Gregory of Nyssa, Saint

GREGORY OF NYSSA, Saint. - One of the great doctors who, in the second half of the 4th century, gave a sudden splendor to the church of Cappadocia; he is inferior to no one as a speculative and contemplative thinker, as a philosopher and mystic.

I. LIFE

Born at Caesarea in Cappadocia ca. 335, died ca. 394. His youth is full of those contrasts that are characteristic of his time and his milieu. No family was more Christian than his. His grandparents had been disciples of Gregory the Wonderworker.

G. was influenced by many different currents. It is not known under what conditions he completed his studies, but it is certain that he acquired a very complete formation. As a writer, he is among the most characteristic representatives of the Second Sophistic. Already Photius noted that his style surpassed that of any other rhetorician in musicality and color. Méridier succeeded in rediscovering in him all the artistic antecedents 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 that time gave to their pupils and which comprised at the same time 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 displays very serious knowledge of medicine, and of mathematics and music.

However absorbed he was in his studies, these did not distract him from the Christian life. He decided, in fact, to take orders and was admitted to the rank of lector. But his love of the sacred books 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 himself later wrote to the writer, "without being able to sate myself with such a passion" (PG 46, 1050 A). He then abandoned his sacred duties and embraced the profession of rhetorician (did he perhaps marry at that time? This has been conjectured from a letter of Gregory of Nazianzus, and the interpretation is not contested [PG 37, 321 A-324 B]). Greek wisdom triumphed in his heart over Christian "barbarism."

Despite this, there was taking shape around him, in his family and among his friends, a vast current of spiritual life. Basil, the first to be touched by Grace, had withdrawn among the hills of the valley of the Iris, not far from the place where his sister Macrina was to found, for her part, a women's monastery. Before long 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 subsequently enjoy immense fortune in the East and in the West.

G.'s defection saddened Gregory of Nazianzus, who wrote him a letter, which is still preserved (PG 37, 41 B - 44 B), in which he reproached him for having let himself be won back by worldly ambitions and for preferring the name of rhetorician to that of Christian; he also tried to make him understand what scandal his conduct gave to the faithful and what grief it caused his friends, and he begged him to return to himself. It is not known what struggles took place in the soul of the young rhetorician; but the call of God was stronger and G. rejoined his brother and his friends.

For some years, G. devoted himself, under the direction of Basil, whom he always calls his father and his master, to the spiritual life. Few documents remain about his life at that time, only a letter written to one of his sophist friends to invite him to his desert. But one can form an idea of his state of mind from a work that he wrote at that time, by order of Basil, the treatise De virginitate, where he appears fully happy to be able to devote himself, far from the tumult of affairs, to his love of the contemplative life. In this work of his youth, in which the neo-Platonic influence is still very perceptible, one already glimpses what a great mystic G. will one day be.

At the same time, besides contemplation, 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 there was formed in G. the philosophical and theological thought that would manifest itself later, in the works of his maturity. Besides the Holy Scriptures that 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 adversary Methodius of Olympus. He further perfected his knowledge of profane authors, thus acquiring that twofold culture for which Gregory of Nazianzus was one day to praise him in a discourse.

The fervent years of study at Annisa were certainly among the best of his life. But the service of 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 a very difficult situation: difficulties with the emperor Valens, who favored the Arians, difficulties with Pope Damasus, who did not clearly understand the situation in the East. He needed collaborators on whom he could count. He had his brother G. elected bishop of Nyssa, a small town not far from Caesarea, in the heart of Asia Minor. Certainly, he harbored no illusions about the latter's abilities in affairs, which his goodness and his candor made him too naive. When

Dorothea, in 375, proposed to him to send G. on a mission to the Pope. Basil answered her with a letter that is at one and the same time a testimony to the Roman primacy and a eulogy of his brother: "G. would certainly be venerated and appreciated by a benevolent man, but with a man as haughty as Damasus, full of his own importance, placed on high and precisely for this reason incapable of understanding those who, from below, tell him the truth, the visit of someone as foreign to flattery as G. would serve no purpose" (PG 32, 792 A).

But Basil also knew his brother as inflexibly faithful to the faith of Nicaea. And this, in a world in which heresy arose on every side and in every form, was for him the essential thing. Events proved him right. Raised to the episcopate against his will, G. showed himself worthy of his office. His fidelity earned him, in 376, being the object of the persecutions of the vicar of Pontus, Demosthenes, who favored the Arians (PG 32, 840 B-C). Falsely accused of having squandered the goods of his church, G. was deposed and replaced by a creature of Demosthenes. He returned there only in 378, welcomed by the enthusiasm of the faithful (PG 46, 1033-34). But his role was by now overshadowed, until the death of Basil, in 379, brought him to the forefront. His culture, the community of ideas known to exist between him and his brother, gave him for some 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 a tour of inspection in Pontus and Armenia; then, at the beginning of 380, he was present at Annisa, to which so many memories bound him, at the last moments of his sister Macrina (PG 46, 1075 A-C) and held with her that celebrated discussion on the soul and on the resurrection which is almost a Christian counterpart of the Phaedo (PG 46, 12-160).

