PREFACE,

HE Ovatio Catechetica exhibits perhaps better than

any other single work the characteristic features

of the mind and thought of its author. As such it

Serves aS an introduction to the study of Gregory of

Nyssa. The present edition is intended to render assistance to students in placing the treatise in its proper

historical setting, and to supply such illustrative comment as seemed necessary.

While much has been written in recent times upon Gregory’s teaching, the problems connected with the text and exegesis of his works have received scant attention. The labours of Krabinger, Forbes, and Oehler are the only serious contribution in modern times to the former, while the volume of translations in the Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers is the first English contribution to the latter.

The text of the present edition 15 based upon a collation of the more important MSS of the treatise, the majority of which have not hitherto been used for the purposes of an edition. The editor is indebted to

vi PREFACE

the Managers of the Hort Fund for the grants which have made it possible for him to obtain collations or photographs of these Mss. He has also to acknowledge much kindness and personal assistance rendered to him by the authorities of the various libraries to which he has had access. In this connexion a special debt of gratitude is due to Dr Mercati of the Vatican Library, and to M. Omont of.the National Library, Paris. To Mr C. H. Turner he is indebted for valuable information and suggestions in connexion with the textual problems of the treatise. His thanks are also due to Dr H. Jackson for useful references and suggestions, and to the Rev. J. F. Bethune-Baker for criticisms and discussions of particular passages. Above all he has been indebted throughout to the unfailing courtesy and kindness of the General Editor of the present series of Patristic Texts, Dr A. J. Mason, who has placed his advice unreservedly at the service of the present editor, and who has read through the whole work in manuscript and proof, and offered numerous suggestions and criticisms.

The more important works to which reference has been made are mentioned in the Notes, and more fully in the List of Books given in the Introduction.

CONTENTS.

PAGE INTRODUCTION δι. On the character, date, genuineness, and literary history of the Ovatio Catechetica. : 1X § 2. On some points in the teaching of Gregory of Nyssa d; : ΧΝῚΙ § 3. History of the Text. xliii THE CATECHETICAL ORATION I INDICES I. Subjects. : : : ; ; - 165 II. Scripture Texts. : : : ; . 170 III. Greek Words 172 CORRIGENDA. 182

INTRODUCTION.

THE central period of the literary activity of Gregory of Nyssa falls within the years 379—394. Within those years must be placed nearly all his more important works. It was the death cf Basil in 379 which brought him prominently forward, and placed him in the position of the champion of Catholicism in Cappadocia. The time was rich in opportunities. The year which preceded the death of Basil had witnessed the fall of Arianism and the triumph of the Nicene cause, for which Gregory had borne his witness not only in teaching, but by submitting to banishment at the hands of an Arian governor’.

In the stirring events of the years which followed Gregory played an important part. It was his own position as one of the foremost leaders of the Nicene cause in the East, rather than the importance of his see, which led to his being summoned to the Council of Constantinople in 381, and to his being named in the edict of the Emperor as one of the bishops with whom communion was required as a test of orthodoxy.

x INTRODUCTION

1 Jerome de Vir. Til. c. 128. The work which Jerome heard recited was probably an earlier draft of the work which we possess. See infra.

2 On the Philocalza see the letter sent by Gregory of Nazianzus (about 382) to Theodosius, Bp of Tyana (ZZ. 115). On the obligations of both Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus to Origen see Socrates H/. £. iv 26.

3 Cp. Harnack 27. of Dogma (Eng. tr.) iv 89.

4 See de Vita Moysis (written in old age), p. 336 (Migne). ἔστι γάρ τι καὶ τῆς ἔξω παιδεύσεως πρὸς συζυγίαν ἡμῶν els rexvoyoviay ἀρετῆς οὐκ ἀπό- βλητον. καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἠθική τε καὶ φυσικὴ φιλοσοφία γένοιτο ἄν ποτε τῷ ὑψηλοτέρῳ βίῳ συζνγός τε καὶ φίλη καὶ κοινωνὸς τῆς ζωῆς.

INTRODUCTION xi

Nazianzus. The Oratio Catechetica approaches more nearly to the spirit of the de Princepits than any other work of the fourth century’.

The attempt to establish the doctrines of orthodoxy by rational thought was both opportune and necessary. In the first place current religious conceptions had been profoundly affected by the influence of Neoplatonism. It was rather as an attitude of mind than as a philosophical system that Neoplatonism played a part in the moral culture of the heathen world. It influenced men’s way of looking at religious truth, by leading them to dwell upon the inner world, the life of thought and spirit, and to find in it the explanation of the universe. The result was a more spiritual conception of God. According to Plotinus the Divine Being is of the nature of thought and is indivisible’. This marked a great advance upon the materialistic conceptions of Deity which characterized Stoic teaching and popular thought, even within the Church’, and it rendered easier the task of those who had to state the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and defend it against the unitarian or tritheistic conclusions which so readily followed from a materialistic view of being. Again, the speculations of philosophers on the existence of hypostases within the Divine Being‘ had made it easier to present to men’s minds the unity and co-eternity of the Persons of the Godhead®. Once

1 Cp. Harnack H. of Dogma (Eng. tr.) iv 334.

8 Tertullian is an example. We have a later illustration in the anthropomorphism of the Egyptian monks.

4 On the Trinity of Numenius see Bigg Bampton Lect. p. 251. On the Trinity of Plotinus see Ennead. v 1. 6sq-

5 There is of course a wide gulf between the Trinity of Plotinus and the doctrine of the Church. The former taught the unity and co-eternity of

ΧΙΪ INTRODUCTION

more, the widespread fatalism! of the age and the existence of Manichaeism? called for some adequate treatment of the Divine Providence’, the origin of evil, and the nature and destiny of man‘ Lastly there was the task of justifying to current thought the Christian doctrines of the Incarnation and Atonement.

Such were the circumstances under which the Ovatzo Catechetica was produced. The purpose of the treatise is stated in the opening words of the Prologue. It is intended not for catechumens, but for catechists, in order to enable them to present in a rational form to those whom they taught the contents of the Christian revelation. Yet it does not profess to set forth a complete system of doctrine. While it abounds in philosophic thought, the aim throughout 15 practical. The object of the writer is to enable the catechist to remove objections and to win conviction. When he calls to his aid the speculations of philosophers, he does so, not so much because he regards them as the necessary form of truth,

as because they provide a common ground for argument. . The apologetic character, in fact, is strongly marked throughout.

the hypostases, but excluded the idea of their co-equality. The Intelligence is inferior to the One, and the Soul is inferior to the Intelligence. Both Intelligence and Soul are emanations from the One, which is infinitely raised above them both. Cp. Bright 4ge of Fathers i p. 93.

1 See Gregory’s treatise περὶ εἱμαρμένης.

2 Cp. Or. Cat. prol. ἡ πρὸς τὸν Μανιχαῖον μάχη, c. 7 οἱ τοῖς Μανιχαι- κοῖς δόγμασι παρασυρέντες. Edicts were issued against them throughout this period. See reff. in Gieseler Accl. Hist. (Eng. tr.) i 369 note 3.

3 See further notes on cc. 5—8.

4 Gr.’s polemic against Manichaeism also throws light upon his language on the ἀποκατάστασις in c. 26 (see notes) and his defence of human generation in c. 28.

INTRODUCTION 'χι

The work falls roughly into four divisions:

I. Chs, 1—4, in which he expounds the doctrine of the Trinity.

II. Chs. 5—8, in which he treats of the creation of man and the origin of evil.

III. Chs. 9—32, which deal at length with the Incarnation, removing.objections, and showing its consistency with the moral attributes of God. In the same section Gregory treats of the method of the Atonement.

IV. Chs. 33—40, which treat of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, and the moral conditions (faith and repentance) which are necessary for their right use.

The only indication supplied by the book itself as to its date is the reference in c. 38 (z7z¢.) to his earlier controversial treatises on the faith. This has generally been taken to refer, or at least to include a reference, to his work against Eunomius. That work had been taken in _hand as a reply to Eunomius, who had answered Basil’s refutation of his former apology by an ‘ Apologia Apologiae.. Eunomius’ book had appeared either shortly before or shortly after the death of Basil’. The rough draft (τὰ σχεδάρια) of Gregory’s reply, as we gather from the prefatory letter to his brother Peter?, had already been made before Gregory’s return from Armenia, where he had been towards the end of the year 380, probably, as Tillemont thinks, for the consecration of his brother Peter as bishop of Sebasteia*. It was only in response to the urgent requests of friends that

1 For a discussion of the question see Heyns (p. 55, note 1) and Diekamp Gotteslehre d. h. Gregor. v. Nyss. p. 126, note 2.

2 p. 237 (Migne). 3 See Tillemont AZém. Eccl. ix 578.

Xivo. INTRODUCTION

Gregory was led to publish his book. How far it was advanced at the time when Jerome heard Gregory recite it at Constantinople! it is difficult to say, but it seems probable that the completed work, which is by far the longest of all Gregory’s works, was not published before 382 or 383% In 383 Gregory was present at a synod at Constantinople and delivered his oration de Dettate Filiz et Spiritus Sancti, which also contains an attack upon the Anomoeans*. These works fully satisfy the description which Gregory gives in c. 38 of his previous controversial and critical works on faith‘ Thus the Or. Cat. would seem to be later than 383. But it is probably not much later. Though the danger from the Anomeean teaching does not occupy a prominent place in the book, it is still before his mind’. It is probable then that the Oratio Catechetica was written in one of the years immediately following 383.

The title is given in the best MSS as λόγος κατηχη- tixos. Similarly Photius (B76/. Cod. 233) and Maximus, in his comment on Ps.-Dionys. de Eccl. Hier. iii. § 11, allude to it as ὁ Katnyntixos®. But in some MSS and in the Paris © editions the words ὁ μέγας have crept into the title’.

1 v. supra p. x. Rupp’s suggestion (p. 134, note 4) that the last two books of Basil’s Refutation, which are wrongly attributed to him, are the work which Gregory read to Jerome and Gregory Nazianzen, is devoid of any support. See Diekamp of. cz¢. p. 125, note 4.

2 For a discussion of the relation of Gr.’s work to the apologies of Eunomius see Diekamp of. cit. p. 126, note 3.

3 On the date of this work see Ceillier Auteurs sacrés viii 353.

4 His shorter treatises de Fide, Quod non sint tres dii, and de S. Trinitate (which probably belongs to Gregory, rather than to Basil) were addressed to private individuals.

6 Similarly Euthymius and the ‘ Disputatio Theoriani.’

7 The earliest MS which has the words ὁ μέγας is the Paris codex Gr. 1268 (Omont 294).

INTRODUCTION XV

Its genuineness is well attested, as it is referred to by a succession of later writers. It is quoted by Theodoret! in his Dialogues, and by Leontius of Byzantium in his treatise against Nestorius and Eutyches. John of Damascus in the de Fide Orthodoxa borrows largely from its language on the Trinity and again on the Eucharist. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (ob. 733), in a work which Photius had read (B8726/. Cod. 233), refers to it. There are also clear reminiscences of some of its language on the Trinity in Ps,.-Cyril de S. Trinttate. Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century incorporates large sections of it into his Panoplia Dogmatica. In another twelfth century work containing the account of a discussion held between Nerses or Noreses, the Catholicos of Armenia, and Theorianus, who had been sent by the Emperor Manuel Comnenus to win him over to the doctrines of Chalcedon, there is a reproduction of Gregory’s chapter on the Eucharist. But though the work is frequently cited as belonging to Gregory, a careful perusal of its contents excited the suspicions of orthodox readers. The traces of Origenistic teaching, especially on the ἀποκατάστασις, in the writings of one who ranked amongst the three great Fathers of the Eastern Church, needed explanation. Accordingly an attempt was made to prove that Gregory’s writings had been interpolated by the Origenists. This idea first appears in the book written by Germanus, to which Photius refers. The work was entitled ᾿Ανταποδοτικὸς ἢ ᾿Ανοθευτός. In the first part of the book Germanus refuted the teaching of Origen on the purgation of wicked spirits. In the latter part he maintains that the works of Gregory of Nyssa had been falsified by

1 For fuller reffs. see infra.

Xvi INTRODUCTION

the Origenists, who had inserted many passages from Origen’s writings. The works to which he referred are, according to Photius, the de Anima et Resurrectione, the Oratio Catechetica and the de Vita Perfecta. But the idea of a universal restoration occurs too frequently in

Gregory’s writings’ to be disposed of by a theory of -

interpolation, which further receives no support from any change of style.

