Saint Gregory of Nyssa: On "Not Three Gods"



To Ablabius.

You that are strong with all might in the inner man ought by rights to carry on the struggle against the enemies of the truth, and not to shrink from the task, that we fathers may be gladdened by the noble toil of our sons; for this is the prompting of the law of nature: but as you turn your ranks, and send against us the assaults of those darts which are hurled by the opponents of the truth, and demand that their hot burning coals and their shafts sharpened by knowledge falsely so called should be quenched with the shield of faith by us old men, we accept your command, and make ourselves an example of obedience , in order that you may yourself give us the just requital on like commands, Ablabius, noble soldier of Christ, if we should ever summon you to such a contest.

In truth, the question you propound to us is no small one, nor such that but small harm will follow if it meets with insufficient treatment. For by the force of the question, we are at first sight compelled to accept one or other of two erroneous opinions, and either to say there are three Gods, which is unlawful, or not to acknowledge the Godhead of the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is impious and absurd.

The argument which you state is something like this:— Peter, James, and John, being in one human nature, are called three men: and there is no absurdity in describing those who are united in nature, if they are more than one, by the plural number of the name derived from their nature. If, then, in the above case, custom admits this, and no one forbids us to speak of those who are two as two, or those who are more than two as three, how is it that in the case of our statements of the mysteries of the Faith, though confessing the Three Persons, and acknowledging no difference of nature between them, we are in some sense at variance with our confession, when we say that the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is one, and yet forbid men to say there are three Gods? The question is, as I said, very difficult to deal with: yet, if we should be able to find anything that may give support to the uncertainty of our mind, so that it may no longer totter and waver in this monstrous dilemma, it would be well: on the other hand, even if our reasoning be found unequal to the problem, we must keep for ever, firm and unmoved, the tradition which we received by succession from the fathers, and seek from the Lord the reason which is the advocate of our faith: and if this be found by any of those endowed with grace, we must give thanks to Him who bestowed the grace; but if not, we shall none the less, on those points which have been determined, hold our faith unchangeably.

What, then, is the reason that when we count one by one those who are exhibited to us in one nature, we ordinarily name them in the plural and speak of so many men, instead of calling them all one: while in the case of the Divine nature our doctrinal definition rejects the plurality of Gods, at once enumerating the Persons, and at the same time not admitting the plural signification? Perhaps one might seem to touch the point if he were to say (speaking offhand to straightforward people), that the definition refused to reckon Gods in any number to avoid any resemblance to the polytheism of the heathen, lest, if we too were to enumerate the Deity, not in the singular, but in the plural, as they are accustomed to do, there might be supposed to be also some community of doctrine. This answer, I say, if made to people of a more guileless spirit, might seem to be of some weight: but in the case of the others who require that one of the alternatives they propose should be established (either that we should not acknowledge the Godhead in Three Persons, or that, if we do, we should speak of those who share in the same Godhead as three), this answer is not such as to furnish any solution of the difficulty. And hence we must needs make our reply at greater length, tracing out the truth as best we may; for the question is no ordinary one.

We say, then, to begin with, that the practice of calling those who are not divided in nature by the very name of their common nature in the plural, and saying they are many men, is a customary abuse of language, and that it would be much the same thing to say they are many human natures. And the truth of this we may see from the following instance. When we address any one, we do not call him by the name of his nature, in order that no confusion may result from the community of the name, as would happen if every one of those who hear it were to think that he himself was the person addressed, because the call is made not by the proper appellation but by the common name of their nature: but we separate him from the multitude by using that name which belongs to him as his own—that, I mean, which signifies the particular subject. Thus there are many who have shared in the nature— many disciples, say, or apostles, or martyrs— but the man in them all is one; since, as has been said, the term man does not belong to the nature of the individual as such, but to that which is common. For Luke is a man, or Stephen is a man; but it does not follow that if any one is a man he is therefore Luke or Stephen: but the idea of the persons admits of that separation which is made by the peculiar attributes considered in each severally, and when they are combined is presented to us by means of number; yet their nature is one, at union in itself, and an absolutely indivisible unit, not capable of increase by addition or of diminution by subtraction, but in its essence being and continually remaining one, inseparable even though it appear in plurality, continuous, complete, and not divided with the individuals who participate in it. And as we speak of a people, or a mob, or an army, or an assembly in the singular in every case, while each of these is conceived as being in plurality, so according to the more accurate expression, man would be said to be one, even though those who are exhibited to us in the same nature make up a plurality. Thus it would be much better to correct our erroneous habit, so as no longer to extend to a plurality the name of the nature, than by our bondage to habit to transfer to our statements concerning God the error which exists in the above case. But since the correction of the habit is impracticable (for how could you persuade any one not to speak of those who are exhibited in the same nature as many men?— indeed, in every case habit is a thing hard to change), we are not so far wrong in not going contrary to the prevailing habit in the case of the lower nature, since no harm results from the mistaken use of the name: but in the case of the statement concerning the Divine nature the various use of terms is no longer so free from danger: for that which is of small account is in these subjects no longer a small matter. Therefore we must confess one God, according to the testimony of Scripture, Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord, even though the name of Godhead extends through the Holy Trinity. This I say according to the account we have given in the case of human nature, in which we have learned that it is improper to extend the name of the nature by the mark of plurality. We must, however, more carefully examine the name of Godhead, in order to obtain, by means of the significance involved in the word, some help towards clearing up the question before us.

Most men think that the word Godhead is used in a peculiar degree in respect of nature: and just as the heaven, or the sun, or any other of the constituent parts of the universe are denoted by proper names which are significant of the subjects, so they say that in the case of the Supreme and Divine nature, the word Godhead is fitly adapted to that which it represents to us, as a kind of special name. We, on the other hand, following the suggestions of Scripture, have learned that that nature is unnameable and unspeakable, and we say that every term either invented by the custom of men, or handed down to us by the Scriptures, is indeed explanatory of our conceptions of the Divine Nature , but does not include the signification of that nature itself. And it may be shown without much difficulty that this is the case. For all other terms which are used of the creation may be found, even without analysis of their origin, to be applied to the subjects accidentally, because we are content to denote the things in any way by the word applied to them so as to avoid confusion in our knowledge of the things signified. But all the terms that are employed to lead us to the knowledge of God have comprehended in them each its own meaning, and you cannot find any word among the terms especially applied to God which is without a distinct sense. Hence it is clear that by any of the terms we use the Divine nature itself is not signified, but some one of its surroundings is made known. For we say, it may be, that the Deity is incorruptible, or powerful, or whatever else we are accustomed to say of Him. But in each of these terms we find a peculiar sense, fit to be understood or asserted of the Divine nature, yet not expressing that which that nature is in its essence. For the subject, whatever it may be, is incorruptible: but our conception of incorruptibility is this—that that which is, is not resolved into decay: so, when we say that He is incorruptible, we declare what His nature does not suffer, but we do not express what that is which does not suffer corruption. Thus, again, if we say that He is the Giver of life, though we show by that appellation what He gives, we do not by that word declare what that is which gives it. And by the same reasoning we find that all else which results from the significance involved in the names expressing the Divine attributes either forbids us to conceive what we ought not to conceive of the Divine nature, or teaches us that which we ought to conceive of it, but does not include an explanation of the nature itself. Since, then, as we perceive the varied operations of the power above us, we fashion our appellations from the several operations that are known to us, and as we recognize as one of these that operation of surveying and inspection, or, as one might call it, beholding, whereby He surveys all things and overlooks them all, discerning our thoughts, and even entering by His power of contemplation into those things which are not visible, we suppose that Godhead, or θεότης, is so called from θέα, or beholding, and that He who is our θεατής or beholder, by customary use and by the instruction of the Scriptures, is called θεός, or God. Now if any one admits that to behold and to discern are the same thing, and that the God Who superintends all things, both is and is called the superintender of the universe, let him consider this operation, and judge whether it belongs to one of the Persons whom we believe in the Holy Trinity, or whether the power extends throughout the Three Persons. For if our interpretation of the term Godhead, or θεότης, is a true one, and the things which are seen are said to be beheld, or θεατά, and that which beholds them is called θεός, or God, no one of the Persons in the Trinity could reasonably be excluded from such an appellation on the ground of the sense involved in the word. For Scripture attributes the act of seeing equally to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. David says, See, O God our defender : and from this we learn that sight is a proper operation of the idea of God, so far as God is conceived, since he says, See, O God. But Jesus also sees the thoughts of those who condemn Him, and questions why by His own power He pardons the sins of men? For it says, Jesus, seeing their thoughts. And of the Holy Spirit also, Peter says to Ananias, Why has Satan filled your heart, to lie to the Holy Ghost? Acts 5:3 showing that the Holy Spirit was a true witness, aware of what Ananias had dared to do in secret, and by Whom the manifestation of the secret was made to Peter. For Ananias became a thief of his own goods, secretly, as he thought, from all men, and concealing his sin: but the Holy Spirit at the same moment was in Peter, and detected his intent, dragged down as it was to avarice, and gave to Peter from Himself the power of seeing the secret, while it is clear that He could not have done this had He not been able to behold hidden things.

