GREGORY OF NYSSA, St. — One of the great Doctors who, in the second half of the 4th century, gave sudden splendor to the Church of Cappadocia; in speculative and contemplative thought, as philosopher and mystic, he is second to none.
OUTLINE:
I. Life
II. Works
III. Doctrine.I. LIFE
N. was born in Caesarea of Cappadocia about 335 and died about 394. His youth was marked by the very contrasts that were characteristic of his time and environment. No family was more Christian than his. His grandparents had been disciples of GREGORY THE WONDERWORKER.G. was influenced by many diverse currents. The conditions under which he pursued his studies are unknown, but it is certain that he acquired a very complete education. As a writer, he is one of the most characteristic representatives of the Second Sophistic. Already Photius noted that his style surpassed that of any other rhetorician in musicality and vividness. Méricier has succeeded in tracing in him all the artistic precedents that characterize this school (L’influence de la seconde Sophistique sur l’oeuvre de Grégoire de Nysse, Paris 1906). As a philosopher, he seems to have possessed the eclectic culture that the sophists of his day imparted to their pupils, which at the same time included Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic elements; he certainly read Plotinus, with whom he presents undeniable affinities (cf. H. F. Cherniss, The Platonism of G. of Nyssa, Berkeley 1930). His work also demonstrates a very serious knowledge of medicine and music.
Though absorbed in his studies, these did not divert him from the Christian life. He decided, in fact, to take holy orders and was admitted to the rank of lector. But his love for the Holy Scriptures had not detached his heart from profane literature. At that time he discovered Libanius, of whom Basil had spoken to him. “I became passionately enamored of the beauty of your art,” he later wrote to the writer himself, “without being able to sate myself of this passion” (PG 46, 1050 A). He then abandoned his sacred duties and embraced the profession of rhetorician (did he marry at that time? This has been inferred from a letter of GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, and the interpretation is unchallenged [*PG* 37, 321 A–324 B]). Greek wisdom triumphed in his heart over “barbarism,” which he associated with Christianity.
Nevertheless, around him, in his family and among his friends, a broad current of spiritual life was taking shape. Basil, the first touched by grace, had retired to the hills of the Iris valley, not far from where his sister MACRINA was to found, in her turn, a women’s monastery. Soon he drew to himself his friend Gregory, the future bishop of Nazianzus, and a whole group of young men; they lived there united in study and prayer, inaugurating a form of life that would later enjoy immense success in the East and West.
Gregory of Nazianzus was saddened by G.’s defection and wrote him a letter, which still survives (PG 37, 41 B–44 B), in which he reproached him for allowing himself to be ensnared by worldly ambitions and for preferring the name of rhetorician to that of Christian; he also sought to make him understand the scandal his conduct gave to the faithful and the pain it caused his friends, and he implored him to return to himself. It is not known what struggles took place in the young rhetorician’s soul; but the call of God was stronger, and G. rejoined his brother and his friends.
For several years, G. devoted himself, under Basil’s guidance—whom he always calls his father and master—to the spiritual life. Few documents remain about his life at that time, only a letter written to one of his sophist friends inviting him to join him in the desert. But one can form an idea of his state of mind from a work he wrote at that time, at Basil’s behest, the treatise De virginitate, where he appears fully happy to be able to devote himself, far from the tumult of worldly affairs, to his love for the contemplative life. In this work of his youth, in which the Neoplatonic influence is still very much in evidence, one already glimpses what a great mystic G. would one day become.
At the same time, in his retreat G. devoted himself to study. This was in fact part of the program assigned by Basil to his monks. It was then that G. formed the philosophical and theological thought that would later manifest itself in his mature works. In addition to the Holy Scriptures, which were customarily read in the monasteries of that time, he studied the great Doctors who had preceded him, in particular ORIGEN, very dear to the Cappadocians, and also his opponent METHODIUS OF OLYMPUS. He also perfected his knowledge of profane authors, thus acquiring that double culture for which Gregory of Nazianzus would one day praise him in a discourse.
The fruitful years of study at Annesi were certainly among the best of his life. But service to the Church was soon to tear him away from this peace. In 370 Basil had been elected bishop of Caesarea, where he had to confront an extremely difficult situation: difficulties with the emperor VALENS, who favored the Arians, and difficulties with Pope DAMASUS, who did not fully grasp the situation in the East. He needed collaborators on whom he could rely. He had his brother G. elected bishop of Nyssa, a town not far from Caesarea, in the heart of Asia Minor. Of course, he had no illusions about the latter’s abilities in affairs, for his goodness and candor made him too naive. When
Dorothea, in 375, proposed sending G. on a mission to the Pope. Basil replied with a letter that is at once a testimony to Roman primacy and a eulogy of his brother: “G. would certainly be revered and appreciated by a benevolent man, but with a proud man like Damasus, full of his own importance, placed high and precisely for that reason incapable of understanding those who, from below, speak the truth to him, the visit of someone so alien to flattery as G. would be of no use” (PG 32, 792 A).
But Basil also knew his brother as inflexibly faithful to the faith of Nicaea. And this, in a world where heresy was arising on all sides and in every form, was for him the essential thing. Events proved him right. Elevated to the episcopate against his will, G. proved himself worthy of his office. His fidelity earned him, in 376, the persecutions of the vicar of Pontus, DEMOSTHENES, who favored the Arians (PG 32, 840 B–C). Falsely accused of squandering the goods of his church, G. was deposed and replaced by a creature of Demosthenes. He did not return until 378, welcomed with enthusiasm by the faithful (PG 46, 1033–34). But his role was now overshadowed until Basil’s death in 379 brought him to the fore. His learning and the commonality of ideas that he shared with his brother gave him, for several years, a preponderant part in the affairs of the East. In 379 he took part in the Synod of Antioch, where he was entrusted with an inspection tour in Pontus and Armenia; then, at the beginning of 380, he was at Annesi, bound to it by so many memories, at the last moments of his sister MACRINA (PG 46, 1075 A–C) and had with her that celebrated discussion on the soul and the resurrection that is almost a Christian counterpart to the Phaedo (PG 46, 12–160).
