Prefatory remarks on the need of exact investigation of the most minute portions of watchfulness shewn in the expression of your opinion that of all the terms concerning God in every mode of speech, not one ought to be left without exact investigation. You have turned to good account your reading of the exhortation of the Lord, "Every one that asketh theology.
1. Your desire for information, my right well-beloved and most deeply respected brother Amphilochius, I highly commend, and not less your industrious energy. I have been exceedingly delighted at the care and receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth"hyperlink and by your diligence in asking might, I ween, stir even the most reluctant to give you a share of what they possess. And this in you yet further moves my admiration, that you do not, according to the manners of the most part of the men of our time, propose your questions by way of mere test, but with the honest desire to arrive at the actual truth. There is no lack in these days of captious listeners and questioners; but to find a character desirous of information, and seeking the truth as a remedy for ignorance, is very difficult. Just as in the hunters snare, or in the soldier's ambush, the trick is generally ingeniously concealed, so it is with the inquiries of the majority of the questioners who advance arguments, not so much with the view of getting any good out of them, as in order that, in the event of their failing to elicit answers which chime in with their own desires, they may seem to have fair ground for controversy.
2. If "To the fool on his asking for wisdom, wisdom shall be reckoned,"hyperlink at how high a price shall we value "the wise hearer" who is quoted by the Prophet in the same verse with "the admirable counsellor"?hyperlink It is right, I ween, to hold him worthy of all approbation, and to urge him on to further progress, sharing his enthusiasm, and in all things toiling at his side as he presses onwards to perfection. To count the terms used in theology as of primary importance, and to endeavour to trace out the hidden meaning in every phrase and in every syllable, is a characteristic wanting in those who are idle in the pursuit of true religion, but distinguishing all who get knowledge of "the mark" "of our calling;"hyperlink for what is set before us is, so far as is possible with human nature, to be made like unto God. Now without knowledge there can be no making like; and knowledge is not got without lessons. The beginning of teaching is speech, and syllables and words are parts of speech. It follows then that to investigate syllables is not to shoot wide of the mark, nor, because the questions raised are what might seem to some insignificant, are they on that account to be held unworthy of heed. Truth is always a quarry hard to hunt, and therefore we must look everywhere for its tracks. The acquisition of true religion is just like that of crafts; both grow bit by bit; apprentices must despise nothing. If a man despise the first elements as small and insignificant, he will never reach the perfection of wisdom.
Yea and Nay are but two syllables, yet there is often involved in these little words at once the best of all good things, Truth, and that beyond which wickedness cannot go, a Lie. But why mention Yea and Nay? Before now, a martyr bearing witness for Christ has been judged to have paid in full the claim of true religion by merely nodding his head.hyperlink If, then, this be so, what term in theology is so small but that the effect of its weight in the scales according as it be rightly or wrongly used is not great? Of the law we are told "not one jot nor one tittle shall pass away;"hyperlink how then could it be safe for us to leave even the least unnoticed? The very points which you yourself have sought to have thoroughly sired by us are at the same time both small and great. Their use is the matter of a moment, and peradventure they are therefore made of small account; but, when we reckon the force of their meaning, they are great. They may be likened to the mustard plant which, though it be the least of shrub-seeds, yet when properly cultivated and the forces latent in its germs unfolded, rises to its own sufficient height.
If any one laughs when he sees our subtilty, to use the Psalmist'shyperlink words, about syllables, let him know that he reaps laughter's fruitless fruit; and let us, neither giving in to men's reproaches, nor yet vanquished by their disparagement, continue our investigation. So far, indeed, am I from feeling ashamed of these things because they are small, that, even if I could attain to ever so minute a fraction of their dignity, I should both congratulate myself on having won high honour, and should tell my brother and fellow-investigator that no small gain had accrued to him therefrom.
