Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. = V

From: Subject: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. V Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:25:48 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C72CF8.54C4BE80" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C72CF8.54C4BE80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF205/NPNF2056.HTM Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. = V

The Life and Writings of Gregory of Nyssa

The Life and = Writings of=20 Gregory of Nyssa

--------

Chapter I.-A Sketch of the Life of S. = Gregory of=20 Nyssa.

In the roll of the Nicene Fathers there is no more honoured name than = that of=20 Gregory of Nyssa. Besides the praises of his great brother Basil and of = his=20 equally great friend Gregory Nazianzen, the sanctity of his life, his=20 theoIogical learning, and his strenuous advocacy of the faith embodied = in the=20 Nicene clauses, have received the praises of Jerome, Socrates, = Theodoret, and=20 many other Christian writers. Indeed such was the estimation in which he = was=20 held that some did not hesitate to call him `the Father of Fathers' as = well as=20 `the Star of Nyssa'¹=20 ."

Gregory of Nyssa was equally fortunate in his country, the name he = bore, and=20 the family which produced him. He was a native of Cappadocia, and was = born most=20 probably at Caesarea, the capital, about a.d. 335 or 336. No province of = the=20 Roman Empire had in those early ages received more eminent Christian = bishops=20 than Cappadocia and the adjoining district of Pontus.

In the previous century the great prelate Firmilian, the disciple and = friend=20 of Origen, who visited him at his See, had held the Bishopric of = Caesarea. In=20 the same age another saint, Gregory Thaumaturgus, a friend also and = disciple of=20 Origen, was bishop of Neo-Caesarea in Pontus. During the same century, = too, no=20 less than four other Gregories shed more or less lustre on bishoprics in = that=20 country. The family of Gregory of Nyssa was one of considerable wealth = and=20 distinction, and one also conspicuously Christian.

During the Diocletian persecution his grandparents had fled for = safety to the=20 mountainous region of Pontus, where they endured great hardships and = privations.=20 It is said that his maternal grandfather, whose name is unknown, = eventually lost=20 both life and property. After a retirement of some few years the family = appear=20 to have returned and settled at Caesarea in Cappadocia, or else at = Neo-Caesarea=20 in Pontus, for there is some uncertainty in the account.

Gregory's father, Basil, who gave his name to his eldest son, was = known as a=20 rhetorician. He died at a comparatively early age, leaving a family of = ten=20 children, five of whom were boys and five girls, under the care of their = grandmother Macrina and mother Emmelia. Both of these illustrious ladies = were=20 distinguished for the earnestness and strictness of their Christian = principles,=20 to which the latter added the charm of great personal beauty.

All the sons and daughters appear to have been of high character, but = it is=20 only of four sons and one daughter that we have any special record. The=20 daughter, called Macrina, from her grandmother, was the angel in the = house of=20 this illustrious family. She shared with her grandmother and mother the = care and=20 education of all its younger members. Nor was there one of them who did = not owe=20 to her religious influence their settlement in the faith and consistency = of=20 Christian conduct.

This admirable woman had been betrothed in early life, but her = intended=20 husband died of fever. She permitted herself to contract no other = alliance, but=20 regarded herself as still united to her betrothed in the other world. = She=20 devoted herself to a religious life, and eventually, with her mother = Emmelia,=20 established a female conventual society on the family-property in = Pontus, at a=20 place called Annesi, on the banks of the river Iris.

It was owing to her persuasions that her brother Basil also gave up = the=20 worldly life, and retired to lead the devout life in a wild spot in the=20 immediate neighbourhood of Annesi. Here for a while he was an hermit, = and here=20 he persuaded his friend Gregory Nazianzen to join him. They studied = together the=20 works of Origen, and published a selection of extracts from his = Commentaries,=20 which they called "Philocalia." By the suggestions of a friend Basil = enlarged=20 his idea, and converted his hermit's seclusion into a monastery, which=20 eventually became the centre of many others which sprung up in that=20 district.

His inclination for the monastic life had been greatly influenced by = his=20 acquaintance with the Egyptian monks, who had impressed him with the = value of=20 their system as an aid to a life of religious devotion. He had visited = also the=20 hermit saints of Syria and Arabia, and learnt from them the practice of = a severe=20 asceticism, which both injured his health and shortened his days.

Gregory of Nyssa was the third son, and one of the youngest of the = family. He=20 had an elder brother, Nectarius, who followed the profession of their = father,=20 and became rhetorician, and like him died early. He had also a younger = brother,=20 Peter, who became bishop of Sebaste.

Besides the uncertainty as to the year and place of his birth it is = not known=20 where he received his education. From the weakness of his health and = delicacy of=20 his constitution, it was most probably at home. It is interesting, in = the case=20 of one so highly educated, to know who, in consequence of his father's = early=20 death, took charge of his merely intellectual bringing up: and his own = words do=20 not leave us in any doubt that, so far as he had a teacher, it was = Basil, his=20 senior by several years. He constantly speaks of him as the revered = `Master:' to=20 take but one instance, he says in his Hexaemeron (ad init.) that = all that=20 will be striking in that work will be due to Basil, what is inferior = will be the=20 `pupil's.' Even in the matter of style, he says in a letter written in = early=20 life to Libanius that though he enjoyed his brother's society but a = short time=20 yet Basil was the author of his oratory (logou): and=20 it is safe to conclude that he was introduced to all that Athens had to = teach,=20 perhaps even to medicine, by Basil: for Basil had been at Athens. On the = other=20 hand we can have no difficulty in crediting his mother, of whom he = always spoke=20 with the tenderest affection, and his admirable sister Macrina, with the = care of=20 his religious teaching. Indeed few could be more fortunate than Gregory = in the=20 influences of home. If, as there is every reason to believe, the = grandmother=20 Macrina survived Gregory's early childhood, then, like Timothy, he was = blest=20 with the religious instruction of another Lois and Eunice.

In this chain of female relationship it is difficult to say which = link is=20 worthier of note, grandmother, mother, or daughter. Of the first, Basil, = who=20 attributes his early religious impressions to his grandmother, tells us = that as=20 a child she taught him a Creed, which had been drawn up for the use of = the=20 Church of Neo-Caesarea by Gregory Thaumaturgus. This Creed, it is said, = was=20 revealed to the Saint in a vision. It has been translated by Bishop Bull = in his=20 "Fidei Nicaenae Defensio." In its language and spirit it anticipates the = Creed=20 of Constantinople.

Certain it is that Gregory had not the benefit of a residence at = Athens, or=20 of foreign travel. It might have given him a strength of character and = width of=20 experience, in which he was certainly deficient. His shy and retiring=20 disposition induced him to remain at home without choosing a profession, = living=20 on his share of the paternal property, and educating himself by a = discipline of=20 his own.

He remained for years unbaptized. And this is a very noticeable = circumstance=20 which meets us in the lives of many eminent Saints and Bishops of the = Church.=20 They either delayed baptism themselves, or it was delayed for them. = Indeed there=20 are instances of Bishops baptized and consecrated the same day.

Gregory's first inclination or impulse to make a public profession of = Christianity is said to have been due to a remarkable dream or = vision.

His mother Emmelia, at her retreat at Annesi, urgently entreated him = to be=20 present and take part in a religious ceremony in honour of the Forty = Christian=20 Martyrs. He had gone unwillingly, and wearied with his journey and the = length of=20 the service, which lasted far into the night, he lay down and fell = asleep in the=20 garden. He dreamed that the Martyrs appeared to him and, reproaching him = for his=20 indifference, beat him with rods. On awaking he was filled with remorse, = and=20 hastened to amend his past neglect by earnest entreaties for mercy and=20 forgiveness. Under the influence of the terror which his dream inspired = he=20 consented to undertake the office of reader in the Church, which of = course=20 implied a profession of Christianity. But some unfitness, and, perhaps, = that=20 love of eloquence which clung to him to the last, soon led him to give = up the=20 office, and adopt the profession of a rhetorician or advocate. For this=20 desertion of a sacred for a secular employment he is taken severely to = task by=20 his brother Basil and his friend Gregory Nazianzen. The latter does not = hesitate=20 to charge him with being influenced, not by conscientious scruples, but = by=20 vanity and desire of public display, a charge not altogether consistent = with his=20 character.

Here it is usual to place the marriage of Gregory with Theosebeia, = said to=20 have been a sister of Gregory Nazianzen. Certainly the tradition of = Gregory's=20 marriage received such credit as to be made in after times a proof of = the=20 non-celibacy of the Bishops of his age. But it rests mainly on two = passages,=20 which taken separately are not in the least conclusive. The first is the = ninety-fifth letter of Gregory Nazianzen, written to console for a = certain loss=20 by death, i.e. of "Theosebeia, the fairest, the most lustrous even = amidst such=20 beauty of the adelfoi; Theosebeia, the true = priestess,=20 the yokefellow and the equal of a priest." J. Rupp has well pointed out = that the=20 expression `yokefellow' (suzugon), which has = been=20 insisted as meaning `wife,' may, especially in the language of Gregory=20 Nazianzen, be equivalent to adelfoi. He sees = in this=20 Theosebeia `a sister of the Cappadocian brothers.' The second passage is = contained in the third cap. of Gregory's treatise On Virginity. = Gregory=20 there complains that he is "cut off by a kind of gulf from this glory of = virginity" (parqenia). The whole passage = should be=20 consulted. Of course its significance depends on the meaning given to = parqenia. Rupp asserts that more and more towards = the end of=20 the century this word acquired a technical meaning derived from the = purely ideal=20 side, i.e. virginity of soul: and that Gregory is alluding to the same = thing=20 that his friend had not long before blamed him for, the keeping of a = school for=20 rhetoric, where his object had been merely worldly reputation, and the = truly=20 ascetic career had been marred (at the time he wrote). Certainly the = terrible=20 indictment of marriage in the third capof this treatise comes ill from = one whose=20 wife not only must have been still living, but possessed the virtues = sketched in=20 the letter of Gregory Nazianzen: while the allusions at the end of it to = the=20 law-courts and their revelations appear much more like the professional=20 reminiscence of a rhetorician who must have been familiar with them, = than the=20 personal complaint of one who had cause to depreciate marriage. The = powerful=20 words of Basil, de Virgin. I. 610, a. b., also favour the above view of = the=20 meaning of parqenia: and Gregory elsewhere = distinctly=20 calls celibacy parqenia tou=3D swmato, and = regards it as=20 a means only to this higher parqeni/a (III. = 131). But=20 the two passages above, when combined, may have led to the tradition of=20 Gregory's marriage. Nicephorus Callistus, for example, who first makes = mention=20 of it, must have put upon parqenia the = interpretation=20 of his own time (thirteenth century,) i.e. that of continence. Finally, = those=20 who adopt this tradition have still to account for the fact that no = allusion to=20 Theosebeia as his wife, and no letter to her, is to be found in = Gregory's=20 numerous writings. It is noteworthy that the Benedictine editors of = Gregory=20 Nazianzen(ad Epist. 95) also take the above view.

His final recovery and conversion to the Faith, of which he was = always after=20 so strenuous an asserter, was due to her who, all things considered, was = the=20 master spirit of the family. By the powerful persuasions of his sister = Macrina,=20 at length, after much struggle, he altered entirely his way of life, = severed=20 himself from all secular occupations, and retired to his brother's = monastery in=20 the solitudes of Pontus, a beautiful spot, and where, as we have seen, = his=20 mother and sister had established, in the immediate neighbourhood, a = similar=20 association for women.

Here, then, Gregory was settled for several years, and devoted = himself to the=20 study of the Scripture and the works of his master Origen. Here, too, = his love=20 of natural scenery was deepened so as to find afterwards constant and = adequate=20 expression. For in his writings we have in large measure that sentiment = of=20 delight in the beauty of nature of which, even when it was felt, the = traces are=20 so few and far between in the whole range of Greek literature. A notable = instance is the following from the Letter to Adelphus, written = long=20 afterwards:-"The gifts bestowed upon the spot by Nature, who beautifies = the=20 earth with an impromptu grace, are such as these: below, the river Halys = makes=20 the place fair to look upon with his banks, and glides like a golden = ribbon=20 through their deep purple, reddening his current with the soil he washes = down.=20 Above, a mountain densely overgrown with wood stretches, with its long = ridge,=20 covered at all points with the foliage of oaks, more worthy of finding = some=20 Homer to sing its praises than that Ithacan Neritus which the poet calls = `far-seen with quivering leaves.' But the natural growth of wood as it = comes=20 down the hill-side meets at the foot the plantations of human husbandry. = For=20 forthwith vines, spread out over the slopes and swellings and hollows at = the=20 mountain's base, cover with their colour, like a green mantle, all the = lower=20 ground: and the season also was now adding to their beauty with a = display of=20 magnificent grape-clusters." Another is from the treatise On Infants' = Early=20 Deaths:-"Nay look only at an ear of corn, at the germinating of some = plant,=20 at a ripe bunch of grapes, at the beauty of early autumn whether in = fruit or=20 flower, at the grass springing unbidden, at the mountain reaching up = with its=20 summit to the height of the ether, at the springs of the lower ground = bursting=20 from its flanks in streams like milk, and running in rivers through the = glens,=20 at the sea receiving those streams from every direction and yet = remaining within=20 its limits with waves edged by the stretches of beach, and never = stepping beyond=20 those fixed boundaries: and how can the eye of reason fail to find in = them all=20 that our education for Realities requires?" The treatise On = Virginity was=20 the fruit of this life in Basil'sonastery.

Henceforward the fortunes of Gregory are more closely linked with = those of=20 his great brother Basil.

About a.d. 365 Basil was summoned from his retirement to act as = coadjutor to=20 Euseblus, the Metropolitan of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and aid him in = repelling=20 the assaults of the Arian faction on the Faith. In these assaults the = Arians=20 were greatly encouraged and assisted by the proclivities of the Emperor = Valens.=20 After some few years of strenuous and successful resistance, and the = endurance=20 of great persecution from the Emperor and his Court, a persecution which = indeed=20 pursued him through life, Basil is called by the popular voice, on the = death of=20 Eusebius, a.d. 370, to succeed him in the See. His election is = vehemently=20 opposed, but after much turmoil is at length accomplished.

To strengthen himself in his position, and surround himself with = defenders of=20 the orthodox Faith, he obliges his brother Gregory, in spite of his = emphatic=20 protest, to undertake the Bishopric of Nyssa²=20 , a small town in the west of Cappadocia. When a friend expressed his = surprise=20 that he had chosen so obscure a place for such a man as Gregory, he = replied,=20 that he did not desire his brother to receive distinction from the name = of his=20 See, but rather to confer distinction upon it.

It was with the same feeling, and by the exercise of a like masterful = will,=20 that he forced upon his friend Gregory Nazianzen the Bishopric of a = still more=20 obscure and unimportant place, called Sasima. But Gregory highly = resented the=20 nomination, which unhappily led to a lifelong estrangement.

It was about this time, too, that a quarrel had arisen between Basil = and=20 their uncle, another Gregory, one of the Cappadocian Bishops. And here = Gregory=20 of Nyssa gave a striking proof of the extreme simplicity and = unreflectiveness of=20 his character, which without guileful intent yet led him into guile. = Without=20 sufficient consideration he was induced to practise a deceit which was = as=20 irreconcileable with Christian principle as with common sense. In his = endeavours=20 to set his brother and uncle at one, when previous efforts had been in = vain, he=20 had recourse to an extraordinary method. He forged a letter, as if from = their=20 uncle, to Basil, earnestly entreating reconciliation. The inevitable = discovery=20 of course only widened the breach, and drew down on Gregory his = brother's=20 indignant condemnation, The reconciliation, however, which Gregory hoped = for,=20 was afterwards brought about.

