Chapter I.

 1. Your desire for information, my right well-beloved and most deeply respected brother Amphilochius, I highly commend, and not less your industrious

 2. If “To the fool on his asking for wisdom, wisdom shall be reckoned,” at how high a price shall we value “the wise hearer” who is quoted by the Prop

 3. Lately when praying with the people, and using the full doxology to God the Father in both forms, at one time “  with  the Son  together with   thr

 Chapter II.

 4. The petty exactitude of these men about syllables and words is not, as might be supposed, simple and straightforward nor is the mischief to which

 Chapter III.

 5. They have, however, been led into this error by their close study of heathen writers, who have respectively applied the terms “  of  whom” and “  t

 Chapter IV.

 6. We acknowledge that the word of truth has in many places made use of these expressions yet we absolutely deny that the freedom of the Spirit is in

 Chapter V.

 7. After thus describing the outcome of our adversaries’ arguments, we shall now proceed to shew, as we have proposed, that the Father does not first

 8. But if our adversaries oppose this our interpretation, what argument will save them from being caught in their own trap?

 9. In his Epistle to the Ephesians the apostle says, “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Chri

 10. It must now be pointed out that the phrase “through whom” is admitted by Scripture in the case of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost

 11. In the same manner it may also be said of the word “in,” that Scripture admits its use in the case of God the Father. In the Old Testament it is s

 12. And it is not only in the case of the theology that the use of the terms varies, but whenever one of the terms takes the meaning of the other we f

 Chapter VI.

 13. Our opponents, while they thus artfully and perversely encounter our argument, cannot even have recourse to the plea of ignorance. It is obvious t

 14. Let us first ask them this question: In what sense do they say that the Son is “after the Father ” later in time, or in order, or in dignity? But

 15. If they really conceive of a kind of degradation of the Son in relation to the Father, as though He were in a lower place, so that the Father sits

 Chapter VII.

 16. But their contention is that to use the phrase “with him” is altogether strange and unusual, while “through him” is at once most familiar in Holy

 Chapter VIII.

 17. When, then, the apostle “thanks God through Jesus Christ,” and again says that “through Him” we have “received grace and apostleship for obedience

 18. For “through Him” comes every succour to our souls, and it is in accordance with each kind of care that an appropriate title has been devised. So

 19. It will follow that we should next in order point out the character of the provision of blessings bestowed on us by the Father “through him.” Inas

 20. When then He says, “I have not spoken of myself,” and again, “As the Father said unto me, so I speak,”

 21. “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father not the express image, nor yet the form, for the divine nature does not admit of combination but the

 Chapter IX.

 22. Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture con

 23. Now the Spirit is not brought into intimate association with the soul by local approximation. How indeed could there be a corporeal approach to th

 Chapter X.

 24. But we must proceed to attack our opponents, in the endeavour to confute those “oppositions” advanced against us which are derived from “knowledge

 25. But all the apparatus of war has been got ready against us every intellectual missile is aimed at us and now blasphemers’ tongues shoot and hit

 26. Whence is it that we are Christians? Through our faith, would be the universal answer. And in what way are we saved? Plainly because we were regen

 Chapter XI.

 27. “Who hath woe? Who hath sorrow?” For whom is distress and darkness? For whom eternal doom? Is it not for the transgressors? For them that deny the

 Chapter XII.

 28. Let no one be misled by the fact of the apostle’s frequently omitting the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit when making mention of baptism

 Chapter XIII.

 29. It is, however, objected that other beings which are enumerated with the Father and the Son are certainly not always glorified together with them.

 30. And not only Paul, but generally all those to whom is committed any ministry of the word, never cease from testifying, but call heaven and earth t

 Chapter XIV.

 31. But even if some are baptized unto the Spirit, it is not, it is urged, on this account right for the Spirit to be ranked with God. Some “were bapt

 32. What then? Because they were typically baptized unto Moses, is the grace of baptism therefore small? Were it so, and if we were in each case to pr

 33. But belief in Moses not only does not show our belief in the Spirit to be worthless, but, if we adopt our opponents’ line of argument, it rather w

 Chapter XV.