While, then, I am aware that the controversy contained in little words is a very great one, in hope of the prize I do not shrink from toil, with the conviction that the discussion will both prove profitable to myself, and that my hearers will be rewarded with no small benefit. Wherefore now with the help, if I may so say, of the Holy Spirit Himself, I will approach the exposition of the subject, and, if you will, that I may be put in the way of the discussion, I will for a moment revert to the origin of the question before us.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 the Holy Ghost," and at another "through the Son in the Holy Ghost," I was attacked by some of those present on the ground that I was introducing novel and at the same time mutually contradictory terms.hyperlink You, however, chiefly with the view of benefiting them, or, if they are wholly incurable, for the security of such as may fall in with them, have expressed the opinion that some clear instruction ought to be published concerning the force underlying the syllables employed. I will therefore write as concisely as possible, in the endeavour to lay down some admitted principle for the discussion.
Chapter II
The origin of the heretics' close observation all syllables.
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 it tends a small one. There is involved a deep and covert design against true religion· Their pertinacious contention is to show that the mention of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is unlike, as though they will thence find it easy to demonstrate that there is a variation in nature. They have an old sophism, invented by Aetius, the champion of this heresy, in one of whose Letters there is a passage to the effect that things naturally unlike are expressed in unlike terms, and, conversely, that things expressed in unlike terms are naturally unlike. In proof of this statement he drags in the words of the Apostle, "One God and Father of whom are all things, ... and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things·"hyperlink "Whatever, then," he goes on, "is the relation of these terms to one another, such will be the relation of the natures indicated by them; and as the term `of whom' is unlike the term `by whom,' so is the Father unlike the Son."hyperlink On this heresy depends the idle subtilty of these men about the phrases in question. They accordingly assign to God the Father, as though it were His distinctive portion anti lot, the phrase "of Whom;" to God the Son they confine the phrase "by Whom;" to the Holy Spirit that of "in Whom," and say that this use of the syllables is never interchanged , in order that. as I have already said, the variation of language may indicate the variation of nature.hyperlink Verily it is sufficiently obvious that in their quibbling about the words they are endeavouring to maintain the force of their impious argument.
By the term "of whom" they wish to indicate the Creator; by the term "through whom," the subordinate agenthyperlink or instrument;hyperlink by the term "in whom," or "in which," they mean to shew the time or place. The object of all this is that the Creator of the universehyperlink may be regarded as of no higher dignity than an instrument, and that the Holy Spirit may appear to be adding to existing things nothing more than the contribution derived from place or time.
Chapter III.
The systematic discussion of syllables is derived from heathen philosophy.
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 "through whom" to things which are by nature distinct. These writers suppose that by the term "of whom" or "of which" the matter is indicated, while the term "through whom" or "through which"hyperlink represents the instrument, or, generally speaking, subordinate agency? Or rather-for there seems no reason why we should not take up their whole argument, and briefly expose at once its incompatibility with the truth and its inconsistency with their own teaching-the students of vain philosophy, while expounding the manifold nature of cause and distinguishing its peculiar significations, define some causes as principal,hyperlink some as cooperative or con-causal, while others are of the character of "sine qua non," or indispensable?hyperlink
For every one of these they have a distinct and peculiar use of terms, so that the maker is indicated in a different way from the instrument. For the maker they think the proper expression is "by whom," maintaining that the bench is produced "by" the carpenter; and for the instrument "through which," in that it is produced "through" or by means of adze and gimlet and the rest. Similarly they appropriate "of which" to the material, in that the tiring made is "of" wood, while "according to which" shews the design, or pattern put before the craftsman. For he either first makes a mental sketch, and so brings his fancy to bear upon what he is about, or else he looks at a pattern previously put before him, and arranges his work accordingly. The phrase "on account of which" they wish to be confined to the end or purpose, the bench, as they say, being produced for, or on account of, the use of man. "In which" is supposed to indicate time and place. When was it produced? In this time. And where? In this place. And though place and time contribute nothing to what is being produced, yet without these the production of anything is impossible, for efficient agents must have both place and time. It is these careful distinctions, derived from unpractical philosophy and vain delusion,hyperlink which our opponents have first studied and admired, and then transferred to the simple and unsophisticated doctrine of the Spirit, to the belittling of God the Word, and the setting at naught of the Divine Spirit. Even the phrase set apart by non-Christian writers for the case of lifeless instrumentshyperlink or of manual service of the meanest kind, I mean the expression "through or by means of which," they do not shrink from transferring to the Lord of all, and Christians feel no shame in applying to the Creator of the universe language belonging to a hammer or a saw.
