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

63. In relation to the originate,  30  ἐν τοῦς γενητοῖς, as in the Bodleian ms. The Benedictine text adopts the common reading γεννητοις, with the note, “Sed discrimen illud parvi momenti.” If St. Basil wrote γεννητοῖς, he used it in the looser sense of mortal: in its strict sense of “begotten” it would be singularly out of place here, as the antithesis of the reference to the Son, who is γεννητός, would be spoilt. In the terminology of theology, so far from being “parvi momenti,” the distinction is vital. In the earlier Greek philosophy ἀγένητος and ἀγέννητος are both used as nearly synonymous to express unoriginate eternal. cf. Plat., Phæd. 245 D., ἀρχὴ δὲ ἀγένητόν, with Plat., Tim. 52 A., Τουτων δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων ὁμολογητέον ἓν μὲν εἶναι τὸ κατὰ ταὐτὰ εἶδος ἔχον ἀγέννητον καὶ ἀνώλεθρον. And the earliest patristic use similarly meant by γεννητός and ἀγέννητος created and uncreated, as in Ign., Ad Eph. vii., where our Lord is called γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος, ἐν ἀνθρ ?πω Θεὸς, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινή. cf. Bp. Lightfoot’s note. But “such language is not in accordance with later theological definitions, which carefully distinguished between γενητός and γεννητός, between ἀγένητος and ἀγέννητος; so that γενητός, ἀγένητος, respectively denied and affirmed the eternal existence, being equivalent to κτιστός, ἄκτιστος, while γεννητός, ἀγέννητος described certain ontological relations, whether in time or in eternity. In the later theological language, therefore, the Son was γεννητός even in His Godhead. See esp. Joann. Damasc., De Fid. Orth. i. 8 (I. p. 135, Lequin), χρὴ γὰρ εἰδέναι ὅτι τὸ ἀγένητον, διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς ν γραφόμενον, τὸ ἄκτιστον ἢ τὸ μὴ γενόμενον σημαίνει, τὸ δὲ ἀγέννητον, διὰ τῶν δύο νν γραφόμενον, δηλοῖ τὸ μὴ γεννηθέν; whence he draws the conclusion that μόνος ὁ πατὴρ ἀγέννητος and μόνος ὁ υἱ& 232·ς γεννητός.” Bp. Lightfoot, Ap. Fathers, Pt. II. Vol. II. p. 90, where the history of the worlds is exhaustively discussed. At the time of the Arian controversy the Catholic disputants were chary of employing these terms, because of the base uses to which their opponents put them; so St. Basil, Contra Eunom. iv. protests against the Arian argument εἰ ἀγέννητος ὁ πατὴρ γεννητὸς δὲ ὁ υἱ& 232·ς, οὐ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσιας. cf. Ath., De Syn. in this series, p. 475, and De Decretis, on Newman’s confusion of the terms, p. 149 and 169. then, the Spirit is said to  be in them “in divers portions and in divers manners,”  31  Heb. i. 1. while in relation to the Father and the Son it is more consistent with true religion to assert Him not to  be in but to  be with . For the grace flowing from Him when He dwells in those that are worthy, and carries out His own operations, is well described as existing in those that are able to receive Him. On the other hand His essential existence before the ages, and His ceaseless abiding with Son and Father, cannot be contemplated without requiring titles expressive of eternal conjunction. For absolute and real co-existence is predicated in the case of things which are mutually inseparable. We say, for instance, that heat exists in the hot iron, but in the case of the actual fire it co-exists; and, similarly, that health exists in the body, but that life co-exists with the soul. It follows that wherever the fellowship is intimate, congenital,  32  συμφυής. and inseparable, the word  with is more expressive, suggesting, as it does, the idea of inseparable fellowship. Where on the other hand the grace flowing from the Spirit naturally comes and goes, it is properly and truly said to exist  in , even if on account of the firmness of the recipients’ disposition to good the grace abides with them continually. Thus whenever we have in mind the Spirit’s proper rank, we contemplate Him as being  with the Father and the Son, but when we think of the grace that flows from Him operating on those who participate in it, we say that the Spirit is  in us. And the doxology which we offer “in the Spirit” is not an acknowledgment of His rank; it is rather a confession of our own weakness, while we shew that we are not sufficient to glorify Him of ourselves, but our sufficiency  33  cf. 2 Cor. iii. 5. is in the Holy Spirit. Enabled in, [or by,] Him we render thanks to our God for the benefits we have received, according to the measure of our purification from evil, as we receive one a larger and another a smaller share of the aid of the Spirit, that we may offer “the sacrifice of praise to God.”  34  Heb. xiii. 15. According to one use, then, it is thus that we offer our thanksgiving, as the true religion requires, in the Spirit; although it is not quite unobjectionable that any one should testify of himself “the Spirit of God is in me, and I offer glory after being made wise through the grace that flows from Him.” For to a Paul it is becoming to say “I think also that I have the Spirit of God,”  35  1 Cor. vii. 40. and again, “that good thing which was committed to thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.”  36  2 Tim. i. 14. And of Daniel it is fitting to say that “the Holy Spirit of God is in him,”  37  Dan. iv. 8, lxx. and similarly of men who are like these in virtue.