In 381 he attended the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. It is possible that he was entrusted with drafting the profession of faith that concluded the Council’s proceedings. In any case, it is certain that he was designated by Theodosius, together with four other bishops, as a witness to Eastern orthodoxy. It was then that he delivered the funeral oration for Meletius of Antioch, whose disputes had caused so much difficulty between East and West (PG 46, 852-64). He also appears to have been charged with restoring order in the Churches of Palestine and Arabia. Many of his letters survive from these journeys; among them, one in which he criticises the abuses surrounding pilgrims and declares that it is more important to ascend with the affections of the heart to the heavenly Jerusalem than to visit the earthly one, enjoyed great renown at the time of the Reformation (PG 46, 1009-16).
His position in the Church of the East also led him to take a stand in doctrinal controversies. His intellectual temperament and natural indulgence would not have drawn him in that direction. Yet it was necessary to enlighten minds; from all sides people turned to G. No one was more suited to this task than the heir to Basil’s faith, the man whom Gregory Nazianzen celebrated in a discourse for his learning and holiness. G. then set to work. It was then that he wrote his polemics against Eunomius, against Apollinaris, and against the Pneumatomachi. His authority earned him the honour of delivering the funeral oration for Empress Flaccilla in 386. He died in 394. He has no feast in the Latin Church; he is included in the Roman Martyrology on 9 March; the Greek Church venerates him on 10 January.
II. WORKS
The literary output of St. Gregory is considerable (PG, 44-46) and seems to have been almost entirely preserved. It includes, first of all, exegetical works of various kinds. At the forefront stands the In Hexaemeron explicatio apologetica (PG 44, 61-124). St. Basil had delivered five homilies on the Hexaemeron, and Gregory’s intention was to complete his brother’s work by deepening certain questions (61, 32) and attempting to reconcile the text of Genesis with the science of his time. The work is of interest for the understanding of cosmological conceptions (v. K. Gronau, Posidonius und jüdisch-christliche Genesiesegese, Leipzig 1914, pp. 112-41). The treatise De hominis opificio is its sequel and is animated by similar concerns. Certain similarities with the De natura deorum, I, II, of Cicero reveal the influence of Posidonius (cf. E. von Ivanka, Die Quelle von Ciceros De Natura deorum, II, 45-60, in Archiv. f. Philolog., 1935, p. 1 ff.). The final chapter is a treatise on physiology inspired by Galen. Yet there are also here pages of the greatest importance in which Gregory, starting from an exegesis of Gen. 2 inspired by Philo, develops the theory of the double creation of man, to which we shall return.After this treatise, the PG gives two homilies, In verba Scripturae faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram (PG 257-97); a slightly different text of these homilies is found in the works of St. Basil under the title De structura hominis (ibid. 29, 324 ff.). Fr. Stephanou had defended their Basilican authenticity (Le sixième jour de l'Hexaméron de St Basile, in Échos d'Orient, 31-32 [1932], pp. 385-98), while Ivanka has claimed them for Gregory (Die Autorschaft der Homelien: «Faciamus hominem», in Byzant. Zeitschrift, 45 [1936], pp. 46-47). S. Grier distinguishes the two series, but according to him those of Gregory lie between the works of Basil and vice versa (St Basile a-t-il donné suite aux Homélies sur l'Hexaméron?, in Recherches de science religieuse, 33 [1946], pp. 317-59). It seems rather that both are late works of Basilian inspiration and owe nothing to Gregory.
In contrast to these first works, which depend on literal exegesis, Gregory’s other exegetical treatises are expositions of spirituality in which Scripture is interpreted in a spiritual sense. Here Gregory offers an exegesis rich in allegory, influenced by Origen and also directly by Philo. The De vita Moysis comprises first a historia, a literal explanation of Exodus, and then a theoria that applies this explanation to the soul’s journey toward God after its exodus from Egypt—an allegory of sin—up to the ascent of Sinai (PG 44, 297-429). This is perhaps Gregory’s masterpiece. In the preface, he sets forth his principal theory, which regards spiritual life as a perpetual progress. In this treatise are also found some pages on mystical darkness, inspired by Philo but far surpassing his indications, which later inspired the Mystical Theology of the Pseudo-Dionysius (J. Daniélou, Vie de Moïse, Paris 1944, introduction, pp. 27-44).
There follow two treatises In Psalmos. The first deals with the symbolism of the psalm titles (PG 44, 432-85), and the second interprets the first part of the Psalter as a description of the stages of spiritual life (PG 44, 488-608). A small treatise De octava comments on Psalm 6 (PG 44, 608-16). Mention should also be made of commentaries on sapiential books. Gregory explains that Proverbs corresponds to spiritual infancy, Ecclesiastes to youth, and the Song of Songs to maturity (PG 44, 768 A; this division derives from Origen and is also found in St. Basil: PG 30, 412 ff.). Unfortunately, it seems he did not write a treatise on Proverbs. What remain are a study on Ecclesiastes and another on the Song of Songs. Unlike the preceding works, which were commentaries, these are homilies. The homilies In Ecclesiasten (PG 44, 615-753) contain admirable passages on the transcendence of God, but even more admirable are the homilies In Cantica Canticorum (PG 44, 756-1120), where Gregory explicitly draws inspiration from Origen but develops a mysticism of ecstatic love foreign to him, opening new horizons to spirituality. Less composite than the De vita Moysis, the homilies sometimes have more personal accents: they are among the peaks of spiritual literature of all time.
The works cited so far pertain to the Old Testament. Yet there remain two treatises that may be linked to New Testament exegesis. The first is a small work on prayer, in the form of a commentary on the Pater noster (De oratione dominica: PG 44, 1119-93). This was a classic genre: both Origen’s treatise on prayer and Tertullian’s are commentaries on the Pater. There is also a treatise De beatitudinibus, a commentary on the Beatitudes, which contains, in particular, a chapter on the purity of heart that is very important for Gregory’s spiritual theology.
