518 Rom. xv. 30.
519 "St. Basil's statement of the reason of the use of meta/ su/n, in the Doxology, is not confirmed by any earlier or contemporary writer, as far as the editor is aware, nor is it contradicted." Rev. C. F. H. Johnston.
520 "Sabellius has been usually assigned to the middle of third century, Mr. Clinton giving a.d. 256-270 as his active period. The discovery of the Philosophumena of Hippolytus has proved this to be a mistake, and thrown his period back to the close of the second and beginning of the third century. . . . He was in full activity in Rome during the Episcopate of Zephyrinus, a.d. 198-217." Professor Stokes in D.C. Biog. iv. 569. For Basil's views of Sabellianism vide Epp. CCX., CCXIV., CCXXXV. In his Haer. Fab. Conf. ii. 9 Theodoret writes: "Sabellius said that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were one Hypostasis; one Person under three names; and he describes the same now as Father, now as Son, now as Holy Ghost. He says that in the old Testament He gave laws as Father, was incarnate in the new as Son, and visited the Apostles as Holy Ghost." So in the Ekqesij th=j kata\ me/roj pi/stewj, a work falsely attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, and possibly due to Apollinaris, (cf. Theod., Dial. iii.) "We shun Sabellius, who says that Father and Son are the same, calling Him who speaks Father, and the Word, remaining in the Father and at the time of creation manifested, and, on the completion of things returning to the Father, Son. He says the same of the Holy Ghost."
521 Apparently an inexact reference to John xiv. 23.
522 John x. 30.
523 i.e., The Arians, who said of the Son, "There was when he was not;" and the Pneumatomachi, who made the Spirit a created being.
524 Matt. xxviii. 19.
525 cf. Note on Chap I. p. 4. In the Aristotelian philosophy, ei\doj, or Forma, is the to\ ti/ h\n ei\n ei\nai, the essence or formal cause. cf. Ar., Met. vi. 7, 4. Du/namij, or Potentia, is potential action or existence, as opposed to e'ne/rgeio, actus, actual action or existence, or e'ntele/xeia. cf. Ar., Met., viii. 3, 9, and viii. 8, 11. Sir W. Hamilton, Metaph. I. 178-180.
526 Rom. viii. 12.
527 Rom. viii. 14.
528 Rom viii. 29.
529 Eph. i. 17, 18.
530 en a!lloij tisi duna/mewn e'nergh/masi. The Benedictine translation is in aliis miraculorum operationious." It is of course quite true that du/namij is one of the four words used in the New Testament for miracle, and often has that sense, but here the context suggest the antithesis between potential and actual operation, and moreover non-miraculous. e'ne/rghma is an uncommon word, meaning the work wrought by e'ne/pgeia or operation.
531 1 Sam. xvi. 14.
532 Numb. xi. 25, 26, LXX. and R.V. "did so no more" for "did not cease" of A.V.
533 The distinction between the lo/goj e'/dia/qetoj, thought, and the logoj porforiko/j, speech, appears first in Philo. II. 154. On the use of the term in Catholic Theology cf. Dr. Robertson's note on Ath., De Syn. § xxvi. p. 463 of the Ed. in this series. Also, Dorner, Div. I. i. p. 338, note.
534 Rom. viii. 16.
535 Gal. vi. 4.
536 Matt. x. 20.
537 Rom. xii. 5, 6.
538 1 Cor. xii. 21.
539 1 Cor. xii. 18, slightly varied in order.
540 1 Cor. xii. 25.
541 1 Cor. xii. 26.
542 An inversion of 1 Cor. xii. 13.
543 Ex. xxxiii. 21, Lxx.
544 Deut. xii. 13, 14.
545 Ps. l. 14, LXX.
546 John iv. 23. With this interpretation, cf. Athan., Epist. i. Ad Serap. § 33, "Hence it is shewn that the Truth is the Son Himself. . . for they worship the Father, but in Spirit and in Truth, confessing the Son and the Spirit in him; for the Spirit is inseparable from the Son as the Son is inseparable from the Father."
547 Gen. xxviii. 16.
548 1 Cor. vi. 19.
549 2 Cor. ii. 17.
550 2 Cor. xiii. 3.
551 1 Cor. xiv. 2.
552 1 Peter i. 11.
