ΠΡΟΣ ΤΗΝ ΟΜΟΖΥΓΟΝ ΝΕΚΤΑΡΙΟΥ ΠΑΡΑΜΥΘΗΤΙΚΗ
ΤΟΙΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡΕΥΣΙΝ ΑΠΟΛΟΓΙΑ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΠΟΧΩΡΗΣΕΩΣ
ΑΘΑΝΑΣΙῼ, Τῼ ΠΑΤΡΙ ΑΘΑΝΑΣΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥ
Τῌ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙᾼ ΝΕΟΚΑΙΣΑΡΕΙΑΣ ΠΑΡΑΜΥΘΗΤΙΚΗ
Τῌ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙᾼ ΑΓΚΥΡΑΣ ΠΑΡΑΜΥΘΗΤΙΚΗ
ΓΡΗΓΟΡΙῼ ΑΔΕΛΦῼ ΠΕΡΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΑΣ ΟΥΣΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΥΠΟΣΤΑΣΕΩΣ
ΑΘΑΝΑΣΙῼ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠῼ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ
Τῌ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙᾼ ΠΑΡΝΑΣΣΟΥ ΠΑΡΑΜΥΘΗΤΙΚΗ
ΑΘΑΝΑΣΙῼ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠῼ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ
ΑΘΑΝΑΣΙῼ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠῼ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ
ΑΘΑΝΑΣΙῼ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠῼ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ
ΑΘΑΝΑΣΙῼ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠῼ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ
ΑΘΑΝΑΣΙῼ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠῼ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ
ΑΝΕΠΙΓΡΑΦΟΣ ΕΠΙ ΑΠΑΙΤΗΤῌ ΧΡΗΜΑΤΩΝ
ΤΟΙΣ ΑΓΙΩΤΑΤΟΙΣ ΑΔΕΛΦΟΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΙΣ ΤΟΙΣ ΕΝ Τῌ ΔΥΣΕΙ
ΠΡΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡΙΑΝ ΠΑΤΡΙΚΙΑΝ ΠΕΡΙ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑΣ
ΔΙΑΚΟΝΟΙΣ ΘΥΓΑΤΡΑΣΙ ΤΕΡΕΝΤΙΟΥ ΚΟΜΗΤΟΣ
Τῼ ΚΗΔΕΜΟΝΙ ΤΩΝ ΚΛΗΡΟΝΟΜΩΝ ΙΟΥΛΙΤΤΗΣ
ΠΕΤΡῼ ΑΡΧΙΕΠΙΣΚΟΠῼ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ
ΑΣΧΟΛΙῼ ΜΟΝΑΖΟΝΤΙ ΚΑΙ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡῼ
ΑΜΦΙΛΟΧΙῼ ΧΕΙΡΟΤΟΝΗΘΕΝΤΙ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠῼ ΤΟΥ ΙΚΟΝΙΟΥ
ΑΝΤΙΟΧῼ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡῼ ΑΔΕΛΦΙΔῼ ΣΥΝΟΝΤΙ ΕΝ Τῌ ΕΞΟΡΙᾼ
ΣΩΦΡΟΝΙῼ ΜΑΓΙΣΤΡῼ ΕΥΜΑΘΙΟΥ ΕΝΕΚΕΝ
ΕΥΦΡΟΝΙῼ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠῼ ΚΟΛΩΝΕΙΑΣ ΑΡΜΕΝΙΑΣ
ΤΟΙΣ ΚΑΤΑ ΝΕΟΚΑΙΣΑΡΕΙΑΝ ΚΛΗΡΙΚΟΙΣ
ΤΟΙΣ ΚΑΤΑ ΝΕΟΚΑΙΣΑΡΕΙΑΝ ΛΟΓΙΩΤΑΤΟΙΣ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΕΝ ΚΟΛΩΝΙᾼ ΚΛΗΡΙΚΟΥΣ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΚΛΗΡΙΚΟΥΣ ΝΙΚΟΠΟΛΕΩΣ