The second part of Gregory of Nyssa’s work consists of treatises on theology, most of which are devoted to controversies on the Trinity. The most important, both for its length and its dogmatic value, is the Contra Eunomium; but in truth this comprises several studies. Eunomius had, around 360, published an Apologia in which he expounded the view that agennesia is an expression of the divine essence. St. Basil replied with his Refutatio. Eunomius then published his Apologia of an Apology. But Basil died meanwhile (379), and Gregory took it upon himself to refute Eunomius, writing three works that respond to his three books. The first, corresponding to Book I of the present edition, appeared in 380-81; the second corresponds to Book XIII (381); the third contains Books III to XII (382). Finally, Book II of our edition is a different treatise refuting Eunomius’s Confession and dated probably to 383 (v. M. Comes de Castro, Die Trinitätlehre des kl. Gregor von Nyssa, Freiburg in Br. 1938, pp. 7-13). The edition of the Contra Eunomium by Werner Jaeger (Berlin 1921) follows this order.
Against the heretical Pneumatomachi, Gregory wrote his treatise De Spiritu Sancto, in which he seeks to demonstrate the divinity of the Holy Spirit; the date of this work is uncertain. Other treatises of lesser importance are also connected with the Trinitarian controversies: Ad Simplicium de fide (PG 45, 115-35), Ad Eustathium de S. Trinitate (PG 32 [among the works of St. Basil], 683-96), Adversus Graecos ex communibus nationibus (PG 45, 175-87). Treatises connected with Christological controversies are instead the two treatises Adversus Apollinarem (PG 45, 1123-1286). This is one of Gregory’s most notable works. In addition to the vigorous refutation of Apollinarian doctrine, it contains a theology of the Incarnation in its relation to the unity of human nature, illustrated by images such as that of the lost sheep and the broken reed, etc. The brief treatise In illud, quando sibi subiecerit omnia (PG 44, 1304-25) may also be included among the Christological works.
Alongside these works that relate to the great controversies of the 4th century, Gregory of Nyssa’s theological output includes various treatises on diverse subjects. The most important of these is the Oratio catechetica magna (PG 45, 1-105), an exposition of the entire plan of salvation as a whole: the creation of man, original sin, the Incarnation, Redemption, and the Sacraments. In no other writing does Gregory’s thought appear more clearly. More than any other Father of the 4th century, he delves deeply into doctrine and strives to account for it in the face of philosophical objections.
Closely related to the Great Catechesis is the De anima et Resurrectione dialogus (PG 46, 12-160), a dialogue between Gregory and his sister Macrina on the eve of her death. It is a faithful imitation of Plato’s Phaedo; the Platonic influence is notable, and this places the treatise among Gregory’s earliest works. He reprises the criticisms directed against Origen by Methodius of Olympus in his Treatise on the Resurrection (CB, XXVII, pp. 220-324), though he remains faithful to the theology of the Alexandrian. Similarly, the treatises De infantibus qui praemature obeunt (PG 46, 161-93) and De mortuis (PG 46, 498-538) are connected to the question of the fate of man after death; the latter is important for Gregory’s doctrine on man’s original state and offers clarifications not found in his other studies. The work Contra fatum belongs to the tradition opposing astral fatalism (PG 45, 145-75; cf. also D. Amand, Fatalisme et liberté dans l’antiquité grecque, Louvain 1945, pp. 404-35). The treatise De Pythonissa revisits the controversy that had opposed Eustathius of Antioch to Origen (cf. E. Klostermann, in Kleine Texte, 83, Bonn 1912): Gregory shares Eustathius’s position, seeing in the apparition of Samuel a diabolical illusion. Finally, among Gregory’s theological works may be included the Epistola canonica ad Letoium Melit. episcopum, which deals with penitential discipline (PG 45, 222-37), where Gregory speaks not as a theologian but as a bishop, setting forth the rules maintained in his Church.
As for Gregory’s treatises on spirituality, it is clear that they are primarily constituted by his scriptural commentaries, already discussed elsewhere. There one must seek the essence of Gregory’s spirituality. Yet Gregory also composed some treatises that are strictly and properly spiritual in character. The most important is the De virginitate (PG 46, 318-410), the study in which Gregory’s Platonic influence is most evident. Without doubt, it is his earliest writing, dating from the time when he was a monk at Annesi, and it is an interesting testimony to the spirit animating that community. Virginity is celebrated as a return of man to his true nature, a participation in the life of the angels. Shorter are the treatises De professione christiana (PG 46, 237-51), De perfecta christiani forma (PG 46, 251-87), and Adversus eos qui castigationes aegre ferunt (PG 46, 307-18). The Hypotyposis (PG 46, 287-307) is not by Gregory and belongs to the Pseudo-Macarian writings (cf. A. Wilmart, La tradition de l’Hypotypose ou Traité de l’ascèse attribuée à Grégoire de Nysse, in Revue Or. Chrét., 3rd ser., 1 [1918], pp. 214-422).
To Gregory’s spiritual writings may also be linked one of his most interesting works, the Vita s. Macrinae virginis (PG 46, 959-99), concerning his elder sister. This is an exceedingly important historical document for fixing various points in the lives of St. Basil and St. Gregory. Moreover, the text contains many valuable details for the history of ancient Christian customs: Macrina dies facing east; she wears around her neck a relic of the Cross (cf. F.-J. Dölger, Das Anhänge-Kreuzchen der hl. Makrina und ihr Ring mit der Kreuzpartikel, in Antike und Christentum, III, II, Münster in V. 1932, pp. 81-117). Gregory also left a life of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, through which Origen’s influence reached the Cappadocians.
