SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map : Christian Books : Letter G

A Dictionary Of Christian Biography And Literature by Henry Wace

Letter G

Galenus, physician
Galenus, Claudius, physician, born a.d.130 at Pergamus, flourished chiefly at Rome under the Antonines, and died in 200 or 201. For a full account see D. of G. and R. Biogr. He belongs to church history only because of a few incidental words referring to Christianity that occur in his voluminous writings. Thus in his de Pulsuum Differentiis (lib. iii. cap.3, sub. fin. in Opp. t. viii. p.657, ed. Kühn) he writes: |It is easier to convince the disciples of Moses and Christ than physicians and philosophers who are addicted to particular sects|; and (lib. ii. cap.4, p.579) he condemns the method of Archigenes, who requires his dicta to be received absolutely and without demonstration, |as though we were come to the school of Moses and of Christ.| In the de Renum Affectuum Dignotione (Kühn, t. xix.) there are other references, but that treatise is spurious. An Arabic writer has preserved a fragment of Galen's lost work, de Republicâ Platonis, which reads: |We know that the people called Christians have founded a religion in parables and miracles. In moral training we see them in nowise inferior to philosophers; they practise celibacy, as do many of their women; in diet they are abstemious, in fastings and prayers assiduous; they injure no one. In the practice of virtue they surpass philosophers; in probity, in continence, in the genuine performance of miracles (verâ miraculorum patratione -- does he mean the Scripture miracles, on which their religion was based?) they infinitely excel them| (Casiri, Biblioth. Arabico-Hispana, vol. i. p.253). For apologetic remarks on Galen's testimony see Lardner's Credibility (Works, vol. vii. p.300, ed.1838).


Galerius, emperor
Galerius, emperor. (Gaius Galerius Valerius Maximianus on his coinage; called Maximus in some Acts of martyrs, that having apparently been his name until Diocletian changed it; see Lact. Mort.18; nicknamed Armentarius from his original occupation.) He was a native of Near Dacia, on the S. of the Danube. His mother Romula had fled thither for refuge from the predatory Carpi, who pillaged her own country on the N. side (Lact. Mort.9; Aur. Vict. Epit. xl.17). As a youth he was a neatherd, but soon joined the army under Aurelian and Probus. Without education or virtues, he raised himself by undoubted military gifts, until he was selected (together with Constantius) by Diocletian to fill the office of Caesar of the East in Diocletian's famous scheme for the reorganization of the empire, a.d.292. He married Valeria, the Christian daughter of Diocletian. There were no children of the marriage, which was anything but happy, but the gentle Valeria adopted her husband's bastard son Candidian. Galerius had none of the gifts of a ruler, nor any appreciation of his father-in-law's policy, but his authority with the army made him a useful coadjutor. Five years after his call to the Caesarship (a.d.297) he was sent to conduct the chief war of the reign of Diocletian, the last which ever gave the Capitol a triumph, against Narses, king of Persia. After an unsuccessful first campaign, he utterly routed Narses, and forced him to purchase peace at the cost of five provinces near the source of the Tigris.

The year 303 brought Galerius prominently into contact with the church. He had conceived a hatred for the Christians, originating (so far as we can see) almost wholly in his fanatical superstition and aversion to Christian morality. His mother was a noted votaress of the Phrygian orgies, and plied her son continually with entreaties to demolish Christianity. She was supported by the magician and so-called Platonist THEOTECNUS (Cedr. vol. i. p.47, ed. Bonn), who had also acquired an ascendancy over Galerius. The winter of 302-303 was spent by Galerius at Nicomedia, where he used every effort to compel the reluctant Diocletian to annul the legislation of GALLIENUS, to break the forty years' amity between the empire and the church, and to crush Christianity. Step by step he gained his points, until Diocletian consented to proscribe the open profession of Christianity and to take all measures to suppress it, short of bloodshed (Lact. Mort. ii, |rem sine sanguine transigi|). The first edict of Diocletian, however, was not strong enough to content Galerius. The demolition of buildings which proclaimed the power of the church, the prohibition of synaxis, the burning of the books used in the Christian ritual, the civic, social, and military degradation of Christians, were too slow ways of abolishing it. His one desire was to remove Diocletian's expressive clause, that |no blood was to be shed in the transaction.| A fire broke out in the part of the palace where Diocletian lived. Lactantius, then resident at Nicomedia, asserts that it was set alight by Galerius, whose object was to persuade the Augustus that his trusty Christian chamberlains were conspiring against him; but on application of torture to the whole household, they were acquitted. A fortnight later another occurred, and Galerius (who, ostensibly to escape assassination, perhaps really to avoid discovery, immediately departed) convinced Diocletian of the existence of a Christian plot, and the emperor signed his second edict, ordering the incarceration of the entire clergy, though even now there was to be no bloodshed.

In putting these edicts into execution Galerius shews occasional signs of a reluctant intention to adhere to the principles of Diocletian's legislation. His return to his own province in 304 was marked by a sudden crowd of martyrdoms where the edicts had before not even been published, but his conduct in the case of St. ROMANUS shews that, when directly appealed to, he felt bound to forbid the capital punishment of even obstreperous Christians (Eus. Mart. Pal. ii.). The time was coming, however, when Galerius was to have more liberty of action. In 304, probably during a total collapse of Diocletian's health, the so-called Fourth Edict was issued by Maximian, no doubt in conjunction with Galerius, making death the penalty of Christianity. Diocletian began to recover in March 305, and abandoned his long-held intention of abdicating on May 1 in that year, not improbably because of the commotion which had been caused by the Fourth Edict. Galerius, who had long coveted the promised diadem, would brook no more delay, and with much violence compelled the enfeebled Augustus to retire, leaving himself nominally second to Constantius, whose death in July 306 left Galerius supreme.

Political troubles which followed did not divert Galerius from persecution. On Mar.31, 308, he issued, in conjunction with his nephew Maximin, a bloody edict against the Manicheans (Cod. Greg. ed. Hanel, lib. xiv. p.44). The same year saw an order to substitute mutilation for death in cases of Christianity; as Eusebius says (Mart. Pal. ix ), |The conflagration subsided, as if quenched with the streams of sacred blood.| But the relaxation was only for a few months. The autumn of 308 saw a new edict issued, which began a perfect reign of terror for two full years, the most prolific in bloodshed of any in the history of Roman persecutions; and the vast majority of persons who in the East (for the persecution in the West had ceased with the accession of Constantine and usurpation of Maxentius) are celebrated as |martyrs under Diocletian| really suffered between 308 and 311. This part of the persecution bears marks, however, of the influence of Maximin Daza rather than of Galerius. Towards the close of 310 Galerius was seized with an incurable malady, partially caused by his vicious life. This gradually developed into the frightful disease vulgarly known as being |eaten of worms.| The fact rests not only on the authority of the church historians (Eus. H. E. viii., xvi.3 ff.; Lact. Mort.33), but also upon that of the pagan Aurelius Victor (Epit. xl.4) and the fragment known as Anonymous Valesii. Galerius, face to face with so awful a death, thought (apparently) that a compromise might be effected with the God of the Christians, whom he undoubtedly recognized as an active and hostile power. From his dying-bed was issued his famous Edict of Toleration, bearing the signatures also of Constantine and of Licinius, which virtually put an end to the |Persecution of Diocletian.| This most extraordinary document may be read in full in Eus. H. E. viii.17, and Lact. Mort.34. The origin of the persecution is ascribed to the fact that the Christians had wilfully departed from the |institutions of the ancients which had peradventure been first set on foot by their own forefathers,| and had formed schismatical assemblies on their own private judgment. Primitive Christianity is here meant by the phrase instituta veterum, and the edicts were asserted to have had no object but to bring the Christians back to it. But Galerius was now determined, under certain unspecified conditions, to allow Christianity once more and to permit the building of churches. In return, the Christians are told to pray to their God for the recovery of Galerius.

Thus did the dying persecutor try to pose as a kind reformer, and to lead the God of the Christians to remit his temporal punishment. |The Unknown God to Whom he had at last betaken himself gave no answer to his insolent and tardy invocation| (De Broglie, i.207). The edict was posted at Nicomedia on April 30; he died on May 5 or 13, 311.


Galla Placidia, daughter of Theodosius I
Galla (5) Placidia, daughter of Theodosius I., by his second wife Galla. When in 410 Rome was captured by Alaric, Placidia was taken prisoner, but was treated with great respect (Olympiod. ap. Phot. Biblioth. lxxx.; Zos. Hist. vi.12), and in Jan.414, at Narbona in Gaul, married Ataulphus, who had succeeded his uncle Alaric. After the death of Ataulphus, Placidiareturned to Italy, a.d.416, and dwelt with her paternal uncle Honorius, at Ravenna. In Jan.417 she married Constantius. By him she had two children, Valentinian and Honoria (Olympiod. u.s.) Her influence over Constantius was soon shewn in his active persecution of the Pelagians (Prosp. Chron. s.a.418), when, in Feb.421, Honorius admitted Constantius to a share of the empire. On Sept.11, 421, Constantius died. Placidia again took up her abode with Honorius at Ravenna, but their mutual affection being replaced by bitter hate, which occasioned serious disturbances in the city, she and her children were sent to Theodosius II. at Constantinople (Olympiod. u.s.). On the death of Honorius in Aug.423, Theodosius declared for Valentinian. Valentinian being but a child, the authority of Placidia was now supreme, and among her first acts was the issue of three edicts in rapid succession for the banishment of all |Manicheans, heretics, and schismatics, and every sect opposed to the Catholic faith| (Cod. Theod. XVI. v.62, July 17; ib.63, Aug.4; ib.64, Aug.6, 425, all dated from Aquileia), meaning especially the adherents of the antipope Eulalius, who were still numerous in Rome. These edicts were soon followed by another of great severity, directed against apostates (Cod. Theod. XVI. vii.8, Apr.7, 426).

In 427 the machinations of Aetius put Placidia in conflict with her tried friend Boniface, count of Africa, who, in despair, appealed for help to the Vandals, and Africa was overrun by their forces. Placidia explained matters to Boniface, and urged him to do his best to repair the injury which the empire had sustained. But it was too late; the Vandals were masters of the country, and Africa was lost (Procop Bell. Vandal. i.4; Augustine, Ep.220; Gibbon, c. xxxiii.).

In 449 Placidia was at Rome with Valentinian. The legates of Leo had just returned from the Robber Council of Ephesus. Leo bitterly bewailed the doings of that assembly to Placidia, who immediately wrote to Theodosius and his sister Pulcheria, intreating them to interfere in defence of the faith of their ancestors and to procure the restoration of Flavian, the deposed bp. of Constantinople (Conc. Chalced., pt. i. Ep.26, 28, 30; Labbe, iv.53, 55, 58). She died soon afterwards at Rome, and was buried at Ravenna (Idatius, Chr. s.a.; Gibbon, u.s.).


Gallienus P. Licinius, emperor
Gallienus P. Licinius, emperor, son of Valerian, appointed by the senate coadjutor to his father very shortly after Valerian's succession in Aug.253. In 260 his father's captivity in Persia left him politically irresponsible.

One great act brings him into church history. On his father's fall, he was legally bound to put every clergyman to death wherever found, and to deal in almost as summary a fashion with all other Christians. [[252]VALERIAN.] Gallienus had had three years' experience of the difficulty and wearisomeness of this task. The |Thirty Tyrants,| moreover, were foes formidable enough to attract what little attention could be spared from pleasure. Accordingly, in 261 he issued a public edict, by which Christianity was for the first time put on a clearly legal footing as a religio licita. This edict is the most marked epoch in the history of the church's relation to the state since the rescript of Trajan to Pliny, which had made Christianity distinctly a religio illicita. The words in which Eusebius describes the edict (the text of which is lost) imply no more than that actual persecution was stopped (H. E. vii.13), which might have been done without a legal recognition of Christianity; but Eusebius has preserved a copy of the encyclical rescript which the emperor addressed to the Christian bishops of the Egyptian province, which shews that the position of |the bishops| is perfectly recognized by the pagan government. The rescript informs the bishops that orders have been issued to the pagan officials to evacuate the consecrated places; the bishops' copies of the rescript will serve as a warrant against all interference in reoccupying. Thus formally, universally, and deliberately was done what Alexander Severus had done in an isolated case in a freak of generosity -- i.e, the right of the Corpus Christianorum to hold property was fully recognized. If Christianity had not been explicitly made a religio licita, this would have been impossible. The great proof, however, of the footing gained by the church through Gallienus's edict lies in the action of his successor Aurelian in the matter of Paul of Samosata. Though Aurelian's bigoted sun-worship and hatred of the church were well known, and his death alone prevented a great rupture, the Catholics were so secure of their legal position as actually to appeal to the emperor in person to decide their dispute; and Aurelian, as the law then stood, not only recognized the right of the church to hold property, but also to decide internal disputes (though they concerned property) according to her own methods.


Gallus, Caesar
Gallus (1) Caesar, son of Julius Constantius (youngest brother of Constantine the Great) and his first wife Galla; born A.D.325 at Massa Veternensis near Siena in Tuscany (Amm. xiv.11, 27). In the general massacre of the younger branches of the imperial family on the death of Constantine in 337, two young brothers were alone preserved -- Gallus who was ill of a sickness which seemed likely to be mortal, and Julian a child of seven.

Both were brought up as Christians, and entered with apparent zeal into the externals of the Christian life. In 350 Gallus received the dignity of Caesar, which the childless Constantius bestowed upon him on succeeding to the sole government of the empire by the death of his brother Constans. In the West Constantius was distracted by the usurpation of Magnentius in Gaul, while in the East the Persians were a perpetual source of alarm. Gallus had to make a solemn oath upon the Gospels not to undertake anything against the rights of his cousin, who similarly pledged himself to Gallus. He received at the same time the strong-minded and unfeminine Constantina as his wife, and Lucilianus, the count of the East, as his general (Zos.2, 45. Philost. iv.1 refers to the oath between Constantius and Gallus; cf. Chron. Pasch. p.540 ; Zonaras, xiii.8).

The records of his short reign at Antioch come to us chiefly from Ammianus (lib. xiv.). They are almost entirely unfavourable to him. His defence of the frontier against the Persians was indeed successful (Zos.3, 1; Philost. iii.28, speaks strongly on this point), but his internal policy was disastrous.

Besides the report of his harsh and open misgovernment, accounts of secret treason meditated by him were conveyed to Constantius. The emperor, with his usual craft, sent an affectionate letter and desired his presence, as he wished to consult him on urgent public business (Amm. xiv.11, 1). When he arrived at Petovio in Noricum, he was seized by the count Barbatio, deprived of his imperial insignia, and conveyed, with many protestations that his life was safe, to Flanon in Dalmatia, where he was closely guarded. The all-powerful eunuch Eusebius was then sent to interrogate him upon his various crimes. Gallus did not deny them, but blamed his wife. Constantius ordered his execution, which took place towards the close of 354.

His instruction had been Arian under the direction of Constantius, and he seems to have been influenced not a little by the Anomoean Aetius. This notorious man had been sent to him to be put to death as a heretic. Gallus spared him on the intercession of Leontius, bp. of Antioch, and became very friendly with him. According to Philostorgius, he made him his religious instructor, and attempted by his means to recall Julian to the faith, when he heard that he was wavering (Philost. H. E. iii.27). There is no reason to doubt that the young Caesar was a zealous Christian after a sort, and that he was distressed by his brother's danger of apostasy.


Gallus (11), abbat and apostle of Switzerland
Gallus (11), abbat, the apostle of Switzerland. One primary authority is the Vita S.Galli, compiled by Walafrid Strabo, abbat of Reichenau (a.d.842-849), and pub. by Surius (Vitae Sanct. Oct.16, t. iv.252 seq., Colon.1617), by Mabillon (Acta SS. O.S.B. ii.215 seq.), and Migne (Patr. Lat. cxiii.975 seq.). Another Vita S. Galli, ex MS. St. Gall.553, is published by Portz (Mon. Germ. Hist. ii.189). The original documents are to be found in Wartmann's Nerkundenbuch der Abtei St. Gallen, vols. i.-iii.1865-1882.

He undoubtedly was of Irish birth, and his original name was Cellach, Calech, or Caillech. Trained at Bangor, in the famous school of St. Comgall, he accompanied Columbanus into Gaul, a.d.585, and in his exile from Luxeuil along the Rhine into Switzerland, and, apparently from his aptness at learning the languages, proved a most useful assistant in preaching to the Suevi, Helvetii, and neighbouring tribes. [[253]COLUMBANUS.] When Columbanus in 612 left Switzerland to escape the persecution of the Burgundian court, Gallus was detained at Bregenz by a fever, but as soon as he could, returned to his friend the priest Willimar, at Arbona on the S. shore of the Lake of Constance, and devoted his remaining years to the conversion of the wild tribes inhabiting this eastern frontier of Austrasia. On the banks of the Steinaha or Steinach he built his cell and oratory, in the midst of a thick forest. Twelve others accompanied him. His collection of rude huts determined the site of the town and monastery of St. Gall. When the see of Constance became vacant in 616, the episcopate was urgently pressed upon him, and again in 625, but he declined, and was allowed to nominate his deacon John, a native of the place. The sermon he preached at John's consecration is extant in Latin -- a wonderful specimen of Irish erudition, simple yet full of vigour, learned and devout, giving an abstract of the history of God's dealings from the creation, of the fall and redemption, of the mission of the apostles and calling of the Gentiles, and ending with a powerful appeal to Christian faith and life, which gives some idea of the state of the corrupt and barbarous society he was seeking to leaven. Beyond these few incidents we know little. He died Oct.16, 645 or 646, at Arbona, aged 95, but some propose an earlier date.

The oratory of St. Gall gave rise to one of the most celebrated monasteries of the middle ages, and its library to this day stands unrivalled in the wealth and variety of its ancient manuscripts. (For an account of the school of St. Gall and its cultivation of the fine arts, see Hist. lit. de la France, iv.243-246.)


Gaudentius, bp. of Brescia
Gaudentius, bp. of Brescia (Brixia), successor of PHILASTER (Philastrius) c. a.d.387. Of the early life of Gaudentius nothing is known for certain. He was probably a native of Brescia; at any rate, he was well known there in his youth. From the language which he uses in reference to his predecessor he appears to have been intimately acquainted with him (though Tillemont is wrong in his interpretation of the words |ego . . . minima ejus pars|). He had a brother Paul, in deacon's orders (|frater carnis et spiritus germanitate carissime| -- though his metaphorical use of similar language in speaking of St. Peter and St. Paul as |vere consanguinei fratres, . . . sanguinis communione germanos| makes the point somewhat doubtful). While still a young man he went on pilgrimage to the Holy Land, as many of his contemporaries did (cf. Hieron. Epp.44, 48). His way lay through Cappadocia. At Caesarea he made the acquaintance of two nieces of St. Basil, |mothers| of a convent there, who gave him some ashes of the famous Forty of Sebastia, which had been given to them by their uncle. These ashes, or rather the Forty themselves, he says, were his |faithful companions| on the rest of the journey; and at a later time he deposited them, with other relics which he had collected, in a basilica which he built at Brescia and called the Concilium Sanctorum. At Antioch, probably, he became acquainted with St. John Chrysostom, who never forgot the warmth of affection which he then shewed. Gaudentius was in the East when Philaster of Brescia died. The people of Brescia elected him to be their bishop. They were rash enough to bind themselves with an oath, so Gaudentius says, that they would have him and no other. A deputation of them was sent out to him, reinforced by urgent letters from St. Ambrose and other bishops of the province. Gaudentius resisted, but the Eastern bishops among whom he was sojourning went so far as to threaten to excommunicate him if he would not comply. At last his resistance broke down. He returned, and was consecrated to the vacant see, presumably by St. Ambrose himself. The address which was delivered on that day, according to custom, by the newly consecrated bishop has been preserved (Serm. xvi.). St. Ambrose was present at the delivery of it, and was expected to follow it up with an address of his own.

The episcopate of Gaudentius was not, so far as we know, eventful. But there was one remarkable adventure in the course of it. In the year 404 or 405 he was chosen, along with two other bishops and two Roman priests, to bear to the Eastern emperor Arcadius an epistle from his Western colleague Honorius, and from Innocent I. of Rome and the Italian bishops, urging that an oecumenical council should be convened, to examine the case of St. John Chrysostom, who had been deposed and banished from Constantinople. Palladius (Dial. c.4), who accompanied the envoys and who gives us this information, does not, indeed, mention the see of the envoy Gaudentius; but no other bearer of the name is so likely to have been chosen as the bp. of Brescia. The mission was ineffectual, and such sufferings were inflicted upon the envoys as might well earn for Gaudentius his title of |Confessor.| He received a warm letter of thanks from St. Chrysostom (Ep.184) for his exertions on his behalf. The letter probably refers to exertions preparatory to the mission, or the reference to the fate of the mission would have been more explicit.

How long Gaudentius held his see is not certain. In his sermon on Philaster he mentions that it is the fourteenth time that he has pronounced his yearly panegyric; but as the date of his consecration to the episcopate is conjectural, this indication is not decisive. That he was still bishop in 410 appears from the fact that the learned Rufinus dedicated to him, in or about that year, his trans. of the Clementine Recognitions, in which he describes him as |nostrorum decus insigne doctorum,| and says that every word that fell from him deserved to be taken down for the benefit of posterity. Rufinus refers particularly to his knowledge of Greek; and though he does not directly name the see which he held, the identification is aided by his statement that the Gaudentius to whom his work was dedicated was heir to the virgin Silvia -- probably the Silvia, sister-in-law of Rufinus the wellknown praefectus orientis, to whom Gamurrini attributes, though probably without good reason, the Peregrinatio he discovered in 1884. This Silvia is known to have been buried at Brescia (Gamurrini, Peregrinatio, p. xxxvi; Butler, Lausiac Hist. i. p.296, ii. pp.148, 229). Gaudentius was buried in a church at Brescia, which is thought to be the same as his own Concilium Sanctorum.

Gaudentius was not a writer. The most modest of men, he thought it enough if he might instruct the flock committed to him by word of mouth (Praefatio ad Benivolum). But there was a leading magistrate of Brescia named Benivolus, who had formerly (in 386) thrown up his situation in the imperial service rather than abet the attacks of Justina upon St. Ambrose. This man, one year, was hindered by sickness from attending the Easter services. He begged Gaudentius to write down for him the addresses which he had failed to hear. Gaudentius complied. In addition to the eight discourses on the directions in Exodus concerning the Passover and two on the Marriage at Cana, which had been delivered during that Eastertide, he sent also four on various Gospel texts, and a fifth on the Maccabean martyrs. Besides these fifteen sermons sent to Benivolus, four occasional sermons of his are in existence, taken down in shorthand and published (apparently) without his consent. They were delivered respectively on the day of his own consecration, at the dedication of his new basilica, at Milan by desire of St. Ambrose on the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, and on the anniversary of his predecessor's death. To these sermons are added two expository letters, one to a man named Serminius on the Unjust Steward, the other to his brother Paul on the text |My Father is greater than I.|

Gaudentius felt himself bound, like others of his time to give |spiritual,| i.e. allegorical, interpretations of his texts. These are often in the highest degree fantastic, and have drawn upon their author the severe criticism of Du Pin (Bibl. eccl. siècle v. pt. i.). But Gaudentius generally prepares for them by a literal interpretation, and when he does so, the exegesis is usually marked by good sense. Gaudentius is interested in textual criticism, and more than once remarks on the correspondence or conflict between the Latin text, as he knows it, and the Greek. He is an independent interpreter himself (Serm. xix., |Ego tamen pro libertate fidei opportunitatem dictorum secretus traxi ad,| etc.), and vindicates the like freedom for others (Serm. xviii. |Nulli praejudicaturus, qualiter interpretari voluerit|). When dealing with moral subjects there is a fine elevation in his utterance. As a theologian he has a firm grasp on the Nicene doctrine as taught by St. Ambrose. Arianism is a defeated foe (Serm. xxi. |Furentem eo tempore Arianam perfidiam|), but one that still needs vigorous refutation. In regard to other doctrinal points, it may be observed that, however strongly Gaudentius expresses himself about the Holy Eucharist in the terms of his age (Serm. ii.244), he insists characteristically that the Flesh and Blood of Christ are to be spiritually understood (ib.241, |Agni carnes, id est, doctrinae ejus viscera|). He puts much faith in the intercessions of the saints, though he does not directly speak of invoking them (Serm. xvii. xx. xxi. ad fin.). He dwells with emphasis on the supernatural character of our Lord's birth, not only of His conception (e.g. Serm. viii.270, ix.281). His style is easy; his sentences often admirably terse and pointed (e.g. Praef.227, |Si autem justus es, nomen quidem justi praesumere non audebis; Serm. vii.265, |Quod Deus majorem causam tunc ulciscendi habeat, si in exiguis rebus, ubi nulla difficultas est observandi, pervicaci tantum spiritu contemnatur|). His sermons preserve a good many interesting notes of the life of the time (e.g. Serm. xiii., the beggars at the church door; the dread of the barbarian invasions, the landowner who leaves his labourers to be supported by the church, the horses and mules adorned with gold and silver, the heathen altar allowed to remain on a Christian man's estate). His vocabulary is rather interesting; he uses popular words (e.g. brodium) on the one hand, and recherche words (e.g. peccamen, victorialis) on the other. It has been made the subject of a special study by Paueker (Zeitschr. f. d. österreich. Gymnasien., xxxii. pp.481ff.).

The chief ed. of his works is that of Paolo Gagliardi (Galeardus), canon of Brescia, pub. at Padua in 1720, or rather the second and improved ed. of 1738, printed at Brescia. This is reprinted in Migne's Patr. Lat. vol. xx. Accounts of Gaudentius and his works will be found in Tillemont, t. x. pt.2; in Nirschl, Lehrbuch d. Patrologie (Mainz, 1883), ii. pp.488ff.; in Hauck-Herzog Realencycl. vi. (by Leimbach); and in Wetzer and Welte, Kirchenlex. v. (by Hefele).


Gaudentius (7), Donatist bp. of Thamugada
Gaudentius (7), Donatist bp. of Thamugada (Temugadi), a town of Numidia, about 14 Roman miles N.E. of Lambesa (Ant. Itin.34, 2), one of the seven managers on the Donatist side in Carth. Conf., a.d.411 (Mon. Vet. Don. pp.288, 408, ed. Oberthur). His name is chiefly known by his controversy with St. Augustine, c.420. Dulcitius had informed him what was the course intended by the imperial government towards the Donatists. Gaudentius replied in two letters, which Dulcitius sent to Augustine, whose reply to them in two books entitled contra Gaudentium (Aug. Opp. vol. ix.707-751, ed. Migne) may be regarded as representing the close of the Donatist controversy (vol. i. p.895). The Donatist cause, already languishing, from this time fell into a decay, to which these treatises of St. Augustine materially contributed. Sparrow Simpson, S. Aug. and African Ch. Divisions (1910), pp.133-137.


Gelasius (1) I., bp. of Rome
Gelasius (1) I., bp. of Rome after Felix III. (or II.) from Mar.492 to Nov.496, during about 4½ years. At the time of his accession the schism between the Western and Eastern churches, which had begun under his predecessor, had lasted more than 7 years. Its occasion had been the excommunication, by pope Felix, of Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, for supporting and communicating with Peter Mongus, the once Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, who had, however, satisfied Acacius by subscribing the Henoticon, and afterwards the Nicene creed. There had been other grounds of complaint against Acacius, notably his disregard of the authority of the Roman see; but the above had been the original cause of quarrel. [[254]FELIX III.; ACACIUS (7).]

Acacias being now dead, the dispute concerned only the retention of his name in the diptychs of the Eastern church. Felix had ''demanded its erasure as a condition of intercommunion with his successors, but they had refused to comply. The patriarch of Constantinople was now Euphemius; the emperor Anastasius. On his accession Gelasius wrote a respectful letter to the emperor, who did not reply. To Euphemius the new pope did not write, as was usual, to inform him of his accession. Euphemius, however, wrote twice to Gelasius, expressing a strong desire for reconciliation between the churches, and a hope that Gelasius would, through condescension and a spirit of charity, be able to restore concord. He insisted that Acacias himself had been no heretic, and that before he communicated with Peter Mongus the latter had been purged of heresy. He asked by what synodical authority Acacias had been condemned; and alleged that the people of Constantinople would never allow his name to be erased; but suggested that the pope might send an embassy to Constantinople to treat on the subject. Gelasius, in his reply, couched in a tone of imperious humility, utterly refuses any compromise. He speaks of the custom of the bishops of the apostolic see notifying their elevation to inferior bishops as a condescension rather than an obligation, and one certainly not due to such as chose to cast in their lot with heretics. He treats with contempt the plea of the determined attitude of the people of Constantinople. The shepherd ought, he says, to lead the flock, not the flock control the shepherd. The letter thus asserts in no measured terms the supremacy of the see of Rome, and the necessity of submitting to it. |We shall come,| he concludes, |brother Euphemius, without doubt to that tremendous tribunal of Christ, with those standing round by whom the faith has been defended. There it will be proved whether the glorious confession of St. Peter has left anything short for the salvation of those given to him to rule, or whether there has been rebellious and pernicious obstinacy in those who were unwilling to obey him.|

In 493 Gelasius wrote a long letter to the Eastern bishops. Its main drift was to justify the excommunication of Acacias by asserting that he had exceeded his powers in absolving Peter Mongus without the authority of the Roman see, and plainly asserts the supremacy of the apostolic see over the whole church as due to the original commission of Christ to St. Peter, and as having always existed prior to, and independent of, all synods and canons. He speaks of |the apostolical judgment, which the voice of Christ, the tradition of the elders, and the authority of canons had supported, that it should itself always determine questions throughout the church.| As to the possibility of Acacius being absolved now, having died excommunicate, he says that Christ Himself, Who raised the dead, is never said to have absolved those who died in error, and that even to St. Peter it was on earth only that the power of binding and loosing had been given. Such a tone was not calculated to conciliate. The name of Gelasius himself was therefore removed from the diptychs of the Constantinopolitan church. Gelasius wrote a long letter to the emperor in a similar vein, and exhorted him to use his temporal power to control his people in spiritual as well as mundane matters. This letter is noteworthy as containing a distinct expression of the view taken by Gelasius of the relations between the ecclesiastical and civil jurisdictions. Each he regards as separate and supreme in its own sphere. As in secular things priests are bound to obey princes, so in spiritual things all the faithful, including princes, ought to submit their hearts to priests; and, if to priests generally, much more to the prelate of that see which even supreme Divinity has willed should be over all priests, and to which the subsequent piety of the general church has perpetually accorded such pre-eminence. Gelasius also wrote on the same subjects to the bishops of various provinces, including those of East Illyricum and Dardania. In his address to the last he enlarges on its being the function of the Roman see, not only to carry out the decisions of synods, but even to give to such decisions their whole authority. Nay, the purpose of synods is spoken of as being simply to express the assent of the church at large to what the pope had already decreed and what was therefore already binding. This, he says, had been the case in the instance of the council of Chalcedon. Further, instances are alleged of popes having on their own mere authority reversed the decisions of synods, absolved those whom synods had condemned, and condemned those whom synods had absolved. The cases of Athanasius and Chrysostom are cited as examples. Lastly, any claim of Constantinople (contemptuously spoken of as in the diocese of Heraclea) to be exempt from the judgment of |the first see| is put aside as absurd, since |the power of a secular kingdom is one thing, the distribution of ecclesiastical dignities another.|

In 495 Gelasius convened a synod of 46 bishops at Rome to absolve and restore to his see Misenus of Cumae, one of the bishops sent by pope Felix to Constantinople in the affair of Acacius, who had been then won over, and in consequence excommunicated. Before receiving absolution this prelate was required to declare that he |condemned, anathematized, abhorred, and for ever execrated Dioscorus, Aelurus, Peter Mongus, Peter Fullo, Acacius, and all their successors, accomplices, abettors, and all who communicated with them.| Gelasius died in Nov.496.

A curious treatise of his called Tomus de Anathematis Vinculo refers to those canons of the council of Chalcedon, giving independent authority to the see of Constantinople, of which pope Leo had disapproved, setting forth that the fact of this council having done something wrongly did not impair the validity of what it had rightly done, and that the approval of the see of Rome was the sole test of what was right. The tract contains further arguments as to Rome alone having been competent to reconcile Peter Mongus or to absolve Acacius, and in reference to the idea of the emperor having had power in the latter case without the leave of Rome, the same distinction between the spheres of the ecclesiastical and civil jurisdictions is drawn as in the letter to the emperor. Melchizedek is referred to as having in old times been both priest and king; the devil, it is said, in imitation of him, had induced the emperors to assume the supreme pontificate; but since Christianity had revealed the truth to the world, the union of the two powers had ceased to be lawful. Christ, in consideration of human frailty, had now for ever separated them, leaving the emperors dependent on the pontiffs for their everlasting salvation, the pontiffs on the emperors for the administration of all temporal affairs. Milman (Lat. Christ.) remarks on the contrast between the interpretation of the type of Melchizedek and that given in the 13th cent. by pope Innocent IV., who takes Melchizedek as prefiguring the union in the pope of the sacerdotal and royal powers.

Two other works are attributed to Gelasius in which views are expressed not easily reconciled with those of his successors. One is a tract, the authenticity of which has not been questioned, against the Manicheans at Rome, in which the practice, adopted by that sect, of communion in one kind is strongly condemned. His words are, |We find that some, taking only the portion of the sacred body, abstain from the cup of the sacred blood. Let these (since I know not by what superstition they are actuated) either receive the entire sacraments or be debarred from them altogether; because a division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege.| Baronius evades the obviously general application of these words by saying that they refer only to the Manicheans.

The treatise de Duabus Naturis, arguing against the Eutychian position that the union of the human and divine natures in Christ implies the absorption of the human into the divine, adduces the Eucharist as the image, similitude, and representation of the same mystery, the point being that as, after consecration, the natural substance of the bread and wine remains unchanged, so the human nature of Christ remained unchanged notwithstanding its union with divinity. His words are |The sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we take are a divine thing, inasmuch as through them we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine ceases not to be.| This language being inconsistent with the doctrine of transubstantiation, Baronius first disputes the authorship of the treatise, and secondly, seeks to explain the words away. But if the authoritatively enunciated views of Gelasius on the relations between civil and ecclesiastical authority, on communion in one kind and on transubstantiation, are inconsistent with those subsequently endorsed by Rome, yet, on the other hand, few, if any, of his successors have gone beyond him in their claims of supreme and universal authority belonging by divine institution to the Roman see.

Among his works is a treatise Decretum de Libsis Recipiendis, fixing the canonical books of Scripture, and distinguishing between ancient ecclesiastical writers to be received or rejected. It bears signs of a later date, having been first assigned to Gelasius by Hincmar of Rheims in the 7th cent. The most memorable of the works attributed to him is the Gelasian Sacramentary, which was that in use till Gregory the Great revised and abbreviated it. A new ed. was edited by H. A. Wilson (Oxf.1894). See also C. H. Turner, in the Jl. of Theol. Studies (1900-1901), i.556 ff. [SACRAMENTARY in D. C. A.] A Sacramentary in several books found in the queen of Sweden's library, and published by Thomasius in 1680, is supposed to be the Gelasian one. The main authorities for his Life, besides the Liber Pontificalis, are the letters of himself and his contemporaries, and his other extant writings.

[J.B. -- Y.]

Gelasius (13), author from Cyzicus
Gelasius (13) of Cyzicus, in 2nd half of the 5th cent., author of a work on the history of the council of Nicaea, entitled by Photius The Acts of the First Council in Three Books. Our only knowledge of the author is derived from himself. Photius acknowledges his inability to determine who he was. We learn from Gelasius's own words that he was the son of a presbyter of Cyzicus, and, while still residing in his father's house, fell in with an old parchment volume which had belonged to Dalmatius, bp. of Cyzicus, containing a long account of the proceedings of the council of Nicaea. This document not supplying all the information he desired, Gelasius examined the works of other writers, from which he filled up the gaps. He mentions the work of an ancient writer named John, a presbyter otherwise unknown, the works of Eusebius of Caesarea and Rufinus (whom he calls a Roman presbyter), who were both eye-witnesses, and many others. From these and other sources Gelasius compiled his history of the Nicene council. It is sometimes taken for granted that it contains a complete collection of the synodal acts of the council. There is, however, no evidence of the existence of such a collection, or of any one having seen or used it. Athanasius had none such to refer to (cf. Athan. de Decret. Syn. Nic.1.2), and certainly we do not possess it in Gelasius (cf. Hefele, Hist. of Councils,Eng. trans.263, 264). From the work itself we learn that it was composed in Bithynia. As an historical authority it is almost worthless. Its prolix disputations and lengthy orations are, as Cave has justly remarked, evidently the writer's own composition. Dupin's verdict is still more severe. |There is neither order in his narrative, nor exactness in his observations, nor elegance in his language, nor judgment m his selection of facts, nor good sense in his judgments.| Instances of his untrustworthiness are seen in his statements that the council was summoned by pope Sylvester, and that Hosius of Cordova presided as his delegate; and he devotes many chapters (ii.11-24) to disputations on the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which had not then come into controversy at all. The work is in vol. ii. of Labbe's collection (col.103-286) and in those of Harduin and Mansi. Phot. Biblioth. Codd.15, 88, 89; Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. v.24, vi.4; Cave, Hist. Lit. i.454; Dupin, iv.187; Le Quien, Or. Christ. iii.568.


Gennadius (10), bp. of Constantinople
Gennadius (10), 21st bp. of Constantinople, 458-471. between Anatolius and Acacius. His first public appearance was in an attack on Cyril, in two works, c.431 or 432, Against the Anathemas of Cyril, and Two Books to Parthenius. In the latter he exclaims, |How many times have I heard blasphemies from Cyril of Egypt? Woe to the scourge of Alexandria!| In 433 Gennadius was probably one of those who became reconciled with Cyril.

