Eusebius: The Ever-Living Divine Holy Spirit

The following section is taken by The Son is Truly Son: The Trinitarian and Christological Theology of Eusebius of Caesarea (Studia Traditionis Theologiae: Explorations in Early and Medieval Theology, 46), written by Adam R. Renberg, and published by Brepols Publishers Publication in 2021, pp. 60-68. All emphasis will be mine.

Holy Spirit

Eusebius, like many other theologians in this period, does not develop a detailed pneumatology—throughout his extensive corpus of apologetic, biblical, and theological works, the Spirit is only given a few pages of focused discussion. This, in itself, has led most scholars to argue that Eusebius’ pneumatology is hopelessly deficient. ‘Everybody agrees,’ writes Hanson, ‘that Eusebius’ doctrine of the Holy Spirit is meagre and inadequate.’¹³² Some scholars, such as G. Kretschmar and W. D. Hauschild, even go so far as to accuse Eusebius of binitarianism for his subordinationism and negligence of the Spirit.¹³³ While this reading was specifically countered by Strutwolf, there remains support for Eusebius’ apparent binitarianism.¹³⁴ As Spoerl and Vinzent write, ‘For the most part, Eusebius’ anti-Marcellan works are predominantly binitarian,’¹³⁵ due to his focus on the Father and Son rather than the Spirit.

But this view of Eusebius’ pneumatology is problematic for several reasons. First, it simply overlooks much of the Spirit’s role in Eusebius’ work, in the economy and in the Godhead. While the Spirit is rarely the main point of discussion in these passages, he clearly plays a vital role in Eusebius’ theology. The Spirit is significant for Eusebius, even if he does not parse out a detailed pneumatology. Beeley writes on his use of the Spirit: ‘In fact, the Spirit plays an important role in Eusebius’ theological and historical works, from the Ecclesiastical History forward, making his work solidly Trinitarian from the start.’¹³⁶ Second, modern scholarship often views his pneumatology through the lens of middle Platonism, his opponents, or later orthodoxy. Yet, it rarely views Eusebius’ theology of the Spirit on its own terms or in accordance with his broader theological system and Trinitarianism.¹³⁷ While Eusebius’ pneumatology is undoubtedly deficient in light of later orthodoxy, so are most of the pneumatologies in the first four centuries of the church. To critique Eusebius for his lack of discuss on the Spirit is to critique Nicaea itself. There is no protection of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, nor discussion as to his roles in the one line from the creed dedicated to the third person of the Trinity: We believe ‘in one Holy Spirit.’¹³⁸ If Nicaea is ‘trinitarian,’ in its creedal inclusion of the Holy Spirit, so Eusebius is—the Spirit is a person of the holy Trinity.

Many of the strongest affirmations of the divinity of the Spirit in Eusebius’ work are found in creedal formulations. These are especially prevalent through ET—he argues it is the church who has received the doctrine of the Trinity, and therefore it has a responsibility to preserve it. ‘Thus the Church of God received and preserves the holy, blessed, and mystical Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (τριάδα πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος) as its saving hope through the regeneration in Christ.’¹³⁹ This is especially pertinent in his debate with Marcellus. While Marcellus’ pneumatology is never a point of extensive conversation in his extant work, his Sabellianism (in the eyes of Eusebius) reduces the Trinity into the Monad and thus denies the very thing which makes the Christian church unique from Judaism. ‘Well now, let Marcellus learn … that the “mystery hidden for ages and generations” was dispensed to his Church alone through his grace, in which mystery the teaching of the holy Trinity of Father and Son and Holy Spirit was included (τριάδος πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος περιείχετο λόγος).’¹⁴⁰ The conspicuous inclusion of the Spirit in this formulation should not be overlooked, even if it is formulaic: clearly Eusebius feels the need to preserve the Spirit in the mysterious ‘teachings of the holy Trinity’ alongside the Father and Son. The church teaches of a triune God—not a monad.

The root of these creedal formulations is Mt 28:19–20, which Eusebius references often throughout his works as the basis for church teaching and mission. In a reiteration of the Nicene Creed, in his EpisCaes, he writes, ‘We believe each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit (πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἀληθῶς ἅγιον πνεῦμα), as also our Lord, sending forth his disciples for preaching, said, “Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”’¹⁴¹ In this statement, discussing the creed, there is clear reliance on this passage for the Spirit’s nature. This should not be taken lightly, as if Eusebius’ includes the Spirit reluctantly on the basis of this verse alone. This doctrine is importantly a faith statement in the cited letter: ‘We believe … the Holy Spirit (is) truly Holy Spirit.’¹⁴²

