Chapter I.

Prefatory remarks on the need of exact investigation of the most minute portions of 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 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 receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth,”

Luke xi. 10.

2.  If “To the fool on his asking for wisdom, wisdom shall be reckoned,”

Prov. xvii. 28, lxx.

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.

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; ἤδη ἐκρίθη 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 Valens tried to crush the Catholics.

If any one laughs when he sees our subtilty, to use the Psalmist’s

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 thy law.”  The word ἀδολεσχία is used in a bad sense to mean garrulity; in a good sense, keenness, subtilty.

Chapter II.

The origin of the heretics’ close observation of 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.”

1 Cor. viii. 6.

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”

The ambiguity of gender in ἐξ οὗ and δι᾽ οὗ can only be expressed by giving the alternatives in English.

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 thing 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,

ἐκ τῆς ματαιότητος καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης.

cf. ματαιότης ματαιοτήτων, “vanity of vanities,” Ecc. i. 2, lxx.  In Arist. Eth. i. 2, a desire is said to be κενὴ καὶ ματαία, which goes into infinity,—everything being desired for the sake of something else,—i.e., κενη, void, like a desire for the moon, and ματαία, unpractical, like a desire for the empire of China.  In the text ματαιότης seems to mean heathen philosophy, a vain delusion as distinguished from Christian philosophy.

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,

ὕλη=Lat. materies, from the same root as mater, whence Eng. material and matter.  (ὕλη, ὕλFα, is the same word as sylva=wood.  With materies cf. Madeira, from the Portuguese “madera”=timber.)

“The word ὕλη in Plato bears the same signification as 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 ὕλη.  As a technical philosophic term for abstract matter, it is first used by Aristotle.

Chapter V.

That “through whom” is said also in the case of the Father, and “of whom” in the case of the Son 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.”

1 Cor. viii. 6.

Yes; but these are the words of a writer not laying down a rule, but carefully distinguishing the hypostases.

If Catholic Theology does not owe to St. Basil the distinction between the connotations of οὐσία and ὑπόστασις 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 Nicæa, 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.

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.”

Rom. xi. 36.

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,”

cf. Rom. ix. 2.

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 ages

ποιητὴς τῶν αἰ& 240·νων.

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 imagination

Φαντασία is the philosophic term for imagination or presentation, the mental faculty by which the object made apparent, φάντασμα, becomes apparent, φαίνεται.  Aristotle, de An. III. iii. 20 defines it as “a movement of the mind generated by sensation.”  Fancy, which is derived from φαντασία (φαίνω, ÖBHA=shine) has acquired a slightly different meaning in some usages of modern speech.

Chapter VII.

Against those who assert that it is not proper for “with whom” to be said of the Son, and that the proper phrase is “through whom.”

16.  But their contention is that to use the phrase “with him” is altogether strange and unusual, while “through him” is at once most familiar in Holy Scripture, and very common in the language of the brotherhood.

The word ἀδελφότης is in the New Testament peculiar to S. Peter (1 Peter ii. 17, and v. 9); it occurs in the Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, Chap. ii.

It follows that the one phrase “with whom” is the proper one to be used in the ascription of glory, while the other, “through whom,” is specially appropriate in giving of thanks.  It is also quite untrue to allege that the phrase “with whom” is unfamiliar in the usage of the devout.  All those whose soundness of character leads them to hold the dignity of antiquity to be more honourable than mere new-fangled novelty, and who have preserved the tradition of their fathers

cf. Gal. i. 14.

What our fathers said, the same say we, that the glory of the Father and of the Son is common; wherefore we offer the doxology to the Father with the Son.  But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid before you.  For “the brightness” is always thought of with “the glory,”

Heb. i. 1.  cf. Aug. Ep. ii. ad Serap.:  “The Father is Light, and the Son brightness and true light.”

Chapter VIII.

In how many ways “Throughwhom” is used; and in what sense “with whom” is more suitable.  Explanation of how the Son receives a commandment, and how He is sent.

17.  When, then, the apostle “thanks God through Jesus Christ,”

Rom. i. 8.

So He says, “By me if any man enter in, he shall go in and out and shall find pastare.”

John x. 9.

Chapter IX.

Definitive conceptions about the Spirit which conform to the teaching of the Scriptures.

22.  Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture concerning It as those which we have received from the unwritten tradition of the Fathers.  First of all we ask, who on hearing the titles of the Spirit is not lifted up in soul, who does not raise his conception to the supreme nature?  It is called “Spirit of God,”

Matt. xii. 28, etc.