In 458 he was a presbyter at Constantinople and designated by Leo to fill the see as a man of spotless reputation, on whom no suspicion had ever breathed, and of holy life and conspicuous learning. From the beginning of his episcopate Gennadius proved his zeal for the Catholic faith and the maintenance of discipline. His discretion was before long tested. Timothy Aelurus, chased from the see of Alexandria by order of the emperor, had obtained leave to come to Constantinople, intending, by a pretence of Catholicism, to re-establish himself on his throne. Gennadius, urged by Leo, bp. of Rome, June 17, 460, did his utmost to prevent the voyage of Timothy, and to secure the immediate consecration of an orthodox prelate for Alexandria. All happened as Leo desired; Timothy Aelurus was banished to the Chersonese, and Timothy Solofaciolus was chosen bp. of Alexandria in his stead. An appointment which Gennadius made about this time, that of Marcian, who had been a Novatianist, but had come over to the orthodox church, to the important post of chancellor of the goods of the church of Constantinople, shewed his liberality, penetration, and desire for order. Two Egyptian solitaries told John Moschus a story which is also told by Theodorus Lector. The church of St. Eleutherius at Constantinople was served by a reader named Carisius, who led a disorderly life. Gennadius severely reprimanded him in vain. According to the rules of the church, the patriarch had him flogged, which was also ineffectual. The patriarch sent one of his officers to the church of St. Eleutherus to beg that holy martyr either to correct the unworthy reader or to take him from the world. Next day Carisius was found dead, to the terror of the whole town. Theodorus also relates how a painter, presuming to depict the Saviour under the form of Jupiter, had his hand withered, but was healed by the prayers of Gennadius.

Gennadius ordained Daniel the Stylite presbyter, as related in that saint's life, at the request of the emperor Leo, standing at the foot of the Pharos and performing the ceremonies there. The buying and selling of holy orders was a crying scandal of the age. Measures had been taken against simony by the council of Chalcedon. In 459 or 460 Gennadius, finding the evil practice unabated, held a council at Constantinople to consider it. An encyclical was issued, adding anathema to the former sentence.

Gennadius died in 471, and stands out as an able and successful administrator, for whom no historian has anything but praise, if we except the criticism naturally aroused by his attack in his younger days against Cyril of Alexandria, an attack which the unmeasured language of Cyril perhaps excuses.

Gennadius wrote a commentary on Daniel and many other parts of O.T. and on all the epistles of St. Paul, and a great number of homilies. Of these only a few fragments remain. The principal are on Gen., Ex., Ps., Rom., I. and II. Cor., Gal., and Heb., and are interesting specimens of 5th-cent. exegesis. That on Romans, a series of explanatory remarks on isolated texts, is the most important. He fails to grasp the great central doctrine of the epistle, but shews thought and spiritual life. Gennadius, CP. Patr., Patr. Gk. lxxxv. p.1611, etc.; Bolland. AA. SS. Aug.25, p.148; Ceillier, x.343.


Gennadius (11) Massiliensis, presbyter of Marseilles Gennadius (11) Massiliensis, presbyter of Marseilles, who died in 496.

If we accept his de Viris Illustribus as it is commonly published, we are warranted in classing Gennadius of Marseilles with the semi-Pelagians, as he censures Augustine and Prosper and praises Faustus. Moreover, the very laudatory account of St. Jerome at the commencement of the book seems inconsistent with the hostile reference to that father under the art. Rufinus in the same catalogue.

The de Viyis Iliustribus in its most commonly accepted form was probably published c.495. and contains, in some ten folio pages, short biographies of ecclesiastics between 392 and 495. Although lacking the lively touches of his great predecessor, Jerome, the catalogue of Gennadius exhibits a real sense of proportion. The greater men stand out in its pages, and it conveys much real and valuable information. With due allowance for the bias referred to, it may be regarded as a trustworthy compilation.

His other treatise, entitled Epistola de Fide med, or de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus Liber, begins with a profession of faith in the three creeds, interwoven with the names of those who are considered by the writer (with occasionally questionable accuracy) to have impugned this or that article of belief. Gennadius considers (like later writers, e.g. Aquinas) that all men, even those alive at the second Advent, will have to die (7). But this conviction, though derived from a widespread patristic tradition, is, he admits, rejected by equally catholic and learned Fathers. Of the theories concerning the soul of man subsequently known as the creationist and the traducianist views, he espouses the creationist. He will not allow the existence of the spirit as a third element in man besides the body and the soul, but regards it as only another name for the soul (19). Heretical baptism is not to be repeated, unless it has been administered by heretics who would have declined to employ the invocation of the Holy Trinity (52). He recommends weekly reception of the Eucharist by all not under the burden of mortal sin. Such as are should have recourse to public penitence. He will not deny that private penance may suffice; but even here outward manifestation, such as change of dress, is desirable. Daily reception of holy communion he will neither praise nor blame (53)· Evil was invented by Satan (57). Though celibacy is rated above matrimony, to condemn marriage is Manichean (67). A twice-married Christian should not be ordained (72). Churches should be called after martyrs, and the relics of martyrs honoured (73). None but the baptized attain eternal life; not even catechumens, unless they suffer martyrdom (74). Penitence thoroughly avails to Christians even at their latest breath (80). The Creator alone knows our secret thoughts. Satan can learn them only by our motions and manifestations (81). Marvels maybe wrought in the Lord's name even by bad men (84). Men can become holy without such marks (85). The freedom of man's will is strongly asserted in this short treatise, but the commencement of all goodness is assigned to divine grace. The language of Gennadius is here not quite Augustinian; but neither is it Pelagian, and the work was long included among those of St. Augustine.

The de Viris Illustribus is given in most good edd. of the works of St. Jerome, and is ed. by Dr. Richardson in the Lib. of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers; the Liber de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus is in the Appendix to t. viii. of the Benedictine ed. of St. Augustine (p.75). Cf. C. H. Turner in J. of Theol. Studies (1905), vii.78-99, who prints a new text of the Liber de Eccl. Dogm.


Genovefa, patron saint of Paris and France
Genovefa (Geneviève), patron saint of Paris and of France. The most ancient records tell the story of her life as follows: About a.d.430 St. Germanus of Auxerre and St. Lupus of Troyes, proceeding to England to combat the Pelagian heresy, stayed one evening at Nanterre, then a village, about 7 miles from Paris. The villagers assembled to see the two renowned prelates, and a little girl attracted the notice of St. Germanus. He learnt that her name was Genovefa, her parents' names Severus and Gerontia. The parents were summoned, and bidden rejoice in the sanctity of their daughter, who would be the means of saving many. Addressing himself to the child, he dwelt on the high state of virginity, and engaged her to consecrate herself. Before departing St. Germanus reminded her of her promise, and gave her a brazen coin marked with the cross, to wear as her only ornament. Henceforth miracles marked her out as the spouse of Christ. When St. Germanus arrived in Paris on a second journey to Britain, he asked tidings of St. Genovefa, and was met with the murmurs of her detractors. Disregarding their tales, he sought her dwelling, humbly saluted her, shewed the people the floor of her chamber wet with her secret tears, and commended her to their love. When the rumour of Attila's merciless and irresistible progress reached Paris, the terrified citizens were for fleeing with their families and goods. But Genovefa assembled the matrons and bade them seek deliverance by prayer and fasting rather than by flight. The Huns were diverted through the efficacy of her prayers, as after-ages believed (c.448). Her abstinence and self-inflicted privations were notable. From her 15th to her 50th year she ate but twice a week, and then only bread of barley or beans. Thereafter, by command of her bishops, she added a little fish and milk. Every Saturday she kept a vigil in her church of St. Denys, and from Epiphany till Easter remained immured in her cell. Before her death Clovis, of whose conversion a later legend has made her the joint author with Clotilda, began to build for her the church which later bore her name. Unfinished at his death, it was completed by Clotilda, and dedicated to SS. Peter and Paul. Upon Genovefa's death (Jan.3, 512) she was buried in it.

The chief authority for her history is an anonymous author, who asserts that he wrote 18 years after her death, therefore c. a.d.530. This life was first published by Jean Ravisi, of Nevers, in his Des Femmes illustres (Paris, 521), and then by Surius, with corrections in the style (Jan.3); again, by the Bollandists, in 1643, from better MSS., together with another Life differing only in unimportant particulars (Acta SS. Jan.1, 138 seq.). The Life of St. Germanus of Auxerre by Constantius (c.5, Boll. Acta SS. Jul. vii.211), and that part of St. Genovefa's which relates to him, almost certainly have a common source, or else one is taken from the other, with slight alterations. That episode being subtracted, there is nothing in the remainder which might not be the work of a later age. The history, therefore, must be accepted with great doubt. Innumerable Lives of St. Genovefa have appeared in France in modern times, mostly of a devotional character, and useless for critical or historical purposes. Saintyves, Vie de Ste. Geneviève; Baillet, Vies des saints, Jan.3, t. ii.417; Bedouet, Hist. et eulte de Ste. G. (Paris, 1866); Lefeuve, Hist. de Ste. G. c. xiii. (Paris, 1842); Fleury, Hist. ecclés. lxix.22, lxxiv.39; Dulaure, Hist. de Paris, i.240-241.


Genseric, king of the Vandals
Genseric, king of the Vandals, the illegitimate son of king Godigiselus, reigned in Spain jointly with his legitimate brother GUNDERIC, and on the death of the latter, a.d.428, became sole sovereign. He is said to have been originally a Catholic, but early in life embraced the Arian heresy.

Before the death of Gunderic, Boniface, count of Africa, forced to seek safety in revolt, invited the Vandals to invade Africa. Genseric readily accepted, and in May 429, according to Idatius (in 427 according to Prosper), crossed into Africa with 50,000 warriors, who poured over the fertile and defenceless provinces. Carthage, Cirta, and Hippo Regius alone withstood the tide of invasion. The Vandals especially ravaged the churches, basilicas, cemeteries, and monasteries. Bishops and priests were tortured to compel them to disclose the church treasures. Victor mentions two who were burnt alive -- the venerable Papinian, one of his predecessors in the see of Vita, and Mansuetus, bp. of Urci. Hippo was besieged, but through the efforts of count Boniface, who had returned to his allegiance, supported by an army of allied Goths, the Vandals were obliged by famine, after a siege of 14 months, to abandon the attempt. St. Augustine died in Aug. a.d.430, in the 3rd month of the siege (Possidius, Life of St. Aug. in Migne, Patr. Lat. xxxii.59). Soon afterwards Boniface, defeated with great loss, returned to Italy. Genseric concluded at Hippo, on Feb.10, 435, a peace with Valentinian, undertaking to pay a tribute for the territories he had conquered, and to leave unmolested those still held by Valentinian, sending his son Hunneric as a hostage. In 437 Genseric began to persecute the Catholic bishops in the ceded territories, of whom Possidius Novatus and Severianus were the most illustrious, and not only took their churches from them, but banished them from their sees. Four Spaniards, Arcadius, Probus, Paschasius, and Eutychius, who were faithful servants of Genseric, but who refused at his command to embrace Arianism, were tortured and put to death. Paulillus, a younger brother of Paschasius and Eutychius, was cruelly scourged and reduced to slavery.

Genseric, after procuring the restoration of his son, took Carthage by surprise, Oct.19, 439. The bishops and noble laity were stripped of their possessions and offered the alternative of slavery or exile. Quodvultdeus, bp. of Carthage, and a number of his clergy were compelled to embark in unseaworthy ships, but reached Naples in safety. All the churches within the walls of Carthage were handed over from the Catholics to the Arians, and also many of those outside, especially two dedicated to St. Cyprian. The Arians in this were, however, only meting out to the Catholics treatment such as they received where the latter party was the stronger. Genseric ordered funeral processions of the Catholics to be conducted in silence and sent the remainder of the clergy into exile. Some of the most distinguished clergy and laity of these provinces petitioned the king to be allowed to live in peace under the Vandals. He replied, |I have resolved to let none of your race and name escape. How then do you dare to make such a demand?| and was with difficulty restrained by the entreaties of his attendants from drowning the petitioners in the adjoining sea. The Catholics, deprived of their churches, were obliged to celebrate the divine mysteries where and as best they could. In 440 Genseric equipped a fleet, with which he ravaged Sicily and besieged Palermo. At the instigation of Maximus, the leader of the Arians in Sicily, he persecuted the Catholics, some of whom suffered martyrdom. According to Prosper, he was recalled by news of the arrival in Africa of count Sebastian, son-in-law of count Boniface, but Idatius places his arrival ten years later. Sebastian had come as a friend to take refuge at his court, but Genseric, who feared his renown as a statesman and general, tried to convert him to Arianism, that his refusal might supply a pretext for putting him to death. Sebastian evaded his demands by a dexterous reply, which Genseric was unable to answer, but some other excuse for his execution was shortly found. In a.d.441 a new peace was concluded, by which Valentinian retained the three Mauritanias and part of Numidia, and ceded the remainder of his African dominions to Genseric, who divided the Zeugitane or proconsular province, in which was Carthage, among the Vandals and kept the rest in his own possession. Universal oppression of the natives followed. Then Genseric discovered a plot among his nobles against himself, and tortured and executed many of them. Probably from alarm at this conspiracy, he began a new and severer persecution. The Catholics were allowed no place for prayer or the ministration of the sacraments. Every allusion in a sermon to Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, or Holofernes was regarded as aimed at the king, and the preacher punished with exile. Among the bishops now banished, Victor mentions Urbanus of Girba, Crescius, a metropolitan who presided over 120 bishops, Habetdeus of Teudela, and Eustratius of Suffectum. Felix of Adrumetum was banished for receiving a foreign monk. Genseric prohibited the consecration of new bishops in place of those banished. In 454, however, he yielded to Valentinian's requests so far as to allow Deogratias to be consecrated for Carthage. The see had remained vacant since the banishment of Quodvultdeus 15 years before. In 455 Genseric, at the invitation of Eudoxia, Valentinian's widow, sailed to Italy, and took Rome without a blow. At the intercession of Leo the Great, he abstained from torturing or massacring the inhabitants and burning the city, but gave it up to systematic plunder. For 14 days and nights the work of pillage continued, the city was ransacked of its remaining treasures, and Genseric then returned unmolested to Africa, carrying much booty and many thousand captives, including the empress Eudoxia and her two daughters. The elder became the wife of his son Hunneric; the younger, with her mother, was eventually surrendered to the emperor Leo.

The whole of Africa now fell into the hands of Genseric, and also Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and the Balearic Islands. His fleets yearly sailed from Carthage in the early spring, and ravaged all the Mediterranean coasts. When leaving Carthage on one of these expeditions, the helmsman asked Genseric whither he should steer. |Against those,| he replied, |who have incurred the wrath of God.| His object was not only to plunder, but to persecute. Spain, Italy, Dalmatia, Campania, Calabria, Apulia, Bruttium, Venetia, Lucania, Epirus, and the Peloponnese all suffered from his ravages. After the death of Deogratias, a.d.457, Genseric did not allow any more bishops to be consecrated in the proconsular province, the peculiar domain of the Vandals, so that of the original number of 164 only three were left in Victor's time. One Proculus was sent to compel the bishops to give up all their books and the sacramental vessels. When they refused, they were seized by force and the altar-cloths made into shirts for the soldiers. St. Valerian, bp. of Abbenza, was expelled from that town. No one was allowed to receive him into their house or permit him to remain on their land, and he was long obliged to lie by the roadside. At Regia the Catholics had ventured at Easter to take possession of their church. The Arians, headed by a priest named Adduit, attacked the church, part forcing an entrance with drawn swords and part shooting arrows through the windows. The reader was killed in the pulpit by an arrow, and many worshippers slain on the altar-steps. Most of the survivors were executed by Genseric's orders. Genseric, by the advice of the Arian bishops, commanded all officials of his court to embrace Arianism. According to Victor's account, Armogast, one of the number, refused, and was tightly bound with cords, but they broke like a spider's web; and when he was hung head downwards by one foot, he seemed to sleep as peacefully as if in his bed. His persecutors, unable to overcome his resolution, were about to kill him, but were dissuaded by an Arian priest, lest he should be reverenced as a martyr. He was accordingly compelled to labour in the fields and afterwards to tend cattle near Carthage.

The emperor Majorian in 460 assembled a fleet of 300 vessels at Carthagena to recover Africa. His plans were betrayed to the Vandals, who surprised and carried off the greater part of his ships. Genseric, however, in alarm, concluded peace with Majorian. In 468 Leo collected a mighty armament of 1,113 ships, each containing 100 men (Cedrenus, 350, ed. Dindorf.), under the command of his brother-in-law Basiliscus. The main armament landed at the Hermaean promontory (Cape Bon), about 40 miles from Carthage. Genseric, by means, it was generally believed, of a large bribe, induced Basiliscus to grant a truce for five days. He used this time to man all the ships he could, and, the wind becoming favourable, attacked the Romans and sent fire-ships among their crowded vessels. Panic and confusion spread through the vast multitude, most of whom tried to fly, but a few fell fighting gallantly to the last. After this victory Genseric regained Sardinia and Tripoli, where the Roman arms had met with success, and ravaged the Mediterranean coasts more cruelly than before, till a peace was concluded between him and the emperor Zeno. Genseric, at the request of the emperor's ambassador Severus, released those prisoners who had fallen to his own or his sons' lot, and allowed him to ransom as many others as he could (Malchus, de Legationibus, 3, ed. Dindorf), and, at Leo's entreaty, allowed the churches of Carthage to be reopened and the exiled bishops and clergy to return. Soon afterwards he died, on Jan.24, 477.

According to the description of Jornandes (de Gothorum Origine, c.33, in Cassiodorus, i.412, in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxix.1274), Genseric was of moderate stature and lame from a fall from his horse. He was a man of few words, and thus better able to conceal the deep designs he had conceived. He scorned luxury, was greedy of empire, passionate, skilful in intrigue, and cruel; but it must be remembered that all our informants are writers who hated and dreaded himself and his nation both as heretics and enemies. With every allowance for Salvian's rhetoric (de Gubernatione Dei, vii. in Migne, Patr. Lat. liii.), it must be admitted that his description of the morals of the Vandals and those of the dissolute Carthaginians show the former in a more favourable light than the latter.

Genseric's name is variously spelt Gizericus, Gaisericus, Geisericus, and Zinzirichus. The sources for the above account are the Chronicles of Prosper and Idatius (in Migne, Patr. Lat. li.); Procopius, de Bello Vandalico, i.3-7; Isidorus, de Regibus Gothorum (Isid. Opp. vii.130-133, in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxxiii.1076); and Victor Vitensis, de Persecutione Vandalica, i. (in Migne, Patr. Lat. lviii.). Gibbon, cc. xxxiii. xxxvi. and xxxvii., may also be consulted; and Ruinart's dissertation in his appendix to Victor Vitensis, and Ceillier, Histoire des auteurs sacrés, x. c.28.


Georgius (3), bp. of Laodicea
Georgius (3), bp. of Laodicea ad mare in Syria Prima (335-347), who took part in the Trinitarian controversies of the 4th cent. At first an ardent admirer of the teaching of Arius and associated with Eusebius of Nicomedia, he subsequently became a semi-Arian, but seems ultimately to have united with the Anomoeans, whose uncompromising opponent he had once been, and to have died professing their tenets (Newman, Arians, pt. ii. p.275). He was a native of Alexandria. In early life he devoted himself with considerable distinction to the study of philosophy (Philost. H. E. viii.17). He was ordained presbyter by Alexander, bp. of Alexandria (ib.; Eus. Vit. Const. iii.62). Having gone to Antioch, he endeavoured to mediate between Arius and the Catholic body. To the Arians he shewed how, by a sophistical evasion based on I. Cor. xi.12 (ta de panta ek tou Theou), they might accept the orthodox test Theon ek Theou (Socr. H. E. ii.45; Athan. de Synod. p.887). The attempt at reconciliation completely failed, and resulted in his deposition and excommunication by Alexander, on the ground of false doctrine and of the open and habitual irregularities of his life (Athan. ib. p.886; Apol. ii. p.728; de Fug. p.718; Theod. H. E. ii.9). Athanasius styles him |the most wicked of all the Arians,| reprobated even by his own party (de Fug.718). After his excommunication at Alexandria, he sought admission among the clergy of Antioch, but was steadily rejected by Eustathius (Athan. Hist. Arian. p.812). On this he retired to Arethusa, where he acted as presbyter, and, on the expulsion of Eustathius, was welcomed back to Antioch by the dominant Arian faction. He was appointed bp. of Laodicea on the death of the Arian Theodotus (Athan. de Synod. p.886; Or. i. p.290; Soz. H. E. vi.25). As bishop he took a leading part in the successive synods summoned by the Arian faction against Athanasius. He was at the councils of Tyre and Jerusalem in 335 (Athan. Apol. ii. p.728; Eus. Vit. Const. iv.43), and that of the Dedication at Antioch in 341 (Soz. H. E. iii.5). Fear kept him from the council of Sardica in 347, where the bishops unanimously deposed him and many others as having been previously condemned by Alexander, and as holding Arian opinions (Theod. H. E. iii.9; Labbe, Concil. ii.678; Athan. Apol. ii. p.765; de Fug. p.718). Of this deposition George took no heed, and in 358, when Eudoxius, the newly appointed bp. of Antioch, openly sided with Aetius and the Anomoeans, George earnestly appealed to Macedonius of Constantinople and other bishops, who were visiting Basil at Ancyra to consecrate a newly erected church, to lose no time in summoning a council to condemn the Anomoean heresy and eject Aetius. His letter is preserved by Sozomen (H. E. iv.13; Labbe, Concil. ii.790). At Seleucia, in 359, when the semi-Arian party was split into two, George headed the more numerous faction opposed to that of Acacius and Eudoxius, whom, with their adherents, they deposed (Socr. H. E. ii.40). On the expulsion of Anianus from the see of Antioch, George was mainly responsible for the election of Meletius, believing him to hold the same opinions as himself. He was speedily undeceived, for on his first entry into Antioch Meletius startled his hearers by an unequivocal declaration of the truth as laid down at Nicaea. Indignant at being thus entrapped, George and his fellows lost no time in securing the deposition and expulsion of a bishop of such uncompromising orthodoxy (Theod. H. E. ii.31; Philost. H. E. v.1; Socr. H. E. ii.44; Soz. H. E. iv.28). Gregory Nyssen mentions a letter by George relating to Arius (in Eunom. i.28), and Socrates quotes a panegyric composed by him on the Arian Eusebius of Emesa, who was his intimate friend and resided with him at Laodicea after his expulsion from Emesa and by whose intervention at Antioch he was restored to his see (Socr. H. E. i.24, ii.9). He was also the author of some treatises against heresy, especially that of the Manicheans (Theod. Haer. Fab. i.28 ; Phot. Bibl. c.85; Niceph. H. E. vi.32).


Georgius (4), Arian bp. of Alexandria
Georgius (4), commonly called of Cappadocia (Athan. Ep. ad Episc.7); Arian intruding bp. of Alexandria (356-361). He was born, according to Ammianus Marcellinus, at Epiphania in Cilicia (xxii.11, 3), and, if so, must have been Cappadocian only by descent. Gregory Nazianzen describes him as not purely free-born (Orat. xxi.16), and as |unlearned,| but he undoubtedly collected a library which Julian, no bad judge, describes as |very large and ample,| richly stored with philosophical, rhetorical, and historical authors, and with various works of |Galilean| or Christian theology (Epp.9, 36). In Feb.356, after Athanasius had retired from Alexandria in consequence of the attack on his church, which all but ended in his seizure, he heard that George was to be intruded into his throne, as Gregory had been 16 years previously. George arrived in Alexandria, escorted by soldiers, during Lent 356 (de Fug.6). His installation was a signal for new inflictions on Alexandrian church-people. |After Easter week,| says Athanasius (ib.), |virgins were imprisoned, bishops led away in chains| (some 26 are named in Hist. Arian.72) ; |attacks made on houses|; and on the first Sunday evening after Pentecost a number of people who had met for prayer in a secluded place were cruelly maltreated by the commander, Sebastian, a |pitiless Manichean,| for refusing to communicate with George.

The intruding bishop was a man of resolution and action (Soz. iii.7). Gregory of Nazianzus, who disparages his abilities, admits that he was like a |hand| to the Arians, while he employed an eloquent prelate -- probably Acacius -- as a |tongue.| He belonged to the Acacian section of the party, and was consequently obnoxious to the semi-Arians, who |deposed him| in the council of Seleucia. He allowed the notorious adventurer Aetius, founder of the Anomoeans or ultra-Arians, to officiate as deacon at Alexandria, after having been ordained, as Athanasius tells us (de Synod.38), by Leontius of Antioch, although he afterwards |compelled| the Arian bishops of Egypt to sign the decree of the Acacian synod of Constantinople of 360 against Aetius (Philost. iii.2). He induced Theodore, bp. of Oxyrynchus, to submit to degradation from the ministry and to be reordained by him as an Arian bishop (Lib. Marcell. et Faustini, Sirmond. i.135). He managed to keep the confidence of Constantius, who congratulated the Alexandrians on having abandoned such |grovelling teachers| as Athanasius and entrusted their |heavenward aspirations| to the guidance of |the most venerable George| (Athan. Apol. to Const.30, 31). But George was far from recommending his form of Christianity either to the orthodox or to the pagans of Alexandria. |He was severe,| says Sozomen, |to the adherents of Athanasius,| not only forbidding the exercise of their worship, but |inflicting imprisonment and scourges on men and women after the fashion of a tyrant|; while, towards all alike, |he wielded his authority with more violence than belonged to the episcopal rank and character.| He was |hated by the magistrates for his supercilious demeanour, by the people for his tyranny| (Soz. iv.10, 30). He stood well with Constantius, who was guided theologically by the Acacians; and it was easy for the |pope| of Alexandria to embitter his sovereign (as Julian says he did, Ep.10) against the Alexandrian community, to name several of its members as disobedient subjects, and to suggest that its grand public buildings ought by rights to pay tax to the treasury (Ammian. etc.). He shewed himself a keen man of business, |buying up the nitre-works, the marshes of papyrus and reed, and the salt lakes| (Epiph. Haer. lxxvi.). He manifested his anti-pagan zeal by arbitrary acts and insulting speeches, procured the banishment of Zeno, a prominent pagan physician (Julian, Ep.45), prevented the pagans from offering sacrifices and celebrating their national feasts (Soz. iv.30), brought Artemius, |duke| of Egypt, much given to the destruction of idols (Theod. iii.18), with an armed force into the superb temple of Serapis at Alexandria, which was forthwith stripped of images, votive offerings, and ornaments (Julian, l.c.; Soz. l.c.). On Aug.29, 358, the people broke into the church of St. Dionysius, where George was then residing, and the soldiers rescued him from their hands with difficulty and after hard fighting. On Oct.2 he was obliged to leave the city; and the |Athanasians| occupied the churches from Oct.11 to Dec.24, when they were again ejected by Sebastian. Probably George returned soon after he had quitted the Seleucian council, i.e. in Nov.359. The news of Julian's accession arrived at Alexandria Nov.30, 361. George was in the height of his pride and power: he had persecuted and mocked the pagans (Socr. iii.2; Maff. Frag.; Ammian.), who now, being officially informed that there was an emperor who worshipped the gods, felt that the gods could at last be avenged. The shout arose, |Away with George!| and |in a moment,| says the Fragmentist, they threw him into prison, with Diodorus and Dracontius, the master of the mint, who had overthrown a pagan altar which he found standing there (Ammian.). The captives were kept in irons until the morning of Dec.24. Then the pagan mob again assembled, dragged them forth with |horrible shouts| of triumph, and kicked them to death. They flung the mangled body of George on a camel, which they led through every part of the city, dragging the two other corpses along with ropes, and eventually burned the remains on the shore, casting the ashes into the sea.

The Arians, of course, regarded George as a martyr; and Gibbon took an evident pleasure in representing |the renowned St. George of England| as the Alexandrian usurper |transformed |into a heroic soldier-saint; but bp. Milner (Hist. Inquiry into the Existence and Character of St. George, 1792) and others have shewn that this assumption of identity is manifestly false, the St. George who is patron saint of England being of an earlier date, though of that saint's life, country, or date we have no certain information, such traditions as we possess being given in the next art.


Georgius (43), patron saint of England
Georgius (43), M., Apr.23 (Megalomartus, Bas. Men.); traditionally the patron saint of England, a military tribune and martyr under Diocletian at Nicomedia, A.D.303. He was a native of Cappadocia and of good birth. Some time before the outbreak of the great persecution he accompanied his mother to Lydda, in Palestine, where she possessed property. As soon, however, as he heard of the publication of the first edict (Feb.23, 303), he returned to Nicomedia where, as some think, he was the celebrated person who tore down the imperial proclamation, and then suffered death by roasting over a slow fire (Eus. H. E. viii.5). [[256]DIOCLETIAN.] The earliest historical testimony to the existence and martyrdom of St. George is an inscription in a church at Ezr'a or Edhr'a, in S. Syria, copied by Burckhardt and Porter, and discussed by Mr. Hogg in two papers before the Royal Society of Literature (Transactions, vi.292, vii.106). This inscription states that the building had been a heathen temple, but was dedicated as a church in honour of the great martyr St. George, in a year which Hogg, by an acute argument, fixes as 346. (For another view, however, which assigns the inscription to 499 see Böckh's Corp. Inscript. Graec. ed. Kirchhoff, t. iv. No.8627.) His name occurs again in another inscription in the church of Shaka, 20 miles E. of Ezr'a, which Hogg dates a.d.367. (Böckh, l.c. No.8609, cf.8630; for other instances of transformations of heathen temples into churches and hospitals in the 4th and 5th cent., see Böckh, l.c.8645, 8647.) The council assembled at Rome by pope Gelasius, a.d.494 or 496 (Hefele, Concil. i.610, iii.219, ed. Paris, 1869), condemned the Acts of St. George, together with those of Cyricus and Julitta, as corrupted by heretics, but expressly asserted that the saints themselves were real martyrs and worthy of all reverence (cf. Pitra, Spicil. Solesmen. iv.391, for a repetition, three centuries later in the East, of this condemnation by the patriarch Nicephorus, in his Constit. Eccl.). Thenceforward the testimonies to his existence rapidly thicken, but decrease in value. Gregory of Tours in the 6th cent. mentions him as highly celebrated in France, while in the East his cultus became universally established (cf. Fleury, H. E. xxxiv.46) and churches were erected in all directions in his honour, one of the most celebrated being that built, probably by Justinian, over his tomb at Lydda, whither his relics had been transferred after his martyrdom. This church still exists. (For an engraving of it, see Thomson's Land and Book, ii.292; cf. Robinson's Biblical Researches, iii.51-55, with Le Quien, Oriens Christian. iii.1271, for full particulars of St. George's connexion with Lydda.) Another is at Thessalonica; described in Texier and Pullan, Byzantine Architecture, pp.132-142, where strong reasons are given for assigning its erection to Constantine (cf. Procopius, de Aedif. iii.4, ed. Bonn).

The Medieval Legends. -- The Arians of the 5th cent. seem to have corrupted his acts for their own purposes. Their story is that he was arrested by Datianus, emperor of Rome, or, according to others, of Persia, by whom he was in vain ordered to sacrifice to Apollo. The magician Athanasius undertook to confound the saint. After various attempts the magician was converted and baptized, as well as the queen Alexandra. After many miracles and various tortures, St. George was beheaded. It is strange that, notwithstanding the decrees of Rome and Constantinople, this Arian corruption became the basis of all subsequent legends, and even found its way into the hymns of St. John Damascene in honour of St. George (Mai. Spicil. Rom. t. ix. p.729; Ceillier, xii.89). The addition of a horse and a dragon to the story arose out of the imaginations of medieval writers. The dragon represents the devil, suggested by St. George's triumph over him at his martyrdom (cf. Eus. Vita Constant. iii.3). When the race of the Bagratides ascended the throne of Georgia at the end of the 6th cent., they adopted St. George slaying the Dragon as part of their arms (Malan, Hist. of Georgian Ch. pp.15, 29). The horse was added during the Frankish occupation of Constantinople as suitable, according to medieval ideas, to his rank and character as a military martyr. St. George was depicted on a horse as early as 1227, according to Nicephorus Gregoras (Hist. Byzant. viii.5), where will be found a curious story concerning a picture in the imperial palace at Constantinople, of St. George mounted upon a horse, which neighed in the most violent style whenever an enemy was about to make a successful assault upon the city. The earliest trace we can now find of the full-grown legend of St. George and the dragon, and the king's daughter Sabra, whom he delivered, is in the Historia Lombardica, popularly called the Golden Legend, of Jacobus de Voragine, archbp. of Genoa, a.d.1280, and in the breviary service for St. George's Day, till revised by pope Clement VIII. Thence it became the foundation of the story as told in Johnson's Historie of the Seven Champions of Christendom, and the old ballad of St. George and the Dragon, reprinted in the third volume of Percy's Reliques, many features of which Spenser reproduces in his Faëry Queen. Busbecq in the 16th cent. found in the heart of Asia Minor a legend of the Turkish hero Chederles, to whom were ascribed exploits similar to those of St. George (Ep.1, pp.93, 95, ed.1633), and he found Georgian Christians venerating above every image that of St. George on horseback, regarding him as having conquered the evil one (Ep.3, p.209).

Connexion with England. -- St. George's story was well known in England from the 7th cent., most probably through the Roman missionaries sent by Gregory. Arculf, the early traveller, when returning to his bishopric in France, was carried northward to Iona, c.699, where he told the monks the story of St. George, whence, through Adamnan and Bede, it became widely known in Britain. St. George has a place in the Anglo-Saxon ritual of Durham assigned to the early part of the 9th cent., pub. by the Surtees Society a.d.1840, and among the publications of the Percy Society we have an Anglo-Saxon Passion of St. George, the work of Aelfric, archbp. of York a.d.1020-1051, ed. by Hardwick a.d.1850, in whose preface is much interesting information on this point. His special fame, however, in this country arose immediately out of the early Crusades. William of Malmesbury (Gesta Reg. Angl. ed. Sir T. D. Hardy, ii.559) tells us that, when the Crusaders were hard pressed by the Saracens at the battle of Antioch, June 28, 1089, the soldiers were encouraged by seeing |the martyrs George and Demetrius hastily approaching from the mountainous districts, hurling darts against the enemy, but assisting the Franks| (cf. Gibbon, cap. lviii.; Michaud's Hist. of Crusades, i.173, ed. Lond.; on the military fame of St. Demetrius see Böckh, Corp. Inscrip. iv.8642; Du Cange, Gloss. i.974; Texier, op. cit. pp.123-132). This timely apparition at the very crisis of the campaign led the Crusaders, among whom were a large contingent of Normans under Robert, son of William the Conqueror, to adopt St. George as their patron. During the campaigns of Richard I. in Palestine, St. George appeared to him and so became a special favourite with the Normans and English (Itin. of Richard I. in Chron. of Crusades, ed. Bohn, p.239). In 1222 a national council at Oxford ordered his feast to be kept as a lesser holiday throughout England. He was not, however, formally adopted as patron saint of England till the time of Edward III., who founded St. George's chapel at Windsor in 1348. In 1349 Edward joined battle with the French near Calais, when, |moved by a sudden impulse,| says Thomas of Walsingham, |he drew his sword with the exclamation, Ha! St. Edward, Ha! St. George, and routed the French| (cf. Smith's Student's Hume, cap. x. § 8). From that time St. George replaced St. Edward the Confessor as patron of England. In 1350, according to some authorities, the order of the Garter was instituted under his patronage, and in 1415, according to the Constitutions of archbp. Chichely, St. George's Day was made a major double feast, and ordered to be observed like Christmas Day. In the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. St. George's feast was a red-letter day, and had a special epistle and gospel. This was changed in the next revision (Ashmole, Order of the Garter; Anstis, Register; Pott, Antiquities of Windsor and History of Order of Garter, a.d.1749). The influence of the Crusades also led to St. George becoming the patron of the republic of Genoa, the kingdoms of Aragon and Valencia, and to the institutions of orders of knighthood under his name all over Europe (cf. AA. SS. Boll. Apr. iii.160). In N. Syria his day is still observed as a great festival (Lyde, Secret Sects of N. Syria, Lond.1853, p.19).

Controversy. -- The consentient testimony of all Christendom till the Reformation attested the existence of St. George. Calvin first questioned it. In his Institutes, lib. iii. cap.20, § 27, when arguing against invocation of saints, he ridiculed those who esteem Christ's intercession as of no value unless |accedant Georgius aut Hippolytus aut similes larvae,| where, unfortunately for himself, he places Hippolytus in the class of ghosts or phantoms together with St. George. Dr. Reynolds, early in the 17th cent., was the first to confuse the orthodox martyr of Lydda with the Arian bp. of Alexandria. [[257]GEORGIUS (4).] Against him Dr. Heylin argued in an exhaustive treatise (Hist. of St. George of Cappadocia), giving (pp.164-166) a very full list of all earlier authors who had referred to St. George, including a quotation from a reputed treatise by St. Ambrose, Liber Praefationum, which is not now extant. The controversy was continued during the 18th cent. Dr. Milner wrote in defence of the historical reality of St. George, provoked doubtless by Gibbon's well-known sneer in c. xxiii. of his history. See further Mart. Vet. Rom., Mart. Adon., Mart. Usuard., which all fix his martyrdom at Diospolis in Persia (cf. Herod. ed. Rawlinson, i.72, v.49, vii.72); Hogg, however, well suggests the Bithynian town of that name, which was in the Persian empire under Cyrus (Pasch. Chron. ed. Bonn, p.510; Sym. Metaphrast.; Magdeburg. Centur. cent. iv. cap. iii.; Ceillier, xi.404, iii.58, 89, 297; Alban-Butler, Lives of Saints; Malan, Hist. of the Georgian Church, pp.28, 51, 54, 72; E. A. Wallis Budge, The Martyrdom and Miracles of St. George of Cappadocia: the Coptic texts ed. with an Eng. trans., Lond.1888).


Germanus, St., bp. of Auxerre
Germanus (8), St., bp. of Auxerre, born probably c.378, at Auxerre, near the S. border of what was afterwards Champagne. The parents of German caused him to be baptized and well educated. He went to Rome, studied for the bar, practised as an advocate before the tribunal of the prefect, on his return married a lady named Eustachia, and rose to be one of the six dukes of Gaul, each of whom governed a number of provinces (Gibbon, ii.320), Auxerre being included in German's district. German, having been ordained and nominated as his successor by Amator, bp. of Auxerre, was, on the latter's death, unanimously elected, and consecrated on Sun. July 7, 418. His wife became to him as a sister; he distributed his property to the poor; he became a severe ascetic, and, as his biographer Constantius says, a |persecutor of his body,| abstaining from salt, oil, and even from vegetables, from wine, excepting a small quantity much diluted on Christmas Day or Easter Day, and from wheat bread, instead of which he ate barley bread with a preliminary taste of ashes (cinerem praelibavit). He wore the same hood and tunic in all seasons, and slept on ashes in a framework of boards. |Let any one speak his mind,| says Constantius, to whom some details of German's life must have come down not free from exaggeration, |but I positively assert that the blessed German endured a long martyrdom.| Withal he was hospitable, and gave his guests a good meal, though he would not share it. He founded a monastery outside Auxerre, on the opposite bank of the Yonne, often crossing in a boat to visit the abbat and brethren.

