hesitant to declare their stand out of fear of being accused of tritheism. Therefore, there was
somehow a necessity to develop the theology of the Son first in order to gradually expound the
notion on the Spirit.
In 360, Athanasius supplied the first known interpolation on the Spirit’s divinity. When he
wrote the Letters to Serapion, he fixed the fundamental concepts that would later lead to the
affirmation of the perfect divinity of the Spirit. In the following years, the most significant treatise
which largely reiterated Athanasius’ work is Basil of Caesarea’s De Spiritu Sancto, written in 375.
In turn, this tract would also later influence several others. Thus, the debate has started.
My presentation on this work of Basil focuses mainly on the methodology he employed
which points to the affirmation of his central claim: the Holy Spirit is God. This affirmation,
however, is never made explicit in his treatise for certain reasons. Therefore, my aim is to direct
the reader to the themes that contain proofs supporting his implicit assertion. In this sense, my
report does not aspire to exhaust all the contents of the treatise but, rather, it simply discusses
selected arguments that are directly constructive to its purpose. My text is divided into three
thematic parts: (1) The Holy Spirit’s ontological equality with the Father and the Son; (2) The
actions of the Holy Spirit in the economy of creation and salvation; and (3) The Holy Spirit’s
equality of worship and honor with the Father and the Son. The concluding section gives some
data on the reason why Basil avoided to openly pronounce his belief in the Spirit’s Godhead. This
last part, though, is more of a short account of the few speculations of contemporary authors on
the query. It does not establish any evidence that is not yet attested by previous scholars.
Finally, it should be noted that this paper is heavily based on the exemplary textbook of
Manlio Simonetti, entitled La Crisi Ariana nel IV Secolo (Rome, 1975). Simonetti has been one
of the few authorities in our day concerning the life and works of the Church Fathers, as well as
on Ancient Ecclesiastical History. Simonetti died last November 2, 2017 in Rome. It is my honor
to cite his precious contributions to the Church and to depict his unquestionable genius in this
simple paper.

1
My own hypotheses based on sources available to me. For a more comprehensive discussion on the matter,
see Manlio Simonetti, La Crisi Ariana Nel IV Secolo (Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1975) 362-367.

2
The Holy Spirit’s Ontological Equality with the Father and the Son

Nowhere in Basil’s magnum opus can we find the term ὁμοούσιος as applied to the Holy
Spirit in His relation to the Father and the Son. There is “a universal recognition that Basil does
not speak about the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit.” 2 This results into the contention that Basil
was never firm in his faith in the divinity of the Spirit since, from the framework of the theology
after Nicaea, non-identification to divine consubstantiality signifies non-divinity. Notwithstanding
the ambiguity of the term homoousios declared in the Council, it was arguably still the main point
of reference in many of the works of the Fathers in their contrasting views during the trinitarian
controversy. A more striking observation would be in Basil himself. As mentioned above, the
treatise was composed around 375. By that time, he has already authored various letters that show
his apparent transition from the formula homoiousios to homoousios.3 This serves as our basis in
claiming that Basil was well aware of the importance of such a term in the question on the divinity
of the Holy Spirit. Despite this, he opted not to use the term in the very treatise supposedly intended
to demonstrate the Spirit’s equality with the Godhead.
However, a far earlier letter of Basil reveals that he believes in the doctrine of the Holy
Spirit’s ontological equality with the Father and the Son long before he composed the De Spiritu
Sancto. In 360, Basil wrote an important epistle ‘to the Caesareans’ after he discovered that
Dianius, the bishop who baptized him, allegedly assented to the Arian creed of Arminium. This
letter, though, is not extensive enough to be qualified as a major work from which we can extract
what may be Basil’s understanding on the Deity of the Spirit. Nevertheless, taken in its proper
context, the explicitness of Basil’s statement in this letter clearly shows that he was already an
adherent of the doctrine at an early stage. One plain evidence is when he asserted that “the Holy
Ghost is not a creature. If He is not a creature, He is of one essence and substance with the Father.” 4
Here, the ‘uncreatedness’ of the Holy Spirit is taken as basis for the proposition of His homoousios
– very much in similar fashion as to how Basil proves the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father
in Contra Eunomium.5 Hence, in reading the treatise on the Holy Spirit, non-employment of the
term homoousios does not necessarily mean non-belief in the doctrine. As we shall see later,
Basil’s refrainment in using the term was actually a matter of public circumstance rather than
personal conviction. In consistency with the main theme of this paper, therefore, our task here is
to find the ‘equivalent expressions’ that Basil used in order to entail the divine consubstantiality
of the Spirit. Having agreed on these assumptions, we can now directly examine the text of the De
Spiritu Sancto.
By the time the treatise was written, the term homoousios already had a very qualified
meaning in the mind of Basil. In 361, he wrote to Maximus the Philosopher:

The phrase “like in essence,” if it be read with the addition “without any difference,” I accept as
conveying the same sense as the homoousion, in the sound meaning of the homoousion. 6

2
Mark Larson, “A Re-Examination of De Spiritu Sancto: Saint Basil’s Bold Defence of the Spirit’s Deity,”
Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 19, no. 1 (2001): 67.
3
Cf. Basil of Caesarea, Letter IX, 3, trans. Blomfield Jackson in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8,
Basil: Letters and Select Works (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC, 2012) 123.
4
Ibid., Basil of Caesarea, Letter VIII, 10.
5
Cf. Basil of Caesarea, Against Eunomius, I, 17-27, trans. Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz
from The Fathers of the Church Patristic Series, book 22 (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America
Press, 2011) 116-130.
6
Ibid., Basil of Caesarea, Letter IX, 3.

3
 This restricted application of homoousios conveys that the Son is ‘like in essence’ with the
Father ‘without any difference’. The Son is ontologically equal with the Father. This is how Basil
understood the term when he indirectly applied it to the Holy Spirit in the treatise.
As stated above, Basil’s theology in this treatise highly relies on Scriptural foundation
rather than philosophical arguments. This does not mean, however, that he disregards logical
analyses. Rather, he takes passages from Scriptures that translate to the Spirit’s ontological
equality with the Father and the Son. In this regard, we can make three philosophical categories
out of the scriptural passages he generously utilized in the entire opus: divine titles, divine
attributes and hypostatic relationship.
The titles that Scriptures mark on the Holy Spirit imply divinity inasmuch as they are
applied to the Him in equal manner as to the Father and the Son. An appropriate example would
be the title ‘Lord’. Basil argues that the Spirit is called ‘Lord’ when St. Paul stated, “the Lord direct
your hearts into the love of God and into the patient waiting for Christ” (1 Th 3: 12-13). Here, both
the Father and the Son are directly mentioned, and yet they are clearly distinct to the ‘Lord’ stated
on the same statement. Basil concludes that this Lord is the Holy Spirit. A more clear-cut definition
of the Spirit as Lord is found in 2 Cor 3: 18, “Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil
shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit.” Other titles of the Spirit are recounted in the
earlier part of the treatise: “It is called ‘Spirit of God,’ ‘Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the
Father,’ ‘right Spirit,’ ‘a leading Spirit.’ Its proper and peculiar title is ‘Holy Spirit’…”7
These definitive titles or conceptions about the Spirit are not, strictly speaking, directly
tantamount to the term homoousios. However, they can be deduced as names pointing towards the
direction of consubstantiality with the Godhead. Basil’s language – especially in this part of the
treatise – is more expressive than speculative. Adapting to this kind of rendition, Brian Fitzgerald
says that “the titles of the Holy Spirit are so exalted and noble that they could apply only to God.” 8
Basil has already dealt lengthily on the topic of the divine attributes. In contrast to the claim
of Eunomius, he believes entirely on the incomprehensibility of God’s essence. God can never be
fully defined and there is no one title that can sufficiently describe who God is. Basil uses a
notionalist theory of names to make sense of the divine attributes. There is a mediation or notion
(ἐπίνοια) between the divine names and the divine essence. Thus, the attributes of God do not have
a constitutive function but only an indicatory one. They are the absolute names applied to the
Godhead since they are distinguishing features applicable to the Divine Persons alone. Having
already established these arguments in his previous compositions, Basil straight-forwardly applies
them in his De Spiritu Sancto without elucidating the concept. This results into what appears to be
a mere enumeration of the divine attributes of the Holy Spirit and their prodigious implications. In
this sense, the treatise, if taken by itself, does not prove the Spirit’s consubstantiality with the Deity
because it takes for granted the philosophical principles already adequately explained in Basil’s
earlier works. This, though, should not depreciate the theological contribution of the treatise since
it must always be read within the ambit of Basil’s entire Trinitarian Doctrine. Moreover, “building
on the authority of Scriptures, [Basil] frequently constructs logical syllogisms” 9 to support his
pneumatology. For example, he maintains that the Spirit is omnipresent – a characteristic specific
to the divine nature. In Dn 14:33-42, Daniel and Habakkuk both received inspiration from the