In 381 he attended the second ecumenical Council, at Constantinople. It is possible that he was charged with drafting the profession of faith that concluded the Council's work. In any case it is certain that he was designated by Theodosius, along with four other bishops, as a witness of Eastern orthodoxy. It was then that he delivered the funeral oration for that Meletius of Antioch who had provoked so many difficulties between East and West (PG 46, 852-64). It also seems that at that time he was charged with restoring order in the Churches of Palestine and Arabia. Many of his letters relating to these journeys survive; among others, one in which he criticizes the abuses that then accompanied pilgrims and declares therein that it is more important to raise oneself with the affections of the heart up to the heavenly Jerusalem than to make one's way to the earthly one, enjoyed very wide fame at the time of the Reformation (PG 46, 1009-16).

His situation in the Church of the East also impels him to take a position in doctrinal controversies. His intellectual temperament, his natural forbearance would not have led him in that direction. But it was necessary to enlighten minds; from every side people turned toward G. No one was more suited to this than the heir of Basil's faith, he whose learning and holiness Gregory of Nazianzus celebrated in a discourse. G. then set to work. It was then that he wrote his controversies against Eunomius, against Apollinaris, against the Pneumatomachi. His authority earned him the delivery in 386 of the funeral oration for the Empress Flacilla. He died in 394. He has no feast in the Latin Church; he is entered in the Roman Martyrology under 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 preserved almost in its entirety. It comprises first of all the exegetical works, of various kinds. The first one encountered is 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, going deeper into certain questions (61 32) and attempting to reconcile the text of Genesis with the science of his time. The work is interesting for the knowledge of cosmological conceptions (v. K. Gronau, Posidonius und jüdisch-christliche Genesisexegese, Leipzig 1914, pp. 112-41). The treatise De hominis opificio is its sequel and obeys similar concerns. Certain similarities with 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 last chapter is a treatise on physiology inspired by Galen. But here too there are very important pages 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 the treatise, the PG gives two homilies, In verba Scripturae faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram (PG 257-97): a somewhat different text of these homilies is found in the works of St. Basil, under the title De structura hominis (ibid. 29, 324 ff.). Father Stephanou had defended their Basilian authenticity (Le sixième jour de l'Hexaméron de St Basile, in Echos 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). St. Grier distinguishes the two series, but according to him those of Gregory stand among 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 the one and the other are late works of Basilian inspiration and that they owe nothing to Gregory.

In contrast to these first works, which depend on literary exegesis, the other exegetical treatises of St. Gregory are expositions of spirituality in which Scripture is interpreted in a spiritual sense. In them Gregory offers an exegesis full of allegories, influenced by Origen and also, directly, by Philo. The De vita Moysis comprises first of all a historia, a literal explanation of Exodus, then a theoria which applies that explanation to the soul's itinerary toward God, after the departure from Egypt, allegory of sin, up to the ascent on Sinai (PG 44, 297-429). This is perhaps Gregory's masterpiece. In the preface, he sets out his principal theory, which regards the spiritual life as a perpetual progress. In this treatise there are also some pages on the mystical darkness, inspired by Philo, but far surpassing his indications, which will later inspire the Mystical Theology of Pseudo-Dionysius (J. Daniélou, Vie de Moïse, Paris 1944, introduction, pp. 27-44). Then come two treatises In Psalmos. The first deals with the symbolism of the inscriptions of the psalms (PG 44, 432-85), the second interprets the first part of the Psalter as a description of the stages of the spiritual life (PG 44, 488-608). A short treatise De octava comments on the sixth psalm (PG 44, 608-16). Mention is also made of commentaries on the sapiential books. Gregory explains that Proverbs corresponds to spiritual infancy, Ecclesiastes to youth, 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 he seems not to have written any treatise on Proverbs. There remain a study on Ecclesiastes and another on the Song of Songs. Unlike the preceding ones, 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 Canticum Canticorum (PG 44, 756-1120), where Gregory explicitly draws inspiration from Origen, but develops a mysticism of the ecstasy of love foreign to him, which opens new horizons for spirituality. Less composite than the De vita Moysis, the homilies at times have more personal accents: they are among the summits of the spiritual literature of all time. The works cited thus far refer to the Old Testament. But there also remain two treatises that can be connected with the exegesis of the New. The first is a short work on prayer, in the form of a commentary on the Pater noster (De oratione Dominica: PG 44 1119-93). This was a classical genre: Origen's treatise on prayer, and Tertullian's, are also commentaries on the Pater. There is also a treatise De beatitudinibus, a commentary on the beatitudes, which contains, in particular, a chapter on purity of heart, very important for Gregory's spiritual theology.