Nor was this the only occasion on which Gregory needed Basil's advice = and=20 reproof, and protection from the consequences of his inexperienced zeal. = After=20 he had become Bishop of Nyssa, with a view to render assistance to his = brother=20 he promoted the summoning of Synods. But Basil's wider experience told = him that=20 no good would come of such assemblies under existing circumstances. = Besides=20 which he had reason to believe that Gregory would be made the tool of = factious=20 and designing men. He therefore discouraged the attempt. At another time = Basil=20 had to interpose his authority to prevent his brother joining in a = mission to=20 Rome to invite the interference of Pope Damasus and the Western Bishops = in the=20 settlement of the troubles at Antioch in consequence of the disputed = election to=20 the See. Basil had himself experience of the futility of such = application to=20 Rome, from the want of sympathy in the Pope and the Western Bishops with = the=20 troubles in the East. Nor would he, by such application, give a handle = for=20 Rome's assertion of supremacy, and encroachment on the independence of = the=20 Eastern Church. The Bishopric of Nyssa was indeed to Gregory no bed of = roses.=20 Sad was the contrast to one of his genre spirit, more fitted for = studious=20 retirement and monastic calm than for controversies which did not end = with the=20 pen, between the peaceful leisure of his retreat in Pontus and the = troubles and=20 antagonisms of his present position. The enthusiasm of his faith on the = subject=20 of the Trinity and the Incarnation brought upon him the full weight of = Arian and=20 Sabellian hostility, aggravated as it was by the patronage of the = Emperor. In=20 fact his whole life at Nyssa was a series of persecutions.

A charge of uncanonical irregularity in his ordination is brought up = against=20 him by certain Arian Bishops, and he is summoned to appear and answer = them at a=20 Synod at Ancyra. To this was added the vexation of a prosecution by = Demosthenes,=20 the Emperor's chef de cuisine, on a charge of defalcation in the = Church=20 funds.

A band of soldiers is sent to fetch him to the Synod. The fatigue of = the=20 journey, and the rough treatment of his conductors, together with = anxiety of=20 mind, produce a fever which prevents his attendance. His brother Basil = comes to=20 his assistance. He summons another Synod of orthodox Cappadocian = Bishops, who=20 dictate in their joint names a courteous letter, apologising for = Gregory's=20 absence from the Synod of Ancyra, and proving the falsehood of the = charge of=20 embezzlement. At the same time he writes to solicit the interest of = Astorgus, a=20 person of considerable influence at the Court, to save his brother from = the=20 indignity of being dragged before a secular tribunal.

Apparently the application was unsuccessful. Demosthenes now obtains = the=20 holding another Synod at Gregory's own See of Nyssa, where he is = summoned to=20 answer the same charges. Gregory refuses to attend. He is consequently=20 pronounced contumacious, and deposed from his Bishopric. His deposition = is=20 followed immediately by a decree of banishment from the Emperor, a.d. = 376. He=20 retires to Seleucia. But his banishment did not secure him from the = malice and=20 persecution of his enemies. He is obliged frequently to shift his = quarters, and=20 is subjected to much bodily discomfort and suffering. From the consoling = answers=20 of his friend Gregory of Nazianzen (for his own letters are lost), we = learn the=20 crushing effects of all these troubles upon his gentle and sensitive = spirit, and=20 the deep despondency into which he had fallen.

At length there is a happier turn of affairs. The Emperor Valens is = killed,=20 a.d. 378, and with him Arianism `vanished in the crash of Hadrianople.' = He is=20 succeeded by Gratian, the friend and disciple of St. Ambrose. The = banished=20 orthodox Bishops are restored to their Sees, and Gregory returns to = Nyssa.=20 In³=20 one of his letters, most probably to his brother Basil, he gives a = graphic=20 description of the popular triumph with which his return was = greeted.

But the joy of his restoration is overshadowed by domestic sorrows. = His great=20 brother, to whom he owed so much, soon after dies, ere he is 50 years of = age,=20 worn out by his unparalleled toils and the severity of his ascetic life. = Gregory=20 celebrated his death in a sincere panegyric. Its high-flown style is = explained=20 by the rhetorical fashion of the time. The same year another sorrow = awaits him.=20 After a separation of many years he revisits his sister Macrina, at her = convent=20 in Pontus, but only to find her on her death-bed. We have an interesting = and=20 graphic account of the scene between Gregory and his dying sister. To = the last=20 this admirable woman appears as the great teacher of her family. She = supplies=20 her brother with arguments for, and confirms his faith in, the = resurrection of=20 the dead; and almost reproves him for the distress he felt at her = departure,=20 bidding him, with St. Paul, not to sorrow as those who had no hope. = After her=20 decease an inmate of the convent, named Vestiana, brought to Gregory a = ring, in=20 which was a piece of the true Cross, and an iron cross, both of which = were found=20 on the body when laying it out. One Gregory retained himself, the other = he gave=20 to Vestiana. He buried his sister in the chapel at Annesi, in which her = parents=20 and her brother Naucratius slept.

From henceforth the labours of Gregory have a far more extended = range. He=20 steps into the place vacated by the death of Basil, and takes foremost = rank=20 among the defenders of the Faith of Nicaea. He is not, however, without = trouble=20 still from the heretical party. Certain Galatians had been busy in = sowing the=20 seeds of their heresy among his own people. He is subjected, too, to = great=20 annoyance from the disturbances which arose out of the wish of the = people of=20 Ibera in Pontus to have him as their Bishop. In that early age of the = Church=20 election to a Bishopric, if not dependent on the popular voice, at least = called=20 forth the expression of much popular feeling, like a contested election = amongst=20 ourselves. This often led to breaches of the peace, which required = military=20 intervention to suppress them, as it appears to have done on this = occasion.

But the reputation of Gregory is now so advanced, and the weight of = his=20 authority as an eminent teacher so generally acknowledged, that we find = him as=20 one of the Prelates at the Synod of Antioch assembled for the purpose of = healing=20 the long-continued schisms in that distracted See. By the same Synod = Gregory is=20 chosen to visit and endeavour to reform the Churches of Arabia and = Babylon,=20 which had fallen into a very corrupt and degraded state. He gives a = lamentable=20 account of their condition, as being beyond all his powers of = reformation. On=20 this same journey he visits Jerusalem and its sacred scenes: it has been = conjectured that the Apollinarian heresy drew him thither. Of the Church = of=20 Jerusalem he can give no better account than of those he had already = visited. He=20 expresses himself as greatly scandalized at the conduct of the Pilgrims = who=20 visited the Holy City on the plea of religion. Writing to three ladies, = whom he=20 had known at Jerusalem, he takes occasion, from what he had witnessed = there, to=20 speak of the uselessness of pilgrimages as any aids to reverence and = faith, and=20 denounces in the strongest terms the moral dangers to which all = pilgrims,=20 especially women, are exposed.

This letter is so condemnatory of what was a common and authorized = practice=20 of the medival Church that⁴=20 Divines of the Latin communion have eudeavoured, but in vain, to deny = its=20 authenticity.

The name and character of Gregory had now reached the Imperial Court, = where=20 Theo-dosius had lately succeeded to the Eastern Empire. As a proof of = the esteem=20 in which he was then held, it is said that in his recent journey to = Babylon and=20 the Holy Land he travelled with carriages provided for him by the = Emperor.

Still greater distinction awaits him. He is one of the hundred and = fifty=20 Bishops summoned by Theodosius to the second (Ecumenical Council, that = of=20 Constantinople, a.d. 381. To the assembled Fathers he brings an⁵=20 instalment of his treatise against the Eunomian heresy, which he had = written in=20 defence of his brother Basil's positions, on the subject of the Trinity = and the=20 Incarnation. This he first read to his friend Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome, = and=20 others. Such was the influence he exercised in the Council that it is = said,=20 though this is very doubtful, that the explanatory clauses added to the = Nicene=20 Creed are due to him. Certain, however, it is that he delivered the = inaugural=20 address, which is not extant; further that he preached the funeral = oration,=20 which has been preserved, on the death of Meletius, of Antioch, the = first=20 President of the Council, who died at Constantinople; also that he = preached at=20 the enthronement of Gregory Nazianzen in the capital. This oration has=20 perished.

Shortly before the close of the Council, by a Constitution of the = Emperor,=20 issued from Heraclea, Gregory is nominated as one of the Bishops who = were to be=20 regarded as the central authorities of Catholic Communion. In other = words, the=20 primacy of Rome or Alexandria in the East was to be replaced by that of = other=20 Sees, especially Constantinople. Helladius of Csarea was to be Gregory's = colleague in his province. The connexion led to a misunderstanding. As = to the=20 grounds of this there is much uncertainty. The account of it is entirely = derived=20 from Gregory himself in his Letter to Flavian, and from his great = namesake. Possibly there were faults on both sides.

We do not read of Gregory being at the Synod, a.d. 382, which = followed the=20 great Council of Constantinople. But we find him present at the Synod = held the=20 following year.

This same year we have proof of the continued esteem and favour shown = him by=20 the Imperial Court. He is chosen to pronounce the funeral oration on the = infant=20 Princess Palcheria. And not long after that also on the death of the = Empress=20 Flaccilla, or Placidia, herself. This last was a magnificent eulogy, but = one,=20 according to Tillemont, even surpassed by that of Theodoret. This = admirable and=20 holy woman, a saint of the Eastern Church, fully warranted all the = praise that=20 could be bestowed upon her. If her husband Theodosius did not owe his = conversion=20 to Christianity to her example and influence, he certainly did his = adherence to=20 the true Faith. It is one of the subjects of Gregory's praise of her = that by her=20 persuasion the Emperor refused to give an interview to the `rationalist = of the=20 fourth century,' Eunomius.

Scarcely anything is known of the latter years of Gregory of Nyssa's = life.=20 The last record we have of him is that he was present at a Synod of=20 Constantinople, summoned a.d. 394, by Rufinus, the powerful prfect of = the East,=20 under the presidency of Nectarius. The rival claims to the See of Bostra = in=20 Arabia had to be then settled; but perhaps the chief reason for = summoning this=20 assembly was to glorify the consecration of Rufinus' new Church in the = suburbs.=20 It was there that Gregory delivered the sermon which was probably his = last,=20 wrongly entitled `On his Ordination.' His words, which heighten = the=20 effect of others then preached, are humbly compared to the blue circles = painted=20 on the new walls as a foil to the gilded dome above. "The whole breathes = a=20 calmer and more peaceful spirit; the deep sorrow over heretics who = forfeit the=20 blessings of the Spirit changes only here and there into the flashes of = a=20 short-lived indignation." (J. Rupp.)

The prophecy of Basil had come true. Nyssa was ennobled by the name = of its=20 bishop appearing on the roll of this Synod, between those of the = Metropolitans=20 of Csarea and Iconium. Even in outward rank he is equal to the highest. = The=20 character of Gregory could not be more justly drawn than in the words=20 ofTillemont (IX. p. 269). "Autant en effet, qu'on pent juger de lui par = ses=20 ecrits, c'etoit un esprit doux, bon, facile, qui avec beaucoup = d'elevation et de=20 lumiere, avoit neanmois beaucoup de simplicite et de candent, qui aimoit = plus le=20 repos que l'action, et le travail du cabinet que le tumulte des = affaires, qui=20 avec cela etoit sans faste, dispose a estimer et a loner los autres et a = se=20 mettre a dessons d'eux. Mais quoiqu' il ne cher-chat que le repos, nous = avons vu=20 que son zele pour sos freres l'avoit souvent engagee a de grands = travaux, et que=20 Dieu avait honore sa simplicite en le faisant regarder comme le maitre, = le=20 docteur, le pacificateur et l'arbitre des eglises."

His death (probably 395) is commemorated by the Greek Church on = January 10,=20 by the Latin on March 9.

Chapter II-His General Character as a=20 Theologian.

"The first who sought to establish by rational considerations the = whole=20 complex of orthodox doctrines." So Ueberweg (History of Philosophy, p. = 326) of=20 Gregory of Nyssa. This marks the transition from ante-Nicene times. = Then, at all=20 events in the hands of Origen, philosophy was identical with theology. = Now, that=20 there is a `complex of orthodox doctrines' to defend, philosophy becomes = the=20 handmaid of theology. Gregory, in this respect, has done the most = important=20 service of any of the writers of the Church in the fourth century. He = treats=20 each single philosophical view only as a help to grasp the formul of = faith; and=20 the truth of that view consists with him only in its adaptability to = that end.=20 Notwithstanding strong speculative leanings he does not defend orthodoxy = either=20 in the fashion of the Alexandrian school or in the fashion of some in = modern=20 times, who put forth a system of philosophy to which the dogmas of the = Faith are=20 to be accommodated.

If this be true, the question as to his attitude towards Plato, which = is one=20 of the first that suggests itself, is settled. Against polytheism he = does indeed=20 seek to defend Christianity by connecting it apologetically with Plato's = system.=20 This we cannot be surprised at, considering that the definitions of the=20 doctrines of the Catholic Church were formed in the very place where the = last=20 considerable effort of Platonism was made; but he by no means makes the = New Life=20 in any way dependent on this system of philosophy. "We cannot = speculate," he=20 says (De Anim. et Resurrect.) ..."we must leave the Platonic = car." But=20 still when he is convinced that Plato will confirm doctrine he will, = even in=20 polemic treatises, adopt his view; for instance, he seeks to grasp the = truth of=20 the Trinity from the Platonic account of our internal consciousness, = i.e. yuxh\,logj, nou; because such a proof from = consciousness is,=20 to Gregory, the surest and most reliable.

The "rational considerations," then, by which Gregory would have = established=20 Christian doctrine are not necessarily drawn from the philosophy of the = time:=20 nor, further, does he seek to rationalize entirely all religious truth. = In fact=20 he resigns the hope of comprehending the Incarnation and all the great = articles.=20 This is the very thing that distinguishes the Catholic from the = Eunomian.=20 "Receiving the fact we leave untampered with the manner of = the=20 creation of the Universe, as altogether secret and inexplicable⁶=20 ." With a turn resembling the view of Tertullian, he comes back to the=20 conclusion that for us after all Religious Truth consists in mystery. = "The=20 Church possesses the means of demonstrating these things: or rather, she = has=20 faith, which is surer than demonstration⁷=20 ." He developes the truth of the Resurrection as much by the fulfilment = of God's=20 promises as by metaphysics: and it has been considered as one of the = proofs that=20 the treatise What is being `in the image of God'? is not his that = this=20 subordination of philosophical proof to the witness of the Holy Spirit = is not=20 preserved in it.

Nevertheless there was a large field, larger even than in the next = century,=20 in which rationalizing was not only allowable, but was even required of = him. In=20 this there are three questions which Gregory has treated with particular = fulness=20 and originality.

They are:-

1. Evil;

2. The relation between the ideal and the actual = Man;

3. Spirit.

I. He takes, to begin with, Origen's view of evil. Virtue and Vice = are not=20 opposed to each other as two Existencies: but as Being is opposed to = not-Being.=20 Vice exists only as an absence. But how did this arise?

In answering this question he seems sometimes to come very near = Manicheism,=20 and his writings must be read very carefully, in order to avoid fixing = upon him=20 the groundless charge that he leaves evil in too near connexion with = Matter. But=20 the passages⁸=20 which give rise to this charge consist of comparisons found in his = homilies and=20 meditations; just as a modern theologian might in such works make the = Devil the=20 same as Sin and Death. The only imperfection in his view is that he is=20 unable⁹=20 to regard evil as not only suffered but even permitted by God. = But this=20 imperfection is inseparable from his time: for Manicheism was too near = and its=20 opposition too little overcome for such a view to be possible for him; = he could=20 not see that it is the only one able thoroughly to resist Dualism.