 34. What more? Verily, our opponents are well equipped with arguments. We are baptized, they urge, into water, and of course we shall not honour the w

 35. The dispensation of our God and Saviour concerning man is a recall from the fall and a return from the alienation caused by disobedience to close

 36. Through the Holy Spirit comes our restoration to paradise, our ascension into the kingdom of heaven, our return to the adoption of sons, our liber

 Chapter XVI.

 37. Let us then revert to the point raised from the outset, that in all things the Holy Spirit is inseparable and wholly incapable of being parted fro

 38. Moreover, from the things created at the beginning may be learnt the fellowship of the Spirit with the Father and the Son. The pure, intelligent,

 39. But when we speak of the dispensations made for man by our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who will gainsay their having been accomplished thr

 40. Moreover by any one who carefully uses his reason it will be found that even at the moment of the expected appearance of the Lord from heaven the

 Chapter XVII.

 41. What, however, they call sub-numeration, and in what sense they use this word, cannot even be imagined without difficulty. It is well known that i

 42. What is it that they maintain? Look at the terms of their imposture. “We assert that connumeration is appropriate to subjects of equal dignity, an

 43. Do you maintain that the Son is numbered under the Father, and the Spirit under the Son, or do you confine your sub-numeration to the Spirit alone

 Chapter XVIII.

 44. In delivering the formula of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, our Lord did not connect the gift with number. He did not say “into First, S

 45. For we do not count by way of addition, gradually making increase from unity to multitude, and saying one, two, and three,—nor yet first, second,

 46. And it is not from this source alone that our proofs of the natural communion are derived, but from the fact that He is moreover said to be “of Go

 47. And when, by means of the power that enlightens us, we fix our eyes on the beauty of the image of the invisible God, and through the image are led

 Chapter XIX.

 48. “Be it so,” it is rejoined, “but glory is by no means so absolutely due to the Spirit as to require His exaltation by us in doxologies.” Whence th

 49. And His operations, what are they? For majesty ineffable, and for numbers innumerable. How shall we form a conception of what extends beyond the a

 50. But, it is said that “He maketh intercession for us.” It follows then that, as the suppliant is inferior to the benefactor, so far is the Spirit i

 Chapter XX.

 51. He is not a slave, it is said not a master, but free. Oh the terrible insensibility, the pitiable audacity, of them that maintain this! Shall I r

 Chapter XXI.

 52. But why get an unfair victory for our argument by fighting over these undignified questions, when it is within our power to prove that the excelle

 Chapter XXII.

 53. Moreover the surpassing excellence of the nature of the Spirit is to be learned not only from His having the same title as the Father and the Son,

 Chapter XXIII.

 54. Now of the rest of the Powers each is believed to be in a circumscribed place. The angel who stood by Cornelius

 Chapter XXIV.

 55. Furthermore man is “crowned with glory and honour,” and “glory, honour and peace” are laid up by promise “to every man that worketh good.”

 56. Let us then examine the points one by one. He is good by nature, in the same way as the Father is good, and the Son is good the creature on the o

 57. Now it is urged that the Spirit is in us as a gift from God, and that the gift is not reverenced with the same honour as that which is attributed

 Chapter XXV.

 58. It is, however, asked by our opponents, how it is that Scripture nowhere describes the Spirit as glorified together with the Father and the Son, b

 59. As we find both expressions in use among the faithful, we use both in the belief that full glory is equally given to the Spirit by both. The mout

 60. As compared with “  in  ,” there is this difference, that while “  with   in   with   in   and   in   in 

 Chapter XXVI.

 61. Now, short and simple as this utterance is, it appears to me, as I consider it, that its meanings are many and various. For of the senses in which

 62. It is an extraordinary statement, but it is none the less true, that the Spirit is frequently spoken of as the  place  of them that are being sanc

 63. In relation to the originate, then, the Spirit is said to  be in   be in   be with   with   in   with   in 

 64. Another sense may however be given to the phrase, that just as the Father is seen in the Son, so is the Son in the Spirit. The “worship in the Spi

 Chapter XXVII.