23.  Now the Spirit is not brought into intimate association with the soul by local approximation.  How indeed could there be a corporeal approach to the incorporeal?  This association results from the withdrawal of the passions which, coming afterwards gradually on the soul from its friendship to the flesh, have alienated it from its close relationship with God.  Only then after a man is purified from the shame whose stain he took through his wickedness, and has come back again to his natural beauty, and as it were cleaning the Royal Image and restoring its ancient form, only thus is it possible for him to draw near to the Paraclete.

cf. Theodoret, Dial. i. p. 164, Schaff and Wace’s ed. “Sin is not of nature, but of corrupt will.”  So the ninth article of the English Church describes it as not the nature, but the “fault and corruption of the nature, of every man.”  On the figure of the restored picture cf. Ath. de Incar. § 14, and Theod. Dial. ii. p. 183.

Chapter X.

Against those who say that it is not right to rank the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.

24.  But we must proceed to attack our opponents, in the endeavour to confute those “oppositions” advanced against us which are derived from “knowledge falsely so-called.”

1 Tim. vi. 20.  The intellectual championship of Basil was chiefly asserted in the vindication of the consubstantiality of the Spirit, against the Arians and Semi-Arians, of whom Euonomius and Macedonius were leaders, the latter giving his name to the party who were unsound on the third Person of the Trinity, and were Macedonians as well as Pneumatomachi.  But even among the maintainers of the Nicene confession there was much less clear apprehension of the nature and work of the Spirit than of the Son.  Even so late as 380, the year after St. Basil’s death, Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. xxxi. de Spiritu Sancto, Cap. 5, wrote “of the wise on our side some held it to be an energy, some a creature, some God.  Others, from respect, they say, to Holy Scripture, which lays down no law on the subject, neither worship nor dishonour the Holy Spirit.”  cf. Schaff’s Hist. of Christian Ch. III. Period, Sec. 128.  In Letter cxxv. of St. Basil will be found a summary of the heresies with which he credited the Arians, submitted to Eusthathius of Sebaste in 373, shortly before the composition of the present treatise for Amphilochius.

It is not permissible, they assert, for the Holy Spirit to be ranked with the Father and Son, on account of the difference of His nature and the inferiority of His dignity.  Against them it is right to reply in the words of the apostles, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

Acts v. 29.

For if our Lord, when enjoining the baptism of salvation, charged His disciples to baptize all nations in the name “of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,”

Matt. xxviii. 19.

If the Lord did not indeed conjoin the Spirit with the Father and Himself in baptism, do not

μηδέ.  The note of the Ben. Eds. is, “this reading, followed by Erasmus, stirs the wrath of Combefis, who would read, as is found in four mss., τότε ἡμῖν, ‘then let them lay the blame on us.’  But he is quite unfair to Erasmus, who has more clearly apprehended the drift of the argument.  Basil brings his opponents to the dilemma that the words ‘In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ either do or do not assert a conjunction with the Father and the Son.  If not, Basil ought not to be found fault with on the score of ‘conjunction,’ for he abides by the words of Scripture, and conjunction no more follows from his words than from those of our Lord.  If they do, he cannot be found fault with for following the words of Scripture.  The attentive reader will see this to be the meaning of Basil, and the received reading ought to be retained.”

25.  But all the apparatus of war has been got ready against us; every intellectual missile is aimed at us; and now blasphemers’ tongues shoot and hit and hit again, yet harder than Stephen of old was smitten by the killers of the Christ.

Χριστοφόνοι.  The compound occurs in Ps. Ignat. ad Philad. vi.

Chapter XI.

That they who deny the Spirit are transgressors.

27.  “Who hath woe?  Who hath sorrow?”

Prov. xxiii. 29.

Chapter XII.

Against those who assert that the baptism in the name of the Father alone is sufficient.

28.  Let no one be misled by the fact of the apostle’s frequently omitting the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit when making mention of baptism, or on this account imagine that the invocation of the names is not observed.  “As many of you,” he says, “as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ;”

Gal. iii. 27, R.V.

“For into one Spirit,”

Sic.

Chapter XIII.

Statement of the reason why in the writings of Paul the angels are associated with the Father and the Son.

29.  It is, however, objected that other beings which are enumerated with the Father and the Son are certainly not always glorified together with them.  The apostle, for instance, in his charge to Timothy, associates the angels with them in the words, “I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels.”

1 Tim. v. 21.

Chapter XIV.

Objection that some were baptized unto Moses and believed in him, and an answer to it; with remarks upon types.