Unsurprisingly, Eusebius’ doctrine of the Spirit emphasizes the distinct nature of the third person in the Trinity in relation to the other two. Similar to the relationship of Father to Son, there is an explicit subordination of the Spirit to the Son. ‘For through these [statements] the Savior himself clearly taught that the Holy Spirit exists as another (ἕτερον) besides himself … Yet he is surely subordinate to [the Son] (ὑποβεβηκός γε μὴν [εἶναι] αὑτοῦ).’¹⁴³ Despite the Holy Spirit maintaining its own subsistence (or existence) alongside the Son, there is clear subordination to the Son—which, predictably, has been viewed as ontological subordination by modern scholarship.¹⁴⁴ But, Eusebius uses the same logic for the Spirit as for the Son—the Spirit is derived (or precedes) from the other, and thus cannot be the same as the one he preceded from. In other words, the subordination of the Spirit does not entail a lesser divinity, on this point.

Eusebius clearly views the Spirit as third in the Godhead: ‘Whereas next to the doctrine of Father and Son the Hebrew oracles class the Holy Spirit in the third place (τρίτῃ τάξει), and conceive the Holy and Blessed Trinity (ἁγίαν καὶ μακαρίαν τριάδα) in such a manner as that the third Power (τρίτης δυνάμεως) surpasses every created nature … third from the First Cause.’¹⁴⁵ John K. Mackett expounds on this notion, ‘In Eusebius’ mind, to say that the Holy Spirit has third place is not a denigration of the Spirit’s status. Of all the things that come after the Son, it is the Holy Spirit who is counted “in the first and royal dignity and honor of the primal cause of the universe.”’¹⁴⁶ In other words, the Spirit is not depreciated by being third in the Godhead, quite the opposite. His title is on account of his derived nature, not only from the Father, but also by the Son. The Spirit is ‘third’ because he is made through (or derived from) the Son. Using Jn 1:3 and Col 1:16, Eusebius writes:

Since the Son has been honored with the paternal divinity (πατρικῇ θεότητι τετιμημένος), he would be the maker and fashioner of all created things, both visible and invisible, and surely also of the very existence of the Counseling Spirit (καὶ δὴ καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς τοῦ παρακλήτου πνεύματος ὑπάρξεως). For ‘all things were made through him, and without him not one thing was made,’ and ‘in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.’¹⁴⁷

Eusebius’ logic follows as such: The Father begets the Son—thus the Father (as the Source) is known as the ‘first,’ while the Son (who is generated from the first) is ‘second.’ If the Spirit is generated from the Son (or second), his place as the ‘third’ would follow. In sum, ‘Therefore, he himself, seeing as he is the only-begotten Son, receives (λαμβάνει) from the Father and listens (ἀκούει) to [the Father], while the Holy Spirit supplies (χορηγεῖται) [what he receives] from him [the Son]. Hence [the Son] says, “We will take what is mine and declare it to you.”’¹⁴⁸ But, if the Spirit is made through the Son, is the Spirit created like the rest of creation? It seems not, for several reasons.

First, Eusebius speaks of the Spirit as being with the Father before time, using imagery from Daniel 7:10, ‘The Holy Spirit, too, having stood ETERNALLY (παρεστὸς ἀεὶ) by the throne of God, since even “a thousand thousands” stood by it according to Daniel, was himself also sent out.’¹⁴⁹ It would not seem plausible that a created being (like the rest of creation) would be allotted a co-eternal place in the throne room of God. Second, Eusebius clearly sees a distinction between creation and the Spirit, despite using terms of generation and comparisons with the created order. ‘The Sun of Righteousness (Son) and His fellow the Holy Spirit (σύζυγον ἅγιον πνεῦμα) rule and preside over … angels, and archangels, and spirits, and divine powers’, etc.¹⁵⁰ Here, Eusebius could have listed the Holy Spirit alongside created beings, even as the chief being of creation, but places him as ruler with the Son instead. In Eusebius’ work, here and elsewhere, there is consistent identification of the Spirit with the Godhead rather than creation.¹⁵¹

Nevertheless, his identification of the Spirit as being created through the Son, in Jn 1:3, is very problematic. This exegetical strategy is an application of Origen’s work, which so much of Eusebius’ trinitarian work is indebted to.¹⁵² Interestingly, Basil of Caesarea defends the unique nature of the Spirit in Adversus Eunomium 3,7, without explicitly rejecting the use of Jn 1:3 therein. For him, ‘this text in no way communicates to us that the Holy Spirit is created (κτιστὸν), as if the Spirit were numbered among all things (πᾶσι).’¹⁵³ While Eusebius fails to make the important qualification that Basil does here (and to some extent, Origen)—that the Spirit is not numbered with all things—he implicitly uses this understanding in noting the eternal nature of the Spirit and in identifying him with God rather than creation. That is to say, the use of Jn 1:3 to speak of the origin of the Spirit, does not necessarily mark out a creaturely nature, especially in the context of his broader thoughts on the Trinity. Nevertheless, the notion that the Spirit is created by the Son, without explicitly distinguishing the nature of this creating from the rest of creation, is a damning problem for Eusebius if evaluating his system dogmatically.