An objection of a different character has been raised against the concluding chapter of the treatise by Aubertin’, on the ground that Gregory, after treating of Baptism in cc. 34—36, and of the Eucharist in c. 37, again returns to Baptism inc. 40. But the objection is of little value, as the whole section, cc. 38—v40, deals with the moral conditions which are essential to the life of grace, and as baptism marks the initiation into that life it is naturally chosen as the point of reference for his remarks.

The spurious addition to c. 40, found in the Paris editions and in some late manuscripts, is an extract from a work on the Incarnation by Theodore of Rhaithu, a monk of the seventh century, and its presence in the text is due to a blunder of transcription.

The Ovatio Catechetica has received considerable attention in modern times as representing more adequately than any single treatise the characteristic features of Gregory’s teaching. Ueberweg, who in his Hzstory of Philosophy (p. 326) speaks of Gregory as ‘the first who sought to establish by rational considerations the whole

1 Other passages in which Gregory teaches an ἀποκατάστασις are de Hom. Opif. c. 21, in Psalmos ig, Or. in illud Tunc ipse Filius (of doubtful genuineness) p. 1316 (Migne), de Afortuis pp. 524, f. (Migne), i” Chr. Resurr. Or. i pp. 609, f. (Migne).

2 de Sacram. Eucharist. ii 487 (quoted by Rupp p. 147).

INTRODUCTION XVvii

complex of orthodox doctrines,’ devotes a special section to this work.

Gregory’s style has been frequently praised for its excellence. Photius speaks of it! as γλυκύτατος καὶ λαμπρὸς Kat ἡδονῆς ὠσὶν ἀποστάξζων. His rhetorical training? is manifested in the elaboration of his periods, his frequent use of digressions, and above all his love of similes*. At the same time these features combine to make his language often obscure and difficult of interpretation.

§2. ON SOME POINTS IN THE TEACHING OF GREGORY OF NYSSA.

The purpose of the Ovatio Catechetica is to set forth in a manner suited to the needs of those engaged in the instruction of converts the contents of the Baptismal Creed. Gregory starts from the religious beliefs of the Greek and the Jew, and maintains that the Christian doctrine of God is the mean between Greek polytheism and Judaism. The former recognised a distinction of hypostases, the latter the unity of nature, in the Divine Being. He refers to non-Christian conceptions of a

2 See the letter of Gregory of Nazianzus (22. 11, ed. Ben.) written to Gr., reproving him for his excessive devotion to rhetorical studies, which had led him to resign his office of ἀναγνώστης.

8 The Ov. Cat. abounds in similes. Especially characteristic are the following : the mixture of water with the oil of a lamp (c. 6), the mind of man wandering at will over the universe (c. fo), the flame of the wick (2b¢d.), the dog letting fall his food to catch at its reflection in the water (c. 21), the comparison of Satan to a ravenous fish who swallows both hook and bait (c. 24), the doctor waiting for the disease to come to a head

(c. 29), the snake which has received its death-stroke, but still shows signs of life (c. 30).

ΧΥΪ INTRODUCTION

Word of God, and further seeks to convince the Greek of the existence of a Word and Spirit of God by an appeal to ‘general ideas,’ based on the facts of human nature’, On the other hand he seeks to lead the Jew, from indications contained in the Old Testament?, to accept, as consonant with his earlier teaching, the Catholic faith. In dealing with the Greek his treatment is speculative. In dealing with the Jew he appeals to Scripture. In both cases he makes use of the facts of history. The miracles of Christ, the rise, growth, and extension of the Church’, all are adduced to confirm the impression of the truth of Christianity which has been gained from an examination of its contents. The argument from prophecy and Old Testament types, which played such an important part in earlier apologies, does not find a place in his treatment. But he states in the clearest way, when treating of the Incarnation, the moral argument. Again and again he appeals to the moral glory exhibited in God’s plan of redemption*. The Incarnation was an exhibition of the Love of God and was consistent with, and worthy of, His moral nature. This he regards as the sole and sufficient answer to all objections. It is consistent with God’s honour to succour the needy. Such a work supplied the most splendid occasion for the exercise of His power. That His power could condescend so low was a greater miracle than any of the wonders of Creation. That Gregory appeals to each of these three classes of arguments, speculative, historical, and moral, is, as Rupp says’, a proof of the impartiality of his judgment and of his theological acuteness.

a

nee “INTRODUCTION xix

Gregory, as has been already remarked, does not attempt a complete scientific treatment of his subject. His aim is not to produce a de Principits suited to the needs of the fourth century and based upon the Nicene Creed. He has in view the immediate, practical needs of Christian teachers. Yet there are at least the outlines of a theological system in the Oratio Catechetica, and it is to this fact that its resemblance to the work of Origen is due,

The influence of Origen upon Gregory’s work is seen in three points.

1. In the first place his general treatment of his subject shows how deeply he had imbibed the spirit of Origen. His attempt to illustrate and explain Christian truth with the help of the philosophical conceptions of Greek thought is inspired by Origen’. Like his great master he too would seek to claim the philosophy of the heathen world as a friend and partner in the pursuit of the higher life?.

2. Again, Gregory’s exegesis of Scripture is derived, like that of Basil, from Origen. He expounds the principles of the allegorical method of interpretation in c. 32 of the Or. Caz, where he is dealing with objections to the manner of Christ’s death. All words and acts of the Gospel have, he declares, a higher and more Divine meaning* than that which lies upon the

1 Cp. Rupp, /.c. ‘Origen is great by virtue of the single thought of bringing philosophy into union with religion, and producing thereby a theology. With Clement of Alexandria this was still a mere instinct. Origen gave it consciousness, and so Christianity began to have a science of its own.’

2 Cp. de Vit. Moysis, l.c. supra.

a

xX INTRODUCTION -

surface. There is in all passages alike an admixture of the Divine element with the human. The voice or action proceeds after a human manner, while the hidden meaning’ manifests the Divine element. So in the Death of Christ we can recognize the human element, the shame and weakness, while the outstretched arms of the Sufferer preach the Divine lesson of the all-embracing love of God. The early chapters of Genesis he treats, as Origen had done before him, as allegories. The stories of Paradise and the coats of skin? contain doctrines written in the form of a narrative and after the manner of history®. The coats of skin do not refer to literal skins. The inner meaning of the story, expressed in veiled language‘, is that physical death was appointed by God as a merciful provision for undoing the effects of man’s fall. Once more Gregory accuses the Jews of having misunderstood all that the Law had expressed in veiled language for those who were able to understand the inner meaning®, Such a method of exegesis was common in the age of Gregory. Allegorism was practised by all parties alike, when it suited their purpose. Some of these mystical interpretations of particular passages had passed into the current tradition of the Church® The allegorical method was, moreover, particularly suited to the work of the apologist. It enabled him to claim the Old Testament in support of Christian belief and to harmonize it with the doctrines of the Church. At the same time it afforded him a weapon

6 E.g. in c. 32 Gr. claims to have received the interpretation which he gives of the Cross ἐκ παραδόσεως.

INTRODUCTION XXI1

wherewith to repel the counter-claims of Judaism. Behind Gregory’s use of allegorism, however, there is often a profoundly spiritual conception of the meaning of Scripture’. :

3. Once more it is in his whole conception of the Divine Providence that Gregory shows himself the disciple of Origen. To him, as to Origen, the history of the world represents a vast movement from a beginning to an end, embracing all created beings, and advancing towards a final unity in which God will be all in 4113. To both alike it is God’s goodness which is the cause of Creation*, In the system of Origen, however, man does not occupy quite the same central position in Creation as he does in the teaching of Gregory. According to Origen man is but one factor in the world of spirits‘. Gregory returns to the view of earlier Fathers and regards man as the sole cause and the end of Creation’. In him the two worlds of sense and spirit find a meeting-point’ Origen’s view was necessitated’ by his belief in the pre-existence of souls

1 See a fine passage in c. Eunom. vii p. 744 (Migne) διὰ τοῦτο πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος λέγεται, διὰ τὸ τῆς θείας ἐμπνεύσεως εἶναι διδασκαλίαν. εἰ περιαιρεθείη τὸ σωματικὸν τοῦ λόγου προκάλυμμα, τὸ λειπόμενον Κύριός ἐστι καὶ ζωὴ καὶ πνεῦμα, κατά τε τὸν μέγαν Παῦλον, καὶ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίον φωνήν. For further passages illustrating Gr.’s principles of exegesis see in Cant. Cantic. p. 756 sq. (Migne), and (on the συγκατάβασις of Scripture) de Comm. Not. p. 181 (Migne).

2 St Paul’s words, 1 Cor. xv 28, are a favourite text with Gr. as with Origen. Cp.e.g. de An. et Res. p. 104 (Migne).

3 See Or. Cat.c. 5. Cp. Origen de Princ. ii 9. 6.

4 See c. Celsum iv 99 (Phtlocalia, c. 20, p. 150, ed. Rob.) οἶμαι δὴ ἀποδεδειχέναι ἐκ τῶν προειρημένων, πῶς ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ παντὶ λογικῷ τὰ πάντα πεποίηται.

XXil INTRODUCTION

and a pre-temporal fall, which Gregory rejects. But in his treatment of free-will and the origin of evil Gregory again shows himself the disciple of Origen’. The possession of free-will was necessary to the perfection of that ‘image of God*’ in which man was made. The result of its possession was that the participation in good was made the reward of virtue. It is through this endowment of free-will that evil becomes possible. For evil springs from within and is due to the action of man’s will in turning away from what is good. Evil has no substantive existence but arises from the absence of virtue. The insistence on man’s free-will, which had characterized Origen’s teaching when face to face with the predestinarian views of the Gnostics, was no less important at the time when Gregory wrote, in face of the fatalism which characterized heathen thought, and above all in view of the danger from Manichaeism. The conception of the negative character of evil Gregory shares with other teachers of his age. It appears in Athanasius and Basil, and is an indication of their common debt to Origen. At the same time it marks a point of contact with Platonism’, originating as it does in the identification of τὸ ἀγαθόν and τὸ dv. But it is in the application of these two ideas of man’s freewill and the negative character of evil to the larger question of the Providence of God that Gregory far outdistances his contemporaries and shows himself a thoroughgoing disciple of Origen. It is one of the merits of both teachers that they are able to assign a

1 For Origen’s treatment of free-will see de Principits Bk iii (Philocatia, Cc. 21).

2 For the whole of what follows see Or. Cat. c. 5.

3 See notes onc. §.

4 Cp. Archer Hind 7tmaeus of Plato pp. 31—33.

INTRODUCTION xxiii

real importance to man’s free-will in their system of thought. But man’s free-will cannot defeat the final purpose of God, and evil, from its unsubstantial character, cannot be eternal. God must finally be ‘all in all.’ The purpose of God includes the redemption and restoration to God of all created spirits, Satan included. The purification of man is the work of grace. But those who have not passed through the gate of Baptism have none the less their own appropriate purification. The Divine Power in contact with evil acts as a refining fire. Satan himself will be purged by it and be led to acknowledge the justice and redemptive power of God. Then, when the purifying fire has done its work, there will arise from all Creation a chorus of praise’. This doctrine of ἀπο- κατάστασις, which proved such a stumbling-block to later ages and led to the suggestion that Gregory’s works had been interpolated, shows how completely Gregory had made his own the main outlines of Origen’s system’, In their conception of a purifying discipline in the after-life both Origen and Gregory are re-echoing the thoughts of Plato in the Gorgzas*, but the former certainly believed himself to be interpreting the language of Scripture‘, while the great text of St Paul, already referred to, supplied them both with the Scriptural basis

2 For reff. to Origen see notes on the passages quoted above. For other passages in which Gr. adheres to traditional language on the subject of future punishment see notes on c. 26.

3 For reff. see notes on Ὁ. 8.

4 E.g. 1 Cor. iii 15. For other reff. see Bigg Bampton Lect. p. 230. Gr.’s teaching on the κάθαρσις applies to a different stage in the history of the soul from that of the Western doctrine of Purgatory. The former takes place after the resurrection, the latter between death and judgment. Again the former deals with the purification of the bad, the latter with the purification of the good. See Mason Purgatory pp. 18—20.

which they sought for their belief in the final restoration of all created spirits to God.

In his treatment of human nature in the Or. Caz. Gregory departs from Origen, who adopted St Paul’s terminology of ‘body, ‘soul,’ and ‘spirit.’ It suited better the purpose of Gregory’s apology to adopt the simpler division into ‘intelligible’ and ‘sensible’ or ‘invisible’ and ‘visible,’ in order that he might exhibit man as the centre of creation and the meeting-point of the two worlds of matter and spirit. At the same time his method enables him to assert the closeness of the union between the two’.