7
De Spiritu Sancto, 22.
8
Brian Fitzgerald, “Saint Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit,” (academic lecture series at St. Philip’s
Antiochian Orthodox Church, Souderton, PA on November 16, 23 and 30, 2003) in Adult Patristic Studies, 8.
Retrieved September 2, 2017 from https://korycapps.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/b-fitzgeral-basel-on-the-spirit.pdf.
9
Ibid., 14.

4
Spirit of God although both of them were in two different places at the same time. Again, recalling
the notionalist theory of names, this attribute, namely, omnipresence, is a feature that manifests
divine nature. An emphasis is given on the incomprehensibility (or unapproachableness) of the
Spirit. Rightly so, Basil sees it as a chief characteristic of God:

The nature of the Spirit is to be learned not only from His having the same title as the Father and
the Son, and sharing in their operations, but also from His being, like the Father and the Son,
unapproachable in thought. For what our Lord says of the Father as being above and beyond human
conception, and what He says of the Son, this same language He uses also of the Holy Ghost.10

Unlike created beings, the Spirit shares this absolute name proper only to God. Therefore,
the Spirit’s homoousion with the Godhead is the inevitable logical conclusion. We can list some
other attributes found in the text as follows: incorporeal, pure immaterial, indivisible, immutable,
omnipotent, holy, eternal, simple.11
The chief basis of the Spirit’s consubstantiality is ultimately found in His hypostatic
relationship with God, that is, His ‘procession’ from the Father. St. John recounts in his Gospel:
“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of
truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me” (Jn 15: 26). Here, Basil offers no
syllogism to elaborate his proof. He merely quotes the passage and leaves it to his reader to
construe its credibility from the authority of Scriptures. He believes in the common view that the
Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Unlike the Son, though, He proceeds from the
Father not by generation but as “the breath of His mouth” (46, 38). The contention12 of Eunomius
that the Son is the only source of the Spirit should utterly be dismissed since Scriptures disseminate
titles of the Spirit in relation to both the Father and the Son alike: ‘Spirit of the Father’ and ‘Spirit
of Christ’. From these syllogisms, therefore, we can posit that although Basil does not use the word
homoousios, “he affirms that because of the Spirit’s titles, attributes, work, and testimony, he must
be ontologically equal with the Father and the Son.”13

The Actions of the Holy Spirit in the Economy of Creation and Salvation

Holy Scriptures reveal to us the activities of God throughout the history of salvation. Basil
demonstrates that “in every operation the Spirit is closely conjoined with, and inseparable from,
the Father and the Son.”14 In other words, the Spirit performs God’s work since He is ontologically
united to God. From the very beginning, in creation, He has co-operated even in the creative role
of the Father “for by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the
breath [His Spirit] of His mouth” (Ps 33: 6). Basil’s principle of causality, in the order of creation,
is clearly stated when he writes:

And in the creation bethink thee first, I pray thee, of the original cause of all things that are made,
the Father; of the creative cause, the Son; of the perfecting cause, the Spirit; so that the ministering

10
De Spiritu Sancto, 12, 53.
11
The divine attributes are largely discussed in 22-23. Other attributes are scattered all over the treatise: 42-
42, 75-76, 81-83.
12
Cf. Basil of Caesarea, Against Eunomius, II, 34, 183.
13
John James, “An Examination of Homotimia in St. Basil the Great’s On the Holy Spirit, and Contemporary
Implications,” Westminster Theological Journal 74, no. 1 (2012): 262.
14
Brian Fitzgerald, “Saint Basil the Great,” 9. Cf. De Spiritu Sancto, 60-62,87.