Chapter IV.
That there is no distinction in the scriptural use of these syllables.
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 bondage to the pettiness of Paganism. On the contrary, we maintain that Scripture varies its expressions as occasion requires, according to the circumstances of the case. For instance, the phrase "of which" does not always and absolutely, as they suppose, indicate the material,hyperlink but it is more in accordance with the usage of Scripture to apply this term in the case of the Supreme Cause, as in the words "One God, of whom are all things,"hyperlink and again, "All things of God."hyperlink The word of truth has, however, frequently used this term in the case of the material, as when it says "Thou shalt make an ark of incorruptible wood;"hyperlink and "Thou shall make the candlestick of pure gold ;"hyperlink and "The first man is of the earth, earthy;hyperlink and "Thou art formed out of clay as I am."hyperlink But these men, to the end, as we have already remarked, that they may establish the difference of nature, have laid down the law that this phrase befits the Father alone. This distinction they have originally derived from heathen authorities, but here they have shewn no faithful accuracy of limitation. To the Son they have in conformity with the teaching of their masters given the title of instrument, and to the Spirit that of place, for they say in the Spirit, and through the Son. But when they apply "of whom" to God they no longer follow heathen example, but "go over, as they say, to apostolic usage, as it is said, "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus,"hyperlink and "All things of God."hyperlink What, then, is the result of this systematic discussion? There is one nature of Cause; another of Instrument; another of Place. So the Son is by nature distinct from the Father, as the tool from the craftsman; and the Spirit is distinct in so far as place or time is distinguished from the nature of tools or from that of them that handle them.
Chapter V
That "through whom" is said also in thecase of the Father, and "of whom" in the case of the San and of the Spirit.
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 take "of whom" and then abandon "through whom" to the Son; and that there is no truth in these men's ruling that the Son refuses to admit the Holy Spirit to a share in "of whom" or in "through whom," according to the limitation of their new-fangled allotment of phrases. "There is one God and Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things."hyperlink
Yes; but these are the words of a writer not laying down a rule, but carefully distinguishing the hypostases.hyperlink
The object of the apostle in thus writing was not to introduce the diversity of nature, but to exhibit the notion of Father and of Son as unconfounded. That the phrases are not opposed to one another and do not, like squadrons in war marshalled one against another, bring the natures to which they are applied into mutual conflict, is perfectly, plain from the passage in question. The blessed Paul brings both phrases to bear upon one and the same subject, in the words "of him and through him and to him are all things."hyperlink That this plainly refers to the Lord will be admitted even by a reader paying but small attention to the meaning of the words. The apostle has just quoted from the prophecy of Isaiah, "Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor,hyperlink and then goes on, "For of him and from him and to him are all things." That the prophet is speaking about God the Word, the Maker of all creation, may be learnt from what immediately precedes: "Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him?"hyperlink Now the word "who" in this passage does not mean absolute impossibility, but rarity, as in the passage "Who will rise up for me against the evil doers?"hyperlink and "What man is he that desireth life?"hyperlink and "Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord?"hyperlink So is it in the passage in question, "Who hath directed [lxx., known] the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath known him?" "For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things."hyperlink This is He who holds the earth, and hath grasped it with His hand. who brought all things to order and adornment, who poisedhyperlink the hills in their places, and measured the waters, and gave to all things in the universe their proper rank, who encompasseth the whole of heaven with but a small portion of His power, which, in a figure, the prophet calls a span. Well then did the apostle add "Of him and through him and to him are all things."hyperlink For of Him, to all things that are, comes the cause of their being, according to the will of God the Father. Through Him all things have their continuancehyperlink and constitution,hyperlink for He created all things, and metes out to each severally what is necessary for its health and preservation. Wherefore to Him all things are turned, looking with irresistible longing and unspeakable affection to "the arthur"hyperlink and maintainer" of" their "life," as it is written "The eyes of all wait upon thee,"hyperlink and again, "These wait all upon thee,"hyperlink and "Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing."hyperlink
8. But if our adversaries oppose this our interpretation, what argument will save them from being caught in their own trap?