Pelagianism had been rife in its founder's native island of Britain; and the British clergy, unable to refute the heretics, requested help from the church, we may say from their mother church, of Gaul. Accordingly a numerous synod unanimously sent to Britain German and Lupus, bp. of Troyes, both going the more readily because of the labour involved. So says Constantius, who is followed closely by Bede (i.17). But Prosper of Aquitaine, a contemporary, in his Chronicle for a.d.429, says that pope Celestine, |at the suggestion of the deacon Palladius, sent German as his representative| (vice sua) into Britain; and in his contra Collatorem, written c.432, speaks of Celestine as |taking pains to keep the Roman island| (Britain) |Catholic| (c.21 or 24). The truth probably lies in a combination of the pope's action with the councils, at any rate as regards German. Lupus is not included by Prosper -- of him evidently Celestine took no thought, but, we may reasonably believe, gave some special commission to German either before (so Tillemont, Mémoires, xiv.154) or at the time of the Gallic synod: it is not probable that, as Lingard supposes, the synod's commission was only to Lupus and German |sent| by the pope alone (Angl. Sax. Ch. i.8).

When the two prelates reached Nanterre near Paris, German saw in the crowd which met them the girl GENOVEFA, whom he bade live as one espoused to Christ, and who became |St. Geneviève of Paris.| Arrived in Britain, the bishops preached the doctrines of grace in churches and on the country roads with great effect; till the Pelagian leaders challenged them to a discussion, apparently near Verulam. A great multitude assembled: the two bishops, appealing to Scripture in support of the Catholic position, silenced their opponents, and the shouts of the audience hailed their victory. German and Lupus then visited the reputed tomb of the British protomartyr Alban; and Constantius adds the famous tale of the Alleluia Victory. The Britons were menaced by Picts and Saxons: German and Lupus encouraged them to resist, catechized and baptized the still heathen majority in their army, and then, shortly after Easter 430, stationing them in a narrow glen, bade them at the invaders' approach repeat thrice the Paschal Alleluia. The Britons sent the shout ringing through the defile; the enemy was seized with panic, and |faith without the sword won a bloodless victory.|

In 447 German was again entreated by British churchmen to aid them against Pelagianism. He took with him Severus, bp. of Treves, a disciple of Lupus, and having on his way vindicated Genovefa against calumniators, landed in Britain, triumphed again over the Pelagians, and procured their banishment from the island. Welsh traditions record his many activities on behalf of the British church. They lay the scene of the Alleluia victory at Maes-garmon near Mold; they speak of colleges founded by German, of national customs traced to his authority; and although much of this is legendary and the stories in Nennius about his relations with king Vortigern apocryphal, he probably did more for British Christianity than Constantius records. He had no sooner returned home than another occasion for his humane intervention arose. The Armoricans, whose country had not yet acquired (through British immigration) the name of Brittany, were in chronic revolt against the empire, hoping to obtain favourable terms for Armorica. German set forth at once for Italy, and on June 19, 448 reached Milan; proceeding to Ravenna, he obtained pardon for the Armoricans, but unfortunately news came that they had again revolted, and his mission proved in vain. German was soon afterwards taken ill. His lodging overflowed with visitors; a choir kept up ceaseless psalmody by his bedside. He died July 31, 448, having been bishop 30 years and 25 days. His body was embalmed, and a magnificent funeral journey to Gaul attested the reverence of the court. He was buried in a chapel near Auxerre on Oct.1. Constantius's Life is in Surius, de Probatis Sanctorum Historiis, vol. iv. A metrical Life and a prose account of his |miracles,| both by a monk named Hereric, are in Acta Sanctorum, July 31.


Germanus, bp. of Paris
Germanus (18) (Germain), St., 20th bp. of Paris, born at Autun of parents of rank named Eleutherius and Eusebia (c.496), and educated at Avalon and Luzy (Lausia). In due time he was ordained deacon, and three years later priest. He was next made abbat of the monastery of St. Symphorian at Autun, by bp. Nectarius. In 555, being present at Paris on some mission to Childebert, when that see was vacant by the death of Eusebius, he was raised to the archbishopric. His great object seems to have been to check the unbridled licence of the Frank kings, and to ameliorate the misery produced by constant civil war. In 557 he was present at the third council of Paris, and appears to have exercised considerable influence over Childebert, whose edict against pagan revelry on holy days may have been due to St. Germanus (Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxii.1121), and likewise the building by Childebert of the church of St. Vincent to receive the stole of that martyr which he had brought from Spain. (See the charter given by Aimoin, de Gest. Franc. ii.20, ed. Jac. du Brevi, Paris, 1602, and cf. Hist. Litt. de la France, iii.270). This church was said to have been consecrated by St. Germanus on the day Childebert died (Dec.23, 558). Childebert's successor Clotaire was, according to Venantius Fortunatus, at first not equally amenable, but a sickness changed his disposition. Germanus's death is variously dated 575, 576, and 577. He was buried in an oratorium near the vestibule of the church of St. Vincent; and in 754 his body was removed with great ceremony into the church itself, in the presence of Pippin and his son Charles the Great, then a child. The church henceforth was called St. Germain des Prés.

There is extant by St. Germanus a treatise on the Mass, or exposition of the old Gallic Liturgy (Patr. Lat. lxxii.89; cf. Ceillier, xi.308 seq., for the reasons for ascribing it to him). Among his writings is also generally counted the privilege which he granted to his monastery exempting it from all episcopal jurisdiction (c.565). Its authenticity has been vehemently attacked and defended (see Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxii.81 n. and the authorities there referred to). St. Germanus's Life was written by Venantius Fortunatus, his contemporary and friend, but the work is little else than a string of miracles. It may be found in Mabillon's Acta SS. Ord. S. Bened. i.234-245 (Paris, 1668-1701). See also Boll. Acta SS. Mai. vi.774 sqq.; Gall. Christ. vii.18-21; Mansi, ix.747, 805, 867, 869; and, for the monastery, the Dissertatio of Ruinartius, in Bouquet, ii.722.


Gervasius (1), June 19 (Us.); Oct.14 (Bas. Menol.). Martyr with Protasius at Milan, under Nero. These two brothers were sons of Vitalis, whose martyrdom at Ravenna and mythical acts are recorded in Mart. Adon. Apr.28. After 300 years, and when their memory had entirely faded, God is said to have revealed their place of burial to St. Ambrose in a dream. [[259]AMBROSIUS.] The empress Justina was striving to obtain one of the churches of Milan for Arian worship, and help was needed to sustain the orthodox in their opposition to the imperial authority, Just at this time a new and splendid basilica was awaiting consecration. The people, as a kind of orthodox demonstration, wished it consecrated with the same pomp and ceremonial as had been used for another new church near the Roman Gate. Ambrose consented, if he should have some new relics to place therein. He therefore ordered excavations to be made in the church of St. Nabor and St. Felix, near the rails which enclosed their tomb. The search was rewarded by the discovery of the bodies of |two men of wondrous size, such as ancient times produced| (Amb. Ep. xxii. § 2), with all their bones entire and very much blood. They were removed to the church of St. Fausta, and the next day to the new Ambrosian church, where they were duly enshrined. At each different stage St. Ambrose delivered impassioned and fanciful harangues. In that on their enshrinement he claims that they had already expelled demons, and restored to sight a blind butcher, one Severus, who was cured by touching the pall that covered the relics. The Arians ridiculed the matter, asserting that Ambrose had hired persons to feign themselves demoniacs. The whole story has afforded copious matter for criticism. Mosheim (cent. iv. pt. ii. c.3, § 8), Gibbon (c. xxvii.), Isaac Taylor (Ancient Christianity, Vol. ii.242-272), consider the thing a trick got up by the contrivance and at the expense of St. Ambrose himself. Two distinct points demand attention: 1st, the finding of the bodies; 2nd, the reputed miracles. The discovery of the bodies may have been neither a miracle nor a trick. Churches were frequently built in cemeteries, and excavation might easily chance upon bodies. Some, moreover, have fixed Diocletian's persecution as the time of their martyrdom, and St. Ambrose, as the official custodian of the church records, might therefore have some knowledge of their resting-place, and in times of intense theological excitement men have often imputed to dreams or supernatural assistance that for which, under calmer circumstances, they would account in a more commonplace way. It is hardly possible to read through the epistle of St. Ambrose to his sister Marcellina (Ep. xxii.), in which he gives an account of the discovery, and still imagine that such genuine enthusiasm could go hand in hand with conscious knavery and deceit. There remains the question of the miracles to which St. Ambrose and St. Augustine testify (de Civit. Dei xxii.8; Confess. ix.7; Ser.286 and 318). These were of two kinds: the restoration of demoniacs and the healing of a blind man. As to the demoniacs, we cannot decide. At times of religious excitement such cases have occurred, and can be accounted for on purely natural grounds. They belong to an obscure region of psychological phenomena. The case of the blind man, whose cure is reported by St. Augustine, then resident at Milan, as well as by St. Ambrose, stands on a different footing, and is the one really important point of the narrative with which Taylor fails effectively to grapple. We must observe, also, in favour of the miracle that St. Ambrose called immediate attention to it, and that no one seems to have challenged the fact of the blindness or the reality of restoration to sight; and further Severus devoted himself in consequence as a servant of the church wherein the relics were placed, and continued such for more than 20 years. On the other hand, we have no means of judging as to the nature of the disease in the man's eyes. He was not born blind, but had contracted the disease, being a butcher by trade. He might therefore have only been affected in some such way as powerful nervous excitement might cure, but for which he and St. Ambrose would naturally account by the miraculous power of the martyrs. In the Criterion of Miracles, by bp. Douglas (pp.130-160, ed.1803), there are many acute observations on similar reputed miracles in the 18th cent. Mart. Rom. Vet., Adon., Bedae, Usuard.; Kal. Carthag.; Kal. Front.; Tillem. Mém. ii.78, 498; Fleury, H. E. viii.49, xviii.47; Ceill. v.386, 490, ix.340.


Gildas, monk of Bangor
Gildas (Gildasius, Gildus, Gillas), commemorated Jan.29. In medieval Lives Gildas appears in a well-defined individuality, but a more critical view detects so many anachronisms and historical defects that it has been questioned, first, whether he ever lived, and secondly, whether there were more Gildases than one. Though he is mentioned by name, and his writings quoted from by Bede, Alcuin, William of Newburgh, Geoffrey of Monmouth, and Giraldus Cambrensis, there is no memoir of him written within several centuries of his supposed date, and the two oldest, on which the others are based, are ordinary specimens of the unhistorical tone of mind of the 11th and 12th cents. To surmount the chronological and historical difficulties, Ussher, Ware, Bale, Pitseus, Golgan, and O'Conor have imagined at least two of the name, perhaps even four or six, about the 5th and 6th cents. These have received distinguishing designations, and thus have obtained a recognized position in history. But the more probable and more generally received opinion is that there is but one Gildas, who could not have lived earlier than about the end of the 5th cent. or later than that of the 6th. The oldest authority is Vita Gildae, auctore monacho Ruyensi anonymo, ed. by the Bollandists (Acts SS. Jan.29, iii.573 seq.), and attributed to the 11th cent. or earlier. The other was written by Caradoc of Llancarvan in the 12th cent. (Engl. Hist. Soc.1838). (For pub. and MS. Lives see Hardy's Descript. Cat. i. pt. i.151-156, pt. ii.799.) With what seems more or less a common groundwork of fact, these Lives have much that is irreconcilable. |Nor need this seem so very strange,| says O'Hanlon (Irish Saints, i.473-474) |when both accounts had been drawn up several centuries after the lifetime of Gildas, and when they had been written in different centuries and in separate countries. The diversities of chronological events, and of persons hardly contemporaneous, will only enable us to infer that the sources of information were occasionally doubtful, while the various coincidences of narrative seem to warrant a conclusion that both tracts were intended to chronicle the life of one and the same person. It deserves remark, however, that| (quoting from Mon. Hist. Brit. i. pt. i.59, n.) |both are said to have been born in Scotland. One was the son of Nau, the other of Cau: the eldest son [? brother] of one was Huel, of the other Cuil. Both lives have stories of a bell, both Gildases go to Ireland, both go to Rome, and both build churches. The monk of Ruys quotes several passages from Gildas's de Excidio, and assigns it to him: and Caradoc calls him 'Historiographus Britonum,' and say that he wrote Historiae de Regibus Britonum.| Bp. Nicolson (Eng. Hist. Libr.32, 3rd ed.) concludes that Gildas |was monk of Bangor about the middle of the 6th cent.; a sorrowful spectator of the miseries and almost utter ruin of his countrymen by a people under whose banner they had hoped for peace.| Those who believe there was only one Gildas do not entirely agree as to his dates, one for his birth being sought between a.d.484 and 520, and one for his death between a.d.565 and 602. In his de Excidio Britanniae he says he was born in the year of |obsessionis Badonici montis| (c.26). The Annales Cambriae place the |bellum Badonis| in 516, and the Annales Tigernachi Gildas's death in 570: these dues are probably nearest the truth. By those who suppose there were two or more bearing the same name, |Albanius| is placed in the 5th cent. (425-512, Ussher), and |Badonicus| in the 6th (520-570, Ussher).

The writing ascribed to Gildas was long regarded as one treatise, de Excidio Britanniae; but is now usually divided into the Historia Gildae and Epistola Gildae. The former is a bare recital of the events of British history under the Romans, and between their withdrawal and his own time; the latter a querulous, confused, and lengthy series of bitter invectives in the form of a declamatory epistle addressed to the Britons, and relating specially to five kings, |reges sed tyrannos,| named Constantinus, Aurelius, Conan, Vortiporus, Cuneglasus and Maglocunus. Many, though probably without quite sufficient reason, regard the latter as the work of a later writer, and as intended in the ecclesiastical differences of the 7th and 8th cents. for purely polemical purposes, while others would place it even later still. See useful notes on both sides in Notes and Queries, 4th ser. i.171, 271, 511, and on the side of genuineness and authenticity, Hist. lit. de la France, t. iii.280 seq. Bolland. Acta SS. Jan.29, iii.566-582; Colgan, Acta SS.176-203, 226-228; Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. i. c.9; Ussher, Brit. Eccl. Ant. cc.13-17, and Ind. Chron.; Wright, Biog. Brit. Lit. Ang.-Sax. per.115-135. See Haddon and Stubbs, Councils, etc. vol. i. pp.44-107; Th. Mommsen (Mon. Ger.); Dict. of Nat. Biog. vol. xxi. An Eng. trans. of Gildas's work is in Bohn's Lib. (O. E. Chronicles).


Glycerius, deacon in Cappadocia
Glycerius (5), a deacon in Cappadocia, who caused Basil much annoyance by his extravagant and disorderly proceedings c.374. Being a vigorous young man, well fitted for the humbler offices of the church, and having adopted the ascetic life, he was ordained deacon by Basil, though to what church is doubtful. It is variously given as Venesa, Veësa, Venata, and Synnasa. His elevation turned the young man's head. He at once began to neglect the duties of his office, and gathered about him a number of young women, partly by persuasion, partly by force, of whom he took the direction, styling himself their patriarch, and adopting a dress in keeping with his pretensions. He was supported by the offerings of his female followers, and Basil charges him with adopting this spiritual directorship in order to get his living without work. The wild and disorderly proceedings of Glycerius and his deluded adherents created great scandal and caused him to be gravely admonished by his own presbyter, his chorepiscopus, and finally by Basil himself. Glycerius turned a deaf ear, and having swelled his fanatical band by a number of young men, he one night hastily left the city with his whole troop against the will of many of the girls. The scandal of such a band wandering about under pretence of religion, singing hymns, and leaping and dancing in a disorderly fashion, was increased by the fact that a fair was going on, and the young women were exposed to the rude jests of the rabble. Fathers who came to rescue their daughters from such disgrace were driven away by Glycerius with contumely, and he carried off his whole band to a neighbouring town, of which an unidentified Gregory was bishop. Several of Basil's letters turned on this matter, the further issue of which is not known.


Glycerius, emperor of the West
Glycerius (8), emperor of the West, afterwards bp. of Salona. In Mar.473, being then comes domesticorum, he assumed the imperial title at Ravenna in succession to Olybrius; but the emperor of the East, Leo I. the Thracian, set up Julius Nepos, who was proclaimed at Ravenna late in 473 or early in 474, and marched against Glycerius and took him prisoner at Portus. (See art. GLYCERIUS D. of G. and R. Biogr.) Glycerius has been reckoned bp. of Portus, of Milan, and of Salona. The Chronicon of Marcellinus Comes under a.d.474 states that Glycerius |imperio expulsus, in portu urbis Romae ex Caesare episcopus ordinatus est, et obiit| (Patr. Lat. li.931); on the strength of which he has been named bp. of Portus, as by Paulus Diaconus, who writes: |Portuensis episcopus ordinatur| (Hist. Misc. lib. xv. in Patr. Lat. xcv.973 B). Cappelletti and Ughelli (who calls him Gulcerius) assign him to that see between Petrus and Herennius (Ug. Ital. Sac. i.111; Capp. Le Chiese d' Ital. i.497). Evagrius, on the other hand, relates (H. E. ii.16) that Nepos appointed Glycerius bp. of the Romans es Salonas, scarcely, however, intending to say, as Canisius understands him, that Glycerius was made bp. of Rome. He must mean (writing as a Greek) that Glycerius was ordained bp. for Salona by the Roman ecclesiastical authorities, and that his see belonged to the Roman or western part of the empire and to that patriarchate rather than the Byzantine. Jornandes likewise states that Nepos |Glycerium ab imperio expellens, in Salona Dalmatiae episcopum fecit| (Jorn. de Reg. Succ. in Muratori, Rer. Ital. Script. t. i. p.239 B). It is therefore best to understand with Canisius (note on the passage in Evagrius, vid. Patr. Gk. lxxxvi, pt.2, p.2546) that the deposition of Glycerius took place at Portus, where at the same time he was appointed to Salona. Thus also Farlati (Illyr. Sac. ii. I17-I20). The principality of Dalmatia belonged to Nepos independently of the imperial title. Thither he retired before his successful competitor Orestes, and was brought into contact once more with Glycerius. Photius (Biblioth. Cod.78) mentions the now lost Byzantine History of Malchus the Sophist as stating that Nepos, having divested Glycerius of his Caesarian authority and invaded |the empire of the Romans,| ordained him, made him a bishop, and finally perished by his machinations (insidiis petitus), not |was assassinated,| as stated by Gibbon. Farlati assigns six years to his episcopate, placing his death in 480.

The supposition that he was bp. of Milan rests on very slender ground. Ennodius, bp. of Pavia, who dedicates short poems to several successive bishops of Milan, inscribes one to Glycerius, whom he places between Martinianus and Lazarus (carm.82, in Patr. Lat. lxiii.349); but there is nothing in the verses to identify him with the ex-emperor. Ennodius, in his Life of Epiphanius, bp. of Pavia, mentions the emperor Glycerius as shewing so much veneration for that saint as to accept his intercession for some people in the diocese of Pavia, who had incurred the imperial displeasure (Ennod. Vit. Epiphan. in Patr. Lat. lxiii.219 A). These are the sole grounds on which Gibbon hazards, doubtfully, the statement (Decl. and Fall, vol. iv. p.295, ed. Smith) that Glycerius was promoted by Orestes from Salona to the archbishopric of Milan in reward for his assassination of Nepos.


Gnosticism. The zeal with which a learner commences the study of ecclesiastical history is not unfrequently damped at an early stage, when he finds that, in order to know the history of religious thought in the 2nd cent., he must make himself acquainted with speculations so wild and so baseless that it is irksome to read them and difficult to believe that time was when acquaintance with them was counted as what alone deserved the name of |knowledge.| But it would be a mistake to think too disdainfully of those early heretics who go by the common name of Gnostics. In the first place, it may be said in their excuse that the problems which they undertook to solve were among the most difficult with which the human intellect has ever grappled -- namely, to explain the origin of evil, and to make it conceivable how the multiplicity of finite existence can all have been derived from a single absolute unconditioned principle. And besides, these speculators only did what learned theologians have constantly since endeavoured to do -- namely, combine the doctrines which they learned from revelation with the results of what they regarded as the best philosophy of their own day, so as to obtain what seemed to them the most satisfactory account and explanation of the facts of the universe. Every union of philosophy and religion is the marriage of a mortal with an immortal: the religion lives; the philosophy grows old and dies. When the philosophic element of a theological system becomes antiquated, its explanations which contented one age become unsatisfactory to the next, and there ensues what is spoken of as a conflict between religion and science; whereas, in reality, it is a conflict between the science of one generation and that of a succeeding one. If the religious speculations of the 2nd cent. appear to us peculiarly unreasonable, it is because the philosophy incorporated with them is completely alien to modern thought. That philosophy gave unlimited licence to the framing of hypotheses, and provided that the results were in tolerable accordance with the facts, no other proof was required that the causes which these hypotheses assumed were really in operation. The Timaeus of Plato is a favourable specimen of the philosophic writings which moulded the Gnostic speculations; and the interval between that and a modern treatise on physics is fully as wide as between Gnosticism and modern scientific theology. So it has happened that modern thought has less sympathy with heretical theories deeply coloured by the philosophy of their own time than with the plain common sense of a church writer such as Irenaeus, which led him to proceed by the positive historical method, and reject what was merely fanciful and speculative. And it may be said that deeply important as were some of the particular questions discussed in the conflict between the church and Gnosticism, an even more important issue of that conflict was the decision of the method by which religious knowledge was to be arrived at. The Gnostics generally held that the Saviour effected redemption by making a revelation of knowledge, yet they but feebly attempted to connect historically their teaching with his; what was derived from Him was buried under elements taken freely from heathen mythologies and philosophies, or springing from the mere fancy of the speculator, so that, if Gnosticism had triumphed, all that is distinctively Christian would have disappeared. In opposition to them, church writers were led to emphasize the principle that that alone is to be accounted true knowledge of things divine which can be shewn by historical tradition, written or oral, to have been derived from the teaching of Christ and His apostles, a principle the philosophic justice of which must be admitted if Christ be owned as having filled the part in the enlightenment of the world which orthodox and Gnostics alike attributed to Him. Thus, by the conflict with Gnosticism reverence in the church was deepened for the authority of revelation as restraining the licence of human speculation, and so the channel was marked out within the bounds of which religious thought continued for centuries to flow.

We deal here with some general aspects of the subject, referring to the articles on the chief Gnostic teachers for details as to the special tenets of the different Gnostic sects.

Use of the Word Gnosticism. -- In logical order we ought to begin by defining Gnosticism, and so fixing what extension is to be given to the application of the term, a point on which writers are not agreed. Baur, for instance, reckons among Gnostics the sectaries from whom the Clementine writings emanated, although on some of the most fundamental points their doctrines are diametrically opposed to those commonly reckoned as Gnostic. We conform to more ordinary usage in giving to the word a narrower sense, but this is a matter on which controversy would be only verbal, Gnosticism not being a word which has in its own nature a definite meaning. There is no difficulty in naming common characteristics of the sects commonly called Gnostic, though perhaps none of them is distinctive enough to be made the basis of a logical definition. They professed to be able to trace their doctrine to the apostles. Basilides was said to have learned from a companion of St. Peter; gospels were in circulation among them which purported to have been written by Philip, Thomas, and other apostles; and they professed to be able to find their doctrines in the canonical scriptures by methods of allegorical interpretation which, however forced, could easily be paralleled in the procedure of orthodox writers. If we made our definition turn on the claim to the possession of such a Gnosis and to the title of Gnostic, we should have to count Clement of Alexandria among Gnostics and I. Timothy among Gnostic writings; for the church writers refused to surrender these titles to the heretics and, claiming to be the true Gnostics, branded the heretical Gnosis as |falsely so called.| If we fix our attention on the predominance of the speculative over the practical in Gnosticism, which, as Baur truly remarks, led men to regard Christianity less as a means of salvation than as furnishing the principles of a philosophy of the universe, we must allow that since their time very many orthodox writings have been open to the same criticism. We come very close to a definition if we make the criterion of Gnosticism to be the establishment of a dualism between spirit and matter; and, springing out of this, the doctrine that the world was created by some power different from the supreme God, yet we might not be able to establish that this characteristic belongs to every sect which we count as Gnostic; and if we are asked why we do not count such sects as the Manicheans among the Gnostics, the best answer is that usage confines the word to those sects which arose in the ferment of thought when Christianity first came into contact with heathen philosophy, excluding those which clearly began later. A title of honour claimed by these sectaries for themselves, and at first refused them by their opponents, was afterwards adopted as the most convenient way of designating them.

We have no reason to think that the earliest Gnostics intended to found sects separated from the church and called after their own names. Their disciples were to be Christians, only elevated above the rest as acquainted with deeper mysteries, and called gnostikoi, because possessed of a Gnosis superior to the simple faith of the multitude. Probably the earliest instance of the use of the word is by Celsus, quoted by Origen, v.61, where, speaking of the multiplicity of Christian sects, he says that there were some who professed to be Gnostics. Irenaeus (i. xxv.5, p.104), speaking of the Carpocratians and in particular of that school of them which Marcellina established at Rome, says that they called themselves Gnostics. It is doubtless on the strength of this passage that Eusebius (H. E. iv.7), quoting Irenaeus in the same context, calls Carpocrates the father of the sect called that of the Gnostics. In the habitual use of the word by Irenaeus himself it does not occur as limited to Carpocratians. Irenaeus, in his first book, when he has gone through the sects called after the names of heretical teachers, gives in a kind of appendix an account of a number of sects in their general characteristics Ophite, but he does not himself use that name. He calls them |multitudo Gnosticorum,| tracing their origin to Simon Magus, and counting them as progenitors of the Valentinians. And constantly we have the expression Basilidians, Valentinians, etc., |et reliqui Gnostici,| where, by the latter appellation, the Ophite sects are specially intended. The form of expression does not exclude from the title of Gnostic the sects named after their founders; and the doctrine of the Valentinians is all through the work of Irenaeus a branch of |Gnosis falsely so called|; yet it is usually spoken of less as Gnosticism than as a development of Gnosticism, and the Valentinians are described as more Gnostic than the Gnostics, meaning by the latter word the Ophite sects already mentioned. In the work of Hippolytus against heresies, the name is almost exclusively found in connexion with the sect of the Naassenes or Ophites, and three or four times it is repeated (v.2, p.93; 4, p.94; 11, p.123) that these people call themselves Gnostics, claiming that they alone |knew the depths.| The common source of Epiphanius and Philaster had an article on the Nicolaitanes, tracing the origin of the Gnostics to Nicolas the Deacon (see also Hippolytus, vii.36, p.258, and the statement of Irenaeus [II. ii. p.188] that Nicolaitanism was a branch of Gnosis). Epiphanius divides this article into two, making the Gnostics a separate heresy (Haer.26). Hence ancient usage leaves a good deal of latitude to modern writers in deciding which of the 2nd-cent. sects they will count as Gnostic.

Classification of Gnostic Sects. -- Some general principles of philosophic classification may be easily agreed on, but when they come to be applied, it is found that there are some sects to which it is not obvious where to assign a place, and that some sects are separated whose affinities are closer than those of others which are classed together. A very important, though not a complete, division is that made by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii.5) into the ascetic and licentious sects: both parties agreeing in holding the essential evil of matter; the one endeavouring by rigorous abstinence to free as much as possible man's soul from the bondage to which it is subjected by union with his material part, and refusing to marry and so enthral new souls in the prisons of bodies; the other abandoning as desperate any attempt to purify the hopelessly corrupt body, and teaching that the instructed soul ought to hold itself unaffected by the deeds of the body. All actions were to it indifferent. The division of Neander is intended to embrace a wider range than that just described. Taking the common doctrine of the Gnostic sects that the world was made by a Being different from the supreme God, he distinguishes whether that Being was held to have acted in subordination to the Supreme, and on the whole to have carried out his intentions, or to have been absolutely hostile to the supreme God. Taking into account the generally acknowledged principle that the Creator of the world was the same as the God worshipped by the Jews, we see that Gnostics of the second class would be absolutely hostile to Judaism, which those of the former class might accept as one of the stages ordained by the Supreme in the enlightenment of the world. Thus Neander's division classifies sects as not unfriendly to Judaism or as hostile to it; the former class taking its origin in those Alexandrian schools where the authority of such teachers as Philo had weight, the latter among Christian converts from Oriental philosophy whose early education had given them no prejudices in favour of Judaism. Gieseler divides into Alexandrian Gnostics, whose teaching was mainly influenced by the Platonic philosophy, and Syrian strongly affected by Parsism. In the former the emanation doctrine was predominant, in the latter dualism. Undoubtedly the most satisfactory classification would be if it were possible, as Matter suggested, to have one founded on the history of the generation of the sects, distinguishing the school where Gnosticism had its beginning, and naming the schools which successively in different places altered in different directions the original scheme. But a good classification of this kind is rendered impossible by the scantiness of our materials for the history of Gnosticism. Irenaeus is the first to give any full details, and he may be counted two generations later than Valentinus; for Marcus, the disciple of Valentinus, was resisted by one whom Irenaeus looked up to with respect as belonging to the generation above his own. The interval between Valentinus and the beginning of Gnosticism was, moreover, probably quite as great as that between Valentinus and Irenaeus. The phrase used by Hippolytus in telling us that the Naassenes boasted that they alone |knew the depths| was also a watchword of the false teachers reprobated in the Apocalypse (Rev. ii.24). We can hardly avoid the inference that these Naassenes inherited a phrase continuously in use among heretical teachers since before the publication of the Revelation. Of the writers who would deny the pastoral epistles to be St. Paul's, a large proportion date the Revelation only 2 or 3 years after St. Paul's death; therefore, whether or not it was St. Paul who wrote of the |falsely called knowledge,| it remains probable that heretical pretenders to Gnosis had arisen in his lifetime. If the beginnings of Gnosticism were thus in apostolic times, we need not be surprised that the notices of its origin given by Irenaeus more than a century afterwards are so scanty; and that the teachers to whom its origin has been ascribed, Simon, Menander, Nicolas, Cerinthus, remain shadowy or legendary characters. It follows that conclusions as to the order of succession of the early Gnostic sects and their obligations one to another are very insecure. Still, some general facts in the history of the evolution of Gnosticism may be considered fairly certain; and we are disposed to accept the classification of Lipsius and count three stages in the progress of Gnosticism, even though there may be doubt to what place a particular sect is to be assigned. The birthplace of Gnosticism may be said to be Syria, if we include in that Palestine and Samaria, where church tradition places the activity of those whom it regards as its founders, Simon and Menander. It may also be inferred from the use made of O.T. and of Hebrew words that Gnosticism sprang out of Judaism. The false teaching combated in Colossians, which has several Gnostic features, is also distinctly Jewish, insisting on the observance of Sabbaths and new moons. The Epp. to Timothy and Titus, dealing with a somewhat later development of Gnosticism, describe the false teachers as |of the circumcision,| |professing to be teachers of the law| and propounders of |Jewish fables.| It is not unlikely that what these epistles characterize as |profane and old wives' fables| may be some of the Jewish Haggadah of which the early stages of Gnosticism are full. The story of Ialdabaoth, e.g., told by Irenaeus (i.30), we hold to date from the very beginning of Gnosticism, if not in its present shape, at least in some rudimentary form, as fragments of it appear in different Gnostic systems, especially the representation of the work of Creation as performed by an inferior being, who still fully believed himself to be the Supreme, saying, |I am God, and there is none beside me,| until, after this boast, his ignorance was enlightened. The Jewish Cabbala has been asserted to be the parent of Gnosticism; but the records of Cabbalistic doctrine are quite modern, and any attempt to pick out the really ancient parts must be attended with uncertainty. Lipsius (p.270, and Grätz, referred to by him) shews that the Cabbala is certainly not older than Gnosticism, its relation to it being not that of a parent, but of a younger brother. If there be direct obligation, the Cabbala is the borrower, but many common features are to be explained by regarding both as branches from the same root, and as alike springing from the contact of Judaism with the religious beliefs of the farther East. Jewish Essenism especially furnished a soil favourable to the growth of Gnosticism, with which it seems to have had in common the doctrine of the essential evil of matter, as appears from the denial by the Essenes of the resurrection of the body and from their inculcation of a disciplining of man's material part by very severe asceticism. (See Lightfoot, Colossians, 119 seq.) Further, the Ebionite sects which sprang out of Essenism, while they professed the strongest attachment to the Mosaic law, not only rejected the authority of the prophetical writings, but dealt in a very arbitrary manner with those parts of the Pentateuch which conflicted with their peculiar doctrines. We have parallels to this in theories of some of the early Gnostic sects which referred the Jewish prophetical books to the inspiration of beings inferior to Him by Whom the law was given, as well as in the arbitrary modes of criticism applied by some of the later sects to the books of Scripture. A form of Gnosticism thus developed from Judaism when the latter was brought into contact with the mystic speculations of the East, whether we suppose Essenism to have been a stage in the process of growth or both to have been independent growths under similar circumstances of development. Lipsius notes as the
characteristics of those sects which he counts as belonging to the first stage of Gnosticism that they still move almost or altogether within the circle of the Jewish religious history, and that the chief problem they set themselves is the defining the relation between Christianity and Judaism. The solutions at which they arrive are very various. Those Jewish sects whose Essenism passed into the Ebionitism of the Clementines regarded Christianity as essentially identical with Judaism, either religion being sufficient for salvation. These sects are quite orthodox as to the Creation, their utmost deviation (if it can be called so) from the received belief being the ascription of Creation to the immanent wisdom of God. Other Jewish speculators came to think of the formation of matter as accomplished by a subordinate being, carrying out, it may be, the will of the Supreme, but owing to his finiteness and ignorance doing the work with many imperfections. Then came the theory that this subordinate being was the God of the Jews, to which nation he had issued many commandments that were not good, though overruled by the Supreme so as to carry out His ends. Lastly came the theory of the Cainites and other extreme Ophite sects, which represented the God of the Jews as the determined enemy of the Supreme, and as one whose commands it was the duty of every enlightened Gnostic to disobey. With all their variety of results, these sects agreed in the importance attached to the problem of the true relations of Judaism to Christianity. They do make use of certain heathen principles of cosmogony, but these such as already had become familiar to Syriac Judaism, and introduced not so much to effect a reconciliation between Christianity and heathenism as to give an explanation of the service rendered to the world by the publication of Christianity, the absolute religion. This is made mainly to consist in the aid given to the soul in its struggles to escape the bonds of finiteness and darkness, by making known to it the supersensual world and awaking it to the consciousness of its spiritual origin. Regarding this knowledge as the common privilege of Christians, the first speculators would count their own possession of it as differing rather in degree than in kind; and so it is not easy to draw a sharp line of distinction between their doctrine on the subject of Gnosis and that admitted as orthodox. Our Lord had described it as the privilege of His disciples to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; later when His followers learned of a suffering Messiah, and of the fulfilment in Jesus of the types of the Mosaic law, they felt that the veil had been removed for them, and that they enjoyed a knowledge of the meaning of the O.T. Scriptures to which their unconverted brethren were strangers. This feeling pervades the Ep. to the Hebrews, and still more that of Barnabas. Another doctrine which St. Paul describes as a mystery formerly kept secret, but now revealed through his gospel, is the admission of the Gentiles on equal terms with the Jews to the inheritance of the kingdom of Christ. It was no part of orthodox Christian doctrine that all Christians possessed the true Gnosis in equal degree. Some required to be fed with milk, not with strong meat, and had not their senses exercised by reason of use to discern between good and evil. Clement of Alexandria distinguished between faith and knowledge. The difference, therefore, between the Gnostic doctrine and that of the church mainly depends on the character of what was accounted knowledge, much of the Gnostic so-called knowledge consisting in acquaintance with the names of a host of invisible beings and with the formulae which could gain their favour.

Gnosticism, in its first stage, did not proceed far outside the limits of Syria. What Lipsius counts as the second stage dates from the migration of Gnostic systems to Alexandria, where the myths of Syriac Gnosis came to be united to principles of Grecian philosophy. Different Gnostic systems resulted according as the principles of this or that Grecian school were adopted. Thus, in the system of Valentinus, the Pythagorean Platonic philosophy predominates, the Stoic in that of the Basilidians as presented by Hippolytus. In these systems, tinged with Hellenism, the Jewish religion is not so much controverted or disparaged as ignored. The mythological personages among whom in the older Gnosis the work of creation was distributed are in these Hellenic systems replaced by a kind of abstract beings (of whom the Valentinian aeons are an example) which personify the different stages of the process by which the One Infinite Spirit communicates and reveals itself to derived existences. The distinction between faith and knowledge becomes sharpened, the persons to whom faith and knowledge respectively are to serve as guides being represented as essentially different in nature. The most obvious division of men is into a kingdom of light and a kingdom of darkness. The need of a third class may have first made itself felt from the necessity of finding a place for members of the Jewish religion, who stood so far above heathenism, so far below Christianity. The Platonic trichotomy of body, soul, and spirit afforded a principle of threefold classification, and men are divided into earthly (hulikoi or choikoi), animal (psuchikoi), and spiritual (pneumatikoi). In these Hellenic Gnostic systems the second class represents not Jews but ordinary Christians, and the distinction between them and the Gnostics themselves (who are the spiritual) rests on an assumed difference of nature which leaves little room for human free will. Salvation by faith and corresponding works is disparaged as suitable only for the psychical, the better sort of whom may, by this means, be brought to as high a position in the order of the universe as their nature is capable of; but the really spiritual need not these lower methods of salvation. It suffices for them to have the knowledge of their true nature revealed for them to become certain of shaking off all imprisoning bonds and soaring to the highest region of all. Thus ordinary historical Christianity runs the risk of meeting the same fate in the later Gnostic systems that befell Judaism in the earlier. The doctrines and facts of the religion are only valued so far as they can be made subservient to the peculiar notions of Gnosticism; and the method of allegorical interpretation was so freely applied to both Testaments that all the solid parts of the religion were in danger of being volatilized away.