But some one will say that the proof of our argument does not yet regard the question. For even if it were granted that the name of Godhead is a common name of the nature, it would not be established that we should not speak of Gods: but by these arguments, on the contrary, we are compelled to speak of Gods: for we find in the custom of mankind that not only those who are partakers in the same nature, but even any who may be of the same business, are not, when they are many, spoken of in the singular; as we speak of many orators, or surveyors, or farmers, or shoemakers, and so in all other cases. If, indeed, Godhead were an appellation of nature, it would be more proper, according to the argument laid down, to include the Three Persons in the singular number, and to speak of One God, by reason of the inseparability and indivisibility of the nature: but since it has been established by what has been said, that the term Godhead is significant of operation, and not of nature, the argument from what has been advanced seems to turn to the contrary conclusion, that we ought therefore all the more to call those three Gods who are contemplated in the same operation, as they say that one would speak of three philosophers or orators, or any other name derived from a business when those who take part in the same business are more than one.

I have taken some pains, in setting forth this view, to bring forward the reasoning on behalf of the adversaries, that our decision may be the more firmly fixed, being strengthened by the more elaborate contradictions. Let us now resume our argument.

As we have to a certain extent shown by our statement that the word Godhead is not significant of nature but of operation, perhaps one might reasonably allege as a cause why, in the case of men, those who share with one another in the same pursuits are enumerated and spoken of in the plural, while on the other hand the Deity is spoken of in the singular as one God and one Godhead, even though the Three Persons are not separated from the significance expressed by the term Godhead,— one might allege, I say, the fact that men, even if several are engaged in the same form of action, work separately each by himself at the task he has undertaken, having no participation in his individual action with others who are engaged in the same occupation. For instance, supposing the case of several rhetoricians, their pursuit, being one, has the same name in the numerous cases: but each of those who follow it works by himself, this one pleading on his own account, and that on his own account. Thus, since among men the action of each in the same pursuits is discriminated, they are properly called many, since each of them is separated from the others within his own environment, according to the special character of his operation. But in the case of the Divine nature we do not similarly learn that the Father does anything by Himself in which the Son does not work conjointly, or again that the Son has any special operation apart from the Holy Spirit; but every operation which extends from God to the Creation, and is named according to our variable conceptions of it, has its origin from the Father, and proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. For this reason the name derived from the operation is not divided with regard to the number of those who fulfil it, because the action of each concerning anything is not separate and peculiar, but whatever comes to pass, in reference either to the acts of His providence for us, or to the government and constitution of the universe, comes to pass by the action of the Three, yet what does come to pass is not three things. We may understand the meaning of this from one single instance. From Him, I say, Who is the chief source of gifts, all things which have shared in this grace have obtained their life. When we inquire, then, whence this good gift came to us, we find by the guidance of the Scriptures that it was from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yet although we set forth Three Persons and three names, we do not consider that we have had bestowed upon us three lives, one from each Person separately; but the same life is wrought in us by the Father, and prepared by the Son, and depends on the will of the Holy Spirit. Since then the Holy Trinity fulfils every operation in a manner similar to that of which I have spoken, not by separate action according to the number of the Persons, but so that there is one motion and disposition of the good will which is communicated from the Father through the Son to the Spirit (for as we do not call those whose operation gives one life three Givers of life, neither do we call those who are contemplated in one goodness three Good beings, nor speak of them in the plural by any of their other attributes); so neither can we call those who exercise this Divine and superintending power and operation towards ourselves and all creation, conjointly and inseparably, by their mutual action, three Gods. For as when we learn concerning the God of the universe, from the words of Scripture, that He judges all the earth Romans 3:6, we say that He is the Judge of all things through the Son: and again, when we hear that the Father judges no man , we do not think that the Scripture is at variance with itself—(for He Who judges all the earth does this by His Son to Whom He has committed all judgment; and everything which is done by the Only-begotten has its reference to the Father, so that He Himself is at once the Judge of all things and judges no man, by reason of His having, as we said, committed all judgment to the Son, while all the judgment of the Son is conformable to the will of the Father; and one could not properly say either that They are two judges, or that one of Them is excluded from the authority and power implied in judgment);— so also in the case of the word Godhead, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, and that very power of superintendence and beholding which we call Godhead, the Father exercises through the Only-begotten, while the Son perfects every power by the Holy Spirit, judging, as Isaiah says, by the Spirit of judgment and the Spirit of burning Isaiah 4:4, and acting by Him also, according to the saying in the Gospel which was spoken to the Jews. For He says, If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils Matthew 12:28 ; where He includes every form of doing good in a partial description, by reason of the unity of action: for the name derived from operation cannot be divided among many where the result of their mutual operation is one.

Since, then, the character of the superintending and beholding power is one, in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as has been said in our previous argument, issuing from the Father as from a spring, brought into operation by the Son, and perfecting its grace by the power of the Spirit; and since no operation is separated in respect of the Persons, being fulfilled by each individually apart from that which is joined with Him in our contemplation, but all providence, care, and superintendence of all, alike of things in the sensible creation and of those of supramundane nature, and that power which preserves the things which are, and corrects those which are amiss, and instructs those which are ordered aright, is one, and not three, being, indeed, directed by the Holy Trinity, yet not severed by a threefold division according to the number of the Persons contemplated in the Faith, so that each of the acts, contemplated by itself, should be the work of the Father alone, or of the Son peculiarly, or of the Holy Spirit separately, but while, as the Apostle says, the one and the selfsame Spirit divides His good gifts to every man severally 1 Corinthians 12:11, the motion of good proceeding from the Spirit is not without beginning—we find that the power which we conceive as preceding this motion, which is the Only-begotten God, is the maker of all things; without Him no existent thing attains to the beginning of its being: and, again, this same source of good issues from the will of the Father.

If, then, every good thing and every good name, depending on that power and purpose which is without beginning, is brought to perfection in the power of the Spirit through the Only-begotten God, without mark of time or distinction (since there is no delay, existent or conceived, in the motion of the Divine will from the Father, through the Son, to the Spirit): and if Godhead also is one of the good names and concepts, it would not be proper to divide the name into a plurality, since the unity existing in the action prevents plural enumeration. And as the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe 1 Timothy 4:10, is spoken of by the Apostle as one, and no one from this phrase argues either that the Son does not save them who believe, or that salvation is given to those who receive it without the intervention of the Spirit; but God who is over all, is the Saviour of all, while the Son works salvation by means of the grace of the Spirit, and yet they are not on this account called in Scripture three Saviours (although salvation is confessed to proceed from the Holy Trinity): so neither are they called three Gods, according to the signification assigned to the term Godhead, even though the aforesaid appellation attaches to the Holy Trinity.

It does not seem to me absolutely necessary, with a view to the present proof of our argument, to contend against those who oppose us with the assertion that we are not to conceive Godhead as an operation. For we, believing the Divine nature to be unlimited and incomprehensible, conceive no comprehension of it, but declare that the nature is to be conceived in all respects as infinite: and that which is absolutely infinite is not limited in one respect while it is left unlimited in another, but infinity is free from limitation altogether. That therefore which is without limit is surely not limited even by name. In order then to mark the constancy of our conception of infinity in the case of the Divine nature, we say that the Deity is above every name: and Godhead is a name. Now it cannot be that the same thing should at once be a name and be accounted as above every name.

But if it pleases our adversaries to say that the significance of the term is not operation, but nature, we shall fall back upon our original argument, that custom applies the name of a nature to denote multitude erroneously: since according to true reasoning neither diminution nor increase attaches to any nature, when it is contemplated in a larger or smaller number. For it is only those things which are contemplated in their individual circumscription which are enumerated by way of addition. Now this circumscription is noted by bodily appearance, and size, and place, and difference figure and colour, and that which is contemplated apart from these conditions is free from the circumscription which is formed by such categories. That which is not thus circumscribed is not enumerated, and that which is not enumerated cannot be contemplated in multitude. For we say that gold, even though it be cut into many figures, is one, and is so spoken of, but we speak of many coins or many staters, without finding any multiplication of the nature of gold by the number of staters; and for this reason we speak of gold, when it is contemplated in greater bulk, either in plate or in coin, as much, but we do not speak of it as many golds on account of the multitude of the material—except when one says there are many gold pieces (Darics, for instance, or staters), in which case it is not the material, but the pieces of money to which the significance of number applies: indeed, properly, we should not call them gold but golden.