The second part of the work of Gregory of Nyssa consists of theological treatises, most of which are devoted to the controversies on the Trinity. The most important, both in size and in dogmatic value, is the Contra Eunomium; but, in truth, what we have here is several studies. Eunomius had, around 360, published an Apology in which he set forth that ἀγεννησία is an expression of the divine essence. St. Basil replied to him with his Refutatio. Eunomius then published his Apology for an Apology. But Basil died in the meantime (379) and Gregory took it upon himself to refute Eunomius, writing three works that respond to his 3 books. The first, corresponding to book I of the current 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 the confession of Eunomius and datable probably to 383 (v. M. Comes de Castro, Die Trinitätlehre des hl. Gregor von Nyssa, Freiburg im Br. 1938, pp. 7-13). Werner Jaeger's edition of the Contra Eunomium [Berlin 1921] follows this order.

Against the Pneumatomachian heretics, Gregory wrote his treatise De Spiritu Sancto, in which he seeks to demonstrate its divinity: the date of this work is not certain. Still connected with the controversies on the Trinity are other treatises of lesser importance: 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 notionibus (PG 45, 175-87). Connected instead with Christological controversies are the two treatises Adversus Apollinarem (PG 45, 1123-1286). This is one of Gregory's most remarkable works. Besides the vigorous refutation of Apollinaris' doctrine, there is found in it a theology of the Incarnation in its relation to the unity of human nature, illustrated by images such as that of the lost sheep, the bruised reed, etc. Among the Christological works one may include the brief treatise In illud, quando sibi subiecerit omnia (PG 44, 1304-25).

Alongside these works, which are linked to the great controversies of the 4th century, the theological work of G. of Nyssa includes various treatises on different subjects. Of these the most important is the Oratio catechetica magna (PG 45, 1-105), an exposition of the whole plan of salvation as a whole: creation of man, original sin, Incarnation, Redemption, Sacraments. In no writing does G.'s thought appear more clearly. More than any other Father of the 4th century he delves deeply into dogma and strives to give an account of it in the face of the objections of the philosophers. Close to the Great Catechesis is the De anima et Resurrectione dialogus (PG 46, 12-160) between G. and his sister Macrina, on the eve of the latter's death. It is a faithful replica of the Phaedo; the Platonic influence is notable, and this places the treatise among G.'s earliest works. In it he takes up again the criticisms directed at Origen by Methodius of Olympus in his Treatise on the Resurrection (CB, XXVII, pp. 220-324), while nevertheless remaining faithful to the theology of the Alexandrian. Similarly, the treatise De infantibus qui praemature ubripiuntur (PG 46, 161-93) and the one De mortuis (PG 46, 498-538) are linked to the question of man's fate after death; the latter is important for the Gregorian doctrine on the primitive state of man and provides clarifications that are not found in the other studies. The work Contra fatum takes its place in the tradition against astral fatality (PG 45, 145-75; see also D. Amand, Fatalisme et liberté dans l'antiquité grecque, Louvain 1945, pp. 404-35). The one De Pythonissa takes up again the controversy that had set Eustathius of Antioch against Origen (see E. Klostermann, in Kleine Texte, 83, Bonn 1912): G. shares the position of Eustathius, who sees in the apparition of Samuel a diabolical illusion. Finally, one can connect to the theological works the Epistola canonica ad Letoium Melit. episcopum, which deals with penitential discipline (PG 45, 222-37) and where G. speaks not as a theologian but as a bishop and sets out the rules maintained in his Church.

As for the treatises on spirituality, it is quite clear that they consist principally of the scriptural commentaries, of which mention has already been made. There one must seek the essential of Gregorian spirituality. However, certain treatises strictly and properly spiritual also belong to G. The most important is the De virginitate (PG 46, 318-410), the study of G. in which the Platonic influence is clearest. Without doubt it is his first writing, dating from the time when he was a monk at Annesi, and it is interesting as a testimony of the spirit that animated that community. Virginity is celebrated as a return of man to his true nature, a participation of his 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 the one Adversus eos qui castigationes aegre ferunt (PG 46, 307-18). The Hypotyposis (PG 46, 287-307) is not by G. and forms part of the pseudo-Macarian writings (see A. Wilmart, La tradition de l'Hypotypose ou Traité de l'ascèse attribuée à Grégoire de Nysse, in Revue Or. Chrét., 3rd series, 1 [1918], pp. 214-422).

One of his most interesting works, the Vita s. Macrinae virginis (PG 46, 959-99), the elder sister of the Saint, is also linked to the spiritual writings of G. This is a document of the greatest importance from the historical point of view for establishing various points in the life of St. Basil and of St. G. Moreover, this text contains many details of value for the history of ancient Christian customs: Macrina dies turned toward the East; she wears around her neck a relic of the Cross (see F.-J. Dölger, Das Anhänge-Kreuzchen der hl. Makrina und ihr Ring mit der Kreuzpartikel, in Antike und Christentum, III, II, Münster in W. 1932, pp. 81-117). G. also left a life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker; from this the influence of Origen reached the Cappadocians.

