[403] John vi. 64.
[404] John i. 14.
[405] 1 Cor. ii. 8.
[406] Ps. xxiv. 7.
[407] i.e. of the incarnation, cf. pp. 7, 12.
[408] On Photinus cf. Socrates, Ecc. Hist. ii. 29, and Theodoret, Hær. Fab. iii. 1, and Epiphanius, Hær. lxxi. § 2. The question as to what Synod condemned and deposed him has been thought to have been settled in favour of that of Sirmium in 349. (D.C.B. iv. 394.) cf. Hefele's Councils, tr. Oxenham, ii. 188.
[409] ou gennema alla ktisma. The use of the word gennema in this book is one of the arguments alleged against its genuineness, for in Book. II., Capp. 6, 7, and 8. Basil objects to it; but in the same Book II., Cap. 32, he uses it apparently without objection in the sentence ek tou gennematos noesai rh& 140;dion tou gegennekotos ten phusin. Maran, Vit. Bas. xliii. 7.
[410] The English word firstborn is not an exact rendering of the Greek prototokos, and in its theological use it may lead to confusion. "Bear" and its correlatives in English are only used of the mother. tikto (¶TEK. cf. Ger. Zeug.) is used indifferently of both father and mother. prototokos is exactly rendered firstborn in Luke ii. 7; but first begotten, as in A.V. Heb. i. 6, and Rev. i. 5, more precisely renders the word in the text, and in such passages as Ex. xiii. 2, and Psalm lxxxix. 28, which are Messianically applied to the divine Word. So early as Clemens Alexandrinus the only begotten and first begotten had been contrasted with the first created, and highest order of created being. With him may be compared Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 7, Adv. Marc. v. 19, Hippolytus, Hær. x. 33, Origen, C. Cels. vi. 47, 63, 64, In Ioann. 1, § 22 (iv. p. 21), xix. § 5 (p. 305), xxviii. § 14 (p. 392), Cyprian, Test. ii. 1, Novatian, De Trin. 16. On the history and uses of the word, see the exhaustive note of Bp. Lightfoot on Col. i. 15.
[411] Rev. i. 5.
[412] Col. i. 16.
[413] Col. i. 17.
[414] John i. 1.
[415] Matt. i. 25.
[416] Jerome's Tract on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin appeared about 383, and was written at Rome in the episcopate of Damasus (363-384). The work of Helvidius which Jerome controverted was not published till about 380, and there can be no reference to him in the passage in the text. Basil is contending against the general Arian inference, rather than against any individual statement as to who the "Brethren of the Lord" were. cf. also dub. Hom. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. p. 600. Ed. Garn. On the whole subject see Bp. Lightfoot, in his Ep. to the Galatians, E. S. Ffoulkes in D.C.B. s.v. Helvidius, and Archdeacon Farrar in his Life of Christ, chap. vii., who warmly supports the Helvidian theory in opposition to the almost universal belief of the early Church. Basil evidently has no more idea that the heos hou of Matt. i. 25, implies anything as to events subsequent to the tokos than the author of 2 Sam. had when he said that Michal had no child till (LXX. heos) the day of her death, or St. Paul had that Christ's reigning till (achris hou) He had put all enemies under His feet implied that He would not reign afterwards. Too much importance must not be given to niceties of usage in Hellenistic Greek, but it is a well-known distinction in Attic Greek that prin with the infinitive is employed where the action is not asserted to take place, while it is used with the indicative of a past fact. Had St. Matthew written prin sunelthon, the Helvidians might have laid still greater stress than they did on the argument from Matt. i. 18, which St. Jerome ridicules. His writing prin e sunelthein is what might have been expected if he wished simply to assert that the conception was not preceded by any cohabitation.
[417] Rom. viii. 29.
[418] The LXX. version is Kurios ektise me archen hodon autou.
[419] John xiv. 6.
[420] Id.
[421] gennema.
[422] The Heb. verb here is the same as in Prov. viii. 22, though rendered ektesamen in the LXX.