30 ἐν τοῦς γενητοῖς, as in the Bodleian ms. The Benedictine text adopts the common reading γεννητοις, with the note, “Sed discrimen illud parvi momenti.” If St. Basil wrote γεννητοῖς, he used it in the looser sense of mortal: in its strict sense of “begotten” it would be singularly out of place here, as the antithesis of the reference to the Son, who is γεννητός, would be spoilt. In the terminology of theology, so far from being “parvi momenti,” the distinction is vital. In the earlier Greek philosophy ἀγένητος and ἀγέννητος are both used as nearly synonymous to express unoriginate eternal. cf. Plat., Phæd. 245 D., ἀρχὴ δὲ ἀγένητόν, with Plat., Tim. 52 A., Τουτων δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων ὁμολογητέον ἓν μὲν εἶναι τὸ κατὰ ταὐτὰ εἶδος ἔχον ἀγέννητον καὶ ἀνώλεθρον. And the earliest patristic use similarly meant by γεννητός and ἀγέννητος created and uncreated, as in Ign., Ad Eph. vii., where our Lord is called γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος, ἐν ἀνθρ ?πω Θεὸς, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινή. cf. Bp. Lightfoot’s note. But “such language is not in accordance with later theological definitions, which carefully distinguished between γενητός and γεννητός, between ἀγένητος and ἀγέννητος; so that γενητός, ἀγένητος, respectively denied and affirmed the eternal existence, being equivalent to κτιστός, ἄκτιστος, while γεννητός, ἀγέννητος described certain ontological relations, whether in time or in eternity. In the later theological language, therefore, the Son was γεννητός even in His Godhead. See esp. Joann. Damasc., De Fid. Orth. i. 8 (I. p. 135, Lequin), χρὴ γὰρ εἰδέναι ὅτι τὸ ἀγένητον, διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς ν γραφόμενον, τὸ ἄκτιστον ἢ τὸ μὴ γενόμενον σημαίνει, τὸ δὲ ἀγέννητον, διὰ τῶν δύο νν γραφόμενον, δηλοῖ τὸ μὴ γεννηθέν; whence he draws the conclusion that μόνος ὁ πατὴρ ἀγέννητος and μόνος ὁ υἱ& 232·ς γεννητός.” Bp. Lightfoot, Ap. Fathers, Pt. II. Vol. II. p. 90, where the history of the worlds is exhaustively discussed. At the time of the Arian controversy the Catholic disputants were chary of employing these terms, because of the base uses to which their opponents put them; so St. Basil, Contra Eunom. iv. protests against the Arian argument εἰ ἀγέννητος ὁ πατὴρ γεννητὸς δὲ ὁ υἱ& 232·ς, οὐ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσιας. cf. Ath., De Syn. in this series, p. 475, and De Decretis, on Newman’s confusion of the terms, p. 149 and 169.
31 Heb. i. 1.
32 συμφυής.
33 cf. 2 Cor. iii. 5.
34 Heb. xiii. 15.
35 1 Cor. vii. 40.
36 2 Tim. i. 14.