5
 spirits subsist by the will of the Father, are brought into being by the operation of the Son, and
perfected by the presence of the Spirit…the first principle of all existing things is One, creating
through the Son and perfecting through the Spirit. 15

The Spirit’s divine operations can be traced all throughout the New and Old Testaments.
In the life of the people of Israel, God’s will was known through the prophets because of the gift
of prophesy endowed on them by the Holy Spirit. Most strikingly, the Spirit’s work became even
more openly exposed in the words and works of Christ. In each important moment in the life of
the Son, it is readily seen that the Spirit takes on an important role as well. Starting from the Angel
Gabriel’s Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Spirit has been at work, as St. Luke
recounts: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will cover you
with its shadow” (Lk 1: 35). The episode of Jesus’ baptism at the Jordan also narrates the presence
of both the Father and the Spirit, thus, reporting one of the most discernible account on the Trinity
found in Scriptures: “…he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened, and he
saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove [and] coming upon him. And a voice came from the
heavens, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased’” (Mt 3: 16-17). At the
beginning of his ministry, “Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted” (Mt
4: 1). In the countless miracles that Christ performed, the Spirit was at work, too. Jesus declared:
“If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils” (Mt 8: 28). Even, as well, the authority to forgive sins
was imparted by Christ to his apostles through the power of the Spirit on the day of Easter:
“Receive the Holy Spirit. For those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; for those whose sins
you retain, they are retained” (Jn 20: 22-23). The time of Pentecost was fulfilled when the Apostles
“were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled
them to proclaim” (Ac 2: 4). Basil also considers the work of the Spirit in God’s self-revelation,
as St. Paul wrote: “These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the
Spirit reaches the depths of everything, even the depths of God…the depths of God can only be
known by the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 2: 10-11). Scriptures reveal the inseparability of the Son and
the Spirit when it says: “Therefore, I tell you that nobody speaking by the spirit of God says, ‘Jesus
be accursed.’ And no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the holy Spirit” (1 Co 12: 3). Lastly,
the Spirit’s importance in Eschatology is also described: “do not grieve the holy Spirit of God,
with which you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Ep 4: 30). In all the scriptural readings
that Basil cites, the Holy Spirit is shown as unequivocally one in the actions of the Father and the
Son in the whole economy of salvation. The intimate operation of “the divine persons in the one
divine mission is again the key to understanding their unity and equality.” 16 Simonetti relates the
same observation of Basil:

...in the vast ambit of the scriptural passages which describe the activity of the spirit (holy, of God,
of Christ, etc.), it will suffice to note the preference for those passages on which the connection
between the Spirit and God, between the Spirit and the other divine persons, were expressed, or
otherwise obtainable, in a particularly clear manner.17

The Spirit’s equal rank with the Father and the Son is even more made manifest in the
redemptive act of baptism with the formula from Mt 28: 19: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit.” The

15
De Spiritu Sancto, 38.
16
John James, “An Examination of Homotimia,” 261.
17
Manlio Simonetti, La Crisi Ariana Nel IV Secolo, 491. Translation supplied.

6
sacrament of baptism, as mandated to the apostles, continues the salvific work of God in the era
of the Church. Consequently, it leads us to the faith on the Spirit’s divinity as He is absolutely
conjoined with the Father and the Son for the sanctification and mission of the Church. Basil’s
argument here, therefore, is that the Spirit is God since He fulfills the God’s work in sanctifying
His creatures. Hence, the unity of nature and substance is found in the unity of operation.

