1 Luke xi. 10.

2 Prov. xvii. 28, lxx.

3 Is. ii. 3, lxx.

4 Phil. iii. 14.

5 i.e., confessed or denied himself a Christian. The Benedictine Editors and their followers seem to have missed the force of the original, both grammatically and historically, in referring it to the time when St. Basil is writing; h=dh e'&Agra/e\kriqh does not mean "at the present day is judged," but "ere now has been judged." And in a.d. 374 there was no persecution of Christians such as seems to be referred to, although Velens tried to crush the Catholics.

6 Matt. v. 18.

7 Ps. cxix. 85, lxx. "The lawless have described subtilties for me, but not according to thy law, O Lord;" for A.V. & R.V., "The proud have digged pits for me which are not after the y law." The word a'dolesxi/a is used in a bad sense to mean garrulity; in a good sense, keenness, subtilty.

8 It is impossible to convey in English the precise force of the prepositions used. "With" represents 0meta/, of which the original meaning is "amid;" "together with," su/n, of which the original meaning is "at the same time as." The Latin of the Benedictine edition translates the first by "cum," and the second by "una cum." "Through" stands for dia/, which, with the genitive, is used of the instrument; "in" for e'n, "in," but also commonly used of the instrument or means. In the well known passage in 1 Cor. viii. 6, A.V. renders di0 ou\ ra/ pa/nta by "through whom are all things;" R.V., by "bywhom."

9 1 Cor. viii. 6.

10 The story as told by Theodoret (Ecc. Hist. ii. 23) is as follows: "Constantius, on his return from the west, passed some time at Constantinople" (i.e.in 360, when the synod at Constantinople was held, shortly after that of the Isaurian Seleucia, "substance" and "hypostasis" being declared inadmissible terms, and the Son pronounced like the Father according to the Scriptures). The Emperor was urged that "Eudoxuis should be convicted of blasphemy and lawlessness. Constantius however . . . replied that a decision must first be come to on matters concerning the faith, and that afterwards the case of Eudoxius should be enquired into. Basilius (of Ancyra), relying on his former intimacy, ventured boldly to object to the Emperor that he was attacking the apostolic decrees; but Constantius took this ill, and told Basilius to hold his tongue, for to you, said he, the disturbance of the churches is due. When Basilius was silenced, Eustathius (of Sebasteia) intervened and said, Since, sir, you wish a decision to be come to on what concerns the faith, consider the blasphemies uttered against the Only Begotten by Eudoxius; and, as he spoke, he produced the exposition of faith, wherein, besides many other impieties, were found the following expressions: Things that are spoken of in unlike terms are unlike in substance; there is one God the Father of Whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ by Whom are all things. Now the term 'of Whom' is unlike the term 'by Whom;' so the Son is unlike God the Father. Constantius ordered this exposition of the faith to be read, and was displeased with the blasphemy which it involved. He therefore asked Eudoxius if he had drawn it up. Eudoxius instantly repudiated the authorship, and said that it was written by Aetius. Now Aetius . . . at the present time was associated with Eunomius and Eudoxius, and, as he found Eudoxius to be, like himself, a sybarite in luxury as well as a heretic in faith, he chose Antioch as the most congenial place of abode, and both he and Eunomius were fast fixtures at the couches of Eudoxius. . . . TheEmperor had been told all this, and now ordered Aetius to be brought before him. On his appearance, Constantius shewed him the document in question, and proceeded to enquire if he was the author of its language. Aetius, totally ignorant of what had taken place, and unaware of the drift of the enquiry, expected that he should win praise by confession, and owned that he was the author of the phrases in question. Then the Emperor perceived the greatness of his iniquity, and forthwith condemned him to exile and to be deported to a place in Phrygia." St. Basil accompanied Eustathius and his namesake to Constantinople on this occasion, being then only in deacon's orders. (Philost. iv. 12.) Basil of Ancyra and Eusthathius in their turn suffered banishment. Basil, the deacon, returned to the Cappadocian Caesarea.

11 cf. the form of the Arian Creed as given by Eunomius in his 0Apologia (Minge, xxx. 840. "We believe in one God, Father Almighty, of whom are all things; and in one only begotten Son of God, God the word, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things; and I one Holy Ghost, the Comforter, in whom distribution of all grace in proportion as may be most expedient t is made to each of the Saints."

12 cf. Eunomius, Liber. Apol. § 27, where of the Son he says u\poourgoo/j.

13 On the word o!rganon, a tool, as used of the Word of God, cf. Nestorius in Marius Merc. Migne, p. 761 & Cyr. Alex. Ep. 1. Migne, x. 37. "The creature did not give birth to the uncreated, but gave birth to man, organ of Godhead." cf. Thomasius, Christ. Dog. I. 336s.

Mr. Johnston quotes Philo (de Cher. § 35; I. 162. n.) as speaking of oo/rganon de\ lo/gon Qeou= di0 ou\ kateskeua/sqh (sc. o' ko/shooj).

14 Here of course the So is meant.

15 The ambiguity of gender in e'c oou\ and di0 oou\ can only be expressed by giving the alternatives in English.

16 There are four causes or varieties of cause:

1. The essence or quiddity (Form): too\ ti/ h\n ei\nai.

2. The necessitating conditions (Matter): to\ ti/nwn o!ntwn a'na/gkh tou=t0 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:


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.


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.

n 9f0 ou[: i.e., the agent, using means.

di0 ou[:i.e. the means.

di0 o$:i.e., the end.

e\n w[, or sine qua non, applying to all.

17 prokatarktikh\. cf. Plut. 2, 1056. B.D. prokatarktikh\ aiti/a h 9 ei/marme/nh.

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 materies cf. 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.