31.  But even if some are baptized unto the Spirit, it is not, it is urged, on this account right for the Spirit to be ranked with God.  Some “were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”

1 Cor. x. 2.

Chapter XV.

Reply to the suggested objection that we are baptized “into water.”  Also concerning baptism.

34.  What more?  Verily, our opponents are well equipped with arguments.  We are baptized, they urge, into water, and of course we shall not honour the water above all creation, or give it a share of the honour of the Father and of the Son.  The arguments of these men are such as might be expected from angry disputants, leaving no means untried in their attack on him who has offended them, because their reason is clouded over by their feelings.  We will not, however, shrink from the discussion even of these points.  If we do not teach the ignorant, at least we shall not turn away before evil doers.  But let us for a moment retrace our steps.

35.  The dispensation of our God and Saviour concerning man is a recall from the fall and a return from the alienation caused by disobedience to close communion with God.  This is the reason for the sojourn of Christ in the flesh, the pattern life described in the Gospels, the sufferings, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection; so that the man who is being saved through imitation of Christ receives that old adoption.  For perfection of life the imitation of Christ is necessary, not only in the example of gentleness,

ἀοργησία in Arist. Eth. iv. 5, 5, is the defect where meekness (πραότης) is the mean.  In Plutarch, who wrote a short treatise on it, it is a virtue.  In Mark iii. 5, Jesus looked round on them “with anger,” μετ᾽ ὀργῆς, but in Matt. xi. 29, He calls Himself πρᾷος.

Chapter XVI.

That the Holy Spirit is in every conception inseparable from the Father and the Son, alike in the creation of perceptible objects, in the dispensation of human affairs, and in the judgment to come.

37.  Let us then revert to the point raised from the outset, that in all things the Holy Spirit is inseparable and wholly incapable of being parted from the Father and the Son.  St. Paul, in the passage about the gift of tongues, writes to the Corinthians, “If ye all prophesy and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all; and thus are the secrets of the heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God and report that God is in you of a truth.”

1 Cor. xiv. 24, 25.

38.  Moreover, from the things created at the beginning may be learnt the fellowship of the Spirit with the Father and the Son.  The pure, intelligent, and supermundane powers are and are styled holy, because they have their holiness of the grace given by the Holy Spirit.  Accordingly the mode of the creation of the heavenly powers is passed over in Silence, for the historian of the cosmogony has revealed to us only the creation of things perceptible by sense.  But do thou, who hast power from the things that are seen to form an analogy of the unseen, glorify the Maker by whom all things were made, visible and invisible, principalities and powers, authorities, thrones, and dominions, and all other reasonable natures whom we cannot name.

cf. Col. i. 16.

Chapter XVII.

Against those who say that the Holy Ghost is not to be numbered with, but numbered under, the Father and the Son.  Wherein moreover there is a summary notice of the faith concerning right sub-numeration.

41.  What, however, they call sub-numeration,

“The word was used as a quasi philosophical term to express the doctrine quoted by St. Basil, in § 13:  it does not occur in the confession of Eunomius, which was prepared after this book, a.d. 382; but it was used by him in his Liber Apologeticus (before a.d. 365) against which St. Basil wrote.”  Rev. C.F.H. Johnston.  For “ὑπαρίθμησις” the only authorities given by the lexicons are “ecclesiastical.”  But the importation from the “wisdom of the world” implies use in heathen philosophy.

42.  What is it that they maintain?  Look at the terms of their imposture.  “We assert that connumeration is appropriate to subjects of equal dignity, and sub-numeration to those which vary in the direction of inferiority.”  “Why,” I rejoined, “do you say this?  I fail to understand your extraordinary wisdom.  Do you mean that gold is numbered with gold, and that lead is unworthy of the connumeration, but, because of the cheapness of the material, is subnumerated to gold?  And do you attribute so much importance to number as that it can either exalt the value of what is cheap, or destroy the dignity of what is valuable?  Therefore, again, you will number gold under precious stones, and such precious stones as are smaller and without lustre under those which are larger and brighter in colour.  But what will not be said by men who spend their time in nothing else but either ‘to tell or to hear some new thing’?

Acts xvii. 21.

43.  Do you maintain that the Son is numbered under the Father, and the Spirit under the Son, or do you confine your sub-numeration to the Spirit alone?  If, on the other hand, you apply this sub-numeration also to the Son, you revive what is the same impious doctrine, the unlikeness of the substance, the lowliness of rank, the coming into being in later time, and once for all, by this one term, you will plainly again set circling all the blasphemies against the Only-begotten.  To controvert these blasphemies would be a longer task than my present purpose admits of; and I am the less bound to undertake it because the impiety has been refuted elsewhere to the best of my ability.

i.e. in the second book of his work against Eunomius.

