[The Latin text begins in the middle of a sentence:] ...those things which they desire for themselves, nor does their petition shed any glory upon the idols: yet the worshippers, deceived by error, indulging in the expectation of obtaining what they hope for, do not cease to petition. But you, when you are sufficiently persuaded of how great and how many gifts the Holy Spirit is the giver, why do you neglect to petition Him? And why do you fly to the Mosaic Law A which commands that the Lord God be adored, and that worship be given to Him alone? How, I ask, will you offer worship to Him alone, while you sever Him from His own conjunction with the Only-Begotten and the Spirit? In truth, this is Jewish worship.
24. You will say: "I, when I think of the Father, include the Son also in that naming." But the Son, tell me, when you take Him into your mind, do you not also simultaneously include the Holy Spirit? You cannot deny it. For how will you confess Him, if you are not in the Holy Spirit? When, therefore, is the Spirit separated from the Son, so that when the Father is adored, the adoration of the Son and of the Spirit is not included along with Him? And what, I pray, do they think adoration itself to be, if it is to be offered as a certain extraordinary gift to the God above all, and they sometimes transfer this honor even to the Only-Begotten, yet deny this gift to the Spirit? B Indeed, human custom calls that inclination to the ground, by which subjects show obedience to those more powerful, "adoration": just as it is certain that the patriarch Jacob, in order to appease his brother's anger, demonstrated his own disparity and humility by this posture of the body when he encountered him. "He adored," says Scripture, "falling prostrate upon the ground." The brothers of Joseph also, as long as they were ignorant, and he feigned ignorance before them on account of the amplitude of his dignity, honored his power with adoration. The great Abraham, the stranger, also adored the Hittites, the inhabitants of the land, C signifying, as I suppose, how much more powerful the natives were than the sojourners. It would be possible to recount many other things of this kind, both from ancient histories and from present examples of life. Do these men, therefore, think the same thing about adoration? And truly, is it not ridiculous to think that the Holy Spirit is not to be honored even with this service, with which even the Canaanites were honored by the patriarch? Or do they think that there is some other adoration besides this, so that one kind is suitable for men, and another for the transcendent nature? Why, therefore, do they reject any adoration at all for the Spirit, not even granting Him that which is conceded to men?
25. But what do they judge to be the mode of adoration properly assigned to God? Is it that which is uttered with words, or that which is performed by the posture of the body? D Indeed, both modes are practiced among men also; for words are spoken among men, and gestures of the body are made. What, therefore, is more excellent in the case of God? Surely it is evident to any sane man that...
A human nature has nothing to give that is worthy of God; for our Creator has no need of our goods. But we men, these honorable and affectionate demonstrations which we make toward one another, by which we acknowledge one another to be humbler and testify to the higher rank of our neighbor, these same things, I say, we have transferred to the service of a higher nature, offering the things that are honorable among us to the nature that is beyond estimation. And for this reason, since men approaching kings or princes—for whatever they wish to obtain from those in power—do not offer their request to the rulers stripped of all else, but do so as much as possible to move them to pity and benevolence, they humble themselves in word, and they bow in posture, and they touch their knees, and they fall to the ground, and by all things making themselves pitiable, they put forward an advocate for their request, through which they perform... B Therefore, those who have recognized the true power, through which all things that exist are governed... those for whom it is pleasing to them. Some, who are lowly of soul, in regard to those things in this world... Those, however, who are lofty in mind, regarding eternal and ineffable hopes, because they do not know how to ask, nor is human nature capable of showing any honor that reaches to the magnificence of His glory, have transferred the service customary among men to the honor of the Divine. And this is adoration: a petition for some desired object, made with supplication and humility. C Hence Daniel also bends his knees to the Lord, seeking His philanthropy for the captive people. And He who bore our infirmities, and who intercedes for us, in the humanity which He assumed, is recorded by the Gospel to have fallen upon His face at the time of prayer, and in this posture He made His prayer, establishing, I think, as a rule for human life, that we should not act boldly at the time of prayer, but in every way should compose ourselves to move toward mercy, because "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble," and elsewhere, "He who exalts himself shall be humbled." If, therefore, D adoration is a kind of supplication or assistance put forward for the purpose of a request, and the request is made to the Lord of power, what is the meaning of this new legislation, that we should neither ask from Him who gives, nor fall down before the Prince, nor show the service due to a ruler?...
VARIORUM NOTES ON THE CATECHETICAL ORATION
NOTES OF FRONTO DUCÆUS
This Catechetical book of Gregory of Nyssa was rendered into Latin and brought forth from the library of the honorable John of Saint Andrew, canon of the Church of Paris, by Peter Morell of Tours in the year 1563, and likewise by Peter Francis Zinus and Gentian Hervet. Yet, in the more recent final Basle edition, it had not been aggregated with the other works of our author, perhaps because it might be contrary to the new doctrine of the Protestants. For since it is cited in many places in the Dialogues against heretics by the most ancient doctor Theodoret, who was almost contemporary with Gregory himself—which we shall indicate hereafter—there was no reason to doubt that, as his true and genuine offspring, it should be held in high esteem.
