Homoousios, Monoousios and Tautoousios

This last week, I have been dialoguing with a gent via email on the topic concerning the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Folk familiar with this blog are aware that I prefer to speak of differing Trinitarian concepts, rather than ‘the doctrine of the Trinity’—but I digress…

Our dialogue has touched on the terms homoousios and hypostasis as used in the original Nicene Creed (325), as well as the subsequent period of doctrinal development up to the Council of Constantinople. Two previous threads published here at AF, have been referenced during the discussion—The original Nicene Creed and semantic confusion and Monoousios vs. Homoousios—which should be useful for folk interested in our topic at hand.

Our ongoing dialogue has precipitated some renewed research on my part into the issues being raised, and this last Friday (12-08-23) I discovered an informative essay by Prof. John S. Romanides—The Christological Teaching of St. John of Damascus—that is germane to the discussion. The following from the essay caught my eye:

Differing terminology pointing to one single concrete revelatory reality was seen clearly by St. Athanasius in regard to those who rejected the homoousios but accepted that the Logos is of an ousia similar in everything to that of the Father and from the ousia of the Father. St. Athanasius claims that this is exactly what he himself means by homoousios.

The “those" being refernced by Fr. Romanides are those bishops who preferred the term homoiousios, when speaking of the relationship between the Son of God and God the Father. Concerning these folk, Athanasius wrote:

...those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential, must not be treated as enemies ; nor do we here attack them as Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence, and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase, 'Coessential.' [On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia (de Synodis) - NPNF series 2, 4.472.]

In his essay, Fr. Romanides points out that differing terminology in certain contexts meant the same thing—i.e. homoousios and homoiousios—whilst the same term could mean something different. The term homoousios was a prime example; some folk understood the term in a strict numerical sense (one essence), whilst others in a generic sense (same essence)—see the Monoousios vs. Homoousios thread. Concerning this issue, Fr. Romanides mentions a term— tautoousios —that I did not recall reading about in my previous studies; note the following:

...the Orthodox themselves were split over the use of the term "homoousios" because many were afraid that it denoted a Sabellian confusion of the Hypostases and could be taken to mean "tautoousios." This was finally precluded by the general acceptance of the Cappadocian distinction between Hypostases and ousia, which Augustine and the Franks who followed him never understood.

Immediately after coming across the term, I pulled Lampe’s exhaustive tome, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, off of the shelf and read:

*tautoousios (*tautousios), of the same substance, identical in essence; Trin. ; 1. dist. from homoousios and rejected by orthodox...Epiph.Aaer.65.8 (p.11, 10; M.42.25A); [p.1377]

The following is Frank Williams' English translation of the Epiph.Aaer.65.8  reference listed by Lampe:

8,1 And so there are not two Gods, because there are not two Fathers. And the subsistence of the Word is not eliminated, since there is not one [mere] combination of the Son’s Godhead with the Father. For the Son is not of an essence different [ἑτεροούσιος] from the Father, but of the same essence [ὁμοούσιος] as the Father. He cannot be of an essence different [ἑτεροούσιος] from his Begetter’s or of the identical essence [ταυτοούσιος]; he is of the same essence [ὁμοούσιος] as the Father. (Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 1994, p. 217)

Epiphanius is making clear distinctions between those who teach that the Son is of a ‘different essence’ [ἑτεροούσιος] than the Father (i.e. Arians) and those who believe he is of an ‘identical essence’ [ταυτοούσιος] (i.e. Sabellians/modalists) with the Father, with the ‘orthodox’ who maintain that he is of the ‘same essence’ [ὁμοούσιος] as the Father.

Athanasius makes a similar distinction between monoousios and homoousios, referencing the Sabellians. The following is from the Monoousios vs. Homoousios thread:

>>In the selections provided above, our esteemed authors identify four prominent 4th century Church Fathers who interpreted homoousios in the generic sense—Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. I would now like to introduce a fifth Church Father from the 4th century who affirmed the generic understanding, and also explicitly differentiated between monoousios and homoousios—Athanasius. From his Expositio Fidei we read:

For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son. (Statement of Faith, 2.2 - A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series, Vol. 4.84)

The phrase, "calling Him of one but not of the same essence", is a non-literal translation of the Greek, and a bit misleading. The Greek reads as follows:

λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον  (legontes monoousion kai ouch homoousion)

My translation: saying [he is of] one essence and not [of the] same essence

[Full Greek text of 2.2—οὔτε γὰρ υἱοπάτορα φρονοῦμεν ὡς οἱ Σαβέλλιοι λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἀναιροῦντες τὸ εἶναι υἱόν—Migne, PG 25.204.]