Chapter XVIII.

In what manner in the confession of the three hypostases we preserve the pious dogma of the Monarchia.  Wherein also is the refutation of them that allege that the Spirit is subnumerated.

The term Μοναρχία first acquired importance in patristic literature in Justin’s work De monarchia, against Polytheism.  Of the lost letter of Irenæus to the Roman Presbyter Florinus, who was deposed for heresy, presumably gnostic, the title, according to Eusebius (H.E. v. 20), was περὶ Μοναρχίας, ἢ περὶ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι τὸν θεὸν ποιητὴν κακῶν.  Later it came to be used to express not the Divine unity as opposed to Polytheism or Oriental Dualism, but the Divine unity as opposed to Tritheism.  Vide the words of Dionysius of Rome, as quoted by Athan. De Decretis, § 26, “Next let me turn to those who cut in pieces, divide, and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the church of God, the divine Monarchy, making it, as it were, three powers and divided subsistences and three godheads.”  So St. Basil Cont. Eunom. ii. ᾽Αρχὴ μὲν οὖν πατρὸς οὐδεμία, ἀρχὴ δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ ὁ πατήρ.  And in Ep. xxxviii. ᾽Αλλά τίς ἐστι δύναμις ἀγεννήτως καὶ ἀνάρχως ὑφεοτῶσα ἥτις ἐςτὶν αἰτία τῆς ἁπάντων τῶν ὄντων αἰτίας, ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ πατρὸς ὁ υἱ& 232·ς δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα.  And in Ep. cxxv. Ενα γὰρ οἴδαμεν ἀγέννητον καὶ μίαν τῶν πάντων ἀρχὴν, τὸν πατέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.  On the doctrine and its exponents compare § 72 of the De Sp. S.

On the other hand “Monarchians” was a name connoting heresy when applied to those who pushed the doctrine of the Unity to an extreme, involving denial of a Trinity.  Of these, among the more noteworthy were Paul of Samosata, bp. of Antioch, who was deposed in 269, a representative of thinkers who have been called dynamical monarchians, and Praxeas (supposed by some to be a nickname), who taught at Rome in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and of whom Tertullian, the originator of the term patripassians, as applied to Monarchians, wrote “Paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit.”  This heretical Monarchianism culminated in Sabellius, the “most original, ingenious, and profound of the Monarchians.”  Schaff. Hist. Chr. Church, i. 293.  cf. Gisseler, i. p. 127, Harnack’s Monarchianismus in Herzog’s Real Encyclopædie, Vol. x.  Thomasius Dog. Gesch. i. p. 179, and Fialon Et. Hist. p. 241.

44.  In delivering the formula of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,

Matt. xxviii. 19.

45.  For we do not count by way of addition, gradually making increase from unity to multitude, and saying one, two, and three,—nor yet first, second, and third.  For “I,” God, “am the first, and I am the last.”

Is. xliv. 6.

46.  And it is not from this source alone that our proofs of the natural communion are derived, but from the fact that He is moreover said to be “of God;”

2 Cor. i. 12.

47.  And when, by means of the power that enlightens us, we fix our eyes on the beauty of the image of the invisible God, and through the image are led up to the supreme beauty of the spectacle of the archetype, then, I ween, is with us inseparably the Spirit of knowledge, in Himself bestowing on them that love the vision of the truth the power of beholding the Image, not making the exhibition from without, but in Himself leading on to the full knowledge.  “No man knoweth the Father save the Son.”

Matt. xi. 27, “οὐδεὶς οἶδε τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ Υἱ& 231·ς” substituted for “οὐ δὲ τὸν πατέρα τὶς ἐπιγνώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ Υἱ& 231·ς.”

Chapter XIX.

Against those who assert that the Spirit ought not to be glorified.

48.  “Be it so,” it is rejoined, “but glory is by no means so absolutely due to the Spirit as to require His exaltation by us in doxologies.”  Whence then could we get demonstrations of the dignity of the Spirit, “passing all understanding,”

Phil. iv. 7.