Evil with Gregory is to be found in the spontaneous proclivity of the = soul=20 towards Matter: but not in Matter itself. Matter, therefore, in his = eschatology=20 is not to be burnt up and annihilated: only soul and body have to be=20 refined, as gold (this is a striking comparison) is refined. He = is very=20 clear upon the relations between the three factors, body, matter, and = evil. He=20 represents the mind as the mirror of the Archetypal Beauty: then = below=20 the mind comes body (fuvsi which is connected with mind and pervaded by = it, and=20 when thus trans-figured and beautified by it becomes itself the mirror = of this=20 mirror: and then this body in its turn influences and combines Matter. = The=20 Beauty of the Supreme Being thus penetrates all things: and as long as = the lower=20 holds on to the higher all is well. But if a rupture occurs anywhere, = then=20 Matter, receiving no longer influence from above, reveals its own = deformity, and=20 imparts something of it to body and, through that, to mind: for matter = is in=20 itself `a shapeless unorganized thing¹⁰=20 .' Thus the mind loses the image of God. But evil began when the rupture = was=20 made: and what caused that? When and how did the mind become separated = from=20 God?

Gregory answers this question by laying it down as a principle, that=20 everything created is subject to change. The Uncreate Being is=20 changeless, but Creation, since its very beginning was owing to a = change, i.e. a=20 calling of the non-existent into existence, is liable to alter. Gregory = deals=20 here with angelic equally as with human nature, and with all the powers = in both,=20 especially with the will, whose virtual freedom he assumes throughout. = That,=20 too, was created; therefore that, too, could change.

It was possible, therefore, that, first, one of the created spirits, = and, as=20 it actually happened, he who was entrusted with the supervision of the = earth,=20 should choose to turn his eyes away from the Good; he thus looked at a = lower=20 good; and so began to be envious and to have paqh. All=20 evil followed in a chain from this beginning; according to the principle = that=20 the beginning of anything is the cause of all tha follows in its train. =

So the Devil fell: and the proclivity to evil was introduced into the = spiritual world. Man, however, still looked to God and was filled with = blessings=20 (this is the `ideal man' of Gregory). But as when the flame has got hold = of a=20 wick one cannot dim its light by means of the flame itself, but only by = mixing=20 water with the oil in the wick, so the Enemy effected the weakening of = God's=20 blessings in man by cunningly mixing wickedness in his will, as = he had=20 mixed it in his own. From first to last, then, evil lies in the = proaivresi; in=20 nothing else.

God knew what would happen and suffered it, that He might not destroy = our=20 freedom, the inalienable heritage of reason and therefore a portion of = His image=20 in us.¹¹=20 He `gave scope to evil for a nobler end.' Gregory calls it a piece of = "little=20 mindedness" to argue from evil either the weakness or the wickedness of = God.

II. His remarks on the relation between the ideal and the actual Man = are very=20 interesting. It is usual with the other Fathers, in speaking of man's = original=20 perfection, to take the moment of the first man's residence in Paradise, = and to=20 regard the whole of human nature as there represented by the = first two=20 human beings. Gregory is far removed from this way of looking at the = matter.=20 With him human perfection is the `idea' of humanity: he sees already in = the=20 bodily-created Adam the fallen man. The present man is not to be = distinguished=20 from that bodily Adam; both fall below the ideal type. Gregory seems to = put the=20 Fall beyond and before the beginning of history. `Under the form of = narrative=20 Moses places before us mere doctrine¹²=20 .' The locus classicus about the idea and the reality of human = nature is=20 On the Making of Man,I.p.88f He sketches both in a masterly way. = He=20 speaks of the division of the human race into male and female as a = `device'=20 (epitexnij), implying that it was not the = first=20 `organization' (kataskeuh). He hints that = the=20 irrational element was actually provided by the Creator, Who foresaw the = Fall=20 and the Redemption, for man to sin in; as if man immediately upon the = creation=20 of the perfect humanity became a mixed nature (spirit and flesh), and = his fall=20 was not a mere accident, but a necessary consequence of this mixed=20 nature. Adam must have fallen: there was no perfect humanity in = Paradise. In=20 man's mixed nature of spirit and flesh nutrition is the basis of his = sensation,=20 and sensation is the basis of his thought; and so it was inevitable that = sin=20 through this lower yet vital side of man should enter in. So ingrained = is the=20 spirit with the flesh in the whole history of actual humanity that all = the=20 varieties of all the souls that ever have lived or ever shall, arise = from this=20 very mixture; i.e. from the varying degrees of either factor in each. = But as=20 Gregory's view here touches, though in striking contrast, on Origen's, = more will=20 be said about it in the next chapter.

It follows from this that Gregory, as Clement and Basil before him, = did not=20 look upon Original Sin as the accidental or extraordinary thing which it = was=20 afterwards regarded. `From a man who is a sinner and subject to passion = of=20 course is engendered a man who is a sinner and subject to passion: sin = being in=20 a manner born with him, and growing with his growth, and not dying with = it.' And=20 yet he says elsewhere, "An infant who is just born is not culpable, nor = does it=20 merit punishment; just as he who has been baptized has no account to = give of his=20 past sins, since they are forgiven," and he calls infants a0po/nhroi, `not having in the least admitted the = disease=20 into their soul.' But these two views can of course be reconciled; the = infant at=20 the moment of its physical birth starts with sins forgotten, just as at = the=20 moment of its spiritual birth it starts with sins forgiven. No tual sin = has been=20 committed. But then its nature has lost the a0paqei/a;=20 the inevitable weakness of its ancestry is in it.

III. `Spirit.' Speaking of the soul, Gregory asks, `How can that = which is=20 incomposite be dissolved?' i.e. the soul is spirit, and spirit is = incomposite=20 and therefore indestructible.

But care must be taken not to infer too much from this his favourite=20 expression 'spirit' in connexion with the soul. `God is spirit' too; and = we are=20 inclined to forget that this is no more than a negative definition, and = to=20 imagine the human spirit of equal prerogative with Deity. Gregory gives = no=20 encouragement to this; he distinctly teaches that, though the soul is=20 incomposite, it is not in the least independent of time and space, as = the Deity=20 is.

III.

In Illud, Attende tibi ipsi.

VI.

In Illud, Destruam horrea, etc.

IX.

In Illud, Quod Deus non est auctor malorum.

XII.

In Principium Proverbiorum

XV.

De Fide.

XVI.

In Illud, In principio erat Verbum

XXIV.

Contra Sabellianos et Arium et Anomoeos

Class (ii) will include

I. and II.

De Jejunio.

IV.

De gratiarum actione.

VII.

In Divites.

VIII.

In famem et siccitatem

Adversus beatos.

XI.

De invidia.

XIII.

In Sanctum Baptismum.

XIV.

In Ebriosos.

XX.

De humilitate.

XXI.

Quod rebus mundanis ashoerendum non sit, et de incendio extra = ecclesiam=20 facto.

XXII.

Ad adolescentes, de legendis libris Gentilium.

The Panegyric (iii) are

In martyrem Julittam.

XVII.

In Barlaam martyrem.

XVIII.

In Gordium martyrem.

XIX.

In sanctos quadraginta martyres.

XXII

In fact he almost entirely drops the old Platonic division of the = Universe=20 into Intelligible (spiritual) and Sensible, which helps to keep up this=20 confusion between human and divine `spirit,' and adopts the Christian = division=20 of Creator and Created.This difference betweenCreator and Created is = further=20 figured by him as that betweenThe result of this is that the = Spirit-world itself=20 has been divided into Uncreate and Created.

With regard, then, to this created Spirit-world we find that Gregory, = as=20 Basil, teaches that it existed, i.e. it had been created, before = the work=20 of the Six Days began. `God made all that is, at once' (aqrowj). This is only his translation of the = verse, `In the=20 beginning God created the heaven and the earth;' the material for = `heaven' and=20 `earth,' i.e. spirits and chaos, was made in a moment, but God had not = yet=20 spoken the successive Words of creation. The souls of men, then, existed = from=20 the very beginning of creation, and in a determinate number; for = this is=20 a necessary consequence of the `simultaneous creation.' This was the = case with=20 the Angels too, the other portion of the created Spirit-world. Gregory = has=20 treated the subject of the Angels very fully. He considers that they are = perfect: but their perfection too is contingent: it depends on the grace = of God=20 and their own wills; the angels are free, and therefore changeable. = Their will=20 necessarily moves towards something: at their first creation the = Beautiful alone=20 solicited them. Man `a little lower than the Angels' was perfect too; = deathless,=20 passionless, contemplative. `The true and perfect soul is single in its = nature,=20 intellectual, immaterial¹³=20 .' He was `as the Angels' and if he fell, Lucifer fell too. Gregory will = not=20 say, as Origen did, that human souls had a body when first = created:=20 rather, as we have seen, he implies the contrary; and he came to be = considered=20 the champion that fought the doctrine of the pre-existence of = embodied=20 souls. He seems to have been influenced by Methodius' objections to = Origen's=20 view. But his magnificent idea of the first man gives way at once to = something=20 more Scriptural and at the same time more scientific; and his ideal = becomes a=20 downright forecast of Realism.

Taking, however, the human soul as it is, he still continues, we = often find,=20 to compare it with God. In his great treatise On the Soul and the=20 Resurrection, he rests a great deal on the parallel between the = relation of=20 man to his body, and that of God to the world.-`The soul is as a cord = drawn out=20 of mud; God draws to Himself what is His own.'-He calls the human spirit = `an=20 influx of the divine in-breathing' (Adv. Apolim.c. 12). Anger and = desire=20 do not belong to the essence of the soul, he says: they are only among = its=20 varying states. The soul, then, as separable from matter, is like = God.=20 But this likeness does not extend to the point of identity. = Incomprehensible,=20 immortal, it is not uncreated. The distinction between the Creator and = the=20 Created cannot be obliterated. The attributes Of the Creator set down = above,=20 i.e. that He is infinite, changeless, contradictionless, and so always = good,=20 &c., can be applied only catachrestically to some men, in = that they=20 resemble their Maker as a copy resembles its original: but still, in = this=20 connexion, Gregory does speak of those `who do not need any cleansing at = all¹⁴=20 ,' and the context forces us to apply these words to men. There is no = irony, to=20 him or to any Father of the fourth century, in the words, `They that are = whole=20 need not a physician.' Although in the treatise On Virginity, = where he is=20 describing the development of his own moral and religious life, he is = very far=20 from applying them to himself, he nevertheless seems to recognize the = fact that=20 since Christianity began there are those to whom they might apply.

There is also need of a certain amount of `rational considerations' = in=20 advancing a Defence and a Theory of Christianity. He makes this = according to the=20 special requirements of the time in his Oratio Catechelica. His=20 reasonings do not seem to us always convincing; but the presence of a = living=20 Hellenism and Judaism in the world required them. These two phnomena = also=20 explain what appears to us a great weakness in this work: namely, that = he treats=20 Hellenism as if it were all speculation; Judaism as if it were all = facts. These=20 two religions were too near and too practically opposed to each other = for him to=20 see, as we can now, by the aid of a sort of science of religions, that = every=20 religion has its idea, and every religion has its facts. = He and=20 all the first Apologists, with the spectacle of these two apparently = opposite=20 systems before them, thought that, in arriving at the True Religion as = well, all=20 could be done by considering facts; or all could be done by=20 speculation. Gregory chose the latter method. A Dogmatic in the = modern=20 sense, in which both the idea and the facts of Christianity flow into = one, could=20 not have been expected of him. The Oratio Catethetica is a mere=20 philosophy of Christianity in detail written in the philosophic language = of the=20 time. Not only does he refrain from using the historic proofs, i.e. of = prophecy=20 and type (except very sparingly and only to meet an adversary), but his = defence=20 is insufficient from another point of view also; he hardly uses the = moral proofs=20 either; he wanders persistently in metaphysics.

If he does not lean enough on these two classes of proofs, at all = events that=20 he does not lean entirely on either, may be considered as a guarantee of = his=20 excellence as a theologian pure and simple. But he is on the other hand = very far=20 from attempting a philosophic construction of Christianity, as we have = seen.=20 Though akin to modern theologians in many things, he is unlike those of = them who=20 would construct an a priori Christianity, in which the = relationship of=20 one part to another is so close that all stands or falls together. = Philosophic=20 deduction is with him only `a kind of instruction' used in his = apologetic works.=20 On occasion he shows a clear perception of the historic principle. "The=20 supernatural character of the Gospel miracles bears witness to their = divine=20 origin¹⁵=20 ." He points, as Origen did, to the continued possession of miraculous = powers in=20 the Church. Again, as regards moral proof, there had been so much = attempted that=20 way by the Neo-Platonists that such proof could not have exactly the = same degree=20 of weight attributed to it that it has now, at least by an adherent of = the newer=20 Hellenism. Philostratus, Porphyry, Iamblichus had all tried to attract = attention=20 to the holy lives of heathen sages. Yet to these, rough sketches as they = were,=20 the Christian did oppose the Lives of the Saints: notably Gregory = himself in the=20 Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus: as Origen before him (c. Celsum, = passim)=20 had shewn in detail the difference in kind of Christian holiness.

His treatment of the Sacraments in the Oratio Catechetica is=20 noteworthy. On Baptism he is very complete: it will be sufficient to = notice here=20 the peculiar proof he offers that the Holy Spirit is actually given in = Baptism.=20 It is the same proof, to start with, as that which establishes that God = came in=20 the flesh when Christ came. Miracles prove this; (he is not wanting here = in the=20 sense of the importance of History). If, then, we are persuaded that God = is=20 here, we must allow also that truth is here: for truth is the mark of = Deity.=20 When, therefore, God has said that He will come in a particular way, if=20 called in a particular way, this must be true. He is so called in = Baptism: therefore He comes. (The vital importance of the doctrine of = the=20 Trinity, upon which Gregory laboured for so many years, thus all comes = from=20 Baptism.) Gregory would not confine the entire force of Baptism to the = one=20 ritual act. A resurrection to a new immortal life is begun in Baptism, = but owing=20 to the weakness of nature this complete effect is separated into stages = or=20 parts. With regard to the necessity of Baptism for salvation, he says he = does=20 not know if the Angels receive the souls of the unbaptized; but he = rather=20 intimates that they wander in the air seeking rest, and entreat in vain = like the=20 Rich Man. To him who wilfully defers it he says, `You are out of = paradise, O=20 Catechumen!'

In treating the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Gregory was the first = Father who=20 developed the view of transformation, for which transubstantiation was=20 afterwards substituted to suit the mediaeval philosophy; that is, he put = this=20 view already latent into actual words. There is a locus classicus = in the=20 Oratio Catechetica, c. 37.

"Therefore from the same cause as that by which the bread that was=20 transformed in that Body was changed to a divine potency, a similar = result takes=20 place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make = holy the=20 Body, the substance of which came of the bread and was in a manner = itself bread,=20 so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, `is sanctified by = the word=20 of God and prayer:' not that it advances by the process of eating to = the=20 stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it at once is changed = into the=20 Body, by the Word, as the Word Himself said, `This is My Body;'" and = just=20 above he had said: "Rightly do we believe that now also the bread which = is=20 consecrated by the word of God is changed into the body of God the = Word." This=20 way of explaining the mystery of the Sacrament, i.e. from the way bread = was=20 changed into the Word when Christ was upon earth, is compared by Neander = with=20 another way Gregory had of explaining it, i.e. the heightened efficacy = of the=20 bread is as the heightened efficacy of the baptismal water, the = anointing=20 oil¹⁶=20 , &c., a totally different idea. But this, which may be called the=20 metabatic view, is the one evidently most present to his mind. In = a=20 fragment of his found in a Parisian ms.¹⁷=20 , quoted with the Liturgies of James, Basil, Chrysostom, we also find = it; "The=20 consecrated bread is changed into the body of the Word; and it is = needful for=20 humanity to partake of that."