The sermons of G. belong to different genres. The funeral eulogies of Meletius of Antioch, of St. Basil, of the empresses Pulcheria and Flaccilla have a marked rhetorical character. The moral homilies Contra usurarios, Contra fornicarios, De pauperibus amandis (PG 46, 433-97) continue the teaching of St. Basil. There is, moreover, a body of works of the very first importance from the theological and liturgical point of view in the festal homilies, which make up a good part of the liturgical cycle. A first homily Adversus eos qui Baptismum differunt must have been delivered shortly before the beginning of Lent (PG 46, 416-32). The Easter cycle comprises three homilies In Christi Resurrectionem (PG 46, 600-38 and 652-84; homilies II and V are apocryphal), a homily In ascensionem Christi, called in Cappadocia ἑποδοχάνη (PG 46, 689-93; it is the oldest known homily on this feast), a homily on Pentecost (De Spiritu Sancto: PG 46, 696-701); in it are found notable pages on the theology of the Resurrection and on the Eucharist.

Also very interesting, in particular for the history of the liturgy at the end of the 4th century, are the homilies of the Christmas cycle. The first In diem natalem Domini, placed in the PG among the doubtful homilies, is on the contrary certainly authentic (PG 46, 1123-49). There follow 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 can be seen that these feasts were celebrated on the first and second day after Christmas. Then there is a homily In diem luminum in quo baptizatus est Dominus noster (PG 46, 577-600), very important for the typology of Baptism. From the whole of these homilies one can grasp an entire theology of worship (see J. Daniélou, Le mystère du culte dans les sermons de St Grégoire de Nysse, Festgabe Casel 1950); one can also bring close to them the homily In suam ordinationem (PG 46, 544-53) and the one De deitate Filii et Spiritus Sancti (PG 46, 553-76), which contains a celebrated text on Abraham.

The Epistolae of St. G. are certainly not the least interesting part of his work. The excellent edition given of them by G. Pasquali (Berlin 1925) makes it possible to establish a quite exact chronology. Some letters are connected with the theological activity of G. The V letter is a profession of faith, in connection with G.'s inspection journey in Armenia (380). The II is connected with his journey to the Holy Land (382), and in it he criticizes the abuses to which pilgrimages give rise. Letters XIII and XIV, addressed to the sophist Libanius, are important for G.'s attitude toward profane culture. Letter XX gives various pieces of information on the spread of Roman villas in Asia, and XXV, which gives the plan of a martyrium, is very important from the archaeological point of view. Letter IV deals with the symbolism of the Easter season. Pasquali restores to G. the letter to Eustathius De Sancta Trinitate and the one De discrimine essentiae et hypostasis (PG 32, 683-66 and 325-40; see also A. Cavallin, Studien zu den Briefen des heil. Basilius, Lund 1944, pp. 70-81).

III. DOCTRINE

St. G. of Nyssa is the most philosophical of the Cappadocians and, without doubt, along with Origen, of the Greek Fathers. Before expounding the most characteristic aspects of his doctrine, a preliminary question must be posed regarding his theological method and his use of philosophy.

There is frequent talk of his Platonism. F. C. Cherniss has devoted a very well-documented study to this theme. R. Arnou dedicates several columns to it in the entry Platonisme des Pères of the DThC (XII, coll. 2343-48). This assertion leads one to pose a double question: which philosophies G. made use of, and whether Platonism is really what characterizes him; how he used these philosophies and, consequently, to what extent one can speak of his Platonism.

That there are Platonic influences in G.'s work is certain, and many of the arguments adduced by Cherniss are valid. It must nevertheless be observed that his Platonism is principally that of the myths: the allusions to the myth of the Phaedrus (the winged horses) and to that of the Republic (the cave) are certain. But it does not appear that there was in G. any close contact with Plato's Dialogues. What he seems to have known is that scholastic Platonism which formed part of the general culture of the epoch. And it is often difficult to discern whether he knows Plato directly or through the use that pagan or Christian philosophers had made of him.

It must further be observed that if G.'s inspiration is above all Platonic, other influences seem to have had on him an almost similar effect: first of all Neoplatonism, that is, Plotinus. The doctrine of the purification of the soul, as a condition of 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, and it 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 Etudes Carmélitaines, 23 (1938), pp. 49-52). The fact is important because here G. opposes Origen. His doctrine of knowledge in the divine darkness derives directly from the 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). G. also owes to Philo another of his most important ideas, that of the double creation of man (De hominis opificio: PG 44, 181).

Beyond this, the importance of the Stoic contribution must be noted. K. Gronau (Poseidonios und die jüdisch-christliche Genesis-Exegese, Leipzig-Berlin 1914, pp. 112-281; see 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 G.'s De hominis opificio and Cicero's De natura deorum: since an influence of Cicero on G. cannot be involved, one must have recourse to a common source. Cicero's treatise takes its cue from Posidonius. And Posidonius is also G.'s source. The Stoic influence appears above all in the history of knowledge, where G. affirms that the human spirit is enclosed within the 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. It will be observed finally that G. knew 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 G. used philosophy. This question is of capital importance in the history of Christian theology. For before him one encounters on the one hand, in Irenaeus and Athanasius, a biblical theology that has no interest in philosophy; and on the other, in Clement and Origen, a more philosophical theology, but still tainted by Platonic deviations, especially as regards the connaturality of the human logos and the divine logos. G. places himself in the continuation of the latter, but completes the reform of their Platonism, in order to bend it to the integral demands of Revelation. This is what 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, cit., pp. 230-35). He thus had, in relation to the New Testament, a part analogous to that which H.-A. Wolfson recognizes in Philo in relation to the Old (Philo, I, Cambridge [March] 1948); and it is not strange that G. should have felt this kinship.