Gregory’s sermons belong to various genres. The funeral orations for Meletius of Antioch, St. Basil, and the Empresses Pulcheria and Flaccilla have a markedly rhetorical character. The moral homilies Contra usurarios, Contra fornicarios, De pauperibus amandis (PG 46, 433-97) continue the teaching of St. Basil. Of primary theological and liturgical importance, however, are the festal homilies, which form a large part of the liturgical cycle. An early homily, Adversus eos qui Baptismum differunt, was likely delivered shortly before the beginning of Lent (PG 46, 416-32). The Paschal cycle comprises three homilies In Christi Resurrectionem (PG 46, 600-38 and 652-84; homilies II and V are spurious), a homily In ascensionem Christi delivered in Cappadocia and called ἑποδοχάνη (PG 46, 689-93; it is the oldest known homily on this feast), and a homily on Pentecost (De Spiritu Sancto: PG 46, 696-701); these contain notable passages on the theology of the Resurrection and the Eucharist.
Of particular interest, especially for the history of 4th-century liturgy, are the homilies of the Christmas cycle. The first, In diem natalem Domini, listed among the dubious homilies in the Patrologia Graeca, is in fact certainly authentic (PG 46, 1123-49). It is followed by a homily In primos apostolos Petrum et Paulum (PG 46, 539) and another In s. Stephanum protomartyrem (PG 46, 701-36). From the text it is clear that these feasts were celebrated on the first and second days after Christmas. Next comes a homily In diem luminum in quo baptizatus est Dominus noster (PG 46, 577-600), highly important for the typology of Baptism. From the whole of these homilies one may discern an entire theology of worship (cf. J. Daniélou, Le mystère du culte dans les sermons de St Grégoire de Nysse, Festgabe Casel 1950); to these may be added the homily In suam ordinationem (PG 46, 544-53) and that De deitate Filii et Spiritus Sancti (PG 46, 553-76), which contains a celebrated text on Abraham.
St. Gregory’s Epistolae are certainly not the least interesting part of his work. The excellent edition by G. Pasquali (Berlin 1925) allows for a very precise chronology. Some letters relate to Gregory’s theological activity. Letter V is a profession of faith connected with Gregory’s inspection tour in Armenia (380). Letter II concerns his journey to the Holy Land (382), in which he criticizes the abuses arising from pilgrimages. Letters XIII and XIV, addressed to the sophist Libanius, are important for Gregory’s attitude toward secular culture. Letter XX provides various information on the spread of Roman villas in Asia, and Letter XXV, which gives the plan of a martyrium, is of great importance from an archaeological standpoint. Letter IV discusses the symbolism of the Paschal season. Pasquali restores to Gregory the letter Ad Eustathium De Sancta Trinitate and that De discrimine essentiae et hypostasis (PG 32, 683-66 and 325-40; cf. also A. Cavallin, Studien zu den Briefen des heil. Basilius, Lund 1944, pp. 70-81).
III. DOCTRINE
St. GREGORY of Nyssa is the most philosophical of the Cappadocians and, without doubt, after Origen, the most philosophical of the Greek Fathers. Before expounding the most characteristic aspects of his doctrine, it is necessary to pose a preliminary question concerning his theological method and his use of philosophy.It is often said of his Platonism. F. C. Cherniss has devoted a very well-documented study to this theme. R. Arnou devotes several columns to it in the article “Platonisme des Pères” in the DThC (XII, cols. 2343-48). This assertion leads to a twofold question: what philosophies Gregory used and whether Platonism is what truly characterizes him; and how he used these philosophies and, consequently, to what extent one can speak of his Platonism.
That there are Platonic influences in Gregory’s work is certain, and many of the arguments advanced by Cherniss are valid. It must nevertheless be observed that his Platonism is primarily that of myths: the allusions to the myth of Phaedrus (the winged horses) and to that of the Republic (the cave) are certain. Yet it does not seem that Gregory had close contact with the Dialogues of Plato. What he appears to have known is rather that scholastic Platonism which formed part of the general culture of the age. And it is often difficult to discern whether he knew Plato directly or through the use that pagan or Christian philosophers had made of him.
Moreover, it must be observed that while Gregory’s inspiration is above all Platonic, other influences seem to have had an almost equally powerful effect on him: first, Neoplatonism, that is, Plotinus. The doctrine of the purification of the soul, as a condition for the knowledge of God, is expressed through images taken from the Enneads (cf. J. Daniélou, Platonisme et théologie mystique, Paris 1945, pp. 224-26). Another very important influence is that of Philo of Alexandria, which has already been noted by F. Diekamp (Die Gotteslehre des heil. Gregor von Nyssa, Münster 1896, p. 35; cf. also H.-Ch. Puech, La ténèbre mystique chez le Pseudo-Denys, in Études Carmélitaines, 23 [1938], pp. 49-52). This fact is important because here Gregory stands in opposition to Origen. His doctrine of knowledge in the divine darkness derives directly from Philo’s De posteritate Caini, whose expressions it reproduces exactly: “To see God consists in not seeing” (De posteritate Caini, 5 and Vita Moysis: PG 44, 377 B). Gregory also owes to Philo another of his most important ideas, that of the twofold creation of man (De hominis opificio: PG 44, 181).
In addition to this, one must note the importance of the historical contribution. K. Gronau (Poseidonios und die jüdisch-christliche Genesis-Exegese, Leipzig-Berlin 1914, pp. 112-281; cf. also E. von Ivanka, Die Quelle von Ciceros De natura deorum, II, 45-60, in Arch. J. Phil., 1935, pp. 1-12) was the first to note the strange parallel between Gregory’s De hominis opificio and Cicero’s De natura deorum: since it cannot be a question of Cicero’s influence on Gregory, one must posit a common source. Cicero’s treatise takes its inspiration from Posidonius. And Posidonius is also the source for Gregory. The historical influence appears above all in the history of knowledge, where Gregory asserts that the human spirit is confined to knowledge of the visible world (E. von Ivanka, Vom Platonismus zur Theorie der Mystik, in Scholastik, 11 [1936], p. 184; H. Urs von Balthasar, Présence et pensée. Essai sur la philosophie religieuse de st. Grégoire de Nysse, Paris 1944, pp. 6-7), and in the conception of man as the completion of the cosmos. Finally, it should be noted that Gregory was acquainted with the writings of physicians and astronomers; in particular, he draws inspiration from Galen’s treatise on the creation of man.