Again, the necessity of the Incarnation, drawn from the words "it was = necessary that Christ should suffer," receives a rational treatment from = him.=20 There must ever be, from a meditation on this, two results, according as = the=20 physical or the ethical element in Christianity prevails, i.e. 1. = Propitiation;=20 2. Redemption. The first theory is dear to minds fed upon the doctrines = of the=20 Reformation, but it receives no countenance from Gregory. Only in the = book in=20 which Moses' Life is treated allegorically does he even mention it. The=20 sacrifice of Christ instead of the bloody sacrifices of the Old = Testament is not=20 his doctrine, He develops his theory of the Redemption or Ransom (i.e. = from the=20 Devil), in the Oratio Catechetica. Strict justice to the Evil One = required it. But in his hands this view never degenerates, as with some, = into a=20 mere battle, e.g. in Gethsemane, between the Rescuer and Enslaver.

So much has been said about Gregory's inconsistencies, and his = apparent=20 inconsistencies are indeed so many, that some attempt must be made to = explain=20 this feature, to some so repulsive, in his works. One instance at all = events can=20 show how it is possible to reconcile even the most glaring. He is not a=20 one-sided theologian: he is not one of those who pass always the same = judgment=20 upon the same subject, no matter with whom he has to deal. There could = not be a=20 harsher contradiction than that between his statement about human = generation in=20 the Oratio Catechetica, and that made in the treatises On=20 Virginity and On the Making of Man. In the O.C. everything = hateful=20 and undignified is removed from the idea of our birth; the idea of paqo is not applied; "only evil brings disgrace." = But in the=20 other two Treatises he represents generation as a consequence of the = Fall. This=20 contradiction arises simply from the different standpoint in each. In = the one=20 case he is apologetic; and so he adopts a universally recognised moral = axiom. In=20 the other he is the Christian theologian; the natural process, = therefore, takes=20 its colouring from the Christian doctrine of the Fall. This is the = standpoint of=20 most of his works, which are polemical, not apologetic. But in the = treatise=20 On the Soul and the Resurrection he introduces even a third view = about=20 generation, which might be called that of the Christian theosophist; = i.e.=20 generation is the means in the Divine plan for carrying Humanity to its=20 completion. Very similar is the view in the treatise On Infants' = Early=20 Deaths; "the design of all births is that the Power which is above = the=20 universe may in all parts of the creation be glorified by means of = intellectual=20 natures conspiring to the same end, by virtue of the same faculty = operating in=20 all; I mean, that of looking upon God." Here he is speaking to the = purely=20 philosophic instinct. It may be remarked that On this and all the = operations of=20 Divine foreknowledge in vast world-wide relations he has constantly = striking=20 passages, and deserves for this especially to be studied.

The style of Gregory is much more elegant than that of Basil: = sometimes it=20 may be called eloquent. His occasional digressions did not strike = ancient=20 critics as a fault. To them he is "sweet," "bright," "dropping pleasure = into the=20 ears." But his love for splendour, combined with the lateness of his = Greek, make=20 him one of the more difficult Church writers to interpret = accurately.

His similes and illustrations are very numerous, and well chosen. A = few=20 exceptions must, perhaps, be made. He compares the mere professing = Christian to=20 the ape, dressed like a mart and dancing to the flute, who usedto amuse = the=20 people in the theatre at Alexandria, but once revealed during the = performance=20 its bestial nature, at the sight of food. This is hardly worthy of a = great=20 writer, as Gregory was¹⁸=20 . Especially happy are his comparisons in the treatise On the Soul = and=20 Resurrection, by which metaphysical truths are expressed; and = elsewhere=20 those by which he seeks to reach the due proportions of the truth of the = Incarnation. The chapters in his work against Eunomius where he attempts = to=20 depict the Infinite, are striking. But what commends him most to modern = taste is=20 his power of description when dealing with facts, situations, persons: = he=20 touches these always with a colour which is felt to be no exaggeration, = but the=20 truth.

Chapter III.-His Origenism.

A True stimate of the position and value of Gregory as a Church = teacher=20 cannot be formed until the question of his `Origenism,' its causes and = its=20 quality, is cleared up. It is well known that this charge began to be = brought=20 against his orthodoxy at all events after the time of Justinian: nor = could=20 Germanus, the Patriarch of Constantinople in the next century, remove it = by the=20 device of supposed interpolations of partizans in the interests of the = Eastern=20 as against the Western Church: for such a theory, to be true, would = still=20 require some hints at all events in this Father to give a colour to such = interpolations. Moreover, as will be seen, the points in which Gregory = is most=20 like Origen are portions of the very groundwork of his own theology. The = question, then, remains why, and how far, is he a follower of = Origen?

I. When we consider the character of his great forerunner, and the = kind of=20 task which Gregory himself undertook, the first part of this question is = easily=20 answered. When Christian doctrine had to be set forth philosophically, = so as to=20 be intelligible to any cultivated mind of that time (to reconcile Greek=20 philosophy with Christian doctrine was a task which Gregory never = dreamed of=20 attempting), the example and leader in such an attempt was Origen; he = occupied=20 as it were the whole horizon. He was the founder of theology; the very=20 vocabulary of it, which is in use now, is of his devising. So that = Gregory's=20 language must have had, necessarily, a close connexion with that of the = great=20 interpreter and apologist, who had explained to his century the same = truths=20 which Gregory had to explain to his: this must have been the case even = if his=20 mind had not been as spiritual and idealizing as Origen's. But in some = respects=20 it will be seen Gregory is even more an idealist than Origen himself. = Alike,=20 then, from purpose and tradition as from sympathy he would look back to = Origen.=20 Though a guIf was between them, and, since the Council of Nicaea, there = were=20 some things that could come no more into controversy, Gregory saw, where = the=20 Church had not spoken, with the same eyes as Origen: he uses the same = keys as he=20 did for the problems which Scripture has not solved; he uses the same = great=20 weapon of allegory in making the letter of Scripture give up the = spiritual=20 treasures. It could not have been otherwise when the whole Christian = religion,=20 which Gregory was called on to defend as a philosophy, had never before = been=20 systematically so defended but by Origen; and this task, the same for = both, was=20 presented to the same type of mind, in the same intellectual atmosphere. = It=20 would have been strange indeed if Gregory had not been a pupil at least = (though=20 he was no blind follower) of Origen.

If we take for illustration of this the most vital point in the vast = system,=20 if system it can be called, of Origen, we shall see that he had traced=20 fundamental lines of thought, which could not in that age be easily = left. He=20 asserts the virtual freedom of the human will, in every stage and = condition of=20 human existence. The Greek philosophy of the third century, and the = semi-pagan=20 Gnosticism, in their emanational view of the world, denied this freedom. = With=20 them the mind of man, as one of the emanations of Deity itself, was, as = much as=20 the matter of which the world was made, regulated and governed directly = from the=20 Source whence they both flowed. Indeed every system of thought, not = excepting=20 Stoicism, was struck with the blight of this fatalism. There was no = freedom for=20 man at all but in the system which Origen was drawing from, or rather = reading=20 into, the Scriptures. No Christian philosopher who lived amongst the = same=20 counter-influences as Origen could overlook this starting-point of his = system;=20 he must have adopted it, even if the danger of Pelagianism had been = foreseen in=20 it; which could not have been the case.

Gregory adopted it, with the other great doctrine which in the mind = of Origen=20 accompanied it; i.e., that evil is caused, not by matter, but by the act = of this=20 free will of man; in other words, by sin. Again the fatalism of all the=20 emanationists had to be combated as to the nature and necessity of evil. = With=20 them evil was some inevitable result of the Divine processes; it abode = at all=20 events in matter, and human responsibility was at an end. Greek = philosophy from=20 first to last had shewed, even at its best, a tendency to connect evil = with the=20 lower fusi. But now, in the light of = revelation, a new=20 truth was set forth, and repeated again and again by the very men who = were=20 inclined to adopt Plato's rather Dualistic division of the world into = the=20 intelligible and sensible. `Evil was due to an act of the will of man.' = Moreover=20 it could no longer be regrded per se: it was relative, being a = `default,'=20 or `failure,' or `turning away from the true good' of the will, which, = however,=20 was always free to rectify this failure. It was a sterhsij,-loss of the good; but it did not stand = over=20 against the good as an independent power. Origen contemplated the time = when evil=20 would cease to exist; `the non-existent cannot exist for ever:' and = Gregory did=20 the same.

This brings us to yet another consequence of this enthusiasm for = human=20 freedom and responsibility, which possessed Origen, and carried Gregory = away.=20 The apokatastasij twn pantwn has been = thought¹⁹=20 , in certain periods of the Church, to have been the only piece of = Origenism=20 with which Gregory can be charged. [This of course shows ignorance of = the kind=20 of influence which Gregory allowed Origen to have over him; and which = did not=20 require him to select even one isolated doctrine of his master.] = It has=20 also brought him into more suspicion than any other portion of his = teaching. Yet=20 it is a direct consequence of the view of evil, which he shares with = Origen. If=20 evil is the non-existent, as his master says, a sterhsij,²⁰=20 as he says, then it must pass away. It was not made by God; neither is = it=20 self-subsisting.

But when it has passed away, what follows? That God will be "all in = all."=20 Gregory accepts the whole of Origen's explanation of this great text. = Both=20 insist on the impossibility of God being in `everything,' if evil still = remains.=20 But this is equivalent to the restoration to their primitive state of = all=20 created spirits. Still it must be remembered that Origen required many = future=20 stages of existence before all could arrive at such a consummation: with = him=20 there is to be more than one `next world;' and even when the primitive=20 perfection is reached, his peculiar view of the freedom of the will, as = an=20 absolute balance between good and evil, would admit the possibility of = another=20 fall. `All may be saved; and all may fall.' How the final = Sabbath=20 shall come in which all wills shall rest at last is but dimly hinted at = in his=20 writings. With Gregory, on the other hand, there are to be but two = worlds: the=20 present and the next; and in the next the apokatastasij twn=20 pantwn must be effected. Then, after the Resurrection, the fire = akoimhtoj, aiwnioj, as he continually calls it, = will have to=20 do its work. `The avenging flame will be the more ardent the more it has = to=20 consume' (De Anima et Resurr., p. 227). `But at last the evil will be=20 annihilated, and the bad saved by nearness to the good.' There is to = rise a=20 giving of thanks from all nature. Nevertheless²¹=20 passages have been adduced from Gregory's writings in which the language = of=20 Scripture as to future punishment is used without any modification, or = hint of=20 this universal salvation. In the treatise, De Pauperibus Amandis, II. p. = 240, he=20 says of the last judgment that God will give to each his due; repose = eternal to=20 those who have exercised pity and a holy life; but the eternal = punishment of=20 fire for the harsh and unmerciful: and addressing the rich who have made = a bad=20 use of their riches, he says, `Who will extinguish the flames ready to = devour=20 you and engulf you? Who will stop the gnawings of a worm that never = dies?' Cf.=20 also Orat. 3, de Beatitudinibus, I. p. 788: contra=20 Ursuarios, II. p. 233: though the hortatory character of these = treatises=20 makes them less important as witnesses.

A single doctrine or group of doctrines, however, may be unduly = pressed in=20 accounting for the influence of Origen upon a kindred spirit like = Gregory.=20 Doubtless fragments of Origen's teaching, mere details very often, were = seized=20 upon and appropriated by others; they were erected into dogmas and made = to do=20 duty for the whole living fabric; and even those details were sometimes=20 misunderstood. `²²=20 What he had said with a mind full of thought, others took in the very = letter.'=20 Hence arose the evil of `Origenism,' so prevalent in the century in = which=20 Gregory lived. Different ways of following him were found, bad and good. = Even=20 the Arians could find in his language now and then something they could = claim as=20 their own. But as Rupp well says, `Origen is not great by virtue of = those=20 particular doctrines, which are usually exhibited to the world as = heretical by=20 weak heads who think to take the measure of everything with the mere = formulae of=20 orthodoxy. He is great by virtue of one single thought, i.e. that of = bringing=20 philosophy into union with religion, and thereby creating a theology. = With=20 Clement of Alexandria this thought was a mere instinct: Origen gave it=20 consciousness: and so Christendom began to have a science of its own.' = It was=20 this single purpose, visible in all Origen wrote, that impressed itself = so=20 deeply upon Gregory. He, too, would vindicate the Scriptures as a = philosophy.=20 Texts, thanks to the labours of Origen as well as to the councils of the = Church,=20 had now acquired a fixed meaning and an importance that all could = acknowledge.=20 The new spiritual philosophy lay within them; he would make them speak = its=20 language. Allegory was with him, just as with Origen, necessary, in = order to=20 find the Spirit which inspires them. The letter must not impose itself = upon us=20 and stand for more than it is worth; just as the practical experience of = evil in=20 the world must not blind us to the fact that it is only a passing = dispensation,=20 If only the animus and intention is regarded, we may say that all that = Gregory=20 wrote was Origenistic.