Once more Gregory appears to emphasize more clearly than Origen the antithesis of God and the world. Thus when dealing with Creation in its relation to God he no longer uses the antithesis of τὸ νοητόν and τὸ αἰσθητόν, which would place all spiritual beings in the same category, but abandoning here Plato and Origen, he draws a contrast between ‘created’ and ‘uncreated*’ This enabled him to assert the transcendence of God, an idea on which he is continually dwelling in his other works’.

It is a sign of Gregory’s independence of thought and versatility of mind that, while he has shown himself a true disciple of Origen and has followed him in some

1 He uses the words pls, dvdxpacis, συνανάκρασις of this union. See c. 6. Gr.’s treatment of the union of soul and body, and the relation of his thought to that of Plotinus is discussed by Bergades de Universo et de Anima hominis doctr. Greg. Nyss. 88. 9—13-

8 Cp. de An. et Res. p. 92 sq. (Migne), esp. the words ᾿Επεὶ δὲ οὖν παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ ἐπέκεινα ἡ θεία φύσις. See also c. Hunom. ii Ὁ. 473 (Migne), iii p. 601, de Hom. Op. c. τι. This feature, which Gr. shares with Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen, marks a point of contact with the Neoplatonists. See, however, Diekamp of. c#z. pp. 183, 184.

of his most daring speculations, he has also shown himself susceptible to influences from another teacher who led in his day a reaction from Origen, and even figured as one of his most determined opponents.

The influence of Methodius upon Gregory’s thought in the Oratio Catechetica is unmistakeable, and extends not only to important conceptions, but even to similarity of literary expression’. In the first place Gregory shares Methodius’ conception of the place occupied by death in the Divine order. According to Gregory® death was a temporary institution’, not a necessity of man’s nature. It affects only the physical or sensuous part of man, and the work which it fulfils in the remedial purpose of God‘ is to free man’s physical nature from the evil implanted in it by sin, by dissolving it and refashioning it® in its original beauty. He illustrates this by the case of a potter, who, when he finds that some ill-disposed person has filled with molten lead the vessel which he has fashioned, breaks up the unbaked clay and remodels it. Methodius’ account is similar. According to him ‘God devised death that by this means we might be rendered

1 The illustration of the potter in Or. Cat. c. 8 appears to be derived from Methodius de Resurrectione Lib. ic. 44 (ed. Bonwetsch, p. 146). Again the description of death in Or. Cat. cc. 16, 35 recalls the language of Method. de Kesurr. Lib. i c. 38 (ed. Bon. p. 932) οὐδὲν yap ἄλλο ὁ θάνατος ἢ διάκρισις Kal χωρισμὸς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ σώματος. Gr.’s description of the ‘angel of the earth’ and the φθόνος of Satan (Or. Cat. c. 6) recalls the passage in Method. ae Resurr. Lib. i c. 37 (ed. Bonw. p. 130). For the coats of skin (Or. Cat. c. 8) cp. Method. de Resurr. Lib. i c. 39 (ed Bonw. p- 136). The illustration derived from human generation (Ov. Cat¢. c. 33) is found in Method. de Resurr. Lib. ii c. 20 (ed. Bonw. p. 235).

3 οὐχ ws del παραμένειν and ibid. πρὸς καιρόν.

XXVI1 INTRODUCTION

altogether free from blemish and injury*’; and he explains his meaning by the two illustrations of the worker in metal and the potter. Yet in adopting the point of view of Methodius with regard to the physical nature of man, Gregory shows his originality by combining with it the idea of the purification of the soul by the practice of virtue in this life and the purificatory discipline of the after-life*. Starting from this conception of the redemption of the body, we find.that both Methodius and Gregory take the same view of the redemptive work of Christ. According to the somewhat confused language of Methodius, Adam represents the whole of humanity which was assumed by Christ*, When man went astray, Christ the Shepherd came to seek him and ‘bare him up’ and ‘wrapped Himself around him*’ that he might not again be overwhelmed and swallowed up by the waves and deceits of pleasure. ‘For in this way the Word assumed man, in order that, overcoming the serpent, He might through Himself destroy the condemnation which had followed upon man’s ruin. For it was fitting that by no other should the Evil One be overcome, but by him whom he had deceived and over whom he was boasting that he had gained the mastery; for in no other way was it possible that sin and condemnation should be destroyed, unless that same man, on whose account it had been said, “ Earth thou art and unto earth shalt thou return,” should be refashioned® and

1 de Resurr. Lib. ic. 42 sq. (ed. Bonw. pp. 142 56.).

2 Or. Cat.c. 8 ἐν μὲν τῇ παρούσῃ ζωῇ τὸ τῆς ἀρετῆς φάρμακον els θερα- πείαν τῶν τοιούτων προσετέθη τραυμάτων. εἰ δὲ ἀθεράπευτος μένοι, ἐν τῷ μετὰ ταῦτα βίῳ τεταμίευται ἡ θεραπεία.

3 See Conviv. iii 6 οὕτω δὴ πάλιν καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀνειληφότι Χριστῷ τὸν ᾿Αδὰμ πάντες ζωοποιηθῶσιν (ed. Jahn, p. 19). Cp. also iii 4, 7, 8.

5 ἀναπλασθείς.

INTRODUCTION XXVIi

undo the sentence which on his account had issued forth upon all, that, as in Adam formerly all die, even so again in Christ, who assumed Adam, all should be made alive’.’

There are resemblances in this exposition to the earlier teaching of Irenaeus*, but the many points of contact with Methodius’ conceptions and the form in which he illustrates them* seem to show fairly conclusively that Gregory chose the latter as his model. According to Gregory‘ Christ assumed humanity for the purpose of knitting together in an inseparable union the body and soul which had been severed in death, and recalling the primal grace’ which had belonged to human nature. As the principle of death had passed throughout the whole of human nature, so the principle of life resulting from Christ’s Resurrection passes to all. He first united the soul which He had assumed in an indissoluble union with His own body by His resurrection. Then on a larger scale® he inaugurated the same union for all humanity. Thus He becomes the ‘meetingground’’ of life and death, by arresting the process of dissolution in man’s nature, and Himself becoming

1 gbid. Cp. also the words in c. 7 ὅπως ὁ Κύριος, ἡ ἀφθαρσία νικήσασα τὸν θάνατον, εὐήχως τὴν ἀνάστασιν μελῳδήσῃ τῇ σαρκί, μὴ ἐάσας αὐτὴν κληρονομηθῆναι πάλιν ὑπὸ τῆς φθορᾶς. See also the mystical application to the Church of the story of the creation of Eve, idid.c.8. The reff. throughout are to Jahn’s edition.

2 See Harnack Ast. of Dogma (Eng. tr.), vol. iii p. 105 (cp. ii 239 ff.).

8 See supra, p. xxv, note 1.

5 ws ἂν ἡ πρώτη περὶ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον χάρις ἀνακληθείη. Cp. c. 35 ὥστε τῆς κακίας ἐν τῇ διαλύσει τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς éxpvelons πάλιν διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως σῶον καὶ ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀκέραιον καὶ πάσης τῆς κατὰ κακίαν ἐπιμιξίας ἀλλότριον ἀναστοιχειωθῆναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον.

7 μεθόριον.

XXVIii INTRODUCTION

the originating principle of the union of the severed portions!.

In these somewhat realistic expositions of the work of redemption we find certain clearly marked conceptions which are held in common by Methodius and Gregory. There is the same idea of the purpose of death as a means of removing the evil which had entered man’s physical nature through the Fall. There is the same idea of Christ’s union with humanity as a whole. And lastly there is the same conception of the reconstitution of human nature through the Resurrection of Christ. These conceptions form the leading features of Gregory’s doctrine of redemption.

Gregory’s treatment of the Incarnation exhibits in detail many points of resemblance to that of Athanasius. As we have seen his general conceptions follow in the main those of Methodius. It is rather on the apologetic side that his expositions recall those of Athanasius. Both writers recognize the importance of history. They both appeal to the miracles of Christ?, and to His Virgin- Birth and Resurrection; also to the witness of facts as exhibited in the rise and growth of the Church and in the decline of heathenism and Judaism’. They both deal with the question ‘Why did not God restore man by a mere fiat?’, though they answer it in different ways‘. Both appeal to the immanence of God in Creation in order to justify the idea of an Incarnation®. Both treat

1 See further the expositions in Or. Cat. cc. 32, 35, esp. the words in C. 32, ἡ τοῦ μέρους ἀνάστασις ἐπὶ τὸ πᾶν διεξέρχεται, κατὰ τὸ συνεχές τε καὶ ἡνωμένον τῆς φύσεως ἐκ τοῦ μέρους ἐπὶ τὸ ὅλον συνεκδιδομένη.

INTRODUCTION XX1X

of the necessity of the death of Christ’, but Gregory has | emphasized more clearly than Athanasius the fact that death was necessary in order that Christ’s assumption of human nature might be complete. The particular manner of the death, Crucifixion, is also discussed by both writers, though more fully by Athanasius*. Both see in the outstretched arms of Christ a manifestation of His purpose to unite all men to Himself*. While Athanasius asserts that man’s ills could not be cured by any external remedy*, Gregory maintains that man needed to be touched in order to be cured® On the other hand Athanasius emphasizes far more clearly than Gregory the purpose of the Incarnation to restore in man the knowledge of God which had been blurred by sin®* In one or two respects Gregory added to the expositions given by Athanasius, as when he deals with the question why the Incarnation was delayed, and answers it by the analogy of the physician who waits till the disease has reached a climax before applying a cure’.

Gregory deals with the question, why sin has not ceased to exist since the Incarnation, by adducing the simile of a serpent® which has received its death-blow, though life continues for a time in its extremities. And again he answers the question why grace has not come to all by saying, in language that recalls Butler in later times, that God has left something to man’s initiative and made him free to accept or refuse God’s offer®. On

the whole, however, Gregory’s treatment of the Incarnation lacks the completeness and profundity which is found in Athanasius’.

What has been said above of Gregory’s relation to Origen has served also to bring into notice the debt which both Fathers owe to Plato. Gregory’s other works exhibit his intimate acquaintance with Plato’s Dialogues’, and show how freely he employed Plato’s thoughts in setting forth the doctrine of the Trinity®. Yet Gregory fully understood the limits within which Platonism might be of service to the theology of the Church. It was at best a useful ally, which might be enlisted to strengthen and illustrate his exposition of the faith. It is thus that he employs the Platonic psychology to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity in the opening chapters of the Oratio Catechetica*.

1 In his treatment of the Divine Word in Or. Cat. c. 1 Gr. uses language which resembles that of Athanasius, e.g. his statement that God was never without a Word (cp. Or. c. Ar. i119), and his contrast between the Divine Word and its transitory, human counterpart (cp. Or. ¢c. Ar. ii 35).

2 See passages quoted by Diekamp Gotteslehre d. h. Gregor. v. N. P- 33:

3 E.g. in the treatises c. Eunomium, Quod non sint tres dit and de Comm. Notionibus. See Rupp Gregors Leben und Meinungen p. 136. Bardenhewer (fatrologie p. 278) speaks of him as ‘anticipating the extreme Realism of the Middle Ages.’

4 Of the influence of the later Platonists there is in the Or. Cat. apparently little trace. Similarly there is only a sparing use made of Aristotle. In his chapter on the Eucharist (c. 37) Gr. employs the Aristotelian antithesis of δύναμις and ἐνέργεια, and ‘form’ (εἶδος) and matter. But in this case he was probably only availing himself of terminology which had entered into the current eclectic philosophy of the day. His treatment of εἶδος in other works (e.g. de Hom. Op. c. 27) shows the influence of both Methodius and Origen. See Diekamp of. czt. p. 44, note 2. See further notes on ἀλλοιωτικῆς and reff. to Aristotle’s doctrine of nutrition in c. 37.

INTRODUCTION ΧΧΧΙ

We may now proceed to consider some points in the teaching of the Ovatio Catechetica in which Gregory’s independence of earlier Fathers is most apparent. First in order stands his presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. His treatment of the subject is somewhat slight when compared with the length at which he discusses the Incarnation. There were two reasons for this. His earlier works had expounded at full length his ideas upon the subject’. And again it is assumed by him that in an apologetic.work such as the Ovatio Catechetica professes to be, there was less need to deal at length with objections to this doctrine than was the case in the doctrine of the Incarnation. The ‘general ideas’ of the Greek might be regarded as predisposing him to believe that there was a Word of God and a Spirit of God, while the indications in the Old Testament of hypostases within the Godhead might serve to convince the Jew*. But in what he does say his treat- . ment 15 original and suggestive. He is the first Father to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity from the psychology of human nature. Starting from the Platonic analysis of human consciousness as consisting of vods, λόγος, ψυχή, he proceeds to argue that in the case of the Godhead this implies three distinct hypostases within the Divine Being. The Divine Logos and Spirit must correspond to the Divine Nature and be proportionately higher than their human counterparts. They must accordingly be living and have life in themselves. And in order to have life in the fullest sense they must be personal, possessing will and the power to perform what they will. Gregory’s illustration is based upon the

1 Cp. c. 38. 3 Cp. the opening words of c. 5, where he also states the difficulties likely to be felt about the Incarnation. Cp. also c. 9.

belief, which he exhibits in other works, that human nature is a mirror, which faithfully reflects the traits of its Divine archetype’. At the same time Gregory is conscious of the inadequacy of our faculties to explore the mode of the existence of Deity, and he acknowledges that we can only attain a moderate degree of apprehension of the Divine Being’.