 65. The word “  in,  ” say our opponents, “is exactly appropriate to the Spirit, and sufficient for every thought concerning Him. Why then, they ask,

 66. Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church  first   one 

 67. Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing but of the very confession of our fait

 68. The force of both expressions has now been explained. I will proceed to state once more wherein they agree and wherein they differ from one anothe

 Chapter XXVIII.

 69. But let us see if we can bethink us of any defence of this usage of our fathers for they who first originated the expression are more open to bla

 70. I am ashamed to add the rest. You expect to be glorified together with Christ (“if so be that we suffer with him that we may be also glorified to

 Chapter XXIX.

 71. In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form “with the Spirit” has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instanc

 72. There is the famous Irenæus, and Clement of Rome  in   with   carnal 

 73. Origen, too, in many of his expositions of the Psalms, we find using the form of doxology “  with  the Holy Ghost.” The opinions which he held con

 74. But where shall I rank the great Gregory, and the words uttered by him? Shall we not place among Apostles and Prophets a man who walked by the sam

 75. How then can I be an innovator and creator of new terms, when I adduce as originators and champions of the word whole nations, cities, custom goin

 Chapter XXX.

 76. To what then shall I liken our present condition? It may be compared, I think, to some naval battle which has arisen out of time old quarrels, and

 77. Turn now I beg you from this figurative description to the unhappy reality. Did it not at one time appear that the Arian schism, after its separat

 78. So, since no human voice is strong enough to be heard in such a disturbance, I reckon silence more profitable than speech, for if there is any tru

 79. For all these reasons I ought to have kept silence, but I was drawn in the other direction by love, which “seeketh not her own,” and desires to ov

27. “Who hath woe? Who hath sorrow?”  1  Prov. xxiii. 29. For whom is distress and darkness? For whom eternal doom? Is it not for the transgressors? For them that deny the faith? And what is the proof of their denial? Is it not that they have set at naught their own confessions? And when and what did they confess? Belief in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Ghost, when they renounced the devil and his angels, and uttered those saving words. What fit title then for them has been discovered, for the children of light to use? Are they not addressed as transgressors, as having violated the covenant of their salvation? What am I to call the denial of God? What the denial of Christ? What but transgressions? And to him who denies the Spirit, what title do you wish me to apply? Must it not be the same, inasmuch as he has broken his covenant with God? And when the confession of faith in Him secures the blessing of true religion. and its denial subjects men to the doom of godlessness, is it not a fearful thing for them to set the confession at naught, not through fear of fire, or sword, or cross, or scourge, or wheel, or rack, but merely led astray by the sophistry and seductions of the pneumatomachi? I testify to every man who is confessing Christ and denying God, that Christ will profit him nothing;  2  cf. Gal. v. 2. to every man that calls upon God but rejects the Son, that his faith is vain;  3  cf. 1 Cor. xv. 17. to every man that sets aside the Spirit, that his faith in the Father and the Son will be useless, for he cannot even hold it without the presence of the Spirit. For he who does not believe the Spirit does not believe in the Son, and he who has not believed in the Son does not believe in the Father. For none “can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost,”  4  1 Cor. xii. 3. and “No man hath seen God at any time, but the only begotten God which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”  5  John i. 18. On the reading “only begotten God” cf. note on p. 9. In this passage in St. Basil “God” is the reading of three mss. at Paris, that at Moscow, that at the Bodleian, and that at Vienna. “Son” is read by Regius III., Regius I., Regius IV., and Regius V. in Paris, the three last being all of the 14th century, the one in the British Museum, and another in the Imperial Library at Vienna, which generally agrees with our own in the Museum.

Such an one hath neither part nor lot in the true worship; for it is impossible to worship the Son, save by the Holy Ghost; impossible to call upon the Father, save by the Spirit of adoption.