II. But nevertheless much had happened in the interval of 130 years = that=20 divides them and this leads us to consider the limits which the state of = the=20 Church, as well as Gregory's own originality and more extended physical=20 knowledge, placed upon the complete filling in of the outlines sketched = by the=20 master. First and chiefly, Origen's doctrine of the pre-existence of the = soul=20 could not be retained; and we know that Gregory not only abandoned it, = but=20 attacked it with all his powers of logic in his treatise, De Anima et = Resurrectione: for which he receives the applause of the Emperor = Justinian.=20 Souls, according to Origen, had pre-existed from eternity: they were = created=20 certainly, but there never was a time when they did not exist: so that = the=20 procession even of the Holy Spirit could in thought only be prior to = their=20 existence. Then a failure of their free wills to grasp the true good, = and a=20 consequent cooling of the fire of love within them, plunged them in this = material bodily existence, which their own sin made a suffering one. = This view=20 had certainly great merits: it absolved the Deity from being the author = of evil,=20 and so was a `theodicee;' it entirely got rid of the two rival = principles, good=20 and evil, of the Gnostics; and it avoided the seeming incongruity of = what was to=20 last for ever in the future being not eternal in the past. Why then was = it=20 rejected? Not only because of the objection urged by Methodius, that the = addition of a body would be no remedy but rather an increase of the sin; = or that=20 urged amongst many others by Gregory, that a vice cannot be regarded as = the=20 precursor of the birth of each human soul into this or into other = worlds; but=20 more than that and chiefly, because such a doctrine contravened the more = distinct views now growing up as to what the Christian creation was, and = the=20 more careful definitions also of the Trinity now embodied in the creeds. = In fact=20 the pre-existence of the soul was wrapped up in a cosmogony that could = no longer=20 approve itself to the Christian consciousness. In asserting the freedom = of the=20 will, and placing in the will the cause of evil, Origen had so far = banished=20 emanationism; but in his view of the eternity of the world, and in that = of the=20 eternal pre-existence of souls which accompanied it, he had not = altogether=20 stamped it out. He connects rational natures so closely with the Deity = that each=20 individual logoj seems almost, in a Platonic = way, to=20 lie in the Divine which²³=20 he styles ousia ousiwn, idea idewn. They are = `partial=20 brightnesses (apaugasmapa) of the glory of = God.'=20 He²⁴=20 allows them, of course, to have been created in the Scriptural sense of=20 thatword, which is certainly an advance upon Justin; but his creation is = not=20 that distinct event in time which Christianity requires and the exacter=20 treatment of the nature of the Divine Persons had now developed. His = creation,=20 both the intelligible and visible world, receives from him an eternity = which is=20 unnatural and incongruous in relation to his other speculations and = beliefs: it=20 lingers, Tithonus-like, in the presence of the Divine Persons, without = any=20 meaning and purpose for its life; it is the last relic of Paganism, as = it were,=20 in a system which is otherwise Christian to the very core. His strenuous = effort=20 to banish all ideas of time, at all events from the intelligible world, = ended in=20 this eternal creation of that world; which seemed to join the eternally=20 generated Son too closely to it, and gave occasion to the Arians to say = that He=20 too was a ktisma. This eternal pre-existence = in fact=20 almost destroyed the idea of creation, and made the Deity in a way = dependent on=20 His own world. Athanasius, therefore, and his followers were roused to = separate=20 the divinity of the Son from everything created. The relation of the = world to=20 God could no longer be explained in the same terms as those which they = employed=20 to illustrate the relations between the Divine Persons; and when once = the=20 doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Father and Son had been = accepted and=20 firmly established there could be no more favour shown by the defenders = of that=20 doctrine to the merely Platonic view of the nature and origin of souls = and of=20 matter.Amongst the defenders of the Creed of Nicaea, Gregory, we know, = stands=20 well-nigh foremost. In his long and numerous treatises on the Trinity he = employs=20 every possible argument and illustration to show the contents of the = substance=20 of the Deity as transcendent, incommunicable to creation per se. = Souls=20 cannot have the attributes of Deity. Created spirits cannot claim = immediate=20 kindred with the Logoj. So instead of the = Platonic=20 antithesis of the intelligible and sensible world, which Origen adopted, = making=20 all equal in the intelligible world, he brings forward the = antithesis of=20 God and the world. He felt too that that antithesis answers more fully = not only=20 to the needs of the Faith in the Trinity daily growing more exact and = clear, but=20 also to the facts of the Creation, i.e. its variety and differences. He = gives up=20 the preexistence of the rational soul; it will not explain the infinite = variety=20 observable in souls. The variety, again, of the material world, full as = it is of=20 the miracles of divine power, cannot have been the result of the chance = acts of=20 created natures embodying themselves therein, which the theory of = pre-existence=20 supposes. God and the created world (of spirits and matter) are now to = be the=20 factors in theology; although Gregory does now and then, for mere = purposes of=20 illustration, divide the Universe still into the intelligible and the=20 sensible.

When oncepre-existence was given up, the parts of the soul could be = more=20 closely united to each other, because the lower and higher were in their = beginning no longer separated by a gulf of ages. Accordingly Gregory, = reducing=20 the three parts of man which Origen had used to the simpler division = into=20 visible and invisible (sensible and intelligible), dwells much upon the = intimate=20 relation between the two and the mutual action of one upon the other. = Origen had=20 retained the trichotomy of Plato which other Greek Fathers also, with = the=20 sanction, as they supposed, of S. Paul (1 Thess. v. 23), had adopted. = `Body,'=20 `soul,' and `spirit,' or Plato's `body,' `unreasoning' and `reasoning = soul,' had=20 helped Origen to explain how the last, the pre-existent soul (the = spirit, or the=20 conscience²⁵=20 , as he sometimes calls it) could ever have come to live in the flesh. = The=20 second, the soul proper, is as it were a mediating ground on which the = spirit=20 can meet the flesh. The celestial mind, `the real man fallen from on = high,'=20 rules by the power of conscience or of will over this soul, where the = merely=20 animal functions and the natural appetites reside; and through this soul = over=20 the body. How the celestial mind can act at all upon this purely animal = soul=20 which lies between it and the body, Origen leaves unexplained. But this = division=20 was necessary for him, in order to represent the spirit as remaining = itself=20 unchanged in its heavenly nature, though weakened by its long captivity = in the=20 body. The middle soul (in which he sometimes places the will) is the = scene of=20 contamination and disorder; the spirit is free, it can always rejoice at = what is=20 well done in the soul, and yet is not touched by the evil in it; it = chooses,=20 convicts, and punishes. Such was Origen's psychology. But an intimate = connexion=20 both in birth and growth between all the faculties of man is one = of=20 Gregory's most characteristic thoughts, and he gave up this trichotomy, = which=20 was still, however, retained by some Greek fathers, and adopted the = simpler=20 division mentioned above in order more clearly and concisely to show the = mutual=20 play of spirit and body upon each other. There was soon, too, another = reason why=20 this trichotomy should be suspected. It was a second time made the = vehicle of=20 error. Apollinaris adopted it, in order to expound that the Divine Logoj took the place, in the tripartite soul of = Christ, of=20 the `reasonable soul' or spirit of other men. Gregory, in pressing for a = simpler=20 treatment of man's nature, thus snatched a vantage-ground from a = sagacious=20 enemy. His own psychology is only one instance of a tendency which runs = through=20 the whole of his system, and which may indeed be called the dominating = thought=20 with which he approached every question; he views each in the light of = form and=20 matter; spirit penetrating and controlling body, body answering to = spirit and=20 yet at the same time supplying the nutriment upon which the vigour and = efficacy=20 of spirit, in this world at least, depends. This thought underlies his = view of=20 the material universe and of Holy Scripture, as well as of man's nature. = With=20 regard to the last he says, `the intelligible cannot be realized in body = at all,=20 except it be commingled with sensation;' and again, `as there can be no=20 sensation without a material substance, so there can be no exercise of = the power=20 of thought without sensation²⁶=20 .' The spiritual or intelligent part of man (which he calls by various = names,=20 such as `the inner man,' the yuxh logikh, = noujor dianoia, to zwopoion aition, or simply yuxh as throughout the treatise On the = Soul), however=20 alien in its essence from the bodily and sentient part, yet no sooner is = united=20 with this earthly part than it at once exerts power over it. In fact it = requires=20 this instrument before it can reach its perfection. `Seeing, then, man = is a=20 reasoning animal of a certain kind, it was necessary that the body = should be=20 prepared as an instrument appropriate to the needs of his reason²⁷=20 .' So closely has this reason been united with the senses and the flesh = that it=20 performs itself the functions of the animal part; it is the `mind' or = `reason'=20 itself that sees, hears, &c.; in fact the exercise of mind depends = on a=20 sound state of the senses and other organs of the body; for a sick body = cannot=20 receive the `artistic' impressions of the mind and, so, the mind remains = inoperative. This is enough to show how far Gregory had got from = pre-existence=20 and the `fall into the prison of the flesh.'

His own theory of the origin of the soul, or at least that to which = he=20 visibly inclines, is stated in the treatise, De Anima et = Resurrectione,=20 p. 241. It is that of Tertullian and some Greek Fatherd also: and goes = by the=20 name of `traducianism' The soul is transmitted in the generating seed. = This of=20 course is the opposite pole to Origen's teaching, and is inconsistent = with=20 Gregory's own spiritualism. The other alternative, Creationism, which a = number=20 of the orthodox adopted, namely that souls are created by God at the = moment of=20 conception, or when the body of the foetus is already formed, was not = open to=20 him to adopt; because, according to him, in idea the world of spirits = was made,=20 and in a determinate number, along with the world of unformed matter by = the one=20 creative act `in the beginning.' In the plan of the universe, though not = in=20 reality as with Origen, all souls are already created. So the life of = humanity=20 contains them: when the occasion comes they take their beginning along = with the=20 body which enshrines them, but are not created then any more than that = body.=20 Such was the compromise between spiritualism and materialism to which = Gregory=20 was driven by the difficulties of the subject Origen with his eye = unfalteringly=20 fixed upon the ideal world, and unconscious of the practical = consequences that=20 might be drawn from his teaching, cut the knot with his eternal = pre-existence of=20 souls, which avoided at once the alleged absurdity of creationism and = the=20 grossness of traducianism. But the Church, for higher interests still = than those=20 of pure idealism, had to reject that doctrine; and Gregory, with his = extended=20 knowledge in physic and his close observation of the intercommunion of = mind and=20 body, had to devise or rather select a theory which, though a makeshift, = would=20 not contradict either his knowledge or his faith.

Yet after admitting that soul and body are born together and = attaching such=20 importance to the `physical basis' of life and thought, the influence of = his=20 master, or else his own uncontrollable idealism, carries him away again = in the=20 opposite direction. After reading words in his treatise which Locke = might have=20 written we come upon others which are exactly the teaching of Berkeley. = There is=20 a passage in the De Anima et Resurrectione where he deals with = the=20 question how an intelligent Being could have created matter, which is = neither=20 intelligent or intelligible. But what if matter is only a concourse of=20 qualities, ennoiai, or yila=20 nohmata as he elsewhere calls them? Then there would be no = difficulty in=20 understanding the manner of creation. But even about this we can say so = much,=20 i.e. that not one of those things which we attribute to body is itself = body:=20 neither figure, nor colour, nor weight, nor extension, nor quantity, nor = any=20 other qualifying notion whatever: but every one of them is a = thought: it=20 is the combination of them all into a single whole that constitutes = body.=20 Seeing, then, that these several qualifications which complete the = particular=20 body are grasped by thought alone, and not by sense, and that the Deity = is a=20 thinking being, what trouble can it be to such a thinking agent to = produce the=20 thoughts whose mutual combination generate for us the substance = of that=20 body? and in the treatise, De Hom. Opif., c. 24, the intelligible = fusij is said to produce the intelligible dunameij, and the concourse of these dunameij brings into being the material nature. = The body=20 itself, he repeats (contra Fatum, p. 67), is not a real = substance; it is=20 a soulless, unsubstantial thing. The only real creation is that of = spirits. Even=20 Origen did not go so far as that Matter with him, though it exists by=20 concomitance and not by itself, nevertheless really exists. He = avoided a=20 rock upon which Gregory runs; for with Gregory not only matter but = created=20 spirit as well vanish in idealism. There remain with him only the and = God.

This transcendent idealism embarrasses him in many ways, and makes = his theory=20 of the soul full of inconsistency. (1) He will not say unhesitatingly = whether=20 that pure humanity in the beginning created in the image of God had a = body or=20 not like ours. Origen at all events says that the eternally pre-existing = spirits=20 were invested with a body, even before falling into the sensible world. = But=20 Gregory, while denying the pre-existenee of souls in the sense of = Origen, yet in=20 many of his treatises, especially in the De Hom. Opificio, seems = to point=20 to a primitive humanity, a predeterminate number of souls destined to = live in=20 the body though they had not yet lived, which goes far beyond Origen's = in its=20 ideal character. "When Moses," Gregory says, "speaks of the soul as the = image of=20 God, he shows that all that is alien to God must be excluded from our = definition=20 of the soul; and a corporal nature is alien to God." He points out that = God=20 first `made man in His own image,' and after that made them male = and=20 female; so that there was a double fashioning of our nature, h te proj to qeion omoiwmenh, h te proj thn diaforan = tauthn=20 (i.e. male and female) dihrmenh. On the = other hand, in=20 the Oratio Catechetica, which contains certainly his more = dogmatic=20 statement on every point, this ideal and passionless humanity is = regarded as=20 still in the future: and it is represented that man's double-nature is = actually=20 the very centre of the Divine Councils, and not the result of any = mistake or=20 sin; man's soul from the very first was cornmingled (anakrasij is Gregory's favourite word) with a = body, in order=20 that in him, as representing every stage of living things, the whole = creation,=20 even in its lowest part, might share in the divine. Man, as the paragon = of=20 animals, was necessary, in order that the union might be effected = between two=20 otherwise irreconcilable worlds, the intelligible and the sensible. = Though,=20 therefore, there was a Fall at last, it was not the occasion of man's = receiving=20 a body similar to animals; that body was given him at the very first, = and was=20 only preparatory to the Fall, which was foreseen in the Divine Councils = and=20 provided for. Both the body and the Fall were necessary in order that = the Divine=20 plan might be carried out, and the Divine glory manifested in creation. = In this=20 view the "coats of skins" which Gregory inherits from the allegorical = treasures=20 of Origen are no longer merely the human body itself, as with Origen, = but all=20 the passions, actions, and habits of that body after the Fall, which he = sums up=20 in the generic term paqh. If, then, there is = to be any=20 reconciliation between this and the former view of his in which the pure = unstained humanity, the `image of God,' is differentiated by a second = act of=20 creation as it were into male and female, we must suppose him to teach = that=20 immediately upon the creation in God's image there was added all that in = human=20 nature is akin to the merely animal world. In that man was God's image, = his will=20 was free, but in that he was created, he was able to fall from his high = estate;=20 and God, foreseeing the Fall, at once added the distinction of sex, and = with it=20 the other features of the animal which would befit the fall; but with = the=20 purpose of raising thereby the whole creation. But two great = counter-influences=20 seem always to be acting upon Gregory; the one sympathy with the = speculations of=20 Origen, the other a tendency to see even with a modern insight into the=20 closeness of the intercommunion between soul and body. The results of = these two=20 influences cannot be altogether reconciled. His ideal and his actual = man, each=20 sketched with a skilful and discriminating hand, represent the interval = that=20 divides his aspirations from his observations: yet both are present to = his mind=20 when he writes about the soul. (2) He does not alter, as Origen does, = the=20 traditional belief in the resurrection of the body, and yet his = idealism, in=20 spite of his actual and strenuous defence of it in the carefully argued = treatise=20 On the Soul and Resurrection, renders it unnecessary, if not = impossible.=20 We know that his faith impelled Origen, too, to²⁸=20 contend for the resurrection of the flesh: yet it is an almost forced=20 importation into the rest of his system. Our bodies, he teaches, will = rise=20 again: but that which will make us the same persons we were before is = not the=20 sameness of our bodies (for they will be ethereal, angelic, uncarnal, = &c.)=20 but the sameness of a logoj within them = which never=20 dies (logoj tij egkeitai tw swmati, af ou mh = fqeiromenou=20 egeiretai to sw ma en afqarsia, c. Cels. v. 23). Here we have the = logoj spermatikoi; which Gregory objected to as = somehow=20 connected his mind with the infinite plurality of worlds. Yet his own = account of=20 the Resurrection of the flesh is nothing but Origenism, mitigated by the = suppression of these logoi. With him, too, = matter is=20 nothing, it is a negative thing that can make and effect nothing: the = soul, the=20 zwtikh dunamij does everything; it is gifted = by him=20 with a sort of ubiquity after death. `Nothing can break its sympathetic = union=20 with the particles of the body.' It is not a long and difficult study = for it to=20 discern in the mass of elements that which is its own from that which is = not its=20 own. `It watches over its property, as it were, until the Resurrection, = when it=20 will clothe itself in them anew²⁹=20 .' It is only a change of names: the logoj = has become=20 this zwtikh dunamij or yuxh,=20 which seems itself, almost unaided, to effect the whole Resurrection. = Though he=20 teaches as against Origen that the `elements' are the same `elements,' = the body=20 the same body as before, yet the strange importance both in activity and = in=20 substance which he attaches to the yuxh even = in the=20 disembodied state seems to render a Resurrection of the flesh = unnecessary. Here,=20 too, his view of the plan of Redemption is at variance with his = idealistic=20 leanings. While Origen regarded the body, as it now is, as part of that = `vanity'=20 placed upon the creature which was to be laid aside at last, Gregory's = view of=20 the design of God in creating man at all absolutely required the = Resurrection of=20 the flesh³⁰=20 (wj an suneparqeih tw qeiw to ghinon). = Creation was to=20 be saved by man's carrying his created body into a higher world: and = this could=20 only be done by a resurrection of the flesh such as the Church had = already set=20 forth in her creed.