Another contribution which Gregory makes to Christian thought in the Ovatio Catechetica is his treatment of the relation of the work of redemption to the attributes of God’*. These he represents as four, power, righteousness, goodness, and wisdom*. The goodness of God was shown in his desire to rescue man, His wisdom in the method chosen to carry into effect this desire’. The power of God, which is not in its exhibition divorced from love*, was shown in the surpassing wonder of God’s condescension, which enabled Him to come down to the level of man. Such humiliation was a wonder no less than that a flame should stream downwards, instead of upwards’. The righteousness of God was displayed in His manner of dealing with the great adversary of man*. In treating of this question Gregory

1 Cp. de An. et Res. p. 41 (Migne) οὕτως ἐν τῇ βραχύτητι τῆς ἡμετέρας φύσεως τῶν ἀφράστων ἐκείνων τῆς θεότητος ἰδιωμάτων al εἰκόνες ἐκλάμπουσιν : de Mortuis p. 509 (Migne) ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῆς ἐν τῷ κατόπτρῳ μορφῆς ἡ εἰκὼν πρὸς τὸ ἀρχέτυπον σχηματίζεται: ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς χαρακτῆρος, τὸ ἔμπαλιν νενοήκαμεν" κατὰ γὰρ τὸ θεῖον κάλλος τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς εἶδος ἀπεικονί- ζεται. οὐκοῦν ὅταν πρὸς τὸ ἀρχέτυπον ἑαυτῆς βλέπῃ ἡ ψυχὴ τότε δι᾽ ἀκριβείας ἑαυτὴν καθορᾷς There are many such passages. The passage in Quid sit ad imag. Det p. 1333 (Migne), which recalls Gr.’s language in the Or. Cat., cannot be adduced in illustration, as the treatise is almost certainly a later work, probably by Anastasius Sinaita. See Ceillier viii 248.

INTRODUCTION ΧΧΧΙΙ

is led to discuss the nature of the Atonement, and in so doing he develops in a highly original manner the theory which earlier Fathers had framed upon the subject?. His teaching finds a parallel in that of Ambrose and later writers, and the idea of a ransom paid to Satan and a deception practised upon him, though rejected by one or two important Fathers, became widely current in East and West until Anselm brought it to an edifying end*% His argument is as follows. As we had freely sold ourselves to evil, He who sought to restore us to liberty could not resort to arbitrary and tyrannical methods, but must proceed by methods of strict justice. This involved the payment to Satan, as owner of mankind, of such a ransom as he was willing to receive. The spectacle of Christ’s miracles led the adversary to select Him as the ransom-price, while the veil of Christ’s human nature, hiding the Godhead, removed all cause for fear, and led him to desire Christ as his prey. In reply to the argument that this involved an act of deception, since the Godhead of Christ was veiled from Satan, Gregory replies that it was an act of strict justice. Satan was requited according to his deserts, in that the deceiver was in turn deceived. But he adds a further answer. Behind the justice of God and this apparent act of deception there was a beneficent purpose. Just as a physician deceives

1 For these earlier theories see reff. in notes on c. 23. It isa significant fact that in his exposition of the atonement Gregory does not treat of the ideas of propitiation or satisfaction, or of the relation of the sacrifice of Christ to the sacrifices of the Old Testament. In the passage in Chr. vesurr. Or. i Ὁ. 612 (Migne) he speaks of the sacrifice of the lamb but only in connexion with the Eucharist. In ¢. Eunom. ii p. 473 (Migne) the shedding of the blood is the ‘ransom price’ by which we are delivered from death.

2 See notes on c. 23.

his patient by mixing a drug with his food; so the purpose of the deceit practised in the Incarnation was to benefit the adversary himself. Satan himself will be purged by the Divine power, acting as a refining fire, and will be led at last to acknowledge the saving power of Christ’s work of redemption*. In this exposition, with its combination of the thoughts of his master Origen and his own ingenious fancies, Gregory’s imagination attains its highest flight. In his whole treatment of the Atonement Gregory falls far short of the more profound and Scriptural teaching of Athanasius.

The concluding section of the Oratio Catechetica is devoted to an exposition of the doctrine of the Sacraments%. Gregory defends the principle involved in the Divine working through sacramental channels on general grounds by the same appeal to the Divine immanence which he had employed in dealing with the Incarnation®. But the assurance that God is present and works through such means is based upon His promise to be present in this particular way‘. The validity of the sacramental rite accordingly depends upon the cooperation of our wills with the promise of God to act through these means. The prayers which are offered by us at baptism neither effect nor hinder the validity of the Sacrament, which depends upon the promise of God’®. |

Another feature in Gregory’s treatment of the Sacraments is his insistence that through them there is a continuation of the process of the Incarnation. Thus

5 ibid.

he says of Baptism!: ‘Since the method of our salvation was made effectual, not so much by instruction in the way of teaching, as by the very acts of Him who has established a fellowship with man, and has effected life as an actual fact, in order that, by means of the flesh which He has assumed and at the same time deified, everything kindred and related to it may be saved along with it, it was necessary that some means should be devised by which there might be in the baptismal process a kind of affinity and likeness between him who follows and Him who leads the way.’ Similarly, in dealing with the Eucharist’, he says that the Incarnate Christ ‘infused Himself into our perishable nature, that by communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified.’ Then he proceeds: ‘For this end it is that by dispensation of His grace He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance is from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, that by this union with that which is immortal man too may be a sharer in incorruption.’

In both passages the idea is that the process of ‘deification’ which was consummated in the humanity of Christ by the hypostatic union of the Word with it, is continuously effected in mankind at large through union with Christ in the Sacraments. Gregory’s language presents a fairly close parallel to the similar treatment of the question in the de Trinztate of St Hilary.

In his treatment of Baptism Gregory emphasizes the importance of a right faith for the practical needs of the Christian life. By his reference to his former controversial works on the Trinity’ he clearly shows the inner

spiritual significance of the battle which the Church had been fighting with Arianism. It is of importance that he who is regenerate should know what is his spiritual parentage and into what manner of life he is born in baptism’. To believe that the Son and Spirit are created beings is to make a man’s salvation dependent on something which is imperfect and which itself needs redemption*. His exposition of the inner significance of Baptism® recalls the language of Cyril’s Catecheses and is based on St Paul’s teaching. Baptism involves repentance and a dying with Christ unto sin. It is also the beginning of a resurrection unto a life of blessedness. But he realizes the incapacity‘ of man at present fora complete reproduction in himself of the death and resurrection of Christ. Still baptism marks the first stage. It is a break with evil’, and a preliminary rehearsal® of that which will be completely accomplished hereafter. He insists strongly on the necessity of baptism for the resurrection to the life of blessedness. All will rise again, but there will be a difference. Each will go to his appropriate place. He who has been purified in the waters of baptism will pass to a passionless life of blessedness. For him who lacks such purification there waits the refiner’s fire, which shall purge the nature through long ages and restore it at last pure to God’.

It is however in his treatment of the Eucharist that Gregory’s teaching is most distinctive. His chapter on

7 bid. On the κάθαρσις of souls see antea.

INTRODUCTION XXXVil

the subject marks an epoch in the history of the doctrine of the Eucharist in the Eastern Church. The frequency of its occurrence among patristic selections in later manuscripts, and the use made of it by John of Damascus, Euthymius Zigabenus, and the author of the _ dialogue Theortani disputatio cum Nersete shows the importance assigned to it.

Gregory begins! by stating the distinction between Baptism and the Eucharist. In Baptism the soul is knit to Christ through faith. But the body needs no Jess than the soul to be brought into union with its Saviour, and the Eucharist is specially intended for the body. This is the significance of the bodily participation of the Eucharistic food, which must be eaten, in order that the communicant’s body may be transformed into the nature of the immortal Body of Christ. We notice here the same method of treatment which has characterized Gregory’s doctrine of redemption? In thus insisting on the effect of the Eucharist upon the body he is using language which undoubtedly finds parallels in earlier Fathers* and which asserts an important principle, ie. that the whole man shares in the healing and life-giving work of grace. But his onesided treatment has the effect of seeming to lower the Eucharistic gift to a mere principle of life for the body. At the same time, however, he insists on the importance of faith in the recipient*

A second feature of his teaching is his clear assertion of the fact that the consecration of the elements is effected by the prayer of consecration. It is ‘by the

1c. 37. 2 See antea, pp. xxvii, xxviii. 8 See reff. in notes.

4 E.g. the phrases: rats τοσαύταις τῶν πιστῶν μυριάσι---ἐν ὅσοις ἡ πίστις ἐστί----τᾶσι τοῖς πεπιστευκόσι τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ τῆς χάριτος---τοῖς σώμασι τῶν πεπιστευκότων κατακιρνάμενος.

XXXVili ' INTRODUCTION

power of the blessing’ that the Word transforms the nature of the visible elements to the immortal Body of Christ. Thus the change effected is, according to Gregory’s view, an objective change.

A more difficult question is the relation in which, according to Gregory’s teaching, the consecrated elements of bread and wine stand towards the Body and Blood of Christ, and the exact nature of the change which he regards them as having undergone by consecration. From the days of the Paris editor, Fronto Ducaeus, Gregory’s words have been used to support the Western doctrine of Transubstantiation*. The question which Gregory sets himself to answer in his chapter on the Eucharist is as follows. How can the one Body of Christ, while continually distributed to multitudes of believers, become in its entirety the possession of each through the portion received, and yet remain an undivided whole? In order to answer this question he makes use of an analogy derived from the process of nutrition. Bread and wine are potentially flesh and blood, since they become such by the process of digestion. In the case of Christ’s earthly Body bread and wine became in this way His Body and His Blood, while that Body, whose substance was from bread and thus in a manner was bread, was consecrated by the inhabitation of God the Word. So now in the Eucharist the bread and wine, which are consecrated by the Word, become the Body of the Word, no longer by eating, as in His earthly life, but immediately. The purpose of Gregory’s illustration is to compare the relation in

1 τῇ τῆς εὐλογίας δυνάμει (c. 37 fn2.). On the question of what is meant by the εὐλογία, and the use which Gr. makes of the words of institution, see notes.

3 See reff. in notes.

INTRODUCTION XX X1X

which bread and wine stand to the person of Christ in the Eucharist with that which the bread eaten by Him while on earth had to His earthly Body. The change in both cases is a change of relation. His language suggests a real change’, but does not indicate the exact manner of the change. In view of the use which has been made of Gregory’s language, and the ambiguity which attaches to such words as ‘nature,’ ‘form, ‘change, it is important to grasp clearly the conceptions which underlie the terms employed by him in his illustration from the process of digestion. Gregory is availing himself of ideas upon the body’s flux and the relation of its ‘elements’ to its ‘form, which he has treated of at length elsewhere*. In the background of his thought there is a perfectly consistent theory of εἶδος and στοιχεῖα, and the terms which he employs are correctly used and implicitly involve such a theory, even though they do not explicitly state it. He is thinking of the change effected when the constituent elements (στοιχεῖα) of bread and wine are, in the process of digestion, rearranged under a new form (εἶδος), so that they acquire the properties of ‘body.’ With this idea his use of the words εἶδος, φύσις, μεταποιεῖσθαι is perfectly consistent. The elements of bread and

1 Gr.’s language goes beyond that of Theodoret Déa/. i p. 25 (Schulze) οὐ τὴν φύσιν μεταβαλών, ἀλλὰ τὴν χάριν τῇ φύσει προστεθεικώς. But the word φύσις is here used in a different sense from that in which Gr. uses it, as is shown by the same writer’s statement in Dial, ii p. 126 (Schulze), Οὐδὲ yap μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν τὰ μυστικὰ σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως " μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας καὶ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ τοῦ εἴδους, καὶ ὁρατά ἐστιν καὶ ἁπτὰ οἷα καὶ πρότερον ἦν.

2 On the flux of the body see Ov. Cat. c. 16 and the reff. in notes. On the relation of the στοιχεῖα of the body to its εἶδος see de Hom. Of. c. 27.

