Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 5 (Gregory of Nyssa)

The prophecy of Basil had come true. Nyssa was ennobled by the name of its bishop appearing on the roll of this Synod, between those of the Metropolitans of Caesarea and Iconium. Even in outward rank he was equal to the highest. The character of Gregory could not be more justly drawn than in the words of Tillemont (IX. p. 269): “As much, in fact, as one can judge of him by his writings, he was a gentle, kind, and easy-going spirit, who, with much elevation of mind and insight, nevertheless possessed great simplicity and candor. He loved rest more than action, and study more than the tumult of affairs; yet he was without vanity, always disposed to esteem and praise others and to place himself beneath them. But though he sought only rest, we have seen that his zeal for his brothers often engaged him in great labors, and that God honored his simplicity by causing him to be regarded as the master, the doctor, the peacemaker, and the arbiter of the churches.”

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

CHAPTER II.

HIS GENERAL CHARACTER AS A THEOLOGIAN.

“The first who sought to establish by rational considerations the whole complex of orthodox doctrines.” So writes Ueberweg (History of Philosophy, p. 326) of Gregory of Nyssa. This marks the transition from pre-Nicene times. In those earlier days, at all events in the hands of Origen, philosophy was identical with theology. Now, because there is a ‘complex of orthodox doctrines’ to defend, philosophy becomes the handmaid of theology. Gregory, in this respect, has performed the most important service of any of the Church writers in the fourth century. He treats each philosophical view only as a help to grasp the formulas of faith; the truth of that view consists, for him, only in its adaptability to that end. Notwithstanding his strong speculative leanings, he does not defend orthodoxy in the fashion of the Alexandrian school, nor in the fashion of some in modern times, who put forth a system of philosophy to which the dogmas of the Faith are to be accommodated.

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

The “rational considerations,” then, by which Gregory would have established Christian doctrine are not necessarily drawn from the philosophy of the time; nor, further, does he seek to rationalize entirely all religious truth. In fact, he resigns the hope of comprehending the Incarnation and all the great articles. This is the very thing that distinguishes the Catholic from the Eunomian. “Receiving the fact, we leave untampered with the manner of the creation of the Universe, as altogether secret and inexplicable¹.” With a turn resembling the view of Tertullian, he comes to the conclusion that for us, after all, Religious Truth consists in mystery. “The Church possesses the means of demonstrating these things: or rather, she has faith, which is surer than demonstration.”

¹ Cf. Or. Cat. c. xi.