Athanasius identifies the strict numeric understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son with the Sabellians, contrasting the term monoousion from that of homoousion to drive home his point.

This generic understanding found in Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (and other Church Fathers), is the dominant understanding of many Eastern Orthodox theologians—theologians who adamantly maintain that it is the only consistent understanding of the use of homoousion in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition.>>

Conclusion: in many doctrinal discussions, it is important to realize that different terms can sometimes be used to mean the same thing, whilst the same term can carry a different meaning for opposing sides when attempting to define their respective positions.

Grace and peace,

David

Monoousios vs. Homoousios - further reflections

In the previous AF thread which dealt with the topic of monoousios vs. homoousios (link), I provided selections from Christian theologians and historians who acknowledged that the term homoousion, used in the Nicene Creed and by a number of subsequent Church Fathers, was most likely understood in a generic sense, rather than an absolute numeric sense. In this new post, I hope to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the generic understanding is the most viable option.

At the end of the opening post of the above referenced thread, I mentioned that the generic understanding of homoousios, "is the dominant understanding of many Eastern Orthodox theologians". Interestingly enough, a LDS author back in 2004 provided substantial support for my reflections—the following quote is from the book, Prelude to the Restoration (2004):

Christos Yannaras proposes that “schematically: God is a Nature and three Persons; man is a nature and ‘innumerable’ persons. God is consubstantial and in three hypostases, man is consubstantial and in innumerable hypostases.” Essence could thus be characterized as that nature which, for the Trinity, is divinity, and that nature which, for humans, is humanity. (J. B. Haws, "Defenders of the Doctrine of Deification", p. 77) [The quote that Haws provided from the EO theologian Yannaras, is from the book Elements of Faith, p, 36.]

Haws' understanding of the Yannaras quote, brings to mind the Christology delineated in the Chalcedonian Definition (451)—the germane portion is provided below:

Following therefore the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Divinity (theotēti) and also perfect in humanity (anthrōpotēti); truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; same essence (homoousion) with the Father according to the Divinity (theotēta), and same essence (homoousion) with us according to the humanity (anthrōpotēta) ...

Ἑπόμενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν υἱὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν συμφώνως ἅπαντες ἐκδιδάσκομεν, τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν θεότητι καὶ τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι, θεὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς τὸν αὐτὸν, ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώματος, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα ...

Clearly we have before us an application of the term homoousion in a generic sense. As such, we can add the Chalcedonian Definition to the list of examples wherein the term homoousion is used in the generic sense—e.g. Nicene Creed, numerous post-Nicene Church Fathers and EO theologians.

The concept that "man is consubstantial and in innumerable hypostases" means all the members of mankind share one and the same nature/essence. When the same type of concept is applied to the Godhead, it means that all members of the Godhead share one and the same nature/essence; or as Haws states it:

Essence could thus be characterized as that nature which, for the Trinity, is divinity, and that nature which, for humans, is humanity.

For one to be human from human, one has to be fully human—possessing the nature of humanity in its fullness—not partially human, or even mostly human. For one to be God from God, one has to be fully God—possessing the nature of divinity in its fullness—not partially God, or even mostly God.

To end, I would like to submit that when the related concepts of 'God from God', 'homoosion with the Father', and 'begotten not made' are applied to Jesus Christ, two early theological errors are avoided: first, modalism, which changed the understanding of homoosios into monoousios, and denied the causality of the Son from the Father; and second, Arianism, which denied that the Son of God was fully God.

Grace and peace,

David

Monoousios vs. Homoousios

Back on May 11th, a good friend of mine began posting again in the Terminology: trinitarianism, unitarianism, monotheism, polytheism... thread, after an extended hiatus. The conversation between the two us continued over the next few days; and then on the 22nd, Tom contributed three consecutive, interrelated posts that would have been a bit difficult to adequately address in the combox. As such, I have created this new thread in an attempt to do justice to the cogent concerns and questions that he raised in those posts.