37 Dan. iv. 8, lxx.

[63] Ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς γεννητοῖς οὕτω πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως ἐνεῖναι λέγεται τὸ Πνεῦμα: Πατρὶ δὲ καὶ Υἱῷ οὐχὶ ἐνεῖναι μᾶλλον, ἀλλὰ συνεῖναι εἰπεῖν εὐσεβέστερον. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ παρ' αὐτοῦ χάρις οἰκοῦντος ἐν τοῖς ἀξίοις καὶ ἐνεργοῦντος τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, καλῶς ἐνυπάρχειν τοῖς δεκτικοῖς αὐτοῦ λέγεται. Ἡ δὲ προαιώνιος ὕπαρξις, καὶ ἄπαυστος διαμονὴ μεθ' Υἱοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς θεωρουμένη, τὰς τῆς ἀϊδίου συναφείας προσηγορίας ἐπιζητεῖ. Τὸ γὰρ κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς συνυπάρχειν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀχωρίστως ἀλλήλοις συνόντων λέγεται. Τὴν γὰρ θερμότητα τῷ μὲν πυρακτωθέντι σιδήρῳ ἐνυπάρχειν φαμέν: αὐτῷ δὲ τῷ πυρὶ συνυπάρχειν. Καὶ τὴν μὲν ὑγίειαν τῷ σώματι ἐνυπάρχειν, τὴν δὲ ζωὴν τῇ ψυχῇ συνυπάρχειν. Ὥστε ὅπου μὲν οἰκεία καὶ συμφυὴς καὶ ἀχώριστος ἡ κοινωνία, σημαντικωτέρα φωνὴ ἡ σύν, τῆς ἀχωρίστου κοινωνίας τὴν διάνοιαν ὑποβάλλουσα. Ὅπου δὲ προσγίνεσθαι ἡ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ χάρις καὶ πάλιν ἀπογίνεσθαι πέφυκεν, οἰκείως καὶ ἀληθῶς τὸ ἐνυπάρχειν λέγεται, κἂν τοῖς δεξαμένοις πολλάκις διὰ τὸ ἑδραῖον τῆς περὶ τὸ καλὸν διαθέσεως, ἡ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ χάρις διαρκὴς παραμένῃ. Ὥστε ὅταν μὲν τὴν οἰκείαν ἀξίαν τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐννοῶμεν, μετὰ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ αὐτὸ θεωροῦμεν. Ὅταν δὲ τὴν εἰς τοὺς μετόχους ἐνεργουμένην χάριν ἐνθυμηθῶμεν, ἐν ἡμῖν εἶναι τὸ Πνεῦμα λέγομεν. Καὶ ἥ γε προσαγομένη δοξολογία παρ' ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι, οὐχὶ τῆς ἐκείνου ἀξίας ὁμολογίαν ἔχει, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐτῶν ἀσθενείας ἐξομολόγησιν: δεικνύντων ὅτι οὔτε δοξάσαι ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν ἱκανοί ἐσμεν, ἀλλ' ἡ ἱκανότης ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ, ἐν ᾧ δυναμωθέντες, τὴν ὑπὲρ ὧν εὐεργετήθημεν, τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν εὐχαριστίαν ἀποπληροῦμεν: κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τῆς ἀπὸ κακίας καθαρότητος, ἕτερος ἑτέρου πλέον ἢ ἔλαττον τῆς ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος βοηθείας μεταλαμβάνοντες, εἰς τὸ προσφέρειν τὰς θυσίας τῆς αἰνέσεως τῷ Θεῷ. Καθ' ἕνα μὲν οὖν τρόπον οὕτως εὐσεβῶς ἐν Πνεύματι τὴν εὐχαριστίαν ἀποπληροῦμεν. Καίτοι καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἀβαρές, αὐτόν τινα ἑαυτῷ μαρτυρεῖν, ὅτι Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀπ' αὐτοῦ χάριτος σοφισθεὶς ἀναφέρω τὴν δόξαν. Παύλῳ γὰρ πρέπουσα ἡ φωνή: «Δοκῶ γὰρ κἀγὼ Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἔχειν.» Καὶ πάλιν: «Τὴν καλὴν παρακαταθήκην φύλαξον, διὰ Πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος ἐν ἡμῖν»: καὶ περὶ τοῦ Δανιήλ: ὅτι Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἅγιον ἐν αὐτῷ: καὶ εἴ τις ἐκείνοις τὴν ἀρετὴν παραπλήσιος.