Having therefore obtained that edition of Peter Morell, we have compared and reviewed it with this vulgate and with two manuscript books, one of which was provided for our use by Mr. James Vulcob, and the other by Frederick Morell, the Royal Professor; soon, through the authority of a third codex, which we obtained later from the Royal Library, we confirmed the reading of this or that passage. With the former, the interpretation of Hervet agreed on page 9: "To the faithful person who, according to doctrine, brings speech to the ears of the unbelievers," [Greek: τῇ ἀκοῇ τῶν ἀπίστων...]. So also did Peter Morell, which happens if the infidels are drawn as if by their ears to the doctrine of the faithful word. But in the later edition of Frederick Morell, I read, as also in the Royal codex, [Greek: τῇ ἀκοῇ τῶν ἀπίστων προσαγομένου], "let it approach the ears," or "be moved to the ears," and a little later [Greek: ταῖς κατασκευαῖς κεχρημένους] for [Greek: μου τὰς κατασκ. χρωμένους].
Col. 14 B. *And the word does not stand.* On this passage, the interpreter had noted that it seemed corrupt, because it was written in Greek [Greek: ἄπαγες λόγος], and he had translated it: "a reason which does not remain." We read in both manuscripts [Greek: ἀπαγὴς λόγος], "a word that is not stable." Peter Morell: "We are gifted with unstable power and weak speech." [Greek: Ἀπαγής] is said of that which is not compact or solid, whence he later says that this human speech is [Greek: ἐπικήριον], fleeting, caducous, and subject to destruction, and does not remain or subsist with human nature. From the same mind is that of Athanasius, Oration III against the Arians: "And because man came into being from non-being, therefore his word ceases and does not remain." And again: "Many and various words of men pass away daily because the first ones do not remain, but vanish."
Col. 23 A. *In this indeed.* This place was mutilated in both the Vulcob and Morell codices, but even so, by joining the fragments and symbols of both, it could be restored to its entirety, the former part being taken from the Morell manuscript and the latter from the Vulcob. The result was that in the editions of Hervet and Morell, the sentence thus far has been expressed in a truncated state, because neither had used a sufficiently integral codex. However, because the printer in this Greco-Latin Parisian edition has not followed the earlier warnings of our notes, it remains to be corrected here from the other of these: [Greek: πάντως ἐστὶ τῶν τὸ θεῖον, οἱ περὶ τούτων καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ἔχεται]. We have therefore struck out from the vulgate version: "In that assimilation to the image, there is altogether an enumeration of those things which express God," and whatever follows immediately thereafter in the doctrine.
Ibid. B. *For where there is form.* We have added these two members, which were lacking in both translations, from three manuscripts; a little later, it was necessary to add to the Vulcob copy from the Morell manuscript: Greek: ἀγαθότης ἐστὶ τοῦτον ἐν κακοῖς γεγενῆσθαι παρὰ τοῦ πεποιηκότος καταστοχάσασθαι. This addition is acknowledged as legitimate by both the interpretation of Hervet and that of Zinus in Euthymius’s *Panoplia*, Part I, title 6: "Let no one deservedly suspect that he, whose cause of being created was goodness, was born in evils by his creator."
Ibid. C. *That of His own goods.* The interpreter's codex must have been mutilated, for his version here and that of Zinus in Euthymius must be completed thus: "For this purpose, that He might make him a participant of His own goods, He created man, and implanted the seeds of virtues into his nature." It seems also that [Greek: αὐτῷ] should be corrected in the Greek to [Greek: ἀξίῳ] of good things. In the following period, [Greek: τῆς γὰρ βασιλευούσης], we have restored the legitimate sense, having struck out this version: "For how would that which is not reigning be named the image of the reigning one?" Finally, we changed that at Col. 25 A: "That that which is pleasing to your mind may be freely taken." The interpreter of Euthymius is more correct: "Since therefore this is proper to free will, that by its own choice it may embrace what it prefers, God, who [has] free, etc."
Col. 26 D. *Therefore the place.* I had warned that "the rational and easily moved is" was read viciously in the Vulcob, whence Hervet had translated: "the place is participant of reason." It is better in the Royal and Morell manuscripts [Greek: λεπτὴ], whence Peter Morell expressed these words: "thin and agile substance." But in one, again, [Greek: μερίς] was written erroneously for [Greek: χωρίον], and thus the sentence had to coalesce from both. We have translated [Greek: χώραν] as "region," not "lot," as in Chrysostom, Billius, Homily 1 on I Corinthians: "That he migrated to a better region, and leaped forth to a better dwelling."
Col. 27 B. *Who to no evil.* By these two members, the period mutilated by us has been reintegrated with the help of both Greek manuscripts.