ΠΡΟΣ ΙΤΑΛΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΓΑΛΛΟΥΣ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΗΣ ΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΣΕΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΣΥΓΧΥΣΕΩΣ ΤΩΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΩΝ
ΠΑΤΡΟΦΙΛῼ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠῼ ΤΗΣ ΕΝ ΑΙΓΕΑΙΣ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣ
ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΙΣ ΤΗΣ ΠΟΝΤΙΚΗΣ ΔΙΟΙΚΗΣΕΩΣ
ΠΕΛΑΓΙῼ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠῼ ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΙΑΣ ΣΥΡΙΑΣ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΜΟΝΑΖΟΝΤΑΣ ΚΑΤΑΠΟΝΗΘΕΝΤΑΣ ΥΠΟ ΤΩΝ ΑΡΕΙΑΝΩΝ
ΠΑΛΛΑΔΙῼ ΚΑΙ ΙΝΝΟΚΕΝΤΙῼ ΜΟΝΑΖΟΥΣΙΝ
ΒΑΡΣῌ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠῼ ΕΔΕΣΣΗΣ ΕΝ ΕΞΟΡΙᾼ ΟΝΤΙ
ΕΥΛΟΓΙῼ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡῼ ΑΔΕΛΦΟΚΡΑΤΙΩΝΙ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΙΣ ΑΙΓΥΠΤΙΟΙΣ ΕΞΟΡΙΣΘΕΙΣΙΝ
ΒΑΡΣῌ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠῼ ΕΔΕΣΣΗΣ ΕΝ ΕΞΟΡΙᾼ ΟΝΤΙ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΗΝ ΟΜΟΖΥΓΟΝ ΑΡΙΝΘΑΙΟΥ ΠΑΡΑΜΥΘΗΤΙΚΗ
ΕΥΣΕΒΙῼ ΕΤΑΙΡῼ ΣΥΣΤΑΤΙΚΗ ΕΠΙ ΚΥΡΙΑΚῼ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡῼ
ΑΝΕΠΙΓΡΑΦΟΣ ΕΠΙ Τῌ ΤΗΣ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣ ΠΡΟΣΤΑΣΙᾼ
ΑΝΕΠΙΓΡΑΦΟΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΟΣ ΚΑΤΑΠΟΝΟΥΜΕΝΗΣ
ΠΑΤΡΙ ΣΧΟΛΑΣΤΙΚΟΥ ΠΑΡΑΜΥΘΗΤΙΚΗ
ΠΡΟΣ ΤΗΝ ΟΜΟΖΥΓΟΝ ΒΡΙΣΩΝΟΣ ΠΑΡΑΜΥΘΗΤΙΚΗ
ΑΝΕΠΙΓΡΑΦΟΣ ΕΠΙ ΕΝΑΡΕΤΟΙΣ ΑΝΔΡΑΣΙΝ
ΑΝΕΠΙΓΡΑΦΟΣ ΥΠΕΡ ΚΑΤΑΠΟΝΟΥΜΕΝΟΥ
ΑΝΕΠΙΓΡΑΦΟΣ ΕΠΙ ΦΙΛῼ ΣΥΜΠΑΣΧΑΣΑΙ
ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗΣ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΠΡΟΣ ΙΟΥΛΙΑΝΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΠΑΡΑΒΑΤΗΝ
Letter XVI.164 Placed by the Ben. Ed. in the reign of Julian 361–363.
Against Eunomius the heretic.165 Eunomius the Anomœan, bp. of Cyzicus, against whose Liber Apologeticus Basil wrote his counter-work. The first appearance of the αἱρετικὸς ἄνθρωπος, the “chooser” of his own way rather than the common sense of the Church, is in Tit. iii. 10. αἱρετίζειν is a common word in the LXX., but does not occur in Is. xlii. 1, though it is introduced into the quotation in Matt. xii. 18. ἅιρεσις is used six times by St. Luke for “sect;” twice by St. Paul and once by St. Peter for “heresy.” Augustine, C. Manich. writes: “Qui in ecclesia Christi morbidum aliquid pravumque quid sapiunt, si, correcti ut sanum rectumque sapiant, resistunt contumaciter suaque pestifera et mortifera dogmata emendare nolunt, sed defensare persistunt hæretici sunt.”