49.  And His operations, what are they?  For majesty ineffable, and for numbers innumerable.  How shall we form a conception of what extends beyond the ages?  What were His operations before that creation whereof we can conceive?  How great the grace which He conferred on creation?  What the power exercised by Him over the ages to come?  He existed; He pre-existed; He co-existed with the Father and the Son before the ages.  It follows that, even if you can conceive of anything beyond the ages, you will find the Spirit yet further above and beyond.  And if you think of the creation, the powers of the heavens were established by the Spirit,

cf. Ps. xxxiii. 6.

It is the Spirit which says, as the Lord says, “Get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing:  for I have sent them.”

Acts x. 20.

50.  But, it is said that “He maketh intercession for us.”

Rom. viii. 26, 27.

Chapter XX.

Against those who maintain that the Spirit is in the rank neither of a servant nor of a master, but in that of the free.

51.  He is not a slave, it is said; not a master, but free.  Oh the terrible insensibility, the pitiable audacity, of them that maintain this!  Shall I rather lament in them their ignorance or their blasphemy?  They try to insult the doctrines that concern the divine nature

τὰ τῆς θεολογίας δόγματα.  cf. note on § 66.

Chapter XXI.

Proof from Scripture that the Spirit is called Lord.

52.  But why get an unfair victory for our argument by fighting over these undignified questions, when it is within our power to prove that the excellence of the glory is beyond dispute by adducing more lofty considerations?  If, indeed, we repeat what we have been taught by Scripture, every one of the Pneumatomachi will peradventure raise a loud and vehement outcry, stop their ears, pick up stones or anything else that comes to hand for a weapon, and charge against us.  But our own security must not be regarded by us before the truth.  We have learnt from the Apostle, “the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the patient waiting for Christ”

2 Thess. iii. 5.  A note of the Benedictine Editors on this passage says:  “It must be admitted that these words are not found in the sacred text and are wanting in three manuscripts of this work.  Moreover, in the Regius Quintus they are only inserted by a second hand, but since they are shortly afterwards repeated by Basil, as though taken from the sacred context, I am unwilling to delete them, and it is more probable that they were withdrawn from the manuscripts from which they are wanting because they were not found in the apostle, then added, without any reason at all, to the manuscripts in which they occur.”

Chapter XXII.

Establishment of the natural communion of the Spirit from His being, equally with the Father and the Son, unapproachable in thought.

πρὸς θεωρίαν δυσέφικτον.  The Benedictine Latin is “incomprehensibilis,” but this is rather ἀκατάληπτος.  The “incomprehensible” of the Ath. Creed is “immensus.”

53.  Moreover the surpassing excellence of the nature of the Spirit is to be learned not only from His having the same title as the Father and the Son, and sharing in their operations, but also from His being, like the Father and the Son, unapproachable in thought.  For what our Lord says of the Father as being above and beyond human conception, and what He says of the Son, this same language He uses also of the Holy Ghost.  “O righteous Father,” He says, “the world hath not known Thee,”

John xvii. 25.

Chapter XXIII.

The glorifying of the enumeration of His attributes.

54.

Here the Benedictine Editors begin Chapter xxiii., remarking that they do so “cum plures mss. codices. tum ipsam sermonis seriem et continuationem secuti.  Liquet enim hic Basilium ad aliud argumentum transire.”  Another division of the text makes Chapter XXIII. begin with the words “But I do not mean by glory.”

Chapter XXIV.

Proof of the absurdity of the refusal to glorify the Spirit, from the comparison of things glorified in creation.

55.  Furthermore man is “crowned with glory and honour,”

Ps. viii. 5.

Grant, they say, that He is to be glorified, but not with the Father and the Son.  But what reason is there in giving up the place appointed by the Lord for the Spirit, and inventing some other?  What reason is there for robbing of His share of glory Him Who is everywhere associated with the Godhead; in the confession of the Faith, in the baptism of redemption, in the working of miracles, in the indwelling of the saints, in the graces bestowed on obedience?  For there is not even one single gift which reaches creation without the Holy Ghost;

cf. Matt. xxviii. 19; 1 Cor. xii. 11; Rom. viii. 11; 1 Pet. i. 2.

Chapter XXV.

That Scripture uses the words “in” or “by,” ἐν, cf. note on p. 3, in place of “with.”  Wherein also it is proved that the word “and” has the same force as “with.”

58.  It is, however, asked by our opponents, how it is that Scripture nowhere describes the Spirit as glorified together with the Father and the Son, but carefully avoids the use of the expression “with the Spirit,” while it everywhere prefers to ascribe glory “in Him” as being the fitter phrase.  I should, for my own part, deny that the word in [or by] implies lower dignity than the word “with;” I should maintain on the contrary that, rightly understood, it leads us up to the highest possible meaning.  This is the case where, as we have observed, it often stands instead of with; as for instance, “I will go into thy house in burnt offerings,”

Ps. lxvi. 13, LXX.

