1 Answer of Firminius to the preceding.
1 Placed at the end of 372 or the beginning of 373.
2 The mss. vary between Jovinus and Jobinus. cf. Theodoret, Ecc. Hist. iv. 13.
1 Placed in the end of 372 or beginning of 373.
2 On the misconduct of Basilius and Sophronius, two disciples of Eustathius.
2 Basil keeps up his support of the claims of Meletius, now in exile in Armenia, to be recognised as Catholic bishop of Antioch, and complains of the irregular ordination of Faustus as bishop of an Armenian see by Basil's opponent, Anthimus of Tyana. Sanctissimus, the bearer of the letter, is supposed by Tillemont (vol. ix. p. 210) to be a Western on account of his Latin name. Maran (Vit. Bas. 26) points out that Orientals not infrequently bore Latin names, and supposes him to be a presbyter of Antioch.
3 The title was not even at this time confined to bishops, and who this papa is is quite uncertain. The title is not generally limited to the bishop of Rome until the eighth century. So late as 680 Cyrus is called pope of Alexandria at the Sixth Council. (Mansi xi. 214.) It was not till 1073 that Gregory VII. asserted an exclusive right to the name. (Gieseler, vol. 1, 2, 405.)
1 Of the same date as the preceding.
2 On the same subject as the preceding. cf Letters cii., ccxxvii., ccxxviii., ccxxix., and cxxx.
2 On Basil's relations with Eustathius of Sebasteia (Siwas in Armenia Minor), the Vicar of Bray of the Arian controversies, who probably subscribed more creeds than any other prominent bishop of his age, se Letters cxxx. and ccxliv., and p. 171, n.
4 Marcellus of Ancyra (Angora) was represented to teach that the Son had no real personality, but was only the outward manifestation (Porforiko\j Ao/goj) of the Father, but he could always defend himself on the ground that he was in communion with Julius and Athanasius, popes of Rome and Alexandria. cf. Jer., De Vir. Ill.. chap. lxxxvi.
5 cf. Letters xxxviii. and xcii. Basil is anxious to show that his own view is identical with the Nicene, and does not admit a development and variation in the meaning of the word hypostasis; but on comparing such a passage as that in Athan. c. Afros, "hypostasis is substance, and means nothing else but very being" (h\ de\ u 9po/stasij ou'si/a e'sti\ kai\ ou'de\n a'llo\ shmaino/menon e#xei h$au'to\ to\ o!n) with St. Basil's words in the text it appears plain that hypostasis is not used throughout in the same sense. An erroneous sense of "three hypostases" was understood to be condemned at Nicaea, though Athanasius, e.g. "In illud omnia," etc., Schaff and Wace's ed., p. 90, does himself use the phrase, writing probably about ten years after Nicaea; but he more commonly treats ousi/a and u\po/stasij as identical. See specially the Tomus ad Antiochenos of a.d. 362 on the possible use of either "three hypostases" or "one hypostasis." cf. also n. on p. 179.
6 I give the creed in the original Greek. The passages in brackets indicate the alterations of the Constantinopolitan revision according to the text of Chalcedon.
7 "Deum de Deo" is inserted in the Sarum Breviary.
9 cf. De Sp. S. § 25, p. 17. On those who described the Spirit as merely a ministering spirit, vide Athan., Ad Serap. i. (lego/ntwn au'to\ mh\ mo/non kti/sma, a'lla\ kai\ tw=n leitourgikw=n pneuma\twn e$n au'to\ ei\nai). This new party arose in the Delta about 362, and was first known as "Tropici." They were condemned at the synod held at Alexandria on the return of Athanasius from his third exile. Its Synodical Letter is the Tomus ad Antiochenos.