Now, a bit of background information. For a number of years now, I have maintained that the Greek term homoousion in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition was used in a generic sense and not a strict numeric sense—in other words, homoousion is to be understood as 'same essence' rather than 'one essence'. And so, on my May 21st post to Tom, I wrote:

The Greek of the Chalcedonian Definition (451) strongly suggests a generic sense for both. My studies indicate that the numeric sense was not adopted until much later when homoousia began to be interpreted as monoousia. [Note: I had quickly typed up the above response and posted it before realizing that I had misspelled both homoousia and monoousia—should read homoousios and monoousios—sorry Tom, I am getting old.]

Tom on the 22nd responded with:

I would agree that homoousia began to be interpreted as monoousia, but what scholars usually say is “homoousia in the numeric sense.” I have not seen folks who suggest that traditional Christian Trinitarian teachings are true use the term monoousia to describe what they believe. Folks like Plantinga might be inclined to point to the developed equivalence of monoousia and homoousia in the numeric sense, but I don’t see things like this from Father Don Davis or Phillip Schaff.

I first encountered the distinction between monoousios and homoousios in Dr. Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. Dr. Hodge wrote:

The ambiguity of the word ὁμοούσιος has already been remarked upon. As ούσια may mean generic nature common to many individuals, not unum in numero, but ens unum in multis, so ὁμοούσιος (consubstantial) may mean nothing more than sameness of species or kind. (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981 reprint, 1.463.)

Dr. Hodge then provides two important quotes from the famous Christian historian, Philip Schaff:

It is therefore said, that “the term homoousion, in its strict grammatical sense differs from monoousion or toutoousion, as well as from heteroousion, and signifies not numerical identity, but equality of essence or community of nature among several beings.” “The Nicene Creed,” Dr. Schaff adds, “does not expressly assert the singleness or numerical unity of the divine essence (unless it be in the first article: ‘we believe in one God’), and the main point with the Nicene fathers was to urge against Arianism the strict divinity and essential equality of the Son and Holy Ghost with the Father. (Ibid.)

In the next paragraph, Hodge continues with:

Gieseler goes much further, and denies that the Nicene fathers held the numerical identity of essence in the persons of the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Spirit were the same in substance as having the same nature, or same kind of substance. This he infers was their doctrine not only from the general style of their teaching, and from special declarations, but from the illustrations which they habitually employed. The Father and the Son are the same in substance as among men father and son have the same nature; or as Basil says, Father and Son differ in rank, as do the angels, although they are the same in nature. Gieseler says that the numerical sameness of nature in the three divine persons, was first asserted by Augustine. It was he, according to Gieseler, who first excluded all idea of subordination in the Trinity. “Athanasius and Hilary understood the proposition, ‘There is one God’ of the Father. Basil the Great and the two Gregories understood by the word God a generic idea (Gattungsbegriff), belonging equally to the Father and the Son. (Ibid.)

Though Hodge and Schaff acknowledge that homoousios can be understood in a generic sense, they maintain—contra Gieseler—that it's use in the Nicene Creed should be interpreted in the numeric sense.

Moving from 19th century writers to those of the 20th century, we find the following from the pen of J.N.D. Kelly:

It is reasonable to suppose, pace Eusebius, that a similar meaning, viz. 'of the same nature', was read into the homoousion. But if this is granted, a further question at once arises: are we to understand 'of the same nature' in the 'generic' sense in which Origen, for example, had employed ὁμοούσιος, or are we to take it as having the meaning accepted by later Catholic [i.e. Western] theology, viz. numerical identity of substance? The root word ούσια could signify the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class, or it could connote an individual thing as such. (Early Christian Doctrine, 2nd ed. 1960, p. 234.)

And from Ivor J. Davidson:

Homoousios was, however, a word with a difficult history. For a start, it was not biblical, which meant that the council [i.e. Nicaea 325] was proposing to talk about the nature of the Godhead in terms that were philosophical or conceptual rather than in language drawn directly from the Scriptures. 

…the outcome of the council was virtually unanimous. All but two of the bishops agreed to sign the creed. The dissenters, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, were both from Libya, where Arius had particularly loyal support. They suffered exile, as did Arius himself. The rest, it seemed, were at one, and Constantine had got his way; the church was united in its opposition to the teaching of Arius [i.e. that the Son was a created being, created ex nihilo, and that there was “a time he was not”].