[423] Gen. v. 4. Here Basil has epoiesen for the LXX. egennesen, representing another Hebrew verb.
[424] Ps. li. 10 kardian katharan ktison.
[425] 1 Cor. i. 21.
[426] 1 Pet. iv. 1.
[427] Acts ii. 36.
[428] Luke ii. 11.
[429] Acts ii. 36.
[430] egennethe. But it seems to refer to the birth from Mary.
[431] 1 Cor. i. 24.
[432] Ps. xxxi. 2, LXX.
[433] Ps. cxviii. 21.
[434] Rom. iii. 4.
[435] 1 Cor. i. 30.
[436] Ps. cx. 1.
[437] Ps. xlv. 8.
[438] Gen. xix. 24.
[439] Gen. i. 27.
[440] Ps. xviii. 31.
[441] Id. LXX.
[442] John i. 1.
[443] John xx. 28.
[444] Baruch iii. 35. The quoting of Baruch under the name of Jeremiah has been explained by the fact that in the LXX. Baruch was placed with the Lamentations, and was regarded in the early Church as of equal authority with Jeremiah. It was commonly so quoted, e.g. by Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian. So Theodoret, Dial. i. (in this edition, p. 165, where cf. note).
[445] 1 John v. 20. There is some MS. authority for the insertion of "God" in the first clause, but none for the omission of the former en to.
[446] Deut. xxxii. 12.
[447] Tit. ii. 13.
[448] St. Basil, with the mass of the Greek Orthodox Fathers, has no idea of any such interpretation of Tit. ii. 13, as Alford endeavours to support. cf. Theodoret, pp. 391 and 321, and notes.
[449] to einai isa Theo, as in Phil. ii. 6, tr. in A.V. to be equal with God; R.V. has to be on an equality with God.
[450] to einai ison Theo.
[451] John v. 18.
[452] I do not here render with the Arian gloss of A.V., infelicitously reproduced in the equally inexact translation of R.V. The insertion of the words "it shall be given" and "it is" is apparently due to a pedantic prejudice against translating alla by "save" or "except," a rendering which is supported in classical Greek by such a passage as Soph., O.T. 1331, and in Hellenistic Greek by Mark ix. 8. The Vulgate has, quite correctly, "non est meum dare vobis, sed quibus paratum est a patre meo," so far as the preservation of the Son as the giver is concerned. A similar error is to be found in both the French and German (Luther's) of Bagster's polyglot edition. Wiclif has correctly, "is not myn to geve to you but to whiche it is made redi of my fadir." So Tyndale, "is not myne to geve but to them for whom it is prepared of my father." The gloss begins with Cranmer (1539), "it shall chance unto them that it is prepared for," and first appears in the Geneva of 1557 as the A.V. has perpetuated it. The Rheims follows the vobis of the Vulgate, but is otherwise correct. cf. note on Theodoret in this edition, p. 169.
[453] John v. 22.
[454] Mark ii. 10.
[455] Matt. xxviii. 18.
[456] Matt. xvi. 19.
[457] Matt. xix. 28.
[458] cf. Matt. xvi. 27.
[459] John v. 29.
[460] 2 Cor. v. 10.
[461] These last words are explained by a Scholium to the MS. Reg. II. to be a reference to the unreasonable petition of James and John. It will be seen how totally opposed Basil's interpretation is to that required by the gloss of A.V.
[462] Ps. lxxxvi. 8.
[463] Deut. xxxii. 12.
[464] 1 Cor. x. 4.
[465] Jer. x. 2, LXX.
[466] Is. xliv. 6, "God" inserted.
[467] Is. xliii. 10.
[468] Deut. vi. 4.
[469] cf. remarks in § vi. p. xxiii. of Prolegomena.
[470] Swete, Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, p. 71, who further notes: "St. Jerome is severe upon St. Ambrose for copying Didymus, and says that the Archbishop of Milan had produced "ex Græcis bonis Latina non bona.' The work of the Latin Father is, however, by no means a mere copy; and other writers besides Didymus are laid under contribution in the argument; e.g. St. Basil and perhaps St. Athanasius."