G. of Nyssa is a theologian in the strictest sense, insofar as the mystery of God has a considerable place in his work. But here two questions must be distinguished, that of the divine ὁσία and that of the persons; the first is, in his work, the more important. For his theology defined itself in reaction to the error of Eunomius. This radical Arian was a partisan of anomoeanism, that is, of a difference of nature between the Father and the Son: this doctrine was founded on the interpretation of ἐγεννησία as a designation of the nature of the Father. All the other names by which God is indicated were, for the anomoeans, pure ἐπὶναι, without any foundation. Instead, the ἐγεννησία truly gives the content of the divine ὁσία, of which one can thus have a 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 one witnesses a renewal of negative theology, in reaction to this doctrine. St. John Chrysostom devoted to it around 380 his admirable homilies De incomprehensibili (G. 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 to this same doctrine that G. devoted a part of his Contra Eunomium. But he returns to it often in his other works, especially in the homilies 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. But it must be noted that it is primarily a question of 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 makes it pass beyond its limits, the soul knows this feeling of presence, the only immediate knowledge possible of Him who is beyond any determination. Moreover, this immediate knowledge, even in the beatific vision, is never absolutely comprehensible. This explains the many passages in which G. underlines the incomprehensibility of the divine essence. In the face of Eunomius's rationalism, his work is the testimony of a remarkable sense of the mystery of God, and is penetrated by a profound spirit of adoration (cf. J. Daniélou, Platonisme et théologie mystique, Paris 1945, pp. 309-26).

As for the Trinitarian doctrine of G., it is a simple development of that of St. Basil. The terms appear in it very clearly fixed. G. designates the persons with the terms πρόσωπον or ὑπόστασις. The only point that has given rise to controversies is a passage in the treatise Quod non sint tres Dii, in which G. compares the Trinity of persons in the unity of nature to the multiplicity of individuals within human life. This comparison of his has been called a tritheism. But G. Jsaye has clearly demonstrated the groundlessness 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 will be noted that in the Oratio catechetica magna G. 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, the fall and the redemption of man. The anthropology of G. is one of the most interesting, but also one of the most difficult parts of his work. The principal elements are in the Oratio catechetica magna and in the treatise De hominis opificio. This doctrine finds its starting point in the biblical doctrine of the imago Dei. Unlike other Fathers of the Church and closer, in this, to the literal sense of Scripture itself, G. makes no distinction between the imago and the similitudo. To use modern words, one may say that in him there is no opposition between "natural" man and "supernatural" man. But the "nature" of man is man as he is in God's conception, that is, comprising all the gifts that are called supernatural. This G. manifests very explicitly in the treatise on creation, where purity, parrhesia, charity, and beatitude are considered as forming part of human "nature" in the same way as "reason and liberty" (PG 44, 137 A-C).

But man as he actually is is far from presenting this image of God; the humanity that lies before us is not human "nature" as God had willed it and as it will exist at the end. Upon this humanity, made in the image of God, which alone constitutes nature, is superimposed what G. calls "the tunics of skins." These tunics of skins are in man the animal nature, that is, all that is common with the animals: "sexual union, conception, giving birth, nourishment, adolescence, maturity, old age, illness, death" (PG 46, 148 D). It is not a question of the body as such. Indeed, G., contrary to Origen, considers that the fact of being composed of intelligible and sensible elements forms part of human nature (and this shows that G.'s conception is the biblical opposition of sarx and pneuma, that is, of man vivified by the divine energies, which is his nature, or deprived of these energies, which is his misery). It is rather a question of all that constitutes the mortal condition, 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 remotest cause is the liberty of man. God could not create man in his image without giving him that liberty which is one of the characteristics of the divine nature. And in this regard it may be noted that after Origen, and before St. Bernard, G. makes the essence of the likeness to God consist more in liberty than in intelligence (PG 44, 184 C-D). But, in another passage, every created being is, by its very essence, subject to change (Oratio catechetica magna, VI, 2-5). Consequently created liberty was susceptible 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 became jealous at seeing appear in his kingdom a being created in the image of God. Here one encounters the traditional idea, of Hebrew origin, of the relation of the angels and the cosmos. The Angel of the earth is troubled at the appearance of Adam in his kingdom, as the Prince of the world will be troubled at the appearance of the new Adam.