The reality, however, was for more complex. The apparently all-important homoousios could in fact be understood in a variety of ways. Literally, it meant “same being.” But what was the “sameness” here? To be “the same as” can be “identical to” in a specific sense or “exactly like” in a generic sense. The “being” in question is also vague: a human and animal may both be described as “beings,” but one has on form of “being” (or “nature” or “substance”) and the other another. For staunch enemies of Arius, such as Eustanthius and Marcellus, homoousios meant “one and the same being.” For Eusebius of Caesarea, on the other hand, it meant “exactly like in being”—potentially a very significant difference. Is the Son, the same as God in his being, or is he exactly like God in his being? To Eusebius and many other Greek bishops it seemed better to say that he is like God. (The Baker History of the Church, Vol. 2 – A Public Faith: From Constantine to the Medieval World, AD 312-600, 2005, pp. 35, 36.)

In the selections provided above, our esteemed authors identify four prominent 4th century Church Fathers who interpreted homoousios in the generic sense—Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. I would now like to introduce a fifth Church Father from the 4th century who affirmed the generic understanding, and also explicitly differentiated between monoousios and homoousios—Athanasius. From his Expositio Fidei we read:

For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son. (Statement of Faith, 2.2 - A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series, Vol. 4.84)

The phrase, "calling Him of one but not of the same essence", is a non-literal translation of the Greek, and a bit misleading. The Greek reads as follows:

λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον  (legontes monoousion kai ouch homoousion)

My translation: saying [he is of] one essence and not [of the] same essence

[Full Greek text of 2.2—οὔτε γὰρ υἱοπάτορα φρονοῦμεν ὡς οἱ Σαβέλλιοι λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἀναιροῦντες τὸ εἶναι υἱόν—Migne, PG 25, 204.]

Athanasius identifies the strict numeric understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son with the Sabellians, contrasting the term monoousion from that of homoousion to drive home his point.

This generic understanding found in Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (and other Church Fathers), is the dominant understanding of many Eastern Orthodox theologians—theologians who adamantly maintain that it is the only consistent understanding of the use of homoousion in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition.

More later, the Lord willing...

Grace and peace,

David

Basil 'the Great': Letter CXXV - an excellent defense of the original Nicene Creed, with clarifications

St. Basil 'the Great', was one of the famous three 'Cappadocian Fathers' (the other two being his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, and his very close friend, Gregory Nazianzus). In 364 AD, at the request of the famous Church historian Eusebius, then bishop of Caesarea, he left his monastic life to defend the orthodox, Catholic faith. After the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the creed produced there was coming under intense attacks from two opposing sides: the Arians and the modalists. In 373 AD (three years after being appointed bishop of Caesarea following the death of Eusebius), Basil composed an epistle, wherein he quotes the original Nicene Creed of 325 AD, clarifying and defending its contents—as a 'statement of faith' so to speak—which he then sent to one Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste in Pontus, whose orthodoxy was being questioned. IMO, not only was this letter an excellent defense of the Nicene Creed, but it also offered clarifications that are of importance to us modern folk who seek to understand what the Creed meant to it's Catholic defenders in the 4th century.

The following is the full letter (without the footnotes) as translated by Dr. Roy J. Deferrari in volume 2 (1928) of the 4 volume set, Saint Basil - The Letters. (This set includes the original Greek, side by side, with the English translation, and is part of the famous Loeb Classical Library.)

LETTER CXXV

A Transcript of Faith Dictated by the most Holy Basil, to Which Eustathius, the Bishop of Sebaste, Subscribed

Those who have formerly been committed to an unorthodox confession of Faith and wish to pass over into unity with the orthodox, or those who now for the first time wish to be instructed in the doctrine of truth, must be taught in the articles of Faith as drawn up by the blessed Fathers in the synod once convened at Nicaea. And this same thing would also be useful for those who are suspected of being opposed to the sound doctrine and who seek to cloak with specious subterfuges their unorthodox views. For even for these the creed embodied therein suffices. For either they may correct their hidden malady, or, if they still conceal it in the depth of their hearts, they will themselves bear the responsibility for their deception, but for us they will make easy our defence on the Day of Judgment, when the Lord "will reveal the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the heart." It is therefore fitting to receive them when they confess that they believe according to the words set forth by our Fathers at Nicaea and according to the meaning disclosed by those words when soundly interpreted.

