Summary
Basil of Caesarea was the first of the Cappadocian fathers and made a very important contribution to the development of Nicene theology.
In the Trinity doctrine, God is one Being with a single mind, existing as three Persons. It is often claimed that that is what Basil taught, but this article shows that Basil taught that the three Persons are three distinct Beings with three distinct minds.
That is also what the so-called Arians taught. However, while the Arians taught that the Son and Spirit are ontologically subordinate to the Father, what made Basil unique is that he believed that the Persons are ontologically the same. The Nicenes before Basil also believed that the Son is ontologically subordinate to the Father. They said that the Son is part of the Father, implying ontological subordination.
Although Basil taught that the Son and Spirit are ontologically equal to the Father (the same substance exactly), he preserved a certain order among the Persons. He refused to say that the Spirit is homoousios. He never described the Spirit as God, but described the Spirit as third in order and dignity. He believed that the Father alone exists without cause and maintained the priority of the Father.
This article elaborates on the following indications that Basil regarded the three Persons to be three distinct Beings:
1. Basil began as a Homoi-ousian, who believed in three distinct Beings.
2. For Basil, homoousios meant that the Son’s substance is like the Father’s, implying distinct substances.
3. Basil said that homoousios corrects Sabellianism, for it keeps the Persons distinct.
4. For Basil, the Persons are instances of divinity just like people are instances of humanity.
5. Basil described the Father and Son as having distinct minds and wills, implying distinct Beings.
6. Since he maintained a hierarchy between the three Persons, it is difficult to imagine that Basil believed them to be one single Being.
Introduction
The Traditional Account
Due to research and a store of ancient documents that have become available over the last 100 years, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Arian Controversy – of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine – is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed.
| The “conventional account of the Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognised by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty” (Hanson).
“The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around the year 1900) can today be completely ignored” (Hanson, p. 95). |
Books Quoted
Only a handful of full-scale books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy have been published since Gwatkin’s book at the beginning of the 20th century. This article series is based on books by world-class Trinitarian scholars of the last 50 years:
| Hanson, R.P.C. (Bishop) – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381 (1987)
Williams, Rowan (Archbishop) – Arius, Heresy & Tradition, (2002/1987) Ayres, Lewis (Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology) – Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004) Anatolios, Khaled – Retrieving Nicaea (2011) |
Basil of Caesarea
Basil became a bishop in 370. He made an important contribution to the development of the Trinity doctrine:
| The three ‘Cappadocian theologians’, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa “were together decisively influential in bringing about the final form of the doctrine of the Trinity” (Hanson, p. 676). Show More |
Hypostasis and Ousia
Since these terms are important in this article, it is appropriate to begin with a brief overview of these terms:
The Trinity doctrine defines God as one Being (one ousia) existing as three Persons (hypostases) (see here for a detailed discussion). In other words, it uses the terms ousia and hypostasis with opposing meanings.
In contrast, in the fourth-century Controversy, most people used the Greek words ousia and hypostasis as synonyms:
|
“For many people at the beginning of the fourth century the word hypostasis and the word ousia had pretty well the same meaning” (Hanson, p. 181). |
Importantly, Athanasius, the paragon of the West, also used these terms as synonyms:
| “Clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous” (Hanson, 440). |
Both hypostasis and ousia meant an “individual existence” (Hanson, p. 193), “distinct existences” (Litfin), or “concrete individuals” (Anatolios, xiii). Show More
However, this article will show that, particularly following Basil of Caesarea, a distinction was later made between the meanings of the two terms.
Purpose
The purpose of this article is to show that Basil taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Beings with three distinct minds. This would be different from the Trinity doctrine, which defines the Father, Son, and Spirit as a single Being. Basil’s view may be compared to some other views during the fourth century:
Sabellianism
Sabellianism was still a strong force in the fourth century. The Sabellians believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being with a single mind. The Sabellian minority at Nicaea supported the term homoousios and understood it to mean ‘one substance.’ In their view, the Son emerges from the Father merely as an energy. For example:
| “Marcellus of Ancyra uses the language of ἐνέργεια (energy) to explain how it is that the Son can come forth and work without God being extended materially” (Ayres, p. 197). |
See here for a discussion of Sabellian theology.