While the derived nature of the Spirit is explained eternally, this subordination is primarily demonstrated in the economy, in the work of Christ to the apostles. ‘His (the Son’s) giving (διδόναι) the Spirit, again, shows that he is other than the one who is given (διδομένου). For the one who gives (ὁ διδοὺς) and that which is given (τὸ διδόμενον) could not have been the same, but the one who provides [the Spirit] (to the apostles) was the Savior.’¹⁵⁴ The argument in this passage is the same as the one given for the relationship between the Father and the Son—‘For the One gives (δίδωσιν), and the Other receives (λαμβάνει).’¹⁵⁵ Eusebius uses scriptural passages, such as Jn 16:14–15, which speak of the Son giving or sending the Spirit, to demonstrate their unique identities as well as the subordinate nature of the Spirit.¹⁵⁶ In other words, the Holy Spirit is other than and obedient to the Son because he is sent.¹⁵⁷ This is a common theme throughout his pneumatological references, where the Spirit is seen as the inspiration to the prophets and the distributer of the gifts given to the church by the Son.¹⁵⁸ Therefore, the derived (and subordinate) nature of the Spirit is primarily reflected in its economic work.

It is worth evaluating scholarly claims about the ontological subordination of the Spirit in the work of Eusebius. First, there is one passage, in particular, which is frequently used to discuss Eusebius’ apparent denial of the Spirit’s divinity:

And he alone would be called ‘one God and Father (εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ) of our Lord Jesus Christ (τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ),’ while the Son would be ‘the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father.’ But the Counseling Spirit would be neither God nor Son (τὸ δὲ παράκλητον πνεῦμα οὔτε θεὸς οὔτε υἱός), since he himself has not also received his generation (γένεσιν) from the Father as the Son (ὁμοίως τῷ υἱῷ) has, but is one of those things brought into existence through the Son (διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ γενομένων), because ‘all things were made through him, and without him not one thing was made.’¹⁵⁹

According to an ontological reading of this passage, the Spirit is denied divinity here because he is ontologically subordinate to God as a created being—he is ‘neither God nor Son’ (οὔτε θεὸς οὔτε υἱός). The Counseling Spirit is not divine as the Father or the Son, but merely another created spirit—even if the chief spirit.

There should be further examination into this phrase, ‘But the Counseling Spirit would be neither God nor Son,’ though. Eusebius is concerned here with explicating who the persons in the Trinity are, rather than if they are divine. Importantly, this passage is part of Eusebius’ rebuttal to Marcellus understanding the oneness of God, when extended to the Holy Spirit. Eusebius is devoted to showing how the Holy Spirit is other than the Son, and the Son is other than the Father. To support this argument, he uses prosopological exegesis to distinguish the distinct persons in the Godhead, particularly in Eph 4:5–6.¹⁶⁰ In other words, this passage is about identifying the persons within the Godhead by their scriptural titles and distinguishing marks. Thus, in the quotation under consideration, Eusebius is likely using the Origenian distinction between the God (τὸν θεόν) and God (θεόν), as noted above, to detail the nature of the Father as the first—although, the article is conspicuously missing in the quotation under consideration, as is often the case with predicate nouns.¹⁶¹ ‘God’ here, is not the category for the divine, but a title for the Father.¹⁶² On the Son, he specifically notes his nature as the ‘only-begotten’ to detail how he is distinct from the Father. Finally, on the Spirit, Eusebius notes how he is neither of these. In sum, Eusebius is marking out how the persons in the Godhead are different, rather than if they are divine: their distinguishing marks. Rather than a denial of the divinity of the Spirit (and Son) in this pericope, Eusebius is marking out what makes the Father ‘Father,’ the Son ‘Son,’ and the Holy Spirit ‘Holy Spirit,’ against Marcellus’ doctrine of a single ὑποστάσις in God. The Father is the ‘one God and Father’ while the Son is the ‘only begotten’ of the Father—an appeal to derivative subordination. Eusebius extends this appeal to the Spirit by marking out its own existence within the Trinity through his creation by the Son.