The natural consequence of this weakening of the historic side of Christianity was the removal of all sufficient barrier against the intrusion of heathen elements into the systems; while their moral teaching was injuriously affected by the doctrine that the spiritual were secure of salvation by necessity of their nature and irrespectively of their conduct. Gnosticism, in its third stage, struggles in various ways to avoid these faults, and so again draws nearer to the teaching of the Catholic church. Thus the DOCETAE of Hippolytus allow of immense variety of classes, corresponding to the diversity of ideas derived from the world of aeons, which each has received; while again they deny to none a share in our Lord's redemption, but own that members of different sects are entitled, each in his degree, to claim kinship with Jesus and to obtain forgiveness of sins through Him. So again in one of the latest of the Gnostic systems, that of PISTIS SOPHIA, there is no assertion of an essential diversity of nature among men, but the immense development of ranks and degrees in the spiritual world, which that work professes to reveal, is used so as to provide for every man a place according to his works. In the system of Marcion, too, the theory of essentially different classes is abandoned; the great boast of Christianity is its universality; and the redemption of the Gospel is represented, not as the mere rousing of the pneumatic soul to consciousness of privileges all along possessed, but as the introduction of a real principle of moral life through the revelation of a God of love forgiving sins through Christ.

We add brief notes on a few main points of the Gnostic systems.

Creation and Cosmogony. -- Philo (de Op. Mund.) had inferred from the expression, |Let us make man,| of Genesis that God had used other beings as assistants in the creation of man, and he explains in this way why man is capable of vice as well as virtue, ascribing the origin of the latter to God, of the former to His helpers in the work of creation. The earliest Gnostic sects ascribe the work of creation to angels, some of them using the same passage in Genesis (Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. c.67).

Doctrine with respect to Judaism. -- The doctrine that the Creator of the world is not the supreme God leads at once to the question, What then is to be thought of the God of the Jews, who certainly claimed to have created the world? This question is most distinctly answered in the doctrine of the Ophite system (Iren. i.30). According to it he who claimed to be a jealous God, acknowledging none other, was led by sheer ignorance to make a false pretension. He was in truth none other than the chief of the creative angels, holding but a subordinate place in the constitution of the universe. It was he who forbad to Adam and Eve that knowledge by which they might be informed that he had superiors, and who on their disobedience cast them out of Paradise.

Doctrine concerning the Nature of Man. -- With the myth, told by Saturninus, of the animation of a previously lifeless man by a spark of light from above, he connected the doctrine, in which he was followed by almost all Gnostic sects, that there would be no resurrection of the body, the spark of light being taken back on death to the place whence it had come, and man's material part being resolved into its elements. Saturninus is said to have taught the doctrine, antagonistic to that of man's free will, that there were classes of men by nature essentially different, and of these he counted two -- the good and the wicked. The doctrine became common to many Gnostic systems that the human frame contained a heavenly element struggling to return to its native place.

Redemption and Christology. -- The Gnostic systems generally represent man's spirit as imprisoned in matter, and needing release. The majority recognize the coming of Christ as a turning-point in human affairs, but almost all reduce the Redeemer's work to the impartation of knowledge and the disclosure of mysteries. With regard to the nature of Christ, the lowest view is held by Justinus, who describes Jesus but as a shepherd boy commissioned by an angel to be the bearer of a divine revelation, and who attributes to Him at no time any higher character. Carpocrates makes Jesus a man like others, only of more than ordinary steadfastness and purity of soul, possessing no prerogatives which other men may not attain in the same or even higher degree if they follow, or surpass, His example. Besides furnishing an example, He was also supposed to have made a revelation of truth, to secret traditions of which the followers of Carpocrates appealed. At the opposite pole from those who see in the Saviour a mere man are those who deny His humanity altogether. We know from St. John's epistle that the doctrine that our Lord had not really come in the flesh was one which at an early time troubled the church.

Authorities. -- The great work of Irenaeus against heresies is the chief storehouse whence writers, both ancient and modern, have drawn their accounts of the Gnostic sects. It was primarily directed against the then most popular form of the heresy of Valentinus, and hence this form of Gnosticism has thrown all others into the shade, and many modern writers when professing to describe Gnosticism really describe Valentinianism. Irenaeus was largely copied by Tertullian, who, however, was an independent authority on Marcionism; by Hippolytus, who in his work against heresies adds, however, large extracts from his independent reading of Gnostic works; and by Epiphanius, who also gives a few valuable additions from other sources. The Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, though provokingly desultory and unsystematic, furnish much valuable information about Gnosticism, which was still a living foe of the church. The writings of Origen also yield much important information. The matter, not borrowed from Irenaeus, to be gleaned from later heresiologists is scanty and of doubtful value.

Modern works which have made valuable contributions to the knowledge of Gnosticism include Neander, Genetische Entwickelung (1818), and Church Hist. vol. ii. (1825 and 2nd ed.1843, trans. in Clarke's series); Burton, Bampton Lectures (1829); Baur, Christliche Gnosis (1835); Die christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte (1853, 2nd ed.1860); and Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies (1875).


Gordianus, father of Pope Gregory the Great
Gordianus (7), father of pope Gregory the Great, was a noble Roman of senatorial rank; and descended from a pope Felix (Joann. Diac. in Vit. S. Gregorii; Greg. Dialog. l.4, c.16). John the Deacon says that Felix IV. (acc.523) was his ancestor; but this pope being described as a Samnite, whereas Gregory is always spoken of as of Roman descent, Felix III. (acc.467) is more probable. A large property accrued to Gregory on his father's death. Gordianus is described as a religious man, and thus contributing to the eminently religious training of his son, though not canonized after death, as were his wife Silvia, and his two sisters, Tarsilla and Aemiliana. John the deacon (op. cit. l.4, c.83) describes two pictures of him and his wife Silvia remaining to the writer's time (9th cent.) in the Atrium of St. Andrew's monastery, where they had been placed by St. Gregory himself, the founder of the monastery. Gordianus is represented as standing before a seated figure of St. Peter (who holds his right hand) and as clothed in a chestnut-coloured planeta over a dalmatic, and with caligae on his feet. Gordianus is designated |Regionarius,| from which, as well as from his dress, Baronius supposes that he was one of the seven cardinal deacons of Rome, it having been not uncommon, he says, for married men, with the consent of their wives, to embrace clerical or monastic life. As to the dress, he adduces two of St. Gregory's epistles (Ep.113, l. i. ind.2, and Ep.28, l.7, ind.1) to shew that the dalmatic and caligae were then part of the costume of Roman deacons. But the meaning of the title |regionarius| is uncertain. It occurs in St. Gregory's Ep.5, l.7, ind.1, in Ep.2 of pope Honorius I. (regionarius nostrae sedis); in Aimoinus, de Gestis Francorum, pt.2, p.247 (regionarius primae sedis); in Vit. Ludovici Pii, ann.835 (regionarius Romanae urbis); and in Anastasius, On Constantine (Theophanes regionarius). In two of these instances, those from Honorius and Aimoinus, the persons so designated are expressly said to be subdeacons. It seems to have denoted an office connected with the city of Rome and the apostolic see, but certainly not one confined to deacons. As to the dress, it is merely originally ordinary lay costume, the planeta, rather than the casula, having been worn by persons of rank. St. Gregory himself, in his portrait in the same monastery described by John the deacon, wears precisely the same dress, even to the colour of the planeta, only having the pallium over it, to mark his ecclesiastical rank.

[J.B -- Y.]

Gratianus, emperor
Gratianus (5) (Flavius Gratianus Augustus), emperor 375-383, son of Valentinian, was born at Sirmium in 359 while his father was still an officer in the army. When Valentinian was chosen emperor by the soldiers in 364, Gratian was not five years old. On Aug.24, 367, Valentinian, at Amiens, declared him |Augustus.|

When Valentinian died in 375, the infant child of his second wife Justina (Valentinian II.) was proclaimed Augustus by his principal officers (Amm. xxx.10), in reliance upon the youth and good nature of Gratian, who was at Trèves, and who recognized his young brother almost immediately. Justina fixed her court at Sirmium; and the Western empire was perhaps nominally divided between the two brothers, Gratian having Gaul, Spain, and Britain, and Valentinian, Italy, Illyricum, and Africa (Zos. iv.19). But this division must have been simply nominal, as Gratian constantly acted in the latter provinces (see Tillem. Emp. v. p.140, and cf. the laws quoted infra). For the first years of his reign, till the death of his uncle Valens, Gratian resided chiefly at Trèves, whence most of his laws are dated. His first acts were to punish with death some of the prominent instruments of the cruelties committed in the name of justice and discipline, which had disgraced his father's later years, especially the hated Maximinus. Another act, doubtless at the beginning of his reign, shewed his determination to break with paganism more effectually than his predecessors had done. This was his refusal of the robe of pontifex maximus, when it was brought to him according to custom by the pontifices; thinking (as the heathen historian tells us) that it was unlawful for a Christian (Zos. iv.36). The title appears indeed to some extent on coins and inscriptions, but it is not easy to fix their date.

The Eastern empire was, meanwhile, in the hands of the incompetent Valens, in great danger from Goths. In 378 the Alamanni Lentienses passed the Rhine in great force and threatened the Western empire, but were heavily defeated by Gratian at Argentaria, near Colmar (Amm. xxxi.10). This set him free to move towards the East; and at Sirmium he heard of the defeat of his uncle at Adrianople, Aug.7, and of his ignoble death (ib.11, 6; 12, 10). The situation was extremely critical for an emperor not 20 years of age. The barbarians were in motion on all the frontiers. The internal condition of the West was insecure, from the tacit antagonism between the two courts, and the East was now suddenly thrown upon his hands, as Valens had left no children. Gratian shewed his judgment by sending for the younger Theodosius, son of the late count Theodosius and about 13 years older than himself, who after his father's execution was living in retirement upon his estates in Spain (Victor, Ep.72, 74, etc.; cf. Themist. Orat.14, p.183 A). Theodosius, loyal and fearless like his father, was at once entrusted with command of the troops as magister militum. His successes over the barbarians (probably Sarmatians) encouraged Gratian to appoint him emperor of the East with general applause (Theod. v.5, 6).

Gratian returned from Sirmium by way of Aquileia and Milan, at which places he passed some parts of July and Aug.379. He had previously been brought into contact with St. Ambrose, and had received from him the two first books of his treatise de Fide, intended specially to preserve him against Arianism. This teaching had its due effect; and he now addressed a letter to the bp. of Milan (see infra). St. Ambrose sent him two more books of his treatise, and probably had personal intercourse with him. Gratian then went on to his usual residence at Trèves, but during the following years resided much more frequently at and near Milan, especially in winter; his intercourse with St. Ambrose resulting in his confirmation in the Catholic faith. There was, however, another side to this practical neglect of the Gallic provinces. The Western provincials -- never very contented -- felt the absence of the imperial court. If Gratian had continued to reside at Trèves, the rebellion of Magnus Maximus might never have taken place, and certainly would not have grown so formidable.

The influence of St. Ambrose is shewn by the ecclesiastical laws (see infra), and in the removal of the altar of Victory from the senate-house at Rome in a.d.381 (St. Ambr. Ep.17, 5; Symm. Ep.61, ad init. et ad finem). The heathen senators, though in the minority, were accustomed to offer incense on this altar, and to touch it in taking solemn oaths (Ambr. Ep.17, 9). It had been removed or covered up during the visit of Constantius, but was again restored under Julian, and Valentinian's policy had been against interference with such matters (Symm. l.c.). Its removal now caused great distress to the heathen party, who met in the senate-house and petitioned Gratian for its restoration. But the Christians, who had absented themselves from the curia, met privately, and sent a counter-petition through pope Damasus to Ambrose, who presented it to the emperor (Ambr. l.c.). The weight of this document enabled the advisers of Gratian to prevent his giving the heathen party a hearing. This blow was soon followed by another even more telling -- the confiscation of the revenues of the temple of Victory, and the abolition of the privileges of the pontiffs and vestals, a measure extended to other heathen institutions (ib.3-5; 18, 11 f.; Cod. Theod. xv.10, 20).

These laws were followed by a famine in Italy, especially in Rome, which the pagans naturally ascribed to sacrilege (Symm. l.c.).

A much more serious danger was the revolt of Magnus Maximus, a former comrade of Theodosius in Britain, who was probably jealous of his honours, and was now put forward as emperor by the soldiers. [[260]MAXIMUS (2).] This rising took place a.d.383 in Britain, whence the usurper passed over to the mouth of the Rhine, gathering large bodies of men as he went. Gratian set out to meet him, with his two generals Balio and Merobaudes, the latter a Frank by birth. The two armies met near Paris, and Gratian was deserted by nearly all his troops (Zos. iv.35; Ambr. in Ps.61, 17). Only 300 horse remained faithful. With these he fled at full speed to Lyons. The governor received him with protestations of loyalty, and took a solemn oath on the Gospels not to hurt him. Gratian, deceived by his assurances, took his place in his imperial robes at a feast, during or soon after which he was basely assassinated (Aug.25) at the age of 24, leaving no children. The traitor even denied his body burial (Ambr. l.c., and 23 f.; Marcell. sub anno).

Gratian was amiable and modest -- in fact, too modest to be a good governor in these rough times. He was generous and kind-hearted, of an attractive disposition and beautiful person. His tutor Ausonius had taken pains to inspire him with tastes for rhetoric and versification. He was chaste and temperate, careful in religious conduct, and zealous for the faith. His great fault was a neglect of public business through devotion to sport, especially to shooting wild beasts with bow and arrows in his parks and preserves (Amm. l.c.; Victor, Ep.73). He once killed a lion with a single arrow (Aus. Epig.6); and St. Ambrose alludes to his prowess in the chase, adopting the language of David's elegy over Jonathan -- |Gratiani sagitta non est reversa retro| (de Obitu Valent.73; cf. the old Latin of II. Sam. i.22).

The ecclesiastical policy of Gratian was more important than his civil or military government. His reign, coinciding with that of Theodosius, saw orthodox Christianity for the first time dominant throughout the empire. His measures in behalf of the church were often tainted with injustice towards the sects. But it is probable that the laws were very imperfectly carried out (see Richter, p.327). His first general law against heretical sects is dated from Trèves, May 1, 376, and speaks of a previous law of the same kind (Cod. Theod. xvi.5, 4), which may, however, be one of Valens (and Valentinian).

In 377, shortly before the death of Valens, he condemned rebaptism, and ordered the Donatist churches to be restored to the Catholics and their private meeting-houses confiscated (Cod. Theod. xvi.6, 2). The death of Valens was naturally the signal for the disciple of St. Ambrose to restore the Catholics of the East to their possessions. He recalled all those whom his uncle had banished, and further issued an edict of toleration for all Christian sects, except the Eunomians (extreme Arians, see Soz. vi.26), Photinians, and Manicheans (Socr. v.2; Soz. vii.1). Theodoret (v.2) appears to confuse this with the later edict of Gratian and Theodosius. On the strong representations of Idacius of Merida, the Priscillianists, an enthusiastic sect of Gnostics numerous in Spain (Sulpicius Severus, Chron. ii.47, 6), were also excepted.

On his return from Sirmium, Gratian wrote the following affectionate and interesting autograph (Ambr. Ep.1, 3) letter to St. Ambrose: |I desire much to enjoy the bodily presence of him whose recollection I carry with me, and with whom I am present in spirit. Therefore, hasten to me, religious priest of God, to teach me the doctrine of the true faith. Not that I am anxious for argument, or wish to know God in words rather than in spirit; but that my heart may be opened more fully to receive the abiding revelation of the divinity. For He will teach me, Whom I do not deny, Whom I confess to be my God and my Lord, not raising as an objection against His divinity that He took upon Himself a created nature like my own [non ei obiciens, quam in me video, creaturam]. I confess that I can add nothing to the glory of Christ; but I should wish to commend myself to the Father in glorifying the Son. I will not fear a grudging spirit on the part of God. I shall not suppose myself such an encomiast as to increase His divinity by my praises. In my weakness and frailty I utter what I can, not what is adequate to His divinity. I desire you to send me a copy of the same treatise, which you sent before [de Fide, i. ii.], enlarging it by a faithful dissertation on the Holy Spirit: prove that He is God by arguments of Scripture and reason. May the Deity keep you for many years, my father, and worshipper of the eternal God, Jesus Christ, Whom we worship.| St. Ambrose replies, excusing his non-attendance upon the emperor, praising the expressions of his faith, and sending two fresh books of his treatise. For the new book, de Spiritu Sancto, he asks time, knowing (as he says) what a critic will read them. The subject was at this moment being largely discussed in the Eastern church.

It is assumed by De Broglie that the bishop and the emperor did not meet at this time, but St. Ambrose writes in the letter just quoted, § 7, |veniam plane et festinabo ut jubes,| and two laws of Gratian's are dated from Milan in July and Aug.379 (Cod. Just. vi.32, 4, July 29, and Cod. Theod. xvi.5, 5, Aug.3, to Hesperius Pf. Praet. de haereticis), the second of which may shew the influence of St. Ambrose. It forbids the heresies against which former imperial edicts had been directed, and especially that of rebaptism (the Donatists), and revokes the recent tolerant edict of Sirmium.

About this time must be dated the occurrences mentioned by St. Ambrose in de Spiritu Sancto, i. §§ 19-21. The empress Justina, an Arian, had obtained from Gratian a basilica for the worship of her sect, to the great distress of the Catholics. He restored it, however, apparently of his own motion, to their equal surprise and delight, perhaps a.d.380 (cf. Richter, n.30, p.692; de Spiritu Sancto, § 20, neque enim aliud possumus dicere, nisi sancti Spiritus hanc priore gratiam, quod ignorantibus omnibus subito Basilicam reddidisti). St. Ambrose also obtained another victory over the Arians in 380 in his journey to Sirmium, where Justina apparently also went. In spite of her vehement opposition, he succeeded in consecrating an orthodox bishop to the metropolitan see of Illyria, and thus laid the foundation for the suppression of heresy in that quarter of the empire (Paulinus, Vita Ambrosii, 11).

Gratian evidently agreed in the important edict issued by his colleague Theodosius on Feb.27, 380, from Thessalonica to the people of Constantinople. This remarkable document declared the desire of the emperors that all their subjects should profess the religion given by St. Peter to the Romans and now held by the pontiff Damasus, and Peter, bp. of Alexandria -- that is to say, should confess the one deity and equal majesty of the three persons of the Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and further, that they alone who hold this faith are to be called Catholics, and their places of meeting churches; while the rest are branded as heretics, and are threatened with an indefinite punishment (Cod. Theod. xvi.1, 2; cf. the law of the next year, which mentions various Catholic bishops of the East, whose communion was to be the test of orthodoxy, including Nectarius of Constantinople -- perhaps the reference to Damasus had given offence). De Broglie says of these laws, |It was impossible to abjure more decidedly the pretension of dogmatizing from the elevation of the throne, which had been since Constantine the mania of all the emperors and the scourge of the empire| (vol. v. p.365). But correct dogmatism is still dogmatism, and the definition of truth by good emperors kept up the delusion that the right of perpetual interference with religion was inherent in their office.

In May 383, at Padua, Gratian issued a penal law against apostates, and those who try to make others apostatize from Christianity.

In 381 he summoned the council of Aquileia (which met on Sept.5) to decide the cases of the Illyrian bishops Palladius and Secundianus, who were accused of Arianism. Their condemnation put an end to the official life of Arianism in that important district (Ambr. Ep.9). The records of this council are preserved by St. Ambrose, (following his 8th epistle in the Benedictine ed.), who took the chief part in it, though he did not technically preside. The same council took up the case of pope Damasus and besought the emperor to interfere against the partisans of the antipope Ursinus (ib.11). The relations of Gratian with the see of Rome are somewhat obscure, but some extension of its privileges and pretensions dates from this reign. According to the documents first published by Sirmond, a synod held in Rome soon after Gratian's accession made large demands for ecclesiastical jurisdiction and particularly asked that the bp. of Rome should only be judged by a council of bishops or by the emperor in person. Gratian in his rescript to Aquilinus the vicar (of Rome?) grants and confirms several privileges, but says nothing of the latter request. Some doubt hangs over the whole of these documents. (See Godefroy, Cod. Theod. vol. vi. appendix, pp.17, 18; Baron. Annals, sub anno 381, §§ 1, 2; Tillem. Damase, arts.10 and 11. Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, vol. i. pp.239-242; Hefele, Councils, § 91, does not even hint at their existence.)

In consequence of the success of the council of Aquileia St. Ambrose was anxious to call together an oecumenical assembly at Rome to settle the dispute between Nectarius and Maximus, who both claimed the see of Constantinople, and pressed the emperor Theodosius on the point (Epp.13 and 14), who, however, naturally viewed this interference with coldness (Theod. v.8, 9). A council, nevertheless, met at Rome, but without doing much beyond condemning the Apollinarians.

Returning to Milan, St. Ambrose took leave of the young emperor for the last time. Their intercourse had always been tender and affectionate, and was the last thought of the emperor before his death.

We may here mention an instance of their relations, which may have been at this or at any other period of their friendship (de Broglie, to make a point, puts it here, vol. vi. p.45, but neither Paulinus, § 37, nor Sozomen, vii.25, gives any hint of date). A heathen of quality was condemned to death for abusing Gratian and calling him an unworthy son of Valentinian. As he was being led to execution, Ambrose hurried to the palace to intercede for him. One Macedonius, master of the offices, it would seem, ordered the servants to refuse him admittance, as Gratian was engaged in his favourite sport. Ambrose went round to the park gates, entered unperceived by the huntsmen, and never left Gratian till he had overcome his arguments and those of his courtiers and obtained remission of the sentence. |The time will come,| he said to Macedonius, |when you will fly for asylum to the church, but the church doors will be shut against you.| The anecdote of the criminal is told by Sozomen, l.c.; the words to Macedonius are given by Paulinus, u.s.


Gregorius Thaumaturgus, bp. of Neocaesarea
Gregorius (3), surnamed Thaumaturgus, bp. of Neocaesarea in Pontus, c.233-270; born c.210 at Neocaesarea on the Lycus, the modern Niksar; the son of wealthy and noble heathen parents. Christianity had as yet made little progress in that neighbourhood, there being only 17 Christians in the whole region (Greg. Nys. Vita Thaum.; Migne, Patr. Gk. xlvi.954). The extraordinary success of the episcopal labours of the young missionary and the romantic details with which later hands embellished them secured for him the well-known title of Thaumaturgus. This repute cannot be set down as exclusively due to the credulousness of the age, for as Lardner (Cred. ii.42, § 5) remarked, besides Gregory of Nyssa, such writers as Basil, Jerome, and Theodoret distinguished him, as above others, |a man of apostolic signs and wonders| (cf. Dr. J. H. Newman, Essays on Miracles, p.263). No light is thrown upon his thaumaturgic renown by his extant writings, which are conspicuous for their philosophic tone, humility, self-distrust, and practical sense. He must have been a man of singular force of character and weighty judgment. Heretics claimed the sanction of his name for their speculations, thus indirectly revealing the confidence in which he was held by all parties.

Gregory (originally Theodorus) stated that his father died and he himself passed through a remarkable spiritual crisis in his 14th year. He attributed the change of sentiment to |the Divine Logos, the Angel of the counsel of God, and the common Saviour of all.| He left it, however, doubtful in what precisely the change consisted. His mother having suggested the pursuit of rhetoric, he was advised to study specially Roman law and become an alumnus of the celebrated school of jurisprudence at Berytus in Syria. His sister needed an escort to Palestine to join her husband in his high position under the Roman governor at Caesarea. The young Gregory and his brother Athenodorus took this opportunity to travel. |My guardian angel| (says he) |on our arrival at Caesarea handed us over to the care and tuition of Origen,| and the brothers, abandoning their journey, remained there under the personal spell of the teacher for five years. The mental processes by which Gregory was led to Christ throw considerable light on the mind of Origen and the methods of Christian education in the 3rd cent. These details are preserved in a panegyric on Origen, which before leaving Caesarea the young student pronounced to a great assembly in the presence of his master. They differ in several particulars from the account of Gregory of Nyssa (Greg. Nys. Vita Thaum.; Migne, Patr. Gk. vol. xlvi. pp.893-958). According to Gregory's own statements (Orat. de Orig. c. vi.), Origen enticed his pupils first to the study of philosophy, which he recommended as a duty to the Lord of all, |since man alone of all creatures is deemed by his Creator as worthy to pursue it.| |A thoughtful man, if pious, must philosophize,| says he, so |at length, like some spark lighting on our soul, love was kindled and burst into flame within us, a love to the Holy Logos, the most lovely object of all, Who attracts all to Himself by His unutterable beauty.| |only one object seemed worthy of pursuit, philosophy and the master of philosophy, this divine (theios) man.| His love to Origen was like that of Jonathan for David. Gregory praises Origen for his Socratic discipline, and for the way in which his teacher probed his inmost soul with questions, pruned his native wildness and repressed his exuberance. He was taught to interrogate his consciousness, and critically to investigate reasonings and the meanings of words. Origen accustomed his pupils first to the dialectic method of inquiry, and then, in Aristotelian fashion, fed them to contemplate the |magnitude, the wondrousness, the magnificent, and absolutely wise construction of the world.| He seems to have followed (strangely enough) the order of the sciences in Comte's classification of the branches of human knowledge. Thus, he began with |the immutable foundation of all, geometry, and then| (says Gregory) |by astronomy he lifted us up to the things highest above us.| He reduced things to their |pristine elements,| |going over the nature of the whole and of each several section,| |he filled our minds with a rational, instead of an irrational, wonder at the sacred oeconomy of the universe and the irreprovable constitution of all things.| These words and much more that might be quoted from the Panegyric are a strange comment on the thaumaturgic actions freely attributed to Gregory. Morals followed physics, and emphasis is laid by Gregory on the practical experience by which Origen desired his pupils to verify all theories, |stimulating us by the deeds he did more than by the doctrines he taught.| He urged the study of Grecian philosophy for the direct culture of their moral nature. The end of the entire discipline was |nothing but this: By the pure mind make thyself like to God, that thou mayest draw near to Him and abide in Him.| Origen advised Gregory to study all the writings of the philosophers and poets of old, except the Atheists, and gave reasons for a catholic and liberal eclecticism, and, with a modern spirit, disclaimed the force of prejudice and the misery of half-truths and of fixed ideas, and the advantage of |selecting all that was useful and true in all the various philosophers, and putting aside all that was false.| Gregory says of his master: |That leader of all (archegos panton) who speaks in undertones (hupechon) to God's dear prophets and suggests to them all their prophecy and their mystic and divine word, has so honoured this man Origen as a friend as to appoint him to be their interpreter.| Evidently to Gregory the gift of interpretation was as much a divine charisma as prophecy itself. So great were the joys thus placed within his reach that he adds with rapture, |He was truly a paradise to us, after the similitude of the Paradise of God.| He regrets his departure from Caesarea, as Adam might bewail his expulsion from Eden, having to eat of the soil, to contend with thorns and thistles, and dwell in darkness, weeping and mourning. He says, |I go away of my own will, and not by constraint, and by my own act I am dispossessed, when it is in my option to remain.|

The influence of Origen's teaching upon Gregory and Athenodorus is confirmed by Eusebius (H. E. vi.30), who adds that |they made such improvement that both, though very young, were honoured with the episcopate in the churches of Pontus.|

Gregory of Nyssa describes Gregory of Neocaesarea as spending much time in Alexandria, and says that before his baptism, while resident there, he displayed a high tone of moral propriety. A residence in Alexandria may have occurred in the five years that Gregory and his brother were under the direction of Origen. These years were probably interrupted by the persecution under Maximinus Thrax (reigned July 235 to May 238), which was aimed especially at the leaders of the church. Origen may then have gone into retirement and left his pupils at liberty to travel into Egypt. If Gregory's baptism was deferred until Origen could return to Caesarea, it must have taken place at the close of their intercourse after the death of Maximin and the accession of Gordian in 238. Reckoning backwards the five years, Gregory did not reach Caesarea before 233, and probably later; and did not leave the |Paradise| until 238 at the earliest, when he pronounced his Panegyric. This document is of interest from the testimony it bears to the doctrine of the Trinity and the light it throws upon the faith of Gregory. Bp. Bull has laid great emphasis upon the passage (Orat. de Origine, cap. iv.) in which Gregory offers his praise to the Father, and then to |the Champion and Saviour of our souls, His first-born Word, the Creator and Governor of all things, . . . being the truth, the wisdom, the power of the Father Himself of all things, and besides being both in Him and absolutely united to Him (atechnos henomenos), the most perfect and living and animate word of the primal mind.| Bp. Bull rightly calls attention to the pre-Nicene character of these phrases, which yet substantially agree with the deliverance of the Nicene Fathers (Def. Nic. Creed, vol. i. p.331). They are of importance in estimating the authenticity and significance of other documents.

Immediately on his return to Neocaesarea Gregory received a letter from Origen (Philocalia, c.13), revealing the teacher's extraordinary regard for his pupil, whom he describes as |my most excellent lord and venerable son.| Gregory is exhorted to study all philosophies, as a preparation for Christianity and to aid the interpretation of Holy Scripture. He is thus to spoil the Egyptians of their fine gold, in order to make vessels for the sanctuary, and not idols of his own. He is then urged with some passion to study the Scriptures, and to seek from God by prayer the light he needs (see Ante-Nic. Library, Origen's works, vol. i.388-390, for a translation of this letter). Shortly after his return Gregory became bishop of his native city, and one of the most celebrated (diaboetos) bishops of the age (Eus. H. E. vi.30, and vii.14). The curious details of his ordination are referred to in Basil's Menol. Graec. (Nov.17), where it is stated that he was ordained by Phaedimus, bp. of Amasea, when the two were at a distance from each other. Our only guide for the subsequent details of his life is Gregory of Nyssa. Some of that writer's most extraordinary statements are in measure vouched for by his brother Basil the Great, and by Rufinus in his expansion of the history of Eusebius. As the later father tells the story, the young and saintly student, on reaching home, was entreated by the entire population to remain as their magistrate and legislator. Like Moses, he took counsel of God, and retired into the wilderness, but, unlike Moses, he married no wife, and had virtue only for his spouse. Then we are told that Phaedimus, bp. of Amasea, sought to consecrate him by guile, but failed, and adopted the expedient of electing and ordaining him by prayer when he was distant a journey of three days. We are assured that this induced Gregory to yield to the summons, and to submit afterwards to the customary rites. Gregory only demanded time for meditation on the truths of the Christian faith before accepting the commission. This meditation issued in the supposed divine revelation to him in the dead of the night of one of the most explicit formularies of the creed of the church of the 3rd cent., |after he had been deeply considering the reason of the faith, and sifting disputations of all sorts.| Gregory saw a vision of St. John and the mother of the Lord, and the latter commanded the former to lay before Gregory the true faith. Apart from this romance, the formulary attributed to Gregory is undoubtedly of high antiquity, and Lardner (Credibility, vol. ii. p.29) does not argue with his wonted candour in his endeavour to fasten upon it signs of later origin. It is singularly free from the peculiar phrases which acquired technical significance in the 4th cent., and yet maintains a most uncompromising antagonism to Sabellian and Unitarian heresy. Moreover, Gregory of Nyssa asserts that when he uttered his encomium, the autograph MS. of this creed was in possession of the church at Neocaesarea. He adds that the church had been continually initiated (mustagogeitai) by means of this confession of Gregory's faith. This statement Basil confirmed (Ep.204, Bas. Opp. Paris ed. t. iii. p.303), saying that in his tender age, when residing in Neocaesarea, he had been taught the words of Gregory by his sainted grandmother Macrina, and (de Spir. Sancto, c.29, ib. p.62) he declared the tenacity with which the ways and words of Gregory had been preserved by that church, even to the mode of reciting the doxology. Moreover, Basil attributed to his influence the orthodoxy of a whole succession of bishops from Gregory to the Musonius of his own day (Ep.204). In addressing the Neocaesareans (Ep.207, ib. p.311), he warns them against twisting the words of Gregory. The formulary must be distinguished from the ekthesis tes kata meros pisteos, which is now found among the dubious writings of Gregory, and which even Labbe confounded with it. A very important sentence which has been variously attributed to the saint and his biographer follows the formula as given in the Life. Dr. Burton referred it to Gregory of Nyssa. Modern editors call attention to the fact that Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat.10) refers to the closing sentences as the substance of the formula itself. It runs as follows: |There is therefore nothing created or servile in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as though previously non-existing and introduced afterwards. Never therefore was the Son wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but there is ever the same Trinity, unchangeable and unalterable| (cf. Migne, Patr. Gk. vol. x. p.988). Great difference of opinion has prevailed as to the genuineness of this document; thus Bingham, Bull, Cave, Tillemont (iv.327), Ceillier, Hahn (cf. Dorner's Person of Christ, A. ii.482), Mohler (Athan. i.105), have defended it, and Lardner, Whiston, Münscher, Gieseler, Herzog (Abriss der Kirchengesch. i.122), contest it. Neander divided it into two parts, the one genuine revealing its Origenistic source, and the other of later growth. Dr. Caspari has, in an appendix to his great work, Alte und neue Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel (1879), defended it with great erudition, and concludes that there is nothing in the formula incompatible with its being the production of a pupil of Origen. He shews, moreover, that it must have been produced between a.d.260 and 265.

There can be little doubt that the missionary labour of Gregory was great and successful, and that his personal influence was extraordinary. A few of the marvellous occurrences detailed by Gregory of Nyssa are referred to by Basil and Rufinus. Basil tells us (de Spir. Sancto, l.c.) |that Gregory was a great and conspicuous lamp, illuminating the church of God, and that he possessed, from the co-operation of the Spirit, a formidable power against the demons; that he turned the course of rivers by giving them orders in the name of Christ; that he dried up a lake, which was the cause of strife to two brothers; and that his predictions of the future made him the equal of the other prophets; . . . that by friends and enemies of the truth he was regarded, in virtue of his signs and prodigies, as another Moses.| But Gregory of Nyssa expands into voluminous legend the record of these deeds. With the exception of a reference to the river Lycus, the Panegyric of Gregory of Nyssa contains no verifying element, giving neither names, dates, nor places for these astounding portents. They were, as Dr. Newman observes, wrought at such times and seasons as to lead to numerous conversions. They were described as well-known facts in a hortatory address and in ecclesiastical style. But they contrast very forcibly with the philosophical bias of Gregory's mind, and they are not referred to until a century after their occurrence.

One of the most interesting facts introduced by his panegyrist refers to Gregory's selection of an obscure person, Alexander the charcoal burner, as bishop over the neighbouring city of Comana. He was preferred to men of eloquence and station by reason of his humble self-consecration to God, and justified the choice by reason of his excellent discourse, holy living, and martyr death.

The great missionary success of Gregory and the rapid growth of the Church must have preceded the persecution under Decius, which began in 250 and 251. The edict was ferocious, and, in the hands of sympathetic governors, cruelly carried out. [[261]DECIUS.] Gregory advised those who could do so to save themselves and their faith by flight and concealment. His enemies pursued him into his retreat, but Gregory of Nyssa says that they found in place of the bishop and his deacon two trees. This |prodigy| differs so profoundly (as do others in the same writer) from the N.T. miracles, both in character and motive, that they form an instructive hint as to the ethnic and imaginative source of the whole cycle.

In 257 Gregory returned to Neocaesarea, and when, in 258, peace was restored to the church, he ordered annual feasts in commemoration of the martyrs. He is credited by his biographer with the doubtful wisdom of hoping to secure the allegiance of those who had been in the habit of worshipping idols, by arranging ceremonials in honour of the martyrs resembling that to which they had been accustomed. This time-serving is an unfavourable indication of character, and does something to explain the melancholy defection from moral uprightness and honour of many of his supposed converts. The conversion of the heathen is said to have been greatly quickened by a fearful plague which was partly, at least, due to Gregory's miraculous powers.

At his death the number of heathen who now remained in his diocese is said to have dwindled to 17, the exact number of Christians found there when Phaedimus consecrated him (Vit. Thaum. l.c. p.954). But the Christianity of the Neocaesareans must have been in many cases of a very imperfect kind, if we may judge from one of the most authentic documents referred to his pen, and entitled Epistola Canonica S. Gregorii . . . de iis qui in barbarorum incursione idolothyta comederant, et alia quaedam peccata commiserant. Numerous authorities, Dodwell
(Dissertationes in Cyprianum), Ceillier (vol. ii. p.444) question the genuineness of the last, the eleventh, of canons, but the conviction widely prevails that the previous ten are genuine. They refer to the circumstances which followed the ravages of the Goths and Boradi in Pontus, and Asia Minor generally, during the reign of Gallienus. The prevailing disorder tempted numerous Christians in Pontus to flagrant acts of impiety and disloyalty. Some took possession of the goods of those who had been dragged into bondage. Others identified themselves with the barbarians, actually helping the heathen in their uttermost cruelty towards their brethren. These facts are gathered from the |canons| in which Gregory denounced strenuously the commission of such crimes, and assigned to them their ecclesiastical penalty. The bishop does not linger over the mere ceremonial uncleanness that might follow from enforced consumption of meat offered to idols, and exonerates from blame or any ecclesiastical anathema women who had, against their will, lost their chastity; but he lays great emphasis on the vices and greed of those who had violated Christian morality for gain and personal advantage. Different degrees of penalty and exclusion from church privilege were assigned, and those were argued on ground of Scripture alone. The epistle containing these canons was addressed to an anonymous bp. of Pontus, who had asked his advice, c.258, towards the end of his episcopate. It reveals the imperfect character of the wholesale conversions that had followed his remarkable ministry.