Homotimia: Equality of Worship and Honor

We have now reached the central focus of the entire treatise: the Spirit’s equality in worship
and honor together with the Father and the Son. The first two arguments mentioned above are
presented as attestations found in the treatise which prove that Basil affirms the divinity of the
Holy Spirit despite not having explicitly declared it in the text. At this point, however, we shall
discuss the most important consequence of what we have proven above. I should add that,
ironically, Basil situates what may be considered as the best conclusion of his work at the
beginning of the treatise. The reason for this is that the De Spiritu Sancto was written as his
refutation on the criticisms addressed to him by his opponents on his doxological formula.
Naturally, then, Basil begins his work attending to the immediate issue, and supports it with
scriptural and logical arguments only later – the result of which can be very perplexing to those
who are unfamiliar with the context on which the treatise was written.18 Nonetheless, we shall see
later that Basil’s defense on his doxology is really his most decisive affirmation on the Spirit’s
divinity. For this reason, I chose to deal with the text in a different sequence. This, hopefully,
should rightly justify the fact that the topic on Homotimia is considered only at the end of our
discussion.
The main argument of Basil’s treatise is founded on his trinitarian doxology. His opponents
accused him of innovating a formula not found in Scriptures: “Glory to the Father, with (μετά) the
Son, with (σύν) the Holy Spirit.” The only acceptable form, according to them, ought to be: “Glory
to the Father, through (διά) the Son, in (ἐν) the Holy Spirit.” Basil shows that the New Testament
applies to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit the diverse prepositions “of”, “by/through”,
and “in”, in such a way that, from their use, it is not possible to assume a difference in nature
among the three. No preposition is restricted to one Person. Basil painstakingly listed the numerous
uses of the different prepositions and how they are conversely and interchangeably applied to the
Father, Son, Spirit, and even to created beings in Scriptures, thereby, eliminating his opponents’
claim that only the traditional doxological formula can be considered as orthodox. Thus, both
doxologies do not contradict, rather, they complement each other. At a higher note, however, these
objections on the usage of the different prepositions are only a secondary concern. What the
opponents of Basil were really after was for Basil to recognize that the Spirit ought not to be given
equal honor and glory as the Father and the Son. The underlying debate delves profoundly on
whether the three distinct Persons are equally divine in nature or not. “Their apparent contention
was that any mention of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as different facilitates the argument that

18
As Studer observes, “The writing is not homogenous. Chapters 2-8 differ strongly from chapters 10-29,
while chapter 9 stands apart and chapters 1 and 30 constitute the introduction and epilogue, respectively.” See Basil
Studer, Trinity and Incarnation, trans. Matthias Westerhoff (Eugene, OR: The Continuum International Publishing
Group, 2005) 150.

7
they are different in nature.”19 Hence, the treatise touches the start of the Trinitarian controversy
at its peak.
As already recounted above, the issue on the homoousios between the Father and the Son
has been already widely discussed following the Council of Nicaea. This time, the battle for the
definition of the Spirit’s divine nature has only began. Athanasius was the first to address the issue.
He offered an interpretative criterion to contradict the Pneumatomachi: one must not
indiscriminately refer to the Holy Spirit every time Scriptures speak of ‘spirit’. Rather, Scriptures
specify His person when it speaks of ‘Spirit of God’, Spirit of Christ’, ‘Holy Spirit’, etc. 20 This
prescription, though, can be perilous since it may be used to interpret the Spirit as a mere ‘operative
faculty’ of God.21 The Arians defined the Holy Spirit basing on Jn 1:3 (“All things came to be
through him [the Son], and without him nothing came to be”) and 1 Co 8:6 (“there is only one
God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom all things are and through whom we exist”). Both these scriptural passages omit the
Spirit. They supposed that this imply the Spirit’s creaturehood – albeit, the most exalted among all
creatures. In 360, Eunomius deliberated the natural subordination of the Spirit when he wrote:

…we learn that he [Spirit] is third in both dignity and order, we believe that he is third in nature as
well…he cannot be first in nature since that ‘first’ is ‘the God and Father’…nor is he identical with
the Only-begotten…he is third both in nature and in order since he was brought into existence at the
command of the Father by the action of the Son. He is honoured in third place as the first and greatest
work of all, the only such ‘thing made’ of the Only-begotten, lacking indeed godhead and the power
of creation, but filled with the power of sanctification and instruction. 22