Arianism
The Arians taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Beings with three distinct minds. For example:
| Commenting on the Arian (Eastern) Dedication Creed of 341: “The bishops of Antioch … [were] insisting that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostaseis” (Anatolios, p. 24).
“Asterius (an early leading Eusebian) insists also that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases” (Ayres, p. 54). |
Since, at the time, the terms Being (ousia) and Person (hypostasis) were synonyms, when the Arians said “three hypostases,” they meant three Persons or Beings.
The Arians had accepted the term homoousios at Nicaea based on Emperor Constantine’s very vague explanation of the term. He said that it must not be interpreted literally, as if God is a substance, but that it only means that the Son is truly from the Father (see here). Show More
Nicenes
The Nicene theologians before the time of the Cappadocians, such as Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria, like the Sabellians, understood the Father, Son, and Spirit to be a single Being with a single mind. They said that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis, meaning a single Person or Being. Show More
See here for a discussion of Nicene theology. The reader might expect to read here that the Nicenes said that God is one Being (one ousia) but three Persons (three hypostases). However, that concept did not yet exist. Alexander and Athanasius taught that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis).
Ontological Equality
| Basil was the first to teach ontological equality. |
When the Controversy began, all theologians regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father:
| “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy” (Hanson, p. xix). |
Even Athanasius, the great defender of Nicaea, thought of the Son as subordinate in some ways. In the Nicene view, the Son is part of the Father, and, therefore, ontologically subordinate to the Father. Show More
Basil was the first to propose that the Father and Son are ontologically equal:
| “In all the previous discussions (before Basil) of the term (homoousios) … a certain ontological subordination is at least implied” (Ayres, p. 206).
“In Basil, the Father’s sharing of his being involves the generation of one identical in substance and power” (Ayres, p. 207). |
The next section will show that Basil, like the Eusebians (Arians), taught three hypostases. However, what made Basil different is that he believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are “identical in substance and power.”
Three Distinct Beings
In Trinitarian theology, the three Persons are a single Being. Basil’s theology is often stated in ways that sound as if he also believed in only a single undivided substance (Being). But this section shows that he believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct substances (three distinct Beings):
A Homoiousian
| Basil began as a Homoi-ousian, who believed in three distinct Beings. |
Basil did not begin his career as a pro-Nicene. He began as an ‘Arian’; specifically, a Homoi-ousian, and gradually moved towards pro-Nicene theology:
|
“Basil emerged from a background, not of the strongly pro-Nicene theology of Athanasius, but of the school of Basil of Ancyra” (Hanson, p. 693). “He came from what might be called an ‘Homoiousian’ background” (Hanson, p. 699). Show More |
The Homoiousians were one of the Arian groups, and, as shown above, the Arians believed that the Son is a distinct divine Being. As a Homoi-ousian, Basil at first believed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but different, which means that the Son is a distinct Being.
Homoousios
| For Basil, homoousios meant that the Son’s substance is like the Father’s, implying distinct substances. |
Homoousios has two possible meanings. When two entities are said to be of the ‘same substance’ (homoousios), it can mean that they are a single substance or two distinct but identical substances. Show More
After Basil had moved away from the ‘similar substance’ formula of the Homoi-ousians, and had accepted the term homouousios, he continued to say that the Son’s substance is “like” the Father’s, implying two distinct substances:
| Basil insists that “the Son, like the Father, is simple and uncompound” (Ayres, p. 204).
