OF OUR HOLY FATHER GREGORY, BISHOP OF NYSSA, THE GREAT CATECHETICAL ORATION, DIVIDED INTO FORTY CHAPTERS.
ANDREAS GALLANDIUS'S ADMONITION REGARDING CERTAIN WRITINGS OF GREGORY OF NYSSA WHICH WERE WANTING IN THE DOUBLE EDITION OF THE WORKS OF THE HOLY FATHER (a).
The second part of the dogmatic section, attached to the work of Nyssenus, is clearly established by Vatican codex number 1907.
III. There follow two orations (10), of which the first is Homily 11 on the holy protomartyr Stephen, described from the Vatican manuscript number 446; for the first Homily had already appeared long ago among the works of Nyssenus. A Regarding the latter oration, *On the Holy Spirit*, which previously existed only in Latin from the version of Franciscus Zinus, the editor found it in three Vatican codices and has bestowed upon it a new interpretation. At long last, a very large addition is made: a point which we indeed forewarned while discussing St. Gregory Nazianzen earlier. Therefore, we first bring forth the holy Father’s *Antirrheticus* against Apollinaris, which the learned Laurentius Alexander Zacagnius brought to light in Rome in the previous century, along with other writings of this same Bishop of Nyssenus, from a Vatican codex of approximately seven hundred years of age (1). You may see this sort of famous work mentioned B by ancient writers of the Church, namely Leontius of Byzantium (2), John of Damascus (3), Euthymius Zigabenus (4), as well as in the Acts of the Sixth Synod, Act X (5), not to mention Nicephorus (6).
But at what time Nyssenus wrote the *Antirrheticus* is not fully explored. C If you listen to the editor (7), the holy Father may have worked out this piece before the death of Apollinaris, which they think occurred around the year 380 of the Christian era. Furthermore, the same learned man explains in greater detail certain modes of speaking which might cause trouble to those not very practiced in perusing the writings of Nyssenus; it has therefore been helpful to consult him on this matter.
II. Following the *Antirrheticus* are the *Testimonia against the Jews*, which had been edited long ago only in Latin from the version of Laurentius Sifanus. D The same Zacagnius published these, having collated them from two Vatican codices (8). Some have doubted the integrity of this work on the grounds that Chrysostom—who flourished after Nyssenus's time—is cited toward its end, regarding that passage in John xix. 34: *Straightway there came out blood and water*. But truly (9) there is no reason why they should any longer adjudge this work away from Nyssenus if they rely solely on that argument.
IV. Furthermore, there follow twenty-two Epistles, the first fifteen of which the aforementioned Zacagnius drew from Vatican codex number 424; but the seven latter ones a distinguished man, Joannes Baptista Caracciolus, brought to light and published for the first time in Florence in the year 1731 from an old parchment book of the Medicean library. He also compared the epistles edited by Zacagnius with that same Medicean codex (written in elegant script) and amended them in many places. Therefore, we deemed it to be in our interest to append the annotations of that most learned man to the individual epistles, which we therefore present much more accurately amended than in the edition of Zacagnius.
V. We reclaim for Nyssenus the sermon, or rather the epistle, *On the Divinity*, addressed to the monk Evagrius—which circulates among the works of Nazianzen (11)—having followed both the opinion of learned men and the authority of manuscripts and ancient writers. For it is not unknown that both Gregories were often confused by the deceit or carelessness of copyists. Indeed, Petavius, a most learned man, [discusses] the passage... [index: entries preserved]
A for the same grounds by which Sabellius is corrected, by those same [grounds] you will also refute the Anomoean. Nor does the combat undertaken against the Manichaean profit against the Jew; but it is necessary, as has been said, to look to the opinions of men, and to shape the discourse according to the error inherent in each, putting forward in every dispute certain principles and propositions consonant with reason, so that by means of those things which both parties acknowledge, and about which there is agreement, it may be consistently revealed what they think and believe. When, therefore, you have to dispute with someone who favors the Greeks, it would be correct to take the beginning of the discourse from this point: whether he believes that God exists, or is of the opinion of those who are called atheists, who hold that God does not exist. And if he says that God does not exist, he will be led, by those things which are administered in the world with art and wisdom, to acknowledge through them that there is a certain power which is shown in them to be superior to the universe. But if he does not doubt that God exists, but falls into the error of thinking that there is a multitude of gods, we shall use this consequence against him: whether he holds the Divine to be perfect or lacking something. If, as is reasonable, he grants by his own testimony the perfection of the Divine nature, I will require that He be held perfect in all things which are considered in the Divinity, so that God may not be considered as a mixture of things that are contrary, namely, of that which is maimed and that which is perfect. B But whether in power, or in the notion of the good, or in wisdom, and eternity, and incorruption, and if any other thought worthy of God should come into contemplation, he will entirely agree that perfection is to be considered in the Divine nature according to this consequence consonant with reason. C This being granted to us, it will no longer be difficult to lead the thought, scattered and dissipated into a multitude of gods, to the confession of one Divinity. For if he should grant that perfection is altogether to be confessed in the subject, yet should say that there are many perfect [beings] which are expressed by the same things and receive their character and form, it is absolutely necessary that, among those things which are distinguished by no mutation or diversity but are considered in the same, one must either show what is proper [to each]; or, if the mind's conception grasps nothing properly and peculiarly, one must not think there is any distinction in those things in which there is nothing to distinguish them. For if he finds no difference in that which is "more" or "less," because the definition of perfection does not admit of diminution; nor in that which is "worse" or "better"—for one could no longer hold a notion of Divinity where the appellation of "worse" is not absent; nor in that which is "ancient" or "recent"—for what is not always, cannot be considered divine; but if there is one and the same definition of Divinity, with no property found in any one, as is consistent; it is absolutely necessary that the wandering and false phantasy concerning a multitude of gods be compelled to confess one Divinity. D For if goodness and justice, and wisdom and power, are spoken of in like manner and in the same way, and incorruption and eternity, and every pious mind confesses them in the same way, then, with every difference removed by any reason whatsoever, at the same time...