Chapter XXVI.

That the word “in,” in as many senses as it bears, is understood of the Spirit.

61.  Now, short and simple as this utterance is, it appears to me, as I consider it, that its meanings are many and various.  For of the senses in which “in” is used, we find that all help our conceptions of the Spirit.  Form is said to be in Matter; Power to be in what is capable of it; Habit to be in him who is affected by it; and so on.

cf. Note on Chapter iii. p. 4.  In the Aristotelian philosophy, εἶδος, or Forma, is the τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι, the essence or formal cause.  cf. Ar., Met. vi. 7, 4.  εἶδος δὲ λέγω τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι ἑκάστον καὶ τὴν πρώτην οὐσιαν.  Δύναμις, or Potentia, is potential action or existence, as opposed to ἐνέργεια, actus, actual action or existence, or ἐντελέχεια.  cf. Ar., Met., viii. 3, 9, and viii. 8, 11.  Sir W. Hamilton, Metaph. i. 178–180.

Chapter XXVII.

Of the origin of the word “with,” and what force it has.  Also concerning the unwritten laws of the church.

65.  The word “in,” say our opponents, “is exactly appropriate to the Spirit, and sufficient for every thought concerning Him.  Why then, they ask, have we introduced this new phrase, saying, “with the Spirit” instead of “in the Holy Spirit,” thus employing an expression which is quite unnecessary, and sanctioned by no usage in the churches?  Now it has been asserted in the previous portion of this treatise that the word “in” has not been specially allotted to the Holy Spirit, but is common to the Father and the Son.  It has also been, in my opinion, sufficiently demonstrated that, so far from detracting anything from the dignity of the Spirit, it leads all, but those whose thoughts are wholly perverted, to the sublimest height.  It remains for me to trace the origin of the word “with;” to explain what force it has, and to shew that it is in harmony with Scripture.

66.

The genuineness of this latter portion of the Treatise was objected to by Erasmus on the ground that the style is unlike that of Basil’s soberer writings.  Bp. Jeremy Taylor follows Erasmus (Vol. vi. ed. 1852, p. 427).  It was vindicated by Casaubon, who recalls St. John Damascene’s quotation of the Thirty Chapters to Amphilochius.  Mr. C.F.H. Johnston remarks, “The later discovery of the Syriac Paraphrases of the whole book pushes back this argument to about one hundred years from the date of St. Basil’s writing.  The peculiar care taken by St. Basil for the writing out of the treatise, and for its safe arrival in Amphilochius’ hands, and the value set upon it by the friends of both, make the forgery of half the present book, and the substitution of it for the original within that period, almost incredible.”  Section 66 is quoted as an authoritative statement on the right use of Tradition “as a guide to the right understanding of Holy Scripture, for the right ministration of the Sacraments, and the preservation of sacred rights and ceremonies in the purity of their original institution,” in Philaret’s Longer Catechism of the Eastern Church.

St. Basil is, however, strong on the supremacy of Holy Scripture, as in the passages quoted in Bp. H. Browne, On the xxxix Articles:  “Believe those things which are written; the things which are not written seek not.”  (Hom. xxix. adv. Calum. S. Trin.)  “It is a manifest defection from the faith, and a proof of arrogance, either to reject anything of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not.”  (De Fide. i.)  cf. also Letters CV. and CLIX.  On the right use of Tradition cf. Hooker, Ecc. Pol. lxv. 2, “Lest, therefore, the name of tradition should be offensive to any, considering how far by some it hath been and is abused, we mean by traditions ordinances made in the prime of Christian Religion, established with that authority which Christ hath left to His Church for matters indifferent, and in that consideration requisite to be observed, till like authority see just and reasonable causes to alter them.  So that traditions ecclesiastical are not rudely and in gross to be shaken off, because the inventors of them were men.”

cf. Tert., De Præsc. 36, 20, 21, “Constat omnem doctrinam quæ cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiæ ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo accepit.”  VideThomasius, Christ. Dogm. i. 105.

Chapter XXVIII.

That our opponents refuse to concede in the case of the Spirit the terms which Scripture uses in the case of men, as reigning together with Christ.

69.  But let us see if we can bethink us of any defence of this usage of our fathers; for they who first originated the expression are more open to blame than we ourselves.  Paul in his Letter to the Colossians says, “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision…hath He quickened together with”

Col. ii. 13.