For if they will not grant that the three expressions "of him" and "through him" and "to him" are spoken of the Lord, they cannot but be applied to God the Father. Then without question their rule will fall through, for we find not only "of whom," but also "through whom" applied to the Father. And if this latter phrase indicates nothing derogatory, why in the world should it be confined, as though conveying the sense of inferiority, to the Son? If it always and everywhere implies, ministry, let them tell us to what superior the God of gloryhyperlink and Father of the Christ is subordinate.
They are thus overthrown by their own selves, while our position will be on both sides made sure. Suppose it proved that the passage refers to the Son, "of whom" will be found applicable to the Son. Suppose on the other hand it be insisted that the prophet's words relate to God, then it will be granted that "through whom" is properly used of God, and both phrases have equal value, in that both are used with equal force of God. Under either alternative both terms, being employed of one and the same Person, will be shewn to be equivalent. But let us revert to our subject.
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 Christ; from whom the whole body filly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body."hyperlink
And again in the Epistle to the Colossians, to them that have not the knowledge of the Only Begotten, there is mention of him that holdeth "the head," that is, Christ, "from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered increaseth with the increase of God."hyperlink And that Christ is the head of the Church we have learned in another passage, when the apostle says "gave him to be the head over all things to the Church,"hyperlink and "of his fulness have all we received."hyperlink And the Lord Himself says "He shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."hyperlink In a word, the diligent reader will perceive that "of whom" is used in diverse manners.hyperlink For instance, the Lord says, "I perceive that virtue is gone out of me."hyperlink Similarly we have frequently observed "of whom" used of the Spirit. "He that soweth to the spirit," it is said, "shall of the spirit reap life ever!asting."hyperlink John too writes, "Hereby we know that he abideth in ns by(e0k) the spirit which he hath given us."hyperlink "That which is conceived in her," says the angel, "is of the Holy Ghost,"hyperlink and the Lord says "that which is born of the spirit is spirit."hyperlink Such then is the case so far.
10. It must now be pointed out that the phrase "through whom" is admitted by cripture in the case of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost alike. It would indeed be tedious to bring forward evidence of this in the case of the Son, not only because it is perfectly well known, but because this very point is made by our opponents. We now show that "through whom" is used also in the case of the Father. "God is faithful," it is said, "by whom (di' ou\) ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son,"hyperlink and "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ by (dia/) the will of God;" and again, "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God."hyperlink And "like as Christ was raised up from the dead by (dia/) the glory of God the Father."hyperlink Isaiah, moreover, says, "Woe unto them that make deep counsel and not through the Lord; "hyperlink and many proofs of the use of this phrase in the-case of the Spirit might be adduced. "God hath revealed him to us," it is said, "by (dia/) the spirit;"hyperlink and in another place, "That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by (dia/) the Holy Ghost;"hyperlink and again, "To one is given by (dia/) the spirit the word of wisdom."hyperlink
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 said through (e0n) God we shall do valiantly,hyperlink and, "My praise shall be Continually of (e0n) thee;"hyperlink and again, "In thy name will I rejoice."hyperlink In Paul we read, "In God who created all things,"hyperlink and, I "Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father; "hyperlink and "if now at length I might have a prosperous journey by (e0n) the will of God to come to you;"hyperlink and, "Thou makest thy boast of God."hyperlink Instances are indeed too numerous to reckon; but what we want is not so much to exhibit an abundance of evidence as to prove that the conclusions of our opponents are unsound. I shall, therefore, omit any proof of this usage in the case of our Lord and of the Holy Ghost, in that it is notorious. But I cannot forbear to remark that "the wise hearer" will find sufficient proof of the proposition before him by following the method of contraries. For if the difference of language indicates, as we are told, that the nature has been changed, then let identity of language compel our adversaries to confess with shame that the essence is unchanged.