Again, however, after parting with Origen upon this point, he meets = him in=20 the ultimate contemplation of Christ's glorified humanity and of all = glorified=20 bodies. Both steadily refuse at last `to know Christ according to the = flesh.'=20 They depict His humanity as so absorbed in deity that all traces of His = bodily=20 nature vanish; and as with Christ, so finally with His true followers. = This is=20 far indeed from the Lamb that was slain, and the vision of S. John. In = this=20 heaven of theirs all individual or generic differences between rational=20 creatures necessarily cease.

Great, then, as are their divergences, especially in cosmogony, their = agreements are maintained throughout. Gregory in the main accepts = Origen's=20 teaching, as far as he can accommodate it to the now more outspoken = faith of the=20 Church. What³¹=20 Redepenning summarises as the groundplan of Origen's whole way of = thinking,=20 Gregory has, with the necessary changes, appropriated. Both regard the = history=20 of the world as a movement between a beginning and an end in which are = united=20 every single spiritual or truly human nature in the world, and the = Divine=20 nature. This interval of movement is caused by the falling away of the = free will=20 of the creature from the divine: but it will come to an end, in order = that the=20 former union may be restored. In this summary they would differ only as = to the=20 closeness of the original trojan. Both, too, according to this, would = regard=20 `man' as the final cause, and the explanation, and the centre of God's = plan in=20 creation.

Even in the special sphere of theology which the later needs of the = Church=20 forced into prominence, and which Gregory has made peculiarly his own, = that of=20 the doctrine of the Trinity, Gregory employs sometimes a method which he = has=20 caught from Origen. Origen supposes, not so much, as Plato did, that = things=20 below are images of things above, as that they have certain secret = analogies or=20 affinities with them. This is perhaps after all only a peculiar = application for=20 his own purpose of Plato's theory of ideas. There are mysterious = sympathies=20 between the earth and heaven. We must therefore read within ourselves = the=20 reflection of truths which are too much beyond our reach to know in = themselves.=20 with regard to the attributes of God this is more especially the case. = But=20 Origen never had the occasion to employ this language in explaining the = mystery=20 of the Trinity. Gregory is the first Father who has done so. He finds a = key to=20 it in the³²=20 triple nature of our soul. The nouj, the = logoj, and the soul, form within us a unity such = as that of=20 the Divine hypostases. Gregory himself confesses that such thoughts = about God=20 are inadequate, and immeasurably below their object: but he cannot be = blamed for=20 employing this method, as if it was entirely superficial. Not only does = this=20 instance illustrate trinity in unity, but we should have no contents for = our=20 thought about the Father, Son, and Spirit, if we found no outlines at = all of=20 their nature within ourselves. Denis³³=20 well says that the history of the doctrine of the Trinity confirms this: = for the=20 advanced development of the theory of the logoj, a=20 purely human attribute in the ancient philosophy, was the cause of the = doctrine=20 of the Son being so soon and so widely treated: and the doctrine of the = Holy=20 Spirit came into prominence only when He began to be regarded as the = principle=20 of the purely human or moral life, as Love, that is, or Charity. = Gregory, then,=20 had reason in recommending even a more systematic use of the method = which he had=20 received from Origen: `Learn from the things within thee to know the = secret of=20 God; recognise from the Triad within thee the Triad by means of these = matters=20 which you realise: it is a testimony above and more sure than that of = the Law=20 and the Gospel³⁴=20 .'

He carries out elsewhere also more thoroughly than Origen this method = of=20 reading parables. He is an actual Mystic in this. The mysterious but = real=20 correspondences between earth and heaven, upon which, Origen had taught, = and not=20 upon mere thoughts or the artifices of language, the truth of a parable = rests,=20 Gregory employed, in order to penetrate the meaning of the whole of = external=20 nature. He finds in its facts and appearances analogies with the = energies, and=20 through them with the essence, of God. They are not to him merely = indications of=20 the wisdom which caused them and ordered them, but actual symptoms of = the=20 various energies which reside in the essence of the Supreme Being; as = though=20 that essence, having first been translated into the energies, was = through them=20 translated into the material creation; which was thus an earthly = language saying=20 the same thing as the heavenly language, word for word. The whole world = thus=20 became one vast allegory³⁵=20 : and existed only to manifest the qualities of the Unseen. Akin to this = peculiar development of the parable is another characteristic of his, = which is=20 alien to the spirit of Origen; his delight in natural scenery, his = appreciation=20 of it, and power of describing it.

With regard to the question, so much agitated, of the 'Apokatastasij, it may be said that not Gregory = only but=20 Basil and Gregory Nazianzen also have felt the influence of their master = in=20 theology, Origen. But it is due to the latter to say that though he = dwells much=20 on the "all in all" and insists much more on the sanctifying power of = punishment=20 than on the satisfaction owed to Divine justice, yet no one could justly = attribute to him, as a doctrine, the view of a Universal Salvation. = Still these=20 Greek Fathers, Origen and `the three great Cappadocians,' equally showed = a=20 disposition of mind that left little room for the discussions that were = soon to=20 agitate the West. Their infinite hopes, their absolute confidence in the = goodness of God, who owes it to Himself to make His work perfect, their = profound=20 faith in the promises and sacrifice of Christ, as well as in the = vivifying=20 action of the Holy Spirit, make the question of Predestination and Grace = a very=20 simple one with them. The word Grace occurs as often in them as in = Augustine:=20 but they do not make original sin a monstrous innovation requiring a = remedy of a=20 peculiar and overwhelming intensity. Passion indeed seems to Gregory of = Nyssa=20 himself one of the essential elements of the human soul. He borrows from = the=20 naturalists many principles of distinction between classes of souls and = lives:=20 he insists incessantly on the intimate connexion between the physical = growth and=20 the development of the reason, and on the correlation between the one = and the=20 other: and we arrive at the conclusion that man in his eyes, as in = Clement's,=20 was not originally perfect, except in possibility; that being at once = reasoning=20 and sentient he must perforce feel within himself the struggle of reason = and=20 passion, and that it was inevitable that sin should enter into the = world: it was=20 a consequence of his mixed nature. This mixed nature of the first man = was=20 transmitted to his descendants. Here, though he stands apart from Origen = on the=20 question of man's original perfection, he could not have accepted the = whole=20 Augustinian scheme of original sin: and Grace as the remedy with him = consists=20 rather in the purging this mixed nature, than in the introduction into = it of=20 something absolutely foreign. The result, as with all the Greek Fathers, = will=20 depend on the co-operation of the free agent in this remedial work.=20 Predestination and the `bad will' are excluded by the Possibility and = the `free=20 will' of Origen and Gregory.

Chapter IV.-His Teaching on the Holy=20 Trinity.

To estimate the exact value of the work done by S. Gregory in the=20 establishment of the doctrine of the Trinity and in the determination, = so far as=20 Eastern Christendom is concerned, of the terminology employed for the = expression=20 of that doctrine, is a task which can hardly be satisfactorily carried = out. His=20 teaching on the subject is so closely bound up with that of his brother, = S.=20 Basil of Csarea,-his "master," to use his own phrase,-that the two can = hardly be=20 separated with any certainty. Where a disciple, carrying on the teaching = he has=20 himself received from another, with perhaps almost imperceptible = variations of=20 expression, has extended the influence of that teaching and strengthened = its=20 hold on the minds of men, it must always be a matter of some difficulty = to=20 discriminate accurately between the services which the two have rendered = to=20 their common cause, and to say how far the result attained is due to the = earlier, how far to the later presentment of the doctrine. But the task = of so=20 discriminating between the work of S. Basil and that of S. Gregory is = rendered=20 yet more complicated by the uncertainty attaching to the authorship of=20 particular treatises which have been claimed for both. If, for instance, = we=20 could with certainty assign to S. Gregory that treatise on the terms = ousia and upostasij, = which Dorner=20 treats as one of the works by which he "contributed materially to fix = the=20 uncertain usage of the Church³⁶=20 ," but which is found also among the works of S. Basil in the form of a = letter=20 addressed to S. Gregory himself, we should be able to estimate the = nature and=20 the extent of the influence of the Bishop of Nyssa much more definitely = than we=20 can possibly do while the authorship of this treatise remains uncertain. = Nor=20 does this document stand alone in this respect, although it is perhaps = of more=20 importance for the determination of such a question than any other of = the=20 disputed treatises. Thus in the absence of certainty as to the precise = extent to=20 which S. Gregory's teaching was directly indebted to that of his = brother, it=20 seems impossible to say how far the "fixing of the uncertain usage of = the=20 Church" was due to either of them singly. That together they did = contribute very=20 largely to that result is beyond question: and it is perhaps superfluous = to=20 endeavour to separate their contributions, especially as there can be = little=20 doubt that S. Gregory at least conceived himself to be in agreement with = S.=20 Basil upon all important points, if not to be acting simply as the = mouth-piece=20 of his "master's" teaching, and as the defender of the statements which = his=20 "master" had set forth against possible misconceptions of their meaning. = Some=20 points, indeed, there clearly were, in which S. Gregory's presentment of = the=20 doctrine differs from that of S. Basil; but to these it may be better to = revert=20 at a later stage, after considering the more striking variation which = their=20 teaching displays from the language of the earlier Nicene school as = represented=20 by S. Athanasius.

The council held at Alexandria in the year 365, during the brief = restoration=20 of S. Athanasius, shows us at once the point of contrast and the = substantial=20 agreement between the Western school, with which S. Athanasius himself = is in=20 this matter to be reckoned, and the Eastern theologians to whom has been = given=20 the title of "Neo-Nicene." The question at issue was one of language, = not of=20 belief; it turned upon the sense to be attached to the word upostasij. The Easterns, following a use of the = term which=20 may be traced perhaps to the influence of Origen, employed the word in = the sense=20 of the Latin "Persona," and spoke of the Three Persons as treij upostasij, whereas the Latins employed the = term=20 "hypostasis" as equivalent to "sub-stantia," to express = what the=20 Greeks called ousia,-the one Godhead of the = Three=20 Persons. With the Latins agreed the older school of the orthodox Greek=20 theologians, who applied to the Three Persons the phrase tri/a pro/swpa, speaking of the Godhead as mia upostasij. This phrase, in the eyes of the = newer Nicene=20 school, was suspected of Sabellianism³⁷=20 , while on the other hand the Westerns were inclined to regard the = Eastern=20 phrase treij upostasij as implying = tritheism. The=20 synodal letter sets forth to us the means by which the fact of = substantial=20 agreement between the two schools was brought to light, and the = understanding=20 arrived at, that while Arianism on the one hand and Sabellianism on the = other=20 were to be condemned, it was advisable to be content with the language = of the=20 Nicene formula, which employed neither the phrase mia=20 upostasij nor the phrase treij=20 upostaseij³⁸=20 . This resolution, prudent as it may have been for the purpose of = bringing=20 together those who were in real agreement, and of securing that the = reconciled=20 parties should, at a critical moment, present an unbroken front in the = face of=20 their common and still dangerous enemy, could hardly be long maintained. = The=20 expression treij u9posta/seij was one to = which many of=20 the orthodox, including those who had formerly belonged to the = Semi-Arian=20 section, had become accustomed: the Alexandrine synod, under the = guidance of S.=20 Athanasius, had acknowledged the phrase, as used by them, to be an = orthodox one,=20 and S. Basil, in his efforts to conciliate the Semi-Arian party, with = which he=20 had himself been closely connected through his namesake of Ancyra and = through=20 Eustathius of Sebastia, saw fit definitely to adopt it. While S. = Athanasius, on=20 the one hand, using the older terminology, says that upostasijis equivalent to ou0si/a,=20 and has no other meaning³⁹=20 , S. Basil, on the other hand, goes so far as to say that the terms = ou0si/a and upostasij, = even in the=20 Nicene anathema, are not to be understood as equivalent⁴⁰=20 . The adoption of the new phrase, even after the explanations given at=20 Alexandria, was found to require, in order to avoid misconstruc-lion, a = more=20 precise definition of its meaning, and a formal defence of its = orthodoxy. And=20 herein consisted one principal service rendered by S. Basil and S. = Gregory;=20 while with more precise definition of the term upostasij there emerged, it may be, a more precise = view of=20 the relations of the Persons, and with the defence of the new phrase as=20 expressive of the Trinity of Persons a more precise view of what is = implied in=20 the Unity of the Godhead.

The treatise, De Sancta Trinitate is one of those which are = attributed=20 by some to S. Basil, by others to S. Gregory: but for the purpose of = showing the=20 difficulties with which they had to deal, the question of its exact = authorship=20 is unimportant.⁴¹=20 The most obvious objection alleged against their teaching was that which = had=20 troubled the Western theologians before the Alexandrine Council,-the = objection=20 that the acknowledgment of Three Persons implied a belief in Three Gods. = To meet=20 this, there was required a statement of the meaning of the term upostasij, and of the relation of ousia to upostasij. = Another=20 objection, urged apparently by the same party as the former, was = directed=20 against the "novelty," or inconsistency, of employing in the singular = terms=20 expressive of the Divine Nature such as "goodness" or "Godhead," while = asserting=20 that the Godhead exists in plurality of Persons⁴²=20 . To meet this, it was required that the sense in which the Unity of the = Godhead=20 was maintained should be more plainly and clearly defined.

The position taken by S. Basil with regard to the terms ousia and upostasij is = very=20 concisely stated in his letter to Terentius⁴³=20 . He says that the Western theologians themselves acknowledge that a = distinction=20 does exist between the two terms: and he briefly sets forth his view of = the=20 nature of that distinction by saying that ousia is to=20 upostasij as that which is common to = individuals is to=20 that in respect of which the individuals are naturally differentiated. = He=20 illustrates this statement by the remark that each individual man has = his being=20 tw koinw thj ousiaj logw, while he is = differentiated=20 as an individual man in virtue of his own particular attributes. So in = the=20 Trinity that which constitutes the ousia (be = it=20 "goodness" or be it "Godhead") is common, while the upostasij is marked by the Personal attribute of = Fatherhood=20 or Sonship or Sanctifying Power⁴⁴=20 . This position is also adopted and set forth in greater detail in the = treatise,=20 De Diff. Essen. et Hypost.⁴⁵=20 , already referred to, where we find once more the illustration employed = in the=20 Epistle to Terentius. The Nature of the Father is beyond our = comprehension; but=20 whatever conception we are able to form of that Nature, we must consider = it to=20 be common also to the Son and to the Holy Spirit: so far as the ousia is concerned, whatever is predicated of any = one of the=20 Persons may be predicated equally of each of the Three Persons, just as = the=20 properties of man, qu=E2 man, belong alike to Paul and Barnabas = and=20 Timothy: and as these individual men are differentiated by their own = particular=20 attributes, so each Person of the Trinity is distinguished by a certain=20 attribute from the other two Persons. This way of putting the case = naturally=20 leads to the question, "If you say, as you do say, that Paul and = Barnabas and=20 Timothy are `three men,' why do you not say that the Three Persons are = `three=20 Gods?'" Whether the question was presented in this shape to S. Basil we = cannot=20 with certainty decide: but we may gather from his language regarding the = applicability of number to the Trinity what his answer would have been.=20 He⁴⁶=20 says that in acknowledging One Father, One Son, One Holy Spirit, we do = not=20 enumerate them by computation, but assert the individuality, so to say, = of each=20 hypostasis-its distinctness from the others. He would probably have = replied by=20 saying that strictly speaking we ought to decline applying to the Deity, = considered as Deity, any numerical idea at all, and that to enumerate = the=20 Persons as "three" is a necessity, possibly, imposed upon us by = language, but=20 that no conception ot number is really applicable to the Divine Nature = or to the=20 Divine Persons, which transcend number⁴⁷=20 . To S. Gregory, however, the question did actually present itself as = one=20 demanding an answer, and his reply to it marks his departure from S. = Basil's=20 position, though, if the treatise, De Diff. Essen. et Hyp. be S. = Basil's,=20 S. Gregory was but following out and defending the view of his "master" = as=20 expressed in that treatise.