From then on, the soul of man having strayed from God, who is its life, his body was stripped of incorruptibility and clothed with tunics of skins. Nevertheless - and this is important in G.'s thought - this clothing with tunics of skins, if it is a consequence of sin, is also less a punishment than a remedy. And one finds again the great Origenist idea of the medicinal character of punishments (cf. J. Daniélou, Origène cit., p. 727 ff.). This presents two aspects. On the one hand, in the De Mortuis, G. explains that the tunics of skins 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 of his first beatitude (PG 46, 524 B).

In the Oratio catechetica magna, G. brings forward also another reason: the tunics of skins, that is, the mortal condition, by permitting the dissolution of the sensible part of man, with which evil had been mingled, thus permit the elimination of the latter and the restoration of man to his purity. For this reason man returns to the earth, decomposing like a vessel of clay, so that, once freed from the imparity that he currently has within himself, he may be restored by the resurrection to his primitive form (Oratio catechetica magna, III). The tunics of skins, therefore, are foreign to human nature; they have been applied to it in a thought of foreseeing solicitude, tude, by the physician who was curing our predisposition to evil, "without being destined to subsist eternally" (op. cit., VIII, 4).

One last question remains: to know whether historically man was created at first without the tunics of skins, that is, without sexuality and mortality, in a state similar to that which will be that of the resurrected bodies: God, having foreseen the sin of man, would have created him, from the beginning, in the corruptible state that was to be the means of his rising again (PG, 44, 180 C-D).

In this perspective G. interprets the distinction of the two narratives of Genesis on the creation of man. Philo had already seen in them two stages of creation. The man in the image, the first created, is the archetype pre-existing in the intelligible world; the man "male and female" who comes after is the one who appears on earth. G. takes up the opposition again, but discarding any idea of real pre-existence, and thus eliminating what Origen had retained of Philo, he sees in the man in the image the pre-existence of the divine thought of perfect humanity, as it will in fact exist only at the end of time (PG 44, 185 B), so much so that it is the man "male and female" who, according to the intentional order, is chronologically the first (v. H. Urs von Balthasar, op. cit., pp. 25-29; J. Daniélou, Platonisme etc., cit., pp. 52-55).

The two aspects to which G. gives particular attention in the fall of man are on the one hand the role of the demon and on the other the mortal condition. The Redemption considered as a victory of Christ over the demon is, in the ancient Church, a traditional theme. It involves two stages: the demon, who from the temptation onward had presented in Jesus a power dangerous for his domination of the world, thinks, on the evening of Good Friday, to hold him definitively in his power. But, on the morning of Easter, Christ breaks the gates of death, thus liberating also all those whom the demon held in his power. In this way what had appeared to the demon as the means of his triumph becomes the instrument of his definitive dispossession.

The second aspect of human decadence was corruptibility and death. It has been seen that this was not only a punishment but also, and at the same time, a means of recovery, inasmuch as it allowed for the elimination of sin. Nevertheless this was purely negative and did not restore man to his incorruptibility. The redemptive work of Christ consisted, through his death, in uniting himself to man in a state of disintegration, in order, through his Resurrection, to reunite its separated parts, recomposing them into an indestructible union (Oratio catechetica magna, XVI, 7).

It may be noted in this regard that the Redemption appears to G. as identical to the Incarnation. In fact 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). Therefore the Incarnation-Redemption is the union of the Word with man in the state of a corpse in order to raise him again.

It will have been noted that the Resurrection of Christ is "the starting point of the resurrection of man." In fact the Resurrection of Christ is the principle of that of humanity, and this must be understood, in G., in a very realist sense: no theologian has in fact insisted more on the ontological solidarity of men among themselves. The image of God is for him the concrete totality of men, constituting a single body (PG 44, 185 C), which preexists in the thought of God and will not be realized until the end of time.

Consequently Christ could not unite himself to a member of human nature without this having repercussions on the whole of humanity. G. expresses this idea in the Contra Apollinarem with remarkable symbols. Human nature is the lost little sheep, far from the 99 spiritual creatures and whom Christ, the Good Shepherd, came to seek (PG 44, 1153; see also 44, 546), indicating by this the Incarnation. In another passage he compares fallen humanity to a broken reed: Christ cannot make the two pieces meet at one point without their being readjusted in their totality (PG 44, 1260 A-C). Some have maintained that G. by this had affirmed a hypostatic union of the Word with all humanity. But various texts show that this is not the case, but rather a very realist sense of the solidarity of men within human nature (see L. Malevez, L'Eglise dans le Christ, in Recherches de science religieuse, 25 [1935], pp. 260-80; see also S. Gonzales, El realismo platónico de s. Gregorio de Nisa, in Gregorianum, 20 [1939], pp. 189-206).

Of this resurrection, acquired in right by Christ for the whole of humanity, how will man be able to appropriate it? Through the Sacraments. In accordance with ancient tradition, G.'s sacramental theology comprises three principal 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 mystagogy properly so called, or explanation of the symbolism of the rites: and here the most interesting is the sermon Adversus eos qui Baptismum differunt (PG 46, 416-32; see also J. Daniélou, Le mystère du culte dans les sermons de st Grégoire de Nysse, Festgabe Casel 1950, p. 25 ff.). Finally, the more properly theological exposition is found above all in the Oratio catechetica magna.