For there are some who even in this creed pervert the doctrine of truth and stretch the sense of the words in it to suit their own purpose. For instance, even Marcellus, acting impiously toward the person  of our Lord Jesus Christ and explaining Him as mere " Word," had the effrontery to profess that he had taken his principles from that creed, perversely explaining the meaning of "consubstantial." And some of those from the impious sect of the Libyan Sabellius, understanding person and substance to be the same, draw from that creed the beginnings they use for the establishment of their own blasphemy, from the fact of its having been written in the creed that "if anyone says the Son is of a different substance or person, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes him." For it is not said therein that the substance and the person are the same. For if the words revealed one and the same meaning, what was the need of each separately? But it is evident that, since some denied that the Son is of the substance of the Father, and others said that He was not of the substance but of some other person, thus they condemned both positions as foreign to the opinion of the Church. For, when they came to revealing their opinion, they said that the Son was of the substance of the Father, not going on to add "of the person." Thus the former statement is laid down as a rejection of faulty opinion, while the latter contains the declaration of the doctrine of salvation. It is necessary, therefore, to confess the Son as of the same substance as the Father, as it is written, and to confess the Father in His own proper person, and the Son in His own, and the Holy Ghost in His own, according as the Fathers themselves have clearly set forth. For sufficiently and clearly have they shown this when they said, "Light of Light, the One which begot Light and the Other which was begotten, and yet Light and Light," so that the definition of the substance is one and the same. Now let the creed itself, composed at Nicaea, be added by us.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Father, the only Begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father ; God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God ; begotten not made ; consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth ; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, and was made Man. He suffered and arose on the third day, and He ascended into heaven and shall come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. And as for such who say "There was a time when He was not," and "Before He was begotten He was not," or that "He came into existence from what was not," or who profess that the Son of God is of a different person or substance, or that He changeth, or is variable, such as these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

Since, therefore, all points with but one exception have been sufficiently and accurately defined herein, some as an emendation for what had been perverted, and others as a precaution against what was expected to arise—for the doctrine of the Holy Ghost was laid down cursorily, not being considered as necessary of elaboration, because at that time this question had not yet been agitated, but the sense of it was unassailably inherent in the souls of the faithful—but since, coming forth little by little, the baneful seeds of impiety, which had been sown before by Arius, the author of the heresy, and later by those who wickedly succeeded to his opinions, have been nurtured to the harm of the churches, and the succession of impiety has broken forth into blasphemy against the Spirit, in view of these things it is necessary to hold before those who have no pity for themselves nor foresee the inevitable threat which our Lord held over those who blaspheme the Holy Ghost, this conclusion—that we must anathematize those who call the Holy Spirit a creature, both those who think so, and those who will not confess that He is holy by nature, even as the Father is holy by nature, and as the Son is holy by nature, but deprive Him of His divine and blessed nature. And the proof of orthodox opinion is not to separate Him from the Father and the Son (for we must be baptized as we have received the words of baptism, and we must behave as we are baptized and we must give glory as we have believed, to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost), but to abstain from communion with those, as open blasphemers, who call Him a creature ; since this point is agreed upon (for comment is necessary because of the slanders), that we neither speak of the Holy Spirit as unbegotten—for we recognize One unbegotten and One Beginning of all existing things, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ—nor speak of Him as begotten—for we have been taught One only begotten in the tradition of our Faith ; and having been taught that the Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Father, we confess it to be from God without any act of creation. And we must anathematize also those who speak of the Holy Ghost as ministering, on the ground that by this expression they lower Him to the order of creatures. For Scripture has handed down to us the ministering spirits as creatures, saying, "All are ministering spirits sent to minister." And on account of those who confuse everything and do not preserve the teaching of the Gospel, it is necessary to lay down this principle also—that we must avoid those who change the order which our Lord had left us, as being clearly enemies of religion, and place the Son before the Father and put the Holy Spirit before the Son. For it is meet that we keep unaltered and untampered with that order which we received from the very words of Our Lord, when He said, "Going teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Signature of Eustathius, Bishop.

I, Eustathius, bishop, after reading to you, Basil, have understood, and have approved what has been written above. And I have signed in the presence of my brothers, our Fronto, the suffragan-bishop Severus, and certain other members of the clergy.

[Online pdf document]

Now, a few notes and observations—the English words, "Consubstantial", "substance" and "person", in the above translation, are from the following Greek terms:

ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) = Consubstantial

οὐσία (ousia) = substance

ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) = person

Further, I found his explanation concerning those "who profess that the Son of God is of a different person or substance" to be quite excellent—supporting the view that the Son of God owes His existence to both the "person" and "substance" of God the Father (an essential teaching pertaining to the doctrine of the monarchy of God the Father). And concerning the Holy Spirit, one should note there is no hint of the filioque to be found.

Sincerely hope that all find Basil's letter as informative and inspirational as I have.

Grace and peace,

David