The second problem is how Gregory used philosophy. This question is of capital importance in the history of Christian theology. Indeed, before him one finds, on the one hand, in Irenaeus and Athanasius, a biblical theology that had no interest in philosophy; and on the other, in Clement and Origen, a more philosophical theology, though still tainted by Platonic deviations, especially with regard to the connaturality of the human logos and the divine logos. Gregory places himself in the continuation of the latter but completes their reform of Platonism, bending it to the integral exigencies of Revelation. This is what E. von Ivanka has demonstrated (Hellenisches und Christliches im Frühbyzantinischen Geistesleben, Vienna 1948, pp. 43-68; Vom Platonismus, etc., pp. 163-95; J. Daniélou, Platonisme et théologie mystique, op. cit., pp. 230-35). Thus, in relation to the New Testament, he played a part analogous to that which H.-A. Wolfson recognizes in Philo in relation to the Old Testament (Philo, I, Cambridge [March] 1948); and it is not strange that Gregory felt this kinship.
Gregory of Nyssa is a theologian in the strictest sense, inasmuch as the mystery of God occupies a considerable place in his work. But here two questions must be distinguished: that of the divine ousia and that of the persons; the former is the more important in his work. Indeed, his theology was defined in reaction to the error of Eunomius. This radical Arian was an advocate of anomianism, that is, of a difference of nature between the Father and the Son: this doctrine was based on the interpretation of γεννησία as designating the nature of the Father. All the other names by which God is indicated were, for the Anomeans, mere επινοαι, without any foundation. On the contrary, γεννησία truly gives the content of the divine ousia, of which one can thus have clear knowledge (S. Gonzalez, Μία ουσία γ' τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις en la doctrina de G. de N., Rome 1939). At the end of the 4th century, there was a renewal of negative theology in reaction to this doctrine. St. John Chrysostom devoted to it around 380 some admirable homilies De incomprehensibili (J. Daniélou, L’incompréhensibilité de l’essence divine d’après st Jean Chrysostome, in Recherches de science religieuse, 37 [1950], pp. 5-35). And it was precisely this same doctrine that Gregory devoted part of his Contra Eunomium to. But he returns to it frequently in his other works, especially in the In Cantica canticorum; in the De vita Moysis he seems to affirm there the absolute impossibility for the human intellect of an immediate knowledge of God. Yet it must be noted that this is first of all the impossibility of grasping God “conceptually” (cf. A. Lieske, Die Theologie der Christusmystik Gregors von Nyssa, in Zeitschrift f. katholische Theologie, 71 [1949], p. 163). In the love that enables it to transcend its limits, the soul experiences this feeling of presence, the only possible immediate knowledge of Him who is beyond all determination. Moreover, this immediate knowledge, even in beatific vision, is never absolutely comprehensible. This explains the many passages in which Gregory emphasizes the incomprehensibility of the divine essence. Faced with the rationalism of Eunomius, his work is the testimony of a remarkable sense of the mystery of God and is imbued with a profound spirit of adoration (cf. J. Daniélou, Platonisme et théologie mystique, Paris 1945, pp. 309-26).
As for St Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian doctrine, it is simply a development of that of St Basil. The terms employed are clearly fixed. Gregory designates the Persons by the words πρόσωπον or ὑπόστασις. The only point that has given rise to controversy is a passage in the treatise Quod non sint tres Dii, where Gregory compares the Trinity of Persons in the unity of nature to the multiplicity of individuals within human life. This comparison has been branded as tritheism. But G. Jsaye has clearly demonstrated the unfoundedness of this reproach (L’unité de l’opération divine dans les écrits trinitaires de st Grégoire de Nysse, in Rech. de science religieuse, 27 [1937], pp. 422-39). This Trinitarian theology is the expression of Catholic doctrine in its most classical form. It may be noted that in the Oratio catechetica magna Gregory attempts an exposition of the Trinity starting from the operations of the soul, which foreshadows St Augustine (PG 45, 16-17).
After theologia, one comes to oeconomia, the doctrine concerning the creation, fall, and redemption of man. Gregory’s anthropology is one of the most interesting, but also one of the most difficult, parts of his work. The main elements are found in the Oratio catechetica magna and in the treatise De hominis opificio. This doctrine takes its starting point from the biblical doctrine of the imago Dei. Unlike other Fathers of the Church, and closer in this to the literal sense of Scripture itself, Gregory makes no distinction between imago and similitudo. In modern terms, it may be said that in him there is no opposition between man as “natural” and man as “supernatural.” Rather, the “nature” of man is the man as conceived by God, comprehending all those gifts that are called supernatural. Gregory makes this very explicit in his treatise on creation, where purity, parrhesia, charity, and beatitude are regarded as belonging to human “nature” in the same way as “reason and freedom” (PG 44, 137 A-C).
Yet the man as he now exists falls far short of this image of God; the humanity before us is not the human “nature” as God had willed it and as it will exist at the end. To this humanity, made in the image of God and alone constituting nature, there is superadded what Gregory calls “the coats of skin.” These coats of skin in man are his animal nature, that is, what he has in common with the animals: “sexual union, conception, birth, nourishment, growth, maturity, old age, sickness, and death” (PG 46, 148 D). This is not the body as such. Indeed, Gregory, unlike Origen, holds that being composed of intelligible and sensible elements is part of human nature (and this shows that Gregory’s conception is the biblical opposition of sarx and pneuma, i.e., of man vivified by divine energies—what is his nature—or deprived of these energies, which is his misery). Rather, it is all that constitutes the condition of mortality, corruptibility, whereas the true nature of man is the incorruptibility of the resurrected body (PG 44, 184 B).