S. Gregory's reply to the difficulty may be found in the letter, or = short=20 dissertation, addressed to Ablabius (Quod non suni tres Dei), and = in his=20 treatise peri koinwn ennoiwn. In the latter = he lays it=20 down that the term qeoj is a term ousiaj shmantikon, not a term proswpwn=20 dhlwtikon: the Godhead of the Father is not that in which He = maintains=20 His differentiation from the Son: the Son is not God because He is = Son,=20 but because His essential Nature is what it is. Accordingly, when we = speak of=20 "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost," the word = and is=20 employed to conjoin the terms expressive of the Persons, not the = repeated term=20 which is expressive of the Essence, and which therefore, while applied = to each=20 of the Three Persons, yet cannot properly be employed in the plural. = That in the=20 case of three individual "men" the term expressive of essence = is=20 employed in the plural is due, he says, to the fact that in this case = there are=20 circumstances which excuse or constrain such a use of the term "man" = while such=20 circumstances do not affect the case of the Holy Trinity. The = individuals=20 included under the term "man" vary alike in number and in identity, and = thus we=20 are constrained to speak of "men" as more or fewer, and in a certain = sense to=20 treat the essence as well as the persons numerically. In the Holy = Trinity, on=20 the other hand, the Persons are always the same, and their number the = same. Nor=20 are the Persons of the Holy Trinity differentiated, like individual men, = by=20 relations of time and place, and the like; the differentiation between = them is=20 based upon a constant causal relation existing among the Three Persons, = which=20 does not affect the unity of the Nature: it does not express the Being, = but the=20 mode of Being⁴⁸=20 . The Father is the Cause; the Son and the Holy Spirit are = differentiated from=20 Him as being from the Cause, and again differentiated inter se as = being=20 immediately from the Cause, and immediately through that which is from = the=20 Cause. Further, while these reasons may be alleged for holding that the = cases=20 are not in such a sense parallel as to allow that the same conclusion as = to=20 modes of speech should be drawn in both, he urges that the use of the = term "men"=20 in the plural is, strictly speaking, erroneous. We should, in = strictness, speak=20 not of "this or that man," but of "this or that hypostasis of man"- the = "three=20 men" should be described as "three hypostases" of the common ousia "man." In the treatise addressed to Ablabius = he goes=20 over the same ground, clothing his arguments in a somewhat less = philosophical=20 dress; but he devotes more space to an examination of the meaning of the = term=20 qeoj, with a view to showing that it is a = term=20 expressive of operation, and thereby of essence, not a term which = may be=20 considered as applicable to any one of the Divine Persons in any such = peculiar=20 sense that it may not equally be applied also to the other two⁴⁹=20 . His argument is partly based upon an etymology now discredited, but = this does=20 not affect the position he seeks to establish (a position which is also = adopted=20 in the treatise, De S. Trinitate), that names expressive of the = Divine=20 Nature, or of the Divine operation (by which alone that Nature is known = to us)=20 are employed, and ought to be employed, only in the singular. The unity = and=20 inseparability of all Divine operation, proceeding from the Father, = advancing=20 through the Son, and culminating in the Holy Spirit, yet setting forth = one kinhsij of the Divine will, is the reason why the = idea of=20 plurality is not suffered to attach to these names⁵⁰=20 , while the reason for refusing to allow, in regard to the three Divine = Persons,=20 the same laxity of language which we tolerate in regard to the case of = the three=20 "men," is to be found in the fact that in the latter case no danger = arises from=20 the current abuse of language: no one thinks of "three human natures;" = but on=20 the other hand polytheism is a very real and serious danger, to which = the=20 parallel abuse of language involved in speaking of "three Gods" would = infallibly=20 expose us.

S. Gregory's own doctrine, indeed, has seemed to some critics to be = open to=20 the charge of tritheism. But even if his doctrine were entirely = expressed in the=20 single illustration of which we have spoken, it does not seem that the = charge=20 would hold good, when we consider the light in which the illustration = would=20 present itself to him. The conception of the unity of human nature is = with him a=20 thing intensely vivid: it underlies much of his system, and he brings it = prominently forward more than once in his more philosophical = writings⁵¹=20 . We cannot, in fairness, leave his realism out of account when we are=20 estimating the force of his illustration: and therefore, while admitting = that=20 the illustration was one not unlikely to produce misconceptions of his = teaching,=20 we may fairly acquit him of any personal bias towards tritheism such as = might=20 appear to be involved in the unqualified adoption of the same = illustration by a=20 writer of our own time, or such as might have been attributed to = theologians of=20 the period of S. Gregory who adopted the illustration without the = qualification=20 of a realism as determined as his own⁵²=20 . But the illustration does not stand alone: we must not consider that = it is the=20 only one of those to be found in the treatise, De Diff. Essen. et=20 Hypost., which he would have felt justified in employing. Even if = the=20 illustration of the rainbow, set forth in that treatise, was not = actually his=20 own (as Dorner, ascribing the treatise to him, considers it to have = been), it=20 was at all events (on the other theory of the authorship), included in = the=20 teaching he had received from his "master:" it would be present to his = mind,=20 although in his undisputed writings, where he is dealing with objections = brought=20 against the particular illustration from human relations, he naturally = confines=20 himself to the particular illustration from which an erroneous inference = was=20 being drawn. In our estimate of his teaching the one illustration must = be=20 allowed to some extent to qualify the effect produced by the other. And, = further, we must remember that his argument from human relations is = professedly=20 only an illustration. It points to an analogy, to a = resemblance,=20 not to an identity of relations; so much he is careful in his reply to = state.=20 Even if it were true, he implies, that we are warranted in speaking, in = the=20 given case, of the three human persons as "three men," it would not = follow that=20 we should be warranted thereby in speaking of the three Divine Persons = as "three=20 Gods." For the human personalities stand contrasted with the Divine, at = once as=20 regards their being and as regards their operation. The various human = proswpa draw their being from many other proswpa, one from one, another from another, not, = as the=20 Divine, from One, unchangeably the same: they operate, each in his own = way,=20 severally and independently, not, as the Divine, inseparably: they are=20 contemplated each by himself, in his own limited sphere, kat'=20 idian perigrafhn, not, as the Divine, in mutual essential = connexion,=20 differentiated one from the other only by a certain mutual relation. And = from=20 this it follows that the human proswpa are = capable of=20 enumeration in a sense in which number cannot be considered applicable = to the=20 Divine Persons. Here we find S. Gregory's teaching brought once more = into=20 harmony with his "master's:" if he has been willing to carry the use of=20 numerical terms rather further than S. Basil was prepared to do, he yet = is=20 content in the last resort to say that number is not in strictness = applicable to=20 the Divine upostaseij, in that they cannot = be=20 contemplated kat' idian perigrafhn, and = therefore=20 cannot be enumerated by way of addition. Still the distraction of the = upostaseij remains; and if there is no other way = (as he=20 seems to have considered there was none), of making full acknowledgment = of their=20 distinct though inseparable existence than to speak of them as "three," = he holds=20 that that use of numerical language is justifiable, so long as we do not = transfer the idea of number from the upostaseij to the=20 ousia, to that Nature of God which is Itself = beyond=20 our conception, and which we can only express by terms suggested to us = by what=20 we know of Its operation.

Such, in brief, is the teaching of S. Gregory on the doctrine of the = Holy=20 Trinity, as expressed in the treatises in which he developed and = defended those=20 positions in which S. Basil appeared to diverge from the older Nicene=20 theologians. That the terminology of the subject gained clearness and=20 definiteness from his exposition, in that he rendered it plain that the = adoption=20 of the Eastern phraseology was a thing perfectly consistent with the = Faith=20 confessed alike by East and West in varying terms, seems beyond doubt. = It was to=20 him, probably, rather than to S. Basil, that this work was due; for he = cleared=20 up the points which S. Basil's illustration had left doubtful; yet in so = doing=20 he was using throughout the weapons which his "master" had placed in his = hands,=20 and arguing in favour of his "master's" statements, in language, it may = be, less=20 guarded than S. Basil himself would have employed, but in accordance = throughout=20 with the principles which S. Basil had followed. Each bore his own part = in the=20 common work: to one, perhaps, is due the credit of greater originality; = to the=20 other it was given to carry on and to extend what his brother had begun: = neither, we may well believe, would have desired to claim that the work = which=20 their joint teaching effected should be imputed to himself alone.

So far, we have especially had in view those minor treatises of S. = Gregory=20 which illustrate such variations from Athanasian modes of expression as = are to=20 be found in the writers of the "Neo-Nicene" school. These are perhaps = his most=20 characteristic works upon the subject. But the doctrine of the Trinity, = as he=20 held it, is further set forth and enforced in other treatises which are, = from=20 another point of view, much more important than those with which we have = been=20 dealing-in his Oratio Catechetica, and his more directly = polemical=20 treatises against Eunomius. In both these sections of his writings, when = allowance is made for the difference of terminology already discussed, = we are=20 less struck by the divergencies from S. Athanasius' presentment of the = doctrine=20 than by the substantial identity of S. Gregory's reasoning with that of = S.=20 Athanasius, as the latter is displayed, for example, in the "Orations = against=20 the Arians."

There are, of course, many points in which S. Gregory falls short of = his=20 great predecessor; but of these some may perhaps be accounted for by the = different aspect of the Arian controversy as it presented itself to the = two=20 champions of the Faith. The later school of Arianism may indeed be = regarded as a=20 perfectly legitimate and rigidly logical development of the doctrines = taught by=20 Arius himself; but in some ways the task of S. Gregory was a different = task from=20 that of S. Athanasius, and was the less formidable of the two. His = antagonist=20 was, by his own greater definiteness of statement, placed at a = disadvantage: the=20 consequences which S. Athanasius had to extract from the Arian = statements were=20 by Eunomius and the Anomoeans either openly asserted or tacitly = admitted: and it=20 was thus an easier matter for S. Gregory to show the real tendency of = Anomoean=20 doctrine than it had been for S. Athanasius to point out the real = tendency of=20 the earlier Arianism. Further, it may be said that by the time of S. = Basil,=20 still more by the time when S. Gregory succeeded to his brother's place = in the=20 controversy, the victory over Arianism was assured. It was not possible = for S.=20 Athanasius, even had it been in his nature to do so, to treat the = earlier=20 Arianism with the same sort of contemptuous criticism with which = Eunomius is=20 frequently met by S. Gregory. For S. Gregory, on the other hand, it was = not=20 necessary to refrain from such criticism lest he should thereby detract = from the=20 force of his protest against error. The crisis in his day was not one = which=20 demanded the same sustained effort for which the contest called in the = days of=20 S. Athanasius. Now and then, certainly, S. Gregory also rises to a white = heat of=20 indignation against his adversary: but it is hardly too much to say that = his=20 work appears to lack just those qualities which seem, in the writings of = S.=20 Athanasius, to have been called forth by the author's sense of the = weight of the=20 force opposed to him, and of the "life and death" character of the = contest. S.=20 Gregory does not under-estimate the momentous nature of the questions at = issue:=20 but when he wrote, he might feel that to those questions the answer of=20 Christendom had been already given, that the conflict was already won, = and that=20 any attempt at developing the Arian doctrine on Anomoean lines was the = adoption=20 of an untenable position,-even of a position manifestly and evidently = untenable:=20 the doctrine had but to be stated in clear terms to be recognized as=20 incompatible with Christianity, and, that fact once recognized, he had = no more=20 to do. Thus much of his treatises against Eunomius consists not of = constructive=20 argument in support of his own position, but of a detailed examination = of=20 Eunomius' own statements, while a further portion of the contents of = these=20 books, by no means inconsiderable in amount, is devoted not so much to = the=20 defence of the Faith as to the refutation of certain misrepresentations = of S.=20 Basil's arguments which had been set forth by Eunomius.

Even in the more distinctly constructive portion of these polemical = writings,=20 however, it may be said that S. Gregory does not show marked originality = of=20 thought either in his general argument, or in his mode of handling = disputed=20 texts. Within the limits of an introductory essay like the present, = anything=20 like detailed comparison on these points is of course impossible; but = any one=20 who will take the trouble to compare the discourses of S. Gregory = against=20 Eunomius with the "Orations" of S. Athanasius against the Arians,-the = Athanasian=20 writing, perhaps, most closely corresponding in character to these books = of S.=20 Gregory,-either as regards the specific passages of Scripture cited in = support=20 of the doctrine maintained, and the mode of interpreting them, or as to = the=20 methods of explanation applied to the texts alleged by the Arian writers = in=20 favour of their own opinions, can hardly fail to be struck by the number = and the=20 closeness of the resemblances which he will be able to trace between the = earlier=20 and the later representatives of the Nicene School. A somewhat similar = relation=20 to the Athanasian position, as regards the basis of belief, and = (allowing for=20 the difference of terminology) as regards the definition of doctrine, = may be=20 observed in the Oratio Catechetica.

Such originality, in fact, as S. Gregory may claim to possess (so far = as his=20 treatment of this subject is concerned) is rather the originality of the = tactician than that of the strategist: he deals rather with his = particular=20 opponent, and keeps in view the particular point in discussion more than = the=20 general area over which the war extends. S. Athanasius, on the other = hand=20 (partly, no doubt, because he was dealing with a less fully developed = form of=20 error), seems to have more force left in reserve. He presents his = arguments in a=20 more concise form, and is sometimes content to suggest an inference = where S.=20 Gregory proceeds to draw out conclusions in detail, and where thereby = the=20 latter, while possibly strengthening his presentment of the truth as = against his=20 own particular adversary,-against the Anomoean or the polytheist on the = one=20 side, or against the Sabellian or the Judaizer on the other,-renders his = argument, when considered per se as a defence of the orthodox = position,=20 frequently more diffuse and sometimes less forcible. Yet, even here, = originality=20 of a certain kind does belong to S. Gregory, and it seems only fair to = him to=20 say that in these treatises also he did good service in defence of the = Faith=20 touching the Holy Trinity. He shows that alike by way of formal = statement of=20 doctrine, as in the Oratio Catechetica, and by way of polemical = argument,=20 the forces at the command of the defenders of the Faith could be = organized to=20 meet varied forms of error, without abandoning, either for a more = original=20 theology like that or Marcellus of Ancyra, or for the compromise which = the=20 Homoean or Semi-Arian school were in danger of being led to accept, the = weapons=20 with which S. Athanasius had conquered at Nicaea.

Chapter V.-Mss. And = Editions.

For the 13 Books Against Eunomius, the text of F. Oehler (S. = Greg.=20 Nyss. Opera. Tom. I. HalIs, 1865) has in the following translations been = almost=20 entirely followed.

The 1st Book was not in the 1st Paris Edition in two volumes (1615); = but it=20 was published three years afterwards from the `Bavarian Codex,' i.e. = that of=20 Munich, by J. Gretser in an Appendix, along with the Summaries = (these=20 headings of the sections of the entire work are by some admirer of = Gregory's)=20 and the two introductory Letters. Both the Summaries and the letters, = and also=20 nearly three-quarters of the 1st Book were obtained from J. Livineius'=20 transcript of the Vatican ms. made at Rome, 1579. This Appendix was = added to the=20 2nd Paris Edition, in three volumes (1638).

