Basil of Caesarea, De Spiritu Sancto

Catholic Library Home

▾

Basil of Caesarea, De Spiritu Sancto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter XXII.

Establishment of the natural communion of the Spirit from His being, equally with the Father and the Son, unapproachable in thought. 1 πρὸς θεωρίαν δυσέφικτον. The Benedictine Latin is “incomprehensibilis,” but this is rather ἀκατάληπτος. The “incomprehensible” of the Ath. Creed is “immensus.”

1 πρὸς θεωρίαν δυσέφικτον. The Benedictine Latin is “incomprehensibilis,” but this is rather ἀκατάληπτος. The “incomprehensible” of the Ath. Creed is “immensus.”

ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΟΝ ΚΒʹ Σύστασις τῆς κατὰ τὴν φύσιν κοινωνίας τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίως εἶναι Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ πρὸς θεωρίαν δυσέφικτον.