“He says that in his own view ‘like in respect of ousia’ (the slogan of the party of Basil of Ancyra) was an acceptable formula, provided that the word ‘unalterably’ was added to it, for then it would be equivalent to homoousios” (Hanson, p. 694) Show More |
| Basil said that homoousios corrects Sabellianism, for it keeps the Persons distinct. |
Basil wrote:
| “This expression (homoousios) also corrects the fault of Sabellius for … (it keeps) … the Persons (prosopon) intact, for nothing is consubstantial with itself” (Hanson, pp. 694-5). (The Sabellians taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are only one single Person.)
“Later, when he (Basil) had accepted homoousios as a proper term to apply to the Son, he still argued that it was preferable because it actually excluded identity of hypostases” (Hanson, p. 697). |
Therefore, while Trinitarians understand homoousios as saying that the Father and Son are one substance, Basil explained it in a generic sense of two Beings (two distinct existences) with the same type of substance:
| Adolf von Harnack “argued that Basil and all the Cappadocians interpreted homoousios only in a ‘generic’ sense … that unity of substance was turned into equality of substance” (Hanson, p. 696). |
Basil remained a semi-homoiousian:
| “Basil has moved away from but has not completely repudiated his origins” (Hanson, p. 694).
“Basil still seems to view the relationship between Father and Son in a fundamentally Homoiousian way” (Ayres, p. 190). |
Hypostasis and Ousia
| For Basil, the Persons are instances of divinity, just like people are instances of humanity. |
He regarded the Persons (hypostases) as particular concrete examples of a ‘generic’ Godhead (ousia), just like human beings are particular instances of a generic humanity. This is a clear indication that Basil thought of the Father and Son as distinct Beings:
| Basil “discusses the idea that the distinction between the Godhead and the Persons is that between an abstract essence, such as humanity, and its concrete manifestations, such as man” (Hanson, p. 698). Show More |
Therefore, Basil regarded human persons as appropriate examples of the divine Persons:
| Basil assumed “that human persons are particularly appropriate examples” of “the nature of an individual divine person” (Ayres, pp. 207-8).
“Basil discusses the individuation of Peter and Paul as analogous to the individuation of Father and Son” (Ayres, p. 207). |
Note that this also explains Basil’s understanding of the terms hypostasis and ousia. Show More
Distinct Minds
| Basil described the Father and Son as having distinct minds and wills, implying distinct Beings. |
“Basil … speaks of the Father choosing to work through the Son—not needing to. Similarly, the Son chooses to work through the Spirit, but does not need to” (Ayres, p. 208).
“The Father, who creates by His sole will … the Son too wills” (Basil in De Spiritu Sancto).
Basil said that the Son’s statements that he does the will of the Father “is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation” but because “His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father.” Show More
Order among the Persons
| Basil maintained a certain order among the Persons, implying the Persons are distinct Existences. |
| “Father and Son are, indeed, the same in essence, but distinct at another level thus preserving a certain order among the persons” (Ayres, p. 195). |
For some unknown reason, he never described the Holy Spirit as homoousios with the Father and Son:
| “Basil showed himself reluctant to apply homoousios to the Holy Spirit. … Homoousios was a word which applied particularly to the relation of the Son to the Father” (Hanson, p. 698). Show More |
He also never described the Holy Spirit as God:
| “While the Spirit is third in order and dignity, the Spirit is not third in an order of essences. Basil insists that the Spirit is to be accorded equal worship and honour with the Father and the Son, even if he is not willing to say directly that the Spirit is God in the same terms as Father and Son” (Ayres, p. 216). Show More |
He referred to the Holy Spirit as third in rank:
| “The Spirit is third in order and dignity” (Ayres, p. 216).