In correcting these Paris Editions (for mss. of which see below), = Oehler had=20 access, in addition to the identical Munich ms. (paper, 16th century) = which=20 Gretser had used, to the following mss.:-

1. Venice (Library of S. Mark; cotton, 13 Cent., No. 69). This he = says=20 `wonderfully agrees' with the Munich (both, for instance, supply the = lacunae=20 of the Paris Edition of Book I: he concludes, therefore, that these = are not=20 due to Gretser's negligence, who gives the Latin for these passages, = but to=20 that of the printers).

2. Turin (Royal Library; cotton, 14 Cent., No. 71).

3. Milan (Library of S. Ambrose; cotton, 13 Cent., No. 225, Plut. = 1; its=20 inscription says that it was brought from Thessaly).

4. Florence (Library Medic. Laurent.; the oldest of all; parchment, = 11 Cent.,=20 No. 17, Plut. vi. It contains the Summaries).

These, and the Munich ms., which he chiefly used, are "all of the = same=20 family:" and from them he has been able to supply more than 50 lacunae = in the=20 Books against Eumomius. This family is the first of the two separated by = G. H.=20 Forbes (see below). The Munich ms. (No. 47, on paper, 16 Cent.), already = used by=20 Sifanus for his Latin version (1562), and by Gretser for his Appendix, = has the=20 corrections of the former in its margin. These passed into the two Paris = Editions; which, however, took no notice of his critical notes. When = lent to=20 Sifanus this ms. was in the Library of J. J. Fugger. Albert V. Duke of = Bavaria=20 purchased the treasures of Greek literature in this library, to found = that in=20 Munich.

For the treatise On the Soul and the Resurrection, the = Great=20 Catechetical Oration, and the Funeral Oration on Meletius, = John=20 George Krabinger's text has been adopted. He had mss. `old and of a = better=20 stamp' (Oehler) than were accessible to the Paris editors. Krabinger's = own=20 account of them is this:-

On the Soul. 5 mss. of 16th, 14th, and 11th Cent. All at = Munich. In=20 one of them there are scholia, some imported into the text by J. = Naupliensis=20 Murmureus the copyist; and Sifanus' corrections.

The `Hasselman,' 14th Cent. J. Christopher Wolf, who annotated this = treatise=20 (Aneedota Groeca, Hamburgh, 1722), says of this ms. "very = carefully=20 written." It was lent by Zach. Hasselman, Minister of Oldenburgh.

The `Uffenbach,' 14th Cent., with var. lect. in margin. Lent to Wolf = by the=20 Polish ambassador at Frankfort on Main, at the request of Zach. = Uffenbach.

Catechetical Oration. 4 mss. of 16th Cent., 1 of 13th = Cent., `much=20 mutilated.' All at Munich.

On Meletius. 2 mss. of 16th Cent., 1 of 10th Cent. All at = Munich.

His edition of the former appeared, at Leipzic, 1837; of the two = latter, at=20 Munich, 1838; all with valuable notes.

For the treatise Against Macedanius, the only text available = is that=20 of Cardinal Angelo Mai (Script. Vet. Nova Collectio, Rome, 1833). It is = taken=20 from the Vatican ms. `on silk.' The end of this treatise is not found in = Mai.=20 Perhaps it is in the ms. of Florence.

For fourteen of the Letters, Zacagni (Praefect of the Vatican = Library,=20 1698-1713) is the only editor. His text from the Vatican ms., No. 424, = is=20 printed in his Collectan. Monument. ret. (pp. 354-400), Rome, 1698.

He had not the use oi the Medicean ms. which Caraccioli (see below) = testifies=20 to be much superior to the Vatican; there are lacunae in the latter, = however,=20 which Zacagni occasionally fills by a happy guess with the very words = supplied=20 by the Medicean.

For the Letter to Adelphius, and that (on Church Architecture) = to=20 Amphilochius, J. B. Caraccioli (Professor of Philosophy at Pisa) = furnishes a=20 text (Florence, 1731) from the Medicean ms. The Letters in this = collection are=20 seven in all. Of the last of these (including that to Amphilochius) = Bandinus=20 says non sincer=E2 fide ex Codice descriptas, and that a fresh = collation is=20 necessary.

For the treatise On the Making of Man, the text employed has = been that=20 of G. H. Forbes, (his first Fasciculus was published in 1855; his second = in=20 1861; both at Burntisland, at his private press), with an occasional = preference=20 for the readings of one or other of the mss. examined by him or by = others on his=20 behalf. Of these he specifies twenty: but he had examined a much larger = number.=20 The mss. which contain this work, he considers, are of two families.

Of the first family the most important are three mss. at Vienna, a=20 tenth-century ms. on vellum at S. Mark's, Venice, which he himself = collated, and=20 a Vatican ms. of the tenth century. This family also includes three of = the four=20 Munich mss. collated for Forbes by Krabinger.

The other family displays more variations from the current text. One = Vienna=20 ms. "pervetustus" "initio mutilus," was completely collated. Also = belonging to=20 this family are the oldest of the four Munich mss., the tenth-century = Codex=20 Regius (Paris), and a fourteenth-century ms. at Christ Church, Oxford, = clearly=20 related to the last.

The Codex Baroccianus (Bodleian, perhaps eleventh century) appears to = occupy=20 an independent position.

For the other Treatises and Letters the text of the Paris = Edition of=20 1638 (`plenior et emendatior' than that of 1615, according to Oehler, = probably=20 following its own title, but "much inferior to that of 1615" Canon = Venables,=20 Dict. Christ. Biog., says, and this is the judgment of J. = Fessler) and of=20 Migne have been necessary as the latest complete editions of the = works of=20 Gregory Nyssene. (All the materials that had been collected for the = edition of=20 the Benedictines of St. Maur perished in the French Revolution.)

Of the two Paris Editions it must be confessed that they are based = `for the=20 most part on inferior mss.' (Oehler.) The frequent lacunae attest this. = Fronto=20 Ducaeus aided Claude, the brother of F. Morel, in settling the text, and = the=20 mss. mentioned in the notes of the former are as follows:

1. Pithoeus' "not of a very ancient hand," "as like F. Morers = (No. 2.) as=20 milk to milk" (so speaks John the Franciscan, who emended `from one = corrupt=20 mutilated manuscript,' i.e. the above, the Latin translation of the = Books=20 against Eunomius made by his father N. Gulonius.)

2. F. Morel's. ("Dean of Professors" and Royal Printer.)

3. The Royal (in the Library of Henry II., Paris), on vellum, = tenth=20 century.

4. Canter's ("ingens codex" sent from Antwerp by A. Schott; it = had been=20 written out for T. Canter, Senator of Utrecht).

5. Olivar's. "Multo emendatius" than (2.)

6. J. Vulcobius', Abbot of Belpr=E9.

7. The Vatican.⁵³=20

8. Bricman's (Cologne).⁵⁴=20

9. Oegidius David's, I.C. Paris.⁵⁵=20

10. The Bavarian (Munich) for Books II.-XIII. Against Eunomius and = other=20 treatises; only after the first edition of 1615.

Other important mss. existing for treatises here translated are

On Pilgrimages:ms. Caesareus (Vienna): "valde vetustus" = (Nessel, on=20 the Imperial Library), vellum, No. 160, burnt at beginning.mss. Florence = (xx.=20 17: xvi. 8).ms. Leyden (not older than fifteenth century).

On the Making of Man:ms. Augsburgh, with twelve Homilies of = Basil, the=20 two last being wrongly attributed to Gregory (Reizer).ms. Ambrosian = (Milan). See=20 Montfaucon, Bibl. Bibliothec. p. 498.

On Infants' Early Deaths:ms. Turin (Royal Library).

On the Soul and Resurrection:mss. Augsburgh, Florence, Turin,=20 Venice.

Great Catechetical:mss. Augsburgh, Florence, Turin, = Caesareus.

Many other mss., for these and other treatises, are given by S. Heyns = (Disputatio de Greg. Nyss. Leyden, 1835). But considering the = mutilated=20 condition of most of the oldest, and the still small number of treatises = edited=20 from an extended collation of theses the complaint is still true that = `the text=20 of hardly any other ancient writer is in a more imperfect state than = that of=20 Gregory of Nyssa.'

Versions of Several Treatises.

Latin.

1. Of Dionysius Exiguus (died before 556): On the Making af = Man.=20 Aldine, 1537. Cologne, 1551. Basle, 1562. Cologne, 1573. Dedicated = to=20 Eugippius.' This Dedication and the Latin of Gregory's Preface was = only once=20 printed (i.e. in J. Mabillon's Analecta, Paris, 1677).This ancient = Latin=20 Version was revised by Fronto Ducaeus, the Jesuit, and Combeficius. = There is=20 a copy of it at Leyden.It stimulated J. Le=FCnclaius (see below), = who judged=20 it "foeda pollutum barbari=E2 planeque perversum," to make another. = Basle,=20 1567.

2. Of Daniel Augentius: On the Soul. Paris 1557.

3. Of Laurent. Sifanus, I. U. Doct.: On the Soul and many = other=20 treatises. Basle, 1562 Apud N. Episcopum.

4. Of Pet. Galesinius: On Virginity and On Prayer. = Rome,=20 1563, ap. P. Manutium.

5. Of Johann. Le=FCnclaius: On the Making of Man. Basle, = 1567, ap.=20 Oporinum.

6. Of Pet. Morelius, of Tours: Great Catechetical. Paris,=20 1568.

7. Of Gentianus Hervetus, Canon of Rheims, a diligent translator = of the=20 Fathers: Great Catechetical, and many others. Paris, = 1573.

8. Of Johann. Livineius, of Ghent: On Virginity. Apud = Plantinum,=20 1574.

9. Of Pet. Fr. Zinus, Canon of Verona, translator of Euthymius' = Panoplia,=20 which contains the Great Catechetical. Venice, 1575.

10. Of Jacob Gretser, the Jesuit: I. e. Eunom. Paris, = 1618.

11. Of Nicolas Gulonius, Reg. Prof. of Greek: II-XIII. c. = Eunom.=20 Paris, 1615. Revised by his son John, the Franciscan.

12. Of J. Georg. Krabinger, Librarian of Royal Library, Munich: = On the=20 Soul, Great Catechetical, On Infants' Early Deaths, and others. = Leipzic,=20 1837.

German.

1. Of Glauber: Great Catechetical, &c. Gregorius von = Nyssa und=20 Augustinus =FCber den ersten Christlichen Religions-unterricht. = Leipzic,=20 1781.

2. Of Julius Rupp, K=F6nigsberg: On Meletius. Gregors = Leben und=20 Meinungen. Leipzic, 1834.

3. Of Oehler: Various treatises. Bibliothek der = Kirchenv=E4ter I.=20 Theil. Leipzic, 1858-59.

4. Herm. Schmidt, paraphrased rather than translated: On the = Soul.=20 Halle, 1864.

5. Of H. Hayd: On Infants' Early Deaths: On the Making of Man, = &c.=20 Kempton, 1874.

This document (last modified February 03, 1998) from the = Christian = Classics=20 Electronic Library server, at @Wheaton=20 College ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C72CF8.54C4BE80 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/PIX/MROONPPV.GIF R0lGODlhNwANALP/AP///+/e3t69vc6trcacnLWEhKVjY8xmZr1aWsDAwKVCQoQxMZQpKXsQEGYA AAAAACH5BAEAAAkALAAAAAA3AA0AQASa0MlJq70451TX+YdGKcAyFaUSFI4BGA7ACsGiNBVHNQoo TiSATNIQ4iQoIUwgBChyv6h0qrscp1iRrge6RkmEAQC3Iggkg0CFJhCYKFULI/vjeTFxuj6aJ/b2 GXY/VTwgN1IkBigmBgErEi4wCk80Nnc6DR6GUwsAAQJPRU04A2cxMysFlxcMCCFfThMCBBJmtU1L TU9wgL1aEQA7 ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C72CF8.54C4BE80 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/PIX/MROONTOC.GIF R0lGODlhNwANALP/AP///+/e3t69vc6trcacnLWEhKVjY8xmZsDAwKVCQoQxMZQpKXsQEGYAAAAA AAAAACH5BAEAAAgALAAAAAA3AA0AQAR4sMlJq704Z6S7LsAUDAwTEM0CEExicV5MATRQNEpAC4xk 6IGXbEjcFI9ImOTAbDKXhyFIogC4GlMDoHdRIokKLiUhnni/aOPE6YSmwxayMH1JEKy9UenUYKxa c3QWUzhWEgVBWmUUXmxNbjKEODoAPD5AgYKaEggRADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C72CF8.54C4BE80 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/PIX/MROONPNX.GIF R0lGODlhNwANALP/AP///+/e3t69vc6trcacnLWEhKVjY8xmZr1aWsDAwKVCQoQxMZQpKXsQEGYA AAAAACH5BAEAAAkALAAAAAA3AA0AQASb0MlJq70450TR+YtmKUAoFaUSFI4BGA7ACsGiNBQ3fcct ViSATNIQ4k7Cl0OQVOR+0KhUR5Rarw7qpMHrQUmEAQC3Iggkg0CFJhCYJFoG9trwabTzvEjbO+o1 dX4YWnU8dj8kBighBgErEi4wCk40NoKEC11OUAsAAQJORUk4A2cxMysFlxQHCHJXJJtLBBJmtUkw TEKyWX++GxEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C72CF8.54C4BE80 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/PIX/MROONSPM.GIF R0lGODlhWAIFAMT/AP///+/e3t69vc6trcacnLWEhKVjY8xmZr1aWoxCQqVCQoQxMZQpKXsQEGYA AMDAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEA AP8ALAAAAABYAgUAQAVboCOOZGmeaKqubOu+cCzPdG3feK7vfO//wKBwSCwaj8ikcslsOp9Q3GFK rVqv2Kx2y+16v+CweEwum8/otHrNbrvf8Lh8bo3a7/i8fs/v+/+AgYKDhIWGh4g+IQA7 ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C72CF8.54C4BE80 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/PIX/MROONTOP.GIF R0lGODlhNwANALP/AP///+/e3t69vc6trcacnLWEhKVjY8xmZr1aWsDAwKVCQoQxMZQpKXsQEGYA AAAAACH5BAEAAAkALAAAAAA3AA0AQASG0MlJq70450TVUY6HaFoBTMHQNAERAgvGVd5BakAOFM4S 5ILGK8erzG7IJPLYUTqVzNBhantOTJIFAOTAKgCEAUBIiVqVC/LNfG5vLI1DzH1JJ6Px6dyqIGyF KSstLwYmexJMeQ0IBwxtWD1bEgUBkQECXGUTihJTjlaQPT8AQS+ZRnSpGxEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C72CF8.54C4BE80 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/FATHERS.CSS BODY { BACKGROUND: #f7f8d1 } UNKNOWN { FONT-SIZE: 90%; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.4in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.4in } UNKNOWN { MARGIN-TOP: 6pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; TEXT-ALIGN: right } P.Body { MARGIN-TOP: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0.4in } P.Unindented { MARGIN-TOP: 0in } P.Body2 { MARGIN-TOP: 12pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0.4in } P.Unindented2 { MARGIN-TOP: 12pt } P.ChapterSummary { FONT-SIZE: 110%; MARGIN-LEFT: 0.4in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.4in; TEXT-ALIGN: = center } P.List1 { MARGIN-TOP: 0in; MARGIN-LEFT: 1in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in } P.List1a { MARGIN-TOP: 8pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 1in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in } P.List2 { MARGIN-TOP: 0in; MARGIN-LEFT: 1in } P.HeaderInfo { BACKGROUND: #ffee77; FONT-FAMILY: Ariel, Helvetica } ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C72CF8.54C4BE80--