As, then, the golden staters are many, but the gold is one, so too those who are exhibited to us severally in the nature of man, as Peter, James, and John, are many, yet the man in them is one. And although Scripture extends the word according to the plural significance, where it says men swear by the greater Hebrews 6:16, and sons of men, and in other phrases of the like sort, we must recognize that in using the custom of the prevailing form of speech, it does not lay down a law as to the propriety of using the words in one way or another, nor does it say these things by way of giving us instruction about phrases, but uses the word according to the prevailing custom, with a view only to this, that the word may be profitable to those who receive it, taking no minute care in its manner of speech about points where no harm can result from the phrases in respect of the way they are understood.

Indeed, it would be a lengthy task to set out in detail from the Scriptures those constructions which are inexactly expressed, in order to prove the statement I have made; where, however, there is a risk of injury to any part of the truth, we no longer find in Scriptural phrases any indiscriminate or indifferent use of words. For this reason Scripture admits the naming of men in the plural, because no one is by such a figure of speech led astray in his conceptions to imagine a multitude of humanities, or supposes that many human natures are indicated by the fact that the name expressive of that nature is used in the plural. But the word God it employs studiously in the singular form only, guarding against introducing the idea of different natures in the Divine essence by the plural signification of Gods. This is the cause why it says, the Lord our God is one Lord Deuteronomy 6:4, and also proclaims the Only-begotten God by the name of Godhead, without dividing the Unity into a dual signification, so as to call the Father and the Son two Gods, although each is proclaimed by the holy writers as God. The Father is God: the Son is God: and yet by the same proclamation God is One, because no difference either of nature or of operation is contemplated in the Godhead. For if (according to the idea of those who have been led astray) the nature of the Holy Trinity were diverse, the number would by consequence be extended to a plurality of Gods, being divided according to the diversity of essence in the subjects. But since the Divine, single, and unchanging nature, that it may be one, rejects all diversity in essence, it does not admit in its own case the signification of multitude; but as it is called one nature, so it is called in the singular by all its other names, God, Good, Holy, Saviour, Just, Judge, and every other Divine name conceivable: whether one says that the names refer to nature or to operation, we shall not dispute the point.

If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer—that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another—by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.

But in speaking of cause, and of the cause, we do not by these words denote nature (for no one would give the same definition of cause and of nature), but we indicate the difference in manner of existence. For when we say that one is caused, and that the other is without cause, we do not divide the nature by the word cause , but only indicate the fact that the Son does not exist without generation, nor the Father by generation: but we must needs in the first place believe that something exists, and then scrutinize the manner of existence of the object of our belief: thus the question of existence is one, and that of the mode of existence is another. To say that anything exists without generation sets forth the mode of its existence, but what exists is not indicated by this phrase. If one were to ask a husbandman about a tree, whether it were planted or had grown of itself, and he were to answer either that the tree had not been planted or that it was the result of planting, would he by that answer declare the nature of the tree? Surely not; but while saying how it exists he would leave the question of its nature obscure and unexplained. So, in the other case, when we learn that He is unbegotten, we are taught in what mode He exists, and how it is fit that we should conceive Him as existing, but what He is we do not hear in that phrase. When, therefore, we acknowledge such a distinction in the case of the Holy Trinity, as to believe that one Person is the Cause, and another is of the Cause, we can no longer be accused of confounding the definition of the Persons by the community of nature.

Thus, since on the one hand the idea of cause differentiates the Persons of the Holy Trinity, declaring that one exists without a Cause, and another is of the Cause; and since on the one hand the Divine nature is apprehended by every conception as unchangeable and undivided, for these reasons we properly declare the Godhead to be one, and God to be one, and employ in the singular all other names which express Divine attributes.

Theophany Song from Ioannina Greece

The Feast of Lights

O come and learn the wonder great, the wonder great that happened,

How Christ did condescend for mankind
and much for them did suffer.

and then went down to Jordan's brink, and into Jordan's waters,

To be baptized by John the Baptist.

"Come O my John, come hither now,
come and do thou baptize Me."

"My Lord, O no, I cannot look, cannot look on thy beauty,

Nor can I gaze upon the dove which over Thy head does hover.

My Lord! O no, I cannot touch Thee from above descended,

For the wide earth and all the heavens submit them to Thy orders."

"Come, O my John, come unto Me,
and linger thou no longer;

To this great Mystery we perform
thou shall become the sponsor."

Then John baptized his Lord forthwith that might
be cleansed and purged the sin that Adam first had sinned,

and that it might be annulled;

And to confound the enemy, to foil the thrice-accursed

Beguiler of mankind that he in hell may dwell forever.

Holy John- Prophet, Baptist, and Prodromos

Hagia Sophia

Protaton

Studenica

Theophilos

The Mysteries of Baptism & Communion

Experiencing the Mystery of the Church through Baptism and the Eucharist

Metropolitan John Zizioulas

When we say that the Church is a mode of existence, what exactly do we mean?  What does this mode of existence consist of?

The first thing I would like to point out is that the Church is a Mother, which means it gives birth to offspring; therefore,  every time someone becomes a member of the Church through Holy Baptism, what happens is that we have before us a new birth, a new identity, a new hypostasis.  There are many things that one can say about Holy Baptism, yet there are certain things that are not usually mentioned, even though they are the most essential.  Baptism entails a death and a birth; the death of the “old persona” and the birth of a new one. One might ask: What do you mean by “the old persona”?  Is it merely a moral issue, in other words, the changing and improving of a person?  And if that person’s behaviour does change, has that person become a “new person”?  Has he been “reborn”?   More often than not, that is where we stop, thus confirming the things that I mentioned at the start regarding the Protestant influence on our perception of “experiencing”.

The issue of the death of the old persona, however, is not a moral one; it is an ontological one, because the problem with our biological birth is not that it causes us to carry sin within our existence (in the words of the Psalmist:  “...and in sin my mother conceived me...” Psalm 51); it is not simply because we carry inside us what is called the original sin; it is only because all of these things translate into the fact that we are bearers of a mortal existence; we are born as mortal beings.  Thus, the life, consequently, that originates from a biological birth – from those very laws of nature and biology - will inevitably lead to death.  Therefore, the new person, the one who will be reborn, must be the one who will live eternally; who will not only possess the mortal existence that our biological birth gave us.  Through Baptism, the Church becomes a Mother that gives birth to immortal offspring, as opposed to the biological mother that gives birth to mortal offspring.

In this way, one could say that we have, during Baptism, a first experiencing of the Church. If we were to ask ourselves when we experienced the Mystery/Sacrament of the Church for the first time, the reply would be: with our Baptism.  That is when we break our ties with death, and acquire a life that is not bound to the laws of biology, the laws of death.  That is why, through Baptism, we have a radical about-face of the person, which we should not interpret in a simple, moralistic way, that is to say, as a change in behavior, since, regardless how much someone might try to change behavior, he will remain mortal.  Besides, this is why one can find persons outside the Church who albeit have mastered virtue and a change ion behavior, have not however managed to rid themselves of the bondage of death.  The about-face, therefore, which takes place during Baptism, which the candidate symbolically enacts during the moment of the exorcisms when he is turned around, from facing the West to facing the East, is the turning away from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light and life.  Thus Baptism similarly signifies a liberating from everything in the past that held the person in bondage. And even if that person is an infant and does not have any problems of moral behavior, as does an adult, Baptism constitutes a new birth for the infant as well, because it too possesses the mortality which we mentioned earlier.  If again the person is an adult, the sins of his past are all erased, thus realizing a radical about-face towards a new identity, which is no longer dependent on what that person was in the past, but only what God wants us to be, eternally.  Thus, through Baptism, we experience this about-face, this conversion from what we used to be, to that which we will be in the future.