Not all Pneumatomachi were in favor of this opinion. Eustathius of Sebaste23, for example,
wrote: “I am not led to define God as the Spirit, nor would I dare to call him a creature.”24 The
point is that there was a real and risky inclination towards the general recognition of a natural
inferiority of the Spirit with respect to the Father and the Son, and for this, Basil was on the move.
His defense on his doxological formula, when examined in this context, is the perfect response to
Eunomius’ allegation. He “sustains and demonstrates that the fact of being named in the third place
does not imply inferiority of the Spirit: the ὑπαριθμεῖσθαι (subnumeration) does not exclude
συναριθμεῖσθαι (connumeration).”25 The Son is not ranked second to the Father since he is of the
same substance, ‘without any difference’, with the Father. In the same way, since the homoousion
between the Spirit with the Father and the Son has been proven, therefore, the Spirit as well is not
subject to ‘subnumeration’. Basil does not deny the traditional sequence in “counting” the divine
Persons. He underlines the ‘connumeration’ of the Trinity in their quantitative distinction:

…what thing ever lost its own nature by being numbered? Is it not the fact that things when
numbered remain what they naturally and originally were, while number is adopted among us as a
sign indicative of the plurality of subjects? (XVII, 43).

19
Brian Fitzgerald, “Saint Basil the Great,” 5. Italics are retained as in the original text.
20
Cf. Athanasius, Serapion 1, 4.
21
Cf. Manlio Simonetti. La Crisi Ariana Nel IV Secolo, 486.
22
Eunomius, Apologia, 25.26.
23
Basil identifies him as the “prime leader of the heresy of the pneumatomachi.” Basil of Caesarea, “Letter
CCLXIII, 3,” trans. Blomfield Jackson in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, Basil: Letters and Select Works
(Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC, 2012) 302.
24
Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 45. Quoted in Manlio Simonetti, La Crisi Ariana Nel IV Secolo, 482.
Translation supplied.
25
Ibid., 487. Cf. De Spiritu Sancto, 17, 41-43.

8
 What matters is that the divine Persons do not lose their nature whenever finite creatures
‘apply’ number and measurement on them. Hence, the Spirit is not inferior in nature to the Father
and the Son. It is exactly in this perception that Basil’s argument on the two doxological formulae
takes an important role. By ascertaining the interchangeability and complementarity of the
different prepositions in Scriptures, Basil was able to achieve two things: (1) refute the
Pneumatomachian interpretation on Jn 1:3 and 1 Co 8:6; and (2) prove the homotimia of the Spirit
with the Father and the Son, consequently, dismissing the Pneumatomachian contention on the
Spirit as ‘honored in third place’. The Spirit’s role in creation, as already amply explained above,
would sufficiently refute the alleged ‘creaturehood’ of the Spirit based on Jn 1:3 and 1 Co 8:6.
Basil’s rationalization on the doxology, on the other hand, can be used to stress that the
prepositions found in both verses are not at all exclusive to the divine Persons explicitly mentioned
there. These passages of Scriptures should be read in continuity with the other closely-related
passages just like how Basil reads the intertwining prepositions scattered in Scriptures. As regards
the homotimia, there is nothing left to say except that it is itself the central proof of Basil’s
affirmation on the Spirit’s divinity. If by Basil’s argument on the doxological formulae we are able
to prove the equality of worship and honor of the Trinity, consequently, we have achieved to
uncover the focal substance of Basil’s affirmation.

Conclusion
At the end of all the arguments presented above, our only task left is to explain the motive
behind Basil’s reservations in openly saying that he believes in the consubstantiality and Deity of
the Spirit with the Father and the Son. Many authors have conjectured that he was probably not
yet fully convinced of the doctrine. However, we have seen that this is certainly not the case. Basil
was a full defender of the Spirit and he has written the entire treatise to imply it. The explanations
given by certain researchers may help us to fill-in this gap.
Basil Studer uses the term oikonomia to indicate Basil’s reservations. He revisits the
preceding theological disputes in the early fourth century and states that it “was probably the fear
of encouraging once more the suffering and misery which the debate concerning the homoousios
had inflicted upon the Church, that caused him to avoid applying this title to the Holy Spirit.” 26
Justo González is quite abrupt in the conclusions he resorted about the matter. He believes
that “being interested in convincing rather than in crushing his enemies, Basil attempted to lead
them to the recognition of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, rather than to antagonize them.” Later in
this text, González even pushes for a more radical explanation:

This reticence can perhaps be understood if one takes into account the presence of certain Arians
who were only waiting for the moment when the bishop of Caesarea would make a vulnerable
assertion in order then to accuse him of heresy and attempt to claim possession of his important
see.27

26
Basil Studer, Trinity and Incarnation, 151.
27
Justo González, A History of Christian Thought, vol. 1 (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1970) 316-
317.

9
 Brian Fitzgerald emphasizes a more moderate position. He takes Basil’s action to be a
defensive method of assuring the continuity of his mission as bishop of Caesarea. The foundation
of his argument is unfortunate:

St. Basil was cautious about using this exact phrase in the current treatise, however, since it was
found neither in Holy Writ not in written traditions of the Church. The Arians still had the support
of Valens, the emperor. Had St. Basil given them the occasion, his foes would have accused him
of innovation and sought his deposition, thereby disrupting completely his public work. Instead,
St. Basil expressed the truth of this phrase using other terms.28

Simonetti, perhaps, gives us the best elucidation about the issue. He takes on the history
of Basil’s Trinitarian theology and considers his association with those who recently adhered to
the concept of the homoousion of the Son. Basil, according to Simonetti, took into account the
possible implications if ever he will plainly declare the Spirit’s consubstantiality and divinity.
Simonetti writes:

Basilio was well aware of the perplexities of many homoiousians on the subject, first of all, of
Eustathius of Sebaste to whom he was particularly related: therefore, although convinced of the
divinity and consubstantiality of the third Trinitarian hypostasis, he preferred to remain vague and
generic on this point, coming to propose only formulations that would exclude the ‘creaturehood’.29

Such discernment on Basil’s part, in this context, merits commendation. His attention
towards those who were still ‘adjusting’ into the faith in the Son eventually bore fruit when, at the
Council of Constantinople in 381 (just three years after his death), his theology on the Spirit,
especially his description of the homotimia, was made universal by the fact that it was incorporated
into the Council’s creed – and it is still being observed until today.

28
Brian Fitzgerald, “Saint Basil the Great,” 5.
29
Manlio Simonetti, La Crisi Ariana Nel IV Secolo, 408.

10
Bibliography

DelCogliano, Mark and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, trans. The Fathers of the Church Patristic
Series, Book 22. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011.

Ferrer, Luis Ladaria. The Living and True God: The Mystery of the Trinity, trans. Maria Isabel
Reyna and Liam Kelly. Miami, Florida: Convivium Press, 2009.

Fitzgerald, Brian. “Saint Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit.” Academic lecture series at St.
Philip’s Antiochian Orthodox Church, Souderton, PA on November 16, 23 and 30, 2003. In
Adult Patristic Studies 8. Retrieved September 2, 2017 from
https://korycapps.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/b-fitzgeral-basel-on-the-spirit.pdf.

González, Justo. A History of Christian Thought, Vol. 1. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press,
1970.

James, John. “An Examination of Homotimia in St. Basil the Great’s On the Holy Spirit, and
Contemporary Implications.” Westminster Theological Journal 74, no. 1 (2012): 257-276.

Larson, Mark. “A Re-Examination of De Spiritu Sancto: Saint Basil’s Bold Defence of the
Spirit’s Deity.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 19, no. 1 (2001): 65-84.

Quasten, Johannes. The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature. Vol. 3, Patrology.
Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classic, Inc., 1992.

Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace, eds. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 8, Basil: Letters and
Select Works. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC, 2012.

Simonetti, Manlio. La Crisi Ariana Nel IV Secolo (The Arian Crisis in the Fourth Century).
Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1975.

Studer, Basil. Trinity and Incarnation, trans. Matthias Westerhoff. Eugene, OR: The Continuum
International Publishing Group, 2005.

11