553 e'n to =j genhtoi=j, as in the Bodleian ms. The Benedictine text adopts the common reading gennhtoij, with the note, "Sed discrimen illud parvi momenti." If St. Basil wrote gennhtoi=j, he used it in the looser sense of mortal: in its strict sense of "begotten" it would be singularly out of place here, as the antithesis of the reference to the Son, who is gennhto/j, would be spoilt. In the terminology of theology, so far from being "parvi momenti," the distinction is vital. In the earlier Greek philosophy a'ge/nhtoj and a'ge/nnhtoj are both used as nearly synonymous to express unoriginate eternal. cf. Plat., Phaed. D., a'rxh\ de\ a'ge/nhto/n, with Plat, Tim. 52 A., Toutwn de\ ou!twj e'xo/ntwn o 9mologhte/on e$n me\n ei\nai to kata\ tau'ta\ ei\doj e!xon a'ge/nnhton kai\ a'nw/leqron. And the earliest patristic use similarly meant by gennhto/j and a'ge/nnhtoj created and uncreated, as in Ign., Ad Eph. vii., where our Lord is called gennhto\j kai\ a'ge/nnhtoj. e'n a'ndr o/pw Qeo\j, e'n qana/tw zwh= a'lhqinh/. cf. Bp. Lightfoot's note. But "such language is not in accordance with later theological definitions, which carefully distinguished between genhto/j and gennhto/j. between a'ge/nhtoj and a'ge/nnhtoj; so that genhto/j, a'ge/nhtoj, respectively denied and affirmed the eternal existence, being equivalent to ktisto/j, a!ktistoj, , while gennhto/j, a'ge/nnhtoj described certain ontological relations, whether in time or in eternity. In the later theological language, therefore, the Son was gennrto/j even in His Godhead. See esp. Joann. Damasc., De Fid. Orth. I. 8 (I. p. 135, Lequin), xrh\ ga\r ei/de/nai o!ti to\ a'ge/nhton, dia\ tou= e 9no\j n grafo/menon, to\ a!ktiston h! to\ mh\ geno/menon shmai/nei, to\ de\ a'ge/nnhton, dia\ tw=n du/o nn grafomenon, dhloi= to\ mh\ gennhqe/n; whence he draws the conclusion that mo/noj o 9 path\o a'ge/nnhtoj and mo/noj o 9 ui'o\j gennhto/j." Bp. Lightfoot, Ap. Fathers, Pt. II. Vol. II. p. 90, where the history of the worlds is exhaustively discussed. At the time of the Arian controversy the Catholic disputants were chary of employing these terms, because of the base uses to which their opponents put them; so St. Basil, Contra Eunom. iv. protests against the Arian argument ei/ a'ge/nnhtoj o' path\r gennhto\j de\ o' ui/oj, ou'siaj.
cf. Ath., De Syn. in this series, p. 475, and De Decretis., on Newman's confusion of the terms, p. 149 and 169.
554 Heb. i. 1.
556 cf. 2 Cor. iii. 5.
557 Heb. xiii. 15.
558 1 Cor. vii. 40.
559 2 Tim. I. 14.
560 Dan. iv. 8, lxx.
561 John iv. 24.
562 cf. note on § 15. So Athan. in Matt. xi. 22. Sfragi/j ga/r e'stin i'so/tupoj e'n e 9antw= delknu/j to\n pate/ra . cf. Athan., De Dec. § 20, and note 9 in this series, p. 163. cf. also Greg. Nyss., In Eunom. ii. 12.
563 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 Praes . 36, 20, 21, "Constat omnem doctrinam quae cum illis eccleiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fedei conspiret veritai deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiae ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo accepit ." Vide Thomasius, Christ. Dogm. I. 105.
564 tw/n e'n th= Ekklhsi/a pefnlagme/nwn donma/twn kai\ khrugma/twn." To give the apparent meaning of the original seems impossible except by some such paraphrase as the above. In Scripture do/gma, which occurs five times (Luke ii. 1, Acts xvi. 4, xvii. 7, Eph. ii. 15, and Col. ii 14), always has its proper sense of decree or ordinances. cf. Bp. Lightfoot, on Col. ii. 14, and his contention that the Greek Fathers generally have mistaken the force of the passage in understanding do/gmata in both Col. and Eph. to mean the doctrines and precepts of the Gospel. Kh/rugma occurs eight times (Matt. xii. 41, Luke xi. 32, Rom. xvi. 25, 1 Cor. i. 21, ii. 4, xv. 14, 2 Tim iv. 17, and Tit. i. 3), always in the sense of preaching or proclamation.