He who maintains that it is possible to arrive at the discovery of things actually existing, has no doubt by some orderly method advanced his intelligence by means of the knowledge of actually existing things. It is after first training himself by the apprehension of small and easily comprehensible objects, that he brings his apprehensive faculty to bear on what is beyond all intelligence. He makes his boast that he has really arrived at the comprehension of actual existences; let him then explain to us the nature of the least of visible beings; let him tell us all about the ant. Does its life depend on breath and breathing? Has it a skeleton? Is its body connected by sinews and ligaments? Are its sinews surrounded with muscles and glands? Does its marrow go with dorsal vertebræ from brow to tail? Does it give impulse to its moving members by the enveloping nervous membrane? Has it a liver, with a gall bladder near the liver? Has it kidneys, heart, arteries, veins, membranes, cartilages? Is it hairy or hairless? Has it an uncloven hoof, or are its feet divided? How long does it live? What is its mode of reproduction? What is its period of gestation? How is it that ants neither all walk nor all fly, but some belong to creeping things, and some travel through the air? The man who glories in his knowledge of the really-existing ought to tell us in the meanwhile about the nature of the ant. Next let him give us a similar physiological account of the power that transcends all human intelligence. But if your knowledge has not yet been able to apprehend the nature of the insignificant ant, how can you boast yourself able to form a conception of the power of the incomprehensible God?166 As an argument against Eunomius this Letter has no particular force, inasmuch as a man may be a good divine though a very poor entomologist, and might tell us all about the ant without being better able to decide between Basil and Eunomius. It is interesting, however, as shewing how far Basil was abreast of the physiology of his time, and how far that physiology was correct.
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΥΝΟΜΙΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΑΙΡΕΤΙΚΟΝ
[1] Ὁ ἐφικτὴν εἶναι λέγων τῶν ὄντων τὴν εὕρεσιν ὁδῷ τινι πάντως καὶ ἀκολουθίᾳ διὰ τῆς τῶν ὄντων γνώσεως παρέβαλεν ἑαυτοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν, καὶ τοῖς εὐλήπτοις τε καὶ μικροτέροις ἐγγυμνασθεὶς διὰ τῆς καταλήψεως οὕτω καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐπέκεινα πάσης ἐννοίας προήγαγεν ἑαυτὸν καταληπτικὴν φαντασίαν. Οὐκοῦν ὁ τὴν περὶ τῶν ὄντων εἴδησιν κατειληφέναι μεγαλαυχούμενος τὸ σμικρότατον τῶν προφαινομένων ὅπως ἔχει φύσεως ἑρμηνευσάτω καὶ τίς ἡ τοῦ μύρμηκος φύσις εἰπάτω: εἰ πνεύματι καὶ ἄσθματι συνέχεται αὐτοῦ ἡ ζωή, εἰ ὀστέοις τῷ σώματι διείληπται, εἰ νεύροις καὶ συνδέσμοις τὰς ἁρμονίας τετόνωται, εἰ μυῶν περιβολῇ καὶ ἀδένων ἡ τῶν νεύρων περικρατεῖται θέσις, εἰ τοῖς νωτιαίοις κονδύλοις ἐκ τοῦ βρέγματος ἐπὶ τὸ οὐραῖον ὁ μυελὸς συμπαρατείνεται, εἰ τῇ περιοχῇ τοῦ νευρώδους ὑμένος τοῖς κινουμένοις μέλεσι τὴν ὁρμητικὴν ἐνδίδωσι δύναμιν, εἰ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ἧπαρ καὶ τὸ χοληδόχον ἀγγεῖον ἐπὶ τοῦ ἥπατος, νεφροί τε καὶ καρδία καὶ ἀρτηρίαι καὶ φλέβες, ὑμένες καὶ διαφράγματα, ἢ ψιλόν ἐστιν ἢ τετρίχωται, μονώνυχόν ἐστιν ἢ πολυσχιδεῖς ἔχει τὰς βάσεις, πόσον δὲ βιοῖ τὸν χρόνον καὶ τίς αὐτοῖς ὁ τρόπος τῆς ἐξ ἀλλήλων γεννήσεως, ἐπὶ πόσον δὲ κυΐσκεται τὸ τικτόμενον, καὶ πῶς οὔτε πεζοὶ πάντες οἱ μύρμηκες οὔτε ὑπόπτεροι πάντες, ἀλλ' οἳ μὲν τῶν ἀπὸ χαμαὶ ἐρχομένων εἰσίν, οἳ δὲ διαέριοι φέρονται. Ὁ τοίνυν τῶν ὄντων τὴν γνῶσιν ἐπικομπάζων τέως τὴν τοῦ μύρμηκος φύσιν εἰπάτω, εἶθ' οὕτω φυσιολογείτω τὴν πάντα νοῦν ὑπερέχουσαν δύναμιν. Εἰ δὲ τοῦ βραχυτάτου μύρμηκος οὔπω περιέλαβες τῇ γνώσει τὴν φύσιν, πῶς τὴν ἀκατάληπτον τοῦ Θεοῦ δύναμιν μεγαλαυχεῖς φαντάζεσθαι;