But Baptism includes another element.  It is not only the death of the past -which is thenceforth abolished- but also the Resurrection into a new life, which new life however is expressed (and this is a very important point which is very often overlooked) with our incorporation into the Body of the Church.  There can be no Baptism, which does not automatically entail incorporation into the Body of the Church.  When the Apostle Paul wrote that with Baptism, we die together with Christ and we are resurrected so that we might be incorporated into Christ’s Body – which is in practice translated as our incorporation into the Community of the Church – it means that the associations that now govern our existence are no longer biological ones, the ones we acquired during our first birth, but are now Ecclesiological associations – the ones that are given to us by the Church.  Characteristically, let us remember the words that are repeatedly mentioned in the holy Gospels as an exhortation by the Lord, that your father is no longer the father of your family; it is the One “who is in the heavens”, and also «Ye shall call no-one on earth your father, for one is thy Father, the one in the heavens» (Matthew 23:9).  All of these sprang from the Baptismal experience, the experience of henceforth belonging within a new framework of relations, which is not the biological one.  It is from there, that the faithful now acquires his hypostasis, his personal identity.

Let us insert a parenthesis here, of a liturgical nature.  For us Orthodox, it is of vital importance to insist that Baptism, the Chrism and the Divine Eucharist constitute a unified and inseparable liturgical unity, whereas in the West (for both Roman Catholics and Protestants), these three Sacraments have been liturgically separated, and there is an intervening time between the Baptism, the Chrism and the Divine Eucharist, on various experiential pretexts, in the personal sense of experience (i.e., the child has to grow up so that it can fully comprehend matters, and then proceed to the Sacrament).  For us, this kind of criteria does not apply.  On the contrary, our criterion is that we undergo an ontological change; that a person must enter a new relationship with the world.  One cannot be baptized and yet distance himself from experiencing the Community of the Church; this is why Baptism simultaneously signifies a placement within the Community of the Church and participation in the Divine Eucharist.  The fact that nowadays Baptisms take place apart from the Divine Eucharist, or, the Divine Eucharist is given to a newly-baptized person individually and outside the Community, is observed only in an emergency situation, which at least preserves the unity of the Three Sacraments.  At any rate, the proper way is to perform Baptism during the Divine Eucharist, so that the Community can receive its new member immediately, and it is in fact received, as a member of the Church.

Experiencing the Sacrament of the Church through the Eucharist

Apart from the Baptism, according to what we have said so far, the Church is experienced as a foretaste of the Kingdom of God; in other words, as the kinds of relations that provide life, not death, because –we must not forget- death is ingrained in the biological birth of man.  On the contrary, ingrained in the new birth of man through Baptism is life, and this is provided by the Divine Eucharist; because it is not possible for the one who experiences the Church as a Baptismal reality to not experience it immediately as a Eucharist reality also.  What is important with regard to the Eucharist experience of the Church is that man now enters into a relationship with others and the world in general, with Christ at its center.  The Church has, at Her center, the Body of Him Who overcame death, and this victory over death that the risen Christ possesses is the same victory from whence life springs, for all members of the Church.  This Christ-centeredness of the Divine Eucharist is what makes it differ from every other experience that the faithful (or people in general) may have.  There is nothing so Christ-centered, as the Divine Eucharist. There is no other experience that the faithful can have, which is so directly associated to the corporeal presence of the risen Christ.

The other important element in the experience of the Divine Eucharist is that it makes the association of man with God an association that passes through the others. One can easily create a relationship with God, in which one’s neighbor is set aside. This is a dangerous situation, which can easily occur outside the Eucharist experience.  However, even within the Eucharist experience, one quite often can observe the infiltration of a pietistic individualism, where one can see a member of the faithful going to the Divine Liturgy and isolating itself from the rest of the Church Body, on the pretext of praying better alone – which is something they could have done far better, at home.  We do not go to the Divine Liturgy to pray as individuals; we go to pray along with the others, as a Community.  We must therefore be constantly aware that the one seated next to us is also a member of the same Body, and that it is through our relationship with our neighbor that we communicate with God.

However, the Eucharist experience has yet another characteristic:  it is an experience of hierarchy. It is reflected in the existence of various functions, each of which is a pre-designation of End Times events, of the Kingdom of God, in a manner that differs and cannot be repeated by another function.  This variety of functions differentiates the functions within the Church and everything is performed in the way that the Apostle Paul perceived, as seen in his 1st Epistle to Corinthians, in chapter 12, (which is a very significant ecclesiological chapter), where he analyzes the meaning of “the Body of the Church”.   He says there that the body is comprised of the head, the arms, the legs, each of which has a specific function, that no other member can perform.  That is why it is imperative that all members of the body acknowledge the others’ significance, as well as the particularity that each member has.

Man, therefore, experiences the End of Time, the Kingdom of God, during the Divine Eucharist, where, by having this image of End Times that is enacted by the Divine Liturgy – and especially by the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, which, more than any other Eucharist liturgy portrays the future situation, the Kingdom of God – that is when he experiences the Kingdom of God within the Divine Liturgy, like a revelation of the future status of things.

This is why we Orthodox experience the Church in ways that often scandalize the heterodox.  For example, our Church and our Divine Eucharist have an exceptional splendor:  there is an excess of light, there are spectacular vestments, wonderful chanting, beautiful icons, rich colours... All of these aspire to one purpose: to portray the Kingdom of God for us, and to inspire us to pray.  It is therefore a gross mistake when, for various reasons (quite often because of a warped humility and supposed simplicity) we simplify all these things, thus depriving the Divine Liturgy of the splendor that the Church attributed to the Divine Eucharist through the ages.  Thus, by experiencing the Divine Eucharist as a Christ-centered Congregation and a portrayal of the Kingdom of God, or, in other words, the congregating of everyone around the Person of Christ, the Orthodox faithful acquires a special appreciation, respect and reverence towards the officiators of the Church, towards those who are portraying the End Times, and moreso, towards those who portray the Person of Christ, i.e. the Bishop, who is the par excellence Head of the Eucharist Congregation.  I believe that this tradition of our people, of bestowing special respect to the officiators of the Church, especially to the Bishop, the Priests and of course the Deacons, is an essential part of what we call “experiencing the sacrament of the Church”, and it is something that should be taught to the children and to all the members of the Church, as an essential element of our faith.

Conclusions

In closing, I would like to mention in summary and in conclusion certain specific ways in which we Orthodox experience the Mystery/Sacrament of the Church:

1)  From what we said, it has become apparent that the Church is experienced by means of the Sacraments par excellence, and chiefly through Baptism and the Divine Eucharist. The other Sacraments constitute extensions of the Divine Eucharist, and ritualistically, ever since the ancient Church, they were united with the Divine Eucharist.

2)  The Church is experienced as the place of catharsis from our passions, which have their roots in the egoism and the delusion that the true life is the biological life, along with whatever that entails. All passions have the same characteristics. Thus, it is inside the Church that man is cured of his passions; he is cured in a positive way, and not merely by ridding himself of those passions, but by substituting them with loving experiences, or, as Saint Maximus the Confessor called it “a loving relationship”.  And the Church is, after all, a mode of existence, precisely because it is the Sacrament of Love – the Sacrament in which we experience in a positive manner our freedom from passions.

3) The experiencing of the Mystery/Sacrament of the Church, albeit taking place within the Sacraments, also extends itself beyond the Sacraments, into the life of the faithful beyond the Sacraments, in his relations with others, in his relations with the material world.   In view of the fact that the Sacraments –as we mentioned above- are a portrayal of the Kingdom of God, we transfer this portrayal and make it a permanent criterion in our lives; every action, every decision, every act in our lives is now compared against this portrayal of the future status, of the Kingdom of God, thus creating –one could say- a consciousness of our inadequacy to relate this portrayal that the Sacraments offer, to the reality of our everyday life.  It is this realization of the conflict between what we are offered by the Sacraments and what we are in our everyday life that generates the experience of repentance; and it is precisely this repentance that keeps us always in the correct relationship with the Church, because the Church is comprised of sinners, of unrepentant souls, however difficult it might be for one to comprehend this.  Thus, this conflict leads us to true repentance and humiliation, and in this way, the Sacrament of the Church is experienced as the Sacrament of Repentance, of sincere repentance.  Because, we are aware that everyone, without exception, some more and some less, have failed to relate the portrayal and the experience of the Sacraments to our everyday life and subsequently, we do not judge others, we do not condemn them, instead, we repent, and we love with humility.  We should look upon these things, not as commandments (although they definitely are), but mainly as the consequences of the experience that we draw from the Sacraments of the Church.  The Sacraments of the Church reveal the eschatological, the ideal, thus providing the criterion by which we should judge our daily life.  In this way, the Church is experienced at every moment as a liberation from falsity, fraud, self-deception, egoism, individualism and finally, corruption and death. And this presupposes the faithful to struggle perpetually, to be perpetually alert.