Other works have been wrongly attributed to Gregory; e.g. ekthesis tes kata meros pisteos, which Vossius published in Latin in 1662, among the works of Gregory, and which Cardinal Mai (Scrip. Vet. vii. p.170) has presented in Greek from the Codex Vaticanus. It is given by Migne (l.c. pp.1103-1123). The best interpretation of the title is, |A creed not of all the dogmas of the church, but only of some, in opposition to the heretics who deny them| (Ante-Nicene Library, vol. xx. p.81). It differs from the former confession in its obvious and technical repudiation of Arianism, and its distinct references to the later Nestorian, and Eutychian heresies. Other treatises and fragments given in edd. of his works, and also trans. in A.-N. L., are: Capitula duodecim de Fide, with interpretation, attributed by Gretser to Gregory (ed. Ratisbon, 1741). Ad Tatianum Disputatio de Animâ, which must have been written by a medieval philosopher when the philosophy of Aristotle was beginning to exert a new influence (Ceillier). Four Homiliae, preserved by Vossius, on |the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary,| and on |Christ's Baptism,| are totally unlike the genuine writing of Gregory; they are surcharged with the peculiar reverence paid to the Mother of our Lord after the controversy between Nestorius and Cyril, and they adopt the test-words of orthodoxy current in the Arian disputes. Two brief fragments remain to be added, one a comment on Matt. vi.22-23, from a Catena, Cod. MS. and pub. by Galland, Vet. Patr. Bibl. xiv.119, and a discourse, in Omnes Sanctos, preserved with a long Epistola praevia by Mingarelli.

Gregory was present at the first council at Antioch (264) to try Paul of Samosata. His brother Athenodorus accompanied him, and they are named among the most eminent members of the council (Eus. H. E. vii.28).

Gregory was buried in the church he had built in Neocaesarea, and commemorated on Nov.17 (Cal. Ethiop.) and Nov.23 (Cal. Arm.).

Editions of his Works. -- The most noted have been those of Gerard Vossius, 1640, in 4to, and in 1622, in folio. They had been published in Bibl. Patr. Cologne in 1618. The Panegyric on Origen by Sirmond, 1609, 4to. De la Rue included it in his ed. of Origensis Opera, vol. iv. The various fragments attributed to Gregory are all pub. by Migne (Patr. Gk. vol. x.). See esp. Ryssel, Gregorius Thaumaturgus (Leipz.1880). His Address to Origen and Origen's Letter to Gregory have been trans. with intro. and notes by W. Metcalfe (S.P.C.K.). There are also translations of his works in the Ante-Nic. Lib. vol. vi.


Gregorius, Saint, the Illuminator
Gregorius (7), St., |the Illuminator| (Gregor Lusavoritch), |the sun of Armenia,| the apostle, first patriarch and patron saint of Armenia, c.302-331. Of his life and times the best if not the only authorities are Agathangelos, who was secretary to Tiridates king of Armenia, the persecutor and afterwards the convert of Gregory, and Simeon Metaphrastes. A French trans. of the former was printed in vol. i. of the Historiens del' Arménie (1867), by Victor Langlois. The Life of St. Gregory by Metaphrastes (Migne, Patr. Gk. cxv.941-996) is evidently drawn from Agathangelos. The silence of all Greek writers about Gregory is remarkable. The Rev. S. C. Malan trans. the Life and Times of St. Gregory the Illuminator from the Armenian work of the Vartabed Matthew, which is the main source of the following sketch.

Gregory was born c.257 in Valarshabad, the capital of the province of Ararat in Armenia. His father Anak, or Anag, a Parthian Arsacid, of the province of Balkh, murdered, c.258, Chosroes I. of Armenia. The dying king commanded the whole family of Anak to be slain, but an infant was saved, carried to the Cappadocian Caesarea, there brought up in the Christian faith, and baptized Gregorius.

Tiridates II., son of Chosroes, recovered the kingdom c.284 by the help of Diocletian, whose favour he had gained and whose hatred of Christianity he had imbibed. Gregory became his servant, and was raised to the rank of a noble. In the first year of his reign Tiridates went to the town of Erez (Erzenga) in Higher Armenia, to make offerings to Anahid, the patron-goddess of Armenia; but Gregory, refusing to take any part in this idolatry, endeavoured to turn the king from his idols, and spoke to him of Christ s the judge of quick and dead. Then followed what are known as |the twelve tortures of St. Gregory,| borne with unsurpassed fortitude (but see Dowling's Armenian Church, S.P.C.K.1910). After two years Tiridates ordered the saint to be thrown into a muddy pit infested with creeping creatures, into which malefactors were wont to be hurled, in the city of Ardashat, and there he lived for 14 years, being fed by a Christian woman named Anna. This is one of several traces in the story of an already-existing Christianity in Armenia.

The king's barbarous treatment of a community of religious women, who c.300 took refuge within his domains and built a convent outside the city of Valarshabad, brought a plague upon him and his people, which was only relieved when Gregory was fetched from the pit. Gregory instructed the people, and at his order they built three churches where the King's crimes had been perpetrated, and he called the place Etchmiadzin (the descent of the Only-begotten), its Turkish name being Ütch-Kilise (Three Churches). Gregory was consecrated bp. for Armenia c.302, by Leontius, bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia. His cathedral was in Valarshabad. He destroyed the idol temples, |conquering the devils who inhabited them| -- i.e. the priests and supporters of the old religion -- and baptized the king and his court in the Euphrates. This national conversion occurred before Constantine had established the church in the Roman empire, and Armenia was thus the first kingdom to adopt Christianity as the religion of the state. Gregory encouraged the reading of the Holy Scriptures, both of the O. and N. T. He wrote letters to St. James of Nisibis, requesting him to compose homilies on faith, love, and other virtues. In 325 Gregory is said to have been summoned to the council of Nicaea, but, being himself unable to go, sent his son, who brought back the decrees for the Armenian church. The venerable patriarch greatly rejoiced on reading them, and exclaimed, |Now let us praise Him Who was before the worlds, worshipping the most Holy Trinity and the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, now and ever, world without end, Amen,| which words are said after the Nicene Creed in the Armenian church (Malan. p.327, n.). After filling the country with churches and ministers, schools and convents, he retired in 331 to lead a solitary life among the caves of Manyea in the province of Taran, having previously consecrated his son Arisdages bishop in his stead. Gregory died in the wilderness a.d.332, and the shepherds, finding his dead body without knowing whose it was, erected over it a cairn of stones.

The Bollandists have printed Agathangelos and other Lives of Gregory. Acta SS. viii. Sept. pp.295-413; Basil. Men. Sept.30, in Migne, Patr. Gk. cxvii.; Le Quien, Or. Chr. i.1355, 1371. In honour of her founder the Armenian church has been called the Armeno-Gregorian. Saint-Martin (Mém. sur l'Arménie, i.436) and Langlois (Historiens, ii.387) date his consecration a.d.276.


Gregorius, the Cappadocian
Gregorius (8), the Cappadocian, appointed by Arianizing bishops at Antioch in the beginning of 340 -- not, apparently, of 339, as the Festal Index says, and clearly not at the Dedication Festival in 341 as Socrates says (ii.20) -- to supersede Athanasius in the see of Alexandria. A student in the schools of Alexandria, he had received kindness from Athanasius (Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi.15). He arrived on Mar.23 (cf. Fest. Ind.), Athanasius having retired into concealment. That Gregory was an Arian may be inferred from his appointment. Athanasius says, in an encyclical letter of the time, that his sympathy with the heresy was proved by the fact that only its supporters had demanded him, and that he employed as secretary one Ammon, who had been long before excommunicated by bp. Alexander for his impiety (Encycl. c.7). Athanasius tells us that on Good Friday, Gregory having entered a church, the people shewed their abhorrence, whereupon he caused the prefect Philagrius publicly to scourge 34 virgins and married women and men of rank, and to imprison them. After Athanasius fled to Rome, Gregory became still more bitter (Athan. Hist. Ar.13). We hear of him as |oppressing the city| in 341 (Fest. Ind.). Auxentius, afterwards Arian bp. of Milan, was ordained priest by him (Hilar. in Aux.8). The council of Sardica, at the end of a.d.343, pronounced him never to have been, in the church's eyes, a bishop (Hist. Ar.17). He died, not by murder, as Theodoret says (ii.4) through a confusion with George, but after a long illness (Fest. Ind.), about ten months after the exposure of the Arian plot against bp. Euphrates -- i.e. c. Feb. a.d.345. This date, gathered from Athanasius (Hist. Ar.21) is preferable to that of the Index, Epiphi 2 = June 26, 346.


Gregorius Baeticus, St., bp. of Eliberi
Gregorius (12) Baeticus, St., bp. of Eliberi, Elvira, or Granada, c.357-384; first mentioned as resisting the famous Hosius of Cordova, when under the persecution of Constantius Hosius gave way so far as to admit Arian bishops to communion with him. This must have been in or before A.D.357, the year of Hosius's death. At the council of Ariminum Gregorius was one of the few bishops who adhered to the creed of Nicaea, and refused to hold communion with the Arian Valens, Ursacius, and their followers. Our authority for this is a letter to Gregorius by Eusebius of Vercellae from his exile in the Thebaid (printed among the works of St. Hilary of Poitiers, ii.700, in Migne, Patr. Lat. x.713). Eusebius there acknowledges letters he had received from Gregorius, giving an account of his conduct, and commends him highly for having acted as became a bishop. Gams, however (Kirchengesch. ii.256-259, 279-282), maintains that Gregorius was one of the bishops who fell into heresy at Ariminum, and further identifies him with the Gregorius in the deputation sent by the council to Constantius and headed by Restitutus of Carthage, who assented to and subscribed an Arian formula of belief at Nice, in Thrace, Oct.10, 359, and held communion with the Arian leaders, Valens, Ursacius, and others (St. Hilary of Poitiers, ex Opere Historico Fragmentum 8, in Migne, Patr. Lat. x.702).

Gregorius is generally supposed to have been one of the leaders of the schism originated by Lucifer of Cagliari. This theory is supported by the terms of praise applied to him by the Luciferians Faustinus and Marcellus in their Libellus Precum ad Imperatores (c.9, 10, 20, 25, 27, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii.89, 90, 97, 100, 102); and also by the way St. Jerome, in his Chronicle under the date 374= a.d.370 (in Migne, Patr. Lat. xxvii.695), couples him with Lucifer of Cagliari, saying that the latter with Gregorius a Spanish, and Philo a Libyan, bishop, |nunquam se Arianae miscuit pravitati.| Florez, however (Esp. Sagr. xii.121), maintains that no certain proof of this theory exists. Gams, on the other hand (op. cit. ii.310-314), maintains that even before the death of Lucifer, Gregorius was the recognized head of the sect. On the authority of the Libellus Precum, c.25, he considers that Gregorius, after Lucifer's return from exile in 362, visited him in Sardinia; and he identifies with Gregorius the bishop mentioned in c.63 as at Rome under the assumed name of Taorgius, and as having consecrated one Ephesius as bp. of the Luciferians there, an event which he dates between 366 and 371. From the Libellus Precum and the Rescript of Theodosius in reply addressed to Cynegius, Gregorius was apparently alive in 384. In none of the above passages is his see mentioned, as he is called only episcopus Hispaniarum or Hispaniensis, but it is supplied by St. Jerome, de Vir. Illust. c.105 (Hieron. Op. ii.937, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xxiii.703) Opinions have been much divided as to the book de Fide, attributed to him by Jerome. The Bollandists (Acta SS. Ap. iii.270) say |etiamnum latet.| It was formerly supposed to be the de Trinitate now ascribed to Faustinus. Gams (p.314) thinks that this, though really written by Faustinus, is the work to which St. Jerome alludes.

The materials for a Life of Gregorius are thus scanty, the Libellus Precum being of very doubtful authority, and widely different estimates have been formed of him. But the two charges of Arianism and Luciferianism seem mutually destructive.


Gregorius I, bp. of Nazianzus
Gregorius (13) I., bp. of Nazianzus in Cappadocia, father of Gregorius Nazianzenus. [[262]Gregorius (14).] Originally a member of the Hypsistarii, a sect numerous in Cappadocia, he was converted to the Catholic faith, married a lady named Nonna, and was soon afterwards consecrated bp. of Nazianzus, c.329. He was a pillar of the orthodox party, though weak enough to sign the creed of Ariminum in deference to Constantius, a.d.360. He took part in the ordination of Basil to the see of Caesarea [[263]Basilius]; he opposed the attempts of the emperor Valens, a.d.371, to overthrow the Catholic faith; yet he, as well as Basil, was spared the banishment inflicted on many bishops (Socr. iv.11). After an episcopate of 45 years, he died a.d.374. His son frequently mentions his good father, both in his sermons and his verses, and pronounced a funeral oration over him. Greg. Naz. Oratio xviii. in Migne, Patr. Gk. xxxv.330; Le Quien, Oriens Christ. i.411.


Gregorius Nazianzenus, bp. of Sasima and Constantinople Gregorius (14) Nazianzenus, bp. (370-390) of Sasima and of Constantinople, has been fortunate in his biographers. He left them abundant materials in his works, especially in a large collection of letters and a long autobiographical poem.

St. Gregory takes his distinctive title from Nazianzus, a small town in S.W. Cappadocia, near which, in a district known as the Tiberine (Ep. ii. Op. ii.2; Basil, Ep. iv.), at a village called Arianzus, where his father had an estate, he was born. Both his parents are known to us. His father bore the same name [[264]GREGORIUS (13)] and belonged in early life to the sect of the HYPSISTARII (Orat. xviii.5; Op. i.333). His mother's name was Nonna, a child of Christian parents (Philtatius and Gorgonia), and is praised by her son as a model of Christian virtues. To her life and prayers he attributes his father's conversion.

The date of his birth we may reasonably fix from his own words in 325-329.

Nonna, in fulfilment of a vow, dedicated him to the Lord, but not by baptism. She taught him to read the Scriptures, and led him to regard himself as an Isaac offered in sacrifice to God, Who had given him to another Abraham and Sarah. He, as another Isaac, dedicated himself. He rejoices to tell of the examples set him at home and of the bent given to his studies by companionship with good men. The tutor to whose care the brothers were committed was Carterius, perhaps the same who was afterwards head of the monasteries of Antioch and instructor of Chrysostom (Tillem. Mémoires, ix.370).

At Caesarea in Cappadocia probably was commenced Gregory's friendship with Basil, which, tried by many a shock, survived them all, and was the chief influence which moulded not only the life of both friends, but also the theology of the Christian church. Gregory and his brother went to Caesarea in Palestine to pursue the study of oratory (Orat. vii.6, Op. ii.201); Caesarius departing thence to Alexandria, and Gregory remaining to study in the school made famous by Origen, Pamphilus, and Eusebius. Thespesius was then the master of greatest renown, and Euzoïus was a fellow-pupil with Gregory (Hieron. de Eccles. Script. c.113). >From Palestine Gregory went to Alexandria (Orat. l.c.). Here Didymus filled the chair of Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen, and Athanasius the episcopal throne, though probably an exile at the time. Gregory pressed on to Athens. A ship of Aegina offered him passage (Orat. xviii.31, Op. i.351). Off Cyprus a fierce storm struck her. The thunder, lightning, darkness, creaking of the yards, shaking of the masts, cries of the crew, appeals for help to Christ, even by those who before had not known Him, all added to the terror of the scene. The storm continued 22 days, during which they saw no chance of deliverance. Gregory's chief fear was lest he should die without baptism. In prayer he dedicated himself again to God, and sought for help. The prayer was answered, and the rescued crew were so affected that they all accepted Gregory's God.

Among the Athenian sophists of the day, none were more famous than Himerius and Proaeresius, with whom Gregory continued the study of oratory. At Athens Gregory and Basil were together again (Orat. xliii.15; Op. i.781); Gregory rendering the freshman Basil various friendly offices, such as exempting him from the rough practical joking which all who joined the Athenian classes had to pass through. [[265]BASILIUS.] The Armenians, jealous of the newcomer, whose fame had preceded him, and with some of the old feeling of antagonism against Cappadocia, tried to entrap him in sophistical debates. When they were being defeated, Gregory, feeling the honour of Athens at stake, came to the rescue, but soon saw their real object, and left them to join his friend (Orat. xliii.16, 17; ib.782, 783). These things are trifles, but had important effects. The two friends, rendered obnoxious to their companions, were bound the more closely to each other. Their fellow-students, for various reasons, bore various names and surnames. The two friends were, and desired to be called, Christians; they had all things in common, and |became as one mind possessing two bodies| (Orat. xliii.20, 21; ib.785, 786; Carm. xi.221-235; Op. ii.687). Among other students then at the university was Julian the Apostate. Gregory claims that he had even then discerned his character in his very looks; and that he used to warn their fellow-students that Rome was cherishing a serpent (Orat. v.24, Op. i.162).

Gregory must have spent at Athens probably not less than ten years. He went there a beardless youth; he left about his 30th year. To the effect of those years the matter and form alike of his work bear witness.

Leaving probably about the beginning of 356, Gregory went first to Constantinople, wishing to see the new Rome before his return to Asia. Here he unexpectedly met his brother Caesarius, journeying to Nazianzus from Alexandria. The mother had longed to see both her sons return together, and Gregory has left a touching account of their meeting; and at this point some of the biographers fix his baptism. Gregory himself tells us that he now laid down the plan of his life. Every power he possessed was to be devoted to God; but the way seemed divided into two, and he knew not which to take. Elias, the sons of Jonadab, the Baptist, were types of the life that attracted him; but on the other hand was the study of the Scriptures, for which the desert offered no opportunities; and the advanced age of his parents presented claims which seemed to be imperative duties. He resolved to live the strict life of an ascetic and yet perform the duties of society (Carm. i. de Rebus suis, l.65 seq.; Op. ii.635), but denying himself even the pleasure of music (ib. l.69).

But in the midst of various trifling irritations of domestic duty, which went far to mar the life he had marked out for himself, Gregory heard from Basil, who had resolved to found a coenobitic system in Pontus, and asked his friend to join him. Gregory answered by proposing to Basil to join them at the Tiberine, where the ascetic life in common could be followed and the duties of home performed (Ep. i. Op. ii.1). Basil did visit Arianzus, but remained only a short time. >From Caesarea he again wrote to Gregory, after which Gregory set out for Pontus. One substantial result of their joint labours is preserved in the Philocalia, a series of extracts from the exegetical works of Origen. Gregory himself speaks of this work, which he sent as a present to his friend Theodosius of Tyana (Ep. cxv. Op. ii.103). We know from Gregory's own words also that he took part in composing the famous |Rules| of Basil. It is not clear how long he remained in Pontus. Clemencet thinks two or three years, and the supposition agrees with Gregory's regret that he had but tasted enough of the life there to excite his longing for more (Orat. ii.6, Op. i.14). The silence of Gregory with regard to his return may be due to another cause. Constantius had required the bishops throughout the empire to accept the creed of Rimini (a.d.359-360), and the bp. of Nazianzus, though hitherto faithful to the Nicene doctrine, did so. The monks of his diocese were devoted to Athanasius, and there followed a division in the church, which Gregory alone could heal. He induced the bishop to make a public confession of orthodoxy, and delivered a sermon on the occasion (Orat. vi. Op. i.179 seq.). If this division at Nazianzus occurred in 360, we have the reason of Gregory's return (Tillem. Mém. ix.345; Schröckh, Kirchengesch. xiii.287; Ullmann, Gregorius von Nazianz. s.41). If with Clemencet and others (Op. i. pp. xciv. seq.) it is assigned to 363-364, we must suppose that the return was due to the general claim of filial duty. In any case he came to Nazianzus, and received letters from Basil asking him to return to Pontus (Ep. vi. ad fin., Op. ii. p.6). The aged bishop felt the need of support and help, and resolved to overrule the scruples which made Gregory shrink from the responsibilities of the priesthood. The ordination occurred on one of the high festivals, probably at Christmas, a.d.361 (Nicetas, ii.1021; Tillem. Mém. ix.352). Nicetas assumes that the congregation compelled Gregory to accept ordination (cf. Carm. xi. de Vitâ suâ, 345-348, Op. ii.) Such forced ordinations were not unknown (Bingham, Orig. Eccles. iv.2-5 and ix.7, 1). Basil was in the same way made priest.

Gregory preached in the church at Nazianzus on the Easter Day following his ordination, and had expected that a crowded church would have welcomed his return and have applauded his first sermon; but the church was almost deserted. Gregory could not be ignorant of the cause of this estrangement. His flight from the work of the priesthood demanded an explanation, and Gregory determined to give an answer worthy of the question and of himself. It is contained in the second oration (Op. i. ii.65). In no part of his writings do we find proof of greater study. It is practically a treatise on the pastoral office, and forms the foundation of Chrysostom's de Sacerdotio and of the Cura Pastoralis of Gregory the Great, while writers in all ages have directly or indirectly drawn largely from it. The earlier part treats of the reasons for his flight: (1) he was wholly unprepared for the ordination; (2) he had always been attracted by the monastic life; (3) he was ashamed of the life and character of the mass of the clergy; (4) he did not at that time, he did not now -- and this reason weighed with him most of all -- think himself fit to rule the flock of Christ and govern the minds of men| (Orat. ii.9). He then discusses for 40 sections the duties and difficulties of the true pastor (ib.10-49). |His first duty is to preach the word, and this is so difficult that to fulfil it ideally would require universal knowledge. Theological knowledge is absolutely necessary, especially of the doctrine of the Trinity, lest he fall into the Atheism of Sabellius, or the Judaism of Arius, or the Polytheism too common among the orthodox. It is necessary to hold to the truth that there is one God, and to confess that there are three persons, and attributes proper to each; but for this there is need of the Spirit's help. Much more is it difficult to expound it to a popular audience, both from the preacher's imperfection and the people's want of preparation. Zeal not according to knowledge leads men away from the truth. Then, there is the desire of vainglory, with inexperience, and her constant attendant, rashness, inconstancy, based on ignorance of the Scripture; and a subjective eclecticism which ends in an uncertain creed, and leads men to doubt of truth, as if a blind or deaf man were to place the evil not in himself but in the light of the sun or the voice of his friend. It is more easy to instruct minds wholly ignorant than those which have received false teaching; but the work of weeding, as well as that of sowing, must be done. The work of a spiritual ruler is like that of a man trying to manage a herd of beasts, old and young, wild and tame. He must, therefore, be single in will to rule the whole body, manifold to govern each member of it. Some must be fed with milk; some with more solid food. For all this who is sufficient? There are spiritual hucksters who adulterate the word of truth; but it is better to be led than to lead others, and to learn than attempt to teach what one does not know. Men are foolish if they do not know their own ignorance; rash, if they know it, and yet lightly undertake this work. The Jews did not allow young men to read all parts of the Scriptures; but in the church there is no such bound placed between teaching and learning. A mere boy, who does not know the very names of the sacred writings, if he can babble a few pious words, and these caught by hearing, not by reading, becomes a teacher. Men spend more time and pains in learning to dance or play the flute than teachers of things divine and human spend in studying them. The love of vainglory is at the root of this evil. The true ideal is to be found in the lives of disciples like Peter or Paul, who became all things to all men that they might gain some. The false teachers incur great danger, and the pastor's sin causes the public woe. The prophets dwelt on the fearful position of the shepherds who feed themselves; the apostles and Christ Himself taught what the true shepherds should be; and His condemnation of Scribes and Pharisees includes all false teachers.| Day and night did these thoughts possess Gregory. He was aware of the objections of priests that the candle should be placed on the candlestick, and the talent not hidden; but no time of preparation for the priesthood can be too long, and haste is full of danger. He dreaded both its duties and its dignity. |He who has not learned to speak the hidden wisdom of God, and to bear the cross of Christ, should not enter upon the priesthood. For himself, he would prefer a private life. A great man ought to undertake great things; a small man small things. Only that man can build the tower who has wherewith to build it.| Such are the reasons Gregory gives for his flight. He adds those which led to his return. |(1) The longing he had for them and which he saw they had for him; (2) the white hairs and feeble limbs of his holy parents -- the father who was to him as an angel, and the mother to whom he owed also his spiritual birth. There is a time for yielding as for everything else; (3) the example of the prophet Jonah -- and this weighed most with him, for every letter of Scripture is inspired for our use -- who deserved pardon, but he himself would not if he still refused. The denunciations of disobedience in Holy Scripture are no less severe than those against the unworthy pastor. On either side is danger. The middle is the only safe course -- not to seek the priesthood, nor yet to refuse it. There is a merit in obedience; but for disobedience there is hardly any remedy. Some holy men are more, others less, forward to undertake rule. Neither are to be blamed.|

Such is the general character of the famous Tou Autou Apologetikos. Did it alone remain to us, Gregory must still have been thought of as one of the four pillars of the Greek church, and we should still read the chief traits of his personal character. It was written in 362. Julian the Apostate had entered Constantinople on Dec.11, 361, and persuaded Gregory's brother Caesarius to remain at court. Gregory was then with Basil, who had indignantly rejected like advances, and he blushes that the son of a bishop should accept them. It made their father weary of life, and had to be hidden from their mother (Ep. vii. Opp. ii.7). The effect of this letter upon Caesarius we may judge from his declaration before Julian: |In a word, I am a Christian, and I mean to be one,| and from the exclamation of the emperor: |O happy father of such unhappy children!| (Orat. vii.13, Op. i.206; cf. De Broglie, Constance, ii.207). Gregory esteemed the victory of Caesarius as a more precious gift than the half of the empire (Orat. vii.14, ad init.). But Julian had bitter revenge in store. He ordered that no Christian should teach profane literature. This caused Gregory to compose many of the poems now extant, probably as reading-books for Christian schools. Towards the end of 363 or the beginning of 364 he wrote two Invectives against Julian (Orat. iv. Op. i.78-147; Orat. v. ib.147-175). The emperor had fallen, pierced by an arrow, in the previous June. The orator in these philippics held him up as the sum of all that was vile. In the first sentence he is called |the dragon, the apostate, the Assyrian, the common enemy, the great mind| (Is. x.12, LXX); and this sentence is typical. These orations, looked at dispassionately, remind us rather of Demosthenes or Cicero than of a Christian bishop. The admirers of the saint find it still more difficult to explain the panegyric on the Arian Constantius, which these discourses contain. He is |the most divine and Christ-loving of emperors, and his great soul is summoned from heaven. The sin of his life was the inhuman humanity which spared Julian| (Orat. iv.34 seq., Op. i.93 seq.) Gregory, indeed, speaks elsewhere of three things of which Constantius repented when dying: (1) the murder of his relations; (2) that he had named Julian Caesar; (3) that he had given himself to the dogma of the newer creed (Orat. xxi.26, Op. i.403 A). Yet he knew that the emperor gave his support to impiety, and framed laws against the orthodox doctrine (Orat. xxv.9, Op. i.461 A); nor could he have been ignorant that it was by Euzosïus that baptism was administered to the penitent. The character of Constantius is clearly used as an oratorical contrast to that of Julian.

While Gregory was thus employed at Nazianzus, Basil returned from Pontus to Caesarea, where Eusebius had been made bishop, and was ordained against his will. He informed his friend of this, and Gregory replied in a letter which is important as shewing his thoughts about the position in which both he and Basil had been placed. |Now the thing is done it is necessary to fulfil one's duty -- such at least is the way in which I look at it -- especially in the present distress, when many tongues of heretics are raised against us, and not to disappoint the hopes of those who have put their faith in us and in our past life| (Ep. viii. Op. ii.8). A difference arose ere long between Eusebius and Basil. Its origin is not known, and Gregory thought it better that it should not be (Orat. xliii.28, Op. i.792). It shews Gregory in the character of peacemaker. The warm friend of Basil, he was no less an admirer of the bishop, and an advocate for the rights of authority. Invited by the bishop to fill the place vacated by Basil's retirement to Pontus, he does not hesitate to assert that the treatment of Basil was unjust and to demand reconciliation with his friend as the price of his own influence (Epp. xvi.-xx. Op. ii.16). An indignant reply from Eusebius only called forth stronger letters from the same standpoint (Epp. xvii. and xviii. Op. ii.17, 18), and an equally plain letter to Basil, telling him that Eusebius was disposed to be reconciled to him, and urging him to be first in the victory of submission (Ep. xix. ib.). Hereupon Basil returned to Caesarea, and gave his powerful aid to the bishop in the dangers threatening the church, or rather became bishop in reality, while Eusebius was still so in name -- |the keeper of the lion, the leader of the leader| (Orat. xliii.33, Op. i.796). When peace was thus established, Gregory returned again to Nazianzus. Here new troubles awaited him. Caesarius had been chosen by Valens to be treasurer of Bithynia, and once more his brother was distressed at seeing him among the servants of an adversary of the true faith. On Oct.11, 368, Nicaea was almost destroyed by an earthquake. Gregory made this the ground of an earnest appeal to Caesarius to abandon his office (Ep. xx. Op. ii. p.19). He was on the point of yielding when he suddenly died. The funeral oration delivered by Gregory is placed by Jerome first in the list of the orator's celebrated works (Catal. Scrip. Eccles.117). It narrates, in the language of fraternal love, the deeds of a noble life, and seeks in that of Christian submission to console his parents and his friends (Orat. vii. Op.198, et seq.). Sixteen epitaphs remain to shew how often Gregory mourned his loss (Ep. vi.-xxi. Op. ii.1111-1115). The death of Caesarius brought trouble to Gregory from the administration of his estate which had been left to the poor. Against extortioners who tried to seize it he appealed to his friend Sophronius, prefect of Constantinople (Ep. xxix. Op. ii.24); and his troubles called forth the kind offices of Basil. He himself tells us plaintively how he would gladly have fled these business worries, but felt it his duty to share the burden with his father (Carm. xi.375-380, Op. ii.695). About the same time another loss befell the house of Nazianzus in the death of Gorgonia, and once again Gregory delivered a funeral discourse of most touching gracefulness (Orat. viii. Op. i.218 et seq.). These sorrows weighed heavily on Gregory's spirit; and while in public discourses he sought to console others, his private poems shew how hard he found it to console himself. |Already his whitening hairs shew his grief, and his stiffening limbs are inclining to the evening of a sad day| (Carm. de Rebus suis, i.177-306, Op. ii.641 sqq.). In 370 Eusebius died in the arms of Basil, who at once invited Gregory to Caesarea on the plea that he was himself in extremis. The latter regarded this as a pretext, and in a tone of mingled affection and reproach declined to go until after the election of the archbishop (Ep. xl. Op. ii.34). The invitation to the bp. of Nazianzus to be present at the election was answered, as all the editors with almost certainty judge, by the hands of the son. He dwells upon the importance of the position and the special qualifications for it possessed by Basil, and promises his assistance if they propose to elect him (Ep. xli. Op. ii.35). He wrote also to Eusebius of Samosata by the hands of the deacon Eustathius, urging him to go to Caesarea and promote Basil's election (Ep. xlii. Op. ii.37). Eusebius yielded to this request, but the vote of the aged bp. of Nazianzus was also needed. An illness he had disappeared as soon as he started. The son thought it prudent to remain at home, but sent by his father's hands a letter to Eusebius, expressing his esteem and excusing his absence, and referring to the miracle of his father's restored health (Ep. xliv. Op. ii.39). He did not go even after the election, but contented himself at first with writing letters which witness to his wisdom and affection (Epp. xlv. and xlvi. Op. ii.40, 41). When the storm had subsided he went in person, but declined the position of first among the presbyters, or probably that of coadjutor bishop (tende tes kathedras timen, Orat. xliii.39, Op. i.801), which Basil offered him. But in the opposition caused by the bishops defeated in the election, and in the persecution organized by the prefect Modestius at the command of Valens, Gregory was foremost as a personal friend and as a defender of the faith (Socr. iv. ii).

In 370 Valens made a civil division of Cappadocia into two provinces, and in 372 Anthimus, bp. of Tyana, claimed equal rights with the bp. of Caesarea -- i.e. the rights of metropolitan of Cappadocia Secunda, of which Tyana was the capital. Basil resisted this claim, and Gregory, who had returned to Nazianzus, offered, in a letter full of affectionate admiration (Ep. xlviii. Op. ii.40), to visit and support his friend and went to Caesarea. Thence they proceeded together to the foot of Mount Taurus in Cappadocia Secunda, where was a chapel dedicated to St. Orestes, and where the people were accustomed to pay their tithes in kind. On their return they found the mountain-passes at Sasima guarded by followers of Anthimus. A struggle took place, and Gregory implies that he was personally injured (Carm. xi.453, Op. ii.699). He seems soon afterwards to have returned to Nazianzus, whither he was followed by Basil, who had resolved (by way of securing his own rights) to make Sasima a bishopric, and Gregory the first bishop. In this he was aided by the elder Gregory, and the son yielded against his own will (Orat. ix. Op. i.234-238). At the last moment he fled, but was pursued by Basil, and at length consecrated (Orat. x. Op. i.239-241). But he still put off the duties of his see, until Basil sent Gregory of Nyssa to remonstrate. But Anthimus was again prepared to resist by armed force, and Gregory finally abandoned duties which he had never willingly accepted. Basil wrote reproaching him, and he replied in the same tone. |He would not fight with the warlike Anthimus, for he was himself little experienced in war, and liable to be wounded, and one, moreover, who preferred repose. Why should he fight for sucking-pigs and chickens, which after all were not his own, as if it were a question of souls and of canons? And why should he rob the metropolis of the illustrious Sasima?| (Ep. xlviii. Op. ii.44). The |illustrious Sasima| must be described in the words of the poem, de Vitâ suâ: |on a much frequented road of Cappadocia, at a point where it is divided into three, is a halting-place, where is neither water nor grass, nor any mark of civilization. It is a frightful and detestable little village. Everywhere you meet nothing but dust, noises, waggons, howls, groans, petty officials, instruments of torture, chains. The whole population consists of foreigners and travellers. Such was my church of Sasima| (Carm. xi.439-446, Op. ii.696). Other letters were exchanged, but nothing could change his determination. He was at length prevailed upon by his father to leave the mountains, whither he had fled for refuge, and to become coadjutor at Nazianzus. This did not deliver him from the quarrel between Basil and Anthimus, for Nazianzus was in the new province of Cappadocia Secunda, and the bp. of Tyana soon visited the Gregories and sought to gain them to his cause. They held firm to Basil, but Anthimus then asked the son to interfere between Basil and himself, and to seek a conference. The option of having one at all, its time and place if resolved upon, all was left to Basil's will, and yet he felt injured and expressed his dissatisfaction at Gregory's conduct. The latter felt and said, in plain terms, |that his friend was puffed up by his new dignity, and unmindful of what was due to others. He had himself offended Anthimus by his firm Basilism (basilismon). Was it just that Basil should be offended for the same reason?| (Ep. l. Op. ii.44). He soon gave further proof of affection by taking an active part in the election of Eulalius as bp. of Doaris, and by a remonstrance on the subject of Basil's teaching, which he felt was due from his friendship. He had heard men cavil at Basil's orthodoxy, and assert that he did not hold the Divinity of the Third Person in the Trinity; and humbly asked him, for the sake of silencing his detractors -- he himself had no doubt -- to express in definite words what he held as the true doctrine (Ep. lviii. Op. ii.50). Basil did not accept the friendly letter in the same spirit. Gregory saw from his reply that it had given pain, in spite of his care. Yet he submits, and will place himself entirely in Basil's hands (Ep. lix. Op. ii.53).

The year 373 was an |annus mirabilis| for Nazianzus, and called forth two remarkable discourses from Gregory. An epidemic among their cattle, a season of drought, and a destructive tempest in harvest reduced the people to absolute poverty. They turned in their need to the church, and compelled Gregory to address them. The discourse seems to have been impromptu. Gregory |regrets that he is the constrained speaker rather than his father -- that the stream is made to flow while the fountain is dry -- and then urges that divine punishments are all in mercy, and that human sins are the ordinary causes of public woes|; then plainly puts before his hearers the special sins of their city and invites them to penitence and change of life (Orat. xvi. Op. i.299). The inability of the inhabitants to pay the imperial taxes led to an insurrection. At the approach of the prefect with a body of troops they took refuge in the church, and he consented to hear Gregory's plea. While the Invective against Julian reminds us of the Philippics or the de Coronâ, we have here an oration which has borne without injury comparison with the pro Ligario or pro Marcello, or Chrysostom's plea for Eutropius or Flavian (Benoît, p.355). The first part points the afflicted people to the true source of comfort; the second is addressed to princes and magistrates. |The prefect was subject to the authority of the teacher, which was higher than his own. Did he wield the sword? it was for Christ. Was he God's image? so were the poor suffering people. The most divine thing was to do good; let him not lose the opportunity. Did he see the white hair of the aged bishop, and think of his long, unblemished priesthood, whom, it may he, the very angels found worthy of homage (latreias), and did not that move him?| |I adjure you by the name of Christ, by Christ's emptying Himself for us, by the sufferings of Him Who cannot suffer, by His cross, by the nails which have delivered me from sin, by His death and burial, resurrection and ascension; and lastly, by this common table where we sit together, and by these symbols of my salvation, which I consecrate with the same mouth that addresses to you this prayer -- in the name, I say, of this sacred mystery which lifts us up to heaven!| He concluded by praying |that the prefect may find for himself such a judge as he should be for them, and that all meet with merciful judgment here and hereafter| (Orat. xvii. Op. i.317 et seq.) Early in 374 the elder Gregory died, and the son delivered a discourse, at which his mother Nonna and his friend Basil were present, and which was an eulogy of both his parents and of his friend (Orat. xviii. Op. i.327). Nonna survived her husband only a few months, and died as she knelt at the Holy Table (Epit. lxv.-c. Op. ii.1133-1149). The brother and sister were already dead. Gregory was left alone. His first care was to devote his large fortune wholly to the poor, reserving only a small plot of land at Arianzus; and then to invite the bishops to elect a successor to the see. Fear lest the church should be rent by heresy induced him to exercise the office temporarily. Two reasons determined him not to preach at Nazianzus again -- (1) that he may cause them to elect a bishop to succeed his father; (2) that his silence may check the mania for theological discussion which was spreading through the Eastern church and leading everybody to teach the things of the Spirit without the Spirit.

For two years after the bishop's death Gregory in vain pressed for the election of a successor. His love of retirement was now, as all through life, a powerful influence, and towards the end of 375 he disappeared suddenly, and found refuge for 3 years at Seleucia in Isauria, at a monastery devoted to the virgin Thecla (Carm. xi.549, Op. ii.701).

In the beginning of 379 Basil died, and Gregory wrote to comfort his brother Gregory of Nyssa. He could neither visit Basil in illness nor be present at his funeral, for he was himself then dangerously ill (Ep. lxxvi. Op. ii.65), but he expressed his love in 12 epitaphs. A letter from Gregory to Eudocius the rhetorician, written soon after, speaks of the loss which made him regard death as |the only deliverance from the ills which weighed upon him| (Ep. lxxx. Op. ii.72).