But then what is the cause of this state of corruptibility contrary to human nature? The most remote cause is man’s freedom. God could not create man in His image without giving him that freedom which is one of the characters of the divine nature. In this regard it may be noted that, after Origen and before St Bernard, Gregory makes the essence of the likeness to God consist more in freedom than in intelligence (PG 44, 184 C-D). But, in another respect, every created being, by its very essence, is subject to change (Oratio catechetica magna, VI, 2-5). Consequently, created freedom was capable of separating itself from God. More immediately, the cause of sin was the jealousy of the angel to whom the universe had been entrusted, and who was jealous on seeing a creature made in the image of God appear in his realm. Here we encounter the traditional idea, of Jewish origin, concerning the relation of angels and the cosmos. The Angel of the earth is disturbed by the appearance of Adam in his realm, just as the Prince of the world will be disturbed by the appearance of the new Adam.
From that time, man’s soul having turned away from God, who is its life, his body was stripped of incorruptibility and clothed in coats of skin. Yet—and this is important in Gregory’s thought—this clothing in coats of skin, though a consequence of sin, is less a punishment than a remedy. Here we find the great Origenist idea of the medicinal character of penalties (cf. J. Daniélou, Origène cit., p. 727 ff.). This presents two aspects. On the one hand, in De Mortuis, Gregory explains that the coats of skin give man the possibility of turning freely to God (PG 46, 522 D), and allow him to experience sensible goods and to return voluntarily to the desire for his original beatitude (PG 46, 524 B).
In the Oratio catechetica magna, Gregory also adduces another reason: the coats of skin, i.e., the mortal condition, by allowing the dissolution of man’s sensible part, into which evil had been mixed, thus make it possible to eliminate the latter and restore man to his purity. For this reason man returns to the earth, decomposing like a clay vessel, so that, once freed from the inequality that now dwells within him, he may be restored by the resurrection to his original form (Oratio catechetica magna, III). The coats of skin, then, are foreign to human nature; they have been applied to it with a view to provident care, like a garment put on by the physician who treats our predisposition to evil, “not destined to endure eternally” (op. cit., VIII, 4).
There remains one final question: whether historically man was first created without the coats of skin, i.e., without sexuality and mortality, in a state similar to that of the resurrected bodies—God, foreseeing man’s sin, having created him from the beginning in the corruptible state that was to be the means of his restoration (PG 44, 180 C-D).
In this perspective Gregory interprets the distinction between the two accounts of the creation of man in Genesis. Already Philo had seen in them two stages of creation. The man in the image, the first created, is the archetype preexisting in the intelligible world; the “male and female” man who comes afterwards is the one that appears on earth. Gregory takes up the opposition, but discards any idea of real preexistence, thus eliminating what Origen had retained from Philo. He sees in the man in the image the preexistence of the divine thought of perfect humanity, which will in fact exist only at the end of time (PG 44, 185 B), so that it is the “male and female” man who, according to the intentional order, is chronologically first (v. BALDASSARRE, op. cit., pp. 25-29; J. Daniélou, Platonisme etc., cit., pp. 52-55).
The second aspect of human decline was corruptibility and death. It has been seen that this was not merely a punishment but also, at the same time, a means of restoration, inasmuch as it allowed for the elimination of sin. Nevertheless, this was purely negative and did not restore man to incorruptibility. The redemptive work of Christ consisted, through His death, in uniting Himself to man in a state of disintegration, so that, through His Resurrection, He might reunite the separated parts, recomposing them into an indestructible union (Oratio catechetica magna, XVI, 7).
It may be noted in this regard that Redemption appears to G. identical with the Incarnation. Indeed, the Incarnation is the union of the Word not only with human nature but with fallen nature, the sarx. This state of decay is fully realized in death (Oratio catechetica magna, XXXII, 3). Thus, Incarnation-Redemption is the union of the Word with man in the state of a corpse, in order to raise him.
It will have been observed that the Resurrection of Christ is “the starting point of man’s resurrection.” Indeed, the Resurrection of Christ is the principle of that of humanity, and this must be understood, in G., in a very realistic sense: no theologian has indeed insisted more on the ontological solidarity of men among themselves. The image of God is for him the concrete totality of men, constituting one body (PG 44, 185 C), which preexists in the mind of God and will not be fully realized until the end of time.
Consequently, Christ could not unite Himself to one member of human nature without this having repercussions upon the entire humanity. G. expresses this idea in the Contra Apollinarem with notable symbols. Human nature is the lost sheep, distant from the spiritual creatures, and Christ, the Good Shepherd, has come to seek it (PG 44, 1153; cf. also 44, 546), thereby indicating the Incarnation. In another passage, he compares fallen humanity to a broken reed: Christ cannot bring the two pieces together at one point without their being restored in their entirety (PG 44, 1260 A-C). Some have argued that G. thereby affirmed a hypostatic union of the Word with all humanity. But various texts demonstrate that this is not the case, but rather a very realistic sense of the solidarity of men within human nature (cf. L. Malevez, L'Eglise dans le Christ, in Recherches de science religieuse, 25 [1935], pp. 260-80; cf. also S. Gonzales, El realismo platónico de s. Gregorio de Nisa, in Gregorianum, 20 [1939], pp. 189-206).
How may man appropriate this resurrection, which Christ has juridically acquired for all humanity? Through the Sacraments. In keeping with ancient tradition, the sacramental theology of G. comprises three main aspects. The first is the explanation of the figures in the Old Testament: the most important text in this regard is the sermon On the Baptism of Christ (PG 44, 577-600). The second aspect is proper mystagogy, or the explanation of the symbolism of the rites: here the most interesting is the sermon Adversus eos qui Baptismum differunt (PG 46, 416-32; cf. also J. Daniélou, Le mystère du culte dans les sermons de st Grégoire de Nysse, Festgabe Casel 1950, p. 25 ff.). Finally, the most properly theological exposition is found above all in the Oratio catechetica magna.