1 Prov. xxiii. 29.
2 cf. Gal. v. 2.
3 cf. 1 Cor. xv. 17.
4 1 Cor. xii. 3.
5 John i. 18. On the reading “only begotten God” cf. note on p. 9. In this passage in St. Basil “God” is the reading of three mss. at Paris, that at Moscow, that at the Bodleian, and that at Vienna. “Son” is read by Regius III., Regius I., Regius IV., and Regius V. in Paris, the three last being all of the 14th century, the one in the British Museum, and another in the Imperial Library at Vienna, which generally agrees with our own in the Museum.

[27] Τίνι οὐαί; τίνι θλῖψις; τίνι ἀπορία καὶ σκότος; τίνι αἰωνία κατάκρισις; Οὐ τοῖς παραβάταις; οὐ τοῖς τὴν πίστιν ἀρνησαμένοις; Τίς δὲ τῆς ἀρνήσεως ἔλεγχος; Οὐχ ὅτι τὰς οἰκείας ὁμολογίας ἠθέτησαν; Ὡμολόγησαν δὲ τί, ἢ πότε; Πιστεύειν εἰς Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, ὅτε ἀποταξάμενοι τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ, τὴν σωτήριον ἐκείνην ἀφῆκαν φωνήν. Τίς οὖν πρέπουσα τούτοις προσηγορία παρὰ τῶν τέκνων τοῦ φωτὸς ἐξευρέθη; Οὐχὶ παραβάται προσαγορεύονται, ὡς εἰς τὰς τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν συνθήκας παρασπονδήσαντες; Τί οὖν εἴπω τὸν ἀρνησίθεον; τί δὲ τὸν ἀρνησίχριστον; Τί ἄλλο γε ἢ παραβάτην; Τῷ δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἀρνησαμένῳ τίνα με βούλει προσηγορίαν θέσθαι; Οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν ταύτην, ὡς τὰς πρὸς Θεὸν παραβάντι συνθήκας; Οὐκοῦν ὁπότε καὶ ἡ ὁμολογία τῆς εἰς αὐτὸ πίστεως τὸν τῆς εὐσεβείας μακαρισμὸν προξενεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἄρνησις τῇ κατακρίσει τῆς ἀθεότητος ὑποβάλλει, πῶς οὐ φοβερὸν τοῦτο νῦν ἀθετῆσαι, οὐ πῦρ, οὐ ξίφος, οὐ σταυρόν, οὐ μάστιγας, οὐ τροχόν, οὐ στρεβλωτήρια φοβηθέντας, ἀλλὰ σοφίσμασι μόνοις καὶ παραγωγαῖς τῶν πνευματομάχων παρακρουσθέντας; Μαρτύρομαι παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ ὁμολογοῦντι Χριστὸν καὶ τὸν Θεὸν ἀρνουμένῳ, ὅτι Χριστὸς αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει: ἢ Θεὸν ἐπικαλουμένῳ, τὸν δὲ Υἱὸν ἀθετοῦντι, ὅτι ματαία ἐστὶν ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ: καὶ τῷ τὸ Πνεῦμα παραιτουμένῳ, ὅτι ἡ εἰς Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν πίστις αὐτῷ εἰς κενὸν ἀποβήσεται, ἣν οὐδὲ ἔχειν δύναται, μὴ συμπαρόντος τοῦ Πνεύματος. Οὐ πιστεύει μὲν γὰρ εἰς Υἱὸν ὁ μὴ πιστεύων τῷ Πνεύματι: οὐ πιστεύει δὲ εἰς Πατέρα ὁ μὴ πιστεύσας τῷ Υἱῷ. «Οὔτε γὰρ δύναται εἰπεῖν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν, εἰ μὴ ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.» Καὶ: «Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε, ἀλλ' ὁ μονογενὴς Υἱός, ὁ ὢν ἐν τοῖς κόλποις τοῦ Πατρός, οὗτος ἡμῖν ἐξηγήσατο.» Ἄμοιρός ἐστι καὶ τῆς ἀληθινῆς προσκυνήσεως ὁ τοιοῦτος. Οὔτε γὰρ Υἱὸν προσκυνῆσαι δυνατόν, εἰ μὴ ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, οὔτε ἐπικαλέσασθαι δυνατὸν τὸν Πατέρα, εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ τῆς υἱοθεσίας Πνεύματι.