12. And it is not only in the case of the theology that the use of the terms varies,hyperlink but whenever one of the terms takes the meaning of the other we find them frequently transferred from the one subject to the other. As, for instance, Adam says, "I have gotten a man through God,"hyperlink meaning to say the same as from God; and in another passage "Moses commanded ... Israel through the word of the Lord,"hyperlink and, again, "Is not the interpretation through God?"hyperlink Joseph, discoursing about dreams to the prisoners, instead of saying "from God" says plainly "through God." Inversely Paul uses the term "from whom" instead of "through whom," when he says "made from a woman" (A.V., "of" instead of "through a woman").hyperlink And this he has plainly distinguished in another passage, where he says that it is proper to a woman to be made of the man, and to a man to be made through the woman, in the words "For as the woman is from [A.V., of] the man, even so is the man also through [A.V., by] the woman."hyperlink Nevertheless in the passage in question the apostle, while illustrating the variety of usage, at the same time corrects obiter the error of those who supposed that the body of the Lord was a spiritual body,hyperlink and, to shew that the God-bearinghyperlink flesh was formed out of the common lumphyperlink of human nature, gave precedence to the more emphatic preposition.
The phrase "through a woman" would be likely to give rise to the suspicion of mere transit in the generation, while the phrase "of the woman" would satisfactorily indicate that the nature was shared by the mother and the offspring. The apostle was in no wise contradicting himself, but he shewed that the words can without difficulty be interchanged. Since, therefore, the term "from whom" is transferred to the identical subjects in the case of which "through whom" is decided to be properly used, with what consistency can these phrases be invariably distinguished one from the other, in order that fault may be falsely found with true religion?
Chapter VI
Issue joined with those who assert that the Son is not with the Father, but after the Father. Also concerning the equal glory.
13. Our opponents, while they thus artfully and perversely encounter our argument, cannot even have recourse to the plea of ignorance. It is obvious that they are annoyed with us for completing the doxology to the Only Begotten together with the Father, and for not separating the Holy Spirit from the Son. On this account they style us innovators, revolutionizers, phrase-coiners, and every other possible name of insult. But so far am I from being irritated at their abuse, that, were it not for the fact that their loss causes me "heaviness and continual sorrow,"hyperlink I could almost have said that I was grateful to them for the blasphemy, as though they were agents for providing me with blessing. For "blessed are ye," it is said, "when men shall revile you for my sake."hyperlink The grounds of their indignation are these: The Son, according to them, is not together with the Father, but after the Father. Hence it follows that glory should be ascribed to the Father "through him," but not "with him;" inasmuch as "with him" expresses equality of dignity, while "through him" denotes subordination. They further assert that the Spirit is not to be ranked along with the Father and the Son, but under the Son and the Father; not coordinated, but subordinated; not connumerated, but subnumerated.hyperlink
With technical terminology of this kind they pervert the simplicity and artlessness of the faith, and thus by their ingenuity, suffering no one else to remain in ignorance, they cut off from themselves the plea that ignorance might demand.
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 in time no one is so devoid of sense as to assert that the Maker of the ageshyperlink holds a second place, when no interval intervenes in the natural conjunction of the Father with the Son.hyperlink And indeed so far as our conception of human relations goes,hyperlink it is impossible to think of the Son as being later than the Father, not only from the fact that Father and Son are mutually conceived of in accordance with the relationship subsisting between them, but because posteriority in time is predicated of subjects separated by a less interval from the present, and priority of subjects farther off. For instance, what happened in Noah's time is prior to what happened to the men of Sodom, inasmuch as Noah is more remote from our own day; and, again, the events of the history of the men of Sodom are posterior, because they seem in a sense to approach nearer to our own day. But, in addition to its being a breach of true religion, is it not really the extremest folly to measure the existence of the life which transcends all time and all the ages by its distance from the present? Is it not as though God the Father could be compared with, and be made superior to, God the Son, who exists before the ages, precisely in the same way in which things liable to beginning and corruption are described as prior to one another?
The superior remoteness of the Father is really inconceivable, in that thought and intelligence are wholly impotent to go beyond the generation of the Lord; and St. John has admirably confined the conception within circumscribed boundaries by two words, "In the beginning was the Word." For thought cannot travel outside "was," nor imaginationhyperlink beyond "beginning." Let your thought travel ever so far backward you cannot get beyond the "was," and however you may strain and strive to see what is beyond the Son, you will find it impossible to get further than the "beginning ". True religion, therefore, thus teaches us to think of the Son together with the Father.