Chapter XXIX.

Enumeration of the illustrious men in the Church who in their writings have used the word “with.”

71.  In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form “with the Spirit” has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received.  But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one.  For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions.  “I praise you,” it is said, “that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;”

1 Cor. xi. 2.

72.  There is the famous Irenæus,

† c. 200.

Chapter XXX.

Exposition of the present state of the Churches.

76.  To what then shall I liken our present condition?  It may be compared, I think, to some naval battle which has arisen out of time old quarrels, and is fought by men who cherish a deadly hate against one another, of long experience in naval warfare, and eager for the fight.  Look, I beg you, at the picture thus raised before your eyes.  See the rival fleets rushing in dread array to the attack.  With a burst of uncontrollable fury they engage and fight it out.  Fancy, if you like, the ships driven to and fro by a raging tempest, while thick darkness falls from the clouds and blackens all the scenes so that watchwords are indistinguishable in the confusion, and all distinction between friend and foe is lost.  To fill up the details of the imaginary picture, suppose the sea swollen with billows and whirled up from the deep, while a vehement torrent of rain pours down from the clouds and the terrible waves rise high.  From every quarter of heaven the winds beat upon one point, where both the fleets are dashed one against the other.  Of the combatants some are turning traitors; some are deserting in the very thick of the fight; some have at one and the same moment to urge on their boats, all beaten by the gale, and to advance against their assailants.  Jealousy of authority and the lust of individual mastery splits the sailors into parties which deal mutual death to one another.  Think, besides all this, of the confused and unmeaning roar sounding over all the sea, from howling winds, from crashing vessels, from boiling surf, from the yells of the combatants as they express their varying emotions in every kind of noise, so that not a word from admiral or pilot can be heard.  The disorder and confusion is tremendous, for the extremity of misfortune, when life is despaired of, gives men license for every kind of wickedness.  Suppose, too, that the men are all smitten with the incurable plague of mad love of glory, so that they do not cease from their struggle each to get the better of the other, while their ship is actually settling down into the deep.

77.  Turn now I beg you from this figurative description to the unhappy reality.  Did it not at one time

i.e. after the condemnation of Arius at Nicæa.

Introduction to the Hexæmeron.

————————————

The Hexæmeron is the title of nine homilies delivered by St. Basil on the cosmogony of the opening chapters of Genesis.  When and where they were delivered is quite uncertain.  They are Lenten sermons, delivered at both the morning and evening services, and appear to have been listened to by working men.  (Hom. iii. 1.)  Some words in Hom. viii. have confirmed the opinion that they were preached extempore, in accordance with what is believed to have been Basil’s ordinary practice.

cf. Rufinus ii. 9.

In earlier ages, it was the most celebrated and admired of Basil’s works.  Photius (Migne, Pat. Gr. cxli) puts it first of all, and speaks warmly of its eloquence and force.  As an example of oratory he would rank it with the works of Plato and Demosthenes.

Suidas singles it out for special praise.  Jerome (De Viris Illust.) among Basil’s works names only the Hexæmeron, the De Sp. Scto, and the treatise Contra Eunomium.

That Basil’s friends should think highly of it is only what might be expected.  “Whenever I take his Hexæmeron in hand,” says Gregory of Nazianzus, (Orat. xliii. 67) “and quote its words, I am brought face to face with my Creator:  I begin to understand the method of creation:  I feel more awe than ever I did before, when I only looked at God’s work with my eyes.”

Basil’s brother Gregory, in the Proœmium to his own Hexæmeron, speaks in exaggerated terms of Basil’s work as inspired, and as being, in his opinion, as admirable as that of Moses.

The Hexæmeron of Ambrose is rather an imitation than a translation or adaptation of that of Basil.  Basil’s Hexæmeron was translated into Latin by Eustathius Afer (c. A.D. 440) and is said to have been also translated by Dionysius Exiguus, the Scythian monk of the 6th C. to whom is due our custom of dating from the Saviour’s birth.

More immediately interesting to English readers is the Anglo-Saxon abbreviation attributed to Ælfric, Abbot of St. Albans in 969, and by some identified with the Ælfric who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 996 to 1006.  This is extant in a MS. numbered Junius 23 in the Bodleian Library, and was collated with the MS. Jun. 47 in the same, a transcript of a MS. in the Hatton Collection, by the Rev. Henry W. Norman for his edition and translation published in 1848.  It is nowhere a literal translation, but combines with the thoughts of St. Basil extracts from the Commentary upon Genesis of the Venerable Bede, as well as original matter.  It is entitled

STI Basilii Exameron, ?eet Is Be Godes Six Daga Weorcvm.