Baptism is, first and foremost for G., a sacramental imitation of Christ dead and risen, which brings about its real effect (Oratio catechetica magna, XXV, 6). Just as the death of Christ purified nature from the admixture that had altered it, and His Resurrection restored humanity to its integrity, so too does Baptism produce the same effect, though only in an incipient manner. For evil to disappear completely, it would be necessary “that in this imitation, one could undergo a complete death” (Oratio catechetica magna, XXXV, 10).
Here, G.’s baptismal theory is linked to biblical depictions of liberation, in particular the crossing of the Red Sea (PG 46, 589 D; cf. also J. Daniélou, Sacramentum futuri, Paris 1950, pp. 152-76). In another passage, another symbol is encountered: the Jordan represented as a paradisiacal river, which emphasizes regeneration. Baptism is presented as a return to Paradise (PG 46, 417 D, 600 A-B; cf. also J. Daniélou, ibid., pp. 13-20). Access to Baptism signifies “that Paradise is once again accessible to man and that the flaming sword no longer bars the way” (PG 46, 600 A-B). The change of garments symbolizes (or the shedding of the garment of fig leaves, the consequence of the Fall, and the donning of the tunic of incorruptibility (PG 46, 420 C, 600 B). The Jordan is also considered a figure of Baptism, according to common tradition, both in the episode of Naaman (PG 46, 592 C) and in the episode of the entry into the Promised Land (PG 46, 421 A).
Yet G.’s originality lies in the connection he establishes between the Jordan and Paradise. Taking up a theme perhaps first exploited by the Gnostics, he contrasts the two rivers that flow into Paradise with the Jordan, which rises toward it and has its source in Christ: “Hasten to my Jordan. It does not have its source in Paradise nor does it empty into the Sea of Tiberias, but it has its source in Christ and, descending from Him, it covers the whole earth. And it empties into Paradise, flowing against the current of the four rivers that issue from it, and introducing into Paradise men newly regenerated by the Spirit” (PG 46, 420 C-D; cf. also F. J. Dölger, Der Durchzug durch den Jordan als Sinnbild der christlichen Taufe, in Ant. und Christ., II, Münster in V. 1930, pp. 76-79). The true Jordan, which covers the whole earth, is the baptismal water, consecrated by the Baptism of Christ, which is like an immense river carrying men into Paradise.
The Eucharist is regarded by G. as the realization of the eschatological banquet foretold in the Old Testament. The three essential texts of the Old Testament are: Prov. 9:5 ff., Ps. 22:5, and Cant. 5:1 (cf. J. Daniélou, Les repas de la Bible et leur signification, in La Maison-Dieu, 18, pp. 8-12). G. interprets them in an eucharistic sense. The character of wisdom in Prov. appears interpreted in various places in an eucharistic sense (PG 44, 772 A, 956 D). Of Psalm 22, whose importance in ancient sacramental liturgy is well known, the sermon In Ascensionem Christi offers a remarkable commentary (PG 46, 692 A-B). Finally, the invitation of the Bridegroom in the Song of Songs to the wedding feast is also interpreted in that sense (PG 44, 989 C.).
The theological explanation that G. gives to the Eucharist is also eschatological. Just as the soul is regenerated by Baptism, the corruptible body needs a remedy that grants it immortality. This remedy is the glorified body of Christ, which has become for us a source of life. To penetrate into our own, the glorified body of Christ takes on the appearance of bread and wine. This realistic doctrine of the Eucharist follows in the footsteps of Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, and Athanasius.
G. does not consider the Eucharist merely as a sacrament but also as a sacrifice. In this regard, a notable passage must be cited, one upon which Fr. de la Taille placed great emphasis in his Mysterium fidei (Paris 1921, p. 43). G. seeks to demonstrate the voluntary character of Christ’s death, that is, its sacrificial meaning. He explains, therefore, that such a death had already taken place during the Last Supper, since only a dead victim could be distributed to the Apostles to be eaten. Thus, the offering of the Supper appears as a sacramental anticipation of the sacrifice of the Cross (PG 46, 611 C).
The spiritual theology of St G., certainly the most important part of his work, is a clear consequence of his sacramental theology. It is, under the action of the Sacraments, the outworking of the divinized powers of the soul. According to an image dear to him, G. compares the virtues of the soul vivified by the Sacraments of the Church to the trees of Paradise. This spiritual theology is expounded in G.’s exegetical commentaries (for the separation and ordering of the main themes, as well as for a fuller exposition, V. J. Daniélou, Platonisme etc., cited).
G. distinguishes in the spiritual life three great ways: and this is nothing other than an extension, a sequel to what is found in Origen. But the expression of these three ways is quite different from what is generally understood; for G. represents the spiritual life as a journey from light to darkness.
The first way, that of light, corresponds to beginners. By contrast with the darkness of sin, the supernatural life is illumination. This way is characterized by the purification of all elements foreign to the soul and by the restoration of the image of God in her. The first aspect consists in the struggle against passion. By this G. does not mean sensible dispositions in themselves, which can be eliminated only by the resurrection, but their perversion. Such a struggle against the passions is also an interiorization of the soul through recollection and unification by rejection of all sensible things (v. J. Daniélou, op. cit., pp. 30-110). Thereby the image of God is restored. Its characteristics, for G., are above all apothéia, that is, detachment from every vain care, and parrhesia, the filial confidence regained with the disappearance of shame and fear (cf. E. Peterson, Zur Bedeutunggeschichte von παρρησία, in Reinhold Seeberg Festschrift, Leipzig 1929).
This purification and unification of the soul, besides making her more like God, allows her a first knowledge of Him. Such knowledge of God in the mirror of the soul characterizes the second way, compared to a cloud because “proceeding from visible things to invisible things, the soul sees sensible realities grow dark and becomes accustomed to the contemplation of hidden things” (PG 44, 1000 C). At this point one enters properly into the mystical order. It must moreover be noted that the three ways are not mutually exclusive. Each is defined by a predominant aspect, yet which is also found in the other two: knowledge characterizes the second, but was already adumbrated in the first and is found again in the third.