These are a few thoughts regarding the way in which the Mystery/Sacrament of the Church is experienced. This experiencing of the Mystery of the Church is of course a vast topic, and, just like any other topic of this kind, it requires an analogous empirical status in order for one to comprehend it correctly.  But I believe that the experience that we should always rely on, when teaching every faithful member of the Church, is the one that all the faithful are familiar with, from their experience of the sacraments.  I am not saying that we all more or less know what we are speaking of, when we speak of these things;  As Saint Nicholas Kavasilas writes, “the Church is defined by the Sacraments” (Nicholas Kavasilas, “Interpretation on the Divine Liturgy”, chapter 38:6)

Consequently, the Sacraments are the best means by which the Mystery of the Church can be experienced, not only during the actual performance of the rituals, but also beyond, in our daily lives.

Translation by A.N.

source: http://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/bapt_efx1.htm

A Eulogy for St. Basil by St. Gregory of Nyssa

In a wonder manner God has established an order [taxis] and sequence [akolouthia] by the feasts we commemorate each year. For example, today we have already celebrated a feast and will mark this same observance at a later time. Our order of spiritual feasts which the great Paul has taught consists in having a knowledge of heavenly reality [cf. 1Cor 12.28, Eph 4.11]. He says that at the beginning the Apostles enjoyed an order which formed [M.789] prophets together with shepherds and teachers. The order of yearly celebrations concurs with this apostolic sequence. However, the first [order] does not concur with the others because the Only-Begotten Son's theophany through his birth from a virgin is instituted in the world not simply as a holy feast but as the holy of holies and feast of feasts. Therefore let us number those who follow this order which for us begins with the assembly of apostles and prophets. Indeed people like Stephen, Peter, James, John and Paul possess the apostolic and prophetic spirit after whom comes the pastor and teacher [didaskalos, Basil] who belongs to their order [J.110] which marks our present celebration. What, then, is this festival? Shall I speak of the name or the grace which suffices to reveal the man instead of the name? You know that there is a teacher and shepherd among the Apostles and comprehend the meaning of such titles. I am speaking about Basil, the vessel of election [cf. Acts 9.15], noted for his honorable life and preaching; from birth he was pleasing to God, possessed a venerable demeanor from youth, was instructed like Moses in all wisdom [cf. Acts 7.20 & 22], was nourished in sacred letters from his adolescence to manhood and continued to flourish and blossom. He instructed everyone in both divine and secular wisdom. As a brave, experienced man armed against adversaries with every kind of training, he defeated them through both disciplines, was victorious in each, confronted those who resisted the truth and who put forth writings of a heretical nature from Scripture, that is, a blending of Greek teaching with their own. Victory against such adversaries did not bring about their downfall but the resurrection; those vanquished by the truth are victorious and crowned against falsehood.

We are enjoying this present celebration which honors a genuine interpreter of the Spirit, a brave soldier of Christ [cf. 2Tim 2.3]. He who enjoys only second place with the Apostles loudly proclaims salvation and his forthright manner of speech contests on Christ's behalf. If Basil lived at the same time as Paul he would enjoy the same eminence as Sylvanus and Timothy. Furthermore, the following observation would not be far from the truth as we [J.111] understand it: the blessing of the saints is present in time. Time admits no distinction whether it is past or future when it is a question of virtue and evil; neither is it the same nor different because the good consists [M.792] in choice, not in time. But let us seek what belong to matters of faith and as well as reason. When the just man compares those wonders set before him, he will find one gift in both which belongs to the same spirit according to the analogy of faith [cf. Rom 12.6]. If we honor Paul who lived in the past and and Basil who lived many generations later, you can say that God's providence on our behalf is responsible and that both are not inferior in the order of virtue. For example, we have Moses, and much later Abraham; Samuel followed Moses and then Elias; next we have John [cf. Mt 11.11], Paul and finally Basil. Just as in former times there is no room for second place when it is a question of the saints who gave glory to God, so now let us be silent when it is question of virtue and a privileged place in time.

Our words bear testimony that God shows his providence on our behalf. As the prophet says, he [God] knew all things before they came into existence [Dan 13.43] and took into consideration the devil's wickedness which took root in the human race. [God] offered a remedy for illness in each and every age so that mens' sickness might not go unhealed and that this remedy might not be absent by which he wishes to support the human race. For example, when Chaldean philosophy prevailed, persons who determined the cause of beings by the stars' movement did not take into consideration the creative power of beings which transcended them [J.112]. Then Abraham, by using discipline as though it were a ladder, inquired into that which lies behind visible reality. By faith he contemplated the true God, directed his attention by forsaking his false native country [cf. Gen 12.1] and the relationship of sensible things to visible creation. I believe that we should consider the spirit and knowledge of Egyptians wizardry which cleverly deceived souls; Moses was certainly familiar with it yet his superior wisdom was able to destroy the Egyptians' false wisdom. Indeed Moses knew their cunning to which Scripture testifies because his power surpassed their treacherous witchcraft, and he destroyed the Egyptian cavalry by divine signs which came from above. You are acquainted with this through other examples and by the symbol of the rod [cf. Ex 7.9-12,15,17,19]. With the advance of time the Israelites were leaderless and committed a grievous error by uniting themselves with the local population. When Samuel was alive, he remained obedient and warded off any transaction with alien tribes. In the confused situation of that time the people opted for a king and he assembled the tribes with the intention of electing one.

[M.793] After many years Ahab and his wife [Jezebel] who had been taken captive, abolished the patriarchal decrees [cf. 1Kg 16.29+]; he was under his wife's control, fond of luxury, captive to her fraudulent practice of idolatry and caused the Israelites to apostatize. At this time God manifested Elijah who offered an antidote for their great illness. He neglected [J.113] to care for his body, kept his face unwashed and had a full head of unkempt hair which was in accord with his lifestyle. His countenance was venerable yet gloomy; he had thick eyelids and a cloak made of goatskin which was more becoming in that it offered bodily protection and provided shelter from heat and cold. When famine afflicted the people, [Elijah] used the opportunity to chastise Israel by striking their insolence, as it were, with a staff after which he cured the disease of idolatry by divine fire at the sacrifice.

Considerably later there appeared "in the spirit and power of Elijah" [Lk 1.17] through Zachary and Elizabeth one [John the Baptist] dwelling alone who summed all people in the desert through his proclamation. At that time the entire population was subject to judgment because they had shed the prophets' blood, a despicable act replete with every kind of defilement. [John] abolished this by preaching repentance and showered them with water of the Jordan by which he showed the way and confirmed divine power in them by an abundance of virtue.

At a later time what hindered Paul from attaining the highest degree of advancement [prokope] with regard to God [cf. Acts 9.18]? Did he not immediately become a lover of divine beauty once the scales fell off his eyes, a symbol of an enshrouded heart which cloaked and blinded the Jews' souls, and prepared the truth for them? Was it not a mystical cleansing which washed away his ignorance and filth of deception, having at once transformed him to a more divine state? [Paul] then put off this [J.114] crass, fleshly covering and was received into the heavenly chambers. Not being hindered by the body's weight and planted within that celestial paradise where he underwent an unutterable initiation by truth, [Paul] received the ability to speak about "the obedience of faith among the nations" [Rom 1.5]. In a short time he became a father of the entire world through spiritual afflictions, having been formed according to Christ into piety [cf. 1Cor 4.15]. If the progress of other holy persons in the spiritual sphere transcends time, then grace is clearly at work here. Perhaps we should now pay attention to a man of our own race, a great vessel of election, Basil, who is numbered among the saints. The passage of time has nothing to do with that sublime desire for God nor does it hinder the perfection of divine grace; time does not sabotage the goal of God's dispensation but contributes to an understanding of the mystery. Indeed no one is unfamiliar with the protection our teacher shows us at this time.

The preaching of Christ quenches mankind's vain idolatry and the proclamation of true religion enters the entire world which had already fallen into ruin so that Christ's name banishes from the world human deception which has held sway everywhere. The cunning inventor of evil [J.115] does not lack wicked intent by subjecting humanity to himself through his craftiness. Under the pretense of Christianity his own duplicity imperceptibly re-introduces through persuasive words accomplices who look to him that they might not reject creation; rather, they worship and honor it and consider God a created thing who assumed the name of a son. But if creation sprang from things which did not exist and the divine essence is alien to it, no one can correct this mistaken opinion except the name of Christ which creation adores [cf. Heb 11.3], serves, has salvation through hope and awaits judgment.