“L’Hexaméron,” writes Fialon, “est l’explication de l’œuvre des six jours, explication souvent tentée avant et après Saint Basile.  ‘Il n’est personne parmi les hommes, disait Théophile d’Antioche au deuxième siècle, qui puisse dignement faire le récit et exposer toute l’ecomomie de l’œuvre des six jours; eût il mille bouches et mille langues….Beaucoup d’ecrivains ont tente ce récit; ils ont pris pour sujet, les uns la création du monde, les autres l’origine de l’homme, et peut-être n’ont ils pas fait jaillir une étincelle qui fût digne de la vérité.’

Theophilus of Antioch, ii. Ad Autolycum.

Homily I.

In the Beginning God made the Heaven and the Earth.

1.  It is right that any one beginning to narrate the formation of the world should begin with the good order which reigns in visible things.  I am about to speak of the creation of heaven and earth, which was not spontaneous, as some have imagined, but drew its origin from God.  What ear is worthy to hear such a tale?  How earnestly the soul should prepare itself to receive such high lessons!  How pure it should be from carnal affections, how unclouded by worldly disquietudes, how active and ardent in its researches, how eager to find in its surroundings an idea of God which may be worthy of Him!

But before weighing the justice of these remarks, before examining all the sense contained in these few words, let us see who addresses them to us.  Because, if the weakness of our intelligence does not allow us to penetrate the depth of the thoughts of the writer, yet we shall be involuntarily drawn to give faith to his words by the force of his authority.  Now it is Moses who has composed this history; Moses, who, when still at the breast, is described as exceeding fair;

Acts vii. 20, A.V.

2.  “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

Gen. i. 1.

3.  Do not then imagine, O man! that the visible world is without a beginning; and because the celestial bodies move in a circular course, and it is difficult for our senses to define the point where the circle begins, do not believe that bodies impelled by a circular movement are, from their nature, without a beginning.  Without doubt the circle (I mean the plane figure described by a single line) is beyond our perception, and it is impossible for us to find out where it begins or where it ends; but we ought not on this account to believe it to be without a beginning.  Although we are not sensible of it, it really begins at some point where the draughtsman has begun to draw it at a certain radius from the centre.

Fialon refers to Aristotle (De Cœlo. i. 5) on the non-infinitude of the circle.  The conclusion is ῞Οτι μὲν οὖν τὸ κύκλῳ κινούμενον οὐκ ἔστιν ἀτελεύτητον οὐδ᾽ ἄπειρον, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχει τέλος, φανερόν

Homily II.

“The Earth was Invisible and Unfinished.”

Gen. i. 2, LXX.

1.  In the few words which have occupied us this morning we have found such a depth of thought that we despair of penetrating further.  If such is the fore court of the sanctuary, if the portico of the temple is so grand and magnificent, if the splendour of its beauty thus dazzles the eyes of the soul, what will be the holy of holies?  Who will dare to try to gain access to the innermost shrine?  Who will look into its secrets?  To gaze into it is indeed forbidden us, and language is powerless to express what the mind conceives.  However, since there are rewards, and most desirable ones, reserved by the just Judge for the intention alone of doing good, do not let us hesitate to continue our researches.  Although we may not attain to the truth, if, with the help of the Spirit, we do not fall away from the meaning of Holy Scripture we shall not deserve to be rejected, and, with the help of grace, we shall contribute to the edification of the Church of God.

“The earth,” says Holy Scripture, “was invisible and unfinished.”  The heavens and the earth were created without distinction.  How then is it that the heavens are perfect whilst the earth is still unformed and incomplete?  In one word, what was the unfinished condition of the earth?  And for what reason was it invisible?  The fertility of the earth is its perfect finishing; growth of all kinds of plants, the upspringing of tall trees, both productive and sterile, flowers’ sweet scents and fair colours, and all that which, a little later, at the voice of God came forth from the earth to beautify her, their universal Mother.  As nothing of all this yet existed, Scripture is right in calling the earth “without form.”  We could also say of the heavens that they were still imperfect and had not received their natural adornment, since at that time they did not shine with the glory of the sun and of the moon and were not crowned by the choirs of the stars.

cf. Hom., Il. xviii. 485, ἐν δὲ τὰ τείρεα πάντα τά τ᾽ οὐρανὸς ἐστεφάνωται, and Tennyson’s “When young night divine crowned dying day with stars.” (Palace of Art.)