A second critique of Eusebius’ pneumatology is he never explicitly refers to the Spirit as ‘God,’ (θεóς)—only divine (θεῖον). Simonetti thus remarks that Eusebius denies the Holy Spirit ‘la qualifica di Dio.’¹⁶³ Further, Eusebius never gives the Spirit a ὑποστάσις alongside the Father and Son, despite discussing his unique existence. The reason seems to be Eusebius’ careful reading of Scripture (or strict biblicism). Beeley writes on the connection between biblicism and the titles for the Spirit in Eusebius’ work: ‘With this title (the divine spirit), which runs across his corpus, Eusebius names the Spirit in the strongest terms that one could expect at this time, calling it divine (θεῖον) but otherwise not wanting to move beyond the language of Scripture to call it “God” (θεός) outright.’¹⁶⁴ As the Bible does not give the title of God to the Spirit, Eusebius seems reluctant to use this term. This does not redeem Eusebius, of course—the Pneumatochians, later, seem to make this argument. Gregory of Nazianzus writes, ‘Time and time again you repeat the argument about not being in the Bible (ἄγραφον).’¹⁶⁵ But, ironically, Gregory also aims sarcastic rhetoric at Basil of Caesarea—the often-supposed defender of the Spirit’s divinity—for his refusal to title the Spirit as ‘God’.¹⁶⁶ But to redeem Eusebius (and Basil) to some extent, there is never a denial of the divinity of the Spirit, as the Pneumatochians in these systems. Through the Spirit’s role and relationship with the Godhead, it seems that Eusebius did view the Spirit as God—but, as biblical titles are to the fore of his Trinitarian thought, he held to explicit scriptural terminology.

Finally, Eusebius uses odd language when speaking of the Spirit’s relationship in the Godhead in one chapter of ET. For him, the Son is clearly God (and thus belongs in the Trinity) on the basis of his Sonship. But, as the Spirit comes through the Son, as the rest of creation does, this criterion no longer holds for inclusion into the Trinity. In other words, the procession of the Spirit marks how he is different than the Father and Son, but not necessarily how he is embraced in the Godhead. For Eusebius, it is the Spirit’s outstanding rank and role in the economy that marks his inclusion.

For through these [statements] the Savior himself clearly taught that the Holy Spirit exists as another besides himself, outstanding in honor and glory and privileges, greater and higher than any [other] intellectual and rational being (τῆς νοερᾶς καὶ λογικῆς τυγχάνον οὐσίας) (for which reason he has also been received into the thrice-blessed Trinity (διὸ καὶ συμπαρείληπται τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ τρισμακαρίᾳ τριάδι)).¹⁶⁷

And later in that chapter, he continues:

But given the Holy Spirit is another (ἑτέρου ὄντος) alongside the Father and the Son, the Savior, showing his unique characteristic, has called him ‘Counselor,’ distinguishing him from the common run of similarly titled [spirits] through the title ‘Counselor.’ … But none of these can be equal (ἐξισοῦσθαι) to the Counseling Spirit. For this reason, only this [Spirit] has been received (συμπαρείληπται) into the holy and thrice-blessed Trinity (τρισμακαρίᾳ τριάδι).¹⁶⁸

The term ‘received,’ as translated by Spoerl and Vinzent here, is slightly misleading. Συμπαρείληπται would, perhaps, be better translated as ‘included’ or ‘bunched together,’ as other translators have used.¹⁶⁹ But, even in these passages, there is ambiguity as to the mode of inclusion of the Spirit into the Trinity. Is the Holy Spirit included because he is ‘greater and higher’ than other spirits, or is he ‘greater and higher’ because he is God? While this is not completely clear, it would seem the latter better accounts for Eusebius’ understanding of the Son’s divinity being ascribed on account of his Sonship (the Holy Spirit is truly Holy Spirit). It seems the Spirit does not have to earn a place, thereafter being received—he is included alongside the Father and Son as God.

While Eusebius does not explicitly grant the Spirit the title ‘God’ (as many of his contemporaries and theological successors, such as Basil of Caesarea), his system openly includes the Holy Spirit in the Godhead, as a vital person of the Trinity. In this sense, the Spirit appears to be God in his system, despite his reluctance to plainly express him as such. This is perhaps best seen in his role in the Godhead and his sanctifying work of the Spirit in the economy—while the Son reveals the knowledge of the Father, the Spirit sanctifies and illuminates believers to see this knowledge. ‘The one who with a mind made clear and the eyes of the soul made pure and illuminated by the Holy Spirit … he will also see the Father himself through the Son, as he is seen by those who have been cleansed in their mind.’¹⁷⁰ The Spirit is instrumental in salvation and sanctification, roles which only God can undertake.