All human apostasy allows for evil, and people certainly have it in abundance. By this I mean Arius, Aetius and Eudoxius who induced many others to engage in idolatrous worship. As it is said, they are set against Christianity and afflict men with ailments who worship creation instead of the Creator [cf. Rom 1.25]. By the help of rulers their fraud is confirmed and every respectable leader is won over by such a disease. When people had fallen under the sway of such changes, a short time later God reveals the great Basil in the same way as Elijah with regard to Ahab; the priesthood had already collapsed but was taken up again as a light which illumined the faith through indwelling grace. Just as a torch shines at night for those wandering lost on the sea, so does the entire Church turn [J.116] to the right way and becomes united with her leaders, struggles with military commanders, speaks boldly [M.797] before rulers, cries out to the churches which are far off in imitation of Paul who is present by his letters and who flees conflict when he is not equal to the strength of his adversaries. He publically declared his hope for the kingdom which was far superior than what was proclaimed and obtained through his banishment one fatherland for his people while considering the entire earth as a form of banishment. Should he who died daily and always expended himself freely through death then fear death as destruction wrought by enemies? He whose misfortune cannot always imitate the martyrs' struggles on behalf of the truth has been united to one and the same death. His heart [literally, "liver"] began to erupt from his intestines when overcome with fright at some threat and scoffed it by saying "I give thanks to you whose will I am doing." For not without good reason is the heart located in the intestines; when you cast it out in a threatening situation, you are liberated from the contemptible body.

Is there anything which detracts from such a repute with regard to divine matters when compared with the other saints? Is the celebration inferior in comparison with the rest of the saints' festivals? Compare, if you will, one life with those who are holy. Paul loved God. Love is certainly the highest good from which is derived faith, hope, patient expectation, stability in every type of splendor and abundance in every spiritual gift [cf. Rom 8.25]. But let us examine Paul's measure with regard to love of God. Indeed you [J.117] ask whether it involves one's entire heart, soul and mind; it is a law equal only to God's unbounded love [cf. Dt 6.5; Mt 22.37-8]. Therefore he who fixes one's entire heart, soul and mind upon God and seeks nothing with regard to this life focuses his attention upon the unlimited bound of love. If anyone points out that the teacher concerns himself with anything of this world, that is, wealth, power, desire for empty glory (it is inappropriate to attribute such servile tendencies of pleasure to him), and should anyone discover such inclinations, they pose a clear threaten to love for God because the measure of desire has now been reduced from God to material things. But the enemy makes war against these and similar qualities; he banishes all feeling with regard to them and anything a person may hold as primary in one's life; [Basil] then [M.800] purifies the life we all hold in common by his teaching and personal example.

Clearly the best advantage for [human] nature is to have the measure of love for God in oneself. How can a person who loves God with his whole heart, soul and mind achieve a greater love? He simply cannot do it. If we have taught that love has one goal, namely, to love God with one's whole heart, Paul and Basil had loved God with their whole hearts, and one measure of love common to both would certainly not be a departure from the truth [cf. 1Cor 13.1-13]. But the Apostle says that love is greater than all good things, a fact which concurs with the admirable words of the Gospel; [J.118] he also says [love] is superior to prophecy and knowledge, firmer than faith, more durable than hope and always constant without which all our striving towards the good would be meaningless. The Lord says that every law and prophecy concerning the divine mystery hangs upon love and that it enjoys primacy among every benefit [cf. Mt 22.35-40]. If the great Paul is not inferior with regard to the excellence and preeminence of what has been established, then love directs and gives birth to everything else and by no means should be considered as inferior. Just as human nature shares in everything proper to its nature, so perfect love in oneself comprehends and sees everything; it has the shape of good qualities conformed to this prototype. Whether faith saves or whether we are saved through faith or await grace through patience, "love believes all things and hopes all things" as the Apostle says [1Cor 13.7]. We lack the time to examine every detail, but the fruit of love which is also the root is love itself which hastens to virtue, and nothing is lacking when in when we possess it.

The great Basil possessed this and lacked no good; if he has everything, indeed he is inferior to nothing. But another [Paul] speaks of when he was in the third heaven, was snatched away into paradise and heard unutterable things which no man could speak [cf. 2Cor 12.2-4]. Clearly flesh could not [J.119] receive such a favor, and [Paul] does not conceal his doubt: "I do not know whether I was in the body or outside the body; God knows." Should anyone dare to speak of this because he knows nothing according to the body, the invisible does not admit any such statement by reason of a contemplation which is incorporeal and [M.801] intellectual. [Paul's] writings were a testimony to these occurances. He had travelled from Jerusalem to Illyricum while preaching the Gospel in their midst [Rom 15.19] because it is necessary that Paul's message for which he was so zealous to be proclaimed throughout the entire world. We can omit further details about his life, that is, when he was crucified to the world and was powerful in weakness [cf. Gal 6.14]. Christ was the life of both men and death was their gain; to be dissolved in the Lord was more honorable than a fraudulent type of life [cf. 2Cor 12.9].

Can we compare John to the master [Basil]? He was first among those born of women and was endowed with something more excellent than prophecy, a fact which would be considered insane and impious should we compare his life with another person [Mt 11.9 & 11]. But [J.120] consideration of one man with another demonstrates a form of supreme blessedness. In this light, let us then continue with our remarks. John was not clothed in soft garments nor was the reed shaken by the wind; he prefers the desert to inhabited places and prefers to frequent such regions [cf. Mt 11.7-8]. If truth bears witness to our teacher, should we not consider him inferior to the great John when taking this observation into consideration? Who is unfamiliar of how he railed against every type of delicate, soft manner of life? In all things he pursued more difficult, strenuous work instead of pleasures: the sun's heat, cold, corporeal discipline by fasts and self-control, dwelling in cities as in a desert (nothing of life's circumstances has caused him harm) and making cities out of deserts. He did not allow his circumspect, stable mode of life to be disturbed nor on those occasions when he withdrew into solitude, was he stripped of what is considered necessary so that just as with Baptist's life, the desert became a city and attracted many people. He was not a reed easily inclined to contrary opinions but his life demonstrated that opinions did not move him. Right from the beginning he delighted in poverty, and his judgement became an unshakable rock. He desired to draw near to God through purity; his desire was a mountain, not a reed never bent to the hostile winds of temptations.

The Apostle alone was constant in [J.121] the love of God through his own words because neither life, death, anything present or to come, let alone anything created, could separate his heart from love of God [cf. Rom 8.38-9]. He evaluated himself in many ways according to virtue and in no way was his mind like an unstable reed; rather, it always remained immovable in what was beautiful. John freely spoke [M.804] to Herod, and [Basil] to Valens. Let us now compare each man's dignity. [John] lived in Palestine which was under Roman rule whose domain extended from the beginning of the sun's course in Persia to Britain and reached the furthest expanse of Oceanus⁽²⁶⁾. [John's] courage before Herod was not directed at his transgression against a certain woman but he chastised his desire as unlawful [Mt 14.4]. On the other hand, what was essence of the teacher's boldness with regard to Valens? If the faith is safe and not polluted, the transgression shows that the entire earth is guilty. Therefore by close examination let the just man rebut the authority of deeds by his own authority and the object of boldness with his own boldness. In this light the abomination girding Herod's body is a transgression of faith which offends human nature in its entirety. He persevered in boldness unto death and was banished because of it when the emperor imposed the punishment of a death sentence. However, John was believed to live after death, and Basil's enemies [J.122] allowed him to return from exile once the threat levelled against him was retracted.

Do we dare to proceed further by speaking of the exalted Elijah and to show that our teacher resembles him? But [Elijah] was whisked away in a fiery chariot, conduced by fiery horses and transported to the transcendent realm above [cf. 2Kg 2.11]. Let no one demand that human nature (it cannot remain unharmed in the midst of fire; divine power transports it above to that weightless realm from what is both heavy and earthly) can shut out by its own words heavenly support and close it again by its authority when it appears the right thing to do. For a considerable period of time he went without food except rye baked in ashes and conserved his strength for forty days [cf. 1Kg 19.6-8]. Let us move on from this example because it transcends human strength and human nature finds it difficult to imitate. Let us be silent about that small jar of flour and jug of oil, surmising only that it is crucial for sustenance; it supplied food throughout the famine which continued for three years and six months [cf. 1Kg 12-16, 18.1]. Power from above performs wonders according to its own way, and no one should attribute such wonders to human nature.