Footnotes
1. The essence or quiddity (Form): too\ ti/ h\n ei\nai.
3. The proximate mover or stimulator of change (Efficient): h 9 ti/ prw=ton e'ki/nhse.
4. That for the sake of which (Final Cause or End): to\ ti/noj e!neka. Grote's Aristotle, I. 354.
The four Aristotelian cause are thus: 1. Formal. 2. Material. 3. Efficient. 4. Final. cf. Arist. Analyt. Post. II. xi., Metaph. I. iii., and Phys. II. iii. The six causes of Basil may be referred to the four of Aristotle as follows:
Aristotle.
1. to\ ti/ h\n ei\nai.
2. to\ e'c ou[ gi/netai ti.
3. h 9 a'rxh\ th=j metabolh=j n 9 prw/th.
4. to\ ou\ e!nexa.
Basil
kaq0 o$: i.e., the form or idea according to whicha thing is made.
e'c on[: i.e., the matter out of which it is made.
18 cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. viii. 9."Of causes some are principal, some preservative, some coöperative, some indispensable; e.g. of education the principal cause is the father; the preservative, the schoolmaster; the coöperative, the disposition of the pupil; the indispensable, time."
19 e'k th=j mataio/thtoj kai\ ke/h=j a'pa/thj.
cf. mataio/thj mataioth/twn, "vanity of vanities," Ecc. I. 2, lxx. In Arist. Eth. I. 2, a desire is said to be kenh\ kai\ matai/a, which goes into infinity, - everything being desired for the sake of something else, - i.e., kenh, void, like a desire for the moon, and matai/a, unpractical, like a desire for the empire of China. In the text mataio/thj seems to mean heathen philosophy, a vain delusion as distinguished from Christian philosophy.
20 a!yuxa o$rlana. A slave, according to tle, Eth. Nich. viii. 7, 6e!myuxon o!ryanon.
21 u$lhreign =Lat. materiesn, from the same root as matter whence Eng. material and matter. (u!lh, #\l&igra/e\a, is the same word as sylva=wood. With materiescf. Maderia, from the Portuguese "madera" =timber.)
The word u@lh in Plato bears the same signification s in ordinary speech: it means wood, timber, and sometimes generally material. The later philosophic application of the word to signify the abstract conception of material substratum is expressed by Plato, so far as he has that concept at all, in other ways." Ed. Zeller. Plato and the older Academy, ii. 296. Similarly Basil uses ulh. As a technical philosophic term for abstract matter, it is first used by Aristotle.
22 1 Cor. viii. 6.
23 1 Cor. xi. 12.
24 Ex. xxv. 10, LXX. A.V. "shittim." R. V. "acacia." St. Ambrose (de Spiritu Sancto, ii. 9) seems, say the Benedictine Editor, to have here misunderstood St. Basil's argument. St. Basil is accusing the Pneumatomachi not of tracing all things to God as the material "of which," but of unduly limiting the use of the term "of which" to the Father alone.
25 Ex. xxv. 31.
26 1 Cor. xv. 47.
27 Job xxxiii, 6, LXX.
28 1 Cor. I. 30.
29 1 Cor. xi. 12.
30 1 Cor. viii. 6.
31 If Catholic Theology does not owe to St. Basil the distinction between the connotations of ou'si/a and u 9po/stasij which soon prevailed over the identification obtaining at the time of the Nicene Council, at all events his is the first and most famous assertion and defence of it. At Nicaea, in 325, to have spoken of St. Paul as "distinguishing the hypostases" would have been held impious. Some forty-five years later St. Basil writes to his brother, Gregory of Nyssa (Ep. xxxviii.), in fear lest Gregory should fall into the error of failing to distinguish between hypostasis and ousia, between person and essence. cf. Theodoret Dial. I. 7, and my note on his Ecc. Hist. I. 3.
32 Rom. xi. 36.
33 Rom. xi. 34, and Is. xl. 13.
34 Is. xl. 12, 13.
35 Ps. xciv. 16.
36 Ps. xxxiv. 12.
37 Ps. xxiv. 3.
38 John v. 20.
39 isor\r 9opi/a.. cf. Plat. Phaed. 109, A.