Baptism is first of all, for G., a sacramental imitation of the dead and risen Christ which accomplishes its real effect (Oratio catechetica magna, XXV, 6). As the death of Christ purified nature from the mixture that altered it and his Resurrection restored humanity to its integrity, so Baptism produces the same effect, but only in an inchoative manner. For evil to disappear completely it would be necessary that "it be possible, in this imitation, to undergo a complete death" (Oratio catechetica magna, XXXV, 10).

Here G.'s baptismal theory links up with the biblical depictions of liberation, in particular with the crossing of the Red Sea (PG 46, 589 D; see also J. Daniélou, Sacramentum futuri, Paris 1950, pp. 152-76). In another passage another symbol is encountered, the Jordan represented as a paradisiacal river: this emphasizes regeneration. Baptism is presented as a return to Paradise (PG 46, 417 D, 600 A-B; see also J. Daniélou, ibid., pp. 13-20). Access to Baptism marks "that Paradise is again accessible to man and that the flaming sword no longer forbids access to it" (PG 46, 600 A-B). The change of garments symbolizes (or the stripping off of the garment of fig leaves, the consequence of the fall, and the covering with the tunic of incorruptibility (PG 46, 420, C, 600 B). The Jordan is also considered as 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).

But G.'s originality lies in the link that he establishes between the Jordan and Paradise. Taking up a theme, perhaps exploited earlier by the Gnostics, he opposes to the two rivers that descend into Paradise the Jordan that ascends toward it and has its source in Christ: "Hasten toward my Jordan. It does not have its source in Paradise and does not empty into the Sea of Tiberias, but has its source in Christ and descending from him covers the whole earth. And it empties into Paradise flowing against the current of four rivers that issue from it and introducing into Paradise men newly regenerated by the Spirit" (PG 46, 420 C-D; see also F. J. Dölger, Der Durchzug durch den Jordan als Sinnbild der christlichen Taufe, in Ant. und Christ., II, Münster in W. 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 that carries men into Paradise.

The Eucharist is considered by G. as the realization of the eschatological meal announced by the Old Testament. The three essential texts of the Old Testament are: Prov. 9, 5 ff., Ps. 22, 5 and Cant. 5, 1 (see J. Daniélou, Les repas de la Bible et leur signification, in La Maison-Dieu, 18, pp. 8-12). G. comments on them in a eucharistic sense. The character of the wisdom of Prov. appears interpreted in various passages in a eucharistic sense (PG 44, 772 A, 956 D). Of Psalm XXII, whose importance in the ancient sacramental liturgy is well known, the sermon In Ascensionem Christi gives a remarkable commentary (PG 46, 692 A-B). Finally the invitation of the Bridegroom of the Canticle to the wedding banquet is also interpreted in that sense (PG 44, 989 C.).

The theological explanation that G. gives to the Eucharist is also eschatological. In the same way in which the soul is regenerated by Baptism, the corruptible body needs a remedy that confers immortality upon it. This remedy is the glorious body of Christ, become for us a source of life. In order to penetrate into our own, the glorious 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, of Irenaeus, of Athanasius.

G. does not consider the Eucharist only as a Sacrament but also as a sacrifice. One must cite in this regard a remarkable passage of his on which Fr. de la Taille greatly insisted in his Mysterium fidei (Paris 1921, p. 43). G. wishes to demonstrate the voluntary character of Christ's death, that is, its sacrificial meaning. He explains therefore that this death had already been accomplished during the 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. Gregory is certainly the most important part of his work and is a clear consequence of his sacramental theology. Under the action of the Sacraments, it is the outcome of the deified powers of the soul. According to an image dear to him, Gregory compares the virtues of the soul, given life by the Sacraments of the Church, to the trees of Paradise. This spiritual theology is spread throughout Gregory's exegetical commentaries (for the separation and ordering of the principal themes, as well as for a more extensive exposition, see J. Daniélou, Platonisme etc., cited).

Gregory distinguishes three great ways in the spiritual life: and this is nothing but an extension, a continuation of what is found in Origen. But the expression of these three ways is quite different from what is generally meant; for Gregory 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 the elements foreign to the soul and by the restoration of the image of God in it. The first aspect consists in the struggle against passion. By this Gregory does not mean the sensitive dispositions in themselves, which can be eliminated only by the resurrection, but rather their perversion. This struggle against the passions is also an interiorization of the soul through the recollection and unification brought about by the repulsion of all sensible things (see J. Daniélou, op. cit., pp. 30-110). By this the image of God is restored. Its characteristics, for Gregory, are first of all apatheia, that is, detachment from every vain preoccupation, 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 it more like God, allow it a first knowledge of God in itself. This knowledge of God in the mirror of the soul characterizes the second way, compared to the cloud because "proceeding from visible things to invisible things, the soul sees sensible realities grow dark and accustoms itself to the contemplation of hidden things" (PG 44, 1000 C). At this point one enters properly into the mystical order. It should be noted, moreover, that the three ways are not exclusive of one another. Each is defined by a predominant aspect, but one that is nevertheless found also in the other two: knowledge characterizes the second, but it was already sketched in the first and is found again in the third.