But the chief work of his life yet lay before him. At the Nicaean council, Alexander, then bp. of Constantinople, signed the decrees which condemned Arius. He was succeeded by Paul, who was devoted to the true faith, and suffered martyrdom in a.d.351. For 30 years after the death of Paul, Constantinople was the battle-ground of a constant war with heresy. The followers of Manes and Novatus, Photinus and Marcellus, Sabellius and Apollinaris, were numerous there; and the adherents of the Nicene faith, few in number, humiliated, crushed, having neither church nor pastor, were obliged to conceal themselves in remote quarters of the city (Benoît, Greg. de Naz. p.397). They applied to Gregory to help them, and many bishops urged their plea. For a long time he was unwilling to leave his retirement, but then came the conviction that he dared not refuse this summons. The date of his arrival at Constantinople is not certain, but was probably before Easter, 379 (Tillem. Mém. ix.799). A prayer, in the form of a poem, indicates the spirit with which he entered upon his new work (Carm. iii. Op. ii.667), and another poem shews what that work involved. New Rome |had passed through the death of infidelity; there was left but one last breath of life. He had come to this city to defend the faith. What they needed was solid teaching to deliver them from the spider-webs of subtleties in which they had been taken| (Carm. xi.562-611, Op. ii.705, 6). In a private house, where he himself was lodged by relations, his work was begun. It was to him |an Anastasia, the scene of the resurrection of the faith| (Orat. xlii.26, Carm. xi.1079, Op. ii.731); the house was too small for the multitudes that flocked to it, and a church was built in its place. His fame, as a theologian, rests chiefly on the discourses delivered at the Anastasia. His first work was to gather the scattered members of the flock and instruct them in the practical duties of Christianity and the danger of empty theological discussions (Carm. xi.1210-1231, Op. ii.737-739). Again and again in the early discourses does he dwell on the truth that only through personal holiness can a man grasp any idea of the Holy One (Orat. xx. and Orat. xxii. Op. i.376-384 and 597-603). Gregory was exposed to the attacks of all parties. His origin, person, clothing, were made objects of ridicule. They would have welcomed a polished orator with external graces; but his manner of life had made him prematurely old, and his gifts to the poor had made him in appearance and reality a poor man. One night, a mob, led by monks, broke into the place of meeting and profaned the altar and sacred elements. Gregory escaped, but was taken before the judges as a homicide; |but He Who knew how to save from the lions was present to deliver him| (Carm. xi.665-678, Op. ii.709). |He cared not that they attacked him -- the stones were his delight; he cared only for the flock who were thus injured| (ib.725 et seq.). His chief sorrow was to come from a division in the flock itself. This started from the schism of Antioch, which had spread through the whole church; but the immediate question was one of competition for the bishopric. Gregory had kept aloof from this quarrel, but some of his followers took an active part in it, and endeavoured to draw from him a decision for one or other of the rivals. Some seem to have favoured Paulinus, some Meletius. Gregory preached a sermon on Peace (Orat. xxii. Op. i.414-425), dwelling |on its blessings, and the inconsistency of their faith, servants of the God of peace as they claimed to be, and their practice. Their duty was to remain united when the faith was not in question; to weaken the present struggle by keeping out of it, and thus to do the rivals a greater service than by fighting for them| (ib.14, p.423). Soon afterwards the news of the establishment of peace reached Constantinople, and was followed by peace in the little church of the Anastasia. Gregory, though ill, preached almost certainly on this occasion another sermon on Peace (Orat. xxiii. Op. i.425-434) thankfully celebrating its return, and urging those present who were divided from them by heresy |to be at peace with them by acceptance of the true faith. It was the work of the sacred Trinity to give the faithful peace among themselves. The sacred Trinity would heal also this wider breach.| At the close of this sermon he promises to deal more fully with the questions at issue between the followers of the Nicene faith and their opponents. This he did in the five theological discourses which soon followed (Orat. xxvii.-xxxi. Op. i.487-577; vide infra). Other important discourses belong to the same period, of which the most remarkable are a second on the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, preached at Whitsuntide 381 (?) (Orat. xli. Op. ii.731-744), and one on Moderation in Discussions -- a frequent subject with Gregory -- in which heresy is traced to its absence (Orat. xxxii. Op. ii.579-601). He delivered also three (?) panegyrics, the subjects of which were Cyprian, whose name was held in deserved honour in
Constantinople (Orat. xxiv. Op. i.437-450); Athanasius, whose memory was specially dear to Gregory as the champion of Nicene orthodoxy, and who had died but a few years before (a.d.373) (Orat. xxi. Op. i.386-411); and the Maccabees (?), whose heroism might well have been specially intended for an example in the present struggle (Orat. xv. Op. i.287-298). The last two, especially that on Athanasius, are counted by all judges, from Jerome downwards, among Gregory's noblest works (Script. Eccles.117).

Jerome became about this time a disciple of Gregory and loved to tell how much he had learned from his teacher.

Another stranger who came to Constantinople professed himself a disciple of the now famous theologian. He bore the name of Maximus, and represented himself as descended from a line of martyrs, and as having suffered much through his adherence to the Nicene faith. Professing himself an ardent admirer of Gregory's sermons, this man was planning the overthrow of his teacher, and hoped even to establish himself in the episcopal chair. He had an important ally in Peter, bp. of Alexandria, who had recognized Gregory as practically bp. of the orthodox in Constantinople (Carm. xi.858-931), but now joined in the plot against him. Gregory was ill in bed, when one night Maximus with his followers went to the church to be consecrated by 5 suffragans sent from Alexandria for the purpose. While they were preparing for the ceremony, day began to dawn, and a mob, excited by the sudden news, rushed in, drove them from the church, and compelled Maximus to flee from Constantinople. Retiring to Alexandria, he demanded that Peter should find him another bishopric or relinquish his own. He was silenced by the prefect and banished.

In connexion with the story of Maximus, Gregory tells us that he one day uttered the words, |My beloved children, keep intact this Trinity which I, your most happy father, have delivered to you, and preserve some memorial of my labours.| One of the hearers saw the hint, and people of all ages, conditions, and ranks vied with each other in cries of affection for him and hatred for his foes (Carm. xi.1057-1113, Op. ii.729-731), and one cried, |If you go, you will banish the doctrine of the Trinity as well as yourself| (ib.1100). At this Gregory promised to remain until the arrival of some bishops who were expected at the council, but retired for a while to the country to recruit his shattered health.

On Nov.24, 380, Theodosius made his formal entry into Constantinople. One of his first cares was to restore to the orthodox the churches of which they had been deprived by the Arians. Gregory was summoned, and early on the morning of Nov.26, in the presence of an immense crowd, Theodosius and Gregory entered the church of the Holy Apostles. A thick fog enveloped the building, but at the first accents of the chants the rays of the sun fell upon the vestments of the priests and the swords of the soldiers, and brought to Gregory's mind the glory of the Tabernacle of old. At the same time there arose a cry like thunder demanding that he should be bishop. |Silence! -- silence!| he cried. |This is the time to give thanks to God. It will be time enough, hereafter, to settle other things.| The service was continued without further interruption. Only one sword was drawn, and that was put back unstained into its sheath (Carm. xi.1325-1390). In no part of Gregory's life is his true excellence of character more clearly seen than here; to his spirit of moderation and forgiveness is it to be attributed that this great religious revolution was effected without shedding one drop of blood. He tells one incident which reveals his spirit towards his foes. While he was ill in bed an assassin who had attempted his life entered his room, and, stung by conscience, fell weeping and speechless at his feet. Gregory said to him, |May God preserve you! It is nothing wonderful that I whom He hath saved should be merciful to you. Your bold deed has made you mine. Take care to walk, henceforth, worthy of God and of me.| Gregory adds that this deed softened the feeling of the citizens towards him.

Not long after the entry into the metropolitical church -- perhaps the very next day -- the enthusiasm of the multitude led them to attempt to place Gregory by force in the episcopal chair. Yet there were traces of jealousy, and false motives were freely attributed to him. Always sensitive, he delivered in the presence of Theodosius a sermon |concerning himself, and to those who said that he wished to be bp. of Constantinople, and concerning the favours which the people had shewn towards him| (Orat. xxxvi. Op. i.633-643). It is a forcible Apologia pro Vitâ suâ.| He would have been ashamed to seek that bishopric, bowed down as he was by old age and physical weakness. They said that he had sought another's bride (Constantinople): he had really refused his own (Sasima)| (ib. vi.638, 639). The emperor and the court were present; questions greater than personal ones arose to Gregory's mind, and the discourse became an eloquent appeal to princes, sages, philosophers, professors, philologists, orators, to weigh their responsibilities and fulfil their duties.

Another discourse preached before Theodosius is the only one of Gregory's extant discourses which is a homily in the narrower sense of a definite exposition and application of a passage of Scripture (Orat. xxxvii. Op. i.644-660). The text was Matt. xix.1-12. Gregory first shews that |the reason why Christ moved from place to place was that He might heal the more persons. For the salvation of the world He had moved from heaven to earth. This was the cause of His voluntary humiliation, which men who understood it not had dwelt upon as contradicting His divinity, though divine names and attributes are applied to Him. Christ answered some questions (Matt. xix.3, 4); others He did not answer (Luke xx.2, 4). The preacher would follow Christ's example| (ib. v.648, 649). |Christ answered fully their question about divorce. The preacher applying the teaching of Christ protests against the injustice of the Roman law, which distinguished between the adultery of the woman and that of the man. Men made it, and therefore it was directed against women (ib. vi.649). Marriage for the first time is lawful, the second time an indulgence; more than the second, sinful; but virginity is a higher state (ib. v. iii.-x.650-652). Husbands, wives, virgins, eunuchs, priests, laymen, all have their duties.| He exhorts them to fulfil these, and, as in almost every discourse, passes on to the duty of believing in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Three other important discourses of Gregory, which belong also to the ministry at Constantinople, can only be mentioned. (1) On the Nativity [Dec.25, 380?] (Orat. xxxviii. Op. i.661-675; (2) On the Epiphany [Jan.6, 381?] (Orat. xxxiv. ib.676-691); (3) On Holy Baptism (Orat. xl. ib.691-729).

Theodosius had long intended to summon a general council, and in May, a.d.381, the synod of the 190 bishops who formed the second oecumenical council was held in the capital of the East. Socrates tells us that the object of the council was to confirm the Nicene faith and to appoint a bishop for Constantinople (Hist. Eccl. v.8; cf. Soz. vii.7; Theod. v.7; Mansi, Collect. Concil. iii.523). No Western bishop is mentioned as present, and the attempt to shew that Damasus of Rome was either consulted or represented is futile; but 36 bishops who were followers of Macedonius were present, and every effort was made to induce them to accept the Nicene faith. Meletius, the venerable bp. of Antioch, was at first president. The consecration of Maximus was at once pronounced void. The wish of Theodosius that Gregory should be chosen for the vacant see was well known; and the only bishop who opposed it was Gregory himself. He was by force placed in the episcopal chair. But he had this hope -- alas! a vain one -- that, |as position gives influence, he should be able, like a choragus who leads two choirs, to produce harmony between opposing parties | (Carm. xi.1525-1545, Op. ii.755). Meletius dying, the new archbishop naturally succeeded him as president of the council, but who should succeed him as bp. of Antioch? It is said that the two bishops, Meletius and Paulinus, had agreed that the survivor should be the sole bishop, and that to this agreement the chief clergy and laity of both parties were sworn. Meletius himself expressed an earnest wish for it from his death-bed, but a strong party, both within and without the council, was soon organized against it. Gregory has given us, in the poem de Vitâ suâ, a resume of his own speech on the question (Carm. xi.1591-1679, Op. ii.759-763). |Now God had given the means of peace, let them confirm Paulinus in the episcopal office, and when the two should pass away, let them elect a new bishop. . . . For himself, he sought their permission to resign the office which they had conferred upon him, and he would gladly retire to some desert far away from evil men.| He could scarcely have expected that this address would be received with favour, for the Meletian party was overpoweringly strong in the synod, and Paulinus had not been invited; but he was not prepared for the storm which followed. |There arose a cry like that of a number of jackdaws, and the younger members attacked him like a swarm of wasps| (ib.1680-1690). He left the synod never to return to it. For a while illness was opportunely (kalos) the reason of his absence (ib.1745), but the council proceeded to name Flavian as successor of Meletius; and Gregory, finding that his opinion had little weight, withdrew altogether and left the official residence, which was close to the church of the Holy Apostles (Carm. xi.1778, Op. ii.769). This led to earnest entreaties from the people that he would not desert his flock (ib.1785-1795). Moved for a while by these prayers, he yet persisted in his determination, which was strengthened by the arrival of bishops from Egypt and Macedonia. The East and the West were now opposed to each other, and |prepared for the battle like wild boars, sharpening their terrible tusks| (ib.1804). The new members of the synod did not object to Gregory personally; but his election was probably in itself obnoxious as an act of Meletius. It was clearly opposed, they urged, to the 15th canon of the Nicene council, which forbad any bishop, presbyter, or deacon to pass from one city to another. By that canon he ought to be sent back to Sasima. Gregory's party urged that he was released from that obligation by an equal authority, as another general council had elected him bp. of
Constantinople; but it could not be expected that this plea would be accepted by bishops who were not a party to that act, nor was Gregory himself justified in speaking of the Nicene canons as obsolete. Gregory exhorted the council to think of higher things and mutual harmony. |He would be another Jonah to pacify the angry waves. Gladly would he find retirement and rest. He had but one anxiety, and that was for his beloved doctrine of the Trinity (ib.1828-1855). He left the synod, glad at the thought of rest from his labours; sorrowful as one who is robbed of his children.| The synod received his resignation with satisfaction, as removing a chief ground of dissension, and probably of jealousy also (ib 1869; Carm. xii.145-148, Op. ii.787). Gregory went from the assembly to the emperor, who unwillingly consented. Gregory's only remaining care was to reconcile those who had been opposed to him and to bid farewell to his friends. He delivered a public statement of his position and a public farewell to the council and his church towards the end of June, 381 (Orat. xlii. Op. i.748-768), before the synod and in the presence of a congregation which filled every corner of the church, and among whom no eye was dry. |Was there needed proof of his right to the bishopric? He would render his accounts. Let his work answer. He found them a rude flock, without a pastor, scattered, persecuted, robbed. Let them look round and see the wreath which had been woven -- priests, deacons, readers, holy men and women. That wreath he had helped to weave. Was it a great thing to have established sound doctrine in a city which was the centre of the world? In that, too, he had done his part. Had he ever sought to promote his own interests? He could appeal like another Samuel. No; he had lived for God and the church, and kept the vows of his priesthood. All this he had done through the Holy Trinity and by the help of the Spirit. He would present to the synod his church as the most precious offering. The reward he asked was that they would appoint some one with pure hands and prudent tongue to watch over it; and that to the white hairs and worn-out frame of an old man, who could hardly then preach to them, they would allow the longed-for rest. Let them learn to prove these his last words -- bishops to see the evil of the contentions which were among them; people to disregard externals and love priests rather than orators, men who cared for their souls rather than rich men.| He then pronounced his lengthened farewell |to the beloved Anastasia, to the large temple, to the churches throughout the city, to the apostles who inhabited the temple, to the episcopal throne, to the clergy of all degrees, to all who helped at the holy table, to the choruses of Nazareans, to the virgins, wives, widows, orphans, poor; to the hospitable houses, to the crowds of hearers; to prince and palace and their inhabitants; to the Christ-loving city, to Eastern and Western lands; above all, to angels, protectors of the church and of himself; to the Holy Trinity, his only thought and treasure.| With this pathetic climax, unsurpassed elsewhere even by Gregory himself, he concluded his last discourse in Constantinople. He left the city and retired to Nazianzus. Here he received a letter from Philagrius, an old friend of Caesarius and himself, animadverting upon his retirement. His answer breathes the same spirit as the poem de Vitâ suâ and the farewell sermon. |He was tired of fighting against envy and against venerable bishops, who destroyed the peace and put their personal squabbles before questions of faith | (Ep. lxxxvii. Op. ii.76). Among the letters belonging to this period, two addressed to Nectarius, who was chosen to succeed Gregory at Constantinople, deserve special note, as shewing that he cherished for him and the church nothing but the most entire goodwill (Epp. lxxxviii. and xci. Op. ii.77, 78). Gregory's difficulties were not yet at an end. On his return to Nazianzus he found that church in confusion, chiefly through the teaching of the Apollinarians (Carm. xxxi. Op. ii.870-877). He tried to find a bishop who would stem the evil, but was thwarted by the presbyters and by the desertion of seven bishops who had promised to support him. His candidate had been hitherto engaged in secular affairs, but he thought him the most promising. He seems to have succeeded in naming another as bishop, and then to have retired to Arianzus. But very shortly he was again urged to take the governance of the church at Nazianzus and check the rapidly spreading Apollinarianism, and, in spite of his own strong disinclination, he agreed to do so. During this second administration the prefect Olympius threatened to destroy the city in consequence of a seditious attack, and it was saved only by a pacific letter from the bishop (Ep. cxli. Op. ii.118-120). Other letters of the same kind shew Gregory as the father of the city, watching over all its interests with loving care.

But he felt that his constant illness unfitted him for his duties, and we find him writing to the archbp. of Tyana earnestly beseeching him to take steps to appoint another bishop. |If this letter did not affect its purpose, he would publicly proclaim the bishopric vacant rather than that the church should longer suffer from his own infirmity| (Ep. clii. Op. ii.128). Eulalius, Gregory's colleague and relation, and the man of his choice, was elected in his stead. Gregory's satisfaction is expressed in a letter to Gregory of Nyssa (Ep. clxxxii. Op. ii.149). Gregory withdrew to Arianzus, and spent in retirement the six remaining years of life. To this period belong certainly a large number of poems and letters; and probably two discourses, one on the Festival of St. Mamas, which was kept with special honour around Nazianzus on the first Sun. after Easter (kaine kuriake) and one on the Holy Passover (Orat. xliv. and xlv. Op. i.834-868).

Gregory at first retired to the little plot at Arianzus which he had retained when all his other property was given to the poor. Here a shady walk with a fountain was his favourite resort (Carm. xliv.1-24, Op. ii.915-917). But even this peaceful spot was denied him, and he was |driven forth without city, throne, or children, but always full of cares for them, as a wanderer upon the earth| (Carm. xliii.1-12, Op.913-915). He found a temporary resting-place at a tomb consecrated to martyrs at Carbala, a place of which nothing is known, and which the Bollandists suppose (Mai. ii.424 F) to be another name for the plot at Arianzus. He was driven thence by a relative named Valentinian, who settled near with the female members of his family, as from another Paradise by another Eve. Oikarchiais de gunaikon houtos hupochoresomen, hosper echidnaiois epidromais (Ep. cciii. Op. ii.169). The poems and letters of this period speak of constant illness and suffering, with but short intervals of relief. A frame never strong had given way under the severe asceticism of the earlier and the burden of the later life. |I suffer,| he says in one of the letters, |and am content, not because I suffer, but because I am for others an example of patience. If I have no means to overcome any pain, I gain from it at least the power to bear it, and to be thankful as well in sorrowful circumstances as in joyous; for I am convinced that, although it seems to us the contrary, there is in the eyes of the Sovereign Reason nothing opposed to reason, in all which happens to us| (Ep. xxxvi. Op. ii.32). Besides physical sufferings he had to bear intense spiritual agony, which at times took from him all hope either in this world or the next. In the thick of the spiritual combat he, like other great souls, learnt the lessons he was to teach to the world. His death must be assigned to about the 11th year of Theodosius, i.e. a.d.389 or 390.

Gregory's extant works are contained in two fol. vols. of the Benedictine edition. Vol. i. consists of 45 sermons, of which some have been noticed in this article. Vol. ii. includes 243 letters -- theological, pastoral, political, domestic; the will of Gregory, taken from the archives of the church of Nazianzus, and the poems arranged in two books. The dogmatic poems are 38 in number. No.10 (74 iambics) is on the Incarnation, against Apollinaris. No.11 (16 hexameters and pentameters) is also on the Incarnation. Nos.12-29 are mnemonic verses on the facts of Holy Scripture, apparently meant for school use. Nos.29-38 are prayers or hymns addressed to God. The moral poems are 40 in number. No.1 (732 hexameters) is a eulogy of virginity. Nos.2-7 in various metres, deal with kindred subjects, exhortations and counsels to virgins and monks, and the superiority of the single life. Nos.8-11 are on the secular and religious life, and exhortations to virtue; Nos.12 and 13 on the frailty of the human nature. No.14 is a meditation on human nature in 132 hexameters and pentameters. It ranks with No.1 among the most beautiful of Gregory's poems. The remainder of the poems in this section are on such subjects as the baseness of the outer man; the blessedness of the Christian life; the sin of frequent oaths and of anger; the loss of dear friends; the misery of false friends. Four are satires against a bad-mannered nobleman (26 and 27); misers (28); feminine luxury (29). There are 99 poems relating to his own life. One of them (No.11, de Vitâ suâ) is an autobiography extending to 1,949 lines, to which another (No.12, de Seipso et de Episcopis) adds 836 lines more. Among the historical poems is an epistle to Nemesius, an eminent public man, shewing him the errors of paganism, and urging him to accept Christianity. These poetic epistles are of considerable length, and shew the varied interests and practical wisdom of the writer. There are 129 epitaphs and 94 epigrams, most of which are short poems, with little in them of the modern epigram, though some shew (e.g.10-14, Eis Agapetous) that the pen of Gregory could, when occasion required, be pointed with adamant. No less than 64 (31-94), belonging probably to the writer's youth, are upon the spoilers of tombs. If the statement of Jerome and Suidas, that Gregory wrote 30,000 verses, is to be understood literally, more than a third of them are now unknown.

In forming an estimate of Gregory's literary position, we have to consider (1) his poems, (2) his letters, and (3) his orations. Of each kind of writing there are abundant materials to form a judgment. (1) Two criticisms of the poems from very different standpoints may help us to arrive at the true mean. To Dr. Ullmann (Gregorius, ss.200-202) they are |inferior to the letters, the product of old age, whereas the true vein of poetry must have shewn itself in earlier life; cramped by their subject-matters, which did not admit of originality; prosaic thoughts wrapped in poetic forms; involved and diffusive|; though he admits that some of the short pieces are poetry of a high order, and that the didactic aim of Gregory is to be taken into account. |Still they could never be more than a poor substitute for the older poetry of Greece.| Villemain considers the poems the finest of all Gregory's works. He instances one especially (de Humanâ naturâ), |the severe charm of which seems to have anticipated the finest inspirations of our melancholy age, while it preserves the impress of a faith still fresh and honest, even in its trouble. . . . His funeral eulogies are hymns; his invectives against Julian have something of the malediction of the prophets. He has been called the 'Theologian of the East.' He ought to have been called rather 'the Poet of Eastern Christendom'| (Tableau de l'éloquence chrétienne au 4^me siècle, p.133). (2) Gregory's extant letters, though upon very various subjects, and often written under the pressure of immediate necessity, are almost invariably finished compositions. (3) A higher place has been claimed in this article for Gregory's orations than for his poems. He is now held to be greater than Basil, or even Chrysostom, and to have combined |the invincible logic of Bourdaloue; the unction, colour, and harmony of Massillon; the flexibility, poetic grace, and vivacity of Fénelon; the force, grandeur, and sublimity of Bossuet. . . . The Eagle of Meaux has been especially inspired by him in his funeral orations; the Swan of Cambrai has followed him in his treatise on The Existence of God| (Benoît, p.721). He was an orator by training and profession. For this he studied at Caesarea, Alexandria, and Athens, and was the acknowledged chief in the schools of the rhetoricians. The oratory of the Christian pulpit was the creation of Gregory and Basil. It was based on the ancient models, and was akin, therefore, to the speeches of Demosthenes and Cicero, rather than to the modern sermon. It has been charged against the sermons of Gregory that they are not expositions of Scripture. As compared with the homilies of Chrysostom, for example, they certainly are not (except one: Orat. xxxvii. Op. i.644-660); the nature of the case made it impossible that they should be. But the margin of every page abounds with references to Scripture, and no reader can fail to see with Bossuet that |Gregory's whole discourse is nothing but a judicious weaving of Scripture, and that he manifests everywhere a profound acquaintance with it | (Défense de la tradition, etc., iv.2; Benoît, p.723).

Great as was the position of Gregory as a writer, he left his chief mark upon history as a theologian. He alone beyond the apostolic circle has been thought worthy to bear the name |Theologus| which had been appropriated to St. John. Ullmann (Gregorius, etc., ss.209-352), following Clemencet (Op. i. xlix.-lxxviii.), has arranged under their separate headings his views on the articles of faith. Within our present limits we can only refer to them as contained in the five famous theological discourses at Constantinople (Orat. xxvii.-xxxi. Op. i.487-579).

(1) The first, Kata Eunomianon, urges that |to discourse about God is a task of the greatest difficulty, not fitted for all times or all persons, nor to be undertaken in the presence of all persons. . . . The teacher of theology ought first to practise virtue. There is abundant scope for work to refute the older teaching of the pagan philosophers, or to discuss simpler questions of science and theology; but as to the nature of God our words should be few, for we can know but little in this life.|

(2) Peri theologias. Gregory reasserts here his favourite position, that |it is the pure mind only that can know God. . . . The theologian beholds part of God, but the divine nature he can neither express in words nor comprehend in thought. The higher intelligence of angels even cannot know Him as He is. That there is a creating and preserving cause, we can know, as the sound of an instrument bears witness to its maker and player; that God is, we know, but what He is, and of what nature He is, and where He is, and where He was before the foundation of the world, we cannot know. The Infinite cannot be defined. We can only predicate negative attributes, for the nature of the divine essence is beyond all human conception.|

(3) Peri Huiou. The two previous discourses were introductory. He now passes to the next subject. |The three earliest opinions concerning God were anarchia, polyarchia, and monarchia. The two former could not stand, as leading to confusion rather than the order of the universe. We hold that there is a monarchia, but that God is not limited to one person. If unity is divided, it becomes plurality. But if there is equal dignity of nature, and agreement of will, and identity of movement, and convergence to unity of those things which are of unity (and this cannot be the case in created things), there may be distinction in number without by any means involving distinction in essence and nature. Unity, therefore (monas), from the beginning going forth to duality (eis duada), constituted a Trinity (mechri triados). Human words fail to express the generation and procession, and it is better to keep to scriptural terms; but the writer has in his thoughts an overflowing of goodness, and the Platonic simile of an overflowing cup applied to first and second causes. The generation and procession are eternal, and all questions as to time are inapplicable.| Gregory then proceeds to state and answer the common objections of his adversaries.

(4) Peri Huiou. Another discourse on the same subject. Gregory has already answered the objection, that some passages of Scripture speak of the Son as human. He here exhaustively examines, under ten objections, the scriptural language applied to our Lord, and then passes to an exposition of the names (a) common to the Deity, (b) peculiar to the Son, (c) peculiar to the Son as man.

(5) Peri tou Hagiou pneumatos. Gregory commences this oration by referring to the difficulties arising because many who admitted the divinity of the Son regarded that of the Holy Ghost as a new doctrine not found in Holy Scripture. He expresses, in the strongest terms, his own belief in the divinity of the Third Person. |The Holy Spirit is holiness. Had the Spirit been wanting to the divine Trinity, the Father and the Son would have been imperfect.| The most eminent pagan philosophers had had a glimpse of the truth, for they spoke of the |Mind of the Universe,| the |Mind without,| etc.

No conception of the subtlety of thought or beauty of expression in these discourses of Gregory can be given in an outline. Critics have rivalled each other in their praise, and many theologians have found in them their own best thoughts. A critic who cannot be accused of partiality towards Gregory has given perhaps the truest estimate of them. |A substance of thought, the concentration of all that is spread through the writings of Hilary, Basil, and Athanasius; a flow of softened eloquence which does not halt or lose itself for a moment; an argument nervous without dryness on the one hand, and without useless ornament on the other, gives these five discourses a place to themselves among the monuments of this fine genius, who was not always in the same degree free from grandiloquence and affectation. In a few pages and in a few hours Gregory has summed up and closed the controversy of a whole century.| De Broglie, L'Eglise et l'empire, v.385; Benoît, Grégoire, etc.435, 436.

Little is needed for the study of Gregory's life and works beyond the admirable Benedictine ed. referred to above (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxxv.-xxxviii.), and the Lives by Ullmann (Greg. von Naz. der Theologe, 2. Aufl., Gotha, 1867; pt. i. of earlier ed. trans. by Cox, Oxf.1855) and Benoît (St. Grég. de Naz., Paris, 1876). For a well-known comparison of Gregory and Basil see Newman's Church of the Fathers, pp.116-145, 551. Gregory's Five Theol. Orations have been ed. by A. J. Mason (Camb. Univ. Press, 1899). See also Duchesne, Histoire de l'Egl. vol. ii. ch. xii. Some of his works are trans. into Eng. in the Post-Nic. Fathers.


Gregorius Nyssenus, bp. of Nyssa
Gregorius (15) Nyssenus, bp. of Nyssa in Cappadocia (372-395), younger brother of Basil the Great, and a leading theologian of the Eastern church. He and his brother and their common friend Gregory Nazianzen were the chief champions of the orthodox Nicene faith in the struggle against Arianism and
Apollinarianism, and by their discreet zeal, independency of spirit, and moderation of temper, contributed chiefly to its victory in the East. He was one of ten children of Basil, an advocate and rhetorician of eminence, and his wife Emmelia (Greg. Nys. de Vit. S. Macr., Opp. ed. Morel. t. ii. pp.182-186). We may place Gregory's birth c.335 or 336, probably at Caesarea. He did not share his eldest brother's advantage of a university training, but was probably brought up in the schools of his native city. That no very special pains had been devoted to his education we may gather from the words of his sister Macidora on her deathbed, in which she ascribed the high reputation he had gained to the prayers of his parents, since |he had little or no assistance towards it from home| (ib. iii.192). A feeble constitution and natural shyness disposed him to a literary retirement. His considerable intellectual powers had been improved by diligent private study; but he shrank from a public career, and appears after his father's death to have lived upon his inheritance, without any profession. That his religious instincts did not develop early appears from his account of his reluctant attendance at the ceremonial held by his mother Emmelia in honour of the |Forty Martyrs.| A terrifying dream, which seemed to reproach him with neglect, led him to become a |lector| and as such read the Bible lections in the congregation (Greg. Naz. Ep.43, t. i. p.804). He would seem, however, to have soon deserted this vocation for that of a professor of rhetoric. This backsliding caused great pain to his friends and gave occasion to the enemies of religion to suspect his motives and bring unfounded accusations against him. Gregory Nazianzen, whose affection for him was warm and sincere, strongly remonstrated with him, expressing the grief felt by himself and others at his falling away from his first love. The date of this temporary desertion must be placed either before 361 or after 363, about the same time as his marriage. His wife was named Theosebeia, and her character answered to her name. She died some time after Gregory had become a bishop, and, according to Tillemont, subsequently to the council of Constantinople, a.d.381. Expressions in Gregory Nazianzen's letter would lead us to believe that both himself and his friend were then somewhat advanced in life; and from Theosebeia being styled Gregory Nyssen's |sister| we may gather that they had ceased to cohabit, probably on his becoming a bishop (Greg. Naz. Ep.95, t. i. p.846; Niceph. H. E. xi.19).

Gregory soon abandoned his profession of a teacher of rhetoric. The urgent remonstrances of his friend Gregory Nazianzen would have an earnest supporter in his elder sister, the holy recluse Macrina, who doubtless used the same powerful arguments which had induced Basil to give up all prospect of worldly fame for the service of Christ. Probably also the profession he had undertaken proved increasingly distasteful to one of Gregory's sensitive and retiring disposition, and he may have been further discouraged by the small results of his exertions to inspire a literary taste among youths who, as he complains in letters to his brother Basil's tutor Libanius, written while practising as a rhetorician (Greg. Nys. Ep.13, 14), were much more ready to enter the army than to follow rhetorical studies. He retired to a monastery in Pontus, almost certainly that on the river Iris presided over by his brother Basil, and in close vicinity to Annesi, where was the female convent of which his sister Macrina was the superior. In this congenial retreat he passed several years, devoting himself to the study of the Scriptures and the works of Christian commentators. Among these it is certain that Origen had a high place, the influence of that writer being evident in Gregory's own theological works. At Pontus, c.371, he composed his work de Virginitate, in which, while extolling virginity as the highest perfection of Christian life, he laments that he had separated himself from that state (de Virg. lib. iii. t. iii. pp.116 seq.). Towards the close of his residence in Pontus, a.d.371, circumstances occurred displaying Gregory's want of judgment in a striking manner. An estrangement had arisen between Basil and his aged uncle, the bp. Gregory, whom the family deservedly regarded as their second father. The younger Gregory took on himself the office of mediator. Straightforward methods having failed, he adopted crooked ones, and forged letters to his brother in their uncle's name desiring reconciliation. The letters were indignantly repudiated by the justly offended bishop, and reconciliation became increasingly hopeless. Basil addressed a letter to his brother, which is a model of dignified rebuke. He first ridicules him with his simplicity, unworthy of a Christian, reproaches him for endeavouring to serve the cause of truth by deception, and charges him with unbrotherly conduct in adding affliction to one already pressed out of measure (Basil. Ep.58 ).

In 372 (the year Gregory Nazianzen was consecrated to the see of Sasima) Gregory was forced by his brother Basil to accept reluctantly the see of Nyssa, an obscure town of Cappadocia Prima, about ten miles from the capital, Caesarea. Their common friend, Eusebius of Samosata, wrote to Basil to remonstrate on his burying so distinguished a man in so unworthy a see. Basil replied that his brother's merits made him worthy to govern the whole church gathered into one, but he desired that the see should be made famous by its bishop, not the bishop by his see (ib.98 ). These words have proved prophetic.