[M.805] What do the prophet's miracles and those of our teacher have in common? Both were zealous for the faith, abhorred [J.123] those who act contemptuously, loved God, desired Him who truly exists--not material things--and scrutinized everything. [Basil] also had a countenance which revealed his soul's intensity, possessed a simple dignity, had a silence more efficacious than words, esteemed everyone whether impressive in dignity or humble and manifested indifference to everyone. By such qualities the teacher imitated Elijah's miracles. Should anyone offer the example of a forty days fast, we can say that our teacher fasted throughout his entire life. His abstinence from food which lasted for a short time resembles [Basil's] which extended his entire life. On the other hand, that rye baked in ashes fortified the prophet for awhile whereas [Basil's] constitution could subsist on food which he had consumed beforehand. This is a sign because no person related to him can prepare food; rather, he is nourished by angels who bestowed satiety to the body by the food they provided. Thus when no innovation intervenes reason manages the measure of food and allows it to nourish the body; it does not follow the whim's of nature but the law of temperance.

The teacher's priesthood imitates in a mysterious fashion the prophet's in a three-fold [J.124] manner by faith when the heavenly fire illumines the sacrifices: Scripture has taught us in many places that fire is the Holy Spirit's power. The teacher neither relieved the earth from famine nor caused it. The great prophet called down a plague of drought upon the earth, and the cure of this wound was equal to the plague's grief by having banished it by a cure [cf. 1Kg 17.1, 18.1]. Should it be necessary to present any miracle of Elijah, then consider that the divine will threatened to bring misfortune, the drought lasted throughout the winter and fruit failed to blossom. The master supplicated God while the fear of threat remained and besought God with prayers; he implored relief from drought in order to ease sorrow. Although the great Elijah brought comfort in famine for one widow, our own age has a similar example in the teacher. When the famine was severe in the city in which [Basil] happened to be present and the entire region was afflicted, he sold his possessions and [M.808] exchanged money for food which was scare. Having prepared a great amount of food and set a table, [Basil] took into consideration the people who came from everywhere during the time of famine; this included the young people of the city and the Jews who equally shared his generosity. Indeed the only requirement was to fill the divine commandment through the jar or through any other occasion. He did not inquire into the source of consolation for those in need [J.125] but attended to the situation at hand. Elijah's ascent by means of fire transcends anything we can say. However, he did not disdain the other earthly form which was taken on high when it was glorified by heaven's lofty citizenship which the Spirit opens up by the chariot of virtues. Everything which the teacher has done well concurs with our remarks.

Is it necessary to speak boldly about Samuel? Yet in all things we attribute primacy to the prophet when mentioning two traits which also pertain to our teacher. The divine favor was present at both their births [cf. 1Kg 1.11, 20], for just as the mother of each was essential in this regard, so were their respective fathers. When a deadly illness gripped [Basil] during childhood, his father saw in a vision during sleep the Lord who in the Gospel bestowed the child to his care by saying "Go, your son lives" [Jn 4.50]. Imitating such faith, he perceived the fruit by faith which enabled his son to receive salvation from the Lord's love. Not only do we attribute one miracle to Samuel but another when both men zealously pursued the priesthood; both offered sacrifices of reconciliation to God for their enemies who sought destruction and for the defeat of heresies which alien tribes had adopted.

We have the example of the great Moses for every person [J.126] fond of virtue, and not would be wrong to consider his example as a lawgiver which was directed to this end. Therefore no one should show any trace of jealousy with regard to our teacher whose life imitated the lawgiver's. What do we mean? An Egyptian princess adopted Moses and raised him; she did not refuse her breasts for nourishment until [M.809] he attained childhood [cf. Ex 2.5-11]. This truth also pertains to the teacher: having been nursed by pagan wisdom, he he always grasped the Church's breast which enabled his soul to grow by doctrine and to keep it secure. Like Moses, he did not adhere to his mother's false teaching with which he was raised, nor did he pay this much consideration due his ashamed by it. Having shaken off the glory of all pagan learning, [Basil] was like a king; he adopted a humble life in the same way Moses preferred the Hebrews to Egyptian treasures. Although human nature in each man acted according to its respective role (for the flesh of each lusted against the Spirit, cf. Gal 5.17), [Moses] was not expert at the rational combat of the Egyptian whom he killed; rather, by fighting for something better he put to death that which was evil for the Hebrew. The Hebrew reasoning power had been purified and is uncontaminated. By mortifying his members on earth [Basil] imitates in soul the valor of Moses' combat which was effective against the Egyptian. We must pass over much of the historical account and not faithfully explain every detail which [J.127] pertains to Moses; the same applies to the teacher. Moses left Egypt after the Egyptian's death and dwelt alone for a long time [cf. Ex 2.11-15]. He forsook the city's tumult and the clamor of material attractions and engaged in divine philosophy in solitude. [Moses] was illumined by the bush [cf. Ex 3.2-5]. We may draw a comparison with his vision: at night [Basil] was illumined while at prayer in his house; an immaterial light filled the house by divine power which had no material source. Moses saves the people from the tyrant; this people testifies on our teacher's behalf who lead them through his priesthood to God's promise.

What need is there to speak of each detail, for example, when [Moses] lead the people through water, carried the torch of a column of fire by his words to many, saved them by the cloud of the Spirit and nourished them with heavenly food? How did he open the water with wood, a figure of the cross, when he touched it with his mouth? How did he give water to drink, imitating by its abundance the abyss' torrents, the tent of witness and the space in front of it which he had designed? [Moses] presented a fine teaching to the poor by his body, the poor in spirit [cf. Mt 5.3], that they might obtain [J.128] blessed poverty which bestows the grace of the true kingdom. For each soul he made as dwelling [M.812] the true tent inhabited by God by preaching and prepared in himself certain pillars (I mean rational pillars which support virtue's labor) and lavers to wash the soul of defilements and to cleanse the filth in their eyes. How many lampstands did he place in each soul by his preaching which illumined the darkness? He arranged thuribles for prayer and altars from pure, genuine gold, that is, from a true, pure disposition whose splendor the heavy, vain lead has dimmed. Why should I speak of the mystical ark whose tablets of the covenant the divine finger has written on each soul? I believe that careful attention to these matters shows that [God] made each person's heart an ark bearing the spiritual mysteries and has the law written through deeds by the Spirit's work (for this is the meaning of God's finger). It contains the ark of the priesthood which always brings forth fruit through participation in sacrifices and the jar which never lacks manna. The vessel of the soul did not contain heavenly food when sin hindered the flow of manna (manna is the heavenly bread). What need is there to speak in detail of the priestly stole [J.129] by which he adorned other persons through his own example? He always bore on his breast the ornament on which was written a name, inscription, manifestation and truth.

All these examples allow for a more careful exploration which figuratively signify how the teacher [Basil] was adorned and shared this same adornment with others. We know that he often entered the darkness where God resided [cf. Ex 20.21]. To other persons the mystagogy of the Spirit was made visible which was unseen and appeared within the darkness' embrace which concealed the word concerning God. Often he opposed the Amelekites by the shield of prayer. The true Jesus [Joshua] defeated the enemy by extending his hands [cf. Ex 17.8-14]. He abolished Balaam's numerous divinizations [cf. Num 22-4] which were not in accord with the true word; rather, persuaded by the empty teaching of demons, they were ineffectual against evil once the teacher's prayer changed a curse into blessing. We hastily mention these examples by way of recapitulation. The person unfamiliar with the saint's life accommodated to the truth his individual deeds and the effects of the enchantments; the teacher's faith brought an end to the evil wrought by sorcery because they were ineffective against persons who did not subscribe to them. But leaving aside all the accomplishments which each man had done, allow me to recall both. Each departed life and did not leave behind [M.813] a memorial of his bodily existence. Neither was Moses' tomb found nor was he encompassed by material wealth; [J.130] rather, upon his death he left behind no evidence of wealth which is usually the custom such as a burial mound, a sign of prosperity. History bears witness to this with regard to Moses, and his grave cannot be found even in our day [cf. Dt 34.5-6].