"The later Christian sense of do/gma, meaning doctrine, came from its secondary classical use, where it was applied to the authoritative and categorical 'sentences' of the philosophers: cf. Just. Mart., Apol. i. 7. oi/ e'!/ Ellhsi tu\ au'toi=j a'restu\oogmati/sa/tej e'k panto/j tw= eni\ ono/mati filosof aj prosagoreu/onta, kai/per tu.n dogma/twn e'nanti/wn o!ntwn." [All the sects in general among the Greeks are known by the common name of philosophy, through their doctrines are different.] Cic., Acad. ii. 19. 'De suis decretis quae philosophi vocant dogmata.' . . . There is an approach towards the ecclesiastical meaning in Ignat., Mag. 13, bebaiwdh=sai e'n toi=j do/gmasi tou= kuri/ou kai\ tw=n apostolwn." Bp. Lightfoot in Col. ii. 14. The "doctrines" of heretics are also called do/gmata, as in Basil, Ep. CCLXI. and Socr., E. H. iii. 10. cf. Bp. Bull, in Serm. 2, "The dogmata or tenets of the Sadducees." In Orig., c. Cels. iii. p. 135, Ed. Spencer, 1658, do/gma is used of the gospel or teaching of our Lord.
The special point about St. Basil's use of do/gmata is that he uses the word of doctrines and practices privately and tacitly sanctioned in the Church (like apo/rrhta, which is used of the esoteric doctrine of the Pythagoreans, Plat., Phaed. 62.B.), while he reserves khru/gmata for what is now often understood by do/gmata, i.e. "legitima synodo decreta." cf. Ep. LII., where he speaks of the great kh/rugma of the Fathers at Nicaea. In this he is supported by Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria, 579-607, of whom Photius (Cod. ccxxx. Migne Pat. Gr. ciii. p. 1027) writes, "In this work," i.e. Or. II. "he says that of the doctrines (didagma/twn) handed down in the church by the ministers of the word, some are do/gmata, and others khru/gmata. The distinction is that do/gmata are announced with concealment and prudence, and are often designedly compassed with obscurity, in order that holy things may not be exposed to profane persons nor pearls cast before swine. Khru/gmata, on the other hand, are announced without any concealment." So the Benedictine Editors speak of Origen (c. Cels. i. 7) as replying to Celsus, "praedicationem Christianorum toti orbi notiorem essquam placita philosophorum: sed tamen fatetur, ut opud philosophos, ita etiam apud Christianos nonulla esse veluti interiora, quae post exteriorem et propositam omnibus doctrinam tradantur." Of khru/gata they note, "Videntur hoc nomine designari leges ecclesiasticae et canonum decreta quae promulgari in ecclesia mos erat, ut neminem laterent." Mr. C. F. H. Johnston remarks: "The o 9uoou/sion, which many now-a-days would call the Nicene dogma (tu\ tou= o 9moonsi/on do/gmata, Soc., E.H. iii. 10) because it was put forth in the Council of Nicaea, was for that reason called not do/gma, but kh/rugma, by St. Basil, who would have said that it became the kh/ougma (definition) of that Council, because it had always been the do/gma of the Church."
In extra theological philosophy a dogma has all along meant a certainly expressed opinion whether formally decreed or not. So Shaftesbury, Misc. Ref. ii. 2, "He who is certain, or presumes to say he knows, is in that particular whether he be mistaken or in the right a dogmatist." cf. Littré S.V. for a similar use in French. In theology the modern Roman limitation of dogma to decreed doctrine is illustrated by the statement of Abbé Bérgier (Dict de Théol. Ed. 1844) of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. "Or, nous convenons que ce n'est pas un dogme de foi," because, thought a common opinion among Romanists, it had not been so asserted at the Council of Trent. Since the publication of Pius IX's Edict of 1854 it has become, to ultramontanists, a "dogma of faith."
565 1 Cor. ii. 7. Whether there is or is not here a conscious reference to St. Paul's words, there seems to be both in the text and in the passage cited an employment of musth/rion in its proper sense of a secret revealed to the initiated.
566 i.e. if nothing were of weight but what was written, what need of any authorisation at all? There is no need of khrugma for a do/gma expressly written in Scripture.