“The Spirit is third in order and even rank” (Hanson, p. 689). |
For Basil, the Father alone exists without cause. Since he teaches that Father and Son have the same substance, Basil was sensitive to the accusation that he could be accused of tritheism; three Ultimate Principles; three Beings who exist without cause and gave existence to all else:
| “To speak of Father and Son as simply having the same ousia would be … to present him as logically another God” (Ayres, p. 190). |
To address this, Basil identified the Father alone as the ultimate Source:
| “Let no one think that I am saying that there are “three ultimate principles … There is one ultimate principle of all existent things, creating through the Son and perfecting in the Spirit” (Hanson, p. 691). Show More |
He maintained the priority of the Father:
| “By the 370s Basil had evolved a formula stating that the activities of God all come from the Father, are worked in the Son, and are completed in the Spirit. In this formula Basil seems … to find a way to speak of the unity of divine action while still preserving the priority of the Father” (Ayres, p. 196). |
Since Basil preserved a certain order among the Persons, refusing to say that the Spirit is homoousios and God, but describing the Spirit as third in order and dignity, and since he believed that the Father alone exists without cause, and maintained the priority of the Father, it is difficult to imagine that Basil believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single existence.
Contemplation
Basil’s theology was not based on the Bible alone but on the Bible + ‘Contemplation’ (epinoia – ἐπίνοια). He explained epinoia as “concepts developed by the human mind” through “a process of reflection and abstraction.”
| “For Basil, arguing that Father and Son are ‘unlike’ flies in the face of biblical material such as Col 1:15, Heb 1:3, and Phil 2:6.” As Basil read these texts, they “all … point to a community of essence between the generated and the one who has generated” (Ayres, p. 194). But how did Basil come to this conclusion? He answers:
“By ἐπίνοια [epinoia] we know that there is a unity of ousia between Father and Son” (Ayres, p. 194). Ayres explains epinoia as:
For Basil, we can only understand the Father, Son, and Spirit through “contemplation:” Contemplation “throws away the letter and turns to the Lord” (Ayres, p. 219). “The contemplation of the Spirit necessary to understand the Spirit is itself at the core of Christian life” (Ayres, p. 219). That sort of contemplation is only available to “Christians who have attained ‘purity of heart’” (Ayres, p. 219). But Eunomius, Basil’s rival against whom he wrote three books, dismissed ἐπίνοια, as a way of gaining knowledge of God, as unreliable (Ayres, p. 191-2) and condemned it (Ayres, p. 193). He argued: “If we know God only according to ἐπίνοια, then our knowledge is insignificant and our faith useless” (Ayres, p. 195). |
Basil was a Philosopher.
It is traditional to accuse Arius of mixing the Bible with philosophy but the real culprits in this regard were the Cappadocians. Basil’s doctrine of God was based on pagan philosophy. Basil obtained the distinction between a common deity and the differentiation of Persons (as discussed above) not from the Bible but from pagan philosophy. The Cappadocians all relied on contemporary philosophy more than, for example, Athanasius and Hilary.
| Influences
Ayres identifies “three basic influences on Basil’s account:” “The first is Stoic terminologies about the relationship between general and individuated existence. … Stoics posited a universal … substrate (or ousia). … At the level of concrete existence individuals are also qualified by further qualities” (Ayres, p. 199-200). Secondly, “Neoplatonic-Aristotelian conceptions are used to interpret a basically Stoic scheme” (Ayres, p. 202). Thirdly, “we cannot, however, treat Basil’s distinction against a purely philosophical background. … It seems most likely that Basil’s evolution of the distinction occurred within a context where some such distinction was already clearly in the air” (Ayres, p. 202). The Cappadocians relied on philosophy: Hanson concludes that “the Cappadocians all relied on the aid of contemporary philosophy more than … Athanasius and Hilary” (Hanson, p. 677). “A small work (by Basil) … at the end of Book V of Adversus Eunomium … is full of echoes of passages in Plotinus’ Enneads” (Hanson, p. 687). |
Other Articles
-
-
- Origin of the Trinity Doctrine – Including the pre-Nicene Church Fathers and the fourth-century Arian Controversy
- All articles on this website
- Is Jesus the Most High God?
- Trinity Doctrine – General
- The Book of Daniel
- The Book of Revelation
- The Origin of Evil
- Death, Eternal Life, and Eternal Torment
-