8 See notes on these words and on μεταστοιχειοῦν in c. 37, and esp. the discussion of the relation of εἶδος, στοιχεῖα and φύσις in the note on εἶδος.

x] ; INTRODUCTION

wine are brought into a new relation and acquire fresh qualities. Similarly in the Eucharist there is a change of the bread and wine, which acquire by their new relation to the person of Christ the properties of His Body and Blood. Harnack accordingly is right in his statement! that Gregory teaches ‘a qualitative unity’ between the bread and wine and the Body and Blood of Christ. Thus it is unjustifiable to argue? that the words μεταποιεῖσθαι and μεταστοιχειοῦν involve the idea of a change of substance, or a change of the elements (στοιχεῖα) or constituent parts of the bread and wine. Gregory’s language points to a change of ‘form’ only. He does not teach, as do the later schoolmen, a change both of ‘ material’ and ‘ form”’.

The Western doctrine of Transubstantiation, to which Gregory’s language has been supposed to approximate, moves in a completely different circle of ideas, and is an attempt to explain the manner of the change by the help of the scholastic distinction of ‘substantia’ and ‘accidentia.’

On the other hand Gregory’s language must not be minimized‘ by comparing it with what he says in the

1 Hist. of Dogma (Eng. tr.) iv p. 296.

2 As is done e.g. by the writer in the Dudlin Review quoted by Pusey Real Presence pp. 166, 167, and by Hilt des h/. Gr. von Nyssa Lehre vom Menschen Ὁ. 208. The latter says that Gr. teaches ‘eine vollige und wirkliche direkte Umwandlung der Substanz des Brodes in den Leib,’ and he maintains that expressions like μεταποιεῖσθαι and μεταστοιχειοῦν exclude any other supposition. He renders, quite unjustifiably, the concluding words of c. 37, ‘durch die Kraft des Segens in jenen—seinen Leib—das Wesen der Gestalten verwandelt habe,’ and says, ‘Hier haben wir ganz klar die Wesensverwandlung des Brodes und Weines, wie auch die Hervorhebung, dass von Brod und Wein nur noch die Gestalten (ra φαινόμενα) iibrig bleiben, da ihr Wesen jetzt der Leib Christi ist.’

3 Cp. Harnack Hist. of Dogma (Eng. tr.) vi p. 237.

4 As Neander e.g. does, Ch. /7ist. (ed. Bohn) iv 438.

INTRODUCTION xli

in Baptismum Christ. In that work he is simply adducing instances in which natural things, when taken into sacred uses, acquire a heightened efficacy, like that. of the water in baptism. He illustrates his meaning by reference to the consecration of stone to be an altar, of oil for the purpose of chrism, of a man to be a priest in ordination, and of bread to be the Body of Christ. But his argument does not require us to assume that he understood each of these changes to be identical in character.

In his assertion of the vital character of the change effected in the elements by consecration it may be doubted whether Gregory’s language intentionally goes beyond that of Cyril of Jerusalem and Chrysostom? It finds perhaps its closest parallel in the language of the de Mysterits (ascribed to 5. Ambrose).

Gregory’s treatment of the question, however, gave a direction to the Eucharistic doctrine of the Eastern Church which finds its most complete expression in John of Damascus*. He starts from Gregory’s language on the subject, and, like him, illustrates the change in the elements by the transformation of food in our bodies through digestion. But in several important respects he advances beyond Gregory’s teaching. Thus he teaches the complete identity of the consecrated elements with the Body and Blood of Christ*. Gregory’s illustration,

2 On the use of the words μεταποιεῖν, μετατιθέναι, μεθιστάναι, pera- στοιχειοῦν see notes on c. 37. On the similar use by other patristic writers of μεταβάλλειν, μεταρρυθμίζειν, μετασκενάζειν, transfigurare, see Pusey Real Presence pp. 162 ff.

8 de Fid. Orth. iv 13.

4 ibid. Οὐκ ἔστι τύπος ὁ ἄρτος καὶ ὁ οἶνος τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ (μὴ γένοιτο), ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου τεθεωμένον : ibid. καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶ δύο, ἀλλ᾽ ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτό.

xii INTRODUCTION

on the other hand, is offered tentatively’, and he has no intention of denying that the elements still exist in their natural substances after consecration. John of Damascus further goes beyond Gregory in asserting the identity of the Eucharistic with the historical body of Christ, a question which Gregory does not discuss. But the statement of the former that the Body of Christ ‘does not descend from Heaven, but the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of God? accords with Gregory’s idea of an assumption of the elements into the Body of the Word. From the points of contact between the two writers it will be seen that Gregory’s teaching has had considerable influence upon that of John of Damascus’.

The above discussion of the points handled in the Oratio Catechetica, while it serves the purpose of showing Gregory’s indebtedness to earlier Fathers, also illustrates his individuality and independence. He is never a mere copyist, but while adopting the thoughts of others he makes them his own, and frequently gives to them an original turn. It is this originality which gives to the Oratio Catechetica its peculiar character, and makes it one of the most interesting treatises of the fotrth century.

3 The doctrine of John of Damascus became the recognized doctrine of the Eastern Church, as expressed in the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. The term μετουσίωσις was first adopted under Roman influence in the seventeenth century, and does not appear to have gained universal acceptance in the East.

INTRODUCTION xiii

§ 3. HISTORY OF THE TEXT.

The earliest printed edition of the Greek text of Gregory’s works was preceded by several Latin versions of separate or collected treatises. Among these there appeared a version of the Oratio Catechetica, made by P. Morel of Tours, and published at Paris in 1568. A few years later, in 1573, there appeared at Paris an edition of several treatises, including the Oratio Catechetica, in a Latin version made by Gentianus Hervetus, Canon of Rheims. The Greek text, accompanied by a Latin version, was printed for the first time in the Paris edition of 1615 under the editorship of the Jesuit, Fronto Ducaeus. The work was in two volumes and the Oratio Catechetica occupies pp. 475—542 of the second volume. In 1638 appeared a second edition, published at Paris by Morel. This latter work was a reprint of the edition of 1615 with the addition of Gretser’s Appendix, which had been published in 1618.

_ It consisted of three volumes, the Or. Cat. being found

in vol. ili, pp. 43—110. The work was done in a careless and mechanical manner, as Dr Loofs has pointed out (Hauck Realencyklop. vii 147). The Latin version in these editions is based upon that of Gentianus Hervetus, but has been subjected to revision. In the notes of Fronto Ducaeus upon the Oratio Catechetica he mentions three MSS employed by him in his work as editor: .

1, AMS supplied by Dn J. Vulcobius.

2. A MS supplied by F. Morel, ‘ Regius Professor.’

3. A MS from the Royal Library.

The readings of the last two MSS, as quoted by Ducaeus, exhibit a superior character to those of the

xliv INTRODUCTION

first, but the text presented in these editions is very corrupt, and is disfigured by a series of lacunae (see below).

The text of the Ovratio Catechetica contained in Migne (P. G. xiv) is a reprint of the edition of 1638. The only attempt that has been made since the days of the Paris editors to produce a critical text of the Oratio Catechetica is that of Krabinger, whose edition was published at Munich in 1838. He made use of three MSS, which, though of late date, exhibit a far purer text than that contained in the Paris editions. He also used the help afforded by some fragments of the Or. Cat. contained in three Mss of the Panoplia Dogmatica of Euthymius Zigabenus. With these resources he was able to fill up the lacunae exhibited in the common text and to remove many of the corruptions which had hitherto disfigured it. Krabinger’s critical work was of great value, though a wider examination of MSS, and, above all, a study of their history, would have corrected many of his conclusions. Unfortunately his text is disfigured by some bad misprints.

The amount of material available for a reconstruction of the text of the Or. Cat. is considerable. The MSS which have been either collated in full or examined for the present edition are as follows:

a=Cod. Monac. 23. Royal Library, Munich. Saec. Xvi. chart. 415 foll. It is a folio MS and the Ov. Caé. is contained in foll. 107—145. See Hardt, Catalogus Codd. MSS. Graec. Bibl. Reg. Bavaricae tom.1 p. 105. It is quoted by Krabinger as A, and by Forbes, in the preface to his text of the AZologia in Hexaemeron (tom. i fasc. i p. 1), as @.

6=Cod. Monac. 84. Royal Library, Munich. Saec. XVI. chart. 476 foll. In folio size. The Or. Caé. is contained in foll. 138 vo—170. See Hardt, of. c#¢. tom. i p. 477. [Krab. B.]

c=Cod. Monac. 538. Royal Library, Munich. Saec. XVI. chart. 125 foll. In quarto size. The Or. Ca¢. is contained in foll. 1—26. The MS was written for the use of David Hoeschel

INTRODUCTION xiv

by Maximus Margunius, Bishop of Cythera, about 1590, and the margin contains the conjectural emendations of the latter. See Hardt, of. cit. tom. ν p. 348. It was formerly at Augsburg and appears in Reiser’s catalogue (/ndex MSS. Bibl. Augustanae) as No. 77. (Krab. C.]

a@=Trinity College, Cambridge, B. 9. 1. membr. 213 foll. In folio size (14? Χ τοῦ in.), written in a beautiful hand. It consists of. two parts, which are of various dates:

(1) A life of St Alexius, of the eleventh century. (1) Various works of St Gregory of Nyssa and Anastasius, of the twelfth century.

It is one of the MSS brought by Bentley from the monastery of Pantocrator, Mt Athos. The Or. Ca¢. is contained in foll. I 30 vo—162 vo.

e=Codex Regius. Paris, Bibl. Nat. Gr. 1268 (Omont 294). Saec. XII. membr. 304 foll. Size of page 74x5fin. It contains works by Justin, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and others. M. Omont informs me that in the fifteenth or sixteenth century it belonged to a Greek monastery, from which also came several other volumes that are found in different libraries of the West. On fol. 6 there is the ex-libris: ἡ βίβλος αὕτη τοῦ Γαλησίου πέλει. The MS was acquired in the sixteenth century by Antonius Eparchus, who on one of the covering leaves has written with his own hand a table of contents, concluding with the following ex- libris, also by his hand: Κτῆμα ᾿Αντωνίον τοῦ Ἔπάρχου, ὃ δέδωκεν εἰς σημεῖον εὐχαριστίας τῷ ἐπιφανεστάτῳ Φραγκίσκῳ τῷ κραταίῳ βασιλεῖ Κελτῶν. It has successively

borne the numbers CIOCCCCLXX, 1605, and 2879, in the catalogues of the King’s Library, drawn up by Rigault, Dupuy and Clément in the seventeenth century. The Or. Caz. is contained in foll. 152 vo—188 vo. [Forbes y.]

J= British Museum, Add. 22509. Saec. X. or XI. membr. 93 foll. It was presented to the Library by Sir G. C. Lewis in 1858. It contains various works of Gregory of Nyssa and the de Spiritu Sancto of Basil. The Or. Caz. is contained in foll. I—5I vo. The opening sentences are missing, the first words being ov yap δι᾽ ov. There are also two leaves missing in

Cc. 37. £=Cod. Cromw. Ix. Bodleian Library, Oxford. ‘Saec. XIII. et XII. ineuntis’ (Coxe). membr. 342 foll. It is in quarto size. At the end there is the inscription in a later hand: τὸ παρὸν βιβλίον ἐμόν ἐστιν τοῦ Μανικαίτου Μιχαήλ, and in the margin of p. 682 there is a note stating that the owner was presented with the book παρὰ τοῦ..μου δεσπότου οἰκουμενικοῦ πατριάρχου Κυρίλλου. It contains various works of Gregory, including the Or. Cat. (foll. 1—71). It is mutilated at the beginning, the opening words being καὶ τὸ μὴ διαφέρειν, which occur in

xlvi INTRODUCTION

the latter part of c. 1. There is another large gap in cc. 32—33. The MS contains many corrections made by the original hand, and taken from a MS whose readings frequently support the text of # Another feature of this MS is the peculiar system of chapters, which number 21 instead of 40 and have in consequence distinct headings from those found in other MSS.

A=Imperial Library, Vienna. Gr. suppl. το (Kollarii suppl. xviii, Fabricius, IX. 112). Saec. Xv. chart. 413 foll. It is in folio size, and was presented, as the inscription states, to the Emperor Charles VI. in 1723, by Apostolo Zeno, his court poet and historiographer. The Or. Ca¢. is contained in foll. 127—172.

z= Paris, Bibl. Nat. Gr. 587 (Omont 137). Saec. XV—XVI. chart. 280 foll. In folio size. The Orv. Caf. is contained in foll. I—40.

k=Cod. Barocc. CCXII. Bodleian Library, Oxford. Saec. XVI. chart. 410 foll. In quarto size. The Or. Cat. begins fol. 336.