567 e'pi\ th= a'nadeicei. The Benedictine note is: "Non respicit Basilius ad ritum ostensionis Eucharistiae, ut multi existimarunt, sed potius ad verba Liturgiaeipsi ascriptae, cum petit sacerdos, ut veniat Spiritus sanctus a 9gia/sai kai a'nadei=cai to\n me\n a!rton tou=ton au'to\ to\ ti/mion sw=ma tou= kuri/ou. Haec autem verba e'pi\ th= a'/adeicei, sic reddit Erasmus, cum ostenditur. Vituperat eum Ducaeus; sicque ipse vertit, cum conficitur, atque hanc interpretationem multis exemplis confirmat. Videtur tamen nihil prorsus vitii habitura a haec interpretatio, Invocationis verba cum ostenditur panis Eucharistiae, id est, cum panis non jam panis est, sed panis Eucharistiae, sive corpus Christi ostenditur; et in liturgia, ut sanctitficet et ostendat hunc quidem panem, ipsum pretiosum corpus Domini. Nam io Cur eam vocem reformidemus, qua Latini uti non dubitant, ubi de Eucharistia ioquuntur? Quale est illud Cypriani in epistola 63 ad Caecilium: Vino Christi sanguis ostenditur. Sic etiam Tertullianus I. Marc. c. 14: Panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat 20 Ut Graece a'nadei=cai, apofai/nein , ita etiam Latine, ostendere, corpus Christi praesens in Eucharistia significatione quadam modo exprimit. Hoc enim verbum non solum panem fieri corpus Domini significat, sed etiam fidem nostram excitat, ut illud corpus sub specie panis videndum, tegendum, adorandum astendi credamus. Quemadmodum Irenaeus, cum ait lib. iv. cap. 33: Accipiens panem suum corpus esse confitebatur, et temperamentum calicis suum sanguinem conformavit, non solum mutationem panis et vini in corpus et sanguinem Christi exprimit, sed ipsam etiam Christi asseverationem, quae hanc nobis mutationem persuadet; sic qui corpus Christi in Eucharistia ostendi et repraesentari dicunt, non modo jejuno et exiliter loqui non videntur, sed etiam acriores Christi praesentis adorandi stimulos subjicere. Poterat ergo retineri interpretatio Erasmi: sed quia viris eruditis displicuit, satius visum est quid sentirem in hac nota exponere."
This view of the meaning of a'nadei/knusqai and a1NA'DEICIj as being equivalent to poieisn and poi/hsij is borne out and illustrated by Suicer, S.V. "Ex his jam satis liquere arbitror a'uadeicai apud Basilium id esse quod alii Graei patres dicunt poiei=n vel a'pofai/nein sw=ma xristou=."
It is somewhat curious to find Bellarmine (De Sacr. Euch. iv. § 14) interpreting the prayer to God eu'logh=sai kai\ a 9lia/j I kai\ a'nadei=cai to mean "ostende per effectum salutarem in mentibus nostris istum panem salutificatum non esse panem vulgarem sed coelestem."
568 For the unction of catechumens cf. Ap. Const. vii. 22; of the baptized, Tertullian, De Bapt. vii.; of the confirmed, id. viii.; of the sick vide Plumptre on St. James v. 14, in Cambridge Bible for Schools. cf. Letter clxxxviii.
569 For trine immersion an early authority is Tertullian, c. Praxeam xxvi. cf. Greg. Nyss., De Bapt. u#dati e 9autou\j e'gkru/promen . . . kai\ tri/ton tou=to poih/santej. Dict. Ch. Ant. i. 161.
570 cf. my note on Theodoret in this series, p. 112.
571 Heb. xi. 14, R.V.
572 Gen. ii. 8.
573 The earliest posture of prayer was standing, with the hands extended and raised towards heaven, and with the face turned to the East. cf. early art, and specially the figures of "oranti." Their rich dress indicates less their actual station in this life than the expected felicity of Paradise. Vide, Dict. Christ. Ant. ii. 1684.
574 "Stood again with" - sunanasta/ntej.
575 Col. iii. 1.
576 Gen. i. 5. Heb. LXX. Vulg. R.V. cf. p. 64.
577 Vide Titles to Pss. vi. and xii. in A.V. "upon Sheminith," marg. "the eighth." LXX u/pe\r th=j o'gdo/hj. Vulg. pro octava. On various explanations of the Hebrew word vide Dict Bib. S. V. where Dr. Aldis Wright inclines to the view that it is a tune or key, and that the Hebrews were not acquainted with the octave.
578 1 Tim. iii. 16.
579 1 Cor. vi. 11.
580 1 Cor. v. 4.
581 Col ii. 13.
582 cf. 2 Cor. v. 8.
583 cf. Phil. i. 23.
584 1 Cor. iii. 9.
585 cf. Col. i. 6.
586 Col. iii. 3, 4.
587 Rom. viii. 2.
588 Rom. viii. 17.
589 Rom. viii. 16, 17. In this passage A.V. follows the neuter of the Greek original. R.V. has substituted "himself." cf. note on p. 15.
590 cf. Gal. v. 5.
591 cf. Eph. ii. 6.
592 cf. Phil. iii. 21, and 1 Cor. xv. 44.
593 1 Thess. iv. 17.
594 Rom. viii. 17
595 Rom. i. 4.
596 2 Tim. ii. 12.
597 Heb. x. 29.