132 Hanson (1988), 55.

133 Kretschmar (1956), 2; Hauschild (1967), 151–52. For a survey of the German conversation, see: Drecoll (2013); This reading still has some traction in some Anglo-American scholarship, although its emphasis is slightly different. For a modern example, see: Johnson (2014), 138–44.

134 Strutwolf argues the Spirit is truly divine in his apologetic work (but not his theological work, when pressed by Marcellus) and is a form of the ‘World-Soul’ from middle Platonism. He concludes: ‘Es kann also festgehalten werden, daß Euseb in seinem apologetischen Doppelwerk nicht nur deutlich bemüht ist, den Heiligen Geist in die göttliche Trias einzubeziehen und von den Geschöpfen abzugrenzen, sondern auch in der Lage war, den Heiligen Geist in seinem Eingebundensein in die Trias als Gott zu bezeichnen.’ Strutwolf (1999), 223.

135 Spoerl and Vinzent (2017), 48.

136 Beeley (2012), 88–89.

137 This is also the approach of John K. Mackett, in the most extensive and thorough treatment of Eusebius’ pneumatology. Mackett (1990).

138 EpCaes 8; translation from Behr (2004), 155.

139 CM 1,1,12.

140 ET 2,22,4–5.

141 EpisCaes 3; translation altered; emphasis added.

142 EpisCaes 3; parenthesis added.

143 ET 3,5,17–18. While Eusebius uses the term ὑποβεβηκός (from ὑποβαίνω) for the Spirit’s subordination to the Son, he does not use it for the Son’s subordination to the Father.

144 Johnson (2014), 141.

145 PE 11,20,1.

146 Mackett (1990), 209.

147 ET 3,6,1–2.

148 ET 3,5,19.

149 ET 3,4,7–8; translation altered.

150 PE 7,15,15–16; parenthesis added.

151 Although, Eusebius’ does not specifically distinguish the Spirit from those created out of nothing, as he does for the Son.

152 Origen, Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 2,73.

153 Basil, Adversus Eunomium 3,7.

154 ET 3,5,2–3; parenthesis added.

155 DE 5,4,14.

156 ET 3,4,9.

157 ET 3,5,1–2.

158 While this study does not have the space for a study of the Spirit’s function in the economy, he performs two related roles: 1) inspiration of the prophets: (CommPs 66 (65) (PG 23,647); PE 7,11,1–2); 2) teaching, counseling, and providing spiritual gifts for the church after the ascension of Christ (ET 3,5,7–8; ET 3,5,12; ET 3,6,1–2). In this sense, Drecoll is right to term the Holy Spirit’s main function as ‘distributive’. He provides inspiration to both the prophets and the church: ET 3,5,21–22; Drecoll (2013), 297. For an exhaustive list of the Spirit’s functions, see: Mackett (1990), 195–201.

159 ET 3,6,3.

160 ET 3,6,2–3.

161 A point made by Drecoll (2013), 300–01.

162 Contra Strutwolf. Struwolf nuances the reading of this as an outright denial of the Spirit’s divinity from Kretschmar, but does see explicit ontological subordination here, where the Spirit does not maintain the full divinity of the Father and Son: ‘Der Sinn dieser Begründung scheint mir der zu sein, daß der Geist gerade wegen seiner bloß indirekten Ableitung vom Vater, die sich in seiner Gewordenheit durch den Sohn ausdrückt, weder Sohn ist, noch an der Fülle der Göttlichkeit der Vaters teilhat, weil beides eine Unmittelbarkeit zum Vater verlangt, die dem Geist nicht zukommt.’ Strutwolf (1999), 230.

163 Simonetti (1975), 64.

164 Beeley (2012), 89. Lienhard comments on this, but ascribes it to sheer disinterest. Lienhard (1999), 121–23.

165 Gregory, De spiritu sancto (Oratio 31), 21; translation from Williams and Wickham (2002), 133. Michael Haykin argues this is foundational for their theology, although, there is not much evidence to corroborate this. Haykin (1994), 175, fn. 36.

166 Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistula 58; Basil, Epistula 71. For a fuller conversation on Cappadocian pneumatology, see: Beeley (2010).

167 ET 3,5,17–18; emphasis added. 168 ET 3,5,21–22; emphasis added.

169 Mackett uses ‘included’: Mackett (1990), 239. Drecoll uses ‘bunched together’: Drecoll (2013), 299.

170 ET 3,21,1.

Further Reading

Eusebius, The Divine Holy Spirit & Filioque