/=British Museum, Royal 16 Ὁ 1. Saec. XIII. membr. 479 foll. Size of page 9$in.x6$in. The MS contains the inscription ἐκ τῶν Μητροφάνους ἱερομοναχοῦ τοῦ KptrorovAov. Metrophanes Critopulus was sent to England by Cyril Lucar in 1616. It contains various works of Gregory, including the Or. Caz. (foll. 283 vo—309). The original text has been subjected to many corrections and erasures by a later scribe, who had access to a MS containing a much purer type of text. [Forbes c.]

m=British Museum, Royal 16 D ΧΙ. Saec. Χιν. chart. 372 foll. Size of page 124x δὲ τη. It contains various works of Gregory, including the Or. Caz. (foll. 40—95 vo). It is the only MS in the present list which contains the spurious addition to c. 40 found in the Paris editions.

n=Vatican Library, Pii 11, cod. gr. 4. Saec. XI. membr. 316 foll. In folio. Stevenson says of it (Codices MSS. Gr. regin. Suec. et Pit P.P. τ Bibl. Vaticanae, Ὁ. 134): ‘In imo margine folii primi et ultimi legitur τοῦ τροπαιοφόρου, i.e. monasterii 5. Georgii. Olim 5. Silvestri.” It contains 31 works of Gregory, including the Ov. Caz. (foll. 151—197), and is written in a beautiful hand.

p=Codex Venetus. Venice. Bibl. Marciana, Gr. 67. Saec. ‘XI. (circiter, Zanetti, p. 45). membr. 432 foll. In quarto size. It

contains various works of Gregory. The Or. Catz. is found foll. 338 vo—366. [Forbes %.]

g=Codex Vaticanus. Rome. Vat. Gr. 423. Saec. x. A fragment of c. 10 is contained in foll. 36 vo—37. y= Codex Coislinianus. Paris. Coisl. CXx olim CCIX (Montfaucon,

p- 193). Saec. x. Contains the same fragment as g in fol. 22—22 VO.

INTRODUCTION xlvii

The following Mss of the Panopla Dogmatica of

Euthymius Zigabenus contain considerable fragments of the Or. Caz.

1=Cod. Monac. 55. Munich. Saec. xvi. [Krab. Euth. 1.]

2=Cod. Monac. 367. Munich (formerly at Augsburg= Reiser No. 10). Saec. x1. [Krab. Euth. 2.]

3=Cod. Monac. 551. Munich (formerly at Augsburg= Reiser No. 55). Saec. xv. (Krab. Euth.]

4= Paris, Bibl. Nat. Gr. 1230 (Omont 171). Saec. XIII.

= Paris, Bibl. Nat. Gr. 1231 (Omont 170). Saec. XIII. 6=Iinperial Library, Vienna, Gr. 76 (Nessel). Saec. XII. 7=Imperial Library, Vienna, Gr. 40 (Nessel). Saec. Xv.

The above list does not contain all the extant MSS of the Ovatio Catechetica, but it includes the earliest which are known. In addition to the above Mss the Vatican Library contains three MSS of the thirteenth century, one of the fourteenth, two of the fifteenth, and three of the sixteenth. The Laurentian Library at Florence contains a MS of the fourteenth century, and the National Library at Turin one of the fifteenth, and another of the sixteenth century. The treatise is also contained in one or more MSS of the fifteenth or sixteenth century in the National Library at Paris. But most of these are too late to be of much service.

The quotations of later patristic writers, with the exception of those found in Euthymius Zigabenus, do not add much to our knowledge of the text. There are a few brief quotations, extending only to a few lines, in the Dialogues of Theodoret?, The greater part of c. 37 is reproduced in Theortani disputatio cum Nersete, printed in Mai Script. Vett. vi 366 ff., the text of which is much purer than that of the Paris editors. There is also a short extract from c. 10 in the treatise of Leontius

xi viii INTRODUCTION

of Byzantium c¢. Nestor. et Eutych. Bk iii. See Galland Bibl. Vet. Patr. xiii p. 699. In the work de S. Trinitate, falsely ascribed to Cyril of Alexandria, and in the de Fide Orthodoxa of John of Damascus, there are reminiscences of the Prologue and of cc. 1 and 2, but they are of no value for critical purposes. There appear to be no extracts from this treatise in the Sacra Parallela of St John of Damascus.

The evidence as to the text afforded by a study of the MSS may be briefly summarized as follows’.

The MSS fall into two groups:

(1) , a, g, 4, n, 2, and (as far as their readings have | been observed) z and &. |

The two MSS 4 and ὁ (which is dependent on δ) contain a mixed text, deriving features from either group in turn,

1. The former of these two groups may be subdivided into two smaller groups containing respectively a, g,pand ἅ, x.

_ The remaining MS d@ appears to incorporate elements from both these divisions.

In the group ὦ, g, 2, @ is directly descended from 2, while g exhibits a text closely allied to 2.

With the text of the second group, comprising 4, 2, the text of the fragments of Gregory preserved in Euthymius presents a close affinity. The distinctive readings of this group, with one exception’, appear to

1 For a fuller discussion of the text of the Or. Cat. see the present writer’s article in the Journal of Theological Studies Vol. iii, No. 11, pp: 421 ff.

2 T.e. the words in c. 23, καὶ τὴν τῶν καταδίκων dvdppvow, which have apparently fallen out of the other Mss and are preserved only in ¢ 4 .

INTRODUCTION xlix

be due to corruption or revision. The tendency to revision is still more marked in the distinctive readings of the text of Euthymius.

2. Inthe second of the two larger groups mentioned above, the text of c, 4, m is closely allied to that of the Paris editions, with which it has in common a number of corrupt readings and the same series of lacunae’. These MSS in fact present a late recension of the text, which f exhibits in its earlier and purer form. For the purposes of criticism the readings of 7 or 7 ὦ are alone important, as ¢ and m are only later and still more corrupt forms of the same original text.

We thus get as our primary authorities for the text: in Group I, f and #; in Group 2, f and 4, with which the readings of the corrector of g are frequently in agreement. Of these two groups the former exhibits traces of corruption at some early stage, while the readings of the latter show the influence of revision. But on the whole the readings of f / commend themselves as generally more likely to be genuine.

In the present edition it has not been thought necessary to give the readings of the late MSS a, ὁ, , 1, k, m, as they possess no independent value. The MSS of Euthymius have been quoted collectively as Euth.; where they differ as Euth. 1, 2, 3 etc. An asterisk is used to denote the first hand of a MS, the figure 1 to denote the corrector’s hand, eg. g*, g!, /*, δὶ For convenience the readings of the Paris edition of 1638 have been cited as vu/g. Sirmond’s edition of Theodoret and the Roman edition have been quoted respectively as Thdrt*™ and Ὑπάτου,

᾿ INTRODUCTION

The following books may be found useful for reference: |

Select Writings and Letters of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Ser. ii. vol. 5, 1893.

Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. ii, Art. on Gregory of Nyssa.

Hauck, se ila cara vol. vil, 1899, Art. on Gregory of Nyssa by Dr Loofs.

Bardenhewer, Patrologie, pp. 272 ff.

Harnack, Aizstory of Dogma, Eng. Tr. vols. iii and iv.

ae Mémoires pour servir a 0 Histoire Eccléstastique, vol. ix.

Ceillier, Auteurs Sacrés et Ecclésiastiques, vol. viii.

Oudin, de Script. Eccl., vol. i diss. 4, pp. 584 sq.

St. P. Heyns, Désputatio htstorico-theologica de Gregorio Nysseno. Lugd. Bat. 1835.

J. Rupp, Gregors, des Bischofs von Nyssa, Leben und Meinungen. Leipzig, 1834.

E. G. Moller, Gregortt Nysseni doctrinam de hominis natura sf tllustravit et cum Origenitana comparavit E. G. M. Halae, 1654.

I. C. Bergades, De universo et de anima hominis doctrina Gregorit Nyssent. Thessalonicae, 1876.

A. Krampf, Der Urzustand des Menschen nach der Lehre des hl. Greg. v. N. Wiirzburg, 1899.

F. Hilt, Des hkl. Greg. ν. N. Lehre vom Menschen. K@6ln, 1890.

F. Diekamp, Dze Gotteslehre des hl. Gregor. von Nyssa. Miinster, 1896.

W. Vollert, 2216 Lehre Gregors v. N. vom Guten und Bosen. Leipzig, 1897.

AOTOZ KATHXHTIKO2Z.

Πρόλογος.

‘O τῆς κατηχήσεως λόγος ἀναγκαῖος μέν ἐστι τοῖς προεστηκόσι τοῦ μυστηρίου τῆς εὐσεβείας, ὡς ἂν πλη- θύνοιτο τῇ προσθήκῃ τῶν σωζομένων ἡ ἐκκλησία, τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου τῇ ἀκοῇ τῶν ἀπίστων

προσαγομένου.

Πρ. 1 Verba ο της κατ. usque ad μυθοποιίας (p. 2,1. 15) deperdita sunt in f. Desunt folia nonnulla in g || 2 μυστηριου)] βιου vulg || 4 τὴ axon]

τὴν axony |

Prologue. Zhe importance of catechetical teaching. Variety of method _ as necessary in dealing with the

different standpoints of heresy and unbelief. Thus in dealing with atheism we shall adduce the art and wisdom shown tn the ordering of the world as a proof of the extstence of God. In dealing with polytheists we shall urge the perfection of God’s attributes as a proof of the unity of God.

. Ὃ τῆς κατ. λόγοι] ‘the catechetical method of discourse.’ The gen. defines the character of λόγος. Κατηχεῖν is used of Christian oral instruction in Lk. i 4, Acts xvill 25, 1 Cor. xiv 19, Gal. vi 6. An early example of a manual of Christian instruction is found in the Didache, of which Athanasius says (Fest. Ap. 39) that, though not included in the Canon, it was appointed for the instruction

of new converts. Under the influence of the School of Alexandria such instruction developed into a philosophical presentation of the faith to meet the needs of cultured heathen. The present Or. Cat. is a manual for catechists who are engaged in the instruction of educated converts.

2. προεστηκόσι) ‘those who have charge of’ or ‘the ministers of.’ Cp. Rom. xii 8, 1 Thess. v 2, 1 Tim.v17. Similarly Justin M. speaks (Afol. i 67) of ὁ προεστώς in the Christian assembly.

1b. τοῦ μυστ. τ. εὐσ. τ Tim. iii 16. Τὸ μυστ. is often used alone to denote the Chnistian religion or creed.

3. προσθήκῃ τ. owf.] a reminiscence of Acts ii 47.

16. τοῦ κατὰ τὴν δ. π. λ.} Tit. ig. Ἢ διδαχή is the Apostolic deposit of faith.

A la) la) \ , , Ἁ τὰς τῶν θρησκειῶν διαφορὰς μεθαρμόζειν προσήκει καὶ Ν ec a a“ τὴν κατήχησιν, πρὸς τὸν αὐτὸν μὲν ὁρῶντας τοῦ λόγου \ a “ 3 σκοπόν, οὐχ ὁμοιοτρόπως δὲ ταῖς κατασκευαῖς ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστου

κεχρημένους.

ἰουδαίζων

προείληπται καὶ ὁ τῷ ἑλληνισμῷ συζῶν ἑτέραις, ὅ τε ᾿Ανόμοιος καὶ ὁ Μανιχαῖος καὶ οἱ κατὰ Μαρκίωνα καὶ Οὐαλεντῖνον καὶ Βασιλείδην καὶ ὁ λοιπὸς κατάλογος τῶν κατὰ τὰς αἱρέσεις πλανωμένων ἰδίαις ἕκαστος ὑπο- λήψεσι προειλημμένοι ἀναγκαίαν ποιοῦσι τὴν πρὸς τὰς ἐκείνων ὑπονοίας μάχην" κατὰ γὰρ τὸ εἶδος τῆς νόσου καὶ

θεραπεύσεις τοῦ “Ἕλληνος τὴν πολυθείαν καὶ τοῦ ᾿Ιουδαίον τὴν περὶ τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν ἀπιστίαν, οὐδὲ ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν τοῖς κατὰ τὰς αἱρέσεις πεπλανημένοις ἀνατρέψεις τὰς 1s ἡπατημένας περὶ τῶν δογμάτων μυθοποιίας" οὐ γὰρ δι᾽

15 ov yap] incipit f

3. κατασκευαῖς] Krabinger rightly gives the sense ‘non eodem modo in singulis probando et confirmando.’ Κατασκευή =‘ a constructive argument,’ ‘a proof.’