[471] Theod. v. 11 in this edition, p. 139; Mansi iii. 486.
II.--Exegetic.
(i) As of the De Spiritu Sancto, so of the Hexæmeron, no further account need be given here. It may, however, be noted that the Ninth Homily ends abruptly, and the latter, and apparently more important, portion of the subject is treated of at less length than the former. Jerome [472] and Cassiodorus [473] speak of nine homilies only on the creation. Socrates [474] says the Hexæmeron was completed by Gregory of Nyssa. Three orations are published among Basil's works, two on the creation of men and one on Paradise, which are attributed to Basil by Combefis and Du Pin, but not considered genuine by Tillemont, Maran, Garnier, Ceillier, and Fessler. They appear to be compositions which some editor thought congruous to the popular work of Basil, and so appended them to it.
The nine discourses in the Hexæmeron all shew signs of having been delivered extempore, and the sequence of argument and illustration is not such as to lead to the conclusion that they were ever redacted by the author into exact literary form. We probably owe their preservation to the skilled shorthand writers of the day. [475]
(ii) The Homilies on the Psalms as published are seventeen in number; it has however been commonly held that the second Homily on Ps. xxviii. is not genuine, but the composition of some plagiarist. The Homily also on Ps. xxxvii. has been generally objected to. These are omitted from the group of the Ben. Ed., together with the first on Ps. cxiv., and that on cxv. Maran [476] thinks that none of these orations shew signs of having been delivered in the episcopate, or of having reference to the heresy of the Pneumatomachi; two apparently point directly to the presbyterate. In that on Ps. xiv. he speaks of an amerimnia which would better befit priest than the primate; on Ps. cxiv. he describes himself as serving a particular church. Both arguments seem a little far-fetched, and might be opposed on plausible grounds. Both literal and allegorical interpretations are given. If Basil is found expressing himself in terms similar to those of Eusebius, it is no doubt because both were inspired by Origen. [477] The Homily on Psalm i. begins with a partial quotation from 2 Tim. iii. 16, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable," and goes on, "and was composed by the Spirit to the end that all of us men, as in a general hospital for souls, may choose each what is best for his own cure." For him, Scripture is supreme. [478] As is noticed on Hom. IX. [479] of the Hexæmeron, Basil is on the whole for the simpler sense. But he was a student of Origen, and he well knows how to use allegory when he thinks fit. [480] An example may be observed in Letter VIII., [481] where there is an elaborate allegorisation of the "times and the seasons" of Acts i. 7. An instance of the application of both systems is to be found in the Homily on Psalm xxviii. (i.e. in A.V. xxix.). The LXX. Title is Psalmos tho Dauid exodiou skenes, Psalmus David in exitu e tabernaculo." Primarily this is a charge delivered to the priests and Levites on leaving their sacred offices. They are to remember all that it is their duty to prepare for the holy service. As they go out of the Tabernacle the psalm tells them all that it behoves them to have in readiness for the morrow, young rams (Ps. xxix. 1, LXX.), glory and honour, glory for His name. "But to our minds, as they contemplate high and lofty things, and by the aid of an interpretation dignified and worthy of Holy Scripture make the Law our own, the meaning is different. There is no question of ram in flock, nor tabernacle fashioned of lifeless material, nor departure from the temple. The tabernacle for us is this body of ours, as the Apostle has told us in the words, For we that are in this tabernacle do groan.' [482] The departure from the temple is our quitting this life. For this these words bid us be prepared, bringing such and such things to the Lord, if the deeds done here are to be a means to help us on our journey to the life to come."
This is in the style of exegesis hitherto popular. To hearers familiar with exegesis of the school of Origen, it is an innovation for Basil to adopt such an exclusively literal system of exposition as he does,--e.g. in Hom. IX. on the Hexæmeron,--the system which is one of his distinguishing characteristics. [483] In his common-sense literalism he is thus a link with the historical school of Antioch, whose principles were in contrast with those of Origen and the Alexandrians, a school represented by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Diodorus of Tarsus, and later by Theodoret. [484]