2 xrusi/on poagmateutiko/n, Lat. aurum comparatitium. The gold collected for the equipment of troops. Cod. Theod. vii. 6. 3. The provinces of the East, with the exception of Osroene and Isauria, contributed gold instead of actual equipment. The Ben. note quotes a law of Valens that this was to be paid between Sept. 1 and April 1, and argues thence that this letter may be definitely dated in March, 372, and not long before Easter, which fell on April 8.
2 It is the contention of Tillemont that this cannot apply to the great Athanasius, to whom Meletius is not likely to have refused communion, but is more probably to be referred to some other unknown Athanasius. Maran, however, points out (Vit. Bas. xxii.) not only how the circumstances fit in, but how the statement that communion was refused by Meletius is borne out by Letter cclviii. § 3, q.v. Athanasius was in fact so far committed to the other side in the unhappy Antiochene dispute that it was impossible for him to recognise Meletius. cf. Newman, Church of the Fathers, chap. vii.
2 Or, in some mss., the Illyrians. Valerianus, bishop of Aquileia, was present at the Synod held in Rome in 371 (Theodoret, Hist. Ecc. ii. 2.) and also at the Synod in the same city in 382. (Theod. Ecc. Hist. v. 9, where see note.) Dorotheus or Sabinus had brought letters from Athanasius and at the same time a letter from Valerianus. Basil takes the opportunity to reply.
19 After noting that the Synodical Letter is to be found in Theodoret and in Sozomen (i.e. is in Theodoret I. viii. and in Socrates I. ix.) the Ben. Ed. express surprise that Basil should indicate concurrence with the Synodical Letter, which defines the Son to be th=j au'th=; u 9postasewj kai\ ou'si/aj, while he is known to have taught the distinction between u 9po/stasij and ou'si/a. As a matter of fact, it is not in the Synodical Letter, but in the anathemas originally appended to the creed, that it is, not asserted that the Son is of the same, but, denied that He is of a different ou'ui/a or u/po/stasij. On the distinction between ou'si/a and u 9to/stasij see Letters xxxviii., cxxv., and ccxxxvi. and the De Sp. Sancto. § 7. On the difficulty of expressing the terms in Latin, cf. Letter ccxiv. As upo/stasij was in 315 understood to be equivalent to ou'si/a, and in 370 had acquired a different connotation, it would be no more difficult for Basil than for the Church now, to assent to what is called the Nicene position, while confessing three hypostases. In Letter cxxv: Basil does indeed try to shew, but apparently without success, that to condemn the statement that He is of a different hypostasis is not equivalent to asserting Him to be of the same hypostasis.
4 A various reading is "martyr." In Letter cxxcvii. to S. Ambrose, S. Basil, states that the same honour was paid to S. Dionysius of Milan in his place of sepulture as to a martyr. So Gregory Thaumaturgus was honoured at Neocaesarea, and Athanasius and Bail received like distinction soon after their death.
5 The custom of the reservation of the Sacrament is, as is well known, of great antiquity. cf. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 85; Tertull., De Orat. xix. and Ad Ux. ii. 5; S. Cyprian, De Lapsis cxxxii.; Jerome, Ep. cxxv. Abuses of the practice soon led to prohibition. So an Armenian Canon of the fourth century (Canones Isaaci, in Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. x. 280) and the Council of Saragossa, 380; though in these cases there seems an idea of surreptitious reservation. On the doctrine of the English Church on this subject reference may be made to the Report of a Committee of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury in 1885.
The Rubric of 1549 allowed reservation, and it does not seem to have been prohibited until 1661. Bishop A. P. Forbes on Article xxviii. points out that in the Article reservation is not forbidden, but declared not to be of Christ's institution, and consequently not binding on the Church. The distinction will not be forgotten between reservation and worship of the reserved Sacrament.
3 The church and hospital, of which mention is here made, were built in the suburbs of Caesarea. Gregory of Nazianzus calls it a new town. cf. Greg. Naz., Or. xx. and Theodoret, Ecc. Hist. iv. 19, and Sozomen, vi. 34. On Alexander's ear, cf. Letter xxiv.