5. προείληπται) ‘zs with.’

tb. συζῶν] ‘he that is born and bred in Hellenism. Cp. de Bapt. p- 425 (Migne) οἱ ταῖς ἀκαθαρσίαις συζῶντες.

6. ᾿Ανόμοιος] i.e. the extreme Arian position, which Gregory attacks in his work against Eunomius. The starting-point of Eunomius’ theology was the idea that the Divine Being is incapable of movement or self-communication, and that the being (οὐσία) must be distinguished from the energy (ἐνέργεια) of God. It was by the latter that all things were called into being.

ib. Mastxatos}] whose dualistic teaching Gr. has in view continually

¢-possessed

throughout the present book. See esp. his treatment of the origin of evil in cc. 5—8, his defence of human generation in c. 28, and his teaching upon the ἀποκατάστασις in c. 26.

13. μονογενῆ Gedy] Johnisr8. See Hort’s’ Dissertation on μονογενὴς θεός im Scripture and tradition. The phrase μονογενὴς θεός is found repeatedly in Athanasius, and was also used by Basil. Even Arius and Eunomius employed it, giving to it, of course, their own interpretation. For Gr.’s use of the phrase see c. 39, and cp. Quod non sint tres dit, pp. 129, 132 (Migne); de Fide, pp. 136, 137 (Migne).

tb. οὐδὲ ἀπὸ τ. ad.) ‘Nor will you, in the case of those who have gone astray among heresies, overthrow by the same arguments in each case

- their deluded romances concerning

their doctrines.’

\ \ a Tew Kal κατὰ τὴν ἐγκειμένην ἑκάστῳ πλάνην ποιεῖσθαι 5

Ν / 3 4 \ 4 ? / 949 ¢€ 4 Tov λόγον, ἀρχάς τινας καὶ προτάσεις εὐλόγους ἐφ ἑκαστης διαλέξεως προβαλλόμενον, ws ἂν διὰ τῶν παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέ- ς, 9 , \ ‘o> 4 : e pois ὁμολογουμένων ἐκκαλυφθείη κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἡ 3 ᾽ 9 “ ed 4 A e ’ e ἀλήθεια. οὐκοῦν ὅταν πρός τινα τῶν ἑλληνιζόντων ἡ

τὴν ἀρχήν.

’ 4 \ a e , a a aA πότερον εἶναι τὸ θεῖον ὑπείληφεν, ἢ TO TOV ἀθέων συμφέρεται δόγματι;

1. Σαβέλλιον] used, as often, for an adjective, ‘Sabellian.’ Sabellius maintained that the three personal names, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, represent mere phases and energies of One Divine Being. But, beyond the fact that he denied the essential Trinity and identified the Father and the Son, there is considerable obscurity about his teaching. Athanasius (Or. c. Ar. iv 25) attributes to him the statement: ὥσπερ διαιρέσεις χαρισμάτων εἰσί, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, οὕτω καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ αὐτὸς μέν ἐστι, πλατύ- γεται δὲ εἰς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦμα, and he implies that Marcellus held the same view (Or. ὦ. 417. iv 13). But it is probable that Athanasius in attacking Marcellus and proving that his teaching led to Sabellianism has not carefully distinguished the views of the two teachers. See Zahn Marcellus, 1867, pp. 198 sq., Robertson NV. and Δ. N. F. vol. iv, p. 431 54.

4. προλήψει:] ‘ preconceptions,’ almost ‘prejudices,’ answering to προείληπται above. The Stoics

distinguished between προλήψεις, conceptions built on experience without elaborate reasoning, and ἔννοιαι, conceptions reached by the consciously applied reason.

6. ἀρχάς τινας] ‘ propounding in cach discussion certain principles and reasonable proposttions.’

οὐκοῦν] In dealing with the representatives of Hellenic thought the first step is to make sure that they recognize the existence of God. The next step is to lead them to acknowledge the unity of God. The section which follows, as far as the end of c. 3, is found in Euthymius Zig. Pan. Dogm. pt i, tit. 1, PP- 33 sq. (Migne). ib. ἑλληνιζόντων] “Ἑλλην practically = ‘heathen’ as opposed to Jew, as in the N.T., e.g. Gal. "1 28.

12. ἀθέων] such as the later Academics. The Epicureans too were practical atheists, not denying the existence of the gods, but contending that they took no part in the government of the world.

TOV τεχνικῶς καὶ σοφῶς. κατὰ τὸν κόσμον οἰκονομουμέ- \ νων προσαχθήσεται πρὸς τὸ διὰ τούτων εἶναί τινα δύναμιν τὴν ἐν τούτοις διαδεικνυμένην καὶ τοῦ παντὸς e fo. Ν ὑπερκειμένην ὁμολογῆσαι" εἰ δὲ τὸ μὲν εἶναι μὴ ἀμφι- a a a ’ βάλλοι, εἰς πλῆθος δὲ θεῶν ταῖς ὑπονοίαις ἐκφέροιτο, A ’

τομαι 1 -ωμαι f || 12 erworavy] evvoa εἴ] || 14 τυχὴ ef

I. τεχνικῶς K. gopws] Texy. refers to the finished and artistic skill displayed in individual parts of Creation, while σοφῶς refers to the wise adaptation of means to ends.

3. δύναμιν] ‘a certain power which is plainly manifested in created things and transcends the whole.’

5. els πλῆθος] ‘be led astray by his notions to beizeve in a plurality of gods.’

6. ἀκολουθίᾳ) ‘course of argument.”

7. τοῦ δέ] ‘And if he, as ts probable, testifies to the perfection of (lit. testifies perfection to) the Divine Nature, let us require him to grant that this perfection extends through everything that 1s observed in the Deity.’

12. éxlvoay] In his answer to

Eunomius’ second book Gr. discusses this word. Eunomius had disparaged ἐπίνοια on the ground that the faculty denoted by it was untrustworthy and created monstrosities. He thus appears to have used it in the sense of ‘fancy.’ Gr. however defends ἐπίνοια and defines it as ἔφοδος εὑρετικὴ τῶν ἀγνοου- μένων, διὰ τῶν προσεχῶν τε καὶ ἀκολούθων τῇ πρώτῃ περὶ τὸ σπου- δαζόμενον νοήσει τὸ ἐφεξῆς ἐξευρί- σκουσα. It is in his view an inventive faculty and at the same time it is more trustworthy than ‘fancy.’ It is best represented here by ‘imagination ’ or ‘conception.’ See further on the word Wilson WV. and P. ΜΝ. Fathers, vol. v, p. 249.

13. εἴ τι ἄλλο] ‘any other thought worthy of God that might happen to be connected with the subject of our contemplation.’

\ Ν “ 3 , , ᾽ κατὰ τὸ εὔλογον τῆς ἀκολουθίας ταύτης συγκαταθήσεται. ’ 5S 4 3 v \ \ 9 / τούτου δὲ δοθέντος οὐκέτ᾽ ἂν εἴη χαλεπὸν τὸ ἐσκεδασμένον [οὶ / A A \ a τῆς διανοίας εἰς πλῆθος θεῶν πρὸς μιᾶς θεότητος περι- a e [4 \ ; αγαγεῖν ὁμολογίαν. εἰ yap TO τέλειον ἐν παντὶ Soin περὶ τὸ ὑποκείμενον ὁμολογεῖσθαι, πολλὰ δὲ εἶναι τὰ τέλεια ἴοι A / 4 “.Ἅ διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν χαρακτηριζόμενα λέγοι, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα ἐπὶ τῶν μηδεμιᾷ παραλλαγῇ διακρινομένων ἀλλ’ ἐν τοῖς b a / A > a \ ν᾿ ΝΜ 3 ‘ αὐτοῖς θεωρουμένων ἢ ἐπιδεῖξαι τὸ ἴδιον ἤ, εἰ μηδὲν > 4 4 e ¥ 9.7? ? \ A ἰδιαζόντως καταλαμβάνοι ἡ ἔννοια ἐφ᾽ ὧν τὸ διακρῖνον \ εἰ γὰρ μήτε παρὰ Ν, \ \ A 3 , / \ TO πλέον καὶ ἔλαττον τὴν διαφορὰν ἐξευρίσκοι, διότι τὴν

3 , e ry ’ >) / ’ 4 ἐλάττωσιν ὁ τῆς τελειότητος οὐ παραδέχεται λόγος, μήτε τὴν παρὰ τὸ χεῖρον καὶ προτιμότερον: οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἔτι θεότητος ὑπόληψιν σχοίη οὗ ἡ τοῦ χείρονος οὐκ ἄπεστι , \ A ’ προσηγορία" μήτε κατὰ τὸ ἀρχαῖον καὶ πρόσφατον" τὸ \ \ > \ A ” A \ \ θ al 3 e 4 γὰρ μὴ ἀεὶ ὃν ἔξω τῆς περὶ τὸ θεῖόν ἐστιν ὑπολήψεως"

2. τὸ éoxedacpévov] ‘the thought which he has dissipated over a plurality of gods.’

4 el ydp]) The argument of Gr. in the following passage is as follows. The perfection of God’s attributes prevents us from attributing to the Divine Nature any diversity or plurality. For such diversity could only arise from the differences of degree in which the separate entities possessed these attributes. Otherwise there would be no reason for maintaining their distinct and separate existence. But such differences of degree, involving ‘more’ and ‘less’ are excluded by the very idea of ‘perfection.’ ‘ For if he were to admit that he acknowledges absolute perfection in the being of whom we speak, but were to maintain that there are many of these perfect entities, marked by the same characteristics.’

5. τὸ ὑποκείμενον) here =‘ the subject matter of our discourse.’

6. ἐπὶ τῶν und.) ‘Sin the case of things which are distinguished by no variation, but are observed to possess the same attributes.’

8. εἰ μηδέν] ‘tf thought grasped nothing in the way of peculiarity in beings between whom no distinguishing mark exists, he should cease to assume such distinction.’

13. οὐ γάρ] a parenthesis. The main sentence is resumed after προσ- myopia, and again broken by another parenthesis τὸ γὰρ.. ὑπολή- yews.

14. ὑπόληψιν σχοίη] Some MSs insert rts, but the subject is the antecedent of οὗ. ‘ For a being, with reference to whom the term “worse” 7s not excluded, could no longer be supposed to be God.’

a ’ “ A 3 ’ ἀλλ᾽ εἷς καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς τῆς θεότητος λόγος, οὐδεμιᾶς ἰδιό- 3 3 Ἁ \ XN δ e / 3 4 τητος ἐν οὐδενὶ κατὰ TO εὔλογον εὑρισκομένης, ἀνάγκη a Ἁ a ’ ς ’ a Ἁ πᾶσα πρὸς μιᾶς θεότητος ὁμολογίαν συνθλιβῆναι τὴν ’ Ἁ a 7 a a, πεπλανημένην περὶ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν θεῶν φαντασίαν. 3 \ 3 Ἁ N Ν, “ Ἁ Ἁ Ἁ εἰ γὰρ τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ τὸ δίκαιον, τό τε σοφὸν καὶ τὸ N e 4 ’ ef > θ ’ ὶ e 9 ὃ 4 δυνατὸν ὡσαύτως λέγοιτο, ἥ τε ἀφθαρσία καὶ ἡ αιδιότης A \ e A καὶ πᾶσα εὐσεβὴς διάνοια κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμολογοῖτο [2 ΄ῪΝ τρόπον, πάσης κατὰ πάντα λόγον διαφορᾶς ὑφαιρουμένης A 3 A A [οὶ [οὶ συνυφαιρεῖται κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην τὸ τῶν θεῶν πλῆθος ἀπὸ τοῦ δόγματος, τῆς διὰ πάντων ταὐτότητος εἰς τὸ ἕν τὴν πίστιν

περιαγούσης.

Ι wcornros] αιδ- ἃ || 3 μιὰν θεοτητος dehnp euth || 6 ἡ αιδιοτης} om

ἡ deuth 5 vulg

1. ἀλλ᾽ els] ‘but the idea of Godhead ts ome and the same, no particularity, naturally enough, being discovered in any one respect.’

2. ἀνάγκη] ‘the mistaken fancy of a plurality of yods cannot help being reduced to confess that Deity

is one.’

6. ὡσαύτως éyoro] ‘ were ascribed to it in an equal degree.’ - The argument of this passage is reproduced, and the language closely followed in Ps.-Cyril de 7rin. 4 and also in lo. Damasc. de Fid. Orth. 1 5.