Col. 55 D. *To minds, which through...* By [Greek: πόρους], the Greeks designate what the Latins call "tophi," as in the *Definitions of Physicians*: [Greek: πῶρός ἐστιν οὐσία λιθώδης καὶ ἀπόκροτος]. "A tophus is a stony and resistant substance." Callus-growths of this kind arise in the eyes and in fistulas and other ulcers, and also in the skin, concerning which Paul of Ægina says, Book I, chapter 78, whence they are called [Greek: ἐπιπωροῦσθαι], that is, to be hardened in the manner of a callus, which arise in the body from a disease of this kind; whence Peter Morell translates here "excrements of calluses," but using a mutilated codex, just as Hervet, he did not exhibit the full sentence, which the Vulcob manuscript has. Yet in that one, it must be corrected from the other, the Morell manuscript, which the Royal also supports: [Greek: ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἀρρωστίας], not as it is there [Greek: κατὰ κτίσεως], and in Hervet…
s interpretation it is read: A *knowing the union and approach*, not *understanding*, nor *to be saved* [διασώσασθαι], but *to be saved* [διασώζεσθαι], and *believing* [πιστεύοντες], which, however, is less apt than *believing* [πιστεύοντας].
Col. 42 A. *Per se bonum.* The interpreter of Euthymius is more apt: *and I consider what is honest in itself.* For later, turpitude is set in opposition, not to goodness, but to honesty.
Col. 43 A. *Et conjunctionis.* Here also the Vulcob manuscript supports Hervet’s interpretation, *and we do not know the generation*; but in vain; for the reading of the Morell and Royal manuscripts, which P. Morell and Zinus follow, is more true: *and the mode of the union* [καὶ τὸν τῆς ἑνώσεως]. For it agrees more with what follows: *but the mode of the commixture* [τὸν δὲ τῆς ἀνακράσεως τρόπον].
Col. 46 B. *Secuta est corruptio.* We preferred this to the interpreter’s *destruction* [interitus], so that the reader might more easily recognize the allusion to that passage of Psalm xvi, 8, and Acts ii, 31: *nor did his flesh see corruption* [οὐδὲ ἡ σὰρξ αὐτοῦ εἶδε διαφθοράν]. The same word is used later by Nyssen: *and after death it comes to corruption* [καὶ μετὰ θάνατον ἐν διαφθορᾷ γίγνεται]. Petr. Morell’s interpretation here has a significant lacuna in chapter 12, page 27.
Ibid. D. *Verumenimvero.* Here, conversely, the Morell manuscript with Hervet’s interpretation was mutilated: *But nature is greater, which is shown to be born in those things which are above nature,1* in no completely certain sense, as in the Vulcob; the passage stood whole and sound, as we have edited it; in the Royal, however, it was read not *to be born* [γεγενῆσθαι], as Zinus appears to have read in Euthymius, who, *because of these things, is demonstrated to have been superior to nature*, but *demonstrated to have been born* [γεγενῆσθαι ἀποδεικνύμενος], *shown to have been generated above nature*, and this is to be judged the truer reading.
Col. 47 C. *Primum adeo.* The Morell version, together with two manuscripts, provided this period and the following one, which were omitted by Hervet, and which Zinus, the interpreter of Euthymius, also recognizes, but a little later *a certain possession* [κτῆσιν τινά] is read less aptly than in the Morell, *a certain creation* [κτίσιν τινά].
Col. 51 C. *Is generaliori.* The interpreter: *He mixed a certain more generous intellectual essence with a sensible principle, as is consequent and agreeable, proceeding rightly and happily to the end.* After the following period, a significant passage occurs, produced by Theodoret against the heretics in Dialogo 3, page 128: *And this is by nature of the economy of God concerning death;* and this indeed is God’s [work] by nature, which pertains to the economy concerning death and the resurrection from the dead. From the comparison of which passage with Nyssen’s text, I am led to believe that in Theodoret for *by nature* [φύσει] one should read *of the economy* [οἰκονομίας], and in Nyssen *concerning death* [περὶ τὸν θάνατον] for *concerning man* [περὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον], insofar as the discussion here was about death and resurrection, and about these two parts, as it were, of the divine dispensation.
Col. 54 B. *Multitudo bonit.* Hervet had published, *The riches of the kindness of God have a hidden utility:* as if it offended to have written *the wealth of kindness* [ὁ πλοῦτος τῆς χρηστότητος], but both manuscripts nevertheless consistently had, as it is in David, *the multitude of his kindness* [τὸ πλῆθος τῆς χρηστότητος]. In Psalm xxx, 20: *How great is the multitude of your kindness, O Lord, which you have hidden for those who fear you!* Jerome also translates *kindness* [χρηστότητα] as *goodness* [bonitatem] from the Greek in his Commentary on the chapter to the Ephesians: *How infinite is the multitude of your goodness,* and in his Psalter from the Hebrew, *How great is your goodness;* likewise Aquila and Symmachus: *How great is your good, which you have hidden!* I judged that these should be added because of those who seek an example of the latter signification in the *Thesaurus of the Greek Language.*
Col. 55 A. *Et incruentum sacrif.* In this, the two manuscripts agree, that they read here not *sacrifice* [θυσίαν], but *priesthood* [ἱερωσύνην]. Indeed, the holy Fathers are accustomed to [call] the most holy sacrifice of the altar...