40 Rom. xi. 38.
41 diamonh/. cf. Arist. De Sp. I. 1.
42 cf. Col. I. 16, 17.
43 Acts iii. 15.
44 Ps. cxlv. 15.
45 Ps. civ. 27.
46 Ps. cxlv. 16.
47 Ps. xxix. 3; Acts vii. 2.
48 Eph. iv. 15, 16.
49 Col. ii. 19.
50 Eph. I. 22.
51 John I. 16.
52 John xvi. 15
53 polu/tropoi. Cf. the cognate adverb in Heb. I. 1.
54 "e'c e'mou=." The reading in St. Luke (viii. 46) is a'p0 e'mou=. In the parallel passage, Mark v. 30, the words are, "Jesus knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, " e'c au'tou\ which D. inserts in Luke viii. 45.
55 Gal. vi. 8.
56 1 John iii. 24.
57 Matt. I. 20.
58 John iii. 6.
59 1 Cor. I. 9.
60 Gal. iv. 7. A.V. reads "an heir of God through Christ;" so NCD. R.V. with the copy used by Basil agrees with A.B.
61 Rom. vi.4. It is pointed out by the Rev. C.F.H. Johnston in his edition of the De Spiritu that among quotations from the New Testament on the point in question, St. Basil has omitted Heb. ii. 10, "It became him for whom (di0 o@u) are all things and through whom (di0 ou[) are all things," "where the Father is described as being the final Cause and efficient Cause of all things."
62 Is. xxix. 15, lxx.
63 1 Cor. ii. 10.
64 2 Tim. I. 14.
65 1 Cor. xii. 8.
66 Ps. cvii. 13.
67 Ps. lxxi. 6.
68 For "shall they rejoice," Ps. lxxxix. 16.
69 Eph. iii. 9.
70 2 Thess. i. 1.
71 Rom. i. 10.
72 Rom. ii. 17.
73 According to patristic usage the word "theology" is concerned with all that relates to the divine and eternal nature of Christ, as distinguished form the oi'konomi/a, which relates to the incarnation, and consequent redemption of mankind. cf. Bishop's Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers, Part II. Vol. ii. p. 75, and Newman's Arians, Chapter I. Section iii.
74 Gen. iv. 1, lxx. A.V. renders "she conceived and bare Cain and said," and here St. Basil has been accused of quoting from memory. But in the Greek of the lxx. the subject to ei\pen is not expressed, and a possible construction of the sentence is to refer it to Adam. In his work adv. Eunom. ii. 20, St. Basil again refers the exclamation to Adam.
75 Num. xxxvi. 5, lxx.
76 Gen. xl. I, lxx.
77 Gal. iv. 4.
78 1 Cor. xi. 12.
79 The allusion is to the Docetae. cf. Luke xxiv. 39.
80 The note of the Benedictine Editors remarks that the French theologian Fronton du Duc (Ducaeus) accuses Theodoret (on Cyril's Anath. vii.) of misquoting St. Basil as writing here "God-bearing man" instead of "God bearing flesh," a term of different signification and less open as a Nestorian interpretation. "God-bearing," qeofo/roj, was an epithet applied to mere men, as, for instance, St. Ignatius. So Clement of Alexandria, 1. Strom. p. 318, and Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. xxxvii. p. 609. St. Basil does use the expression Jesus Christ a#qrwpon Qeo/n in Hom. on Ps. xlix.
81 fuoama.
82 cf. Rom. ix. 2.
83 Matt. v. 11.
84 u 9pota/ssw.cf. 1 Cor. xv. 27, and inf. cf. chapter xvii. u 9potetagme/noj is applied to the Son in the Macrostich or Lengthly Creed, brought by Eudoxius of Germanicia to Milan in 344. Vide Soc. ii. 19.
85 poihth\j tw=n ai'w/nwn.
86 Yet the great watchword of the Arians was h[n pote o!te ou'k h\n.
87 th= e'nnoi/a tw=n a'nqrwpwn, with the sense of "'in human thought."