Gregory's episcopate fell in troublous times. Valens, a zealous Arian, being on the throne, lost no opportunity of forwarding his own tenets and vexing the orthodox. The miserable Demosthenes [[266]Basilius] had been recently appointed vicar of Pontus to do all in his power to crush the adherents of the Nicene faith. After petty acts of persecution, in which the semi-Arian prelates joined with high satisfaction, as a means of retaliating on Basil, a synod was summoned at Ancyra at the close of 375, to examine some alleged canonical irregularities in Gregory's consecration, and to investigate a frivolous charge brought against him by a certain Philocharis of having made away with church funds left by his predecessor. A band of soldiers was sent to arrest Gregory and conduct him to the place of hearing. A chill on his journey brought on a pleuritic seizure and aggravated a painful malady to which he was subject. His entreaties to be allowed to halt for medical treatment were disregarded, but he managed to elude the vigilance of the soldiers and to escape to some place of concealment where his maladies could be cared for. Basil collected a synod of orthodox Cappadocian bishops, in whose name he addressed a dignified but courteous letter to Demosthenes, apologizing for his brother's non-appearance at Ancyra, and stating that the charge of embezzlement could be shewn to be false by the books of the treasurers of the church; while, if any canonical defect in his ordination could be proved, the ordainers were those who should be called to account, an account which they were ready to render (ib.225 ). Basil wrote also to a man of distinction named Aburgius, begging him to use his influence to save Gregory from the misery of being dragged into court and implicated in judicial business from which his peaceful disposition shrank (ib.33 ). Another synod was summoned at Nyssa by Demosthenes A.D.376, through the instrumentality of Eustathius of Sebaste. Still Gregory refused to appear. He was pronounced contumacious and deposed by the assembled bishops, of whom Anysius and Ecdicius of Parnasse were the leaders, and they consecrated a successor, whom Basil spoke of with scorn as a miserable slave who could be bought for a few oboli (ib.237 , 239 ). Gregory's deposition was followed by his banishment by Valens (Greg. Nys. de Vit. Macr. t. ii. p.192). These accumulated troubles utterly crushed his gentle spirit. In his letters he bewails the cruel necessity which had compelled him to desert his spiritual children, and driven him from his home and friends to dwell among malicious enemies who scrutinized every look and gesture, nay his very dress, and made them grounds of accusation. He dwells with tender recollection on the home he had lost -- his fireside, his table, his pantry, his bed, his bench, his sackcloth -- and contrasts it with the stifling hole in which he was forced to dwell, of which the only furniture was straitness, darkness, and cold. His only consolation is in the assurance that his brethren would remember him in their prayers (Greg. Nys. Epp.18, 22). His letters to Gregory Nazianzen have unfortunately perished, but his deep despondency is shewn by the replies. After his expulsion from his see his namesake wrote that, though denied his wish to accompany him in his banishment, he went with him in spirit, and trusted in God that the storm would soon blow over, and he get the better of all his enemies, as a recompense for his strict orthodoxy (Greg. Naz. Ep.142, t. i. p.866). Driven from place to place to avoid his enemies, he had compared himself to a stick carried aimlessly hither and thither on the surface of a stream; his friend replies that his movements were rather like those of the sun, which brings life to all things, or of the planets, whose apparent irregularities are subject to a fixed law (ib.34 , p.798). Out of heart at the apparent triumph of Arianism, Gregory bids him be of good cheer, for the enemies of the truth were like serpents, creeping from their holes in the sunshine of imperial favour, who, however alarming their hissing, would be driven back into the earth by time and truth. All would come right if they left all to God (ib.35 , p.799). This trust in God proved well founded. On the death of Valens in 378 the youthful Gratian recalled the banished bishops, and, to the joy of the faithful, Gregory was restored to Nyssa. In one of his letters he describes with graphic power his return. The latter half of his journey was a triumphal progress, the inhabitants pouring out to meet him, and escorting him with acclamations and tears of joy (Greg. Nys. Ep.3, Zacagni; No.6, Migne). On Jan.1, 379, Basil, whom he loved as a brother and revered as a spiritual father, died. Gregory certainly attended his funeral, delivering his funeral oration, to which we are indebted for many particulars of Basil's life. In common with Gregory's compositions generally, it offends by the extravagance of its language and turgid oratory (Greg. Nys. in Laud. Patr. Bas. t. iii. pp.479 seq.). Gregory Nazianzen, who was prevented from being present by illness, wrote a consolatory letter, praising his namesake very highly, and saying that his chief comfort now was to see all Basil's virtues reflected in him, as in a mirror (Greg. Naz. Ep.37 , p.799). One sorrow followed close upon another in Gregory's life. The confusion in the churches after the long Arian supremacy entailed severe labours and anxieties upon him for the defence of the truth and the reformation of the erring (de Vit. Macr. t. ii. p.192). In Sept.379 he took part in the council held at Antioch for the double purpose of healing the Antiochene schism (which it failed to effect) and of taking measures for securing the church's victory over the lately dominant Arianism (Labbe, Concil. ii.910; Baluz. Nov. Concil. Coll. p.78). On his way back to his diocese, Gregory visited the monastery at Annesi, over which his sister Macrina presided. He found her dying, and she expired the next evening. A full account of her last hours, with a detailed biography, is given by hire in a letter to the monk Olympius (de Vit. S. Macrinae Virg. t. ii. pp.177 seq.). In his treatise de Anima et Resurrectione (entitled, in honour of his sister, ta Makrinia) we have another account of her deathbed, in which he puts long speeches into her mouth, as part of a dialogue held with him on the proofs of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body, the object of which was to mitigate his grief for Basil's death (t. iii. pp.181 seq.). [[267]Macrina the Younger.] After celebrating his sister's funeral, Gregory continued his journey to his diocese, where an unbroken series of calamities awaited him. The Galatians had been sowing their heresies. The people at Ibora on the borders of Pontus, having lost their bishop by death, elected Gregory to the vacant see. This, in some unexplained way, caused troubles calling for the intervention of the military. These difficulties being settled, he set out on a long and toilsome journey, in fulfilment of a commission from the council of Antioch |to visit and reform the church of Arabia| (t. iii. p.653) -- i.e. of Babylon. He found the state of the church there even worse than had been represented. The people had grown hardened in heresy, and were as brutish and barbarous in their lives as in their tongue. From his despairing tone we judge that the mission met with but little success. At its termination, being near the Holy Land, he visited the spots consecrated by the life and death of Christ. The emperor put a public chariot at his disposal, which served him and his retinue |both for a monastery and a church,| fasting, psalmody, and the hours of prayer being regularly observed all through the journey (t. iii. p.658). He visited Bethlehem, Golgotha, the Mount of Olives, and the Anastasis. But the result of this pilgrimage was disappointment. His faith received no confirmation, and his religious sense was scandalized by the gross immorality prevailing in the Holy City, which he describes as a sink of all iniquity. The church there was in an almost equally unsatisfactory state. Cyril, after his repeated depositions by Arian influence, had finally returned, but had failed to heal the dissensions of the Christians or bring them back to unity of faith. Gregory's efforts were equally ineffectual, and he returned to Cappadocia depressed and saddened. In two letters, one to three ladies resident at Jerusalem, Eustathia, Ambrosia, and Basilissa (t. iii. pp.659 seq.), the other the celebrated one de Euntibus Hierosolyma, he declares his conviction not of the uselessness only but of the evil of pilgrimages. |He urges . . . the dangers of robbery and violence in the Holy Land itself, of the moral state of which he draws a fearful picture. He asserts the religious superiority of Cappadocia, which had more churches than any part of the world, and inquires in plain terms whether a man will believe the virgin birth of Christ the more by seeing Bethlehem, or His resurrection by visiting His tomb, or His ascension by standing on the Mount of Olives| (Milman, Hist. of Christianity, bk. iii. c.11, vol. iii. p.192, note). There is no sufficient reason for questioning the genuineness of this letter. We next hear of Gregory at the second general council, that of Constantinople, a.d.381 (Labbe, Concil. ii.955), accompanied by his deacon Evagrius. There he held a principal place as a recognized theological leader, tes ekklesias to koinon ereisma, as his friend Gregory Nazianzen had at an earlier period termed him. That he was the author of the clauses then added to the Nicene symbol is an unverified assertion of Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. xii.13). It was probably on this occasion that he read to Gregory Nazianzen and to Jerome his work against Eunomius, or the more important parts of it (Hieron. de Vir. Ill. c.128). Gregory Nazianzen having been reluctantly compelled to ascend the episcopal throne of Constantinople, Gregory Nyssen delivered an inaugural oration now lost, and, soon after, a funeral oration on the venerable Meletius of Antioch, which has been preserved (Socr. H. E. iv.26; Oratio in funere Magni Meletii, t. iii. pp.587 seq.). Before the close of the council the emperor Theodosius issued a decree from Heraclea, July 30, 381, containing the names of the bishops who were to be regarded as centres of orthodox communion in their respective districts. Among these Gregory Nyssen appears, together with his metropolitan Helladius of Caesarea and Otreius of Melitene, for the diocese of Pontus (Cod. Theod. l. iii. de Fide Catholica, t. vi. p.9; Socr. H. E. v.8). Gregory, however, was not made for the delicate and difficult business of restoring the unity of the faith. He was more a student than a man of action. His simplicity was easily imposed upon. Open to flattery, he became the dupe of designing men. His colleague Helladius was in every way his inferior, and if Gregory took as little pains to conceal his sense of this in his personal intercourse as in his correspondence with Flavian, we cannot be surprised at the metropolitan's dignity being severely wounded. Helladius revenged himself by gross rudeness to Gregory. Having turned out of his way to pay his respects to his metropolitan, Gregory was kept standing at the door under the midday sun, and when at last admitted to Helladius's presence, his complimentary speeches were received with chilling silence. When he mildly remonstrated, Helladius broke into cutting reproaches, and rudely drove him from his presence (Ep. ad Flavian. t. iii. pp.645 seq.). Gregory was present at the synod at Constantinople in 383, when he delivered his discourse on the Godhead of the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity (de Abraham, t. iii. pp.464 seq.; cf. Tillem. Mém. ecclés. ix. p.586, S. Grég. de Nysse, art. x.), and again at Constantinople in a.d.385, when he pronounced the funeral oration over the little princess Pulcheria, and shortly afterwards over her mother the empress Flaccilla. Both orations are extant (t. iii. pp.514 seq., 527 seq.). During these visits to Constantinople, Gregory obtained the friendship of Olympias, the celebrated deaconess and correspondent of Chrysostom, at whose instance he undertook an exposition of the Canticles, a portion of which, containing 15 homilies, he completed and sent her (in Cant. Cantic. t. i. pp.468 seq.). Gregory was present at the synod at
Constantinople a.d.394, under the presidency of Nectarius, to decide between the claims of Bagadius and Agapius to the see of Bostra in Arabia (Labbe, Concil. ii.1151). At the request of Nectarius Gregory delivered the homily bearing the erroneous title, de Ordinatione, which is evidently a production of his old age (t. ii. pp.40 seq.). His architectural taste appears in this homily. It is probable that he did not long survive this synod. The date of his death. was perhaps a.d.395.

Gregory Nyssen was a very copious writer, and the greater part of his recorded works have been preserved. They may be divided into five classes: (1) Exegetical; (2) Dogmatical; (3) Ascetic; (4) Funeral Orations and Panegyrical Discourses; (5) Letters.

(1) Exegetical. -- What exegesis of Holy Scripture he has left is of no high value, his system of interpretation being almost entirely allegorical. To this class belong his works on the Creation, written chiefly to supplement and defend the great work of his brother Basil on the Hexaemeron. These include (i) peri tes hexaemerou, dedicated to his youngest brother Peter, bp. of Sebaste. It is also called Apologeticus, as it contains a defence of the actions of Moses and of some points in Basil's work. (ii) A treatise on the creation of man, written as a supplement to Basil's treatise (vol. i. p.45; Socr. H. E. iv.26), the fundamental idea of which is the unity of the human race -- that humanity before God is to be considered as one man. It is called by Suidas teuchos thaumasion. (iii) Also two homilies on the same subject (Gen. i.26), frequently appended to Basil's Hexaemeron, and erroneously assigned to him by Combefis and others. There is also a discourse (t. ii. pp.22-34) on the meaning of the image and likeness of God in which man was created. (iv) A treatise on the Life of Moses as exhibiting a pattern of a perfect Christian life; dedicated to Caesarius. (v) Two books on the Superscriptions of the Psalms, in which he endeavours to shew that the five books of the Psalter are intended to lead men upward, as by five steps, to moral perfection. (vi) Eight homilies expository of Ecclesiastes, ending with c. vii.13, |less forced, more useful, and more natural| (Dupin). (vii) Fifteen homilies on the Canticles, ending with c. vi.9; dedicated to Olympias. (viii) Five homilies on the Lord's Prayer, |lectu dignissimae| (Fabric.). (ix) Eight homilies on the Beatitudes. (x) A discourse on 1 Cor. xv.28, in which he combats the Arian perversion of the passage as to the subjection of the Son. (xi) A short treatise on the witch of Endor, Engastrimuthos, to prove that the apparition was a demon in the shape of Samuel; addressed to a bishop named Theodosius.

(2) Dogmatical. -- These are deservedly regarded as among the most important patristic contributions towards a true view of the mystery of the Trinity, hardly, if at all, inferior to the writings of Basil. (i) Chief, both in size and importance, is his great work Against Eunomius, written after Basil's death, to refute the reply of Eunomius to Basil's attack upon his teaching, and to vindicate his brother from the calumnious charges of his adversary. (ii) Almost equally important are the replies to Apollinaris, especially the Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarem. These are not only valuable as giving the most weighty answer on the orthodox side to this heresy, but their numerous extracts from Apollinarian writings are really the chief sources of our acquaintance with those doctrines. The same subjects are treated with great accuracy of thought and spiritual insight in (iii) Sermo Catecheticus Magnus, a work in 40 chapters, containing a systematized course of theological teaching for catechists, proving, for the benefit of those who did not accept the authority of Holy Scripture, the harmony of the chief doctrines of the faith with the instincts of the human heart. This work contains passages asserting the annihilation of evil, the restitution of all things, and the final restoration of evil men and evil spirits to the blessedness of union with God, so that He may be |all in all,| embracing all things endued with sense and reason -- doctrines derived by Gregory from Origen. It has been asserted from the time of Germanus of Constantinople that these passages were foisted in by heretical writers (Phot. Cod.233, pp.904 sqq.); but there is no foundation for this hypothesis. The concluding section of the work, which speaks of the errors of Severus, a century posterior to Gregory, is evidently an addition of some blundering copyist. It must be acknowledged that in his desire to exalt the divine nature Gregory came dangerously near the doctrines afterwards developed by Eutyches and the Monothelites, if he did not actually enunciate them. While he rightly held that the infinite Logos was not imprisoned in Christ's human soul and body, he does not assign the proper independence to this human soul and will. Hooker quotes some words of his as to the entire extinction of all distinction between the two natures of Christ, as a drop of vinegar is lost in the ocean (Eccl. Pol. t. ii.697), which he deems so plain and direct for Eutyches that he |stands in doubt they are not his whose name they carry| (ib. bk. v. c. iii. § 2; cf. Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iv. p.115, Clark's trans.).

(3) The class of his Ascetical Writings is small. To it belong his early work de Virginitate; his Canonical Epistles to Letoius, bp. of Melitene, classifying sins, and the penances due to each; etc.

(4) The chief Funereal Orations are those on his brother Basil, on Meletius, on the empress Flaccilla, and on the young princess Pulcheria. We have also several panegyrical discourses and some homilies.

(5) The extant Epistles are not numerous. The chief are that to Flavian, complaining of contumelious treatment by Helladius, and the two on Pilgrimages to Jerusalem.

All previous edd. of his collected works trans. into Latin were greatly surpassed in elegance and accuracy by that of Paris, 1603, under the superintendence of Front du Duc. The first ed. of the Greek text with a Latin trans. appeared from Morel's press at Paris in 1615 in two vols. fol., also ed. by Du Duc. Other complete reprints, including his epistles and other additamenta, are by Galland (Bibl. Vet. Patr. t. vi.) and Migne (Patr. Gk. xliv.-xlvi.). A good critical ed. of his works is, however, much wanted. Such an ed. was commenced by Forbes and Oehler in 1855, but very little has appeared. In the Journ. of Theol. Stud., 1902, is an art. by J. H. Srawley on the text of the Orat. Cat., and in 1903 the same writer ed. it for the Camb. Univ. Texts. Another useful ed. of it was pub. in 1909 in Gk. and French by Meridier in Textes et Documents of Hemmer and Lejay. An Eng. trans. is in the Post-Nic. Fathers. The familiar letters published by Zacagni and Caraccioli are very helpful towards forming an estimate of Gregory's character. They shew us a man of great refinement, with a love for natural beauty and a lively appreciation of the picturesque; in scenery and of elegance in architecture. Of the latter art the detailed description given in his letter to Amphilochius (Ep.25) of an octagonal |martyrium| surmounted by a conical spire, rising from a clerestory supported on eight columns, proves him to have possessed considerable technical knowledge. It is perhaps the clearest and most detailed description of an ecclesiastical building of the 4th cent. remaining to us. His letter to Adelphius (Ep.20) furnishes a charming description of a country villa, and its groves and ornamental buildings. Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i. pp.244 sqq.; Ceillier, Auteurs ecclés. t. vii. pp.320 sqq.; Oudin, I. diss. iv.; Schröckh, Kirchengesch. Bk. xiv.1-147; Tillem. Mém. ecclés. t. ix.; Dupin, cent. iv.; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. t. ix. pp.98 sqq.


Gregorius, bp. of Merida
Gregorius (16), bp. of Merida from c.402; known to us only from the decretal of Innocent I. addressed ad universos episcopos in Tolosa (should be qui in Toleto congregati sunt). Innocent's letter (which Jaffé dates 404) is concerned partly with the schism of those bishops of Baetica and Carthaginensis who refused to acknowledge the authority of the council held at Toledo a.d.400, which readmitted to communion the once Priscillianist bishops, Symphosius and Dictinius, and partly with certain irregularities in the manner of ordination then prevalent in Spain. The pope lays down that although, strictly speaking, the illegal ordinations already made ought to be cancelled, yet, for the sake of peace and to avoid tumults, what is past is to be condoned. The number of canonically invalid ordinations recently, made is, he says, so great that otherwise the existing confusion would be made worse instead of better. |How many have been admitted to the priesthood who, like Rufinus and Gregory, have after baptism practised in the law courts ? How many soldiers who, in obedience to authority, have been obliged to execute harsh orders (severa praecepta)? How many curiales who, in obedience also, have done whatever was commanded them? How many who have given amusements and spectacles to the people (voluptates et editiones populo celebrarunt) have become bishops?| (See Gams's comments on Can.2 of council of Eliberi. ii.1, 53.) |Quorum omnium neminem ne ad societatem quidem ordinis clericorum, oportuerat pervenire| (see Decret. cap. iv. Tejada y Ramiro; Col. de Can. ii.). In cap. v. we have the second mention of Gregory. |Let the complaint, if any, of Gregory, bp. of Merida, ordained in place of Patruinus [who presided at C. Tol. I.] be heard, and if he has suffered injury contra meritum suum, let those who are envious of another's office be punished, lest in future the spirit of faction should again inconvenience good men.|

From these notices it appears that Gregory succeeded Patruinus in the metropolitan see of Merida shortly after the council of Toledo in 400, that in his youth and after baptism he had practised as an advocate; that his election to the bishopric was therefore, strictly speaking, illegal, and that his appointment had met with great opposition. Innocent's letter would naturally confirm him in his see and discredit the party of opposition. It was probably during Gregory's pontificate that the irruption of Vandals, Alani, and Suevi into Spain took place (in the autumn of 409, Idat. ap. Esp. Sagr. iv.353), and those scenes of horror and cruelty took place of which Idatius has left us a vivid, though possibly exaggerated, picture. After a first period of indiscriminate devastation and plunder, the invaders, settling down, divided the provinces among themselves by lot (Idat. l.c. ann.411). In this division Lusitania and Carthaginensis fell to the Alani, themselves to be shortly destroyed by the Goths under Walga (418), and Merida with its splendid buildings and Roman prestige, with all the other great cities of S. Spain, |submitted to the rule of the barbarians who lorded it over the Roman provinces.| Innocent's letter concerning Gregory is extremely valuable for Spanish church history at the time. Esp. Sagr. xiii.163; Gams, Kirchengesch. ii.1, 420.


Gregorius Theopolitanus, bp. of Antioch
Gregorius (31) Theopolitanus, bp. of Antioch a.d.569-594. In his earliest youth he devoted himself to a monastic life, and became so celebrated for his austerities that when scarcely past boyhood he was chosen superior of the Syrian laura of Pharon or Pharan (Moschus), called by Evagrius the monastery of the Byzantines. Sergius the Armenian in the monastery of the Eunuchs near the Jordan was earnestly importuned by Gregory to conduct him to his venerable master, another Sergius, dwelling by the Dead Sea. When the latter saw Gregory approach, he cordially saluted him, brought water, washed his feet, and conversed with him upon spiritual subjects the whole day. Sergius the disciple afterwards reminded his master that he had never treated other visitors, although some had been bishops and presbyters, as he had treated father Gregory. |Who father Gregory may be,| the old man replied, |I know not; but this I know, I have entertained a patriarch in my cave, and I have seen him carry the sacred pallium and the Gospels| (Joann. Mosch. Prat. Spirit. c.139, 140, in Patr. Lat. lxxiv.189. From Pharan Gregory was summoned by Justin II. to preside over the monastery of Mount Sinai (Evagr. H. E. v.6). On the expulsion of Anastasius, bp. of Antioch, by Justin in 569, Gregory was appointed his successor. Theophanes (Chron. a.d.562, p.206) makes his promotion take place from the Syrian monastery. His administration is highly praised by Evagrius, who ascribes to him almost every possible excellence. When Chosroes I. invaded the Roman territory, a.d.572, Gregory, who was kept informed of the real state of affairs by his friend the bp. of Nisibis, then besieged by the Roman forces, vainly endeavoured to rouse the feeble emperor by representations of the successes of the Persian forces and the incompetence of the imperial commanders. An earthquake compelled Gregory to flee with the treasures of the church, and he had the mortification of seeing Antioch occupied by the troops of Adaormanes, the general of Chosroes (Evagr. H. E. v.9). The latter years of his episcopate were clouded by extreme unpopularity and embittered by grave accusations (ib. c.18). In the reign of Maurice, a.d.588, a quarrel with Asterius, the popular Count of the East, again aroused the passions of the excitable Antiochenes against their bishop. He was openly reviled by the mob, and turned into ridicule on the stage. On the removal of Asterius, his successor, John, was commissioned by the emperor to inquire into the charges against Gregory, who proceeded to Constantinople, accompanied by Evagrius as his legal adviser, c.589, and received a triumphal acquittal (ib. vi.7). He returned to Antioch to witness its almost total destruction by earthquake, a.d.589, barely escaping with his life (ib. c.8). In the wide spread discontent of the imperial forces, the troops in Syria on the Persian frontier broke out into open mutiny. Gregory, who by his largesses had made himself very popular with the troops, was dispatched to bring them back to their allegiance. He was suffering severely from gout, and had to be conveyed in a litter, from which he addressed the army so eloquently that they at once consented to accept the emperor's nominee, Philippicus, as their commander. His harangue is preserved by his grateful friend Evagrius (ib. c.11-13). Soon after, his diplomatic skill caused him to be selected by Maurice as an ambassador to the younger Chosroes, when compelled by his disasters to take refuge in the imperial territory, a.d.590 or 591, and Gregory's advice was instrumental in the recovery of his throne, for which the grateful monarch sent him some gold and jewelled crosses and other valuable presents (ib. c.18-21). In spite of his age and infirmities, Gregory conducted a visitation of the remoter portions of his patriarchate, which were much infected with the doctrines of Severus, and succeeded in bringing back whole tribes, as well as many separate villages and monasteries, into union with the catholic church (ib. c.22). After this he paid a visit to Simeon Stylites the younger, who was suffering from a mortal disease (ib. c.23). Soon after he appears to have resigned his see into the hands of the deposed patriarch Anastasius, who resumed his patriarchal authority in 594, in which year Gregory died (ib. c.24). His extant works consist of a homily in Mulieres unguentiferas found in Galland and Migne (Patr. Gk. lxxxviii. p.1847), and two sermons on the Baptism of Christ, which have been erroneously ascribed to Chrysostom. Evagrius (vi.24) also attributes to Gregory a volume of historical collections, now lost. Fabric. Bibl. Graec. xi.102; Cave, Hist. Lat. i.534. Cf. Huidacher in Zeitschr. für Kathol. Theol.1901, xxv.367.


Gregorius Turonensis, bp. of Tours
Gregorius (32) Turonensis, bp. of Tours (c.573-594). His life we know chiefly from his own writings. The Vita per Odonem Abbatem, generally pub. with his works, is almost entirely based upon what he says of himself.

Gregory himself gives a list of his works. At the end of his History he says, |Decem libros historiarum, septem miraculorum, unum de vitis Patrum scripsi: in Psalterii tractatum librum unum commentatus sum: de cursibus etiam ecclesiasticis unum librum condidi| (bk. x.31, sub fin.). Of these all are extant except the commentary on the Psalms, of which only fragments exist, collected in vol. iii. of Bordier's ed. pp.401 sqq. His History is in vol. ii. of Bouquet, and in the collections of La Bigne, Duchesne, and Migne. There are valuable edd. by the Société de l'Histoire de France, with French trans. and notes, viz. the Hist. eccl. des Francs, edited by MM. Guadet et Taranne (4 vols.1836-1838), and Les Livres des miracles et autres opuscules, including the Vita, extracts from Fortunatus, etc., by M. H. L. Bordier (4 vols.1857-1864). But the best and most recent ed. is that of W. Arndt and Br. Krusch in Mon. Germ. Hist. Script. Rex. Merov. i. This contains an Index, Orthographica, Lexica et Grammatica. Of the commentaries and works bearing on his life and writings, the most important and thorough are Löbell's Gregor von Tours and seine Zeit (2nd ed.1869), and Gabriel Monod's Etudes critiques sur l'époque mérovingienne, pt. i.1872, being fasc. No.9 of the Bibliothèque de l'école des hautes études.

Georgius Florentius (subsequently called Gregorius, after his great-grandfather) was born Nov.30, 538. Previous authorities have generally given the year 543, from the passage in the Vita which states that he was 30 years old at the time of his consecration, i.e. in 573.

Members of both parents' families had held high office in church and state. His paternal grandfather Georgius and his maternal great-grandfather Florentius (V. P.8, 1) had been senators at Clermont. Gallus, son of Georgius and uncle of Gregory, was bp. of Auvergne; another uncle, Nicetius or Nizier, bp. of Lyons (H. v.5; V. P.8) ; another, Gundulf, had risen to ducal rank (H. vi.11). Gregory, bp. of Langres, and originally count of Autun, was his great-grandfather, and all the previous bishops of Tours, except five, had been of his family (v.50). It is with justifiable pride, therefore, that he asserts (V. P.6) that none in Gaul could boast of purer and nobler blood than himself. His father appears to have died early, and Gregory received most of his education from his uncle Gallus, bp. of Auvergne. Being sick of a fever in his youth, he found relief by visiting the shrine of St. Illidius, the patron saint of Clermont. The fever returned, and Gregory's life was despaired of. Being again carried to St. Illidius's shrine, he vowed to dedicate himself to the ministry if he recovered, nor would he quit the shrine till his prayer was granted (V. P.2, 2).

Armentaria, Gregory's mother, returned to Burgundy, her native country, and Gregory apparently lived with Avitus, at first archdeacon, afterwards bp. of Auvergne, who carried on his education, directing his pupil rather to the study of ecclesiastical than of secular works. Gregory looked upon Avitus as in the fullest sense his spiritual father. |It was his teaching and preaching that, next to the Psalms of David, led me to recognize that Jesus Christ the Son of God had come into the world to save sinners, and caused me to reverence and honour those as the friends and disciples of Christ who take up His cross and follow in His steps | (V. P.2, Intro.). By Avitus he was ordained deacon, probably c.563 (Monod.29).

Of Gregory's life before he became bp. of Tours few details are known. He appears to have been well known at Tours (Mir. Mart. i.32, Vita, c. ii.), for it was in consequence of the expressed wish of the whole people of Tours, clergy and laity, that Sigebert appointed him, in 573, to the see. He was consecrated by Egidius of Rheims. He was known to and favoured by Radegund the widow of Clotaire I., foundress of St. Cross at Poictiers, who, according to Fortunatus, helped to procure his election (Carm. v.3).

The elevation of Gregory was contemporary with the renewed outbreak of civil war between Sigebert and Chilperic, the former of whom had inherited the Austrasian, the latter the Neustrian, possessions of their father Clotaire I. (d.561). The possession of Touraine and Poitou was in some sort the occasion of the war, and these countries suffered from the ravages of both parties. Gregory's sympathies were naturally with Sigebert (Vita S. Greg. § 11), and the people of Tours were generally (H. iv.50), though not unanimously (iv.46), on the same side. Chilperic, according to Gregory, was even more cruel and regardless of human life than the other Merovingian princes; he was the |Nero and Herod of his age| (vi.46); he not only plundered and burned throughout the country, but specially destroyed churches and monasteries, slew priests and monks, and paid no regard to the possessions of St. Martin (iv.48). Tours remained under Chilperic till his death in 584, and some of the best traits in Gregory's character appear in his resistance to the murderous violence of the king and the truculent treachery of Fredegund. Thus he braved their wrath, and refused to surrender their rebellious son Meroveus (v.14), and their enemy Guntram Boso who had defeated and killed Theodebert (v.4), both of whom had taken sanctuary at the shrine of St. Martin; and Gregory alone of the bishops dared to rebuke Chilperic for his unjust conduct towards Praetextatus, and to protect Praetextatus from the vengeance of Fredegund (v.19); and when Chilperic wanted to force on his people his views of the doctrine of the Trinity, Gregory withstood him. Chilperic recited to Gregory what he had written on the subject, saying, |I will that such shall be your belief and that of all the other doctors of the church.| |Do not deceive yourself, my lord king,| Gregory replied; |you must follow in this matter the teaching of the apostles and doctors of the church, the teaching of Hilary and Eusebius, the confession that you made at baptism.| |It appears then,| angrily exclaimed the king, | that Hilary and Eusebius are my declared enemies in this matter.| |No,| said Gregory; |neither God nor His saints are your enemies,| and he proceeded to expound the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Chilperic was very angry. |I shall set forth my ideas to those who are wiser than you, and they will approve of them.| |Never,| was the answer, |it would be no wise man, but a lunatic, that would adopt such views as yours| (v.45).

Gregory had a persistent enemy in Leudastes, count of Tours (v.49). When removed from office because of his misdeeds, he endeavoured to take revenge on Gregory by maligning him to the king, that he was going to deliver over the city to Childebert, Sigebert's son, and finally that Gregory had spread a report of Fredegund's adultery. Chilperic summoned a council of the bishops of the kingdom at Braine, near Soissons, to investigate the charge, and it was found that the accusation rested solely on the evidence of Leudastes and Riculfus. All agreed that the witness of an inferior was not to be believed against a priest and his superior, and Gregory was acquitted on condition of solemnly disclaiming on oath all cognizance of the charge. Leudastes fled; Riculfus was condemned to death: at Gregory's intercession he was spared death, but not horrible torture (v.48-50; Grégoire de Tours au concile de Braine, par S. Prioux, Paris 1847, is a mere réchauffé of Gregory's own account of these proceedings, and of no independent critical value). The subsequent fate of Leudastes illustrates the best side of Gregory's character. After being a fugitive in different parts of Gaul, Leudastes presented himself at Tours to have his excommunication removed with a view to marrying and settling there. He brought letters from several bishops, but none from queen Fredegund, his principal enemy, and when Gregory wrote to her, she asked Gregory to postpone receiving back Leudastes into communion till further inquiry had been made. Gregory, suspicious of Fredegund's design, warned Leudastes's father-in-law, and besought him to induce Leudastes to keep quiet till Fredegund's anger was appeased. |This advice,| says Gregory, |I gave sincerely, and for the love of God, but Leudastes suspected treachery, and refused to take it: so the proverb was fulfilled which I once heard an old man tell, 'Always give good counsel to friend and foe; the friend will take it, the foe will despise it.'| Leudastes went to the king to get his pardon; Chilperic was willing, but warned him to be careful till the queen's wrath was appeased. Leudastes rashly tried to force forgiveness from the queen. Fredegund was implacable and furious, and Leudastes was put to death with great cruelty. |He deserved his death,| says Gregory, |for he had ever led a wicked life | (H. vi.32).

During the wars that followed the death of Chilperic in 584, Touraine and Poitou desired to be subject to Childebert, Sigebert's son, i.e. to resume their allegiance to the Austrasian king, but were compelled to submit to Guntram, king of Orleans and Burgundy (vii.12, 13), and under his power they remained till restored to Childebert by the treaty of Andelot in 587, in concluding which Gregory was one of Childebert's commissioners (iv.20). Guntram died in 593. Childebert succeeded him as the treaty had provided, and the latest notice in Gregory's writings is the visit of Childebert to Orleans after Guntram's death (Mir. S. Martin, iv.37). Gregory himself died Nov.17, 594.

His activity was not confined to the general affairs of the kingdom. He was even more zealous for the welfare of his own and neighbouring dioceses. His later years were much occupied with the disturbances caused by Chrodieldis in the nunnery at Poictiers which had been founded by Gregory's friend St. Radegund. His first interference was ineffectual (ix.39 sqq.), but the disturbance having increased, Guntram and Childebert appointed a joint commission of bishops to inquire into the matter. Gregory was one of Childebert's commissioners, but refused to enter upon the work until the civil disturbance had been actually repressed (x.15, 16). He had a great deal of trouble also with another rebellious nun, Berthegunda (ix.33, x.12).

Gregory magnifies the sanctity and power of Tours's great patron St. Martin. He maintained the rights of sanctuary of the shrine in favour of the most powerful offenders, and in spite of the wrath of Chilperic and Fredegund (e.g. Meroveus, Guntram Boso, Ebrulfus, vii.22, 29). He was a builder of churches in the city and see, and especially a rebuilder of the great church of St. Martin (x.31). He did his best to arbitrate in and appease the bloody feuds of private or political partisanship (vii.47) and was a rigorous and effectual defender of the exemption of the city from increased taxation (ix.20). Evidently a man of unselfish earnestness and energy, he was popular with all in the city.

Gregory began to write first as bishop, his subject being the Miracles of St. Martin. Venantius Fortunatus in 576 alludes to the work, probably to the first two books, which, however, were not completed till 583, the third book not before 587, and the fourth was still incomplete at Gregory's death. The Gloria Martyrum was composed c.585. Gregory wrote also the Gloria Confessorum (completed 588) and the Vitae Patrum, the latter being continued till the time of his death.

The History appears to have been written contemporaneously with the Miracles of the Saints, most probably in several divisions and at different times. Giesebrecht, who has carefully investigated the internal evidence, comes to the following conclusions. The History was originally written at three separate periods, and falls into three separate divisions. Bks. i.-iv. and the first half of bk. v. were probably composed c.577; from the middle of bk. v. to the end of the 37th chapter of bk. viii, in 584 and 585; the remainder in 590 and 591. The last chapter of the last book is an epilogue, separately composed; for the history as a history is unfinished. Gregory would probably have carried it on at least to the death of Guntram in Mar.593. As in the case of the books of the Miracles, Gregory appears to have revised his History, and we find m the earlier books insertions and references to Gregory's other works and to events of later date. This revision does not appear to have reached further than the end of bk. vi.; hence several MSS., and these the most ancient, contain only the first six books, and the authors of the Hist. Epit. and of the Gesta Reg. Franc. appear to have known only these. Monod substantially agrees with Giesebrecht as to the dates.

Gregory begins his History with the Creation, and his first book consists largely of extracts from Eusebius, Jerome, and Orosius (Hist. i. Prol. sub fin. cc.34, 37). In bk. ii., which treats of the Frankish conquests, he still owes much to Orosius and to the Lives of the Saints, and quotes from Renatus Frigiderius and Sulpicius Alexander (ii.9), two 5th-cent. writers, whose works are not extant. Thereafter he writes directly from oral tradition and authorities. Bks. iii. and iv., dealing with events down to 575, are, compared with those which follow, meagre and unchronologically arranged, giving prominence to events in Auvergne and Burgundy (Monod, p.102). From 575 the narrative becomes fuller and more systematic, the intervals of time being regularly marked. (Giesebrecht, pp.32-34. Monod, in his 4th chap., investigates the comparative value in different parts of the work of the documentary and oral sources of the History.)

Gregory apologizes more than once for the rudeness of his style. But rough though this might be, he was far from lacking learning or culture such as his age could afford. Though ignorant of Greek, he had a fair acquaintance with Latin authors, quoting or referring to Livy, Pliny, Cicero, Aulus Gellius, etc. (Monod, 112). He does not attempt to make his History a consistent and well-balanced whole, nor to subordinate local to general interests. The fullness of his recital of particular events depends not upon intrinsic importance but upon the amount of information he has at command. So too he follows the dramatic method, putting speeches into the mouths of individuals which are the composition of the author. Even where he depends upon written authorities he is, in detail, untrustworthy. Where he can be compared with writers now extant, as in the first two books of the History, his inaccuracy is seen to be considerable. He transcribes carelessly, and often cites from memory, giving the substance of that which he has read, and that not correctly (see instances ap. Monod, pp.80 sqq.). Little confidence can be placed in his narrative of events outside of Gaul, and the less the farther the scene of action is removed from Gaul. His sincerity and impartiality have been attacked on various grounds: that he unduly favours the church, or that he traduces the church in his accounts of the wickedness of the bishops of the time, or that he traduces the character of the Franks (Kries, de Gregorii Turonensis episcopi vita et scriptis, Breslau, 1859), whether from motives of race-jealousy or any other. Gregory looks upon history as a struggle of the church against unbelief in heathen and heretics and worldly-mindedness in professing Christians. Hence he begins his History with a confession of the orthodox faith. The epithet ecclesiastica applied to the History from Ruinart's time is a misnomer in the modern sense, for Gregory specially defends his method of mixing things secular and religious. With a man so passionate and impressionable as Gregory, the fact of his being a priest and the bishop of the see of St. Martin, the ecclesiastical and religious centre of Gaul, does influence his feelings and actions towards individuals. But ecclesiastical prejudices did not prevent him recording events as related to him. He shews no rancour in treating of the Frankish conquerors, such as would be natural in the victim of an oppressed nationality. After the first days of the conquest there was no political subjection of Roman to Teuton as such; Romans were not excluded from offices and dignities because of their birth (pp.101-118).

Gregory's work remains, despite all, as the great and in many respects the only authority for the history of the 6th cent., and his fresh and simple, though not unbiassed, narrative is of the greatest value. He tells us exactly what the Franks were like, and what life in Gaul was like; and he gives us the evidence upon which his judgment is founded.


Gregorius I. (The Great), bp. of Rome
Gregorius (51) I. (The Great), bp. of Rome from Sept.3, 590, to Mar.12, 604; born at Rome probably c.540, of a wealthy senatorial family. The family was a religious one; his mother Silvia, and Tarsilla and Aemiliana, the two sisters of his father Gordianus, have been canonized. Under such influences his education is spoken of by his biographer, John the deacon, as having been that of a saint among saints. Gregory of Tours, his contemporary, says that in grammar, rhetoric, and logic he was accounted second to none in Rome (Hist. x.1). He studied law, distinguished himself in the senate, and at an early age (certainly before 573) was recommended by the emperor Justin II. for the post of praetor urbis. After a public career of credit, his deep religious ideas suggested a higher vocation; and on his father's death he kept but a small share of the great wealth that came to him, employing the rest in charitable uses, and especially in founding monasteries, of which he endowed six in Sicily, and one, dedicated to St. Andrew, on the site of his own house near the church of SS. John and Paul at Rome. Here he himself became a monk. The date of his first retirement from the world, and its duration, are uncertain, as are also the exact dates of subsequent events previous to his accession to his see; but the most probable order of events is here followed. During his seclusion his asceticism is said to have been such as to endanger his life had he not been prevailed on by friends to abate its rigour; and it may have partly laid the foundation of his bad health in later life. Gregory Turonensis speaks of his stomach at this time being so enfeebled by fast and vigil that he could hardly stand. Benedict I., having ordained him one of the seven deacons (regionarii) of Rome, sent him as his apocrisiarius to Constantinople, and he was similarly employed in 579 by Benedict's successor Pelagius II. After this Gregory resided three years in Constantinople, where two noteworthy events occurred: his controversy with Eutychius, the patriarch, about the nature of the resurrection body; and the commencement of his famous work Magna Moralia. Recalled by Pelagius to Rome, he was allowed to return to his monastery, but was still employed as the pope's secretary. During his renewed monastic life and in his capacity of abbat he was distinguished for the strictness of his own life and the rigour of his discipline. One story which he tells leaves an impression of zeal carried to almost inhuman harshness. A monk, Julius, who had been a physician and had attended Gregory himself, night and day, during a long illness, being himself dangerously ill, confided to a brother that, in violation of monastic rule, he had three pieces of gold concealed in his cell. This confession was overheard, the cell searched, and the pieces found. Gregory forbade all to approach the offender, even in the agonies of death, and after death caused his body to be thrown on a dunghill with the pieces of gold, the monks crying aloud, |Thy money perish with thee| (Greg Dial. iv.55).

On Feb.8, 590, Pelagius II. died, Rome being then in great straits. The Lombards were ravaging the country and threatening the city, aid being craved in vain from the distant emperor; within famine and plague were raging. Gregory was at once unanimously chosen by senate, clergy, and people to succeed Pelagius; but to him his election was distressing, and he wrote to the emperor Mauricius imploring him not to confirm it. His letter was intercepted by the prefect of Rome, and another sent, in the name of senate, clergy, and people, earnestly requesting confirmation. Before the reply of the emperor reached Rome, Gregory aroused the people to repentance by his sermons, and instituted the famous processional litany, called Litania septiformis. The emperor confirmed the election of Gregory, who fled in disguise, was brought back in triumph, conducted to the church of St. Peter, and immediately ordained on Sept.3, 590 (Anastas. Bibliothec. and Martyrol. Roman.).