In what does what G. calls knowledge of God in the mirror of the soul consist? It is an essential aspect of his mysticism (J. Daniélou, op. cit., pp. 221-74; cf. also A. Lieske, Die Theologie der Christusmystik Gregors von Nyssa, in Zeitschrift f. katholische Theologie, 70 [1948], pp. 12-16). It is not an experience that the soul has of its own substance in a Platonic sense. As E. von Ivanka has rightly noted (Vom Platonismus zur Theorie der Mystik, in Scholastik, 31 [1936], pp. 192-93), it is rather an experience of grace which G. expresses through the doctrine of spiritual senses, which he inherited from Origen and to which he gives great development. The essential experience of grace is a knowledge of God. But, and this is the crucial point, it is not a knowledge of the essence of God, which is inaccessible, but rather an experience of the presence of God, which G. defines by the expression αὐσόνησις παρονοίας, a feeling of presence (PG 44, 1001 B-C).
The foundation of this experience, which gives it its privileged character bound to the essence of Christianity, is the presence of the Trinity in the soul through grace. The divinization of the soul is indeed a divine action that entails a special nearness of God to her: G. compares it to the presence of a bundle of myrrh without which the fragrance would evaporate from the garments (PG 44, 828 A). Grace is like the fragrance that betrays the nard, like the ray that reflects the sun, like the taste that manifests the substance. Thus the knowledge in the mirror is indeed an experience of God and not of the soul, but it is a mediated knowledge, where the presence of God is known through His action upon the soul (PG 44, 821 A).
The soul can thus have an experience of the presence of God within her. This experience, at the outset, suffices to fill her. But the more the soul advances, the more she discovers that God infinitely transcends all that she cannot know.
This introduces the third way, the knowledge of God in darkness: it consists in understanding that true knowledge of God lies “in understanding that He is incomprehensible, enveloped on every side by His incomprehensibility as by a darkness” (PG 44, 377 A). This discovery at first casts the soul into despair, until she understands that, in G.’s words, “to find God is to seek Him unceasingly” (PG 46, 97 A; cf. also J. Daniélou, Essai sur la psychologie des mystiques, II, Paris, pp. 105-111) and that “in ever advancing in the search lies the true enjoyment of the Beloved” (PG 44, 1037 C).
Hitherto theorists had conceived knowledge of God as a possession. This is the tendency of Clement and Origen culminating in Evagrius Ponticus. G. makes of it instead a dispossession. Instead of bringing God down to the soul, he raises the soul to God; in this way he passes from an intellectualist spirituality to the ecstatic spirituality of love (cf. J. Hausherr, Les grands courants de la spiritualité orientale, in Orient. christ. per., 1 [1933], pp. 111-38). The true mystical experience is, beyond all intelligence, in darkness, the union in love. G. expresses it with the terms “sober intoxication” (cf. H. Lewy, Sobria ebrietas, pp. 132-37), “wakeful sleep” and above all “impassible eros.” It would be mistaken to derive the eros of Gregory from Platonic eros, as A. Nygren (Eros und Agape, 2 [1937], p. 91 ff.) and G. Horn (L'amour divin, note sur le mot «eros » dans st Grégoire de Nysse, in Revue d'ascétique et mystique, 6 [1925], pp. 378-89) have done. G. himself has defined what he means by eros with the expression of intense charity (ἐπτεσταμένη ἀγάπη; PG 44, 1048 C). Eros is therefore charity in its violent form, the folly of love, which tears the soul from herself to hurl her into God (cf. J. Daniélou, Essai, cited, pp. 211-20).
There remains to speak of the eschatology of St G. Two questions above all are important. The first is that of the resurrection of the body. We have seen what part the doctrine of the incorruptibility of the body played in the thought of G. and in that of Irenaeus. In this regard G. stands in the great tradition of the Church. This is especially evident in his position regarding Origen; the latter had taught the return of man to a state of pure spirituality such as he had before falling into the flesh. Against this error G. takes up the positions of Methodius of Olympus, affirming not only that the resurrected man will have a body, but also that this body will be composed of the same material particles that constituted him during his earthly existence (PG 54, 225 B - 228 B).
The question of apocatastasis is more complex. There are certainly many texts by Gregory that teach that at the end of time evil will disappear entirely (PG 46, 526 A) and that the pleroma of spiritual creatures will be restored (PG 46, 135 A). For him, this is grounded both in biblical texts (particularly I Cor. 15:29) and in the philosophical consideration that evil, having had a beginning, must also have an end. Gregory’s orthodoxy on this point was already debated in antiquity, defended by St. Maximus and St. Barsanuphius (PG 86, 898 B-C and 90, 795 B). The fact that some texts were contested is evidenced by attempts to suppress them. For instance, a passage from the Vita Moysis cited by Germanus of Constantinople is missing from the manuscript on which the PG edition is based and was later found in a Venetian manuscript (J. Daniélou, L'apocatastase chez st Grégoire de Nysse, in Recherches de science religieuse, 30 [1940], pp. 329-37). Similarly, M. Pellegrino rejects the hypothesis of interpolation for the texts of the De anima et resurrectione [*Il platonismo di s. G. Nisseno, in Rev. de philos. néo-scholast.*, 41 (1938), p. 465 ff.]).
However, it must be noted that Gregory’s texts do not at all resemble those of Origen. He does not assert the salvation of evil angels nor does he consider, as Origen does, that eternal hell is a pedagogical lie intended for sinners, while the perfect are reserved knowledge of the doctrine of universal salvation. Gregory simultaneously affirms the total disappearance of evil and the eternal condemnation of sinners: the question is how these two things are compatible. Now, he has expressed himself on this without any possible ambiguity: «Peccatum quidem peribit et in nihilum redigetur, et nulla malitia in ullo loco subsistente, regnum Domini a fine usque ad finem extendetur. Homines autem in eo statu manebunt in quo nunc sunt, eligentes inter bonum et malum. Itaque qui ex illa superna Civitate deiectus est, privatione bonorum punietur» (PG 44, 605 D).