Δ. In refuting polytheism, however, we must defend our argument against Fudaism. It will be granted that Deity has a Logos; otherwise God would be without reason (ἄλογοΞ). But this Logos corresponds to the nature of God, and as God’s nature ts infinitely higher than that of man, so must the Logos of God be proportionately higher. Man is mortal and his logos transitory. In God the Logos corresponds to His nature and ἐς eternal and self-subsistent. At the same time the Logos ts living and does not share life, but possesses tt absolutely. This further involves the possession of will and the power to effect what He wills. The will of

the Logos is directed to good ends, for goodness 1s an attribute of God. The Oniverse exhibits the wisdom, power, and goodness of the Logos. The Logos, moreover, ἐς distinct from Him Whose Logos He ts. Thus ts our posttion defined against the errors alike of Hellenism and Judaism. The Logos ts living and active, and yet ts one in nature and attributes with the Father from Whom He ts derived.

12. ὁ τῆς edo.) ‘the doctrine of our religion.’

2b. olde] Kr. renders ‘solet,’ but it may mean simply ‘is able’ to perceive.

ὃ 4 ς 7 3 ~ e 7 A, * 7 ιάκρισιν ὑποστάσεων ἐν τῇ ἑνότητι τῆς φύσεως βλέπειν, ς A A Lal ἃ \ “RR 4 Ἁ \ ὡς ἂν μὴ τῇ πρὸς τοὺς “Ελληνας μάχῃ πρὸς τὸν ἸἸουδα- Ἁ ς al e, ς / 4 4 Aa topov ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος ὑπενεχθείη, πάλιν προσήκει διαστολῇ τινὶ τεχνικῇ καὶ τὴν περὶ τοῦτο πλάνην ἐπανορθώσασθαι. ἠδὲ Ν wn δ aA θ᾽ ς val δό wv 4 A οὐδὲ yap τοῖς ἔξω τοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς δόγματος ἄλογον εἶναι τὸ θεῖον ὑπείληπται" τοῦτο δὲ παρ᾽ ἐκείνων ὁμολογούμενον ἱκανῶς διαρθρώσει τὸν ἡμέτερον λόγον. ὁ γὰρ ὁμολογῶν μὴ ἄλογον εἶναι τὸν θεὸν πάντως λόγον ἔχειν τὸν μὴ Ν θ ’ὔ \ A Ἁ e 3 4 ἄλογον συγκαταθήσεται. ἀλλὰ μὴν Kal ὁ ἀνθρώπινος 4 , 4 3 “ 3 , 9. ¢ , ὁμωνύμως λέγεται λόγος. οὐκοῦν εἰ λέγοι καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα Δ. 3 vmrevexOnoerace || 7 διορθωσει ἃ

Western sense.

tb. φύσεως It is not necessary to assume that φύσις is here used loosely in the sense of οὐσία. The

1. ὑποστάσεων] For a full discussion of the history of this word see Bethune-Baker Texts and Studies, vol. vil, no. 1, p- 75. In

its earlier sense it was synonymous with οὐσία, as in the anathema of the Nicene Creed (ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστά- σεως ἣ οὐσίας). Both Basil and Gr. occasionally employ it in this earlier sense. Cp. infra c. 4 sub fin. λόγον ἐν οὐσίᾳ καὶ πνεῦμα ἐν ὑποστάσει. The later formula however to which currency was given by the teaching of the Cappadocians was μία οὐσία ἐν τρισὶν ὑποστάσεσιν. For the distinction οὗ ὑπόστασις and οὐσία ‘according to this view cp. Basil 22. ccxxxvi 6 οὐσία δὲ καὶ ὑπόστασις ταύτην ἔχει τὴν διαφορὰν ἣν ἔχει τὸ κοινὸν πρὸς τὸ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον: and still more precisely in Zp. xxxviii 3 τοῦτο οὖν ἐστὶν ἡ ὑπόστασις, οὐχ ἡ ἀόριστος τῆς οὐσίας ἔννοια, μηδε- μίαν ἐκ τῆς κοινότητος τοῦ σημαινο- μένου στάσιν εὑρίσκουσα, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τὸ κοινόν τε καὶ ἀπερίγραπτον ἐν τῷ τινὶ πράγματι διὰ τῶν ἐπιφαινομένων ἰδιωμάτων παριστῶσα καὶ περιγρά- φουσα. It thus denotes “ἃ _particular centre of conscious being.’ As Dr Moberly (Atonement and Personality, p. 158 sq.) has pointed out, the word is free from many of the associations which have gathered round the word ‘person’ in its later

latter word denotes ‘being,’ while φύσις denotes the ‘quality’ of such ‘being,’ and has reference to the attributes. But in many cases where the writer might have used οὐσία, his thought is sufficiently expressed by φύσις.

3. ὑπενεχθείη) ‘our argument may not lapse into Judaism,’ i.e. a barren monotheism, admitting of no distinction in the Divine Being.

16. διαστολῇ τ. 7.) ‘a skilful distinction,’-such as is involved in the διάκρισις ὑπ. referred to above.

5. Τοῖς €w] The most conspicuous example is Philo. But the belief in a Word as a mediating influence was not confined to Alexandria. In Palestine it affected the language of the Targums.

16. ἄλογον] implies the absence of ‘reason’ as well as ‘ word.’

7. διαρθρώσει) ‘Swill make our argument sufficiently clear.’

10. οὐκοῦν] “27 then he were to say that he formed his idea of the Word of God exactly on the analogy of our human counterparts, he will thus be led on to a higher notion.’ With this illustration from the human λόγος cp. Tert. adv. Prax. c.5.

aA a a “A ’ a a τῶν Tap ἡμῖν καὶ τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λογον ὑπονοεῖν, οὕτω A / e,ὔ 2 Vl μεταχθήσεται πρὸς τὴν ὑψηλοτέραν ὑπόληψιν. ἀνάγκη \ a LA 4 ’, a 4 \ / yap πᾶσα κατάλληλον εἰναι πιστεύειν TH φύσει τὸν λογον, , \ \ \ ὡς καὶ Ta ἄλλα πάντα. καὶ yap δύναμίς τις Kat ζωὴ Kat \ 3 3 Υ̓͂ δ σοφία περὶ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον βλέπεται" ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἄν τις ἐκ ΒΞ A A A \ A \ τῆς ὁμωνυμίας τοιαύτην καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν ζωὴν ἢ THY / a \ / e, 2 \ δ Ἁ a δύναμιν ἢ τὴν σοφίαν ὑπονοήσειεν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς TO τῆς A A \ e fal φύσεως τῆς ἡμετέρας μέτρον συνταπεινοῦνται καὶ αἱ τῶν

λέγηται, οὐκ ἐν τῇ ὁρμῇ τοῦ φθεγγομένου καὶ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχειν νομισθήσεται, καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα τοῦ ἡμετέρου μετα- χωρῶν εἰς ἀνύπαρκτον: ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἡ ἡμετέρα φύσις ἐπίκηρος οὖσα καὶ ἐπίκηρον τὸν λόγον ἔχει, οὕτως ἡ ἄφθαρτος καὶ ἀεὶ ἑστῶσα φύσις ἀΐδιον ἔχει καὶ ὑφεστῶτα

τὸν λόγον.

3. κατάλλ.] ‘corresponding to.’

8. ovvrar.) Such words as ‘power,’ ‘life,’ ‘wisdom’ have a lower significance in the case of men than in that of God.

16. ἀνυπόστατος) ‘unsubstantial,’ i.e. having no separate existence of its own. Hence ‘shadowy,’ ‘ unreal.’

Il. dmraynhs] lit. ‘not fixed,’ ‘zzstable.’ Similarly Ath. ¢. Ar. ii 34, 35. Cp. Iren. c. Haer. ii 13. 8.

12. τῷ μεγαλείῳ] ‘along with the greatness of the object of our contemplation.’ For μεγαλεῖον = ‘ magnitude’ see c. 2, p. 14.

14. ὑπόστασιν] ‘zt will not be thought to have its subsistence in the expression of him who speaks.’ ‘T1é- στασις is here ‘that in virtue of which a thing is what it is,’ the essence or being of a thing. A human word is merely the expression of the speaker’s mind. It has no ὑπόστασις apart from such expression, and in the utterance it passes out of existence (μεταχωρῶν els ἀνύπαρκτον). The Divine Logos is ἀέδιος and ὑφεστώς.

16. ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ] The argument of this chapter is partly reproduced in Ps.-Cyrnl Al. de Trin. c. 5, ay in Io. Damasc. de Fid. Orth. 1 6.

\ 4 δ “A A ’ a τὸ ὑφεστάναι τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον ἀιδίως, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα ἐν “Ὁ a f Ἁ, 4 a ζωῇ τοῦ λόγου τὴν ὑπόστασιν εἶναι ὁμολογεῖν. οὐ yap > ἐ ’ [ον ’ καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα τῶν λίθων ἀψύχως ὑφεστάναι τὸν λόγον 9 ’ 3 ΝΜ 3 9 > e 4 ’ A εὐαγές ἐστιν οἴεσθαι. ἀλλ᾽’ εἰ ὑφέστηκε νοερόν TL χρῆμα Ἁ > , Ψ A fe! a καὶ ἀσώματον ov, ζῇ πάντως" εἰ δὲ τοῦ ζῆν κεχώρισται, 3 \ > e 4 4 3 4 3 Ἁ A 3 A οὐδὲ ἐν ὑποστάσει πάντως ἐστίν.υ ἀλλα μὴν ἀσεβὲς 2 , a A i ἀπεδείχθη τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον ἀνυπόστατον εἶναι. οὐκοῦν ’ \ \ 93 , \ A a συναπεδείχθη κατὰ TO ἀκόλουθον τὸ ἐν ζωῇ τοῦτον θεω- ρεῖσθαι τὸν λόγον. ἁπλῆς δὲ τῆς τοῦ λόγου φύσεως κατὰ > 9 TO εἰκὸς εἶναι πεπιστευμένης καὶ οὐδεμίαν διπλόην Kal ’ a σύνθεσιν ἐν ἑαυτῇ δεικννούσης, οὐκέτ᾽ av τις κατὰ μετου- / wn \ , 3 Aa [4 3 \ A b \ Μ σίαν ζωῆς τὸν λόγον ἐν ζωῇ θεωροίη" οὐ yap ἂν ἐκτὸς εἴη, ¢€ , e / \ @ 3 e / , συνθέσεως ἡ τοιαύτη ὑπόληψις, TO ἕτερον ἐν ἑτέρῳ λέγειν 4 ἢ > 9 + a a ς ͵ ε, εἶναι" ἀλλ᾽ ἀνάγκη πᾶσα, τῆς ἁπλότητος ὁμολογουμένης, ; \ a αὐτοζωὴν εἶναι Tov λόγον οἴεσθαι, ov ζωῆς μετουσίαν. εἰ a a eC ἢ ς. ov \ \ , ’ οὖν ζῇ ὁ λόγος ὁ ζωὴ wy, Kai προαιρετικὴν πάντως δύναμιν

5 wv] ov | || 8 ζωὴ] τῇ ζωὴ | || 12 εν ζωὴ θ. τ. λογον 1 vulg ry ζωη f | 15 om εἰναι ἔ || 16 gy) Swe || ο ζω] ὡς § dehnp euth || προαιρετικην] +

ἤτοι θελητικὴν euth 1456 || δυναμιν exee παντως | vulg

1. ἐν {wy...elvat] ‘that the subsistence of the Word ἐς living.’ For the phrase εἶναι ἐν see c. 24 δεῖ yap διὰ πάντων τὸ θεῖον ἐν ταῖς πρεπούσαις ὑπολήψεσιν εἶναι. Gr. is illustrating the doctrine of distinctions in the Divine Being by an analysis of human consciousness. But it might be urged that the human analogy does not suggest the idea of distinct hypostases. This further step Gr. attempts to prove by showing that all relationships within the Divine Being must be living, and in order to be living in the full sense they must be personal. Augustine approached the same question from the moral consciousness and the idea of Divine Love. See de 7rin. vi 5, viii 10, 1X 2.

6. οὐδὲ ἐν ὑποστάσει) ‘tt does not possess any subsistence at all,’ i.e.

it is ἀνυπόστατος like the human λόγος, which Gr. has declared to be éwlxnpos.

10. διπλόην] ‘doubleness.’ Δι- πλόη is used of that which has a double character, e.g. the fold of a garment, or the overlapping of the bones in the skull. Here it is used of the combination of different elements.

Il. κατὰ μετουσίαν] ‘consider the Word as living by a participation in life’ This, acc. to Gr., would involve διπλόη and σύνθεσις, whereas he maintains that the Word is av- τοζωή. The Word does not partake of life, as we do. Life is absolutely His. Cp. exfra αὐτοζωὴν... οὐ ζωῆς μετουσίαν.

15. εἰ οὖν As a result of the possession of life we must postulate that the Word possesses will and the power to carry out what He wills.