In what does what Gregory 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 a question of an experience that the soul has of its own substance in the 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 a question of an experience of Grace which Gregory expresses with the doctrine of the spiritual senses, which he inherited from Origen and to which he gives a great development. The essential experience of Grace is a knowledge of God. But, and this is the essential point, it is not a knowledge of the essence of God, which is inaccessible, but rather an experience of the presence of God, which Gregory defines with the expression αἴσθησις παρουσίας, 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 deification of the soul is in fact a divine action that entails a special nearness of God to it: Gregory compares it to the presence of the bundle of myrrh without which the perfume would evaporate from the garments (PG 44, 828 A). Grace is like the perfume that betrays the nard, like the ray that reflects the sun, like the taste that manifests the substance. Thus, knowledge in the mirror is indeed an experience of God and not of the soul, but it is a mediated knowledge, in which the presence of God is known through its action on the soul (PG 44, 821 A).

The soul can thus have an experience of the presence of God in itself. This experience is, at the beginning, sufficient to fill it. But the more the soul progresses, the more it discovers that God infinitely transcends all that it cannot know.

This introduces the third way, the knowledge of God in darkness: it consists in understanding that the true knowledge of God lies "in understanding that he is incomprehensible, enveloped as he is, on every side, by his incomprehensibility as by a darkness" (PG 44, 377 A). This discovery at first casts the soul into despair, until it understands that, in Gregory's words, "to find God consists in seeking him ceaselessly" (PG 46, 97 A; see also J. Daniélou, Essai sur la psychologie des mystiques, II, Paris, pp. 105-111) and that "in always progressing in the search lies the true enjoyment of the Beloved" (PG 44, 1037 C).

Until then the theorists had conceived the knowledge of God as a possession. It is the tendency of Clement and of Origen that culminates in Evagrius Ponticus. Gregory, on the other hand, makes of it a dispossession. Instead of bringing God back to the soul, he brings the soul back to God; in this way he passes from 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 understanding, in the darkness, union in love. Gregory expresses it with the terms "sober drunkenness" (cf. H. Lewy, Sobria ebrietas, pp. 132-37), "vigilant sleep" and above all "impassible eros." It would be erroneous to derive the Gregorian eros from the Platonic eros, as A. Nygren has done (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). Gregory himself defined what he means by eros with the expression intense charity (ἐπτεσταμένη ἀγάπη; PG 44, 1048 C). Eros is therefore charity in its violent form, the madness of love, which tears the soul from itself to cast it into God (cf. J. Daniélou, Essai, cited, pp. 211-20).

It remains to speak of the eschatology of St. Gregory. Two questions in particular are important. The first is that of the resurrection of bodies. It has been seen what part the doctrine of bodily incorruptibility played in the thought of Gregory and in that of Irenaeus. In this regard Gregory places himself within the great tradition of the Church. This is noted especially in his position with regard to Origen; the latter had taught the return of man to the state of pure spirituality that he would have had before falling into the flesh. Against this error Gregory 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 it during his earthly existence (PG 54, 225 B - 228 B).

More difficult is the question of apocatastasis. There are certainly many texts of G. that teach that at the end of time evil will disappear completely (PG 46, 526 A) and that the pleroma of spiritual creatures will be reconstituted (PG 46, 135 A). For him this is founded both on the biblical texts (particularly I Cor. 15, 29) and on the philosophical consideration that evil, having had a beginning, must come to an end. G.'s orthodoxy on this point was already discussed in antiquity, and defended by St. Maximus and St. Barsanuphius (PG 86, 898 B-C and 90, 795 B). The proof that certain texts were contestable is that attempts were made to suppress them. Thus, a passage of the Vita Moysis to which Germanus of Constantinople refers is not found in the manuscript on which the PG edition is based, and has been recovered from a manuscript of Venice (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 an 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.]).

But it must be noted that the texts of St. G. do not at all have the character of those of Origen. He does not affirm the salvation of the evil angels, nor does he consider, as Origen does, that eternal hell is a pedagogical lie intended for sinners, while to the perfect is reserved the knowledge of the doctrine of universal salvation. G. affirms simultaneously the total disappearance of evil and the eternal condemnation of sinners: the question is to see how the two things are compatible. Now, he expressed himself on this without any possible ambiguity: "sin will disappear and be reduced to nothing, and since no malice will subsist anywhere, the Kingdom of the Lord will extend from one point to another. But men will remain in the state in which they are now, choosing between good and evil. Thus, he who has fallen down from the City above will be punished with the privation of goods" (PG 44, 605 D).

individual — and this is very Greek — interests G. less than the salvation of nature.

Giovanni Daniélou