If we apply these observations to the distinguished Basil so that his life might not be distant when compared with persons of greatness, the sequence of feasts wonderfully now makes his festival present. It would be fitting to recall the noteworthy comments made concerning each man and to see how the appropriate arrangement of the saint's feastday allows us to celebrate it. Who can attribute the most suitable type of praise and tribute to him? I mean his fatherland, race, parental training, the education which made him grow in every area and strengthened him, thereby making him notable and renowned. But the greatness of all his visible attributes is to be spurned because such achievement results in the opposite; his strength does not consist in words which laud his great achievement and dignity. In order not to reject the inability to sing his praises and not to diminish his glory by praise, it would be better to remain silent rather to increase [J.131] admiration than to diminish praise through speech. What words can bestow more honor upon him? Who now is not familiar with this great man's physical integrity? He resisted it as though he had taken someone captive and always kept it chained by thoughts, was not beaten down by evil passions, whipped into mastery and tortured that servile body like a relentless master who gives no rest to a prisoner. In light of this it would be absurd to glorify anything related to the flesh through a noble birth. How can it bestow honor when [his] manner of life brings shame upon it? In the same way memory of one's genealogy is spurned together with lineage. Every type of sensible element constricts the person who exalts himself above the entire world because it prevents his elevation above heaven; instead, his attention is focused upon the soul and transcending the sensible world; he always strives to possess divine virtues with his thoughts and to be familiar with them, allowing his mind to be unimpeded by anything corporeal.

When would he have the time to name a [M.816] part of the earth after himself and be affiliated with honor through a particular location's value? He would be arrogant and undeserving of true praise if consumed by water, plants and clods of earth instead of true virtue which alone is the object of admiration. Truly every asset is not a result of free choice; even if such an attribute is especially lovely it bestows [J.132] no honor in accord with its nature. Therefore let us be silent with regard to ancestry, descent and similar things which pertain to natural circumstances. Should anyone bring to mind his ancestry and noble descent, this persons does so by his own free consent. What is the nature of Basil's nobility and ancestry? His race, familiarity with God and virtue are his fatherland. As the Gospel says [cf. Jn 1.12], the person who has received God also has the power to become a child of God. What more noble birthright is there with regard to God? He who is in virtue and has accrued it indeed makes it his own ancestry in which he flourishes. Discretion was his home, wisdom his possession, righteousness and truth and purity his lamp, and an conspicuous beauty which adorns the house proclaims the inhabitant instead of those persons who take pride in homes adorned with marble and gold. Should anyone honor such an ancestry and celebrate this descent, he will transform into praise anything which had been bestowed upon him. Earth, blood, flesh, wealth, dynasty and those wishing to testify by such splendors belong [literally, "are friends"] to the earth.

Should there be no room to accommodate praise to our remarks, [Basil] would decline such matters of attention and reject our skill. How can we recall him--if anyone should ask--if we do not mention his praises? How is the law [J.133] fulfilled which, as Moses says, obliges us to praise the just man [cf. Prov 10.7] if true praises are inadequate and are insulting and quite unremarkable? However, he lacks no praise even if our is unfruitful. What, then, is our intent? Who does not realize that any mention of deeds yoked to vanity is completely useless? Since deeds spoken are manifest in substance and truth, praise of speech which is fulfilled through deeds would be more honorable. What do I mean? That recalling his life improves our [M.817] mode of living. For just as a carving instrument used by the hand manifests a certain beautiful form, a seal impressed upon wax transforms its innate beauty through sculpting; it alters the seal's character, having received the impression by its own form (no one could represent through speech the attractive beauty of carving which shows the beauty formed in wax). Similarly, if anyone praises the teacher's virtue by mere words while another adorns his life through imitation, the latter would be certainly much more effective.

Brethren, having imitated his discretion by appropriating it, let us praise virtue according to his worthiness and fulfill all his wonderful deeds by sharing his wisdom. By praising poverty we become poor with regard to material wealth. [J.134] No one should speak of contempt for this world simply because it is laudable and glorious; rather, let one's life testify to such contempt with regard to what the world values. Do not merely say that he is dedicated but dedicate yourselves to God, and not only that he possessed the hoped for rest but that you treasure up this wealth like him. It certainly lies within your power. [Basil] stored up his own wealth in the treasure house of heaven, so imitate the teacher in this way [cf. Lk 6.40]. The disciple will be perfect when he resembles the master. In other occupations one is a disciple to a physician, geometrician, and a person studying rhetoric will be not be worthy of his master's art unless he admires this skill by speech, for he has not yet shown himself worthy of such respect. Allow someone to say to him, "How can you say that a physician is a master when he has no knowledge of his skill? How you say one is a geometrician when he has no knowledge of his craft?" But if anyone demonstrates expertise in what he has learned, his own knowledge will honor his master's instruction. Thus we who magnify the teacher Basil should reveal his teaching by our lives because his name honored God and men in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and power forever and ever. Amen.

+ the end +

1. The word is egkomion which means "song of praise" usually on behalf of a person who has died.

2. The text on St. Ephraim is listed under the category of "Dubia et Spuria" in the Bibliographie zu Gregor von Nyssa (Leiden, 1988), p.306.

3. On the distinction between the various types of orations used in the ancient world, especially as developed by Menander as passed on to Christian authors, refer to Consolation Philosophy by Robert C. Gregg (Cambridge, Ma, 1975). On pp.64-7 Gregg gives an outline to Menander's three-fold scheme:

-to prooimion

-ta egkomia with thremos

-to paramuthetikon meros

Cf. footnote #1, p.65, for a more detailed outline to this scheme presented by Bauer.

4. La Chronologie des Sermons de Gregoire de Nysse from Revue des Sciences Religieuses #29 (Paris, 1955, p.351). Danielou mentions that there is some question of attributing the oration's date to 381 instead of 380. He presents evidence of this from Gregory's epistles (cf. p.352).

5. Paris, 1970. Refer to chapter two entitled "Enchainement" which lists the means of akolouthia as related to logic, cosmology, history, exegesis and philosophy. Danielou translates akolouthia variously as "enchainement des idees" (p.18), "la suite" (p.42), "une suit necessaire" (p.44), "le lien necessaire de deux propositions" (p.45).

6. Translated by Casimir McCambley, Brookline, Mass. 1995.

7. Here we have the adjective form of akolouthia.

8. "Here is perhaps Gregory's most original and daring contribution to Christian thought. All creation is in movement--and all creation is diastema, as a journey from one point to another, ordered and sequential, a taxis kai akolouthia. All creation is in time, and has a beginning and an end, an arche and a telos and an hodos from arche to telos." From an article by T. Paul Verghese entitled Diastema and Diastasis in Gregory of Nyssa in Gregor von Nyssa und Die Philsophie (Leiden, 1976), p.251.

9. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1972), p.69.

10. From Treatises II, Cistercian Fathers Series, vol. CF #13 (Washington, D.C., 1974), p.93.

11. Ibid, p.109.

12. Ibid, p.161.

13. The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 29, #4 (Brookline, Mass., 1984), p.367.

14. "If Basil lived at the same time as Paul he would enjoy the same eminence as Sylvanus and Timothy." (J.110.25-6)

15. Ibid, pp.84-5.

16. Notice the similar use of ladder in the Life of Gregory the Wonderworker cited below.

17. Published in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 35, #2, Brookline, Mass., 1990.

18. Cf. 1Samuel 28 for the full story.

19. "Both were zealous for the faith, abhorred those who act contemptuously, loved, God, desired Him who truly exists--not material things--and scrutinized everything. [Basil] also had a countenance which revealed his soul's intensity, possessed a simple dignity, a silence more efficacious than words, esteemed everyone whether impressive in dignity or humble and manifested indifference to everyone." (J.122.25-123.6)

20. Translation by Abraham Malherbe and Everett Ferguson (New York, 1978), p.47. Gregory's reflections upon the priesthood is also continued in the figure of Joshua (which means "Jesus" in Hebrew): "The true Jesus [Joshua] defeated the enemy by extending his hands. He abolished Balaam's numerous divinizations which were not in accord with the true word." (J.129.10-14)

21. Here Gregory does not specify whether he is referring to Moses or Basil; anyway, both share the same divine mystery.

22. On this theme of divine darkness which has antecedents to Gregory of Nyssa, refer to the remarks by Jean Danielou: "Cette tradition remonte a Philon. Et il semble bien que sur ce point Gregoire depende directement de lui. On peut rapprocher ainsi De Posteritate Caini, 15: 'Moise entra dans la tenebre ou Dieu etait, c'est-a-dire dans les pensees secretes et invisibles sur l'Etre." Platonisme et Theologie Mystique, (Paris 1944), p.191.

23. Ibid, p.130.

24. On the inability to find Moses' tomb: "Neither was Moses' tomb found nor was he encompassed by material wealth...History bears witness to this with regard to Moses, and his grave cannot be found even in our day." (J.129.22-3; J.130.4-6)

25. I have chosen the letter "J" because the critical texts of Gregory's works were begun by Werner Jaeger and continued after his death.

26. Oceanus: son of Uranus and Gaia. A named applied to that water which the ancients believed to encompass the earth's disc.