After his accession he continued in heart a monk, surrounding himself with ecclesiastics instead of laymen, and living with them according to monastic rule. In accordance with this plan a synodal decree was made under him in 595, substituting clergy or monks for the boys and secular persons who had formerly waited on the pope in his chamber (Ep. iv.44). Yet he rose at once to his new position. The church shared in the distress and disorganization of the time. The fires of controversy of the last two centuries still raged in the East. In Istria and Gaul the schism on the question of the Three Chapters continued; in Africa the Donatists once more became aggressive against the Catholics. Spain had but just, and as yet imperfectly, recovered from Arianism. In Gaul the church was oppressed under its barbarian rulers; in Italy, under the Arian Lombards, the clergy were infected with the demoralization of the day. The monastic system was suffering declension and was now notoriously corrupt. Literature and learning had almost died with Boëthius; and all these causes combined with temporal calamities led to a prevalent belief, which Gregory shared, that the end of all things was at hand. Nor was the position of the papacy encouraging to one who, like Gregory, took a high view of the prerogatives of St. Peter's chair. Since the recovery of Italy by Justinian (after the capture of Rome by Belisarius in 536) the popes had been far less independent than even under the Gothic kings. Justinian regarded the bishops of Rome as his creatures, to be appointed, summoned to court, and deposed at his pleasure, and subject to the commands of his exarch at Ravenna. No reigns of popes had been so inglorious as those of Gregory's immediate predecessors, Vigilius, Pelagius I., Benedict, and Pelagius II. He himself describes the Roman church as |like an old and violently shattered ship, admitting the waters on all sides, its timbers rotten, shaken by daily storms, and sounding of wreck| (Ep i.).

Gregory may be regarded, first, as a spiritual ruler; secondly, as a temporal administrator and potentate; lastly, as to his personal character and as a doctor of the church.

Immediately after his accession he sent, according to custom, a confession of his faith to the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in which he declared his reception of the first four general councils, as of the four gospels, and his condemnation of the Three Chapters -- i.e. the writings of three deceased prelates, Theodorus, Theodoret, and Ibas, supposed to savour of heresy, and already condemned by Justinian and by the fifth council called oecumenical. The strong language in which he exalts the authority of the four councils as |the square stone on which rests the structure of the faith, the rule of every man's actions and life, which foundation whoever does not hold is out of the building,| is significant of his views on the authority of the church at large, while his recognition of the four patriarchs as co-ordinate potentates, to whom he sends an account of his own faith, expresses one aspect of the relation to the Eastern churches which then satisfied the Roman pontiffs. He lost no time in taking measures for the restoration of discipline, the reform of abuses, the repression of heresy, and the establishment of the authority of the Roman see, both in his own metropolitan province and wherever his influence extended. That jurisdiction was threefold -- episcopal, metropolitan, and patriarchal. As bishop he had the oversight of the city; as metropolitan of the seven suffragan, afterwards called cardinal, bishops of the Roman territory, i.e. of Ostia, Portus, Silva Candida, Sabina, Praeneste, Tusculum, and Albanum; while his patriarchate seems to have originally extended (according to Rufinus, H. E. i. [x.] 6) over the suburban provinces under the civil jurisdiction of the vicarius urbis, including Upper Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. But being the only patriarch in the West, he had in fact claimed and exercised jurisdiction beyond these original limits, including the three other vicariates into which the prefecture of Italy was politically divided: N. Italy, with its centre at Milan, W. Illyricum, with its capital at Sirmium, and W. Africa, with its capital at Carthage. Before his accession a still wider authority had been claimed and in part acknowledged. As bishops of the old imperial city, with an acknowledged primacy of honour among the patriarchs, still more as occupants of St. Peter's chair and conservators of his doctrine, and as such consulted and appealed to by various Western churches, the popes had come to exercise a more or less defined jurisdiction over them all. The power of sending judges to hear the appeals of condemned bishops, which had been accorded to pope Julius by the Western council of Sardica in 343, had been claimed by his successors as perpetually belonging to the Roman see and extended so as to involve the summoning of cases to be heard at Rome; and a law had been obtained by Leo I. from Valentinian (445) by which the pope was made supreme head of the whole Western church, with the power of summoning prelates from all provinces to abide his judgment. On the assumption of such authority Gregory acted, being determined to abate none of the rights claimed by his predecessors.

In the year of his accession (590) he endeavoured, though without result, to bring over the Istrian bishops, who still refused to condemn the Three Chapters. With this view he appointed a council to meet at Rome, and obtained an order from the emperor for the attendance of these bishops. They petitioned for exemption, saying that their faith was that formerly taught them by pope Vigilius, and protesting against submission to the bp. of Rome as their judge. The emperor countermanded the order, and Gregory acquiesced.

In 591 his orthodox zeal was directed with more success against the African Donatists. It was the custom in Numidia for the senior bishop, whether Donatist or Catholic, to exercise metropolitan authority over the other bishops. Such senior now happened to be a Donatist, and he assumed the customary authority. Gregory wrote to the Catholic bishops of Numidia, and to Gennadius, exarch of Africa, urging them to resist such a claim (Ep. i.74, 75), and the Donatist bishop was deposed, but the sect continued in Africa as long as Christianity did. This is not the only instance of Gregory, like others of his age, not being averse to persecution as a means of conversion. In Sicily he enjoined rigorous measures (summopere persequi) for the recovery of the Manicheans to the church (Ep. iv.6); there, and in Corsica, Sardinia, and Campania, the heathen peasants and slaves on the papal estates were by his order compelled to conform, not only by exactions on such as refused, but also by the imprisonment of freemen, and the corporal castigation (verberibus et cruciatibus) of slaves (Ep. iii.26; vii. ind. ii.67), and in France he exhorted queen Brunichild to similar measures of coercion (Ep. vii.5). On the other hand, there are three letters of his, written in the same year as those about the African Donatists, which evince a spirit of unusual toleration towards Jews. They are addressed to three bishops, Peter of Tarracina, Virgilius of Arles, and Theodorus of Marseilles. The first had driven the Jews from their synagogues, and the last two had converted a number by offering them the choice of baptism or exile. Gregory strongly condemns such proceedings, |because conversions wrought by force are never sincere, and those thus converted seldom fail to return to their vomit when the force is removed.| (Ep. i.34, i.45; cf. Ep. vii. ind. i.26, vii. ind. ii.5, vii.2, 59.) Yet he had no objection to luring them into the fold by the prospect of advantage, for in a letter to a deacon Cyprian, who was steward of the papal patrimony in Sicily, he directs him to offer the Jews a remission of one-third of the taxes due to the Roman church if they became Christians, saying, in justification, that though such conversions might be insincere, their children would be brought up in the bosom of the church (Ep. iv.6, cf. Ep. xii.30). In such apparent inconsistencies we may see his good sense and Christian benevolence in conflict with the impulses of zeal and the notions of his age.

Gregory was no less active in reforming the church itself. Great laxity was prevalent among the monks, of which the life of Benedict, the founder of the Benedictine order, affords ample evidence. Several of Gregory's letters are addressed to monks who had left their monasteries for the world and marriage. He issued the following regulations for the restoration of monastic discipline: no monk should be received under 18 years of age, nor any husband without his wife's consent (in one case he orders a husband who had entered a monastery to be restored to his wife [Ep. ix.44]); two years of probation should always be required, and three in the case of soldiers; a professed monk leaving his order should be immured for life; no monk, though an abbat, should leave the precincts of his monastery, except on urgent occasions; under no pretext should any monk leave his monastery alone, on the ground that |Qui sine teste ambulat non rectè vivit.| He provided for the more complete separation of the monastic and clerical orders, forbidding any monk to remain in his monastery after ordination, and any priest to enter a monastery except to exercise clerical functions, or to become a monk without giving up his clerical office; and further exempting some monasteries from the jurisdiction of bishops. This last important provision was extended to all monasteries by the Lateran synod, held under him in 601.

He was no less zealous in his correction of the clergy. Several bishops under his immediate metropolitan jurisdiction and elsewhere he rebuked or deposed for incontinency and other crimes. His own nuncio at Constantinople, Laurentius the archdeacon, he recalled and deposed. From the clergy generally he required strict chastity, forbidding them to retain in their houses any women but their mothers, sisters, or wives married before ordination, and with these last prohibiting conjugal intercourse (Ep. i.50, ix.64). Bishops he recommends to imitate St. Augustine in banishing from their houses even such female relatives as the canons allow (Ep. vii. ind. ii.39; xi.42, 43). In Sicily the obligation to celibacy had, in 588, been extended to subdeacons. This rule he upheld by directing the bishops to require a vow of celibacy from all who should in future be ordained subdeacons, but acknowledging its hardship on such as had made no such vow on their ordination, he contented himself with forbidding the advancement to the diaconate of existing subdeacons who had continued conjugal intercourse after the introduction of the rule (Ep. i. ind. ix.42).

He also set himself resolutely against the prevalent simony, forbidding all bishops and clergy to exact or accept fee or reward for the functions of their office; and he set the example himself by refusing the annual presents which it had been customary for the bishops of Rome to receive from their suffragans, or payment for the pallium sent to metropolitans, which payment was forbidden to all future popes by a Roman synod in 595.

In 592 began a struggle in reference to discipline with certain bishops of Thessaly and Dalmatia, in the province of Illyricum. Hadrianus of Thebes had been deposed by a provincial synod under his metropolitan the bp. of Larissa, and the sentence had been confirmed by John of Justiniana Prima, the primate of Illyricum. The deposed prelate appealed to Gregory, who, after examining the whole case, ordered the primate to reinstate Hadrianus (Ep. ii. ind. xi.6, 7). He also ordered Natalis, bp. of Salona in Dalmatia and metropolitan, under pain of excommunication, to reinstate his archdeacon Honoratus whom he had deposed (Ep. ii. ind. x.14, 15, 16). In both instances he appears to have been obeyed. Not so, however, in the case of Maximus, who succeeded Natalis as bp. of Salona and metropolitan in the same year. Maximus having been elected in opposition to Honoratus, whom Gregory had recommended, the latter disallowed the election, and wrote to the clergy of Salona forbidding them to choose a bishop without the consent of the apostolic see. Meanwhile the emperor had confirmed the election. After, protracted negotiations, lasting 7 years, during which 17 letters were written by Gregory, the emperor committed the settlement of the dispute to Maximianus, bp. of Ravenna, with the result that Maximus, having publicly begged pardon of the pope and cleared himself from the charge of simony by an oath of purgation at the tomb of St. Apollinaris, was at last acknowledged as lawful bp. of Salona (Ep. iii. ind. xii.15, 20; iv. ind. xiii.34; v. ind. xiv.3; vi. ind. xv.17; vii. ind. i.1; vii. ind. ii.81, 82, 83). In the West beyond the limits of the empire Gregory also lost no opportunity of extending the influence of his see and of advancing and consolidating the church. Reccared, the Visigothic king of Spain, renounced Arianism for Catholicism at the council of Toledo in 589, and Gregory heard of this from Leander, bp. of Seville, whom he exhorted to watch over the royal convert. He sent Leander a pallium to be used at mass only. He wrote to Reccared in warm congratulation, exhorting him to humility, chastity, and mercy; thanking him for presents received, and sending in return a key from the body of St. Peter, in which was some iron from the chain that had bound him, and a cross containing a piece of the true cross, and some hairs of John the Baptist (Canones Eccles. Hispan.). There is no distinct assumption, in these letters, of jurisdiction over the Spanish church, and this is the only known instance of a pallium having been sent to Spain previously to the Saracen invasion. The ancient Spanish church does not seem to have been noted for its dependence on the Roman see (see Geddes, Tracts, vol. ii. pp.25, 49; Gieseler, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p.188). With the Frank rulers of Gaul Gregory carefully cultivated friendly relations. In 595, at the request of king Childeric, he conferred the pallium on Virgilius of Arles, the ancient metropolitan see, whose bishop pope Zosimus had confirmed in his metropolitan right, and made vicar as early as 417. Not long after Gregory began a correspondence with queen Brunichild, in which he exhorts her to use her power for the correction of the vices of the clergy and the conversion of the heathen. Another royal female correspondent, cultivated and flattered with a similar purpose, and one more worthy of the praise conferred, was Theodelinda the Lombard queen. To 599 is assigned the extensive conversion of the Lombards to Catholicism, brought about after the death of king Antharis through the marriage of this Theodelinda, his widow, with Agilulph duke of Turin, who consequently succeeded to the throne. With this pious lady, a zealous Catholic, Gregory kept up a highly complimentary correspondence, sending her also a copy of his four books of dialogues.

Over the church in Ireland, then bound by no close tie of allegiance to the see of Rome, he endeavoured to extend his influence, writing in 592 a long letter to the bishops.

Not content with thus influencing, consolidating, and reforming the existing churches throughout the West, he was also a zealous missionary, and as such the founder of our English, as distinct from the more ancient British, Christianity. [[268]AUGUSTINE.]

Of his relations with Constantinople and the Eastern church, the year 593 affords the first example. Having heard of two presbyters, John of Chalcedon and Anastasius of Isauria, being beaten with cudgels, after conviction on a charge of heresy, under John the Faster, then patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory wrote twice to the patriarch, remonstrating with him for introducing a new and uncanonical punishment, exhorting him to restore the two presbyters or to judge them canonically, and expressing his own readiness to receive them at Rome. Notwithstanding the patriarch's protest, the presbyters thereupon withdrew to Rome and were received and absolved by Gregory after examination (Ep. ii.52, v.64). In other letters we find him saying, |With respect to the Constantinopolitan church, who doubts that it is subject to the apostolical see?| and |I know not what bishop is not subject to it, if fault is found in him| (Ep. vii. ind. ii.64, 65). But the most memorable incidents in this connexion are his remonstrances against the assumption by John the Faster of the title of oecumenical or universal bishop. They began in 595, being provoked by the repeated occurrence of the title in a judgment against an heretical presbyter which had been sent to Rome. The title was not new. Patriarchs had been so styled by the emperors Leo and Justinian, and it had been confirmed to John the Faster and his successors by a general Eastern synod at Constantinople in 588, pope Pelagius protesting against it. Gregory now wrote to Sabinianus, his apocrisiarius at Constantinople, desiring him to use his utmost endeavours with the patriarch, the emperor, and the empress, to procure the renunciation of the title; and when this failed, he himself wrote to all these in peculiarly strong language. The title he called foolish, proud, pestiferous, profane, wicked, a diabolical usurpation; the ambition of any who assumed it was like that of Lucifer, and its assumption a sign of the approach of the king of pride, i.e. Antichrist. His arguments are such as to preclude himself as well as others from assuming the title, though he implies that if any could claim it it would be St. Peter's successors. Peter, he says, was the first of the apostles, yet neither he nor any of the others would assume the title universal, being all members of the church under one head, Christ. He also states (probably in error) that the title had been offered to the bp. of Rome at the council of Chalcedon, and refused. Failing entirely to make an impression at Constantinople, he addressed himself to the Eastern patriarchs. He wrote to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, representing the purpose of their brother of Constantinople as being that of degrading them, and usurping to himself all ecclesiastical power. They, however, were not thus moved to action; they seem to have regarded the title as one of honour only, suitable to the patriarch of the imperial city; and one of them, Anastasius, wrote in reply that the matter seemed to him of little moment. The controversy continued after the death of John the Faster. Gregory instructed his apocrisiarius at Constantinople to demand from the new patriarch, Cyriacus, as a condition of intercommunion, the renunciation of the proud and impious title which his predecessor had wickedly assumed. In vain did Cyriacus send a nuncio to Rome in the hope of arranging matters: Gregory was resolute, and wrote, |I confidently say that whosoever calls himself universal priest, or desires to be so called in his elation, is the forerunner of Antichrist.| At this time he seems to have gained a supporter, if not to his protest, at any rate to the paramount dignity of his own see, in Eulogius of Alexandria, whom he had before addressed without result. For in answering a letter from that patriarch, he acknowledges with approval the dignity assigned by him to the see of St. Peter, and expresses adroitly a curious view of his correspondent, as well as the patriarch of Antioch, being a sharer in it. |Who does not know,| he says, |that the church was built and established on the firmness of the prince of the apostles, by whose very name is implied a rock? Hence, though there were several apostles, there is but one apostolic see, that of the prince of the apostles, which has acquired great authority; and that see is in three places, in Rome where he died, in Alexandria where it was founded by his disciple St. Mark, and in Antioch where he himself lived seven years. These three, therefore, are but one see, and on that one see sit three bishops, who are but one in Him Who said, I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.| But when Eulogius in a second letter styled the bp. of Rome universal pope, Gregory warmly rejected such a title, saying, |If you give more to me than is due to me, you rob yourself of what is due to you. Nothing can redound to my honour that redounds to the dishonour of my brethren. If you call me universal pope, you thereby own yourself to be no pope. Let no such titles be mentioned or ever heard among us.| Gregory was obliged at last to acquiesce in the assumption of the obnoxious title by the Constantinopolitan patriarch; and it may have been by way of contrast that he usually styled himself in his own letters by the title since borne by the bps. of Rome, |Servus servorum Dei.| Evidently Gregory and his opponents took different views of the import of the title contended for. They represented it as one simply of honour and dignity, while he regarded it as involving the assumption of supreme authority over the church at large, and especially over the see of St. Peter, whence probably in a great measure the vehemence of his remonstrance. In the different views taken appears the difference of principle on which pre-eminence was in that age thought assignable to sees in the East and West respectively. In the East the dignity of a see was regarded as an appanage of a city's civil importance, on which ground alone could any pre-eminence be claimed for Constantinople. In the West it was the apostolical origin of the see, and the purely ecclesiastical pre-eminence belonging to it from ancient times, to which especial regard was paid. Thus viewed, the struggle of Gregory for the dignity of his own see against that of Constantinople assumes importance as a protest against the Erastianism of the East. It certainly would not have been well for the church had the spiritual authority of the bps. of Rome accrued to the subservient patriarchs of the Eastern capital.

As a temporal administrator and potentate Gregory evinced equally great vigour, ability, and zeal, guided by address and judgment. The see of Rome had large possessions, constituting what was called the patrimony of St. Peter, in Italy, Sardinia, and Corsica, and also in more remote parts, e.g. Dalmatia, Illyricum, Gaul, and even Africa and the East. Over these estates Gregory exercised a vigilant superintendence by means of officers called |rectores patrimonii| and |defensores,| to whom his letters remain, prescribing minute regulations for the management of the lands, and guarding especially against any oppression of the peasants. The revenues accruing to the see, thus carefully secured, though with every possible regard to humanity and justice, were expended according to the fourfold division then prevalent in the West -- viz. in equal parts for the bishop, the clergy, the fabric and services of the church, and the poor. This distribution, publicly made four times a year, Gregory personally superintended. His own charities were immense, a large portion of the population of Rome being dependent on them: every day, before his own meal, a portion was sent to the poor at his door; the sick and infirm in every street were sought out; and a large volume was kept containing the names, ages, and dwellings of the objects of his bounty.

A field for the exercise of his political abilities was afforded by his position as virtual ruler of Rome at that critical time. His letters and homilies gave a lamentable account of the miseries of the country, and he endeavoured to conclude a peace between Agilulph, the Lombard king, who was himself disposed to come to terms, and the exarch Romanus. These endeavours were frustrated by the opposition of Romanus, who represented Gregory to the emperor as having been overreached by the crafty enemy. The emperor believed his exarch, and wrote to Gregory in condemnation of his conduct. In vain did Gregory remonstrate in letters both to the emperor and to the empress Constantina, complaining to the latter not so much of the ravages of the Lombards as of the cruelty and exactions of the imperial officers; but though small success crowned his efforts, whatever mitigation of distress was accomplished was due to him.

In 601 an event occurred which shews Gregory in a less favourable light, with respect to his relations to the powers of the world than anything else during his career. Phocas, a centurion, was made emperor by the army. He secured his throne by the murder of Mauricius, whose six sons had been first cruelly executed before their father's eyes. He afterwards put to death the empress Constantina and her three daughters, who had been lured out of the asylum of a church under a promise of safety. Numerous persons of all ranks and in various parts of the empire are also said to have been put to death with unusual cruelty. To Phocas and his consort Leontia, who is spoken of as little better than her husband, Gregory wrote congratulatory letters in a style of flattery beyond even what was usual with him in addressing great potentates (Ep. xi. ind. vi.38, 45.46). His motive was doubtless largely the hope of obtaining from the new powers the support which Mauricius had not accorded him in his dispute with the Eastern patriarch. This motive appears plainly in one of his letters to Leontia, to whom, rather than to the emperor, with characteristic tact, he intimates his hopes of support to the church of St. Peter, endeavouring to work upon her religious fears.

Gregory lived only 16 months after the accession of Phocas, dying after protracted suffering from gout on Mar.12, 604. He was buried in the basilica of St. Peter.

Immediately after his death a famine occurred, which the starving multitude attributed to his prodigal expenditure, and his library was only saved from destruction by the interposition of the archdeacon Peter.

The pontificate of Gregory the Great is rightly regarded as second to none in its influence on the future form of Western Christianity. He lived in the period of transition from Christendom under imperial rule to the medieval papacy, and he laid or consolidated the foundation of the latter. He advanced, indeed, no claims to authority beyond what had been asserted by his predecessors; yet the consistency, firmness, conscientious zeal, as well as address and judgment, with which he maintained it, and the waning of the power of the Eastern empire, left him virtual ruler of Rome and the sole power to whom the Western church turned for support, and whom the Christianized barbarians, founders of the new kingdom of Europe, regarded with reverence. Thus he paved the way for the system of papal absolutism that culminated under Gregory VII. and Innocent III.

As a writer he was intellectually eminent; and deserves his place among the doctors of the church, though his learning and mental attitude were those of his age. As a critic, an expositor, an original thinker, he may not stand high; he knew neither Greek nor Hebrew, and had no deep acquaintance with the Christian Fathers; literature for its own sake he set little store by; classical literature, as being heathen, he repudiated. Yet as a clear and powerful exponent of the received orthodox doctrine, especially in its practical aspect, as well as of the system of hagiology, demonology, and monastic asceticism, which then formed part of the religion of Christendom, he spoke with a loud and influential voice to many ages after his own, and contributed more than any one person to fix the form and tone of medieval religious thought.

He was also influential as a preacher, and no less famous for his influence on the music and liturgy of the church; whence he is called |magister caeremoniarum.| To cultivate church singing he instituted a song-school in Rome, called Orphanotrophium, the name of which implies also a charitable purpose. Of it, John the deacon, after speaking of the cento of antiphons which Gregory had carefully compiled, says: |He founded a school of singers, endowed it with some farms, and built for it two habitations, one under the steps of the basilica of St. Peter the Apostle, the other under the houses of the Lateran Palace. There to the present day his couch on which he used to recline when singing, and his whip with which he menaced the boys, together with his original antiphonary, are preserved with fitting reverence| (Vit. Greg. ii.6). It is generally alleged that, whereas St. Ambrose had in the latter part of the 4th cent. introduced at Milan the four authentic modes or scales, called, after those of the ancient Greek music, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixo-Lydian, St. Gregory added to them the four plagal, or subsidiary, modes called Hypo-Dorian, Hypo-Phrygian, Hypo-Lydian, and Hypo-Mixo-Lydian, thus enlarging the allowed range of ecclesiastical melody.

His Septiform litany was so called from being appointed by him to be sung by the inhabitants of Rome divided into seven companies, viz. of clergy, laymen, monks, virgins, matrons, widows, and of poor people and children. These, starting from 7 different churches, were to chant through the streets of Rome, and meet for common supplication in the church of the Blessed Virgin. He also appointed |the stations| -- churches at which were to be held solemn services in Lent and at the four great festivals; visiting the churches in person, and being received with stately ceremonial.

His extant works of undoubted genuineness are: (1) Expositio in beatum Job, seu Moralium lib. xxxv. In this celebrated work (begun at Constantinople before he was pope and finished afterwards) |the book of Job is expounded in a threefold manner, according to its historic, its moral, and its allegorical meaning. The moral interpretation may still be read with profit, though rather for the loftiness and purity of its tone than for the justness of the exposition.| As to the allegorical interpretation, |names of persons, numbers, words, even syllables, are made pregnant with all kinds of mysterious meanings| (Milman, Hist. of Latin Christianity). (2) Libri duo in Exechielem: viz.22 homilies on Ezekiel, delivered at Rome during its siege by Agilulph. (3) Libri duo in Evangelia: viz.40 homilies on the gospels for the day, preached at various times. (4) Liber Regulae Pastoralis, in 4 parts; a treatise on the pastoral office, addressed to a bp. John to explain and justify the writer's former reluctance to undertake the burden of the popedom. This work was long held in the highest esteem. Leander of Seville circulated it in Spain; the emperor Mauricius had it translated into Greek; Alfred the Great translated it into English; a succession of synods in Gaul enjoined a knowledge of it on all bishops; and Hincmar, archbp. of Rheims in the 9th cent., says that a copy of it was delivered, together with the book of canons, to bishops at their ordination, with a charge to them to frame their lives according to its precepts (in Praefatione Opusculi 55 Capitulorum). (5) Dialogorum libri IV. de vita et miraculis patrum Italicorum, et de aeternitate canimae. The authenticity of this work has been doubted; apparently without adequate grounds. It is written in the form of dialogues with the archdeacon Peter, and contains accounts of saintly persons, prominent among whom is Benedict of Nursia, the contemporary founder of the Benedictine order. It abounds in marvels, and relates visions of the state of departed souls, which have been a main support, if not a principal foundation, of the medieval doctrine about purgatory. The Dialogues were translated into Anglo-Saxon by order of Alfred (Asser. Gest. Alf. in Mon. Hist. Brit.486 E). (6) Registrum Epistolarum, in 14 books, of which the 13th is wanting; a very varied collection of 838 letters to persons of all ranks, which gives a vivid idea of his unwearied activity, the multifariousness of his engagements and interests, his address, judgment, and versatility. (7) Liber Sacramentorum. This, the famous Gregorian Sacramentary, was an abbreviated arrangement in one vol., with some alterations and additions, of the sacramentary of pope Gelasius, which again had been founded on an older one attributed to pope Leo I. John the deacon says of Gregory's work, |Sed et Gelasianum codicem, de Missarum solemniis multa subtrahens, pauca convertens, nonnulla superadjiciens, in unius libelli volumine coarctavit| (Joann. Diac. in Vit. Greg. ii.17; cf. Bede, H. E. ii.1). The changes made by Gregory were principally in the Missae, or variable offices for particular days; in the Ordo Missae itself only two alterations are spoken of as made by him, viz. to the part of the canon beginning, |Hanc igitur oblationem,| he added the words, |Diesque nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab aeterna damnatione eripi et in electorum tuorum jubeas grege numerari|; and the transference of the Lord's Prayer from after the breaking of bread to its present place in the canon (Ep. ad Joann. Syrac. lib. ix. Ep.12). Whatever uncertainty there may be as to the original text of Gregory's sacramentary as a whole, it is considered certain that the present Roman canon and, except for certain subsequent additions, the ordinarium are the same as what he left. [SACRAMENTARY in D. C. A.] (8) Liber Antiphonarius, a collection of antiphons for mass. To what extent this was original, or how far it may have been altered since Gregory's time, is uncertain.

Of the following works attributed to Gregory, the genuineness is doubtful: (1) Liber Benedictionum; (2) Liber Responsalis seu Antiphonarius; (3) Expositiones in librum I. Regum; (4) Expositiones super Canticum Canticorum; (5) Expositio in vii. Pss. Paenitentiales; (6) Concordia quorundam testimoniorum sacrae Scripturae. There are also 9 hymns attributed to him with probability.

Of his personal appearance an idea may be formed from a description given by John the deacon of a portrait preserved to his own day (9th cent.) in St. Andrew's monastery, |in absidicula post fratrum cellarium|; which he concludes to have been painted during the pope's life and by his order. That this was the case is inferred from the head being surmounted, not by a corona, but by a tabula (|tabulae similitudinem|), which John says is the mark of a living person, and by the appended inscription:

|Christe patens Domine, nostri largitor honoris

Indultum officium solita pietate guberna.|

The figure is of ordinary size, and well formed; the face |most becomingly prolonged with a certain rotundity|; the beard of moderate size and somewhat tawny; in the middle of his otherwise bald forehead are two neat little curls twisting towards the right; the crown of the head is round and large; dark hair, decently curled, hangs under the middle of the ear; he has a fine forehead; his eyebrows are long and elevated, but slender; the pupils of the eyes are of a yellow tinge, not large, but open, and the under-eyelids are full; the nose is slender as it curves down from the eyebrows, broader about the middle, then slightly curved, and expanding at the nostrils; the mouth is ruddy; the lips thick and subdivided; the cheeks regular (|compositae|); the chin rather prominent from the confines of the jaws; the complexion was |aquilinus et lividus| (al. |vividus|), not |cardiacus,| as it became afterwards, i.e. he had in the picture a dark but fresh complexion, though in later life it acquired an unhealthy hue. (See Du Cange for the probable meaning of the words.) His countenance is mild; his hands good, with taper fingers, well adapted for writing. The dress he wears is of interest -- a chestnut-coloured planeta over a dalmatica, which is precisely the same dress as that in which his father is depicted, and therefore not then a peculiarly sacerdotal costume. [[269]GORDIANUS.] He is distinguished from his father by the pallium, the then form and mode of wearing which are intimated by the description. It is brought from the left shoulder so as to hang carelessly under the breast, and, passing over the right shoulder, is deposited behind the back, the other end being carried straight behind the neck also to the right shoulder, from which it hangs down the side. In the left hand is a book of the Gospels; the right is in the attitude of making the sign of the cross (Joann. Diac. in Vit. Greg.1.4, c.83). John describes also his pallium, woven of white linen and with no marks of the needle in it; his phylactery (or case for relics), of thin silver, and hung from the neck by crimson cloth, and his belt (|baltheus|), only a thumb's breadth wide -- which, he says, were preserved and venerated on the saint's anniversary, and which he refers to as shewing the monastic simplicity of Gregory's attire (ib. c.8).

Our chief authorities for the Life of Gregory are his own writings, especially his letters, of which a trans. (Selecta Epp.) is in Lib. of Post.-Nic. Fathers. Among ancient writers Gregory of Tours (his contemporary), Bede, Paul Warnefried (730), Ado Trevirensis (1070), Simeon Metaphrastes (1300), Isidorus Hispalensis, have detailed notices of him. Paul the deacon in the 8th cent., and John the deacon, a monk of Cassino, in the 9th cent., wrote Lives of him (Greg. Op. ed. Benedict). The Benedictine ed. of his works has a fuller Life, using additional sources. An important work on Gregory the Great, his Place in Thought and History, was pub. by the Rev. F. H. Dudden, in two vols.4to, 1905 (Lond., Longmans). A cheap popular Life by the author of this art. is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers; see also a monograph on Pope Gregory the Great and his Relation with Gaul, by F. W. Kellett (Camb. Univ. Press).

[J.B -- Y.]

Gundobald, king of the Burgundians
Gundobald, 4th king of the Burgundians (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. ii.28). The kingdom of the Burgundians, which extended from the Vosges to the Durance and from the Alps to the Loire, was divided between Gundobald and his surviving brother Godegiselus, the former having Lyons for his capital, the latter Geneva (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. ii.32; Ennodius, Vita S. Epiphanii, 50-54; Boll. Jan. ii.374-375; cf. Mascou, Hist. of the Ancient Germans, xi.10, 31, and Annotation iv.). In 500 Clovis, who had married Gundobald's niece, defeated Gundobald at Dijon, with the aid of Godegiselus who fought against his brother, and imposed a tribute. But on Clovis's departure he renounced his allegiance, and besieged and killed his brother, who had triumphantly entered Vienne. Henceforth till his death he ruled the whole Burgundian territory (Marius Avent. Chron., Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxii.795, 796; Greg. Tur. ii.32, 33; Epitomata, xxii.-xxiv.; Richter, Annalen, 37, 38). About this time was held under his presidency at Lyons a conference between the Catholics, led by Avitus, and the Arians, led by Boniface. According to the Catholic account of it which survives, the heretics were utterly confounded. The narrative is in the Spicilegium, iii.304 (Paris, 1723), Mansi, viii.242, and excerpta from it in Patr. Lat. lxxi.1154. Gundobald died in 516, leaving his son, the Catholic Sigismund, as his successor.

In spite of the unfavourable testimony of Catholic writers, there are many indications that Gundobald was for his time an enlightened and humane king. The wisdom and equity of his government are evidenced by the Loi Gombette, the Burgundian code, called after him, which, though probably not taking its present shape entirely till his son's reign, was enacted by him. Its provisions in favour of the Roman, or old Gallic inhabitants, whom in most respects it put on an equality with the conquerors, entitles it to be called the best barbarian code which had yet appeared (Greg. Tur. ii.33; Hist. lit. de la France, iii.83 sqq.; L'Art de vérifier les dates, x.365, Paris, 1818). For the code see Bouquet, iv.257 seq., and Pertz, Leges, iii.497 seq.

Though he professed Arianism, Gundobald did not persecute, but secured the Catholics in the possession of their endowments, as Avitus testifies (Ep. xxxix. Patr. Lat. lix.256). The circumstances relied on by Revillout (De l'Arianisme des peoples germaniques, 180, 181), who takes the opposite view, are trivial, compared with the testimony of Avitus and the silence of Gregory. Gundobald's whole correspondence with Avitus and the conference of Lyons demonstrate the interest he took in religious subjects and his tolerance of orthodoxy. Several of the bishop's letters survive, answering inquiries on various points of doctrine, e.g. the Eutychian heresy (Epp.3 and 4), repentance in articulo mortis, and justification by faith or works (Ep.5). One only of Gundobald's remains (Ep.19), asking an explanation of Is. ii.3-5, and Mic. iv.4. These letters are in Migne, Patr. Lat. lix.199, 202, 210, 219, 223, 236, 244, 255, and commented on in Ceillier's Hist. générale des auteurs sacrés, x.554 sqq. He probably died an Arian. According to Gregory, he was convinced and begged Avitus to baptize him in secret, fearing his subjects; but Avitus refused, and he perished in his heresy (Hist. Franc. ii.34, cf. iii. prologue). But there are two passages in Avitus's letters (Ep. v. sub fin. Patr. Lat. lix.224, |Unde cum laetitiam -- orbitatem| and Ep. ii. sub init. Patr. Lat. lix.202, |Unicum simul -- principaliter de tuenda catholicae partis veritate curetis|) which seem almost to imply that he was then a Catholic. See too Gregory's story of the piety of his queen (de Mirac. S. Juliani ii.8).


Guntramnus, king of Burgundy
Guntramnus (2) (Guntchramnus, Gunthrannus, Gontran), St., king of Burgundy, son of Clotaire I. and Ingundis (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. iv.3). Upon his father's death in 561, the kingdom was divided by lot between the three sons. Guntram had the kingdom of Burgundy, which then extended from the Vosges to the Durance, and from the Alps to the Loire. Orleans was his nominal capital, but his ordinary residence was at Châlon-sur-Saône (iv.21, 22). His pacific and unenterprising disposition made his reign uneventful. He died in 593 in the 33rd year of his reign, on Mar.28, on which day the martyrologies commemorate him as a saint, and was buried in the monastery church of St. Marcellus, his own foundation at Châlons.

Though the church has canonized Guntram, it is perhaps doubtful whether his virtues would stand out brightly on any other background than the utter darkness of Merovingian times. His chief merit seems to have been the avoidance of the terrible excesses which characterized some of his family, and this was perhaps as much due to the feebleness of his nature as to any positive inclination towards well-doing. Even his clerical eulogists admit that as regards women his morals were by no means scrupulous (Aimoin, iii.3, Patr. Lat. cxxxix.693). When provocation or panic was absent he was mild, and even merciful, but on occasion he readily committed the barbarities of his age. The merest suspicion or accusation connected with his personal safety sufficed to throw him into a panic, when torture was freely applied to obtain confessions. Assassination was the haunting fear of his life, and he always wore arms and continually strengthened the escort which attended him everywhere, except in church (vii.8, 18, viii.11, 44). His apprehension at times was almost comic. Gregory tells us that one Sunday at church in Paris, when the deacon had enjoined silence for the mass, Guntram turned to the people and said, |I beseech you, men and women who are present, do not break your faith to me, but forbear to kill me as you killed my brothers. At least let me live three years, that I may rear up the nephews whom I have adopted, lest mayhap, which God forbid, you perish together with those little ones when I am dead, and there is no strong man of our race to defend you| (vii.8, cf. Michelet, Hist. de France, i.231, |Ce bon homme semble chargé de la partie comique dans le drame terrible de l'histoire mérovingienne|).

On the other hand, mere abstinence from wanton wrong-doing and aggression must be counted for a virtue in his family and age. For the crowning evil of the time, the incessant civil wars which devastated France, he was in no way responsible. Though frequently in combat, it was always to repel the aggression of others, except in his Gothic wars, which he probably regarded as crusades against heretics. The profuse almsgiving which he practised (e.g. vii.40) shewed a real, if mistaken, desire for the good of his subjects.

But it was his warm friendship to the church and clergy which procured him the rank of a saint. St. Benignus of Dijon, St. Symphorian of Autun, and St. Marcellus of Châlon-sur-Saône were founded or enriched by him, and in the last he established and provided for perpetual psalmody after the model of St. Sigismund's foundation at St. Maurice (Fredegar. Chron. xv.; Aimoin, Hist. Franc. iii.81, Patr. Lat. cxxxix.751). Bishops were his constant advisers, and his favourite solution of all complications was an episcopal council (Greg. Tur. v.28; vii.16; viii.13, 20, 27). He commended himself to them also by his respect for church ceremonies and his frequent and regular attendance at religious services, and especially by his freedom and condescension in eating, drinking, and conversing with them (vii.29; viii.1-7, 9, 10; ix.3, 20, 21; x.28). Gregory says, |You would have thought him a priest as well as a king| (ix.21). |With priests he was like a priest,| says Fredegarius (Chron. i.), and |he shewed himself humble to the priests of Christ,| says Aimoin (u.s.). Chilperic once intercepted the letter of a bishop, in which it was written that the transition from Guntram's sway to his was like passing from paradise to hell (Greg. Tur. vi.22). In estimating Guntram's character, therefore, we must always remember that our information comes from this favoured class. Especially does this apply to Gregory of Tours, who was on very friendly terms with him (viii.2-7, 13; ix.20, 21), and who ascribes miracles to his sanctity during his lifetime (ix.21; cf. too Paulus Diaconus, de Gest. Langob. iii.33, Migne, Patr. Lat. xcv.535, and Aimoin. iii.3, Patr. Lat. cxxxix.693). There is extant an edict of Guntram addressed to the bishops and judges commanding the observance of the Sabbath and holy days, in conformity with the canon of the 2nd council of Mâcon. It is dated Nov.10, 585, and is in Mansi, ix.962, and Boll. Acta SS. Mar. iii.720; cf. Hist. lit. de la France, iii.369 seq.).


<<  Contents  >>

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy