GENERAL PREFACE
The same land at the same time brought forth two shining stars of the Greek Church, Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil the Great. Both were born of most holy parents, both were themselves distinguished for their holiness, both were most excellent in their abundance of eloquence, and both, finally, with equal zeal adorned the whole Church as widely as it extends, illustrating it with their writings and adorning it with their morals.
It is now many years since the excellent writings of Basil were brought to light, corrected, and restored to their original integrity. There was hope that Gregory of Nazianzus would follow at a short interval. This was desired; and certainly it was permissible to hope for the same from those who had bestowed such excellent labor upon correcting the writings of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, according to the faith of ancient manuscripts. For when our men had first applied their minds to that task, and had seen that the new editions of the monuments of the ancients, as they issued daily from the press, were pleasing to all good men, they believed that the task was entrusted to them of bringing to light the greatest Fathers of either Church, namely the Greek and the Latin. They applied themselves vigorously to a work so arduous. All know with what success. Four distinguished Latin Fathers appeared: Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, and Gregory; three also from the Greeks: Athanasius, Basil, and Chrysostom. One was still expected; one was missed by all: this final task was demanded. They wondered what delays were holding back Gregory for so long. There is no need to run through the causes which delayed Gregory for such a long time. Various events, and death itself, were an obstacle. Dom Fr. Louvard had undertaken this work, a man of sharp and vehement talent and "as it were fire"; he had already collected many things, and he himself had described, and had taken care to have described, countless readings from various manuscript codices; but he was tossed by so many storms that he was forced to desist from his undertaking. Then his papers, and whatever he had prepared, came into the hands of a friend, than whom there was no one among our number more suitable for completing that work. I mean our own Prudentius Maran, who had attained the greatest praise in laboring on the edition of Basil’s letters and other excellent works: who knew Greek and Latin with clarity; who had spent his whole life in handling, with daily and nightly hand, the writings of the holy Fathers, especially the Greeks. But alas! while he delayed too long in applying his hand to the work, and was occupied daily with other writings to be worked upon, he was seized by death and left this task unfinished. Whosoever shall have undertaken so difficult a work as this, once begun, will surely seem more audacious. Nor is there any doubt that he might be called rash, and in his own comparison excite longing for the deceased. Nevertheless, if anyone should brand us with the mark of temerity, a just excuse can exist for us. For as much as was permitted, we refused to take up a burden so unequal to our strength; but at the insistence of those who brought forward our own insufficiency as the cause, this province was imposed upon us, whose commands it would have been a sin to refuse. Therefore, we yielded to those who ordered it: once our hand was applied to the work, we spared neither cares nor labors to fulfill their orders. No one does not understand how much labor and work had to be expended in correcting the old edition, at least in many places, in choosing various readings, in translating the greater part of the poems, in arranging the letters in chronological order, in preparing the Life of St. Gregory, in expounding his doctrine, and in resolving various difficulties, along with many other things which an accurate edition demands.
PART ONE
§ I. ON THE VARIOUS EDITIONS OF THE WORKS OF ST. GREGORY.
First, indeed, the labors of those learned men who endeavored to bring the works of Gregory to light must be commemorated. Some [published] more, others fewer: some in Greek, others only in Latin, others
both in Greek and Latin; others just certain orations, or some part of his poems or epistles. For the works of this holy doctor, scattered here and there, could not be brought forth all at once, but only in pieces, as they came into the hands and knowledge of scholars. Each deserves their own praise; for although they left the work we are undertaking imperfect, they nevertheless showed us the way by going before us, and contributed not a little towards its completion.
Greek Editions
I. To speak first of the Greek editions, as order seems to demand, the first that presents itself is that which contains "The most choice XVI orations of Gregory of Nazianzus in Greek, from the edition of M. Musurus: Venice, in the house of Aldus, 1516, in-8°." Some epistles of Gregory, together with the epistles of Basil, were first printed at Hagenau in 1528 in-8°, then at Venice in 1532 under the care of Obsopaeus, in-folio. The IX most elegant orations of Gregory of Nazianzus the Theologian appeared in 1536 in the house of the heirs of Aldus, in-8°. These same orations were sent to the press by Wechel in Paris in 1544. Shortly after, a far more complete edition of the Works of Gregory was published; which comprised not only the orations—if not all, then at least the greater part of them—but also LXXX epistles, and a great many poems. In the year of Christ 1550, that Greek edition appeared at Basel at the expense of Joannes Hervagius; this was very closely followed, in that same year, by a Latin interpretation of the same works, prepared by various authors. A copy of this Greek edition, with notes written in the margins of the book, exists in the Royal Library. In this edition, the tragedy *Christus Patiens* is listed among the Works of Gregory, which had already appeared twice in Greek in print: at Rome in 1542, in-8°, by Antonius Bladus Asulanus; and at Louvain in 1544, by Rutgerus Rescius: Fabricius makes no mention of either of these editions of the tragedy. In the same year, the edition of Bladus was reprinted in Paris in the workshop of Christian Wechel. Maxims and rules of life collected from the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus, in Greek; also some of his iambics, in Greek, were brought to light at Antwerp by Plantin in 1568, in-8°, by the labor of Joannes Sambucus. Nor should the *Select Poems* edited by Hieronymus Brunellus, S.J., be omitted, together with the hymns of Georgius Pisida, Synesius, and Clement of Alexandria: Rome, 1590, in-8°. Also to be added are certain poems by David Hoeschel, Leiden, 1591, in-8°, from the Plantin press, with a Greek paraphrase, which Hoeschel judges to be the work of Nicetas. Finally, the two invectives of Gregory against the Emperor Julian, in Greek, with Greek scholia; his oration against the Martyrs and against the Arians; ten new epistles; the testament of Gregory: all were edited from the Library of Henry Savile at Eton, in-4°, in 1610, under the care and study of R. Montagu, printed by Joannes Norton.
Latin Editions
The poems of Gregory of Nazianzus, most useful for living well and happily, in Latin, from the edition of Aldus Manutius the Roman and Petrus Candidus the monk. Venice, Aldus Manutius, in-4°, 1504. In 1508, ten orations of Gregory, of the number which are said to have been rendered into Latin by Rufinus, were published at Strasbourg with his own Preface to Apronianus, by Joannes Knobauch. These are the orations, formerly I, XII, XV, XVII, XXVIII, XXXIII, XXXVIII, XXXIX, XLIV, L. In the same year, Oecolampadius published at Augsburg seven other orations, rendered into Latin by himself. In 1522, another edition of certain orations of Gregory appeared at Leipzig in-8°: but that does not differ from the Strasbourg one. In 1531, Bilibaldus Pirkheimer, who three years earlier had brought to light the *Apologeticus* of Gregory rendered into Latin, placed thirty-eight orations, which he had translated into Latin, under the press at Basel. They had not yet come out when death took away the translator; whose "death," says Erasmus, "is not to be deplored, but rather the public loss to studies is to be lamented." For Pirkheimer, had not sudden death intervened, would have been "an excellent herald of Christian philosophy—
Gregory Nazianzen, whom he would have given to us speaking Latin in such a way that no one would have missed the sounds of the Greek tongue." Joannes Straub, Bilibald's son-in-law, took care to publish the orations translated by his father-in-law at Basel from the Froben press in the year 1531. A very elegant letter of Erasmus, in which he pursues the praises of the translator, is prefixed to this edition, which includes many other works of Gregory. A
In the following year, Claudius Chevallon published at Paris 37 orations, treatises, sermons, and several books of Gregory Nazianzen, surnamed the Theologian, in Latin, with Bilibald Pirkheimer, Rufinus the priest, and Petrus Mosellanus as translators, from the edition of Joannes Straub and Desiderius Erasmus. Fabricius does not appear to recall this Paris edition of the year 1532.
Another edition in the year 1550, Volfgang Musculus caused to be prepared at Basel, at the shop of Joannes Hervagius, prefixed with a dedicatory letter to the prefects and consuls of the Republic of Augsburg, which exhibits in Latin whatever the edition of the same year by the same Hervagius comprises in Greek; namely, 38 orations rendered into Latin by Pirkheimer, five orations on Theology by Petrus Mosellanus, and four by Musculus himself, namely I, XLI, XLV, and XLVII; finally the tragedy, *Christus Patiens*, from the version of Sebastian Guldebeccius of Zurich, and other poems with the translation of Aldus Manutius.
In the year 1550, Vascosanus published at Paris, in quarto, the oration on loving the poor and embracing kindness, along with two of Gregory of Nyssen’s orations on the same subject, translated by Petrus Franciscus Zinus.
In the year 1569, the first edition of the works of Gregory appeared at Paris by Claudius Fremy, adorned by Jacobus Billius Prunaeus, abbot of Saint-Michel-en-l'Erm. For an edition is one thing, and a translation is another. Billius himself sensed this, and entitled his book: *Gregorii Opera nova translatione donata*, etc., with commentaries by Nicetas Serronius, etc. There was more than one printing of this new translation. Even in the following year it was produced at Cologne, and it was reprinted several times thereafter. We shall soon say more about this version, which far surpasses the others.
At the time when Billius was laboring at translating the works of Gregory into Latin, Leuvenklaius, at the urging of friends, had undertaken the same task; and when he became aware of Billius's work, he was thinking of taking his hand from the tablet. But after the latter was published, he changed his mind when he perceived how many things he had collected that were previously unseen, which Billius had lacked; especially because he had obtained the commentaries of Elias of Crete, Archbishop of Crete, on Nazianzen, with which as guides he saw he could make great use of for the purpose of eliciting the meanings of Nazianzen, which were abstruse in most places. B Furthermore, he celebrates the excellent copies of Nazianzen's writings which he used, among which he singles out two for the highest praise; one written by the hand of Choniates Acuminatus; the other much older, excelling in the elegance of its letters and the integrity of the writing; it was drafted with such diligence that not a single word is found written incorrectly in it. This codex was brought to Basel, where it is still preserved with great veneration, at the time of the Council of Basel, and displays very many pictures, and among these an elegant image of Gregory. Leuvenklaius asserts that with the help of these copies he corrected very many corruptions, and restored mutilated passages to integrity. That edition appeared at Basel in the year 1571 from the Hervagius shop, and was elaborated with such long vigils and such great care that on the first page of the book he did not hesitate to write: "As the reader will understand from the preface, no more complete work can be expected hereafter." Whether the German translator indulges himself more than is fair will be declared by what is to be said.
Leuvenklaius divides the edition into three volumes in all: the first of which contains 20 orations with the commentaries of Elias, and owes everything to his own industry, for he translated them from the Greek into the Latin tongue. The second comprises the remaining 32 orations, with the letters and poems published up to that time; which indeed he took from the Billian edition. To this volume he prefixed a short preface honorable to Billius, and addresses him with these words: "Therefore I assure myself that you, a wise and learned man, will interpret our plan in the best part. For envy ought to be absent, as much from all kinds of men as especially from the literate; for whom it is proper that nothing be more precious than that they themselves should strive with all their might for the benefit of the republic," etc. His hope deceived Leuvenklaius: for he was treated badly by Billius, and by the editors of the Billian interpretation of the year 1583 at Paris, who in both the preface and the notes, in which they for the most part used harsher words, repelled and rebuked him. In the third and last volume, "which is entirely," says Leuvenklaius,
"also our own," he refers to those poems of Gregory which had not hitherto been brought to light. Furthermore, he added Nicetas’s commentary on Gregory’s maxims, which are included both in quatrains and individual verses, and the excellent book by Psellus the Christian philosopher on the understanding of difficult passages in Nazianzen; finally, the dialogues which he does not even suspect were falsely attributed to Caesarius. A Julius Gabrielis Eugubinus published three orations of Gregory, namely 1) The Apologeticus, 2) On Love for the Poor, 3) On the Nativity of our Saviour, rendered into Latin in the year 1573 at Antwerp, by the Plantin press, in octavo; he also illustrated these with scholia, or commentaries. He further added emendations, drawn from many very ancient and highly approved copies, to all the Greek works of Gregory which are contained in the Basel edition of the year 1550. A dedicatory epistle to Cardinal Antonio Carafa is prefixed. B The Billian version [was published] again in Paris by Nivelle and Nicolas Chesneau in the year 1583, from the second revision of Billius, who died while working on it; but it was reissued, augmented and more corrected, by the care and study of Genebrard, who dedicated it to Pope Gregory XIII. It is divided into two volumes on account of the new addition of many books. For indeed, the commentaries of Nicetas Serronius, Psellus, and Elias of Crete were added, along with more than one hundred and fifty letters, both Greek and Latin. C In the year 1753, at Venice, at the expense of Antonio Zatta, all the Works of Gregory Nazianzen appeared in Latin, from the same version and with the same commentaries and scholia; to which were added—in Latin only—the works which had already been edited in both languages by Jacobus Tollius and Muratori, as we shall say hereafter.
Greco-Latin Editions
First occur the poems of Gregory Nazianzen, most useful for living well and happily, translated word-for-word from Greek into Latin by Aldus Manutius the Roman, and printed at his press in Greek and Latin, at Venice, in the year 1504, in quarto. Aldus is to be praised, who was the first to attempt to translate some portion of Gregory’s poems; for although he bestowed them in a coarse and inelegant garment, he nevertheless bestowed them, and opened the way for others.
Certain of Gregory’s holy poems, with the interpretation by Johannes Langus of Silesia, and some Christian poems by the same Langus: Basel, 1561, in octavo, by Johannes Oporinus. The interpreter rendered the Greek verses into Latin verses, which are not inelegant, in the same number.
In the year 1568, Henri Estienne published, together with the hymns of Synesius, some odes of Gregory Nazianzen in Greek and Latin, from the version and with the notes of Franciscus Portus: Paris, in-24 (a). D In the same place, in the year 1570, Jean Benenato published the odes of Gregory Nazianzen in Greek, with a Latin version, in octavo (b). In the same place, some odes of Gregory Nazianzen in Greek and Latin, from the version and with the notes of Franciscus Portus, at the press of Claude Morell, 1618, in-24 (c).
Certain short works, then first brought to light, and others likewise rendered into verse, and for the most part illustrated with the commentaries of Cyrus, Bishop of Dadybra, with a previous epistle to Cardinal Sirleto, translated by Jacobus Billius, in octavo, 1575, Paris, at the press of Jean Benenato.
In the year 1582, at Leipzig, there appeared from the press of Johannes Steiman, in octavo (d), Gregory Nazianzen’s oration On Pentecost, in Greek and Latin, from the edition and with the scholia of Matthias Dresser.
In the year 1591, St. Gregory Nazianzen’s simple definitions of things, by an uncertain author, and the definitions of Maximus the Monk, in Greek and Latin from the version of Johannes Leuvenklaius, from the edition and with the notes of David Hoeschel: Heidelberg, from the Santandreana press, in octavo (e).
In the year 1596, Nonnus of Panopolis... and St. Gregory Nazianzen’s tetrastichs, distichs, and monastic poems with a Latin version alongside, from the interpretation of Erhardus Hedeneccius: Basel, at the Lecythum Valdkirchianum, in octavo (f).
A
Anno 1608, *Threnodia* of Gregory of Nazianzus, or an elegiac poem concerning the affections and miseries of his soul, in Greek and Latin: Ingolstadt, Adam Saturius, 1608, in octavo.
Anno 1619, *Epistles of Gregory of Nazianzus*: Ingolstadt. This is a very elegant edition of the Epistles.
Anno 1658, a book appeared entitled *Εὐπόρευμα εὐσεβείας* [A Means to Piety], exhibiting various collections from the Greek Fathers, and among them "Certain poems of Gregory of Nazianzus..." All in Greek with Latin interpretation, and from the edition of Johann Caspar Suicer: Zurich, Johann Jakob Bodmer, in duodecimo (a).
Anno 1696, *Unpublished Swan-Songs of the Theologian Gregory of Nazianzus*. These are contained in a book entitled: *Jacobi Tollii insignia itineris Italici* [The Marks of Jacob Tollius' Italian Journey]: Utrecht, 1696, in quarto.
Anno 1709, poems or epigrams, 226 in number, of St. Gregory of Nazianzus: Padua, in quarto. Among the *Anecdota Graeca*, which Antonio Muratori, librarian to the Duke of Modena, made public.
Anno 1716, a collection of many poems of St. Gregory of Nazianzus translated into Latin, by the author Dionysius Gaullyer: Paris, in duodecimo.
Editions in the Vernacular tongue
*Quatrains sententieux de S. Grégoire de Nazianze* [Sententious Quatrains of St. Gregory of Nazianzus], with a brief exposition, turned into French verse by Jacques de Billy: Paris, Guillaume Chaudière, 1576, in octavo.
1693. *All the Orations were translated into the French idiom by Nicolas Fontaine*, as noted in the *Catalogue of the Royal Library*. Paris, 2 volumes in octavo, at the house of Joannes Pralard.
1735. *Dual orations against Julian the Apostate*, rendered into French by himself, were arranged for publication with notes by an ecclesiastic of Grenoble: Lyon, in duodecimo, at the house of Duplain.
1747. *Oration I, or the Apologeticus*, in French with notes: Paris, at the house of Louis Lottin, in duodecimo.
Concerning the Paris Greco-Latin edition of 1630
B Now let us come to the Greco-Latin edition, which comprises the Greek text of Gregory and the Latin interpretation of Billius. This edition is not unique. It appeared first in the year 1609, then in the year 1630, at Paris, finally at Cologne, or rather Leipzig; which edition differs from the others only in this, that it abounds in more errors. Frederick Morel magnificently commends it, "as having been diligently collated by the never-sufficiently-praised Billius with the Royal manuscripts, and with the Medicean manuscripts of the Queen Mother, and also those which the most illustrious Cardinal Sirleto had sent from Italy, and finally with a codex which the most distinguished man Paul Petau, a most upright senator of the supreme court, had freely lent; in the margins of which book Billius had noted with painstaking care variants of the readings, conjectures, and emendations," etc. He proclaims these and other wonderful things. Yet, those who consider the matter more closely refuse to have confidence in it. Indeed, regarding the praises so lavishly granted to the edition by the Parisian printers, it was objected by Montagu that "they had accomplished anything but what they had promised (b)," and he mocks and rejects the excellent eulogy, continuing thus: "They perhaps had, and certainly could have had, the books of the Royal collection, the Queen’s, Petau’s, Sirleto’s, etc., but, like that lantern of Epictetus, they were for display, not for use; since they disfigured Gregory more than he had been in the first edition."
What then of the Parisians, and perhaps of Morel himself? Let us hear from them: "Nor will it be troublesome or unpleasant for you, (O reader C φιλαλήθης [lover of truth])," they say in the brief preface, "if we admonish you in a few words about our proposed plan and the goal of our undoubtedly determined purpose in publishing the works of St. Gregory of Nazianzus in Greek and Latin. Thus, therefore, know this: we had in mind to approach a bilingual edition of the works of this most holy and eloquent prelate from the Basel codex of the year 1550 from the house of Hervagius, which the most famous James Billius, a man most skilled in both languages, had accurately collated with the Royal Gallic codices and with the Italian ones... But since his emendations and conjectures did not everywhere agree with his own Latin interpretation, and many things had been deleted by him in the text, which the same man had judged should be restored upon second, better thoughts, and conversely he had removed those things in the Latin interpretation which had been left in the Greek; the overseer of the corrections did not wish to assume so much for himself, so that concerning so great D [a] Cat. Lib. Reg. tom. I, n. 271. [b] Greg. Naz., in Jul. invect. duæ.
eek; the overseer of the corrections did not wish to assume so much for himself, so that concerning so great A a man’s work and judgment he might venture an opinion; but he preferred to express what was handed down to him on this subject, and then to represent in notes and commentaries the various readings collected, and to indicate in ambiguous places those which were more in agreement with the discourse of the interpreters, or which were in accord with the author’s meaning.
But what was that “handed down” material which the individual in charge of the correction preferred to express in good faith? If that “handed down” material was the codex emended by Billius, properly collated and rendered most castigated, why were the readings of Billius rejected to the margins? One would assume the man, as is usual and as is entirely necessary for this work, had in his hands some autograph of Billius; if not most castigated, at least one from which a diligent and sharp typesetter could extricate himself in some way. But Genebrardus never affirms either. Therefore, if that “handed down” material is nothing but the Hervagius Basel edition, which is as everyone knows so confused and disordered by the one hand of Billius, with so many erasures, “that he never expressed explicitly which wording and phrasing he preferred over the other,” a fact which Morellus himself admits and even writes: why were the readings or conjectures of Billius inserted here and there and substituted; since, by Morellus’s own admission, he never, not even obscurely or in any way at all, expressed what he approved and what he rejected? Finally, what Hercules [could adequately] cleanse this “more than Augean stable?” And yet, to this work is appointed an “overseer of typographic corrections,” who perhaps could scarcely read Greek, as is usually the case.
Nevertheless, the Parisian editors seem worthy of pardon. “For what are you to do here,” to use the words of Morellus, “where [Billius] never explicitly expressed which wording and phrasing he preferred over the other? Where,” as they say in the other preface, “the emendations and conjectures were not everywhere in agreement with the Latin interpretation: where many things were deleted in the text which the same Billius had judged should be put back; and on the contrary he had removed in the Latin interpretation what had been left in the Greek:” in a word, where neither the Latin agreed with the Greek, nor the Greek with the Latin. What are you to do, I say, unless you produce not the Basel version, which was for the most part deleted or disturbed, nor the Billian version, which is thoroughly doubtful and uncertain, but rather some jumbled, shapeless, and ambiguous work?
Behold now, not the “purpose,” not the “counsel and destination,” but the work of the Parisian editors. This is their work, by their own admission. Thus, one cannot but marvel at how the name of the most learned Billius, falsely inscribed on the Greek, has led the learned and unlearned alike into error, so that they persuaded themselves that the Greek in this edition was better than in the Basel one. Hence Gregory lies neglected and uncultivated under the shadow of the false name of Billius, because it is rashly proclaimed that he was collated with manuscripts and emended by Billius with the greatest care.
B C D * * * * *
*De correctione seu codice Billii.* [On the correction or codex of Billius.]
We have in our hands the famous volume of Billius, of which Genebrardus, Morellus, and others speak so wonderfully. This codex came first to Chatardus, to whom Billius had bequeathed his library, then to Genebrardus, and afterwards into the hands of Petavius. From Petavius, a Parisian senator, it passed to the Richerii—one a doctor of the Sorbonne, the other his brother’s son—and finally to the booksellers. A famous man, a lover of books and letters, the Canon and promoter of the Senonensian metropolis, having heard that our Louvardus was thinking about a new edition of the works of Gregory, bought this book and immediately and voluntarily offered it to him, and even sent it with great generosity.
The book was published at Basel by Hervagius in the year 1550. “In the margin,” not only, as Morellus advised, but much more frequently between the lines; “not only emendations, conjectures, and readings,” but even glosses, synonyms, and other things of that kind, Billius noted with his own hand. But these are generally inserted between the lines so poorly written, and ascribed with such confusion, that you cannot clearly, nor obscurely, nor by any means at all discern—I will not say which is a spurious and which a genuine reading—but you cannot even by guessing discover whether that reading was extracted from manuscripts, and from which ones, or whether it is a gloss, or a conjecture, or an emendation. I believe, indeed, that not even Billius himself, if he were alive again, could explain what he then meant. They are strictly raw working notes, into which writers, being engaged in other things, hurriedly and hastily unburden their minds on the spur of the moment, without sequence, without order, without distinction, so that if they do not arrange them quickly or the next day, they themselves do not understand afterwards what they intended.
Billius at first, with great exertion, and then with a second effort with the utmost carefulness, attended to his translation...
and to this end he indiscriminately amassed in his edition readings, scholia, glosses, conjectures, and emendations. But as for publishing the Greek, whether he despaired entirely, as Genebrardus suggests, or, what is more true, never seriously thought about it, he certainly invested neither effort nor any care in these matters; indeed, he left them so disturbed that the editors themselves were unable to recognize what should be rejected or retained, nor can anyone understand them. It was never his stated intention to publish the Greek works of Gregory: and certainly, if he had thought about it seriously, if he had applied his hand to the work, if he had promoted it in any way, why did he not leave the Greek of the Nazianzen in at least the same state in which he left the letters of Isidore of Pelusium, which Chatardus had printed in Greek and Latin three years after his death? Indeed, in what state did he leave the one hundred and twenty-seven letters of the same Gregory, which were published in Greek and Latin in the very year he died? Why did Chatardus, who in the eulogy of James Billius and in his letter to his brother Godefridus Billius had promised us, from the unpublished works of Billius deposited with him, certain "books" as though they were "posthumous," grudge us this one, his eldest offspring, dearer to his parent, and deservedly more outstanding? For indeed this was the first fetus conceived by Billius, and he had scarcely passed the rudiments of the Greek language, when “ (a) the desire took hold of him to grace this (Gregory) with Latinity and to purge him of the countless errors and difficulties with which he was teeming. The whole man (Billius) was occupied in that Gregorian work, which he not unjustly calls his treadmill, in which he had to grind for a long time.” Chatardus adds below: “He (Billius) himself desired fervently, while he was alive, that the Greek context of those holy Fathers whom he translated, having been reviewed by him and freed from countless errors, should be reissued, especially that of St. Gregory of Nazianzus... in the correcting, converting, and illustrating of which he spent much time and exertion... But he could never obtain this from the booksellers, who have a plain abhorrence for publishing Greek and Hebrew.”
That Billius desired this intensely, even from the first rudiments of his Greek studies, I do not doubt: he was equal to the work, and, though the material was confused, he would have successfully completed his undertaking had any hope of publication then shone forth. But since none appeared, he spent as much effort on the Greek as he judged would conduce to his own interpretation. This was Billius's work regarding the Greek of Gregory: this one labor, “in which he was wholly occupied,” and to which he even died. But when Chatardus says in the eulogy of Billius: “He sends to be printed all the Works of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, purged and made much fuller, having sought out from everywhere ancient Greek exemplars, and many having been sent to him...,” etc.: from these words we learn what was “purged” by Billius, and for what purpose the Greek exemplars were “sought out” and sent; namely, for the “correcting, reviewing, and purging” of a few Greek texts, and for the perfecting of his own Latin interpretation and edition of Gregory, which Billius left at his death in the year 1582, having polished it with his final hand, and which came from the press the following year: but beyond that, he spent no further effort on the Greek orations, poems, and letters.
If the Greek context was “collated, reviewed, purged, and made most correct” by Billius, as Genebrardus and Chatardus relate; why, pray, did the learned men who were most closely associated with Billius not take care for this “most correct” work to be handed over to the printers in preference to others? Were they unable to obtain this from the booksellers, who, with the studies of Greek and Hebrew literature heating up a little later, published many works of the Nazianzen himself, and then the entire volume of Isidore, entirely in Greek and Latin? Indeed, not very long after, all the works of Gregory of Nazianzus himself and of many other good men were edited in the most elegant type in Greek and Latin. I will add this one thing: that “purged and most correct” text which Chatardus and Genebrardus saw is the very same one that is exhibited by the exemplar bought by D. Baron, canon of the metropolis of Sens, and sent to D. Franciscus Louvard; which, having been opportunely preserved, did not perish. From this we learn for certain that the Billian correction exists nowhere, and never existed, and thus the Parisian edition is to be held in no greater honor than the Basle edition, concerning which Billius says: “The Hervagian codex, which was the only one available, was teeming with so many and such foul errors that, to purge this Augean stable, more than one Hercules was needed. No oration, almost no page, was free from the most serious errors. Ὁλοσώματος, so to speak, was this plague.” Chatardus also writes these things about Billius to his brother, the abbot of Laon, whom he calls Billius's Isidore. “For he was ashamed that Greece... should have such a learned, such an eloquent, and such a fluent author and orator as his own, so mutilated and mangled, and with so many wounds.”
Since these things are true, and can be retorted upon the Parisian edition, as is evident from what has been said, it should therefore also be clear that a new edition of the works of Gregory of Nazianzus is necessary; especially since there is no edition that contains all his works, and none that does not teem with countless errors. Therefore, our people have set out to prepare a new edition of the works of Gregory. The first to apply his hand to the work was D. Jacobus Frischius; upon his death shortly thereafter, D. Franciscus Louvard succeeded to the work; but he was tossed by so many storms that he was forced to leave the matter unfinished. Then D. Prudentius Maran took up those parts, but death, striking from out of the blue, carried off the learned man before he could advance the work, much less complete it. Finally, we, although unequal to so great a burden, have entered into their labors, unwilling but commanded. What each contributed to this edition must now be set forth.
II. WHAT OUR PEOPLE HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE PREPARATION OF THIS EDITION OF THE WORKS OF GREGORY IS SET FORTH.
He who had first entered upon this task, Jacobus Frischius, was immediately removed by death; he left behind only a few variant readings.
D. Franciscus Louvard, who succeeded to the work, labored long and hard, and spared no effort. Following the impulse of an ardent spirit, he sought from every quarter whatever could aid his proposed task. The result was that he amassed an immense store of things necessary for an edition of Gregory. He compared almost every edition, whether Greek, Latin, or Greco-Latin; regarding them, he declares that the works of Gregory had been accurately edited by himself, "if you except a very few things." He lists all of these in a long sequence, the Basle, the Billian, etc., together with the readings that are relegated to the ends of the editions: and even if he knew of any readings or notes written by learned men in the margins of books, he searched them out with such diligence that he finally found them. The most famous volume of the Basle edition, in which the readings and emendations that were written in the margins and between the lines by the hand of Billius are contained, was offered of his own accord and kindly, as has already been said, by that most distinguished man D. Baron. Another copy of the same edition, "with emendations and annotations written by the hand of a learned man," he received from D. Naulin, a man learned in other respects, and especially distinguished in the study of the Scriptures, an advocate in the Parisian court. That copy of the Hervagian edition is inscribed in the catalogue of the Heinsian Library published at Leiden in 1682, p. 7, n. 129. The readings and emendations are elegantly written, but they smack of an Englishman, a disciple of Calvin, if I am not mistaken. He took care to have certain emendations, which the most learned de Barcos, Abbot of Sancygiran, once added to the margin of the 1630 Parisian edition, transcribed and sent to him, and likewise to have the emendations and notes written by the most learned Tillemont in the margin of the Parisian edition, and offered by Monsieur Tronchai, transcribed.
Finally, our own Louvard himself transcribed those most copious readings which a most learned man, one well-deserving of Greek letters, R. P. Combefis, a Dominican, had collected from the Royal, Colbertine, and Mazarin manuscripts and recorded with his own hand in the margins of the 1630 Greco-Latin Parisian edition: to which, furthermore, R. P. le Quien, a man most distinguished in doctrine, erudition, and writings, of the Dominican family, at Paris at the Rue Saint-Honoré, an ornament of his own order, kindly handed over the emendations and censorial notes on all of Billius’s interpretation of Gregory’s works, prepared by the same Father Combefis; and indeed with so much the more kindness, because he himself had almost decided to publish Gregory, because of the singular affinity of the theologian with Damascene, an edition of whom he was preparing at that time.
Now, the first concern of our Louvard was to scour the shelves of libraries, and to transcribe whatever was to his purpose. He found such a quantity of manuscripts written by the hands of scribes that he admitted more effort was spent in choosing among them than in finding them, and from these he collected an immense quantity of various readings, whether by his own hand or another’s.
Having compared all these, he prepared with the greatest diligence and speed the prefaces, the life of the author, the admonitions to be prefixed to the individual orations, and whatever finally is accustomed to and indeed ought to accompany an accurate edition, and he had progressed to such a point that he had placed the crowning touch upon the work, had he not been troubled by continual annoyances and obstacles. Finally forced to desist from the undertaking, the edition of Gregory's works was interrupted, and the great work...
threats, I say, indeed great—remained. For besides the works of Gregory, he had resolved to publish, or rather to prefix, to his works: the commentaries of Elias on nineteen orations (and those the most notable and theological); likewise the commentaries of Nicetas on sixteen other orations; the scholia of Basil, who was the most excellent scholiast of the Cæsarean Church in the middle of the tenth century, on more than forty-two orations; and finally, together with the works of Gregory, more than seven other writers whose names are not even known. Most of these were prepared, and indeed were further along for the press than the works of Gregory themselves.
The work, long interrupted, at length reached the hands of our Prudentius, a man most famous for his learning and for labors spent on the utility of the Church—namely, the editing of the writings of the holy Fathers. Certainly, no one among us was more suitable for organizing the edition of Gregory and for bringing this launched work to completion. Truly, though he set his hand to the work begun, he did so late, nor did he hasten much. We found a certain selection of variant readings written by his own hand (the flower of which he had tasted), and very many poems which Billius had translated in strict meter, rendered by him in prose.
Much work and labor remained to be expended to complete the edition of Gregory's works. To be sure, hand-written codices of the orations, letters, and poems had been collated; but the variant readings were still scattered, described only on papers, and not yet inscribed in the margins of a copy for publication. Just as before a house is built, the necessary things for building—materials, lime, mortar, wood, and whatever is necessary for the builder—are prepared, so were the things necessary for the edition of Gregory, though they were prepared, they were not yet handled and worked out. The variant readings were ready for healing the corrupted places of the Greek text, but they had not yet been applied; thus, the text remained to be corrected, and also Billius’s translation needed correcting. The life of Gregory needed to be organized; for this work, the French fragments of Tillemont’s commentaries, which do not at all cover all the years of his life, were primarily available. The notes or observations, and many other things which are required for an edition, were not yet worked out; we have endeavored to provide all these things according to our strength.
Our first concern was to compare the variant readings with the published Greek text of Gregory, to heal corrupted sites, so that the purity of the text might be restored and its splendor returned. As far as the interpretation is concerned, Billius, a man most skilled in both languages, rendered the works of Gregory into Latin with such happy success and his translation is held in such honor among all, that one would surely be accounted rash who attempted to adorn a new one. Nevertheless, our Louvardus, not at all deterred by that judgment regarding Billius’s translation, had thought that another one should be worked out for him, and in translating two orations, namely the first and the second (alt. 1st and 41st), he made a risk of the matter: but having changed his mind, he desisted from the beginning and decided to keep the Billian translation. The same was the decision of our Prudentius. Keeping to the tracks of both, we have kept it, as it were, intact in the region of the Greek context; and if ever Billius’s translation seemed to deviate from the mind of Gregory or not to attain it sufficiently, we have not hesitated to insert another into the text or to add it in the notes, warning the reader. This, however, is to be understood only regarding the orations and letters; for regarding the poems, the decision was different. Since, indeed, the Latin poems of Billius do not sufficiently correspond to the Greek poems of Gregory, it seemed best to render the Greek in prose, with the Latin verses of Billius relegated to the lower margin.
Before we proceed further, it must be set forth here in passing which are the hand-written codices, examined by D. Louvardus, which we have used.
§ III. CONCERNING THE ANCIENT CODICES, BY WHICH WE HAVE CORRECTED THE ORATIONS OF GREGORY.
We have employed many codices, and indeed of the most approved quality, for consultation. Among these, one is the Regius, formerly num. 1809, now however num. 510, most famous throughout the whole republic of letters, which alone among all the Gallican codices contains all the orations of Gregory. Concerning which Billius says: "I took," he says, "a very broad codex written in capital letters, bearing such antiquity that it seemed to have been written almost in the age of Gregory himself, which, besides letters and verses, contained all his works." When I had read it in a very few days with incredible speed,
and from it had restored to their original integrity countless passages which were read in a corrupted state in the printed editions, I immediately had it referred back to Athens (for by what other name could I call that incomparable treasury of all good learning?). From this we learn about Billius himself, how he hastened, and that he did not contemplate "restoring" the Greek texts to their integrity, except to the extent that it was sufficient for his own translation. It is neither disagreeable to us, nor perhaps ungrateful to the reader himself, to present to the eyes the form of that famous codex, the most ornate of all those preserved in the Royal Library, as described from the Royal Library's catalogue. It is a parchment codex, written most elegantly from beginning to end in oblong uncial letters slanting slightly to the left, with accents added by the original scribe. The pages are divided into two columns; the titles of the orations are inscribed on the parchment in gold; almost every major distinction or period begins with golden letters or painted figures. At the beginning, five images occupy individual pages: those of the first, third, and fourth have a blue parchment; those of the second and fifth, gold.
I. Christ sitting on a throne, holding a sealed book in his left hand. In the book, these words are read: Εἰρήνην τὴν ἐμὴν δίδωμι, that is, *My peace I give to you.* (John xiv, 27) The rest is erased.
II. Three figures standing with diadems and other imperial insignia. In the middle is Eudocia Augusta, holding a scepter in her right hand and a globe in her left. Nearby are two sons; on one side, Leo Despota; on the other, Alexander. Each carries a globe in his left hand. A certain blue border encompasses the image, in which these verses are written in white letters:
Εὐκληματοῦσαν ἄμπελόν σε τοῦ κράτους Βότρυς φέρουσαν τοὺς γαληνοὺς δεσπότας Βασίλειος πρόηξε Ῥομαίων ἄναξ Μεθ' ὧν προλάμπεις, Εὐδοκία φωσφόρος.
Felicem te palmitibus vitem imperii Racemos ferentem, serenos scilicet principes, Basilius promovit Romanorum imperator Cum quibus præfulges, Eudocia lucifera.
III and IV. Two golden, jeweled crosses with fringes hanging on both sides and this inscription: IC XC NIKA. "Jesus Christ conquers."
V. Three figures standing. In the middle is Basilius with imperial insignia. On the right, the prophet Elias, dressed in a garment of rose or bright color, holding a labarum raised in his hand and, as it were, extending it to Basilius. On the left is the archangel Gabriel, winged and in imperial attire, placing a diadem on the head of Basilius. An inscription, or tetrastich, encompasses the whole image; its first verse is erased, but the remaining three can still be read:
Νίκην κατ' ἐχθρῶν Ἠλίας ὑπογράφει· Ὁ Γαβριὴλ δὲ τὴν χαρὰν προμηνύων, Βασίλειε, στέφει σε κόσμου προστάτην.
Victoriam de hostibus Elias designat, Gabriel autem gaudium annuntians, O Basili, coronat te orbis rectorem.
From these figures it is apparent that this codex was written before the year 886, in which year the Emperor Basilius, surnamed the Macedonian, husband of Eudocia and father of Leo the Wise and Alexander, died.
Furthermore, in the same codex there are forty-one very large images; and formerly there were as many as there were orations. But of those, nine full ones are missing. Of those that remain, nine or ten pertain to ecclesiastical history, especially that of our Gregory. The order of the orations in this manuscript approaches very closely to the chronological order, especially at the beginning. For the first one is "On Easter and [Delay]," which is incorrectly numbered as the 41st in the printed editions.
Our Louvardus collated this codex with all the printed orations, which he designates with these letters: *b m*, because it was written and presented to Basilius the Macedonian.
It would be too long to go through every detail: it will suffice to construct the series of codices we have used, and which were collated by our Louvardus, noting them by the symbols with which they are designated.
Catalog of the manuscript codices which we have used in correcting the Works of Gregory.
REGII.
a. 1914... 512. Parchment, from the collection of Francis I in Paris. It appears to have been copied for the most part by an ancient hand at the beginning of the 11th century. b. 1916... 517. Formerly Medicean; it is thought to have been written at least 700 years ago; but the Oration on Pascha and on his Slowness, now number 1, is in a more recent hand. c. 2296... 550. A codex written in the 13th century in an elegant hand, adorned with gold letters at the beginning of the orations and with illustrations. It passed from the Petavian Library to the Royal Library. d. 2297... 542. From about the 10th century; it bears the name of Joan. Gaddi. e. 1915... 571. Formerly Medicean, of the 15th century. f. 2311... 541. A codex of the best quality, formerly Mazarin, written very elegantly at least 700 years ago. g. 1820... 1173. Formerly of the monastery of Crypta Ferrata, copied in the year 950; among many minor works of the holy Fathers, it contains seven of Gregory's orations. h. 2426... 858. Contains only two of Gregory's orations, mixed with the minor works of various authors: it appears to have been written in the 12th century. l. 2886... 984. Paper, 14th century. m. 1913... 573. Parchment. Contains Basilius' scholia on forty-five of Gregory's orations: copied, it is believed, in the 11th century. n. 2315... 570. Paper, 14th century. o. 2885... 996. Contains anonymous scholia on fourteen of Gregory's orations, 12th century. ph. 1917.2... 525. It appears to have been written in the 10th century, or certainly at the beginning of the 11th. A book of the very best quality, which corresponds almost everywhere with the most famous codex 510, formerly 1809; or is even more corrected than it. It is marred by very few scribal errors: it presents only seventeen orations. This codex was presented to Louis the Great in the year 1701 by the Archbishop of Philippopolis. q. 1917.1... 518. Parchment, from the collection of Francis I, towards the end of the 10th century. r. 1918... 516. Likewise from the collection of Francis I in Paris, 10th century. t. 2299... 554. Parchment, 13th century, containing seventeen orations, at the beginning of which are read poems explaining the theme: it agrees in almost all points with the printed editions. It bears the name and insignia of Henry IV. u. 2308... 524. Copied 500 years ago, of the best quality, and filled with the best readings. For this reason, designated sometimes by this note, "Cypr.", because Vanslebius bought this at Nicosia in Cyprus and brought it to the Royal Library in the year 1671. v. 2310... 540. Parchment, formerly Mazarin, 11th century. x. 2312... 553. Formerly Mazarin, having only nine orations, to which Nicetas' commentaries are added, 12th century. y. 1921... 526. Parchment, 11th century, brought from the East to the Royal Library in the year 1669. z. 2300... 556. Parchment, 11th century. Scholia have been added to certain orations. bm. 1800... 510. A most famous codex, of which we have spoken above. hu. 2302... 552. Parchment, 13th century, brought to the Royal Library from the library of Huraltius Boistalerius. Chrys... 543. Copied in the 12th century, and presented to Louis XV by Chrysanthus, Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Codices formerly Colbertine, then Royal.
(a-m: [index: entries preserved])
Other manuscript codices.
Or. 1. 74th among the mss. codices of the Oratory of the Lord Jesus on the Rue Saint-Honoré, Paris. Jes. 65th among the mss. of the college of Louis the Great, Rue Saint-Jacques.
Pass. Cod. mss. of His Eminence Cardinal Passionei. Vat. Cod. mss. from the Vatican Library. Coisl. Cod. mss. of M. de Coislin, now in the library of St. Germain-des-Prés.
Printed Codices. Ald. The edition of Aldus Manutius, year 1516. Bas. The readings of the Basilian Scholiast. Bil. Billius, the editions of Billius, and manuscript readings. Bod. The Bodleian codex in Montacutius. Comb. The readings of Combefis. El. Cret. Elias Cretensis. Gab. The readings of Gabriel. Heins. Readings of the Heinsian codex. Herv. The Basle edition of Hervagius, 1550. Leuv. The edition of Leuvenklaius. Mont. Montacutius. Ox. Readings of the Oxford codex in Montacutius. Par. The Paris edition of 1609 and subsequent ones. Sav. Savilius. Sancig. The emendations of Sancigyranus. Sch. The notes of Andreas Schottus in Montacutius. Syr. Readings of Syrletus in Billius. Th. Cod. mss. of M. Thomson in Montacutius. Till. The Reverend Fathers Tillemont. Tr. Cod. mss. of the Holy Trinity in Montacutius. Vag. The Vaquerius codex in the Paris notes.
These are the books of greater importance, both manuscript and printed, by whose assistance we have attempted to prepare a new edition of the Works of Gregory, and to continue and complete the work that was begun and long interrupted. We have examined many more manuscript codices, whose complete series it would have been tedious to weave together here; it seemed sufficient to designate the principal ones; the others we have mentioned collectively by a general designation in the notes, especially when they agreed upon the same reading. We have selected the best from among all the various readings, and have either inserted them into the text, so that we might remedy the corruptions—if the wound demanded that they be referred to the context, we placed a note in the margin to warn the reader of the emendation—or we have placed them in the lower margin. Sometimes there are longer notes, when a difficulty occurs that must be explained, or thorns that the reader would reluctantly bear if not removed. Prefixed to the front of the Orations, which are arranged in chronological order, are admonitions in which the time at which each was delivered is established, and the subject matter is set forth. They sometimes perhaps wander a bit further, but the gravity of the matter, or the difficulties which could not be contained or resolved within the narrow confines of the notes, did not allow them to be shorter. The Orations are divided into chapters or numbers and are arranged in the order of time. Their number, however, is diminished rather than increased; for we have removed four from their number and relegated them among the spurious works. We have also removed the two letters to Cledonius and the one to Nectarius from the class of Orations and have recalled them to their proper place among the Epistles.
Finally, I shall cease my preface, once I have commemorated the services of the learned men who have extended a friendly hand. First presents himself the man most illustrious in the Royal Academy of Coins, Inscriptions, and Belles-Lettres, and its secretary, M. Dupuy, a man most versed and expert in every kind of science and language, especially Greek; who, acting the role of censor not perfunctorily but diligently, as each sheet came from the press, was accustomed to read and weigh them without any delay; and, as that good and prudent man of whom Horace speaks, he used to blame what was harsh, note what needed changing, argue against ambiguous expressions, and advise how to add light to what was insufficiently clear, etc. How much we owe him it is hard to say, let alone return the thanks we owe. The most vigilant and learned curators of the Royal Library, M. Caperonier and M. Bejot, have most kindly thrown open this richest treasure according to their custom; and they have not only allowed us to use it, but have also kindly supplied by hand the manuscript codices I desired at my beck and call. I wish I could repay with worthy thanks all who have contributed assistance, especially the prefects of the libraries, not only French, but also foreign, for their services to us.
His Eminence Cardinal Passionei, who while he lived loved and fostered literature, and was himself most distinguished in literature, favored our studies, as witnessed by several letters written to our Francis
The Most Eminent Cardinal Passionei, who during his lifetime loved and fostered letters, being himself most adorned by them, favored these studies of ours; as is proven by many letters sent to our Francis Louvard and Prudent Maran, in which his propensity toward us and our studies, his evident humanity, and his love of letters—which he strove not only to cultivate but to adorn—were shown. He provided for many variant readings to be elegantly transcribed from various handwritten codices, not only of his own library but also of the Vatican’s, both of the orations and of the epistles, and even of the poems, and for them to be sent to us. He encouraged us to pursue the work strenuously, indicating that the Supreme Pontiff (who was Benedict XIV of happy memory) had a great desire for this edition, and that His Holiness frequently spoke with him about that work. The Librarian of the distinguished Abbey of Saint-Germain, one of our dearest colleagues, Dom Patert, liberally provided Dom Prudent Maran with various readings, sagaciously and most elegantly transcribed by hand from many handwritten codices, not only of Saint-Germain but also of the Royal, the Clairmont, and others. Another of our number, Dom Andreas Brion, most lovingly offered still others that he had transcribed himself. Nor shall I leave unmentioned my most beloved colleague Dom Daniel Labbat, who prepared the most copious indices with diligent and much labor, nor Dom Dionysius d'Olive, who willingly undertook the care of correcting typographical errors and pursued that work assiduously. Now may God grant that this labor of ours, however small, may redound to the uses of the Catholic Church, to whom I consecrate all that I have done, and to whom I submit all that I have written.
SECOND PART. GREGORIAN DEFENSE.
§ I. DEFENSE OF GREGORY AGAINST TOLLIUS.
Many, not only from among the heterodox—which is not surprising—but even from among Catholics, have shown themselves ill-disposed toward Gregory; indeed, they have dared to assail him with insults, calumnies, and even false charges, whose insolence I must break and whose taunts it is right to repel. However, I shall not linger to refute the calumnies and jibes of every individual against Gregory. Setting aside, therefore, Daillé, Le Clerc, Basnage, etc., it will suffice to castigate Tollius, who imitated them, and to wash away what he wrote falsely and shamelessly against Gregory. He was indeed well-versed in the writings of the Theologian, but most unjust toward the author, and he scattered so many things here and there—and such injurious things—against the holy man in the arguments and notes of certain poems which he himself published in the year 1690, that it would be a long task to bring them all forth; however, it is my intention to touch upon the principal ones and to show them to be false.
First, indeed, in the argument, or "occasion of the written" poem, which Gregory composed "concerning himself and against the bishops," and which Tollius was the first to publish in Greek, he thus mocks the poet with bitter wit: "Since indeed, in his whole life, as well as in his manner of living and his customs, he behaved and acted as a monk of most severe integrity rather than as a bishop of such dignity; joined to this, and seemingly possessing a rather elevated spirit on account of his erudition and his defense of the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity—and akin to Ciceronian weakness, in that just as he [Cicero] would mention his consulship and the expulsion of Catiline from the city at almost every hour, so he [Gregory] too would incessantly proclaim the crushed Arians and his own Triad—he stirred up great envy against himself among certain of his own presbyters and other bishops... 'The Phrygians are wise too late.' Gregory, who had not expected this very prompt assent; seeing himself captured by the ingenuity of his own heart, although he immediately repented of what he had done, yet moved by shame, he persisted in his opinion... Hence immediately these complaints were born, hence those—if I may say so—'tears and other dirges,' in which you might desire both patience, and strength of mind, and moderation in such an upright man... Indeed, no one more effectively"
expressed life, character, eloquence, and fortune, even into exile; and in exile, hardly anyone could say which was softer.
Nor, indeed, content with these things, does Tollius attack Gregory even more harshly in the notes to the poems published by him. Regarding the first verse of the poem against the bishops (p. 4): "There is in this man," he says, "one who is most holy, having suffered something human; of the best counsel and intent, indeed, but rather softer than he ought to have been in bearing injuries, and less restrained from insults and bitterness, which are unbecoming to a Christian." Tollius had even said that these things were written with his sorrow increased by repentance and the mockery of his adversaries, and from the perturbation of a mind already too sick, goaded into this retaliation. Regarding verse 18 of the same poem, where Gregory says: "I will indicate no one in what I am about to say; however," says Tollius (p. 5), "he did it in his poem about his own life, vigorously and most bitterly;" that is, he named them. Tollius adds besides (p. 6): "So exactly were those whom he attacks indicated, that there was no need to name them; but elsewhere he even names Maximus... he lashes out at his hair so satirically and so harshly, that nothing is higher. What?" he says, "to offer a noose to an enemy for hanging, to say nothing of these insults, is that the act of a man following Christ? It does not seem so. Finally," to verse 1 of poem 5 (p. 84), "Gregory bore most heavily the halter placed upon his mouth, and the opportunity for teaching in public having been snatched away... and he bewails it with bitter complaints; therefore he now inveighs satirically against his adversaries, who had forced him by evil arts to the abdication of his episcopacy."
Dupin was no fairer to Gregory, and he was not afraid to write such things about him (a): "Gregory was indeed most pious, but a man a little less circumspect, and inept in business. He burned with such a desire for solitude that he could not long perform any duty that drew him away from it. He was quick to undertake difficult things, and soon after to abandon those he had undertaken. Although he had three bishoprics, it cannot be said that he held even one lawfully. Gregory was of a morose and satirical disposition, and so prone to joking that he spared no one, not even the bishops, to whom he was especially hostile. Thus, he blackened and defamed the reputation of Maximus, whom he had previously profusely praised, with colors that were quite dark and astonishing."
I would wish that the learned men who feel and say these things about Gregory would bring forth into the light the names of those whose reputations he supposedly lacerated with a malicious tooth. For as regards Maximus, whom they alone set against him, I care nothing. Meanwhile, however, it is right that we should set against these insults and calumnies all of Gregory's works, his orations as well as his epistles and poems. Let the orations be read, I say, especially those he delivered on the preservation of moderation in disputations, etc. Let the epistles be read, in which the image of the parent reflects, as in a son. There are liberal jokes, the most pleasant wit in joking, pure subtleties and charms, but no satires. Let the epistles to Theodore and Theoctenus be read (b), whose anger and desire for vengeance he suppresses by his own example. Let the poems also be read (c): let them be read, I say, even those from which Tollius seized a handle for slandering. Gregory immediately set this rule for himself: "It is not right to attack anyone with insults; and as all men abhor them, so I myself especially hate this vice." Or, as Tollius himself translates it (p. 5): "I will indicate no one in what I am about to say, fearing lest I seem to slander anyone; which thing is both in itself illicit, and especially hateful to me. For I will not designate anyone, lest I seem to bring into the light things that ought to have been hidden." And shortly thereafter (d): "And who are the wicked will be manifest later, when, attacking my speech, you will have manifestly declared yourself your own accuser." Assuredly, to speak with Tully (e), "I name no one. Therefore no one can be angry with me; unless he who has first chosen to confess about himself." Which words Jerome also uses when discussing the vices of the clergy to Nepotianus (f), and to Rusticus (g), from the prologue of the third book, Phædriana: "Those who refer a general discussion about vices to their own contumely... indicate their own conscience;" or more elegantly in the very words of Phaedrus, "they will foolishly reveal the conscience of their mind." Whence Jerome pronounces generally against Rufinus (h): "When one writes against vices without a name; he who grows angry is his own accuser."
A Let those, therefore, be silent and ashamed who bring against Gregory crimes which he hated and from which he "peculiarly abhorred." He attacked no one with insults or satires, nor is his discourse anything but a general one concerning vices. "But he named Maximus," you say. Why should he not have named that Proteus, that wolf, the fable of the whole Christian world, and a known disturber? Is this, then, to besmirch a man? Is this to darken his reputation with colors that are overly black and shocking? Indeed, he who says such things sprinkles snow with ink in order to wash an Ethiopian; and he brands a most holy man with infamy so that he may restore a reputation already ruined by wickedness. And what of the fact that Gregory keeps silent about far graver things concerning Maximus?
True, he designates B others in such a way that there was no need to name them. We admit that, indeed. But with what caution, I ask, do you attend to this? For, first, Gregory admonishes that things to be said should not be derived and redound upon the episcopal order: "I shall not," he says, "make mention of all... For I know many also of whom it is more honest to speak. But whoever is wicked, and more than wicked, let him allow himself to be overcome and tamed. Whatever of evil there is, the sword of my discourse shall wound; nay, even cutthroats and homicides, who with false speeches and fabrications are defaming pastors and the very doctrine itself, and shedding the innocent blood of souls." In a word, he hunts down the wolves among the pastors, the spurious and adulterous teachers. But do you think it is never permitted, never praiseworthy, to pull the sheep's clothing and the mask off wolves, so that they might be recognized once discovered? "If it is in the interest of the republic that the wicked be known," it is indeed in the interest of the Church that the less than Catholic, the false pastors, be known. And whoever pulls off the mask so that they are recognized, lest they slaughter and ravage, that man is praiseworthy.
This, Gregory accomplished, who, putting aside private comfort, and concerned for the salvation of souls in danger and of the whole Church, put pen to paper against the wicked and their vices; breathing nothing but charity, nothing but peace. C He wrote these things weeping rather than biting; nay, sometimes even "joking," because he knew that mocking often cuts things more strongly and better than a sharp blade. I marvel that a man, otherwise of sharp wit, did not understand the jest where Gregory, feigning a Cynic in despair and uncertain what to do about his hair, festive sends him a proverb already worn out in speech: "I see nothing left for you but an evil cross." Who would not receive the empty exclamation of Tollius with laughter? To whom, I ask, would not this reception of Gregory's words provoke laughter? "What? To propose a noose for an enemy for his hanging—is this the act of one who follows Christ?" For who was meeker than Gregory? Even if the writings were silent, the very history of Maximus, the acts of the council, the cutthroats, the stones he received—yet he allowed no one to be avenged.
In these things which are objected to in Gregory's poems, there is nothing, or almost nothing, that is not found in his *Apologeticus* and elsewhere here and there in his orations to the people; nay, nothing which Chrysostom did not write shortly after in his books *On the Priesthood*. Therefore, Gregory did not write these things out of "weakness of spirit," or "sickness," or the pain of an "imposed halter," or an "abdicted" episcopacy (which there was none). These are fabrications brought forth by heretics, and poorly repeated by some Catholics. Away with you, then, Tollius, with this clever—or rather, injurious—comparison of yours against Gregory, by which you compare the Theologian with Cicero; that is, "so struck and dejected in spirit that he lay there without any speech, without any thought," so that generally it was believed he was "possessed by an error of the mind." D Why do you compare the violent, forced exile of Tully with the voluntary, sought-after, and even extorted-from-the-emperor abdication of the Constantinopolitan see by Gregory, which is worthy of the admiration of all ages? Why do you compare a boy all but howling, and "hindered" from writing by tears, with an athlete and glorious confessor? Read all the letters *Ad Atticum* which are contained in the third book, and the 120th book of Livy's *Histories*, and you should be ashamed of your comparison.
Finally, what of that ambitious and utterly diffuse boasting of Cicero, compared with the assiduous, modest, necessary, and religious preaching of the Trinity? What has Christ to do with Belial? What has this most holy theologian to do with a profane orator? What has the disciple of Christ's humility to do with—
a slave of vain glory, who is not ashamed to scrape together some little renown at the expense of truth? "I burn," says the epistle to Lucceius (a), "with an incredible desire... that our name may be illustrated and celebrated by yours... Wherefore I ask you plainly again and again, that you should adorn these things even more vehemently than perhaps you feel... and bestow a little more on our love than truth allows." Likewise, epistle 58 to Atticus: "The letter," he says, "which I sent to Lucceius, in which I ask him to write about my affairs, see that you take it from him; it is very beautiful; and urge him to hasten, and give him thanks because he wrote back to me that he would do so." Who could endure that Gregory be compared with such a vainglorious man? I would not even concede that they can be compared in terms of eloquence. For Gregory pursued an acute, sharp, and purely laconic style of writing; but Tully, as the author writes (p. 78), Edm. Richerius, affected an "Asian and redundant" style rather than an Attic and concise one. In the *Dialogus de oratoribus*, Brutus calls Cicero's eloquence "feeble and enervated." I have perhaps lingered too long in refuting these things, which ought rather to be laughed at and despised than seriously refuted. Nevertheless, since there are some readers who possess more piety than scientific knowledge, and whose timid and weak conscience might be offended by the poems written against Maximus and the bishops, it is helpful to pluck such worries from their minds by showing who those bishops are whom Gregory assailed, so that anyone may understand that they were deservedly assailed and even harshly rebuked.
First of all, no one is ignorant that the precept of fraternal correction exists in both the Old and New Law: "Thou shalt not hate thy brother," says Moses (3), "but rebuke him publicly, lest thou have sin on his account"; Matt. XVIII, 16, 17: "But if he will not hear thee (thy brother), take with thee one or two more witnesses... And if he will not hear them, tell it to the Church." Indeed, even before the written Law, by the power of nature and charity, everyone was bound by this duty, especially those in positions of authority: parents, teachers, and pastors. For the necessity of this precept flows from nature itself and the charity by which the salvation of our neighbor ought to be dear to our hearts.
Therefore, he who excels in knowledge, dignity, and office is able, and indeed ought and is bound, to rebuke those who sin, "even to rebuke them harshly" at times, especially "that they may be sound in the faith" (4), and that "the wicked may be avoided" (5), and this specifically, as the disciple whom Jesus loved (6) did; or graphically, as the Prince of the Apostles and Jude (7) did, to censure and even publicly denounce. "For manifest sins," says Gregory, who is himself also the Great (b), "are not to be purged by secret correction; but those who openly do harm must be openly rebuked." The Apostle commanding: "Them that sin rebuke before all" (8): which Christ taught and did, "harshly and bitterly," as Augustine says (c); "but while loving [those]," as He rebuked the Jews. That this was excellently performed by the prophets and the apostles, no one is unaware.
It certainly concerns the Church that "hypocrites, false prophets," and "wolves" hidden under sheep's clothing be distinguished, so that they may be brought into hatred and avoided by the simpler folk, so that they may harm no one (d). All these were duties of charity towards neighbor, towards God, and towards the Church, in Christ, in John, in Stephen, to whom belonged a "fierce tongue, but a gentle heart"; who "was raging and loving." There is no doubt that these were also duties of charity in the Theologian and other holy men, whom the glory of God, the zeal for the house of God, the imminent evils to the simple, innocence oppressed by calumnies, and religion sometimes compelled to assail the impious with harsher words.
Now let us tell who and what sort of bishops those were whom Gregory assailed in his poems, and what the face of the whole Church was (e). The Great Theodosius in the year 380, having been baptized in the sacred font by Ascholius, bishop of Thessalonica, gave an "edict to the people of the city of Constantinople," by which he decreed that "heretics" were "to be judged and punished" who "would not embrace the faith which the pontiff Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, followed." Then, therefore, with the Catholic faith returning to the palace and prevailing, they also returned to it
A and those courtier prelates, who, hanging upon the favor and fear of princes, were easily carried about by every wind of doctrine, with doubtful mind and faith, being driven hither and thither at every moment: "Miserable," says Gregory (a), "and abominable mockeries of life: they are prepared for either side regarding faith, observing not the laws of God, but the times. Euripuses of doctrine, fluctuating to and fro, flatterers, the sweet poisons of women, to the small they are lions, but to the powerful they are dogs." In the poem *De vita sua*, he calls these bishops "gamblers" (κυβισταί), chameleons (χαμαιλεόντων), and like the octopus (τρόπον πολυπόδων).
Such bishops, who stood in the middle between the Arians and the Catholics, selling themselves to either party according to the reason of the times, were received by the Church with the honor and rank of the episcopate and dignity which they had obtained, and they had so increased the number of already wicked bishops that they sometimes prevailed even against good bishops in councils. Hence those just complaints of Gregory, who could not contain his zeal and indignation. Hence he deplores, in his own name, or rather in the name of his colleagues in the priesthood, the slackness of those admitting such bishops, in these words (b): "We have proposed by the voice of the herald, we have proclaimed before the doors of the sanctuary to all: Let him enter who wishes, even twice or more often, if he has changed his faith by occasion. The time of the market is here; let no one depart having done nothing," etc.
Whoever reads these and other similar things in the other poems of Gregory will certainly understand who the bishops were about whom he could not, and should not, have remained silent. They undoubtedly pretended an excuse for such rash kindness and slackness in admitting such bishops by citing the decree of the synod of Alexandria held in the year 362, or certainly the decree of Athanasius regarding the reception of heretics. But, as the most eminent author of the Annals observes, there was "a great reason for the Alexandrian Fathers" because the number of bishops who were ordered to be received was many, who had consented to the Arians in the Council of Ariminum, either through ignorance or by force; and they themselves, who were then returning from the Arian parties, did so with a sincere love of truth and hatred of perfidy, since they seemed to be led to it under Julian the Apostate. Moreover, as Jerome says (c), "The West assented to this; and through such a necessary council, the world was snatched from the jaws of Satan."
But the situation under Theodosius was far different, and the face of the Church was different. For of those bishops who were returning through hope or fear, most had all defected from the Arians after the death of Constantius, and had again joined themselves under Valens, "twice and often," as Gregory says, "changing their faith, and like dice," or turning at the moment like a reed. Whence that ease in receiving the lapsed bishops, which, by Jerome's testimony (d), was once to Athanasius's credit, but was then given to the prelate Peter of Alexandria as a fault and a reproach. "Present at that council," says Baronius (e), speaking of the first general Council of Constantinople, "were many of those who previously, in the time of Valens, after the orthodox had been expelled, had taken vacant sees by the favor of the Arians. For these, serving the times, under a Catholic emperor stood forth as defenders of the Catholic faith just as well, although they had previously crept into the episcopate—though entirely unworthy—either by the grace of military leaders or by the favor of B other magistrates. Concerning all of whom Gregory Nazianzen himself speaks more fully." These are the words of Baronius, who, having expressed the image of these bishops, continues thus (f): "You understand, I think, what kind of bishops the Oriental Church was accustomed to have at that time, except for a few; how they were accustomed to have a faith that was mobile according to the reason of the times, and accommodated only for private profit. Indeed, not only Gregory, but also Basil comes forward as a rich witness to this fact in his writings, as it was demonstrated above in its proper place." Baronius could have brought many other witnesses, especially Chrysostom and Jerome; who, after he narrated how badly and unworthily they treated Gregory, says (g): "From these, learn other things, namely, how true are those things which Gregory wrote in the same work."
That is indeed excellent and apposite on the part of the most eminent author. For openly, with those men alive and listening
the most holy seer professed that he spoke the truth, nor did anyone dare to contradict him: "How greatly we use unworthy leaders! I shall cry out not false things, indeed, but things not very pleasant." A *How unworthy, indeed, are the prelates we have! I will speak with a louder voice—not false things, to be sure, but things unpleasant to hear.* If these things are true, as it is agreed they are, who would dare to assert that such grave, such manifest disgraces and scandals of the Church, at the expense and risk of the souls of the simpler folk, should be passed over in silence? And what of the fact that those of whom Gregory speaks were still much worse? For Gregory remains silent about most things concerning them. Maximus, who was worse than a dog and a snake, and like the fabled viper that killed the one warming it in its bosom, easily surpassed all in wickedness, and that of a public nature, and in shamelessness. The adversaries themselves do not deny it. Hence one is suddenly led to wonder why Tollius, who would have had mercy on this monster, did not dare to undertake a defense of Julian the Apostate against Gregory as well. But what Tollius did not dare, a cleric dares—which is no wonder; indeed, among Catholics—which is very grievous—there are some, whose names I spare, who advocate for the Apostate against the Theologian and do not fear to preach the praises of Julian.
There were also many among the orthodox bishops who labored under grave vices, of which the least was "ignorance, which itself is an evil," for *ignorance is an evil, but a lesser one*; who, hardly purged by baptism, "brought prior vices," the former evils, and no virtues to the episcopacy. Regarding these, Gregory says: "I am ashamed to say how our affairs are arranged, but I shall sing of it nonetheless. Since we have been ordained and appointed as teachers of virtue, we are a factory of all evils. A prelate is found in an easy moment who has accomplished nothing beforehand and who is a novice approaching the dignity. Divine matters are now a roll of the dice and cubes... Yesterday, acting in the role of an orator, you held law and justice for sale... but now suddenly you have become a judge and a Daniel... Not even a garment can one change as easily as you change customs... Yesterday you were Simon Magus, today you are Simon Peter. Alas for the excessive speed! Alas! You have emerged a lion instead of a fox." B These are the bishops of whom he writes in the poem *De vita sua*: "This command can be given, the briefest and best document lest you perish in your salvation: that you do not follow in the way those men go, whose throne is an accuser of their character; and their balustrades and haughtiness separate them from the common people rather than their life." Truly a horrible image of the pastors of this time; whom Gregory says are useful to the Church only in this way: that the faithful may recognize, by their example, where not to go.
Let the adversaries now choose. Let them either prove these things false, or contend that they are not of such a kind as to seem worthy of sharp and public rebuke; or, if they admit they are true—which indeed they must admit—let them show that they ought not, or cannot, be attacked by anyone, not even by pastors, and even bishops, without wounding charity: a notion which contradicts the Holy Scriptures and subverts the commandment of fraternal correction. For salutary shame must sometimes be provoked, and sinners must be corrected, both for their own sake and for the sake of the salvation of those whom they corrupt by scandals, perverse doctrine, and wicked examples. "As if with a trumpet," says Scripture, "lift up your voice, and announce to my people their crimes, and to the house of Jacob their sins." Therefore, sins must be announced to the guilty; hence, the indignation and bitterness of words are just, necessary, and holy; nor is he to be held injurious and contumelious who restrains sinners with harsh and shameful rebukes.
Are we to believe that Gregory, Chrysostom, and other holy men appearing elsewhere did not know what that bitterness is which Christ condemns, or what calumny is? Or what it is to detract from someone or to denigrate them? How unjust we are as judges of the saints! From them we must receive the laws of exercising zeal and correction, not presume to condemn them—we who are not moved by the same spirit and ignorantly...
know not what it means to be "zealous for the Lord God of Hosts," and what Christian liberty ought to be; we know not, I say, although we read and hear that the apostles and apostolic men, nay the very Lamb Himself, who is meek, spoke in such a manner.
Gregory, therefore, is not to be blamed but praised, for using Christian liberty; having followed the footsteps of the apostles and of Christ Himself, he "was very jealous for the Lord God of Hosts" and severely rebuked sinners. He did not "out of excessively imprudent fervor," as Tollius dreamed, "seek a successor for himself," but out of an ardent and sincere desire for private life and solitude. He did not regret, either then or ever, that he had resigned the Constantinopolitan see. There followed no "complaints," no "tears," no "lamentations" in which one might miss patience, strength of mind, and moderation in so upright a man. We marvel at all this in the saintly man; we only wish for a more equitable appraiser of matters in Tollius. These are fables and dreams: the causes of Gregory’s complaints and tears are far different. He grieved, if he did indeed grieve, for the abandoned sheep whom he loved uniquely, nay, for the children whom he had begotten in Christ; he grieved that these had been handed over to a stranger who brought neither the love of a father nor the solicitude of a shepherd, and who were perishing of hunger and thirst and were exposed to a nearly dominant heresy. Gregory, indeed, and deservedly, grieved for this. Hence those tears did come: from no other source; not, as the unsound Tollius fancies (p. 84, in n.), because he bore very grievously "the muzzle placed upon his mouth and the opportunity for public teaching snatched away." Nothing can be imagined more alien to the truth; for Gregory was so tenaciously silent that even at this very time he did not utter a word throughout the whole of Lent; and he was otherwise so slow to speak that he could scarcely, if at all, be compelled to do so. Yet he also grieved for the loss of his most sweet intimates and friends; but not that he was "captured" by a word, or that he had agreed to the resignation proposed to him more quickly than he wished, or that he had deserted the Constantinopolitan see, which he left with joy; as is argued by the many letters written by Gregory after his return, especially letter XLIV addressed to Amasonius. If to grieve, mourn, and be indignant at those things is a crime, we willingly confess it is Gregory’s crime, nor can he easily be cleared of it. But for the rest, he grieved for nothing, nor was he held captive by any desire for the things he had left behind.
Thus, for the grief of such great evils to the Church, which God "hath purchased with his own blood," Gregory, spurred on no differently than the Apostle at Athens, could not, and indeed ought not, píously restrain himself so as to soften his speech to the detriment of truth and religion in order to accommodate smooth and tender ears. For those softer utterances have a certain coldness and flaccidity about them, by which the truth always suffers somewhat. Indeed, one is moved differently by the proper names of things and by crimes branded with their own marks; nor is it enough if innocence, religion, and faith are defended softly; they are almost abandoned if they are not also betrayed. Nothing against the enemies of innocence and truth ought to seem too severe: they must be openly displayed and painted in their native colors, so that they may be recognized, and being recognized, be avoided and shunned. By this means the simple are counseled, deception is refuted, error is repelled, and truth conquers and triumphs. We shall no longer linger over repelling the false accusations which D. Dupin heaped upon Gregory, since they are sufficiently refuted by what has just been said, and Dupin himself, in his declaration to the Archbishop of Paris, condemned and retracted them as rashly fabricated.
II. GREGORY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY ASSERIED AGAINST BEVEREGIUS AND MURATORIUS.
"After the Council of Nicaea," says Beveregius (a), "no one versed in antiquity is ignorant that Spiridion, and Gregory of Nyssa, like the Nazianzen, both father and son the Theologian, were joined in marriage." Beveregius dared to write these things confidently, leaning on no reason and no authority. Whoever has been versed in the reading of theology alone would say that such an unheard-of and insane opinion slipped from a sleepy writer; or rather, that it was written by Beveregius for the sake of the bishops of his own nation, for his own devotion to marriage. To note such a fabrication is enough, nor do we judge that any effort should be expended in refuting it.
II: The perpetual virginity of Gregory is asserted against Beveridge and Muratori
A to begin at Muratori, lest the evil spread further, and I see that a most distinguished man, and one of the Catholics, Muratori (a)—who once wondered at the confidence of Beveridge, apart from whom "no one has hitherto affirmed that Nazianzen the son ever bound himself in matrimony"—has later embraced his error. Yet he has not absolutely embraced it, but has suspected that "the opinion of Beveridge might accord with the truth." He who also says these things regarding Theosebia: "Or she married Nazianzen," which "I consider very similar to the truth." And so the fabrication of Beveridge and the foundations of Muratori's wicked suspicion must be demolished at once. To begin with Muratori: the words which have deceived the learned man are those in the epigram of Theosebia, which he himself published: Γρηγορίου μεγάλου σύζυγε ἀτρεκέως, "the true spouse of Gregory the Great." From these, Muratori collects many things: first, that Theosebia was not the wife of Gregory of Nyssa; that, indeed, is very well. Then, that Gregory, who is called "the Great" there, is the Theologian, whose wife, and sister by blood, Theosebia would be; that, indeed, is very bad. Finally, from this, that the epigram cannot be the Theologian's. To demolish these points utterly, we must first establish, as the main point, that the Theologian was never ensnared by the bonds of any marriage, much less united to Theosebia. 2° Then, that nothing at all stands in the way of the epigram being attributed to Gregory Nazianzen. 3° That it does not follow from the epitaph, nor from the letter, as Nyssa elsewhere follows, that Theosebia married Nyssen. Thus it will be established that both Gregorys were free from marriage and led a celibate life. Muratori, having suspected that there was a marriage between the Theologian and Theosebia, conjectured that Theosebia "wished to preserve chastity with the man Nazianzen, rather than the joining of the marriage bed." Presently, the same man admits "carnal communion between the two," but for a short time, and thinks that "this recent opinion can be supported by that verse of the Theologian, writing in poem IV on the calamities of his soul: Αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα γάμοιο βαρὺν ζυγὸν ἐκτὸς ἔθηκα—'Then, however, I set aside the heavy yoke of matrimony.'" Nevertheless, Muratori does not dare to assert that these things are so. We love the learned man because, out of modesty, he does not affirm as certain a matter so unheard of. But we ward off all marriage from Gregory entirely. Muratori himself (b) will provide the arguments: "For why," he says, "did Gregory, who so often and in so many words, even in small monuments of his life, enclosed them in verses, pass over this one matter of no light moment, or mention it so meagerly?" Nor is this merely by silence and an argument, as they call it, from the negative; although that kind of argument ought to hold weight where there is something that has the force and place of a fact. But here it does hold, if it ever has; for one who professed to weave the history of his own affairs, not in one, but in a manifold poem, not incidentally, but with deliberate labor and accuracy, is nonetheless silent about one thing—among the chief, if not perhaps the chief of all—which pertains most especially to the varieties of life which he commits to writing, such indeed as the genus and course of life which Gregory had decided to hold. For where Nazianzen was dealing with the choosing of a way of life, there indeed he ought to have dealt with marriage, if, having put aside the celibate life, he had flown to nuptials. Nor, indeed, do I judge that those who think Gregory was bound by the shackles of matrimony would place that marriage after he was created a presbyter. Therefore, for the trumped-up nuptials of the Theologian, that one time alone remains, which flowed by before his priesthood. Muratori agrees and says (c): "That carnal communion between Nazianzen and Theosebia did not last long; but that each had long since chosen chastity, so that the one might enter the priesthood, and the other might be chosen among the deaconesses." But that is the very time in which an accurate narrative of Gregory allows no marriage to exist at any moment of his life. For even if you imagine Theosebia, or any other whomsoever, to have been married by Gregory, whatever and however you may have imagined it, it all collapses and is utterly subverted by the most explicit words of Gregory, describing his own life, and very accurately there, where he is choosing his way of life. Gregory’s parents were not themselves the authors of his turning his mind toward a wife; parents, I say, who not only knew their son’s vow and purpose of chastity, but they themselves, before he was born, had dedicated him to God, and when he was born…offered him up, so that from his mother’s womb he was considered sacred to God, and as a boy was offered, and indeed at the altar, with a solemn rite and by the touching of the books of Holy Scripture: which Gregory himself writes, A who “held the parent’s vow and desire as valid,” and strove to fulfill it at any time, and indeed did fulfill it. “Friendly chastity,” he says, “bound me to itself, and placed shackles upon my flesh, and at the same time instilled in me an ardent love for divine wisdom and the monastic life; a life which can be called the first fruits of the future, inasmuch as it does not need a rib, which might entangle its own body, and through beguiling words might lead it to taste of bitterness.” These are the bonds of marriage to which Gregory was yoked from boyhood. His spouse was not Theosebia, but perpetual chastity; his spouse was wisdom, and the companion and helper of both was “the monastic life, the love of which,” he says, “chastity instilled in him,” which he vowed in the danger of a shipwreck, and which he professed throughout his entire life, as much as was permitted and lay within his power.
It would be very easy to bring forward from the writings of Gregory innumerable other testimonies by which it would be made manifest that he was never bound by any marriage, but rather “subjected his neck firmly and perpetually to the yoke of that chastity” which he loved uniquely. Let the narrative of the dream be read, which the most holy doctor describes at length, and in which, while still a boy—and yet not altogether a boy, but at that age when the mind is formed by images of good and evil—chastity and wisdom appeared to him in human form, and from their breathing and conversation such a love of purity emanated into his heart and ever clung to him that those who might have doubted even for a moment concerning the perpetual celibacy of Gregory would deservedly seem to be senseless, if I may say nothing more. Hence, having become a man, and when he had returned from Athens and was deliberating, not about his course of life, but about the way by which, being unencumbered, he might attain more surely to the proposed goal, he puts this forward first: “It had long been certain to me, and as if sanctioned by law, to cast into the depths whatever things are of the flesh; and this pleased me more and more.”
What, then, does Gregory mean by these words, “I cast from me the grievous yoke of marriage”? He did not discard a burden that had been imposed, but always turned away from it, withdrew himself from it, and shrank from it, through a love of chastity and the monastic life. Thus he shook off the grievous burden of marriage, not that it was ever imposed, but by removing it from himself so that it might not be imposed. Gregory shook off the burden of marriage in no other way than by cautiously fleeing whatever relates to this kind of life, as being contrary to his purpose of preserving his virginity and his vow of the monastic life. Certainly Gregory, who had promised through a repeated vow that he would embrace the monastic life, could not join a wife to himself without failing the faith given to God and admitting in himself a most great crime. Far be it, therefore, that we should think or suspect that a man so holy, so distinguished for piety, committed such a crime; far be it, I say, that we should think or suspect that Gregory, having spurned the vow of preserving his virginity, by which he was bound—he who was sacred from his mother’s womb, who had held as valid his mother’s vow and desire—had taken a wife. Such a suspicion is as injurious to Gregory as it is contrary to the truth.
It ought to be established from the words of Gregory that he was at no time bound by any nuptials, neither with Theosebia nor with any other woman whatsoever. This, being the head of the argument and the foundation of what follows, it now follows of its own accord that the theologian is not the one who in the epitaph of Theosebia is called “Magnus,” and whose “true spouse” Theosebia is said to be. Hence it is concluded that nothing prevents this epitaph from being believed to have been composed by Gregory. Indeed, not only could he be the author, but that it was in fact composed by him is manifest from letter 95; which letter, indeed, so agrees with the epitaph in matters and in words that Gregory should be acknowledged as the author of both, or of neither. However, all admit that the letter is the genuine offspring of the Theologian, writing to Gregory of Nyssa. Therefore, it is to be held as certain that the Theologian was never joined in wedlock either to Theosebia or to any other, and that he is the same person as the author of the epitaph. Furthermore, the reasons of Muratori, who suspected that the perpetual virginity of the Theologian was weakened by the epitaph, as well as by the letter to Gregory of Nyssa, vanish and fall to the ground entirely.
A Now, if you should ask who this Gregory is who is called "the Great" in the epitaph, we shall readily answer that it is none other than the Nyssen. As regards Theosebia, in the letter she is called a "priest's wife" or "consort"; in the epitaph, the name of that priest is declared; and again, it is announced whose priest and whose Gregory she was the "consort." Whoever reads those letters will not doubt who that Gregory is. For she is the consort—or, if you prefer, the wife—of that very priest, as the letter says, and of that Gregory, as the epitaph more clearly states, by whom the Theologian commends and praises her in the letter; she is again the consort of that priest, to whom she is proclaimed equal in virtue and in honor, and she is the consort of that very priest, of that Gregory, to whom those praises pertain and to whom those letters were sent. Since these were written to the Nyssen, he must be regarded as that same Gregory whose "sister" and "wife," or rather "consort," Theosebia is designated in the epitaph. And certainly, since Baronius, the continuators of the Bollandists, Rivetus, and others have thought that Theosebia is called the consort in the letter and the same woman the sister, what inconvenience can there be in admitting the same thing in the epitaph that is admitted in the letter?
B It remains for us to explain in what sense Theosebia is called the Nyssen's "sister and wife" (*syzygos*). In the first place, it could not be said of either in the proper sense; therefore, the word must be drawn away from its obvious and proper sense, and an interpretation must be sought. In the epitaph, Theosebia is called the "child of Emmelia": if you interpret this as "daughter-in-law," you will be agreeing with the opinion of Baronius, Henschenius, Papebrochius, Rivetus, and others, who wish the Nyssen to have been joined in marriage to Theosebia; but you will not have departed entirely from the custom whereby those whom mothers-in-law have are often called "daughters" by them, yet you will have strayed completely from the truth. For the letter of which we have spoken so often does not allow that word from the epitaph to be stretched in any way; rather, the letter concurs with the epitaph as much as possible, so that she is "Basil's sister"—which the title of the epitaph puts forward—and is established as the child of Emmelia, whereby in that very epitaph Theosebia is asserted to be the true and proper sister of the Nyssen. The words of the letter are: "I admire you for that endurance and philosophy which I hear you show at the departure of your blessed and holy sister." These words indeed prevent that epitaph from being twisted in another direction. And a little further down, he proclaims Theosebia to be "the ornament of the Church, the decoration of Christ, the good of that age, the confidence of women, Theosebia, who among so much beauty of brothers was the most beautiful and most renowned"; five brothers, I say, and as many sisters. With this, the epitaph 130 in Muratori concerning Emmelia agrees remarkably. I omit what can be gathered from these praises in favor of Theosebia's perpetual virginity, which, if she had not professed it, she would certainly not be worthy to be called, among so many brothers and sisters who were virgins, "the most renowned" and "the ornament and decoration of Christ and the Church."
C In the letter of the Theologian to the Nyssen, these words are especially to be observed: "My Theosebia; for I call her mine, who lived as was consistent with the laws of God; since spiritual kinship surpasses bodily kinship." These words have such force for proving that Theosebia is the full sister of the Nyssen, and for completely warding off marriage both with him and with Nazianzen, that it is very surprising that learned men have seized upon these words as a handle for pinning a marriage with Theosebia onto either Gregory, when they should have concluded the opposite. Certainly, when Gregory opposes the "spiritual" kinship, which pertained to him, to the "bodily" kinship, by which Theosebia was related to the Nyssen; and when he gives the reasons and grounds for this "spiritual" kinship—namely, that Theosebia lived consistently with the laws of God—he drives away from himself and the Nyssen every suspicion of marriage. Theosebia was the sister of the Nyssen by bodily kinship, but the sister of Nazianzen by "spiritual kinship"; but she was the wife of neither. Nor should that word *syzygos*, which the author of the epitaph used, disturb us. For Gregory wished to signify the same thing by this word as in epitaph XLI in Muratori, p. 40: "You have snatched away, Nicomedes," he says, "Carterius, the companion of your piety." Nazianzen was certainly permitted what is permitted to everyone: to use words as he pleased—provided he defines them and explains the new meaning he assigns to them. This he has truly done most clearly, confirming that Theosebia is the full sister of the Nyssen and declaring her a deaconess in these words: D
"Theosebia truly holy, and therefore a peer to the priest, equal in honor, and worthy of the great mysteries."
Furthermore, the Greek word *syzygos* does not properly signify those whom we in Latin call spouses, namely husband and wife; but rather those, generally, who are partners in the same work, and are considered to draw the same yoke, as it were. In this way, Aristophanes in the *Plutus* calls a participant in a plan a *syzygos*; so also does Plato. Thus, among our own, Macarius the Egyptian monk names his disciples *syzygous*—those whom the Lord sent out in pairs—as if they were "yokemates." In this sense, too, Theosebia was and could be called the *syzygos* of Gregory of Nyssa, because she was to him "equal in honor" (homotimon), because she was "worthy of the great mysteries" (ton megalon mysterion axian), and as a sister she assisted her brother in administering these, as a deaconess assisting a priest, and she collaborated with him in combined labor. A However, we have discussed this word *syzygos* with all due respect for the marriage of Basil the father and bishop with Emmelia, and of Gregory the father with Nonna. For Emmelia and Nonna, most holy women, were truly spouses—one of Basil the father, the other of Gregory the father—a fact manifest from many other arguments. Neither was bound to her husband by any degree of consanguinity, such that it would be necessary to derive the word from its native meaning.
There is no one now who does not understand the order in which Muratori’s empty suspicion regarding the marriage of the Theologian should be held, and in how great an error Beveridge has dwelt, who confidently asserts that no one conversant with antiquity is unaware that Gregory the Theologian was joined in matrimony. Indeed, no one conversant with antiquity ever thought such a thing; only Beveridge brought forth from himself a fiction so unheard of. Let it therefore remain certain and unshaken that the Theologian was never bound by any nuptials, who, as Theodulus the monk says in his praise of Gregory the Theologian (p. 153), "did not touch marriage, but lived in perpetual virginity." Let it also remain certain and unshaken B that Gregory of Nyssa was not joined in matrimony with Theosebia, who was in fact his own sister, not his wife; and thus, that he too, if he was not involved in any other marriage, lived free and celibate perpetually. Indeed, those who wished it to be believed that he touched marriage set it down that he had no other wife than Theosebia, and relied on no other foundation than the letter [cited as] ninety-five; but since that letter bears a different meaning, the entire foundation of the Nyssen's marriage falls, and the opinion of the Centuriators (a) is victorious, who maintain he lived as a perpetual celibate and praise the oration of Gregory, [cited as] xx, on Basil the Great.
Nyssen wrote a *Book on Virginity* (p. 117), in which these are the words: "We are prohibited, as if by some chasm of the earth, from approaching this virginity"; which words seem to cast a certain suspicion of lost virginity. But if you weigh these very words and the comparisons he employs, the suspicion vanishes. For he does not lament virginity itself, but the comforts, utilities, and quiet of that life. I say that Nyssen does C not propose in that treatise a bare and simple virginity, but a life devoted to God, free from cares, and heavenly, of which virginity is above all a helper and associate. Since, however, the Nyssen's life was first distracted by secular business, and then by episcopal solicitude, it is nothing surprising that he, who lacked such great goods, should lament his condition. Whoever reads even the prologue, where the accurate argument of the whole book is given, will understand the matter.
§ III. OF THE MONASTIC LIFE WHICH GREGORY PROFESSED
That Gregory—and indeed Basil and Chrysostom—were bound by the profession of the monastic life is the consistent opinion of all past centuries. Since this cannot be absolutely denied, the learned Thomassin discovered a certain new opinion, utterly unheard of among the ancients, so as to show that neither Gregory nor Basil was a monk. This kind of fiction pleased the most famous Trappist abbot, who attacked the studies of monks (b); for if he acknowledged that Gregory, Basil, Chrysostom, etc., were monks, he would be forced to acknowledge that it is permitted for monks to apply themselves to study. Thomassin D established this as the foundation of this new opinion, based on these words of Jerome’s letter to Principia (c): "A suburban estate was for you in place of a monastery, and a country retreat chosen for solitude.... Who would believe that a..."
descendant of the great" (Pammachius, whom Jerome calls the A *archistrategus* of the monks) "would walk along, dressed in a dark tunic, amidst the purple of senators?" If we are to believe Thomassin (a), this is the whole mystery of the monastic profession of Gregory, Basil, Chrysostom, etc.—namely, to walk about in a dark tunic and to spend time in the country. Thomassin recognizes no other monastic profession in these saints, and at the same time he denies that "anyone is truly a monk unless he binds himself for his whole life and despoils and strips himself of all possessions." "But it will not be difficult," says our Prudentius Maranus, refuting Thomassin, "to prove both in the case of Basil; and to turn what the learned Thomassin maintains, in order to prove that he was not a monk, into an argument for his true monastic profession. What is not difficult in the case of Basil, will be no more difficult in the case of Gregory, whose writings supply an ample harvest." B I fear that I may seem to be doing work already done and laboring in vain if I undertake to prove about Gregory what his editor of letters has already proved about Basil. For whoever proves the monastic profession of one, shows that both were monks. Yet I will undertake it, if indeed our Prudentius has left this task to the "associate working on the edition of the works of Gregory," while remaining himself "unoccupied with those things that pertain to Saint Gregory of Nazianzus." For someone to be truly and properly a monk, Thomassin requires that "he bind himself for his whole life and despoil and strip himself of all possessions." That Gregory achieved both, Gregory the Presbyter, the author of his Life, testifies in express words (pp. 8 and 9): "He determined for himself that, just as he had promised when brought into danger of life, he would offer himself to God, and, separated from the world, would be joined in the way of life to Him who alone is most pure, and would draw the splendor of truth from the reading of the sacred books." C "And he did not cease doing this for his whole life, preferring to be a monk rather than a man of the world, and a pauper rather than a seeker of gain: *monachos anti kosmikoû*." Therefore, whatever Thomassin requires for one to be properly called and truly be a monk, all of that Gregory achieved; indeed, more than he demands.
Whatever is objected by Thomassin, one would believe it was brought forward to prove that Gregory had professed the monastic life. The learned man, however, offers the counter-argument that Gregory had a fountain and a garden, and that therefore he had kept to himself a portion of his goods and consequently was not truly and properly a monk. These are the words of Gregory in a poem composed after he had abdicated the Constantinopolitan see (which it is very important to note), in which he calls himself a monk, a fact which Thomassin conceals (b): "Recently a certain fool," he says, "lost in pleasures, wealthy and arrogant, reproached me with pleasures and the softness of life, saying many other things, and also this: that I am wealthy and affluent, as one who has both a garden and leisure and a modest fountain." D From this, Thomassin concludes that Gregory did not cast away all his goods, and therefore that he was not properly a monk. Whether the learned man said this seriously, or jokingly and wishing to laugh, it could be doubted; for it is strange that a learned man should impugn so clear a matter with such trifles, if it is permissible to call them trifles. Gregory had a garden and a small fountain, which—as we see daily—any hermit has. Who could seriously conclude from this that Gregory had kept a part of his goods for himself? The same person could also say with the "fool lost in pleasures" that Gregory was wealthy and affluent. Gregory refutes him thus (c): "If you interpret our possession of a fountain, or a little garden, or a shady grove as 'pleasures,' you truly judge that we have kept a great part of our goods for ourselves. But what, I ask, O miserable man, of tears, and the bridle of the belly, and the wounds of the knees, and the sleepless nights, with which monks kill their bodies by mortifying them?" These are the words of Gregory: that he cast away everything and despoiled and stripped himself of all possessions, which is what Thomassin requires in order for someone to be able to be said to be and truly to be a monk, is certain from his own words. He abandoned everything, keeping nothing for himself, even the labors of eloquence: "I have given everything as a gift to Him who accepted me into His lot and saved me—possessions, *ktêsin*," etc. Gregory repeats the same in many places in his orations and poems.
As for what concerns the testament of Gregory, you will find nothing in it that opposes our opinion, but rather nothing that does not favor it. For not to mention that at that time it was lawful for monks not only to make wills but also to inherit, and was allowed by the laws: of the goods about which he made provision in his testament, he was not the owner, but only a procurator and administrator. For he had already cast all these things away long since: "And I have consecrated my entire substance," he says, "to the catholic Church of Nazianzus, for the ministry of the poor who are under the same church;" and he cast it all away in such a manner that "for that reason he appointed three curators for the feeding of the poor." It is not regarding his own things—of which there were none, since he had cast everything away—that he made provision in his will, but he confirms what he had A long ago destined, and he complies with the will of his holy parents. He asks that he be granted pardon for the fact that he can give nothing to his sweetest daughter Alypiana; he adds this reason: "Since I have already destined everything to the poor, or rather, I have complied with my most blessed parents, who had promised such things, and whose will I judge it neither holy nor safe to render void." He institutes Gregory the monk as his heir in this testament: "Let Gregory the monk be my heir;" and he adds later: "Indeed, in such a way that he himself may restore my entire substance, movable and immovable, to the holy catholic Church of Nazianzus... knowing... that he was instituted as heir to that end, that through him all things might be preserved for the Church without fraud." Gregory could therefore, although he was a monk and had cast everything away, have a spring and a small garden. Thus, the testament of Gregory confirms that he had been devoted to the profession of the monastic life, and it dissolves all difficulties, far from being an impediment or able to present any difficulty.
The Achillean argument of Thomassin, to defeat the monastic profession of Gregory, is these words of Gregory: B
I came a middle path between the unmarried and the mixed, Bearing the caution of the former, the kindness of the latter. Media inter illos bosque procedo via, Meditans ut isti, commodum illorum æmulans.
Which words, if one trusts the learned man, signify that Gregory, when he had deliberated as to what manner of life he should follow between the solitude of the monks and the life in the middle of the city crowds, entered a middle path, so that he might profit others, and not encounter ruin for himself; if it is permitted to interpret the words of Gregory thus, let it be allowed to say with the poet: Nil intra est oleam, nil extra est in nuce duri.
How very far Thomassin wanders from the mind of Gregory! If we wish to grasp it, the words somewhat earlier must be repeated:
Πρῶτον δὲ τοῦτο φιλοσοφῆσαι προυθέμην, Ρίψαι Θεῷ καὶ τἆλλα, καὶ πόνους λόγων, Ὡς οἱ παρέντες μηλοβότους τὰς οὐσίας, Ἢ χρυσὸν ἀθροίσαντες εἰς ἅλμης βύθους. C Primum quidem philosophari statueram, Ut Deo projicerem et alia omnia, et facundiæ labores, Velut qui agros pecudibus pascendos reliquerunt, Vel aurum congesserunt in maris profundum.
Gregory certainly declares by these words that he had long since cast everything away in perpetuity, for the sake of philosophy, that is, that he might exercise the life of a monk; which Thomassin himself confesses is required for the monastic life and is sufficient: for it is not permitted to require anything more. But Gregory had decided this long ago, and it was fixed and determined:
Τὸ μὲν τὰ σαρκὸς ἐς βύθους ῥῖψαι, πάλαι Δεδογμένον τ’ ἦν, καὶ τότ’ ἤρεσκε πλέον. Ea quidem quæ carnis sunt, in profundum projicere Dudum statutum erat, tuncque placebat magis.
This remained fixed in the mind of Gregory, and the most holy prelate was held bound by this vow, D
having made it amidst the greatest and most grave dangers when he was crossing the sea to Athens. No further deliberation remained for him concerning that.
What, then, was that matter regarding which Gregory calls his friends inside A to counsel?
Ἔνδον καθίζω τῶν φίλων κριτήριον, Ἐμῶν λογισμῶν, γνησίων παραινετῶν. Intus amicos in consilium voco, Meas cogitationes, quæ sinceræ sunt hortatores.
Indeed, Gregory, B "among those things which are more excellent, was seeking that which is most excellent; for it had long ago been decided to cast into the deep those things which are of the flesh, and at that time it pleased him more. But while considering the ways that lead to God, it was not easy to find which was better. For one thing seemed good or evil, having regard to others, as often happens where it must be determined what is to be done. He was contemplating a journey, as it were, of long duration. He had indeed escaped the navigation C and labor of the sea, but he was investigating which way might be more expeditious. He held in high esteem Elias the Thesbite, Carmel, the desert of John the precursor, and the life of the sons of Jonadab without equipment: but again, the love of the Sacred Books held him, a matter not squaring with the desert and quiet. Often carried to both sides, he at length settled the dispute among his own desires and restrained the agitation of his mind: for he saw that those whom the active life delighted were indeed useful to others, but useless to themselves and agitated by evils; but those who had said farewell to the world were indeed more stable and looked to God with a placid mind, but they profited only themselves, with narrow charity, and lived an unusual and harsh life: he entered upon a middle path between both, deciding to meditate like the former, and to profit like the latter." Hence, the manner of life of both the hermits and the anchorites pleased Gregory, and on the other hand, that of the cenobites. But in the former, it displeased him that they were useful only to themselves, whereas in the latter, that they were useful indeed to others, but useless to themselves. Therefore, he entered upon a middle way between the hermits and the migrants, that is, between the anchorites and the cenobites, retaining the devotion of the former to heavenly things and the charity of the latter, so that he might be useful to himself and to others, especially to his parents.
Such, therefore, was Gregory's deliberation, as to which of the two kinds of monks, that of the hermits or that of the cenobites, he should follow. Just as one who, placed in some grave danger and having promised God that he would profess the religious life, had even bound himself by a vow; then reflecting with himself how he might fulfill his promise, he ponders the various institutions and laws of the religious men of this time—namely, of the Trappists, the Mendicants, etc.; finally, having taken counsel with himself, he avoids the Trappist life as too harsh, but rejects the Mendicants' as too active and less useful to himself, and prefers to serve God under the rule of Saint Benedict: should he be called a monk, and could he seem to have embraced the monastic life? I believe so, indeed. Yet this very thing is what Gregory performed, when, having held deliberation with himself as to which kind of life to follow, whether an anchorite's or a migrant's, he embraced one tempered from both with Basil, who had famously reconciled and combined the solitary and cenobitic life with one another, having built monasteries which held the advantages of both lives, but had none of the inconveniences mixed in.
If he did not do this immediately as he had wished, he certainly followed that kind of life as soon as it was permitted; and he withdrew to Basil, and together with him inhabited the Pontic solitude: "They lived, however, individually," says the father of the *Ecclesiastical Annals* from Rufinus D, "in separate little cells, but so distanced from each other that the opportunity of meeting was not frequently given." Indeed, that can be easily understood from Gregory's epistle, which he wrote while then dwelling in the desert to Amphilochius, who was philosophizing in the same solitude.
"What, however, his dwelling and diet were like," Baronius continues, "we learn from these things also, which the same man writes to Basil, after he had departed from there, joking in these words: 'Since you bear with an equal mind the things which we wrote to you in jest, we will also add the things that follow hereafter, starting from Homer: Come now, proceeding inward.'"
' A Sing along with me, I pray, of the splendor—or rather, the hovel, lacking both roof and doors, devoid of hearth-fire and smoke, with walls dried by fire so that we are not assailed by drops of mud—like Tantalus, punished by the same affliction, namely, being thirsty in the midst of water; [sing of] those miserable and fasting feasts, to which, from Cappadocia, we were summoned—not to the poverty of the Lotophagi, but as if to the table of Alcinous—we, new and wretched shipwrecked men. For I remember those loaves and broths (so they were called), and I shall always remember them, with our teeth collapsing around the fragments, and then raised up again, as if pulled from the mud; which things you will embellish more sublimely, in that your own calamities supply you with the magnitude of speech. Had not that mother of yours, so truly devoted to the poor, delivered us as quickly as possible, and, for us tossed about by the storm, existed as a port, we would long since have ceased to be among the living, having gained no greater praise by the name of the Pontic faith than we moved others to pity." (a) »
Although Gregory writes these things in jest, he describes serious matters. For the austerity of life with which both he himself and the other monks living in that same solitude lived is sufficiently apparent from those things which he writes to Hellenius regarding the monks subject to him: (b) "They themselves," he says, "in part take delight in caves and solitary places and on the ground, lying on crude beds; they abhor houses, and embrace the kindred quiet of heavenly wisdom. Others, in turn, torment themselves with iron chains so that they may extinguish vice along with the body. Others again, in the manner of wild beasts, enclosed in small and narrow houses, do not look upon the face of any mortal, and often for twenty whole days and as many nights abstain from food, and in part imitate the fast of Christ; and—that I may herald something of his glorious deeds—one of them was a sheep of my flock, having departed from a small town. There are, furthermore, some who bind their garrulous tongue as if with certain chains, and compress their lips in silence, and offer the sacrifice of praise to the supreme Mind with their mind alone. There is even one who, standing for whole years in the temple, has stretched out pure hands to God, and—which will scarcely be credible to anyone—has not fallen asleep even a little, but has stood fixed to Christ like a living stone, and as if frozen. To this man, indeed, a neighboring crow brought remnants of meager food, and if it happened that there were two [loaves], it would bring an entire loaf. Furthermore, at the time when Christ finished that salutary suffering and left the mortals behind, a certain man was found who ascended from here to the divine mountain, and remained there motionless in speech, and mind, and limbs, while he was tossed by winds and snows; and although many other pious men were standing around him, and strove with him with might and main that he should have some regard for his body, he could not be moved by any prayers, but held on to Christ the King with hands most strongly clasped, as the saying goes."
Elsewhere, Gregory says these things regarding the Pontic monks: (c) "The majority groan under iron chains; others, in turn, have ashes for food; there are some for whom drink is tempered with tears; others, assailed by winter snows, remain for forty days and as many nights like certain trees, truly migrating from the earth in their heart, and having God alone in their mind... But why should I commemorate those who close their eyes, and shut their ears as if with a certain bolt, so that no sting of death may creep in furtively? But these are the medicines I offer to my flesh, my enemy."
Gregory, who writes these things, also states [these matters] more fully elsewhere: (d) "I have worn down my flesh, which was lascivious and boiling in the flower of its age, with many and frequent labors. I have removed the satiety of the belly and its neighboring madness; I have fixed my eyes upon my eyelids with the aid of temperance; I have broken off my anger, I have bound my limbs, I have bewailed laughter; all things have yielded to Christ, all former things have collapsed. The ground was my bed; a very rough garment covered my limbs; I have even applied vigils and showers of tears; by day I have subjected my shoulders to labor; at night I have fixed my body like a statue, to be spent in chanting hymns; admitting no human pleasure at all, not even into my mind and thought. And this was, for me, a certain plan of life."
Thus Gregory entered upon a middle path between the way of life of the hermits and those who roam, B having embraced the cenobitic life, tempered from both [ways of life] by Basil. He was the first of all to institute cenobites in the East, and he laid down laws which he also taught by example, together with Gregory, who was a companion to Basil in founding the rules of the cenobites and, indeed, in observing them, as is well known.
It is, therefore, with justice and merit that both are to be held as patriarchs of the cenobites, who established laws for monks, built monasteries, and practiced the monastic life, as did Benedict in the West.
Beyond their individual private exercises, which Baronius describes from Rufinus, there were exercises common to both; from which, when Gregory had been withdrawn for a time, he wrote, lamenting: "Who shall grant me that I might endure for even one month the hardship of those former days, in which I lived most pleasantly with you? For sad things, which are borne of necessity, are held to be preferable to forced delicacies. Who will grant me those psalmodies, and vigils, and retreats for prayer, and that life which was, as it were, spiritual and incorporeal? Who will give me the unanimity and concord of the brothers who are instructed in piety by you and are raised to the heights? Who will give me the struggle and sharpness of virtue, which we established by prescribed methods and canons? Who will give me the exercise of the divine oracles, and the light found in them with the moderation of the Spirit? Or, to speak of lesser and lighter things, who will give me those daily and manual works? Who will give the labor of splitting, carrying, and arranging wood, and the stone quarries? Who will give the plantings and irrigations of plants? Who will give me that golden plane tree, more excellent than the plane tree of Xerxes, under which there is not a soft and enervated king, but a monk afflicted and weakened? Which I planted, Apollo watered—that is, your excellence—but God brought it to honor for us."
At the time when Gregory was staying in the desert, and practicing the monastic life with Basil, when Basil was being recalled to Caesarea by frequent letters of his own, he responded: "Now, since by the grace of God we have, according to our strength, become masters of our vow, having gained a blessed instrument and a deep well, Gregory—that mouth of Christ, I say—grant us a little, I beseech you, grant this short delay, which we do not seek in order to pursue the delights of cities, but so that we may enjoy the company of the saints."
Piety toward his parents also compelled Gregory to leave the desert and return to Nazianzus; nor, however, did he cease, in the meantime, the life he had vowed, that is, the monastic life, in his father's house: "To such an extent," he says, "that I even despised philosophy itself, than which no possession or title is dearer to me; or, to speak more truly, I was primarily intent upon not presenting the appearance of one who philosophizes." That which is external in the life of a monk—or, to use his own words, "the appearance of one who philosophizes"—he despised for love of his parents, the Greek for which is: *ὡς καὶ φιλοσοφίας ὑπεριδεῖν αὐτῆς*, but inwardly he truly led the life of a monk: for as Gregory himself says: "Monastic life consists of morals, not bodies." *Τρόπων γὰρ εἶναι τὴν μονήν, οὐ σωμάτων.*
It is worth noting that Gregory, having been drawn away from the desert, for fear "that he might lose the paternal blessing"—*οὐκ ἤνεγκα... καταλυθῆναι τὴν εὐλογίαν*—after this fear was later dispelled, namely after the death of his holy parents and the abdication of the Constantinopolitan see, embraced the whole "philosophy," than which no possession or title was dearer to him, that is, the very "appearance of one who philosophizes" and the name; and he practiced the life of a monk both externally and internally, "in the country," as Jerome writes.
Before we depart from this point, and leave the passage of Gregory which is brought forward from his first poem, certain terms must be explained, so that we may counter cavilers. *Ἀζύγων*, *ἄζυγος*, is commonly rendered as "un-yoked, celibate": but in Gregory, who opposes this word to the word *μιγάδων*, it ought to be taken as meaning a hermit, an anchorite, or any monk who is entirely alone, and has no companion. Therefore, the Bollandists interpret it as *Solitarios* (Solitaries): Leunclavius in the margin adds *καὶ ἐρημικῶν*. The things which precede and follow in Gregory do not permit this word to be interpreted otherwise. I fear that the learned Sirmond, in the *Life of Saint Theodore the Studite*, number 5, page 7, has translated these words less correctly: *Τοῦ κοινωνικοῦ βίου τὸν ἄζυγα προτιμήσαντας*, "preferring a celibate life to marriage." For *κοινωνικὸς βίος* in Gregory, oration 21, number 19, must be understood concerning the cenobitic life.
[Mιγάδες], another word, is to be explained, since it has led learned men into error. Gregory uses [μιγάδες] for coenobites; in which sense that word is accepted by many, among whose number are Saint Chrysostom, *Homily on the False Prophets*; Theophylact on Mark c. 17. Ἄλλοι μέν εἰσι παρθένοι καὶ ἐρημικοί· ἄλλοι μιγάδες καὶ ἐν κοινοβίῳ· ἕτεροι λαϊκοὶ καὶ ἐν γάμῳ, that is, "Some are virgins and solitaries; others are mixed and in the coenobium; others again are laymen living in marriage." But we can learn from no one more certainly and better than from Gregory himself what he wished to signify by the word [μιγάδες]. In the second oration, 29, he first distinguishes the married from the continent, and opposes them among the hermits to the coenobites or the mixed: "How great," he says, "is the interval between the married and the celibate... how great again among these between the hermits and the coenobites, who live together in a mixed state," that is, *migades*. In the twentieth oration he uses the same distinction, but with changed words, so that the opposition may shine forth more clearly: [Οἱ τῆς ἐρημίας... οἱ τῆς ἐπιμιξίας]. In the same oration he says that the hermits are those "who lead a life entirely solitary, and remote from the society of men, enjoying only the conversation of themselves and of God;" to these he opposes the coenobites: "others, however, cultivating the law of charity through communion and society, are at once solitaries and coenobites," etc.; [ἐρημικοί τε ὁμοῦ καὶ μιγάδες]. Who then will there be who would deny that the coenobites were [μιγάδες], and that Gregory, who struck a middle path between the hermits and the [μιγάδες], practiced the monastic life? Unless, perhaps, someone wishes to say that those were not monks—the hermits and coenobites whom Athanasius, while an exile traveling through Egypt, brought together; nor the disciples of Basil, whom he gathered out of hermits and [μιγάδες], gracefully reconciled among themselves; for whom he also established laws, and built prayer-houses and monasteries.
§ IV. AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHICH CHURCH GREGORY, COMMONLY CALLED NAZIANZEN, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND CALLED BISHOP.
First indeed, Gregory was consecrated bishop of the Church of Sasima, which had recently been erected as a see by Basil, at the insistence of Basil himself and his father Gregory. To this ordination, if not his mind, he at least bowed his neck: but since there was no path to seizing the see, which Antimius was holding occupied by armed soldiers, having abandoned Sasima, he betook himself into solitude; nor did he perform an oblation, nor an ordination, nor any of those things which are the custom and practice among bishops, at Sasima, as he himself testifies; but as soon as he was consecrated bishop, he seized upon the flight which he had conceived in his mind.
Then, recalled from solitude, he undertook the governance of the Church of Nazianzus, again at the command of his father, who was unequal to administering it due to his age, but on the condition that, upon his father’s death, he would be free to depart wherever he wished. "For a brief time," says Gregory himself (a), "and as if guests, we undertook the prefecture:" he accepted it indeed, but upon his father’s death he threw it off.
Finally, having been summoned to Constantinople by the bishops of Thrace and the orthodox to defend the cause of the faith against the Arians, Macedonians, and other plagues of the truth, who were prevailing far and wide in the royal city, when he had arrived, and had defended the cause of the faith, had routed the heretics, had put errors to flight, had restored the collapsed faith, and had won over the hearts of all to himself; by the consensus of the whole people and the clergy, with the emperor Theodosius assenting, he was placed in the Constantinopolitan see—Demophilus having been expelled, and Maximus also having been expelled—though not against his own will as before, by Saint Meletius, the president of the general council which was then being celebrated. When quarrels then arose among the bishops, having seized the opportunity, Gregory abdicates the episcopacy, breaks his bonds, and, rejoicing with gladness, seeks his homeland, hoping to enjoy the desired solitude.
At which time, Constantinople having been abandoned, Gregory returned to his fatherland; the Church of Nazianzus was still destitute of a shepherd, and lay open to the snares of the Apollinarists. Moved by this danger, Gregory, at the request of the bishops and the whole people, promised that he would undertake its care until a bishop was appointed: once he was appointed, he fled again into solitude.
Let this now be the judgment of the reader, of which Church Gregory should be considered and called bishop, and whether he held three bishoprics. No one, I suppose, is going to say that he was the prelate of the Church of Sasima. Certainly, nowhere did Gregory write that he had been proclaimed bishop of this Church, as he himself puts it, [κηρυχθέντα], that is, declared so by any form of public proclamation. [(a) Ep. al. 42.]
A He confesses, indeed, that he was designated, proposed, and even inaugurated as bishop of this Church, appearing here and there in his ninth and eleventh orations and in letter 44. “We were not,” he says, “designated [bishop] of Nazianzus, but of Sasima,” or if you prefer, “we were proposed:” Σασίμων δὲ προεβλήθημεν. For that word carries that meaning in this passage, being used in a sense frequently distinct from the word “preached” or “renounced”; as appears from Sozomen, *Hist.* lib. v, cap. 8, and Socrates lib. v, c. 8, and also from Cyrus Prodomus, in the title of his epigrams on this ordination of Gregory: Εἰς Γρηγόριον προβαλλόμενον εἰς Σάσιμα.
But neither here, nor anywhere else, did Gregory say that he was renounced bishop of Sasima; indeed, to one paying close attention, he seems to have denied it. For just as he denies here that he was “designated” or proposed bishop of Nazianzus, and confesses it of Sasima, so he confesses in letter 225 that he was renounced at Nazianzus, and denies it of Sasima, of which he had conceded that he was a “designated and proposed” bishop. “I myself, surely,” he says, “if I were in such a state of body that I could preside over the Church of Nazianzus, of which I am renounced as bishop from the beginning, but not that of Sasima, as some of you are ill-advisedly urging upon me.” These are the words of Gregory, which the old translator did not render well.
Furthermore, it is no obstacle—nay, it is of the greatest help—that that renunciation is called by Gregory “from the beginning” or “first,” since he had been designated for Sasima, for which he was first taken for the episcopate, before he was renounced at Nazianzus: it is much less an obstacle concerning a renunciation that was only silent or not public; this is explained by Gregory in other places. Indeed, you may conclude from this that he was in no way renounced for Sasima, not even in any silent way, let alone by a formal type of proclamation: for Gregory concedes it regarding Nazianzus, and expressly denies it regarding Sasima; and in turn, what he affirms of those, he denies of Nazianzus.
Therefore, there were different kinds of episcopal renunciations: some public and canonical, others not so. It is a common fact, especially in the East, that bishops were at that time elected by “the votes of the whole people,” ψήφῳ τοῦ λαοῦ παντός, as Gregory writes of Athanasius (a); or as the Council of Chalcedon has it, in action 16, by “the calculations of all those who are to be pastored.” Examples need not be sought far: Nectarius was substituted for Gregory in the see of Constantinople, by “the common,” says Sozomen (b), “votes of the synod;” and the Constantinopolitan Fathers themselves (c) write to the bishops gathered at Rome that he was ordained by them, “by the votes of the whole clergy and the entire city,” παντός τε τοῦ κλήρου, καὶ πάσης ἐπιψηφιζομένης τῆς πόλεως. And shortly thereafter concerning Flavian of Antioch: “Canonically,” or “as the canons command, with the whole Church voting, he was ordained by the bishops of that province and of the Oriental diocese.” Οἵ τε τῆς ἐπαρχίας καὶ τῆς ἀνατολικῆς διοικήσεως... κανονικῶς ἐχειροτόνησαν πάσης συμψήφου τῆς Ἐκκλησίας. In the Council of Chalcedon, act 11, Stephen of Ephesus proves he was canonically elected with these words: “Because,” he says, “both the people, and the clergy, and the bishops constituted me bishop.” The same council, act 16, recognizes no bishops other than those who were instituted “by a decree made by the clergy of each metropolis and the possessors, κτητόρων, and the most illustrious men, and over and above this, by the most reverend bishops of the province, all or the majority.” St. Athanasius (d) denies that Gregory is bishop of Alexandria, because “he had neither been known to the people nor requested by the presbyters.” Theodoret speaks more clearly concerning Lucius (e): “He was not ordained in a synod of orthodox bishops, nor by the vote of legitimate clergy, nor by the request of the plebs, as the laws of the Church command.”
Now, however, concerning the constituting or establishing of new bishoprics, such as that of Sasima, at which this oration is primarily aimed, so that it might be clear what the Fathers defined, behold the sixth canon of the Council of Sardica: “The bishops of the province ought to constitute bishops in those cities where bishops had previously been. But if any city is found to be so populous that it is judged worthy of a bishopric itself, let it receive one,” surely by the same laws, and by the bishops of the province voting; which [idea] is also defined by the councils. In the second Council of Carthage, can. 5, it is prescribed concerning the establishing of new sees: that “the people of God be multiplied”; then “that they have desired,” or requested, a bishop; then that it be done “with the will of him in whose power it is.”
A The Council commonly called the African adds (a): “It is resolved that those people who have never had their own bishops, unless it be by a decree of a plenary council of each province and the primate, and by the consent of him to whose diocese the same Church belonged, shall by no means receive one.” To confirm all these things, the letter of Gregory, numbered 22, would even suffice, where it speaks of the election of Basil the Great; but to establish the agreement of the Western Church with the Eastern in this matter, Sidonius Apollinaris (Book IV, ep. 25, and Book V, eps. 5, 8, and 9) provides a specimen of this public announcement: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I pronounce Simplicius, who is the metropolitan of our province, to be the one who ought to be the chief priest for your city (Bourges).” Morinus B himself provides very many formulas of such proclamations in *De sac. ordin. exerc.* 1, c. 3. More notable, however, is that which he puts forward from the Euchologion of Grottaferrata: “By the suffrage and approval of the most God-beloved bishops, and the most holy presbyters and deacons, by divine grace... he promotes this man... to be bishop of the city,” etc. From a Vatican manuscript he provides another, in which it is said “by the suffrage and approval of the most holy metropolitans, archbishops, bishops,” etc., and he introduces the same formula regarding the translation of bishops as reported by Cedrenus. “This,” says the learned man, “is the public notice of a legitimate election already made, accustomed to be done when a bishop is equipped for ordination,” add, and for “enthronement.”
Such were the public, legitimate, and canonical elections, announcements, and ordinations of bishops in all the churches; but there were also tacit and, so to speak, interpretative ones, such as those which the Council of Antioch in the year 341, canon 16, cited in the Council of Chalcedon, act II (b), decreed to be void: C “If any bishop who is unoccupied should cast himself upon an unoccupied church and seize the throne without a complete and perfect council, let him be cast out, even if all the people whom he has seized should choose him.” And further on, canon 21 (c): “Neither coerced by force by the people, nor even if this be persuaded to him by the bishops, is he held to be a bishop of a vacant church, being one who has deserted his own.” “Everywhere the decree of a complete and plenary council” is required, and canon 19 decrees that “no ordination done otherwise has any force.” Having set these things forth, it is easy to judge whether Gregory should be held to be the bishop of Sasima.
I would not dare to argue against the act of Basil the Great, although it is by no means approved by many; but certainly, with regard to what the Council of Sardica requires for constituting new bishoprics, Sasima was in no way a “populous people”; it was not a “multiplied people of God” D as the Council of Carthage requires; the people of Sasima had neither requested nor desired a bishop; there was no convocation of the clergy and people of that church, no gathering; nor had there been any plenary council of the bishops of the province, as those of Antioch and Africa decree; there was no “consent” of him into whose power the diocese—at that time of doubtful jurisdiction—eventually fell, with Basil himself consenting. The suffrage of the primate had been so far from arriving that Anthimus, whom Gregory festively calls a “martial and combative” man (d), resisted with almost armed force. And so, in his letter (numbered 33), he introduces that same bishop as writing, threatening, and demanding a synod against his own ordination, together with certain other bishops. Whence Baronius (e) says: “We think that Anthimus had ordained *another* bishop for Sasima, which he had claimed for himself; and that Basil, to settle the Church controversies that had arisen between Catholics in that dangerous time, had yielded the place to the combative Anthimus.”
Hence, perhaps, one might refer that “epinicium” (song of victory)—from the same letter, number 33—which Anthimus sang about Gregory as if he were “defeated” (f); and those verses (g) as well, by which the Egyptian prelates are branded: “Laws long dead, from which we were, in the greatest and most manifest way, free.” And indeed he was free, even if the things they objected to him were true, that he had been announced as bishop of Sasima, whence they were calling him back to Sasima; but certainly in vain,
A given these premises—how much more if they are false, with a bishop having been ordained and substituted in his place, or at any rate the new bishopric having been extinguished? For it is otherwise certain that Basil later returned to concord with Anthimus. And by what condition, I ask, now that Anthimus’s war had been pacified, did Gregory—hitherto free from that war by the 18th canon of the Council of Antioch—remain free, and that openly and B manifestly, unless one or the other of these conditions were accepted: either that the ordination of Anthimus, to whom the province of Sasima was yielding, was valid, or that the place indeed lacked a bishop? Otherwise, if he had been announced as bishop of that place, which his adversaries were objecting, he was then no longer free by either secret or known reasons, but was at that point manifestly bound to the Sasiman Church; indeed, even "to be deprived of communion" C by the 17th canon of the same Council of Antioch, "if, the impediments having now been removed, he had not consented to go" to the Church committed to him. Therefore Gregory was free and always most free from Sasima, both before and after the peace was made with Anthimus; even though he had been publicly and canonically announced to that Church. It remains, therefore, that Gregory might have been the bishop of the Sasimans by a tacit and secret announcement—if one may say so: yet truly not even that can be defended by any reason. For neither can it be said in any way that he ever administered this Church with bishops, clergy, and peoples conniving or tacitly approving—which is what a tacit announcement is; a place he perhaps never visited, nor saluted from its threshold, in which he neither sat, nor could he be forced or led by any violence to sit. "My father began a struggle," he himself says (a), D "to place me in the Sasiman see: but since he could not," etc. A little later: "I did not even touch the Church that had been given, so that I did not offer a single sacrifice there to God, nor pour out prayers together with the people, nor lay hands upon any of the clergy."
From these deeds as well as these words, it is clear what the sense of "announcement and proclamation" is in Gregory: it is, of course, that which today also pertains to the entry of possession and, as they call it, the "investiture" of some benefice; whether that be "tacit," when those who are the true patrons and legitimate collators of the benefice connive and are silent while someone invades a seat, or administers a Church at the prayers of those to whom the right of conferring the benefice does not fully belong, or even by a certain violence; or whether it be an "announcement" according to the heights of law and the form sanctioned by laws, with the patron's or king's "diploma" conferring it having been read and displayed, or, as they call them, provisions, and the "bull," if there be one, of the pope, or "visas," and those other things done by custom by the promoter (with the one being promoted having been placed in the seat for the most part), by which today someone is confirmed as the possessor of either a bishopric or another benefice, or certainly, if another intervenes, he is "denounced and proclaimed," which the Greek words themselves *κηρύσσεται* signify; although it was not done in the East in that way in which it is done in these parts. The words of Gregory, writing oppositely and adversely concerning Nazianzus and Sasima (b), exhibit this sense: to Sasima, a "proposed," designated, and, if you will, named prelate, but not to Nazianzus; on the contrary, however, not a proposed, not a designated, not an ordained bishop to the Nazianzen Church, but announced nonetheless, and that "from the first and from the beginning" (c), although in a "not public," but only a tacit kind of announcement: which things, though they seem to conflict by their outward appearance, can be reconciled and understood in this way.
The pastor of any Church is not considered to be, nor is he referred to the number of pastors, who, having been elected, promoted, or even ordained to it, eventually falls from his right; but rather the one who, having overcome [his] case, goes to and obtains possession. By what reasoning, therefore, could Gregory be called bishop of the Sasiman Church, he who did not even touch Sasima, nor perform any vicarious priestly duties there? If he said Sasima was "his own," it was only ironically: he mocks and reproaches that extraordinary gift of Basilian friendship. Or he could also say "his own" because it was attributed to him, offered to him, given to him, but by a doubtful possessor.
Before we leave Sasima, we will illustrate the matter with an example. A benefice, as it is called, to which the care of souls is incumbent, and which is commonly called a curacy, is held by one cleric by a patron; another, acting on behalf of the patron, presents or confers it to another; or certainly someone else obtains it in the Roman court. One confirms his rights by possession; the other is either warded off or acts more sluggishly. While in the meantime the lawsuit is under the judge/court, within a year, as usually happens, both are initiated into the priesthood with the intention and purpose that they may be able to perform their office. Let both of them, ordained to the same Church, meanwhile make an agreement, or let the senate
A consult the one possessing the right, or finally, let the less contentious one, and the one not fond of litigation, voluntarily allow the rival to take possession and give way to him in his own right. Such a man will indeed be a priest, and also proposed, designated, and ordained for that Church, just as Gregory was for Sasima. But for that reason, will he be called the priest of that place, and will he ever be entered into the catalog of the pastors of this Church? Certainly not; because he has fallen from his right, or has voluntarily yielded it, in a case that is always doubtful or disputed.
What in our age they call “presentations, provisions, and collations,” our ancestors called ordinations to this or that Church; because at that time no one was ordained without a title. If these were deemed void and invalid for any reason, they produced, so to speak, no effect externally; and he who remained a priest or bishop of no place was called “Vacant,” B σχολαζῶν. Such was, as is evident from what has been said, the ordination of Gregory to Sasima.
Gregory may therefore have been proposed, designated, and inaugurated as bishop to Sasima, and may have consented to his ordination, yet he was not, nor can he be called, the bishop of Sasima, except by envious persons and calumniators; for he was neither openly nor tacitly, nor by any canonical or any other reason, proclaimed bishop of that place, much less ever installed or established in the see of Sasima.
What we have argued thus far was open, true, certain, and necessary for repelling the calumnies against our Gregory; and also apt and convenient for wiping away the mark of corruption from the Greek text, and for removing from countless places, which seem to fight among themselves, the contradiction. By this way, indeed, the unfair questions regarding the translation to the Constantinopolitan see—and the questions regarding three bishoprics, yet at the same time none—vanish as mere products of ancient envy and the calumnies or inventions of a certain more recent writer; and the conjectures about the corrupt text of Epist. CCXXV disappear; and those things are true and straightforward which, in the letter alias XLII and again in the letter alias CCXXV, and in other places, created trouble for the reader: which will be made clearer in the following dissertation on the Nazianzen bishopric. Nicetas the Paphlagonian will conclude this with his testimony in the first part of volume VI of the *Bibliotheca Concionatoria*, near the end, by which testimony, indeed, the whole of the present and coming discussion is almost entirely contained.
After the orator C recounted how Gregory was placed in the Constantinopolitan see, especially by the wishes of the great Meletius of Antioch, he meets an objection and continues: “But let no one consider it illegitimate, and contrary to the sacred rule of the Church, for him to be transferred to a third see. For that matter is not a translation, but an election, and an installation to the first and only city in the imperial capital for the dignity of a bishop and the duty of a see. For the fact that he was, as I said, appointed to Sasima first, was only for the sake of promotion, since I neither received the see, nor was I ordained there at all, nor did I celebrate any mystical initiation for the duties of a prelate; because that village was altogether unsuitable for sustaining an episcopal see. But I once looked after the Nazianzen chair while my father was bishop there; yet I was not created bishop of it, nor did I ever undertake that see. I only undertook the care of the Church at the urging and command of my father, so as to fill a deficiency in clerical ministry, in such a way that I might be heard as a prop to his old age and a support for his paternal weakness. And that that is how the matter stands is also evident from those things which he himself writes to the Gregory who shared his name: ‘For it is known among all that I was not created (proposed, προεβλήθημεν) as the prelate of Nazianzus, but of the Sasimians, even though, out of reverence for my father and for those who as suppliants contended for this with me, for a short time, as if guests, we undertook the prefectureship.’ Since, therefore, my father had exchanged mortal life for the divine, he established in the throne of the imperial city the one now found vacant by the grace of the divine Spirit, and by the greater human excellence of life and doctrine, a man who, as far as the eyes could see, was illustrious, and as far as the mind could behold, he appointed him a good shepherd of the world and a great prelate.”
The Sasimensis bishopric being rejected, the Nazianzen one must also be rejected, and the Constantinopolitan must be asserted: this indeed we are carrying out. Sasima being cast off, Gregory betook himself to solitude, and from this, being pulled back, he yielded to his father, who was asking or commanding, only D that he would “collaborating with
A the care of the Nazianzen Church” be accepted; “on the law and condition that he not be bound to this Church, and once his parent was dead [(a)], he would permit his own pen to be carried by the Spirit wherever and however He wished, and that there would be no one who could compel him or lead him elsewhere against his will.” It is remarkable that Gregory should have been called bishop of the Nazianzen Church when he so carefully guarded against being bound to this Church; yet many writers, both ancient and modern, despite the Theologian’s protest, call him Nazianzen—Socrates, Sozomenus, Gregory the author of his Life, Baronius, Bellarmine. The old and common error is far older than the manuscripts that now exist, and nearly contemporary with Gregory himself. Rufinus in the prologue to the orations of Gregory translated into Latin writes: “Upon the death of his father, he succeeds to the bishopric at Nazianzus”; and B in his Hist. lib. II, c. 9, he asserts that “in the place of his father, the same man was substituted.” Indeed, Jerome [(b)], who associated familiarly with him in Constantinople, and who boasted that he had learned the Scriptures with him as his master, says: “Gregory, first bishop of Sasima, then bishop of Nazianzus.” Moreover, as Baronius notes under the year 371, and in the Life of Gregory in the Bollandists ch. 9, his adversaries brought this as a charge against him, and out of contumely called him a tripartite bishop, since he had already been elected bishop of the see of Constantinople. But Gregory so clearly denies that he had been bishop of Nazianzus that he is to be believed: “It is manifest,” he says [(c)], “to all that I was not appointed bishop of Nazianzus.” Not only certain and indubitable, but “manifest”; to not just his friends and a few, but to “all” it ought to have been “manifest.” In his poem De vita sua [(d)], he says: “After my parents departed from life, and I was left free from this calamity, I did not in any way touch the Sasiman Church granted to me.... But the paternal one.... for a very short time, like a guest in a foreign one, I did have some care, I will not deny: testifying the same even to the bishops, begging as if it were a favor from the bottom of my heart, that they appoint some man bishop to the city. Hence that statement, truly affirming that no Church had yet been accepted by me by public renunciation.... But when I could not persuade them to appoint another, because the former indeed wished to retain me out of great desire for me, while the latter perhaps despised me; yet none argued that I was not free: I first took myself C in flight to Seleucia, and there I tarried for no short time in the Parthenon of the most celebrated martyr Thecla [(e)].”
Nor should you say that Gregory confesses and writes that he was installed as bishop of Nazianzus: “If I certainly had myself in body in such a way that I could preside over the Nazianzen Church, of which from the beginning I was declared leader, but not of the Sasimans, as some of you not rightly advise, I am not so much” [(f)], etc. Indeed, Gregory wrote more than once that he was declared bishop of Nazianzus, but he is not to be understood as being about a public renunciation: he says, truly, after the death of his father, “I asserted that no church had yet been accepted by me by public renunciation”: he wrote again in another ep. 221, “that he was not held by that renunciation,” by which he writes in another ep. 225 that he was declared at Nazianzus, “that he was not bound by it,” even as again in the poem De vita sua, v. 523.
After Gregory returned from Constantinople to his homeland, he was compelled by the prayers and tears of the clergy and people to administer the Nazianzen Church again, which was laboring under anarchy and miserably torn by the Apollinarists; he “conceded” [(g)] again to the administration, “submitted to the yoke” [(h)], suffered himself to be “conquered and bound” again, *ηττήθην, δέσμιος ἔρχομαι*. But just as he was vanquished before by his father, so then, not “declared in a plenary council” by the bishops, but compelled only by the citizens and his friends, for the sake of his father [(i)], “whose labors he grieved to see dissolved,” and the reverence of those who contended for this from him with prayers, he “accepted the prefecture for a short time as a guest” [(j)] and as a pilgrim. Again [(k)], he took up not “his own” reins, as a proper bishop, but “foreign ones,” *ξένην ἡνίαν*; for he was, in that very place, D of another flock's feet,
namely, the Constantinopolitan, and admitted that he had accepted them. Hence he did not even concede this, except “as long as he was able”; and he departed again as if free, his illness breaking out again a little later: “Constraint,” he says, “holds me by illness, and has removed me all the more quickly from the helm of the Church.”
But that which removes all doubt—when Eulalius was finally publicly proclaimed and canonically ordained bishop of Nazianzus—is Gregory’s response B to the prelate of Nyssa and those who objected to the canons: “But if there is anyone who thinks that another ought not be installed while the bishop is alive, let him know that he is not, even in this regard, superior to us in his case. For it is clearly evident to all that I was not proposed as prelate of Nazianzus, but of Sasima”; that is, he was not even proposed for Nazianzus, let alone publicly and canonically proclaimed as its bishop. Yet, he professes in Epist. ccxxv that, had his health allowed it, he would have consecrated the remaining gasps of his life to the Nazianzene Church, rather than to the Sasiman (to which, the Bollandists say, he never believed himself bound, and to which he had never in any way been declared by proclamation: although certain envious people, for the sake of causing trouble, objected to it through calumny and “contention,” as he speaks of it in the same place).
Who would not admire the innocent artifice with which Gregory played with his adversaries, as well as his friends? When a renunciation was objected to him—at least tacitly—regarding the Nazianzene Church, he would immediately counter with his designation to Sasima, as in Epist. cxlii; and he wished to appear more bound to that Church, from which, because the see was either filled or abolished, he felt no fear at all, than to Nazianzus. But when he was being called back to Sasima, as in Epist. ccxxv, or rather relegated there out of contempt, he would immediately object with the “renunciation” of Nazianzus, by which he nevertheless did not fear “being held.” That this is the genuine meaning of the letters, besides the very weighty points we have already brought forward, is proven by those same epistles: XLII, LXV, LXXXIII, CCXXV, in all of which he wittily mocks those who, to prove he was truly attached to one Church or the other, were opposing the canons in vain.
To cap it all, let there be added the crowning passage which, by itself, could banish to the realm of fables the bishopric of Gregory at Sasima and Nazianzus alike. That passage is presented in Carmen 1, edited by Tollius, verse 93: “Moreover, after I had arrived” at Constantinople, “having left behind Cappadocia, which to many seems to be a bulwark of the faith, I did not in any way desert the people to whom I was bound by any necessity: οὐ λιπών λαὸν, οὐδὲν τῶν ἀναγκαίων ἐμοί. For those things are the fabrications of my enemies, and false rumors, certain coverings of envy ingeniously devised.”
But, you will say, Gregory confesses that he had a proper Church, different from the Constantinopolitan, in these words (d): “Let them return to grace and truth, those who say that we sought a foreign wife, when we did not even wish to have our own.” Which Thomassinus (e) pulls toward Sasima, although they could just as well refer to Nazianzus. But the scholiast Basil interprets these words, “that a foreign wife was sought by us,” in this way: D ἤτοι καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ὡς συκοφαντησάντων οἰητέον τῶν ἐναντίων· ἢ διὰ τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν Κωνσταντινουπόλεως; that is: “Or it must be thought that this very thing was objected to us through the calumny of our enemies, or it should indeed be understood of the Constantinopolitan Church.” If, therefore, these things are understood to have been said about the Church, it no more follows that Gregory was ever bound to another Church than it follows from the former interpretation that he had once taken a wife whom he later left. It simply follows that he preferred a life free and unencumbered by a wife and the care of a Church, both to marriage and to the episcopate, before he was raised to the Constantinopolitan see. There are some verses of Carmen 1 which have a certain affinity with this passage (f): Ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐμὸν γὰρ τῇ βίᾳ κάμψαι γόνυ, οὐδ' ἀσπάσασθαι τὴν ἄθεσμον ἵδρυσιν, ὃς οὐδὲ τὴν ἔνθεσμον ἠναγκασμένος; which verses Cardonus, in Bollandus (g), renders more happily in paraphrase and loose prose than Billius does strictly: “But I am not of such character that I would think one should easily yield under any violence, or that a chair should be occupied, not rightly and as it behooves, one to which I have in no way allowed myself to be appointed, which I could have obtained with the justest of rights.”
Legitimacy of that, if I may so speak, “enthronement,” A that which was not an established fact, but an offer; not a handing over, as Billius renders it, but as it were a wife to be given away, Gregory, if it is permitted to say so, forsook. Nor is the matter uncertain: it is proven by the verses of the poem *De vita sua* 541 et seq. And certainly, no one can doubt that the prelates of the entire world, not just of a province, as far as it extends, would have willingly conspired to elevate Gregory to the episcopate, whether at Sasima or Nazianzus, had he himself consented. “For,” he says of himself (a), “we are not held in such contempt by the bishops that they would announce another while I remained,” in the sense that he must be believed not to have wished to “have” even a “proper wife,” or a legitimate seat. Lighter are the objections that Gregory calls the Nazianzenes his “own” (b): they were his “own” indeed, by patriotism, by habitation, by affection, by the care and solicitude he undertook for them so many times, whether while his father, worn out by old age, was still alive, or after his death, or after he had abdicated the Constantinopolitan see, but never as their proper bishop. Enough has been said about the Sasimene and Nazianzen episcopates, and perhaps more than was necessary.
With the Sasimene and Nazianzen episcopates removed—which we believe to have been demonstrated as never having been occupied by Gregory—it remains that he was announced as bishop either of no one, or certainly of the city of Constantinople, and of none other than Constantinople. B Most handwritten codices bear the title of Constantinopolitan bishop; that he was in reality the bishop of Constantinople, the fact itself speaks, as do all recorded acts and writings. So great were the strivings and vows—of the “plebeians, the owners,” as the canons prescribe, of the “most illustrious, the emperor, the clergy, the bishops,” and of men and even women—demanding Gregory as their prelate, that no one could express them in words as well as Gregory himself. When Theodosius restored the churches of the city of Constantinople to the Catholics, and the Theologian entered the great basilica with him, the sun shone forth after it had been in the clouds. “There,” says Gregory (c), “when confidence had taken hold of their spirits with this spectacle,” the multitude that was present “began to shout with all their might and demand us, at that present moment,” no differently than if this were the only thing they lacked; and that this was the greatest gift the supreme prince could grant to the city, to be preferred even over the thrones themselves, if we were given to it by him from the episcopal throne of the city. This was what those distinguished by the dignity of men, this was what the lowest rabble were debating. All desired the thing equally, they burned with an equal desire: this the women shouted in a loud voice, perhaps more than would be becoming for women. A certain incredible, reverberating roar of thunder was heard.
Then indeed the Modesty of the Theologian prevailed (d), nor could he then be forced to ascend the C episcopal throne: however, the divine man turned the fervor of the people toward giving thanks to the one God with provident dexterity (e). To such an unanimous petition of all orders, to such ardent vows and clamors, there followed the solemn suffrages not only of the bishops and the plenary council of the province, but also of almost the entire East and the ecumenical synod. “Whatever the East had,” he says (f), “except for Egypt, of the people's prelates as far as the second Rome, stirred from the inner recesses of land and sea, came together. Over these presided a man greatest in piety… honeyed in his character (Meletius) and in his name. These place me and establish me, crying out and groaning in the august seat, though for one reason I was not entirely reluctant.”
But nor does the consensus of the Egyptians seem to have been lacking, whom Gregory addresses most strongly with these words (g): “Yesterday, so to speak, enthroners, today persecutors, and those tearing me from the throne on which you placed me.” Verses 1810 and 1811 of the same poem support the conjecture, in which he testifies that the Egyptians by no means wished to place another than himself on the Constantinopolitan throne: indeed, they were striving to persuade Gregory himself of the contrary, so that it seems that no consent or suffrage was lacking in the whole general council. D
A Gregory, however, who had fled from two bishoprics, accepted the Constantinopolitan one in the hope of reconciling the peace; and when that hope was despaired of, he abandoned it, so that he might enjoy the sought-after peace in solitude, being content with God. Thus, what the apostolic man Clement persuaded the Corinthians—who were laboring under schism—in his first epistle B to do, saying: "If there be any generous, if any merciful, if any full of charity, let him say: 'If on my account there is sedition and discord and schisms, I depart.... let the only flock of Christ dwell in peace,'" etc.; and to which Chrysostom professed himself to be prepared after the example of the Theologian: this Gregory of Nazianzus performed in reality, who, in order to forestall sedition, once he had been moved to the Constantinopolitan see, immediately repudiated the prefecture of the Church, nor did he seek any other favor from the emperor—if I may use the words of St. Clement, "a generous man," "a merciful man and full of charity," distinguished by godly life, a martyr and victim of Christian peace in the Church—except that he might bring the bishops to concord, protesting that he was easily suffering what he was suffering for the sake of the world, and that he was willing to depart from the city and the throne to reconcile peace to the world, and finally to sacrifice everything for peace. "Indeed, you even know," he says C as he speaks, reaching out to the Emperor Theodosius, "how reluctantly you placed me on the throne."
Gregory never said or allowed said of him that he was bishop of Sasima or Nazianzus; rather, he always vehemently protests this in his poems and epistles: but he confesses that he accepted the Constantinopolitan see, he testifies that he was placed in it, and he himself calls himself the bishop of that city. Truly, neither greater nor clearer authority can exist than this beginning and end of an authentic testament. And the beginning indeed: "Gregory," he says, "bishop of the catholic Church of Constantinople, living and of sound mind..." But at the end is this subscription: "I, Gregory, bishop of the catholic Church of Constantinople, have read again the testament, and approving all things, I have subscribed with my own hand, and I will and order it to obtain force." Finally, among the bishops of Constantinople, he is thus recounted in the series of the bishops of this city: "Gregory the Theologian, first (appointed) bishop of Sasima, was proclaimed Constantinopolitan under Theodosius the Great, and to him this see was confirmed by the synod, as one who had labored much and had vindicated the Church from injury into liberty:" 'Επικυρωθέντος αὐτῷ τοῦ θρόνου παρὰ τῆς συνόδου.
No doubt now seems to remain concerning the episcopate of Gregory, nor does any scruple remain to be plucked out. Since it must be established from the things said that he was proclaimed bishop not of Sasima, nor of Nazianzus, but of the Church of Constantinople alone, by public and canonical proclamation, by the common votes and suffrages of the whole clergy and people, as well as by the consent of the plenary council of all the Fathers. Therefore, it was not permitted to prefix any other title to this our edition of the works of Gregory than that which has been prefixed: The works of our Holy Father Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople. This title the manuscripts prescribe for themselves for all the Orations, this for the Poems, this for the Epistles.
V. OF AMPHILOCHIUS, BOTH FATHER AND SON, BISHOP OF ICONIUM, AND THE ENTIRE MATERNAL LINEAGE OF GREGORY, TO WHICH AMPHILOCHIUS IS DEMONSTRATED TO BELONG.
D That Amphilochius, whose wife was Livia, the most illustrious Muratori in his notes on epitaph XXXI, page 31, indeed determined to be distinct from the prelate of this name of Iconium. But he said nothing more, nor did any suspicion of the consanguinity of either Amphilochius with our Gregory dawn upon him, or at least the learned man did not reveal what he thought. But the son Amphilochius, concerning whom we speak in the epigrams, that he is that most famous bishop of Iconium and commonly known by that name, although perhaps it is not so certain; yet it is most certainly established that the Amphilochii, with whom we are here concerned, were most closely related by blood to Gregory: the father indeed as the maternal uncle of Gregory, and the son Amphilochius as a first cousin or a cousin on the maternal side from the uncle. Which, when we have proven the latter, we shall touch upon the former part. I set aside Amphilochius, the parent of Amphilochius and Euphemius, and husband of Livia, born
A of Diocæsarea, that is, of Nazianzus. This Amphilochius is called the "great offspring of Philtatius and Gorgonia," υἱέα Φιλτατίου Γοργονίας τε μέγαν. Moreover, the daughter of Philtatius is called Nonna, who cannot be anyone other than the mother of the Theologian; since this Nonna is called in the will of Gregory, and had as parents Alypius and Gorgonia the younger, and as a sister, Alypiana.
From this single point, it is certain that Amphilochius, the mother of the Theologian's mother, Nonna, was a full brother born of the parents Philtatius and Gorgonia. Hence, the name of Gorgonia flowed to the daughter of Nonna, just as the sister of Basil the Great was called Macrina after her grandmother, or indeed, as the daughter of Gorgonia the younger herself was called Nonna after her grandmother, the mother of the Theologian; and from her grandfather, or great-grandfather Philtatius, came Philtatius, B concerning whom in a certain epitaph, no one will doubt he was of the family of Gregory.
Now, let the reader pay attention to how much light these things shed upon each epigram, and upon the entire history and family of Gregory. Here it first appears why Amphilochius, so commendable in his own right, is ennobled by his parents. Truly these were also the grandparents of Gregory, and that "holy root" from which arose the "holier" Nonna, the mother of Gregory, so often commended by her son under this name in his poems and orations.
Then it is plain what these words of epitaph XXIX C mean: πηγαῖς πάντα πέπασο. For it concerns the goods of doctrine and knowledge, which Amphilochius had prepared for his kinsmen and relations by teaching them. Whence again in epitaph XXX, he himself is called "the help and strength to his kinsmen, the pious, the noble, the learned, and the giver of the word," that is, of eloquence, or as it is in another D, an "excellent master of Rhetoric": which is what the Greek terms sound.
Since among the disciples of Amphilochius the elder and his associates, Gregory was not the only one, ἑταίρων ὧν ἑνός, but he was also among his kinsmen, and most closely joined by blood. Thus, epitaph XXX concludes: "I, Gregory, have written these things, returning in kind a speech for a speech, which I learned from you, Amphilochius." Moreover, Gregory had learned, certainly in his own country, first under his father and his uncle, before he set out to foreign parts, as if to trade in the liberal arts.
But before we proceed further, it would be worth the effort to observe that what Muratori conjectured regarding the title of epitaph XXXI, is to be held as most certain and should be written thus: εἰς Ἀμφιλόχιον ἄλλο, "another [epitaph] on Amphilochius," not "on another Amphilochius." For it is the same Amphilochius, the uncle of Gregory, of whom it is said in epitaphs 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, etc., in which he is said to have "had an ardent force of speech, ῥήτραν πυρόεσσαν, and to have surpassed all Cappadocians in eloquence." He, I say, is one and the same Amphilochius, and there cannot be any doubt for anyone but that the Amphilochius who is so highly commended for eloquence in the later epitaphs under a new title, is the very same person who deserved to be called "the fountain of eloquence for all" and the teacher of Gregory in the earlier epitaphs.
Finally, the sequence of the entire Gregorian family through the mother is plain and open, having been hitherto almost unknown. For that which Baronius exhibits in the *Vita Gregorii* is erroneous, and moreover has been disturbed and adulterated by others. So, therefore, reader, hold this.
From Philtatius and his wife Gorgonia arose Nonna, the mother of Gregory, and her uncle, Amphilochius, the full brother of Nonna. That Nonna was the elder in birth is almost suggested by the fact that Gregory usually addresses the sons of Amphilochius by the name of "sons," only because they were younger in age, and calls himself an "old man." Let us speak first of the offspring of Amphilochius.
Amphilochius, the uncle of Gregory, had as his wife Livia, μάκαιρα δάμαρ Ἀμφιλόχου Λιβίη· "Blessed Livia, wife of Amphilochius." Amphilochius received three children from her: σῶν τε τριὰς τέκνων, "a triad of your children." These sons were Euphemius and Amphilochius: υἱέες Ἀμφιλόχου Εὐφήμιος, Ἀμφίλοχος τε. Concerning the name of the third, we shall speak later.
That these three children were left surviving to the mother Livia is proven by epitaph XIX A, in which it is said that "a triad of children and a husband have brought glory to the tomb of Livia." First of all died Euphemius, whom Gregory celebrated in several epitaphs B, with which epitaphs Gregory’s epistle CCXXX (otherwise CXIV), to Theodosius or Theodorus, nicely harmonizes; for his daughter, already betrothed to Euphemius and near marriage, is described there in the same way as in epitaph XXI: Euphemius is her husband. If other factors were not enough, these would be sufficient to demonstrate the kinship of Euphemius and his father Amphilochius, and Amphilochius’s brother, with Gregory. For the epistle just praised was written by Gregory to Theodosius, who was about to become Euphemius’s father-in-law: "Now the families are united," and further down, so that you may understand the degree of kinship: "And do you have us through our sweetest son Euphemius, and we likewise have you through your sweetest daughter." Presently, regarding Theodosius’s daughter, whom he also takes for the sake of the marriage: "The fatherly benevolence (he speaks of himself) is equal toward the children."
Whether this Euphemius, of whom mention is made in Epistle CCXXX (al. CXIV), is the same one mentioned in Epistle LXXXIII (al. CXLIX), or whether he is also the one concerning whom the end of the testament speaks, is not so clear. If you allow for only one Euphemius, difficulties arise which cannot be solved. We therefore judge it better, indeed necessary, to distinguish two Euphemiuses: the one to whom the epitaphs and Epistle CCXXX (al. CXIV) to Theodosius refer; and another, of whom Gregory’s testament speaks; though both were connected to Gregory by marriage.
We said that Amphilochius had three children by Livia: Euphemius and Amphilochius; who the third might be must be sought. Epitaph XIX, in which a "triad of children" is attributed to Amphilochius, is silent on the name of the third. In Epitaph XX, mention is made of only two of Amphilochius’s sons: Euphemius, who is now dead, and Amphilochius, who survives. At first, indeed, I suspected that Philtatius was his third son; but Gregory himself solves this knot in his poem to Olympias, with these words: "There is for you, O graceful one, Theodosia (a gift of God); let her be set before you as a living image of every word and deed... a sister of the most innocent high priest Amphilochius." Behold the third of Amphilochius's offspring. But Amphilochius, whose sister is said to be Theodosia, is none other than the Bishop of Iconium; Amphilochius, I say, the own brother of Euphemius, born of Amphilochius and Livia. Everything agrees: country, lineage, and the holiness of life and character.
That the country of Amphilochius of Iconium was Cappadocia is testified to by Basil in his epistle (otherwise CCCXCIV), and especially by Jerome, who, in his epistle to Magnus (LXXXIII, otherwise LXXXIV), lists Basil, Gregory, and Amphilochius among the learned men of Cappadocia. To Amphilochius the parent, and to his sons, Diocæsarea, that is, Nazianzum, is assigned as a country in epitaph XXXI.
Everything—epitaphs, epistles, poems—also agrees regarding their stock. In the epitaphs, that Amphilochius who is called Gregory’s brother through a maternal uncle had as his parent an Amphilochius of the same name; Amphilochius of Iconium had one too, as Tillemont very well deduced and argued from the superscription of Epistle LXII (otherwise CLXI), and the learned concede this in the previous note on the Life of Amphilochius.
The epitaphs, as we have seen, almost all suggest that the race and family of Amphilochius are the same as Gregory’s; the epistles also suggest this. For in Epistle XIII (otherwise CLX) to Amphilochius, whom no one would deny was later Bishop of Iconium, Gregory says: "We were not much together, although it was entirely proper, as much on account of ourselves as on account of the friendship passed down to us by our parents." And a little later, Nicobulus, the son of Gregory's sister Gorgonia, is called the son not only of Gregory but equally of Amphilochius, even if in an inferior degree: "Our son, Nicobulus, the son of both." Epistle LXII (otherwise CLXI), written most certainly to Amphilochius, the father of the Bishop of Iconium, either clearly expresses or not obscurely signifies the kinship of Amphilochius with Gregory from beginning to end.
and most especially in that comparison between the funeral of Gregory the father, whom the Theologian laments as having been taken from him by death, and the loss of the son Amphilochius, whom the father Amphilochius laments as having been taken from him; and also by that consolation, due by right of course of kinship, which the father Amphilochius and the son Gregory could mutually expect and request from each other. Gregory declares that point still more clearly to Amphilochius in these words: "You accuse us," he says, "of hardly recognizing the loss which all friends and kinsmen (συγγενεῖς) have suffered; and I especially," etc.: he expresses it most clearly, furthermore, when he calls the Bishop of Iconium, to whom he is writing, both "son" and his own "brother": "Your son, but our brother," etc. Τὸν σὸν υἱόν, ἡμέτερον δὲ ἀδελφόν. For these reasons, the father Amphilochius ought to have expected consolation from the Theologian regarding the son taken from him, namely, Amphilochius of Iconium, whose brother on his uncle's side was Gregory.
Such points are so clear and certain that I am already reluctant to add Epistle XXIV (alias CXI) to Themistius, where the following is read: Σοὶ φίλος πατρόθεν ὁ ἐμὸς Ἀμφιλόχιος. Whether you translate these words thus with an interpreter: "My Amphilochius is a friend to you from the paternal side;" or more literally, "he is a friend to you, my Amphilochius from our parents;" you will certainly not escape the force of these words or the former meaning. For either the interpreter or Gregory intended to say that Amphilochius was not at all degenerate from his father's eloquence; to whom—since he was dear as a "king of eloquence" to Themistius—the son ought also to have been dear. These things indeed agree excellently with the uncle of Gregory and his son, who are celebrated so highly for eloquence in the epitaphs. Whence, in the same epistle, Gregory soon adds: "I shall add also what is of this kind," namely, regarding Amphilochius, "who is a disgrace neither to the lineage of our ancestors nor to our friendship." For the words of Gregory should be translated thus: πατέρων γένει, not as the interpreter does, "to his paternal lineage"—otherwise Gregory would have said πατρός, not πατέρων. But he speaks in such a way as to signify that the lineage of Amphilochius was also his own, and that they were the same ancestors. In exactly the same sense and reasoning in Poem 57, verse 103, Gregory calls the Bishop of Iconium, Amphilochius, his "ornament." Now, Amphilochius could be an ornament to Gregory, either as a disciple of so great a teacher, or as the glory of a common stock and origin. This meaning is indeed better than the former, since we see Gregory writing to Amphilochius in Epistle XIII (alias CLX): "We were not together for long," etc., which things are very far removed from the discipline mentioned. So also in the epitaph in Muratori XXXVI, he calls Nicomedes "my ornament," because, being a sharer of the same blood, he himself also illustrated the Gregorian family.
No less relevant to our subject are the testament of Gregory and several epistles: XXII (alias CV); XXIII (alias CVI); in which he calls Amphilochius—whether for his honor or for his love, or as most reverend, surely because of the dignity of the episcopacy—his "son": Τὸν τιμιώτατον υἱόν, αἰδεσιμώτατον, etc. Gregory also calls Euphemius, the full brother of Amphilochius, later Bishop of Iconium, his "son." If you ask the reason why our Gregory bestowed that name upon his cousins, Epistle XXIII (alias CV), which is written on behalf of Amphilochius himself, will teach us: "I myself offer to you," says Gregory, "our most beloved son Amphilochius, a man so noble in the name of probity, even beyond what his age would carry; that I myself, who am both an old man and a priest... would consider that I had been treated most honorably if I possessed that estimation among men." Therefore, by the prerogative of age and dignity, Gregory seems to have used this term, and he called his cousins sometimes brothers, sometimes sons.
Now let us speak of the grandchildren of Nonna, Gregory's mother. Nonna bore three children: Gregory, Caesarius, and a daughter named Gorgonia. Caesarius died unmarried; Gregory practiced virginity perpetually and lived a monastic life. Gorgonia alone left descendants; she married Alypius. There is no longer any room for conjecture regarding the husband of Gorgonia, whom Baronius in his *Life of Gregory* conjectured was Vitalianus, and Tillemont modestly suggested was Meletius; Epitaph LXX (b) allows it. For therein Alypius is indeed called the husband of Gorgonia:
A
*She having consecrated her possession, her flesh and her bones, all to Christ, Left Gorgonia as her only spouse; Yet not for long-lived was that spouse, for he too Did the renowned Alypius unexpectedly snatch away.*
To Alypius are addressed, beyond controversy, letters LXXXII (alias CXLVIII), LXXXIII (al. CXLIX), and LXXXVI (al. CL); in the last-named, Gregory speaks of his sister in such terms that one can easily recognize the wife of Alypius. Letters LXXXIV and LXXXV (al. CLI and CLII) were sent to the same man; yet it is not necessary to conclude that this Alypius was the governor of Cappadocia. It is not likely that letter LXI (alias LXXX) was written to the same Alypius. It is entirely at odds with the tributes with which Alypius, the husband, is honored in the funeral oration for Gorgonia and in Epitaph LXX, to suppose that letters CCVII and CCVIII (al. CXLVI and CXLVII) were written about that Alypius. For the Alypius mentioned in those letters had taken Simplicia as his wife and, dying, left her a widow. But Alypius, the husband of Gorgonia, both survived his wife and, having been baptized in the interim, so survived her that he had neither the inclination nor the time to contract a second marriage.
Baronius, by the same error with which he assigned to Gorgonia as her spouse Vitalianus—whose children were Peter and Phocas—likewise attributes to her, besides her daughter Alypiana, B two sons, Peter and Phocas. Elias of Crete, in the eighth oration (alias XI), number 14, likewise affirms that Gorgonia bore two sons; he suppresses their names, however, and asserts only that both were raised to the height of the episcopate—a fact that the silence of all writers regarding them makes hard to believe. It is far more likely that Gorgonia bore—besides Alypiana, who is well-attested by the epigraph of letter XII (alias CLV) and especially by poem 50 (where Nicobulus, the son of Alypiana, calls Gregory "his mother's uncle": *behold the great uncle of my mother*), two other daughters, Eugenia and Nonna.
For when Gregory, in his will, adds Eugenia and Nonna to his "most sweet daughter" (as he calls her) Alypiana, the manner of speaking does not allow us to doubt that they were of the same rank as Alypiana: "To my most sweet daughter Alypiana (for little account is to be taken of the others, Eugenia and Nonna), etc. ... these things I wish to pertain to the children of Alypiana herself;" and "in nothing to be troublesome to her, or to her sisters," namely Eugenia and Nonna. What could be clearer to demonstrate that this Alypiana is not the virgin of whom letter CLVIII (al. CCXXXII) speaks, but the one who had married Nicobulus, and that Eugenia and Nonna were her own sisters? That these women remained virgins, there is no need to believe. For what was said of Gorgonia in oration VIII (alias XI)—"she made the fruit of the body, that is, children and grandchildren, the fruit of the spirit"—can and must be understood of her baptism and the consecration that flows from it; otherwise, Gorgonia would have to be said to have consecrated all her daughters to virginity, which is indeed absurd and contrary to the facts, C since Alypiana married Nicobulus, and Eugenia—or perhaps Nonna—married Meletius. This is the Meletius who, in Gregory’s will, is called his son-in-law (*gambros*), because he had married the daughter of his sister.
From Nicobulus, to whom many of Gregory’s letters are addressed, and Alypiana, another Nicobulus was born, as well as the virgin Alypiana, of whom letter CLXXXI (al. CXXXII) speaks. The identity of Nicobulus is certain, both from the poem which includes the name of Nicobulus as its superscription, and from the response of his father Nicobulus, as well as from letter CXCV (alias XLIV); from these we learn that there were other full brothers to the younger Nicobulus, whose very names are altogether unknown.
There are many others well-known to our Gregory, kinsmen and blood-relatives, among whom is Euphemius, the other son of Amphilochius. He is mentioned in the will, where matters between relatives are treated. In letter XV (alias CXCV), Gregory calls the brothers Helladius and Eulalius his "cousins" (*consobrini*), or perhaps paternal first cousins (*patrueles*, *anepsioi*), unless you prefer "nephews" from a sister or some other relative, given the variable meaning of the word. George and his sister Basilissa are mentioned in Epitaph L, as is Eusebius, who... D
who is seen to be a brother in every respect (a), along with Nonna, the mother of the Theologian, was buried in the tomb (b) which had been prepared for the blood of Gregory and Nonna, the glorious one, they cannot be of a different line from them.
Nicomedes, for whom there are three epitaphs (c), whose praises are also celebrated more fully in the poem XLVIII (d), seems to have sprung from the same blood.
Now, the name itself hardly allows us to doubt the relationship of the youth Philtatius with Gregory, since it seems to have flowed down from the grandfather of Gregory. Epitaph XLV, Muratori p. 42, also suggests this, and these words, "sacred earth," would persuade one thoroughly if they certainly signified the tomb. "It is very likely," says Muratori, "that the Philtatii were relatives of the Nazianzen." To this youth another youth should be added, named Gregory, a grandson or great-grandson of Gregory through his sister, about whom is epitaph CXXXIII in Muratori. We recount all these apart from the formal series of the genealogy, because we do not know in what order and place they are to be set. Let this delineation of the Gregorian genealogy proceed, therefore, from the mother.
PHILTATIUS AND GORGONIA. AMPHILOCHIUS and his wife LIVIA. NONNA and GREGORY [her] husband. EUPHEMIUS, died without children shortly before his nuptials. AMPHILOCHIUS, afterwards Bishop of Iconium. THEODOSIS, educator of Olympias. GREGORY the Theologian. GORGONIA, her husband ALYPIUS. CAESARIUS, without children. ALYPIANA, whose husband is NICOBULUS. EUGENIA. NONNA. NICOBULUS the younger. ALYPIANA, virgin. Many brothers, of unknown name.
BEYOND THE ORDER OF THE SERIES ARE: Euphemius, another distinct from the son of Amphilochius, of whom mention is made in the Testament. Meletius, husband of Eugenia, or certainly of the younger Nonna. Helladius and Eulalius, Bishop of Nazianzus, brothers. Eusebius, Georgius, Basilissa, siblings themselves. Nicomedes and two sons. Philtatius, a youth. Gregory, a young man.
THIRD PART. CONCERNING THE VARIOUS HEADS OF GREGORIAN DOCTRINE.
Although Gregory suffered long and greatly from envy, and although he experienced very many and bitter adversaries throughout his entire life, never did anyone among them dare to accuse him of error or to carp at his doctrine. "Of him," says Rufinus, "neither can a life more upright and holy, nor eloquence more clear and illustrious, nor faith more pure and correct, nor knowledge more full and perfect be found; inasmuch as he is the only one concerning whose faith not even those who dissent among themselves, as is wont to happen, have been able to dispute factions and opinions; but he has obtained this merit before God and the Churches of God, that whoever has dared to gainsay his doctrine in any point, is by that very fact argued to be a heretic himself. For it is a manifest indication that a man is not of the right faith who does not agree in faith with Gregory." For his doctrine is so pure and sincere, and so completely devoid of every defect, that from it he has obtained the name of Theologian, the only one after the Apostle John.
However, whether Clericus has perversely twisted the Socinian commentaries concerning the three natures in God, which had been devised and nurtured by ancient orthodox writers; or whether Barbeyrac has sharply and foolishly criticized certain chapters of moral doctrine—what is there to wonder at in men who, having cast off every yoke of authority, have left nothing untried, nor anything sacred in faith? But among the Catholics themselves, Petavius, a man outstanding in erudition, traduces Gregory as if he were triumphing over adversaries whom he badly refutes; yet he himself, being altogether too unjust to the venerable Fathers, and well chastised by the English writer Bull, did not harm such great men by the bitterness of his censure; but rather, he brought eternal disgrace upon his own glory, which was already clouded from that time by the simulations he employed in a very grave cause. If it were my intention to expose and agitate all these things, the discourse would extend beyond the limits of this volume: I shall therefore reserve for the following part a diligent and exact consideration of all the complaints that have been heaped upon the doctrine of the most holy doctor. Whatever then may occur which could offend the infirm or be taken in a worse sense, we shall elucidate, and we shall studiously pull out the thorns, if any exist. For now, it will suffice if we exhibit the principal chapters of Gregory’s doctrine collected into one for the reader, so that it may be evident how accurately and profoundly he discourses on divine things, and how deservedly he earned the title of Theologian: from this it will appear how great an injury was done to him, and what a great offense against the truth it was for him to be accused of error.
De Deo
At the time when the task of teaching was imposed upon Gregory, such a prurience for disputing about divine matters had possessed men’s minds that all places, not even excepting the women’s quarters, resounded with contentions and tumults of this kind. In order to apply a healing hand to this evil, he says, "It is not for everyone, O men, to discourse about God, I say, not for everyone; this matter is not so trivial and trodden, nor for those who still crawl upon the ground... This duty belongs only to those who have been most exactly tested, and have progressed far in contemplation... or, to speak most sparingly, to those who are already engaged in cleansing themselves from the stain of vices. But it is not for every time," he says, "nor before just anyone, nor about just anything, but at a certain time, and before certain men, and to a certain extent must this be done." Concerning all these matters, he gave most salutary precepts, as much in his twenty-seventh oration, which is, as it were, the beginning of his theological discourses, as in other places.
He discourses about God excellently and subtly, and there is nothing more magnificent and more accommodating for persuasion than the arguments he draws from the wondrous structure and elegant form of nature: "For indeed," he says, "that God exists, and that there is a certain supreme cause which has brought forth and preserves all things, both the eyes themselves and the natural law teach; the former, while they fix their gaze upon things that fall into view, and perceive them to be beautifully fixed and stable, and yet to proceed, and to be moved and revolved immutably, so to speak: the latter, while from things subjected to the eyes, and arranged in right order, it collects and attains to their author by a certain reason. For how could this entire mass of things ever have been produced, or subsist, unless God had brought forth all things in the nature of things, and was preserving them?" All and every creature cry out this, "and declare His divinity to us, just as, in the waters, shadows and images of the sun represent the sun to weak eyes." Who also, looking at the harmony of a musical instrument, or hearing a song, does not in his mind think of its maker, or the harpist, even if he be unknown by face? He treats of many arguments of the same kind, by which he clearly proves that to ascribe the course of the world and the order of visible things to chance or fortune belongs to nothing but the highest madness. But if from the nature of things the divinity shines so clearly to souls, will not the mind itself, being wider than the world and more eminent than all creatures, better indicate and show itself to be the work of God? "Thus, therefore, the reason which is from God, and implanted in all, and the first law established in our breasts, and bound to all mortals, has lifted us from those things which are perceived by the eyes to God."
Meanwhile, if you ask what God is, take care that you do not invent something likely from the other visible creatures that celebrate God on every side. "Will you say that He is a body? How then is He immense, infinite, devoid of form, and finally of such a kind that He can be neither touched nor seen by the eyes? Are these things also [missing in original text]"
applicable to bodies? What a license! For this is not the nature of bodies. Or perhaps you will maintain that it is indeed a body, yet deny that it is immense and infinite, and reject everything else of this kind? What grossness! [to think] that God should surpass us in nothing. For what reason can be offered why He should be worshipped and adored, if He is circumscribed? Or what cause shall we say [exists] for His not being composed of elements, and being resolved into them again, or even utterly perishing? For composition is the beginning of strife, and strife [the beginning] of dissension, and dissension [the beginning] of dissolution; but dissolution in no way falls upon God and that primary nature.” A Therefore, it is necessary to transcend every sensible nature and to consider that God is the most beautiful and sublime of all things that exist, unless someone prefers to place Him above all essence, or to place whatever exists within Him, as one from whom other things also have received their existence. And as much as it is permitted to speak of the Ineffable, the whole is comprised in a few words when He calls God “a certain sea of essence, immense and infinite.” B What else does the name which is attributed to God par excellence declare? For He is indeed called "Being" (Ens), because He both exists from Himself and has in Himself the inexhaustible source of being. As much as it is granted to us to attain, "Being" and "God" are in some way names of essence; and of these, the term "Being" is more apt for indicating it; not only by this name because He Himself, when He gave the oracle at the mount to Moses... thus called Himself; but also because we find that name to be more proper... We seek such a nature as possesses being itself, and is not joined to any other thing. For "Being" is indeed proper to God, and is whole, neither defined nor circumscribed by anything prior or posterior (for He neither was nor will be). C But however much the universe of things and the mind may profess their Creator, it would be inconsiderate and perilous for anyone, supported by this single protection, to think he can surely raise himself to Him; nor is it a wonder if so many learned and wise men, seeking Him by the light of nature alone and deceived by the shroud of their own cogitations, have wandered further and further from God: for in order that God may be rightly perceived by us, neither the aspect of the world, nor reason itself, suffices to instruct us, “but now, and always, there is need of the Spirit, through whom alone God is understood, declared, and heard.” Nevertheless, whatever we may think about God, even if we imagine something high and sublime; however much knowledge may grow in this life, we shall never attain the essence of God. “What finally God is by His nature and essence, no one among men has ever found, nor can find.” Hence Gregory, to the Eunomian fatuously boasting that he understands all things, and arrogantly asking the orthodox “what the essence of God might be,” says: “It is your madness to say this, you who even anxiously scrutinize generation itself: but to us it would be enough—vast and ample—if we should learn in the future, when this mist and grossness has been dissolved, as He who does not lie has promised.” Now indeed, let that Theologian be deservedly esteemed, “not he who has discovered in full what God is... but he who has conceived in his mind a more ample image of Him, and has gathered within himself a broader likeness of truth, or adumbration, or by whatever other word one might wish to use.” And do not exclude from this rule even the ancient Fathers themselves, or the prophets who are narrated in the Scriptures to have seen God sometimes. D “For if anyone has known God, or is said by the witness of Scripture to have known Him, he is to be considered to have known Him only as far as he is a partaker of a richer splendor... Thus this superabundance is esteemed as perfect knowledge, not weighed according to the truth of the thing itself, but according to the measure and capacity of others.” Nor is it a wonder if a mortal [creature], circumscribed by such narrow limits, does not grasp the divine and immense: for by what manner can human reason apprehend the whole of His nature, when “every created thing, whether celestial or supercelestial, though it be endowed with a more sublime nature than we, and be nearer to God, yet stands at a longer gap from God and that full and absolute knowledge, than it surpasses this composite, abject, and groveling mass of ours?” Meanwhile, there is nothing to be complained of if God is not by us fully [and] perfectly
comprehended, since we learn by daily experience that so many things even placed before our eyes, and often handled by our hands, surpass the grasp of reason, and that various arcana of nature remain hidden and most obscured even after such great investigations. Are not the almost infinite mysteries of created things, which surround mortals on every side, enough to warn them not to seek higher things, nor presume to scrutinize the Author of so many wonders, lest they be overwhelmed by the magnitude of His glory? This holy doctor has handled this point excellently and at length, intent in his discourse to show that not even the nature of secondary things can be comprehended by the human mind and intellect, let alone that first and sole [Nature]—which I fear even to call higher than all things. Thus he examines also the gifts of the soul, the union of mind and body in man, the harmony of the members among themselves, the order of the elements, the species of living and germinating things, addressing those who claim for themselves the leadership in philosophy in an excellent manner, so that they may either detect the recondite principles of individual properties, which he describes most elegantly, or at last bring to an end their efforts to pull down divine things [to their level], on account of the difficulty of understanding them.
On the Trinity.
As long as Gregory lived, he was an indefatigable preacher and a most fierce defender of the more accurate doctrine concerning the Trinity against the Arians and Macedonians; so much so that all his writings—whether orations, or epistles, or poems—resound with the Trinity and the struggles undertaken for the defense of the Trinity against any adversaries whatever: whence his rivals cast this as a fault and objected to it, just as even now it did not shame Clericus and Tollius to object to Gregory, that he assiduously preached "his" Trinity and at almost every hour mentioned the struggles borne for the Trinity and his exhausted labors. If one were to wish to relate everything that Gregory wrote to explain and defend the faith of the Catholic Church regarding the mystery of the Trinity, the greatest part of his writings would have to be transcribed, leaving nothing out at all: but it will suffice to excerpt fewer and more notable things.
Therefore, he explains the mystery of the Trinity in these words: “One God is to be held, and three hypostases, or three persons, are to be confessed, and indeed each with its own property.” And in another oration: “But it was necessary to acknowledge one God, void of beginning and unbegotten, and one Son begotten of the Father, and one Spirit having substance from God, yielding to the Father the property of being unbegotten, but to the Son generation; as for the rest, however, [he is] of the absolutely same nature, dignity, honor, [and] glory. These, I say, it was necessary to acknowledge, these to confess.” He accommodates to the Trinity these words of John concerning the Son: “He was the true light, which lightens every man coming into this world. He was the true light… the Father. He was the true light… the Son. He was the true light… the other Paraclete. He was, and he was, and he was: but it was one. Light, and light, and light: but one light, one God.”
Each person is from eternity: “We truly call the Father [Father], and indeed much more truly than those who among us hold that name; both because he is Father in a proper and singular mode, and not as bodies; and because he is alone [the Father], for he is not by conjunction; and because he is of the only one, namely the begotten; and because he is alone, for he himself was not Son before he was Father; and because he is Father in totality and of the whole, which can certainly not be affirmed of us; and because he is from the beginning, for the Father did not begin to be later. We truly call the Son the Son, because he is also only, and of the only one, and in a singular mode, and only; for the Father is not also at the same time and in totality the Son, and of the whole, and from the beginning, having this arrangement namely, that the Son never began to be; for deity is not from repentance, nor is deification from progress, such that the one should sometime cease to be Father, [and] the other sometime cease to be Son. The Holy Spirit is truly holy: for neither is another such, nor does he have holiness in the same way, nor by accession, but he is holiness itself, nor is there more and less, nor, as far as time is concerned, did he ever have an origin, nor is he going to have an end. For this is common to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, that they are not created at all, and [are] divinity itself. This, however, [is common] to the Son and the Holy Spirit, that each of them is from the Father. But this is truly the property of the Father, that he is unbegotten: of the Son, that he is begotten: of the Holy Spirit, that he proceeds.” This generation and procession, which can be explained by no words, is not to be scrutinized: “Let us know only this, the Trinity in unity, and the unity
in Trinity to be adored. Let us worship God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, three properties, one divinity, undivided in glory, honor, essence, or kingdom.” A
Three persons, indeed, although they are distinct in reality, are so coherent to one another that whoever should attempt to cut away even one, would remove the three at once, and the whole deity entirely; since one can never exist without the others. “If there were a time when the Father was not, there was also a time when the Son was not. If there was a time when the Son was not, there was also a time when the Spirit was not. If that one was from the beginning, then surely the three were. If you remove one, I shall say boldly, do not even place the two in a superior position. For what is the utility of an imperfect deity? Indeed, what is a deity, if it is imperfect? But how will it be perfect, in which something is desired for perfection? For if it lacks holiness, it is desired. Yet how could it possess this, unless it has the Spirit? For if there is some other holiness besides him, let someone say what that is to be understood as; or, if indeed it is the same, what can be brought forward as to why it was not from the beginning? As if it had been advantageous for God, at some time, to have existed imperfect and devoid of Spirit.”
Who, however, could be capable of sensing, or at least faintly perceiving, such an immense mystery? It would have been forever inaccessible to us, had the Scriptures not spread out the treasures of the divine before mortals. B But the doctors of the Church, having addressed the task of delineating and sketching such great majesty—too excellent for human grasp, and by whose brilliance the mind is dazzled—with various comparisons, have provided us with some notion of the Trinity. This Gregory performs when he invokes the mind to itself, and entreats it to contemplate the image of the mystery impressed within the depths of the soul. For the mind, the word, and the spirit in the one nature of the same man, although they are distinguished from one another, do not constitute three essences, but one substance numerically. “But let us,” says the holy doctor, “hold to one and the same nature of the deity, by which it is known as lacking a beginning, and in generation, and in procession; just as that which is within us is understood by mind, word, and spirit.” C
There are many other comparisons, with whose help our writers have attempted to lift up the feeble mind: but how little they approach the truth of the matter, as Gregory testifies: “When I had considered much and for a long time with the curiosity of the mind, seeking some image of such a great thing, to which that divine nature of things above could at last be compared, I could not find it. For although I found some slight resemblance, the greater part escapes me, and leaves me on the ground.” D Therefore, we must take care not to depress the dignity of the mystery by measuring heavenly things with earthly ones; and therefore, from individual comparisons, cast away whatever may have been too base or entirely disparate: “In sum, there is nothing in which my mind can fix its footing while I consider in examples what I am imagining; unless perhaps someone is of such fairness of mind that, as he takes one thing from the proposed image, he rejects the rest.”
The crime of Tritheism, for which the Arians rebuked Gregory, he so diluted that it is a wonder there were those, thereafter, who accused him of having admitted but one substance only in appearance. “If there is God, and God, and God,” the Arians inquired, “what cause can there be why there are not three Gods?” To this Gregory replied: “For us, he says, God is one, because the deity is one; and to the one are related those things that are from it, even though we believe in three persons. For neither is this more God and that less; nor this prior and that posterior. Nor are they severed by will, or divided by power, or finally is anything found here of those things that happen to divisible things.” And in order to assert a true and whole unity in the deity, not feigned or imperfect, he strives to remove from this unity whatever anyone might contend to equate with it badly, whether in heavenly or in human things. “But what, perhaps they will say, is not the deity one among the pagans as well, as those who philosophize more fully and more perfectly among them teach, and among us the universal race, humanity, is one? And yet there are many gods, and not one, just as there are many men. But there, the community has a unity, which
A can be considered by thought alone." Conversely, the holy doctor establishes that a perfect unity applies to the three persons equally without any discrimination, in these golden words, which are not sufficiently explored due to the profundity of their meaning: "But the rationale of our doctrine is not the same; rather, each of these (namely, the divine supposita) has unity, no less with respect to that with which it is joined than with respect to itself, because of the identity of essence and power." But what need is there of words to defend Gregory? Especially when he was laboring with such zeal, straining every nerve, to repel Eunomius, who was striving to convince the orthodox to introduce division into the paternal substance. These things are surely more than enough for well-disposed minds, so that they might not suspect even the slightest thing against the faith of this excellent doctor.
De Patre. (On the Father.)
Gregory teaches that God the Father is the cause of the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, which means the same as "principle" among the Latins: "Surely," he says, "the Father would be the principle even of those who are petty and unworthy, were he not the cause of his deity, which is recognized in the Son and the Holy Spirit." B As the Son and the Holy Spirit emanate from the Father and are accordingly referred back to him, thus the Father is the origin and fountain of unity in the Trinity: "God is one nature in these three: union, however, is the Father, from whom, and to whom, those things which follow thereafter are referred, not that they are confused and mingled, but that they cohere." C If sometimes the Father alone is called God, and Christ addresses him thus: "That they may know you the only true God," Gregory judges this to be said for the removal of those who, although falsely, are nevertheless called gods. The Father alone can certainly be said to be greater than the Son, not because of any disparity in nature, but insofar as the Father is recognized as the cause and principle of the Son. We can also assert he is greater if we attend to the humanity of the Son: but this interpretation does not much please the holy doctor, as it is less honorable: "Is it not clear," he asks, "that the word 'greater' should be referred to the cause?... That the Father is to be understood as greater than the Son by reason of his humanity, can indeed truly be said, but not as honorably."De Filio. (On the Son.)
No one ever defended the divinity of the Son more strenuously, whether by establishing arguments, dismantling the objections of adversaries, or explaining more difficult matters. We shall not linger on presenting each one, but be content to sample a few from so many. He first shows whence he received the divinity of the Son by gathering very many places from the Scriptures which openly declare it. "We," he says, "have perceived and preach the divinity of the Son from great and exalted voices. From which ones, finally? From these, of course: God, Word, which was in the beginning, and with the beginning, and is the beginning; as in these places: *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.* And: *With thee is the beginning:* and, *He who calls it the beginning from generations.* To these it is said of the Son that he is the Only-Begotten: *The only-begotten Son,* he says, *who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him;* Way, Truth, Life, Light: *I am the way, the truth and the life;* and, *I am the light of the world.* Wisdom, Power: *Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.* D Splendor, Character, Image, Seal, as in these words: *Who being the splendor of glory:* and, *Character of his substance:* and, *Image of his goodness:*... And, *He who was, and who is, and who is to come, he is the Almighty:*... Which things are clearly said of the Son, as are many others which have the same force, none of which is adventitious, nor did it accrue to the Son or to the Holy Spirit later, just as it did not to the Father. For perfection was not conferred upon them by accession. For the Father was never bereft of the Word; nor was there ever a time when he was not the Father; nor, finally, was he ever lacking in truth, wisdom, power, life, splendor, or goodness."But what of this? Do not those who abrogate the divinity of the Son also bring forward many places of Scripture for the patronage of their error? The holy doctor goes to meet them by establishing a rule, of which
A operational intricacies are explained, by whose light the obscure are clarified, and the shadows with which error strove to cover the truth vanish. It is worth hearing him himself: “(a) You could assemble many other things... Although to go through each one of these individually and to explain them with a pious sense is not at all difficult, and also to purge and remove that stumbling block which exists in the Scriptures, provided that you truly stumble and do not rather sin by design; yet, that I may summarize the matter, this is what you must do: attribute the more sublime expressions to the divinity, and to that more excellent and incorporeal nature, and to that which is superior to passions: but the more humble expressions to the composite, and to that which for your sake was emptied, and became incarnate… that you may understand what is the rationale of that former nature, and what of the assumed humanity.”
But lest you deem the error less intolerable or the sin not so immense, the atrocity of the offense of denying divinity to the Son is to be judged by Gregory’s sentiment: “(b) Do you abrogate faith in the Godhead? Not even the demons themselves did this. O you, more unbelieving than the demons, and more foolish than the Jews! For the latter judged the name of the Son to be a voice of equality: but the former knew Him, from whom they were being put to flight, to be God.”
On the Holy Spirit
With no less ardor and zeal does he assert the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians. He openly confesses the Holy Spirit to be God, at a time when even among Catholics there were not a few who, although they acknowledged the divinity of the Holy Spirit, yet did not openly call Him God, nor did they wish Him to be called so. By such open preaching he incurred the offense not only of the Arians and Macedonians, but also of some Catholics, so much so that it moved and helped his adversaries B to displace him from the Constantinopolitan see (c). “Perhaps,” he says, “the Spirit is being attacked.” D *Ἴσως τὸ Πνεῦμα βάλλεται*—that is, says Billius, perhaps for this reason am I opposed and harassed, because I assert and preach the divinity of the Holy Spirit, to whom these men have declared war. Gregory proceeds: *Τὸ Πνεῦμα (ἀκούσαθ’) ὡς Θεὸς, πάλιν λέγω· ἐμοὶ Θεὸς σύ· καὶ τρίτον βοῶ, Θεός*— “The Spirit as God, listen, I say again: to me God indeed; and a third time I shout, He is God,” etc. What Athanasius accomplished in defending the divinity of the Son, that Gregory accomplished in defending the divinity of the Holy Spirit. If he did not experience so many and such great persecutions as Athanasius endured, it occurred only because the occasion was lacking, not the spirit and the will.Yet there is something in his writings that causes wonder. He objects to himself, in the name of the heretics, (d) “that the divinity of the Holy Spirit is contained in no place of Scripture;” which he refutes by a twofold rationale: first, asserting (e) “that the divinity of the Spirit is indeed sufficiently confirmed by the testimony of Scripture, at least to those who are not too dull and obtuse, and averted from the Spirit.” Then he himself brings forward countless testimonies of Scripture, by which it is shown that the divinity of the Holy Spirit is contained in the Scriptures (f). “He is called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the mind of Christ, the Spirit of the Lord, and the Lord himself, the Spirit of adoption... of knowledge, of piety... filling all things with His essence, containing all things,” etc. Furthermore, this also being granted, that the divinity of the Holy Spirit were contained in no place of Scripture, that ought not to be an impediment to our confessing that the Spirit is God, since we believe many other things which do not appear in the Scriptures. “Whence,” he says (g), addressing the adversary, “did you receive those terms of yours, the Unbegotten or the Unoriginate, or even us, the voice of the immortal? Point this out specifically and expressly, or we shall either reject them, because they do not exist in Scripture, or we shall expunge them.... Is it not obvious that these are taken from those things from which they are inferred, even if they are not explicitly stated?”
For the sake of clarifying this response, Gregory institutes a comparison: “Two,” he says (h), “famous transformations of life have existed throughout all time, which are also called two Testaments, and because of the momentousness of the matter, earthquakes; one from the worship of idols to the law, another from the law to the Gospel. And the Scripture announces to us a third earthquake indeed, namely the migration C from this life to that other one, free from all motion and agitation.
A The same thing, moreover, occurs in the two Testaments. What is that? They were not changed suddenly, nor at the first impulse of the assault. For what reason? It is worth our while to know this: that we might not be dragged by force, but led by persuasion. For what is not voluntary is not lasting either. Therefore, the first law, with idols removed, permitted sacrifices. The second, with sacrifices removed, did not by any means prohibit circumcision. And afterwards, when men had once submitted with peace of mind to having something taken away from them, they abstained from things even granted to them—namely, the former from sacrifices, the latter from circumcision; and as they became Jews from having been Gentiles, so they became Christians from having been Jews, lured to the Gospel as if by stealthy transitions B. The doctrine of the divinity can be compared to this example, unless it be that the matter proceeds in the opposite way. For the case stands thus: The Old Testament openly preached the Father, and the Son more obscurely. The New Testament clearly showed us the Son, and hinted at the divinity of the Spirit somewhat obscurely. But now the Spirit himself resides with us, and declares himself to us more openly. For it was not safe, while the Father’s divinity was not yet confessed, to preach the Son openly; nor, while the Son’s divinity was not yet admitted, to impose upon us, as it were, a heavier burden, if one may speak so, of the Holy Spirit. C Rather, by silent accessions, and, as David says, ascensions, and progressions and increments from glory to glory, the light of the Trinity might shine more brightly. Nay, it is declared little by little even by Jesus himself. "For I will ask the Father," he says, "and he will send you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth." The Savior had certain things which he refused to impart to the disciples then, even though they were otherwise being filled with manifold teaching, perhaps for the reasons I have brought forward, and for that cause he hid them from them. And again he said that it would come to pass that all things would be taught by the coming Spirit. Therefore, I judge that the very deity of the Holy Spirit is one of the things in that number, which was to be declared more openly thereafter, to wit, when already after the Savior’s full restoration, the knowledge of him would be mature and perceivable, inasmuch as faith would no longer be denied to him because of so remarkable a miracle. D From the foregoing words of Gregory regarding the Son’s divinity known obscurely in the Old Testament and clearly in the New, and regarding the Spirit intimated only obscurely in the New Testament: from these words, I say, it follows and is only to be concluded that, besides Scripture, an unwritten tradition was necessary, by whose help the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, obscurely expressed in the testimonies of the Scriptures, might be declared clearly and openly. This indeed Gregory teaches more expressly elsewhere: "Keeping the excellent deposit which we have received from our fathers; adoring the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; recognizing the Father in the Son, the Son in the Spirit, in whose name we have been baptized with water." And in Or. XXXI (n. 21): "You repeatedly and often insist that the divinity of the Holy Spirit is contained in no passage of Scripture. Indeed, that he is not new or strange, nor an addition, but recognized and revealed both by those of old and by the men of this age, has already been shown by many who have discussed this matter, and who have been occupied with the divine Scriptures neither slothfully nor perfunctorily, but penetrating the letter and looking within, have seen the hidden beauty by divine grace, and have been illuminated by the light of knowledge," etc. Which things certainly confirm that tradition is necessary so that the Scriptures may be understood, and the dogmas of faith may be defined by the Church, in whose possession is this deposit, which it preserves as received from the apostles and will always preserve.
If there are certain things which might seem strange in what was said by Gregory to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit, it is still more strange what he says, that there were some at that time, even among the Catholics, who, although they believed the Holy Spirit to be equal to the Father and the Son, and consubstantial, still refused to call him God: how absurd this is, no one fails to understand; nor yet can it be called into doubt, since he asserts and says so eloquently that the earth was shaken when he freely preached that the Holy Spirit is God.
A For nothing ever shook the whole earth as did the liberty with which the Spirit is openly preached as God: which, as we know, has also made me hated by my friends.
However, I believe these words are to be understood as signifying the wondrous change that occurred in Constantinople, when in that city, which was the metropolis and bulwark of the Macedonians, the divinity of the Holy Spirit was proclaimed through the efforts and singular strength of soul of Gregory himself. That empty scruple concerning the preaching of the divinity of the Holy Spirit did not spread except in certain parts of the East, especially at Caesarea; so that even Basil, while he demonstrated the divinity of the Holy Spirit with the firmest arguments, did not openly preach that He is God, so as not to stir up minds or provide an opportunity for new dissensions and new vexations; a matter which Gregory pursues at length in the oration he delivered in praise of Basil (b). In the West, however, this never occurred; for no one there hesitated to call the Holy Spirit God and to preach Him as such.
Although Gregory does not deal with the procession of the Spirit, there are nevertheless many places in his writings from which one may infer that he believed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as in these words (c): Προσκυνοῦντες Πατέρα ἐν Υἱῷ, καὶ Υἱὸν ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι· "Adoring the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Holy Spirit." By which words it is implied that just as the Son draws His substance from the Father, so the Holy Spirit draws His from the Son.
On the Incarnation.
B CGregory explains the mystery of the Incarnation no less accurately than that of the Trinity. He is so diligent and exact in expounding it that, out of that immense cohort of heresies regarding the Incarnation that have encroached upon the earth, there is none that he has not transfixed with his pen, both those that had already arisen and those that were to arise. For he refutes the impious dogmas of the Nestorians, Eutychians, and Monothelites, which had not yet erupted, by preaching the truths opposed to these dogmas. And first, indeed, he recognizes no other cause for the Incarnation (d) than the restoration of the human race: Τίς δὲ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, ἣν δι' ἡμᾶς ὑπέστη Θεὸς, αἰτία; Τὸ σωθῆναι πάντως ἡμᾶς· τί γὰρ ἕτερον; He teaches that the Word was closely united to the soul, and the soul to the body as an intermediary: Διὰ τοῦτο Θεὸς σαρκὶ διὰ μέσης ψυχῆς ἀνεκράθη, καὶ συνεδέθη τὰ διεστῶτα τῇ πρὸς ἄμφω τοῦ μεσιτεύοντος οἰκειότητι. Divinity and body, which are disparate things, were thus joined together through the mediation of the soul (f). The Apollinarians called Jesus Christ the Lord "man"; a name which the holy Fathers, such as Athanasius, Epiphanius, Cassian, etc., also used, but in a far different sense, namely, as understanding "perfect man." The Apollinarians, however, admitted "man" in Christ only as lacking a soul, or sometimes lacking an intellect, the place of which they wished the divinity to supply. Gregory refutes them thus (g): "We do not separate the man from the divinity," he says, "but we profess one and the same," etc. Two letters to Cledonius ought to be transcribed, which were once numbered among the orations, occupying the place between LI and LII, and oration XXXVIII (n. 13): "He who is, becomes: He who is not created, is created: He who cannot be contained in any place is contained through the intervention of the intellectual soul, between the divinity and the D grossness of the flesh. He who makes others rich is afflicted with poverty: for He submitted to the poverty of my flesh, so that I might attain the riches of His divinity. He who is full is emptied: for He is emptied of His own glory, not entirely, so that I might become a partaker of His fullness... Christ assumes all that is human, except for sin, being conceived indeed of the Virgin, who in soul and body was prepared beforehand by the Spirit; for it was fitting that both generation should be honored and virginity preferred." Calling the Virgin Mary, who conceived and gave birth to the Lord,
Θεοτόκον παρθένον
(h) more than once, he pronounced an anathema upon Nestorius, before he was even born, and upon all those who strip this honorific title from the blessed Virgin.Concerning the angels
As regards the angels, Gregory seems to hesitate concerning their creation, nature, state, and their various orders; nevertheless, he seems to have held the opinion consistent with the ancient Greek Fathers, that the angels were created before the world. "For since it did not satisfy the divine goodness to be moved merely by the contemplation of itself, but it was necessary for goodness to be poured out and propagated so that there might be more things to receive the benefit—for this belonged to the highest goodness—he first conceived of the angelic and heavenly powers; and this conception was a work which was accomplished by the Word and brought to completion by the Spirit. And thus secondary splendors were created, ministers of the primary splendor; whether one ought to think of them as intelligent spirits, or as fire devoid of matter and incorporeal, or some other nature." A Yet he describes the angels as endowed with "a certain simple nature," and calls them "pure natures." He terms them "fire" B (c), not that he imagines any corporeal or even the most subtle substance in them, but because of the duties they perform for us. Thus God himself is called "fire" in the Scriptures, either because of his excessive purity or because of that most burning zeal for justice by which he consumes sins, whether by changing or by punishing perverse characters. The holy doctor assents to this and supports such an interpretation. "Spirit," he says (d), "and fire, the angel is called; the former because he is endowed with an intellectual nature, the latter because he is employed in the cleansing of our souls; since that primary essence (God) is also called by these same names in Scripture." He seems here (e) to judge the angels to be by their own nature entirely immune to every sin. "For it is the property of God to be free from every stain of sin, and of that primary and uncompounded nature (for simplicity is peaceful and removed from all dissension); I would even boldly add, also of the angelic nature, which is either entirely beyond the risk of sinning, or at least approaches very closely to that proximity which it has toward God." C But nothing prevents us from tempering, or at least explaining, his sentiment by what he says next: "My soul longingly desires to say that the angels are 'immovable toward evil,' and have their motion only toward the good, as those who stand around God and shine with the primary brilliance of God; but the case of Lucifer, who on account of pride became and is called darkness—and the rebellious powers subject to him, which through the flight from the good produced vice and brought it upon us—persuades me to think and say that they are not entirely immovable, but difficult to move." Here he considers the angels as they were when they were perhaps still ignorant of the future, and not yet established in holiness; they could, by free will, deflect from the first resolve to another, although they were then inclined toward justice by their mental disposition, and were more ready for the good than for the evil. D "(g) Angelic powers are ministers of the divine will, and they possess strength not only natural but also adventitious; they traverse all places, both for the promptness of their ministry and for the lightness of their nature. Some embrace one part of the world, or at least to others a certain part has been entrusted, as he knows who ordained and distinguished these things. At a single nod of the Creator of all things, they join all into one. They sing divine praises and contemplate that eternal glory eternally, etc. (h) They are also for us an aid toward all that is best."
Concerning the soul and its immortality and origin
He teaches (i) that the soul is from God and is immortal: "The soul is from God, and is divine, and a participant in heavenly nobility, and hastening toward it; although it is meanwhile bound to a viler and inferior [nature]... (j) We are in danger concerning the salvation of the soul, which is blessed and immortal, and will be affected by immortal punishments or praises, on account of vice or virtue." The fathers are fathers only of the flesh:
9. No mortal man is the father of the whole man, as they say, But just of the flesh and of the blood; both of which Perish, but the soul is the breath of the sovereign God, Falling in from without, into the molding of the clay. He who mixed it alone knows How he first breathed, and mingled the image with the earth.
Original Sin.
He confesses original sin most openly: "I have fallen entirely," he says, "and on account of the first man’s disobedience and the devil’s fraud, I have been condemned..." Just as in the old Adam we have died, so may we live in Christ; provided, of course, that we are born with Christ, and are nailed to the cross, and are buried, and rise again. For a beautiful change in the reverse direction must be undergone by me, so that just as from secondary things came troublesome ones, so also from troublesome ones may joyful and pleasant ones return. "For where sin abounded, grace did superabound"; and if a taste condemned, how much more has Christ’s passion justified? St. Augustine transcribed this passage (1. 1 cont. Jul. c. 5, p. 505, tom. X). Gregory enumerates and determines a threefold birth by the authority of the Scriptures, of which the first two declare the vice of our origin; for one, which occurs through the body, is servile and lustful; the other, which is conferred upon us through baptism, is shown to repel the evil of the first birth and to make amends for the damage. Scripture recognizes a triple kind of birth: the first from bodies, the second from baptism, the third from the resurrection. The first of these is nocturnal and servile, and conjoined with lust; the second is diurnal and free, and possesses the power of repelling vicious affections, cutting away all that was contracted from birth, and recalling us to the heavenly life, "leading us back to the life above." Yet the root of sin is not completely extinguished. "Would that," he says, "vice might perish absolutely, and the first seed of it, and that wicked one who, while we slept, sowed tares among us..." This brought that tree upon us, and the bitter eating, and the envious serpent, and the violated law, which imposed this penalty upon us, that by the sweat of our brow our sustenance must be provided. "I have been cast out of paradise, and have been turned away toward the earth from which I was taken, holding this alone in place of delights, that I am conscious of my calamities: and for a meager pleasure, I am condemned to perpetual sorrow; and I pay this penalty, that it is necessary for me to wage war with him who crept into my friendship wickedly, and through the tasting of the tree led me into fraud. Hence it has come to be that I am born, live, and die in labor and hardship. From this, indigence was born; from indigence, the desire for possessing; from desire, wars; from wars, furthermore, tributes—than which nothing in divine condemnation is more serious and bitter." St. Augustine, having put forward several of Gregory’s testimonies to confirm the Catholic faith, addresses Julian thus: "But there will not be lacking to you a bishop of great name and most celebrated fame, even from the parts of the Orient, whose eloquence, deservedly of great grace, has shone everywhere even when translated into the Latin tongue. Let saintly Gregory, therefore, take his seat with these fathers, and with them suffer the empty envy of your accusation: provided, however, that with them he brings forth his own medicinal judgment against your novel pestilence... Does the authority of the oriental bishops seem small to you in one Gregory? He is indeed such a person that neither would he say this except from the Christian faith most known to all, nor would they hold him so famous and venerable, unless they recognized these things to be said by him according to the rule of most known truth."On Baptism and Confirmation.
He calls baptism "the most illustrious and excellent of all God’s benefits." We call it, he says, a Gift, grace, baptism, anointing, illumination, garment of incorruption, washing of regeneration, seal, and finally we call it by every excellent name. It is called a Gift, because it is given to those who previously contributed nothing. Grace, because it is given even to those who deserve it. Baptism, because sin is buried in water,and so on. Finally, it cleanses and wipes away every sin. A "(a) This is the grace and power of baptism, not overwhelming the world as it did of old, but cleansing the sin of each individual man, and thoroughly wiping away those obstructions or stains which are contracted by vice."
Gregory seems to have thought that baptism conferred by laymen was invalid: at least, this can be gathered from what he recounts of himself when he was sailing from Caesarea to Athens. "Having fallen into a grave tempest, I had come into peril," he says, B "(b) lest I should depart from life uninitiated, desiring the spiritual water amidst the destructive and deadly waves; and therefore I was shouting, beseeching, and expecting some brief space of time: they too were shouting, even in the common danger of life, those who were sailing with me." Gregory feared that he would be deprived of the grace of baptism: yet the remedy was extremely easy for him, if he had supposed that baptism could be conferred by the hand of a layman. For there is no doubt that many were present then, informed by the same faith: C "(c) For all to a man were moistening their cheeks with weeping; and joined together, they were calling upon Christ with a groaning voice." Yet there is also that which one reads in his works that would seem to weaken the former opinion: "(d) Whoever is the initiator for you, provided he is informed by the same faith."
The holy doctor thinks D that those who have not attained to the grace of baptism, not indeed through contempt, but because they put off the time and were cut off by death before receiving baptism, "(e) will suffer lighter punishments, inasmuch as they went astray from baptism not so much by perversity of mind as by foolishness." Regarding adults and infants who, because of an unforeseen and violent casualty, have died without having received the grace of baptism, he has this to say: "(f) Finally, the last, shall be assigned neither to heavenly glory nor to punishments by the just Judge, inasmuch as, although they have not been sealed, yet they are lacking in wickedness, and have rather suffered this loss than caused it." But this is not to be understood as if Gregory thought that infants do not pay the penalties of original sin. In reality, infants will not be afflicted with punishments because they lacked baptism, just as neither will adults if they have not approached baptism out of sloth or contempt: since that defect of baptism could not be laid to their charge. Meanwhile, although adults are not punished for omitted baptism, yet they will pay the price for the sins they committed in life; thus also infants, by nature children of wrath and subject to original sin, will justly be punished, miserably repelled from God for eternity, as Gregory teaches: A "(g) That man, by the envy of the devil and the bitter taste of sin, is miserably separated from God his Creator, to be despised, and is alienated from God."
He urges parents to take care that baptism is conferred upon their infants, and that they be sanctified from infancy. B "(h) Do you have an infant? Let not wickedness seize the opportunity: let him be sanctified from infancy, let him be consecrated to the Spirit from his very swaddling clothes. But do you fear the seal because of the weakness of nature? How weak a mother in soul you are, and of little faith! Yet Hannah vowed Samuel to God even before he was begotten, and immediately after he was brought into the world, she consecrated him." He does not want children to be baptized at the earliest age, unless danger urges it. "(i) Concerning the rest, I am of the opinion that, after waiting for three years, or some briefer or longer space of time (for then they can both hear something mystical and answer, and even if they do not understand fully and exactly, they are nevertheless imbued and informed), so at last, with the great sacrament of perfection, they may sanctify both soul and body.... (j) Because of the unexpected and sudden onsets of dangers, which can be warded off by no help or assistance, it is entirely more beneficial to be protected by the bath." He chides those who delay baptism, and overthrows the vain causes which they offer. C "(k) Every time is suitable for you for the washing, seeing that no time is free from the danger of death." Truly, solemn baptism in Cappadocia was not conferred except on the days of Easter, Pentecost, and Epiphany. Gregory was the first to mention the day of Epiphany: but that custom thrived in the East. D (l) In the reign of Justinian, the king of the Heruli, by name Gethes, came to Constantinople, and on the day of Epiphany he…
received baptism, and the emperor himself stood as his sponsor at the sacred font.
Gregory teaches that the covenant with God contracted in baptism must be faithfully kept, in these words (a): "We must consider the power and efficacy of baptism to be nothing other than a covenant entered into with God for a second life and a purer way of living. And therefore, we must all be in the greatest fear, and guard our souls with every precaution, lest we be found to have violated our faith and the pact through falsehood. For since, when human pacts are to be confirmed, God is wont to be called as a witness, what danger, I ask, is there lest we be found to have broken the covenants contracted with God Himself; and, besides other sins, be found guilty of the very lie itself before the tribunal of Truth?"
Of the sacrament of confirmation, we find this one thing in the writings of Gregory: that it is necessary (b) for us to be perfect Christians, C seeking after perfection, and that this sacrament be conferred in the name of the Holy Spirit.
On the Eucharist
As regards the sacrament of the Eucharist, Gregory acknowledges the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist with so many and such clear testimonies that no doubt can exist concerning his faith regarding this mystery. "O most holy servant of God," he says (d), writing to Amphilochius, "do not hesitate to pray and intercede for us when you draw down the Word of God with your word; when you cut the Lord's body and blood with an unbloody division, using your voice as a sword." And in Oration XLV (n. 19): "The Law," he says, "prescribes the staff that supports you, lest you waver in your mind while you hear of the blood of God, and His passion, and His death, and lest you fall impiously while desiring to appear a patron and defender of God. Nay rather, without shame or doubt, eat the body, drink the blood, if indeed you are held by the desire for life, neither abrogating your faith with discourses about the flesh, nor stumbling at those things that are held concerning the passion. Stand firm, unshakable and stable, and so arrayed that you are not shaken in any matter by adversaries, nor led away by the elegance and allurements of words."
In the consecration of the Eucharist he acknowledges a true sacrifice, when he says that bishops and presbyters offer unbloody hosts, and that our altars are so called because unbloody sacrifices are offered upon them: D "(e) O priests, who offer unbloody hosts... (f) O knees, O palms, which used to appease God with most pure hosts, Carterius, how have you ceased?" He requires great virtues in him who transmits this sacrifice to the heavenly altar, who offers the outward sacrifice, that antitype of great mysteries. "(g) In what way, finally, would I dare to offer that outward sacrifice... to God, or how would I dare to take upon myself the habit and name of priest, before I had purified my hands with holy works?" — "But by the outward sacrifice," Gregory understands that which is performed through bread and wine, "which indeed, once set upon the holy table, are truly changed through a certain ineffable power and efficacy of almighty God into the body and blood of Christ... Nor indeed, doubt in any way that this is true, since He Himself openly says, 'This is my body,' and 'This is my blood.' Nay rather, receive the Savior’s word with faith. For since He is true, He does not lie at all." These are the words of Elias of Crete in *Orat. al. 1, nunc 2*, tom. II, apud Bill. p. 200, 201.
Through this unbloody sacrifice, Gregory teaches that we are made partakers of Christ (h): "Through which (the unbloody sacrifice) we communicate with Christ and His passion and divinity." There are other words of Gregory, from which, as Muratori observes (i), it can be proven that among the ancients, sacrifices and prayers for those who had departed in the sign of faith, and were sleeping in the sleep of peace, were prevalent; for thus in epitaph 118 he introduces the parents of Gregory and Nonna speaking: "We, the pious parents of Gregory, who made his old age light with our labors, and now follow us with sacrifices;" καὶ νῦν ἀμπιέπει θυσίαις. Nor does the holy doctor any less assert and present that the sick are restored from their illness by the oblation of the sacrifice. He brings forward as an example his own father Gregory, and likewise his sister Gorgonia, of whom the one: "That"
A indeed (Gorgonia), when she had pressed her head—with lamentation equal to that of the woman who once washed the feet of Christ—to the altar, and had proclaimed that she would not leave it until she had obtained healing; and then, having covered her whole body with this remedy of hers, and if her hands had stored anywhere any of the antitypes of the precious Body or Blood, she had mixed them with her tears (O admirable thing!), she felt herself immediately freed from her illness, and departed light in body, soul, and mind. B
Nor should it trouble anyone that Gregory, when speaking of the Eucharist, calls them figures and antitypes. Yet it did trouble, or at least seemed to trouble, some. For, say the ministers Claudius and Albertinus, Gregory would not have used these names if he had thought that the Body and Blood of Christ were truly and really contained in the Eucharist. Elias Cretensis interprets these names regarding the Eucharist as referring to the true Body and Blood of Christ. But the author of the work *De perpetuitate fidei* (lib. 1, c. 5, p. 49, tom. III) refutes and pulls up by the roots the empty objections of Claudius and Albertinus.
Of Penance
The holy doctor had learned well enough from the experience of so many who had fallen that justice can be lost and recovered; yet, lest any, by contracting new sins after they have fallen from the innocence of baptism, should flatter themselves too much about forgiveness, Gregory declares that there is no other remedy left for them but tears: "now I know of no other remedy at all besides tears." Moreover, to deter people from sin and confirm them more stably in justice, he warns them that penance is a laborious tonic, a more difficult and burdensome discipline: C"It is grave to use a more difficult and burdensome medicine in place of an easier one, and, having cast away the grace of mercy, to render oneself liable to punishments, and to make amends equal to the gravity of the offense. For what measure of tears shall we expend that may be equal to the fountain of baptism? And who will be the sponsor that the end of life will await the cure, and that we shall not sooner stand before that tribunal still weighed down by debt and in need of the heat of that fire? You, perhaps, good and humane farmer, will suppliantly ask the Lord to spare the fig tree yet a little longer, not to cut it down though accused of barrenness, but to permit you to cast manure upon it on all sides," that is, tears, groans, prayers, sleeping on the ground, vigils, the maceration of soul and body, and finally that correction which arises from the confession of sin and a more contrite way of life; "but it is uncertain whether the Lord will spare it, seeing that it occupies even the space uselessly, while another meanwhile is in need of mercy, and becomes worse because of the long-suffering shown to it."
Although Gregory acknowledges that the cleansing of the soul and its restoration to its former state is very rare, and that with difficulty, after constant groaning and long labors, a scar is finally drawn over the wounds, he nevertheless sharply rebukes the cruelty of the Novatians. "But what do you say?" he asks; "what law do you establish, O new Pharisee—in name, but not in spirit—telling us of the dogmas of Novatus with the same infirmity? Do you not admit penance? Do you deny a place for lamentations? Do you not follow tears with your own tears? Would that it might not happen to you to experience such a judge! Are you not moved by the kindness of Jesus, who bore our infirmities and carried our diseases, who came not to call the just, but sinners to repentance, who prefers mercy to sacrifice, who forgives sins seventy times seven? How blessed would your superiority be if it were purity, and not pride, instituting laws above the capacity of men and taking away the correction of morals through despair! For they are in the same error: an indulgence entirely devoid of scrutiny, and a condemnation lacking all forgiveness; the former loosens all the reins, the latter strangles by its severity." D
A Gregory pursues this, urging against the Novatians: "What? Do you not admit even David, who repented, to whom repentance even preserved his prophetic grace? Nor that great Peter, who suffered something human concerning the Savior's passion? But Jesus received him, and through a triple interrogation and confession, healed his triple abjuration. What... do you not admit him who bound himself in sin in Corinth? Yet Paul even confirmed his love toward him, as soon as he saw that he had returned to a better way of life, and he brings forward this cause: that he might not be 'swallowed up by overmuch sorrow,' etc." As to what Gregory says of the Novatians B: "In the other age, perhaps, they will be baptized with fire, which is the last baptism, and not only harsher, but also longer, which consumes the coarse matter like hay, and takes away all the lightness of vice;" perhaps Gregory hoped that the Novatians would recognize their error; wherefore the words regarding purgatorial fire, not eternal fire, as Nicetas thinks, seem to be understood.
On the Sacrament of Order
Regarding the sacrament of order, one cannot find many dogmatic treatments in the writings of Gregory, except that he testifies that the Holy Spirit is conferred upon bishops in ordination. "Are you not," he says, "a participant in the Holy Spirit? And yet you elevate yourself mostly by this very thing." He teaches that pastors are divinely separated from the people and preside over them. "Just as in a body one part holds the leadership, and as it were presides, while another is subordinate and is governed: in the same way God, either by the law of equity, which weighs the merit of everyone, or even by providence, through which He has bound all things together, has established this in the Churches, that some might be fed and obey, for whom it is clearly more useful, and both in word and in deed be directed toward their duty: others, however, C for the perfection of the Church, might be pastors and teachers, namely those who, because of their virtue, their union, and their intimacy with God, are generally more sublime, holding the ratio of soul to body, or of mind to soul, so that these two—that is, both that which is lacking and that which abounds—being composed and compacted among themselves, as in members, and connected and bound together by the compact of the spirit, might exist as one body, perfect in every part, and altogether worthy of Christ himself, who is our head." Finally, he describes the rites by which a pontiff was inaugurated, addressing the one by whom he had been consecrated: "You anoint me as pontiff, and clothe me with the robe, and place the tiara upon my head, and move me to the altar of spiritual holocaust, and you immolate the calf of initiation, and you consecrate my hands to the spirit, and you introduce me to the sight of the Holy of Holies, and make me a minister of that true tabernacle, which not man, but God fashioned."
Gregory remembers the office of lector, where he relates that Gallus and Julian, who later was an apostate, had enrolled themselves in the clergy: "To such an extent that they even read the divine books to the people, thinking it no less ample and honorable for themselves than anything else; nay, rather, judging piety to be the greatest and most excellent of all ornaments."
He recognizes most clearly the primacy of Peter, whom he calls the dearest of all the disciples. "Christ paid the didrachm not only D for himself, but also in the name of Peter, the dearest of all the disciples." Peter is the prince of the apostles, but the rock of the Church, not as a fisherman, but bursting with fervor. "You see how among Christ's disciples, all of whom are great and exalted, and worthy of election, this one is called the rock, and receives the foundations of the Church into his own faith." Hence, he is called by Gregory, "Peter, the pillar of the Church." This holy doctor declares that this primacy has passed to the successors of Peter, designating the Roman pontiff as the president of the Christian world, and the bond of catholic unity:
But the faith of these, which once was from a greater source, Even now runs its course, throughout the West.
A Binding the whole to saving doctrine, As is fitting, that she who presides over all, May cherish the whole concord of God.
On the Sacrament of Matrimony.
Gregory considers marriage to be good, but nonetheless to be held inferior to virginity B. "Marriage is good," he says, "but I cannot say that it is more excellent than virginity. For virginity would not be some great thing, if it were not better and more glorious than some good thing. Do not take this amiss, you who are subject to the yoke of marriage: 'We must obey God rather than men.' But see to it that you are bound to one another as if by a bond, both virgins and wives, and that you be one in the Lord, and a mutual ornament to one another. There would be no celibate life if there were no marriage. For whence would a virgin have come into this life? Nor would marriage be honorable and venerable, if it did not bring forth a virgin, both for God and for life."He does not seem to approve of second marriages. "If there are two of Christ," he says C, "then there should also be two husbands and two wives. But if there is one Christ, one head of the Church, there is also one flesh; but the second is to be rejected. But if one forbids the second, what is to be said of the third? The first is law, the second is pardon and indulgence, the third is iniquity. But whoever exceeds this number is clearly swine-like, as one who does not even have many examples of vice." From these words, some critics have incorrectly thought that Gregory condemned second marriages; but undeservedly so, since he is attacking and refuting Novatus, who held such a view D. "Do you grant to young widows, on account of the slipperiness of their age, the power of entering into matrimony? Yet Paul did not at all hesitate to do this.... But these things are by no means after baptism, you say. By what argument do you confirm this? Prove that the matter is so, or if you cannot, do not condemn. But if the matter is doubtful, let humanity and kindness prevail."
Gregory believes that a shameless woman should be expelled, since Christ permitted this; in all other matters, however, he commands the use of equanimity and patience. If a man discovers that a woman has used colored dyes, white lead, or pigments, he should strip her of this finery, and coerce and restrain other indecent behavior.
A husband is permitted to send away his wife on account of adultery; but the same power is not granted to a woman to send away her husband: Gregory does not approve of this law, and he attacks it: "For what was the cause," he says, "that they should restrain the woman, but grant indulgence to the husband?.... And the woman, who has entertained an evil design against the bed of her husband, is bound by the penalty for adultery and is tormented by the most severe punishments of the laws; but the man who has violated the faith given to his wife through adultery is subject to no punishment? I by no means approve of this law.... It was men who enacted this law, and therefore it was passed against women."
That bishops were the principal ministers of marriage, and were frequently present when it was celebrated, can be confirmed by the following. Since it was not allowed for Gregory to be present at the marriage of Olympias, he writes to Procopius: "As far as intention goes, I am both present and celebrating the feast at the same time; and I join the youthful right hands to one another, and both to the hand of God."
On the Invocation of Saints.
Gregory is a most rich witness to the invocation of saints, and especially of the blessed Virgin, where he narrates this concerning the blessed martyr Justina, who "fled from all other desperate remedies to God, and against detestable love assumed her spouse as patron and defender.... imploring Christ.... and the Virgin Mary as a suppliant, that she might bring aid to the virgin in danger, fasting..."to bring aid to so great a virgin, she fortified herself with the remedy of fasting and lying upon the ground; partly so that she might obscure the beauty of her form as if it were something treacherous, and thus remove the fuel for the flames and consume the tinder of lust; partly so that through faith and humility she might render God propitious and exorable to herself. For God is not wont to be conciliated by anything as much as by the voluntary affliction of the body, and mercy is accustomed to be repaid in turn by tears. B Nor was there any doubt for Gregory that our vows, and the many things we do here, were known to the saints in heaven; for thus he speaks concerning Athanasius, who had already finished his life: "But may you yourself look down upon us from above with kindness and serenity, and guide this people, a perfect worshipper of the perfect Trinity, which is understood and worshipped in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and, if indeed the state of affairs is to be peaceful, keep me in life and pasture the flock with me: but if the Church is to blaze with wars, bring me back, or take me up, and place me with yourself and with those like you, even though it is a great thing that I ask." C He invokes not only Athanasius, but also Basil and Cyprian; and he writes that diseases and demons are driven away by the ashes of the holy martyr. Gregory so often and so openly professes the cult, invocation, and intercession of the relics of the saints, that although heretics cannot deny it, they have dared to call this pious custom a blind superstition regarding the divines. Thus Dallaeus: "A blind superstition regarding the divines, which this Gregory himself is seen to have promoted not a little by his own words and examples."
On Grace
How excellently the Greek Fathers agree with Augustine and the Latins in the cause of grace has been sufficiently confirmed, especially by the most learned Bishop of Meaux; and even Gregory alone, held in such great honor among the Greeks, would prove this by his own suffrage. Many testimonies have already been brought forth by our Theologians from Augustine against the Pelagians, some from lost books, and each one so clear, and so apt for settling the controversy, that one might believe Augustine himself to be speaking in Gregory, and that Gregory had wished to refute the Pelagians so many years before. These things will presently become clear to the reader, if he attends for a little while to the heads of doctrine that are presented. D Nothing, indeed, argues more for the necessity of divine aid than the difficulties of daily ignorance, and the miserable commotions of lust, even in those who are justified, which Gregory has both openly confessed and bitterly bewailed. "The envy of the devil," he says, "kindled a persecution against the figment of God: therefore the image of God was affected with shame and disgrace, and just as we refused to obey the command, so we have been handed over to the license of error." This intestino war, which frequently arises within us from various and mutually conflicting desires, he has painted in such vivid colors and expressed so forcefully that Augustine, while dealing with this matter against the Pelagians, did not hesitate to employ Gregory as a witness, whose words Billius has rendered thus: "I do not yet speak of the internal war, situated within ourselves and in our affections, by which we are vexed night and day, partly secretly, partly openly, by the body of humility; and by that agitation which tosses us up and down through the senses and other pleasures of this life, and from the mire of the dregs to which we are fixed, and from the law of sin fighting against the law of the spirit, and attempting to corrupt the royal image in us and whatever of divine outflow has been scattered into us. For scarcely anyone, and not unless by long-standing philosophy, has tamed himself, and gradually snatched the nobility and clarity of his soul from that which is humble and joined to darkness, or found God propitious, or even obtained both of these, and exercised himself as much as possible in casting his eyes upward, can overcome the matter that weighs him down." If we were to undertake to gather everything that the holy doctor discussed on this topic, a volume almost entire would have to be written out: since, for instilling the deepest feelings of piety into hearts, he judged nothing more apt in human affairs than a frequent enumeration of the miseries that press upon us from all sides; since they are so wholesome for curbing pride and kindling humility and prayer. It is highly recommended to read the mournful poem which is inscribed *On the calamities of his soul*, of which we put forth these few lines.
A For indeed there is within me, there is a two-fold law, of which one, the good, pursues the Good; but the other, which is worse, pursues what is evil. And that which is of the mind is ready to obey Christ, walking toward the light: but the other, which is of the flesh and blood, is prepared to receive Belial, while it is drawn toward darkness... But an inspector of these warring parties comes from heaven, the Spirit of the great God, and gives a hand to the mind; loosening the tumult of the noxious body, and suppressing the surging wave of dark vices. But yet the flesh retains its rabid fury, nor does it cease from war, and the conflict inclines hither and thither. Sometimes indeed the flesh is tamed by the mind. Again at other times the mind follows the strong flesh, not willingly; and it indeed covets what is better. But what it hates, while it does it, it deplores its pernicious slavery, and the deception of the first-born father, and the nefarious transgression of the mother, the mother of our foolishness.
B He does not weary of lamenting the such great miseries of human life with wonderful variety and secret groans, striving to confer some relief and remedy for so many evils and tears and complaints. But from whence should he hope for relief, if not from the spirit of grace, whom he invokes with such deep sighs and fervent prayers, and strives to draw to himself? Just, therefore, as he did not neglect the countless infirmities of the soul, but wept over them sufficiently; so he does not cease to call upon the physician alone, perfect in goodness and power, for the curing of diseases so acute and stubborn: and just as he has experienced and confessed everywhere the languor and inertia of the will toward the good; so he did not hesitate to refer and ascribe to God, the effective mover of the human heart, whatever good is done in us and by us. That every good takes its beginning from God and is led to its end, he testifies in these few but decisive words: « God, » he says [(b)], « from whom every good takes its beginning, and by whom it is led to its end, may he approach to assist my prayer. »
The beginning of a good work, the fountain and origin of justice and goodness in man, is undoubtedly a sincere faith, the beginning and progress of which Gregory assigns to God without any hesitation: « The Trinity, » he says [(c)], « O men, confess to be of one Godhead, or, if it pleases you more, of one nature; and we shall ask this word (God) for you from the Spirit. For he will surely give the second, who gave the first. » For they already believed the Holy Spirit to be consubstantial with the Father and the Son, but they refused to profess Him to be God. C Augustine used this testimony in his book *On the Gift of Perseverance*, but it was somewhat corrupted by the carelessness of a translator, as his most recent editors have aptly noted.
What wonder then if the holy doctor asks for those who are in error to be illuminated and changed by God, since faith, which he declared is given to us by God, alone dispels the shadows of infidelity? « But who, » he says [(d)], « exposes the knots and dissolves the bonds, and has brought it into our minds that we might solve the obliquities of violent dogmas; I would most of all desire that he might change these (Arians), and for disputants make them pious, and for those who are now so called, make them Christians. »
Nor should those who have received faith think that it is enough for them to perform whatever acts of piety they please; but that they still and always need divine help, so that they may rightly will and rightly act, the holy doctor, lest they be blinded by a deceitful confidence and fall, powerfully reminds them, explaining this saying of the Savior: « Not all grasp this word, but those to whom it is given. » After he [(e)] repelled every fatal necessity from human wills, by asserting liberty; now, in order to break the pride of those who flatter themselves too much about their own powers, he thunders with the great voice of Paul: D « It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy; » from which he thus infers: « For since there are some who, because of deeds rightly done, are so puffed up in their minds that they ascribe all of it to themselves, and do not offer thanks to the Creator, and to the author of their wisdom, and the provider of all good things, Paul teaches them with these words that even the very act of willing rightly stands in need of divine help; nay, that I may speak more correctly, the will itself, and the choice of things which are right and joined with duty, is [a] divine...
benefit, and one that flows from the goodness of God. Hence He says: "not of the one that wills," that is, not of the one that wills alone, "nor of the one that runs" alone, "but also of God who shows mercy." Thus, since the willing itself is also from God, He has with the best right assigned the whole to God. However much you may run, however much you may strive, you have need of Him who gives the crown. "Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it. Unless the Lord keep the city, he who keeps it guards in vain." I know, he says, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor the victory to those who fight, nor the harbor to those who navigate prosperously; but it belongs to God both to bring about the victory and to lead the boat safely into port.
What more, and what may the human will presume to arrogate to itself, when even the good will itself, and the choice to act rightly, and labor and the race and victory and safety, and whatever can be thought of up to triumph and full security after dangers, is all by the best right to be attributed to God? Hence, if we should be eager to offer gifts and the observances of a grateful spirit to God, let us not proclaim that these spring from us as if from ourselves, but as gifts of His own munificence, as they are, let us dedicate and vow them to Him; which is both a duty of piety most pleasing to God and most salutary for us. "Let us all, he says (a), offer, some indeed less, others more, yet all without exception, into the perfect work, into the dwelling place of Christ, into the holy temple, constructed and joined together by the architectural art of the Spirit. This indeed is in no way doubtful, that even if we should contribute all things, we shall yet contribute less than we have received. Forasmuch as it is of the divine benefit that we exist, that we know God, and that we even have something to offer." B Finally, whatever progress we may have made in virtue, however much we may be changed for the better, let us not congratulate ourselves, but let us give thanks to God, by whose right hand this daily amendment of morals takes place, as Gregory confirms by interpreting these words of Scripture: "You shall not appear in my presence empty": "But if you have anything beautiful, you shall bring it with you. But now, he says (b), appear new in a different way, namely in such a way that you are totally changed... To this feast, in place of a gift, offer a remarkable change, and do not even then think magnificently of yourself, but say with David: 'This is the change of the right hand of the Most High,' from whom flows whatever is done by men rightly and with praise."
But who among so many dangers, so many battles of temptations, will walk firm and secure, if he is forced to fight alone against such formidable enemies? Now therefore, no one certainly can overcome, repress, and extinguish the solicitations of the world, the impulses of the devil, the titillations of the flesh, the heat of passions, and whatever can cast the soul down from virtue, unless he is fortified and aided by divine help, as Gregory teaches (c): If you tremble, because a light spark kindles the stubble: Take heart. A shower from heaven will cool the great flame.
To these must be added what Augustine (d) culled and brought forth from the lost work of Gregory: "For the soul, when it has been in labors and in straits, when it is hostilely pressed by the flesh, then it takes refuge in God, and knows from whence it ought to seek help."
Now indeed, so that it might procure for itself strength from above, what could one who is languishing and invalid imagine more wise, more salutary, than to commit himself wholly to divine grace, in no way resting upon his own C efforts? Nor is it less to be approved if, whatever he can, whatever he is worth, he willingly concedes all things to Christ. (e) In you, Christ, I have more trust than in my own efforts... (f) From you, in you, O Blessed One, I again look upon my strength... (g) King Christ, you are to me country, strength, wealth, everything.
And to what degree the virtue of grace is, how great its effectiveness is in moving the heart, he gravely inculcates in us, while he so often brings forward the miracles which Christ performed for the healing of bodies, so that he may demonstrate His power more illustriously. "You will see Jesus, he says (h), using the ministry of the angels, and healing all diseases and languors, and recalling the dead to life, just as I hope you also, though dead by the perversity of faith." Such trust in divine grace, such... D
opinion and estimation he had in his mind, so that in the poem *De rebus suis*, by that same power through which Christ once dispelled diseases, drove out demons, and raised the dead from the underworld, he most ardently yearned for a similar operation to exert the power of grace upon his own soul:
(a) Send forth your mighty hand, And bring the cure for pains, and display in me all Your miracles and the power of signs, as you did of old. Speak, and let the flux of blood most quickly cease. Speak, and let the spirit of the legion drive the herd of swine Into a frenzy, and let it fall into the sea and withdraw from me. Remove the grievous leprosy, let light come to my Blind eyes, and let my ears hear the sound. Extend my withered hand. Break the chains of my tongue, And make firm the weak step of my feet. Satisfy me with a little bread. Calm the terrible Sea. Shine more brightly than the sun. Fix my failing limbs, and from the dead Raise up the rotting one once again; and do not, after You have seen me like a fig tree, wither me up as one that bears no fruit.
A Therefore, the miracles that Christ performed by restoring health to bodies are nothing but shadows and figures of the miracles that He works daily, while He leads men to salvation; nor does He act with less power and potency upon souls than upon bodies, or rather with greater, since it is necessary to compel the repugnance of the will and to soothe and treat its freedom, so that by not forcing, but by changing perverse affections of the heart with a marvelous sweetness, He may effectively turn the soul to Himself. If he elevates the necessity and power of grace with such great zeal, it is his care to produce the equally wholesome warnings of piety that arise therefrom, so that we may thus attract grace to ourselves by sincere reverence of a grateful mind and humility of heart, and by assiduous prayer and utmost vigilance B cherish and increase it within us.
(b) I proceed, not without hope of reward, stretching out my limbs while running, Having Christ as my inspiration, Christ as my strength, as my most ample riches: Who provides for me both keen-sighted eyes and prosperous courses. Without Him, all mortals are but empty mockeries, And the dead are living, filthy with sins; For you have not seen a bird flying without air, Nor has a dolphin swum as a racer of the sea without water. So neither does a mortal lift a foot without Christ. Wherefore do not boast too much, nor trust in the powers Of your mind, even if you be greatly wise: Nor, seeing someone more abject, be lifted up on high, As if you were superior to all, and were approaching closer to the goal.
These things beyond all doubt sufficiently evince that the Greek Fathers, and especially Gregory, were as concerned to discuss grace as learnedly and clearly as the Latins, and no less to preach and commend it.
On Faith
Through faith the way of salvation is grasped, and salvation is procured. Faith belongs equally to the learned and the unlearned; (c) "For if faith fell only to learned men, nothing would be poorer than God." Gregory teaches that the word of simple faith suffices: "For a word suffices, and simple faith, with which God saves the greater part of mankind," (d) "For the word of simple faith suffices, with which the greatest part of men procures salvation." But one must not presume to know the mysteries, especially those of the Trinity, to their depths, and it is forbidden to inquire into them. "Do not inquire into the nature of the Father," he says (e), "the birth of the Only-Begotten, the glory and power of the Holy Spirit; one, I say, and the same divinity and brightness in three persons, that indivisible nature, and confession, and glory, and the hope of men endowed with faith. Hold fast to those words, with which you were nurtured as if with milk; but entrust the care of discourse and disputation to the more learned. It is more than enough for you to have the foundation: let the architect build upon it." He says that it is not for everyone to discourse about God; but this task is incumbent only upon those who have been most exactly tested. "It is not for everyone," he says (f), "to discourse about God; it is not, I say, for everyone... I will add, moreover, not for everyone..."
B It is not at all times, nor before just anyone, nor concerning all things, but at a certain time and before certain people.... Not indeed for just anyone, since this task falls only upon those who have been most exactly tested, and have advanced far in contemplation, and have first cleansed both body and soul from the filth of vice; or, to speak more sparingly, are currently doing so, that they might cleanse themselves from the stain of vice.... When, then? Manifestly, when we are at rest from external filth and tumult, and the ruling part of us is not confused by wicked and wandering images.... Among whom, moreover? Namely, among those who embrace a matter of this kind zealously and seriously, and who do not pursue this, as they do other things, with foolish triviality, after circus games and spectacles, after songs, and finally after they have indulged their belly and the things that are below the belly. Those indeed who are so desperately affected, that they count this also as a part of their amusements, namely to trifle about divine things and to wrangle with intricate disputation. Now, concerning what, and how far should one dispute? Only concerning those things which do not exceed the measure of our intellect and the capacity of the listener.... (a) Nor, indeed, let anyone receive these words as if I were denying that God should be worshipped with perpetual remembrance.... For we ought to draw breath not as often as we ought to remember God; nay, if it can be said, nothing else should be done but this.... Therefore, I do not forbid anyone from keeping God in remembrance perpetually, but I forbid them from disputing about God; nay, I do not even forbid this—for it is pious—but I forbid doing so unseasonably.
What, however, Gregory most forbids is that we should irreverently dispute about our mysteries with immoderate zeal for speaking or writing. C "(b) At least let this be agreed upon among us, that we speak of mystical things mystically, and of holy things holily, and that we do not cast them into profane ears, which it is unlawful to spread among the common people; nor let us suffer those who worship demons and profess the cult of foul myths and things to seem more religious than we are."
On the reading of ethnic books.
To a youth intent on the reading of ethnic books, Gregory gives these counsels: "(c) Diligently apply yourself to the best disciplines, and exercise yourself in the books of poets, the commentaries of historians, the flowing eloquence of orators, and the subtle meditations of philosophers; yet so that you may move prudently in all these. For you ought to wisely gather from them whatever is useful; and, on the contrary, with skillful judgment avoid whatever in each one is harmful, and thus imitate the industry of the clever bee. For when it has become accustomed to settling on any flowers whatsoever, it culls only what is useful from each, following nature itself as its mistress with a certain singular wisdom. Do you, however, following reason, cull others abundantly, if any things can be of profit; but if anything of that kind should be such as to bring detriment, fly away quickly once the depravity of the thing is understood. Indeed, the mind has been given to humans with such speed, that it can fly away very quickly. Wherefore, whatever has been written by them, either for the praise and preaching of virtue, or conversely for the reprehension of vices; I would have you learn these with singular study, and retain both their mind and sense, as well as the elegance of their diction. But those things which they have written about the gods, containing notable trifles, for example, dishonest and foul myths, the doctrines of evil spirits, myths, I say, worthy of both laughter and tears; avoid all these as snares and traps. And when you have read both simultaneously, their gods and their orations, the ridiculous gods and the amiable orations; reject those voluptuous gods, but value the orations most highly: just as, of course, from the same shrub you should beware of the thorns, and cull the roses. And this shall be the best law concerning foreign doctrines." Basil the Great prescribes the same to those reading the books of the heathens.
On temporal and ecclesiastical power.
What we ought to think about temporal power, and also what those themselves who are distinguished by it ought to think, Gregory signifies in these words: D "(d) Emperors, revere the purple.... Recognize how great that is which has been committed to your faith, and how great the mystery is that surrounds you. The whole world is subject to your hand, held by a small diadem and a meager cloth. Things above are indeed of God alone; but things below are even yours. Show yourselves as gods to your subjects; for it is permissible to speak somewhat boldly: 'The heart of the king is
in the hand of God
,' as we hear and believe from Scripture. Let this be your empire, and not—"A in gold and in armies. You courtiers, grandees, and those distinguished by lofty thrones and dignities, do not greatly exalt your spirits on account of your power, nor think of mortal things as though they were immortal. Keep faith with the emperors, but first with God, for the sake of whom you have been entrusted and handed over to these also."
He recognizes ecclesiastical authority, and declares and defends it before the provincial prefect in these words: "The law of Christ subjects you also to my authority and throne. For we too exercise authority; I will even add, a more excellent and perfect one: unless indeed it is right for the spirit to yield to the flesh, and heavenly things to earthly." Yet he teaches that princes are no less to be obeyed: B "Let us submit ourselves, both to God, and to one another, and to those who exercise authority upon the earth: to God for many reasons, but to others for the sake of the bond of charity; finally, to princes, for the sake of order and the principle of public discipline; and this all the more, the easier and more benign they are whom we serve."
On the hierarchy and the celibacy of presbyters.
As regards the hierarchy, where Gregory speaks of the Constantinopolitan clergy, he mentions only bishops, presbyters, deacons, and lectors: "Behold the council of presbyters, adorned with gray hair and prudence, the modesty of the deacons... the harmony of the lectors." The bishops occupy the first ranks in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and the priests the second; none was promoted to the episcopate except through the lower ranks. As long as the Church flourished, and the vigor of discipline stood intact, whoever was to be promoted to the supreme honor of the priesthood was chosen for the merit of his holiness, and his life, morals, and doctrine were diligently inquired into. But when the time came that the abominable Arian heresy confused everything, this order was disrupted, C and the laws were trampled underfoot. Hence those complaints of Gregory: "For we easily place everyone on the chairs of the prelates, if only they wish it: in no way considering either the actions, or the doctrine, or the conversation of recent or ancient men... We do not make those prelates who have been tested for some period of time; but those who seem worthy in their own judgment." Hence those such sad, such mournful images of the bishops of this time, portrayed by him in such black colors in his poems. Thus, in the oration on this subject he says: "I was ashamed of others, who, while being no better than many—and would that they were not even much worse—with unwashed hands, as it is said, and with profane minds, intrude themselves into the holiest mysteries, and before they are worthy even to approach sacred things, they haunt the sanctuary itself, and push and shove one another around the sacrosanct table, as if judging this order not as an example of virtue, but as an occasion and subsidy for preparing a livelihood, and as if it were not a duty subject to account-giving, but an empire immune from all censure."
In the East, presbyters do not seem to have observed the law of celibate life so strictly; indeed, some departed from it, which Gregory himself indicates when he writes that there are some who wish to receive baptism from that presbyter D "who is celibate, who flourishes in the praise of continence and an angelic manner of living."
On ecclesiastical causes.
The judges of ecclesiastical causes were bishops; and if ever an ecclesiastical matter was taken into public courts, they felt it keenly, and hence had complaints against the judges, as Gregory's letter concerning Bosphorius the bishop is evidence. "This," he writes to Nectarius, "I dared to offer for the most reverend Bishop Bosphorius... You yourself, of course, will dissolve the controversy that has arisen regarding the circummanentes, according to the grace of the Spirit that is in you and the tenor of the canons. However, let it seem in no way endurable to your reverence that ours should be brought into public courts. For even if those who are judges of such matters are Christians—as indeed they are by the kindness of God; yet what has the sword to do with the spirit? But even if we conceded that, how or where is it just that a dispute about faith should be entangled with other controversies?" What Gregory requested in this letter, it seems, fol-
- A lows from, and indeed gave occasion for, the rescript of Theodosius, dated February 4, 384 or 385, to Optatus, Prefect of Egypt, in which it is decreed: "(a) Let not the name of bishops, or of those who serve the needs of the Church, be drawn before the courts, whether of ordinary or extraordinary judges. They have their own judges, nor do they have anything in common with these public laws, insofar as it pertains to ecclesiastical causes, which it is fitting be decided by episcopal authority. Therefore, whatever question may have been raised that pertains to Christian holiness, it shall be proper for them to litigate under that judge who preses over all the priests in his own districts," etc.
On Virgins and Monks
It is most worthy of note what Gregory says regarding virgins consecrated to God, and regarding all those who, after having made vows to God, do not care to fulfill their promises, or gravely abandon their duty:
(b) He who has offered virginity to Christ the King, A rational sacrifice, an unbloodied victim, If he thereafter seeks marriage, not only is it a loss for him, but a most grave Case, near to death, and furthermore an indelible disgrace... And who, hearing of the unhappy Sapphira and Ananias, Who exchanged their profit for an evil death, Would not fear to violate their promises even slightly? He who has furtively stolen even the golden rule From the leaders of the people, without the leader knowing, The vestment and a bit of money; he has harmed the whole people. Such is he who, having embraced virginity, turns backward; or is even worse.
Gregory thus describes the practices of the monks of Nazianzus (c): "Vigils, fastings, prayers, tear-stained B cheeks, strikings of the breast, sighing flowing from the depths, all-night vigils, the pilgrimage of the mind to God, and a soft weeping while praying that incites the souls of those listening to compunction; chanting psalms, celebrating the glory of God, meditating on the law of the Lord day and night, bearing the exaltations of God in their throats; and these are beautiful signs and proofs of a life pleasing to God, and silent heralds: namely, dirty and unkempt hair, bare feet, and imitating the apostles, bearing nothing dead, a fitting and moderate tonsure, clothing that restrains pride, a girdle neat and adorned on account of neglected ornament... an eye not at all wandering, a gentle smile... silence more excellent than speech, praise seasoned with salt, not geared toward flatteries but directing toward better things, rebuke more desirable than praise... a manner both of going out in public and of withdrawing, this so that they themselves may be imbued with the mysteries of the Spirit; and thus both, that they may preserve solitude in communal life, and in solitude brotherly benevolence and charity; and, what are even greater and more sublime than these, wealth in poverty, possession in pilgrimage, glory in contempt, power in infirmity, fruitfulness in celibacy, since those offspring are more excellent who exist according to God than those who derive their origin from the flesh; who have not the least desire for luxuries C because of the luxuries they possess; who are humble for the sake of the heavenly kingdom, who have nothing in the world and exist above the world, who live even in the flesh outside of the flesh, who have God for their portion, who labor in need for the sake of the kingdom, and reign on account of their need."
Regarding monks and virgins sacred to God, he writes thus again in iambic verse (d): But what is always and to all most well-known, You behold the sleepless psalmodies of virgins, Of men and women forgetful of nature, How many and how great! approaching the Divinity A double choir, singing together and answering the angels, Ordered in heaven and on earth, A praiser of divine majesty and nature. Not one is the life of all virgins, and the same institutes of living: (ε) Some, living together, fostering a common desire For the heavenly life, and equal measures of life. D Others indeed, gathered together, were keeping a common institute of living under one chamber, fostering a common desire for the heavenly life, and having followed similar modes of living.
A Others, however, remained in their fathers’ homes and attended to their infirm parents, whose care they undertook, and even [that] of relatives, whom they had as witnesses of their continence. Thus Marcellina, the sister of Saint Ambrose, was a virgin consecrated to God in her father's house; thus Eustochium, thus Principia, and not a few others, celebrated by the Hieronymian pen, who had bound themselves to no monasteries, and lived under the sole care of their parents.
As time went on, abuses crept in: some of these virgins meanwhile—whether because they were orphaned of parents and brothers, or because they were induced by infirmity, poverty, or other considerations—took into their company wandering clerics and monks; and thus it happened that clerics or monks, [i.e.] *introductitii* [subintroductae], took the place of parents and brothers, and even masked such a harmful custom with honorable names. Hence the origin of the *agapeti* and *agapetae*, by which names they adorned such a dangerous norm of living. Hence the complaints of the holy Fathers, especially Jerome, lamenting the wound inflicted upon virginity; in his epistle *On Keeping Virginity* to Eustochium, he says: “It is shameful to say it, O, what a crime! It is sad, but it is true. Whence has the plague of the *agapetae* entered the Churches? Whence another name for wives without nuptials? Nay, whence a new kind of concubines?” etc. The holy Fathers did not cease to confront such evils with their complaints, admonitions, and writings, as well as with the severe edicts of councils; if one were to recount each of these, a long history would have to be woven by us. It is enough to have said this; whoever desires more, let him read Antonio Muratori’s *Disquisitio de Synisactis et Agapetis* in his *Anecdota Graeca*, etc., 4to, Padua, an. 1709, p. 218.
Observations on Church discipline from Gregory’s writings.
Many things worthy of observation occur in Gregory’s writings, both regarding the discipline of the Church and regarding the rules of conduct. The churches were an asylum for those who fled to them; hence it was not lawful for anyone to drag them out of there. Gregory offers a notable example in his oration on Basil [(a)]: “To a certain woman born of high rank, whose husband had not long before passed away on the last day of his life, a judge’s assessor was offering violence, and was dragging her against her will to a marriage. But she, since she could by no means escape this violence... took refuge at the holy table, and adopted God as her champion against this injury. What then... was to be done—I do not say by the Great Basil, who had also established laws for all regarding these matters, but by any other man, far inferior to him, provided he were nevertheless a priest? What else but that he should claim her, retain her, protect her with all care, reach out his hand to the clemency of God and to the law which commands that honor be held for the altars, and in short, to do and suffer everything before he would enter upon any more inhuman plan against her; and so offer insult both to the sacrosanct table and to that faith also which she held as a suppliant?” Basil did not allow any injury to be brought upon the pious widow, but defended her with every help and effort against her persecutor, even though he relied on the protection of the *Dominica Augusta*.
In the ancient times of the Church, it was the custom of Christians that each should provide with his own hands the matter of the Eucharist, and these loaves were all offered at the divine table. Not even the emperor was free from this usage, as we learn from the example of Valens: “When the gifts, which he himself had provided, as Gregory writes [(b)], were to be offered at the divine table,” etc.
All the faithful together, men and women, sat chanting the psalms in the Church: “We sit with the little old women and chant the psalms [(c)].” The sign of the cross was held to be an effective remedy in any case. How great the power of this sign is, is manifest from what Gregory narrates in these words concerning Julian, who was consulting demons about his affairs [(d)]: “But as the terrors began to assail the outstanding man as he was proceeding, and soon more and more formidable sounds—unaccustomed, they say—and foul odors and fiery specters, and I know not what nonsense and delusions, being stunned by the novelty of the matter... he took refuge at the cross and the old remedy, and signs himself against the terrors, and adopts as his helper the one whom he was persecuting... The sign prevailed, the demons yield, the fears are driven away. What then? The evil recovers; it conceives boldness again, it attacks again, the same terrors press again, the sign is employed again, and the demons grow quiet. The disciple is at a loss, devoid of counsel.” The faithful observed the holy days of fasting; some even beyond their strength. “Christ,” says Gregory [(e)], “shortly before the temptation of fasting...
fasted; we, before Easter... He abstained from food for the whole forty days, as being God; we, however, have tempered our fast to the measure of our own strength, even though some, impelled by zeal, might rush beyond their power in fasting.” Those who did not celebrate the holy fasts were rebuked. Thus, Gregory sharply rebukes a prefect for violating the law of the fast: “You act unjustly, O judge, who do not fast. And how will you keep human laws, you who despise divine ones and hold them for nothing?”
The faithful placed the bodies of the dead in the tomb with great ceremony, as in the example of the Emperor Constantius. “He, therefore,” relates Gregory, “is brought forth with public proclamations and auspicious omens and a celebrated procession, and with those religious offices of ours, that is, nocturnal chants and the fire of tapers, with which we Christians think the pious departure from life should be adorned.” Thus also does Gregory describe the obsequies: “For us, that great Caesarius has been preserved, precious ash, a praised corpse, brought forth with hymns succeeding one another, brought with pomp to the shrines of the martyrs, honored by the holy hands of his parents, his mother clad in white garments, piety substituting for grief, tears overcome by philosophy, psalmodies calming the mourning... And some things we certainly pay, others we shall give, offering anniversary honors and commemorations, at least those of us who shall survive.” Hence it is evident that it was also the custom that anniversary honors and commemorations should be offered by those who survived.
Besides the principal feasts, namely the Nativity of the Lord, Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost, the feasts of the apostles were also celebrated in Constantinople, as well as those of the martyrs, among whom the Maccabees were numbered. For Gregory testifies that he celebrated the feasts of the apostles there, although not often, while saying farewell: “Farewell, apostles, illustrious colony, masters of my struggle, even if I have not celebrated your feasts very often.” Gregory preached a sermon to the people for the feast of Saint Cyprian the martyr, and also another for the feast of the Maccabees, whose feast day was kept in Constantinople: “Who, although they are not honored by many, because they did not struggle after Christ, are nevertheless worthy to be honored by all, since they showed a brave spirit for the sake of the laws and customs of their fathers. Who, moreover, suffered martyrdom before Christ’s passion—what, in fact, would they have done if they had suffered persecution after Christ, and had had His death, undertaken for the sake of our salvation, set before them to imitate?” With what virtues and works of piety the feasts of the saints, especially of the martyrs, are to be honored, he expresses with a worthy character, and proceeds from there in these words: “If we assemble or congregate in this way, we truly celebrate this day as a feast, as is pleasing to Christ; we truly honor the martyrs or will honor them; we truly perform a triumphal dance. But if we gather there as if to indulge in the pleasures of the belly, and to enjoy fleeting and soon-perishing delights, and to bring in those things which are soon cast out; and if we judge these places to be for gluttony, not for temperance, and these times to be for worldly affairs and business, not for spiritual ascent and (if this be not said too boldly by me) for attaining divinity, of which the martyrs are the mediators: I certainly do not recognize that this is fitting for the occasion. For what has chaff to do with wheat? What has the pleasure of the flesh to do with the struggles of the martyrs?”
There were houses—the hospitals—designed for receiving Christians, which were held to be a refuge against human infirmity and against the miseries of poverty. Basil built one outside the city of Caesarea, and it will be helpful to record here the description made of it by Gregory, nor will it be irksome to read: “Step a little outside the city, and behold the new city, that storehouse of piety, the common treasury of the rich, in which not only overflowing and superfluous wealth, but even necessary resources are stored up through his exhortations... in which sickness is borne with an even mind, and calamity is deemed blessed, and mercy is explored... To me, indeed, no thing seems as admirable as this short way to salvation, this easy ascent to heaven.”
Julian [thought] that nothing of the Christian religion, which was most hateful to him, was so honorable,
as his observation of their hospital houses and care for the poor, nor that it had grown by any other thing as much as [by this]; he determined to build houses of this kind, and having given letters to a certain pagan priest, named Arsacius, he ordered that guest-houses A should be established frequently in every city. It is worth hearing the apostate: “The religion of the pagans does not yet flourish according to our mind, through the fault of those who profess it. For the things which pertain to the gods are indeed noble and magnificent, and greater than any wish or hope... What then? Do we think that these things are enough for us? Do we not heed what has increased the religion of the Christians—namely, their kindness toward strangers, their solicitous diligence in burying the dead, and the feigned gravity of their morals? I consider that each of these things should be practiced by us. Nor is it enough that you yourself should be of such a character, but it is fitting that as many as are priests in Galatia should be such... Exhort the individual priests neither to attend the theater, nor to drink in taverns, nor to practice any base or disgraceful art or craft... Establish many guest-houses in individual cities, so that strangers, not only from among us, but from others as well, if by chance they need money, may enjoy our humanity. Furthermore, as for where the expenses will be provided for you, I have already made provision... For it is shameful that no one from among the Jews begs, but the impious Galileans, in addition to their own poor, also support ours, while our poor are seen to be destitute of our help and aid.”
Concerning the rules of morals.
The author of the *Library of Ecclesiastical Writers* writes B that Gregory teaches a discipline of morals by a method which would become a philosopher more than the common people: which, indeed, if it were true, would have to be turned not to the praise but to the fault of a bishop, who, since he ought to be skilled in the art of teaching everyone, should adapt his speech to the ears of his hearers; it is necessary that he should imbue both the unlearned and the learned with heavenly disciplines. Whoever, however, reads Gregory’s sermons, if he diligently attends to how he proposes and explains various chapters of doctrine concerning morals before a frequent crowd, will easily know Gregory, as a faithful steward in the house of God, to have distributed the grain of the head of the house with a provident hand to each one, so that no one, not even the smallest pauper, might suffer from hunger; and to have unlocked the fountains of wisdom with such prudence that all, whether small or great, were able to quench their thirst. It is helpful to demonstrate the matter with a few examples.
1° If you ask of Gregory how one ought to begin a sermon or any matter? “This is the best order,” he says [(b)], “that he who begins either a sermon or any matter, should draw the beginning from God, and rest in God.” This is the norm for all our actions.
2° What is to be offered to God? C “Let each one offer to God what he can, at any time, in any kind of life and fortune, according to the measure of his present faculty, according to the grace granted to him, so that through all the modes of virtue, we may fill all the mansions of the heavenly kingdom.”
3° God is so kind, so merciful, that He gladly accepts even the smallest things, if greed does not suppress the will, and if the gifts are not restricted by the straitness of the heart: “Nothing of those things which are offered to God,” he says [(d)], “is so small, even if it is of the lowest moment, even if it is far below His dignity, that He does not receive it entirely and hold it acceptable... Indeed, there is no doubt that, even if we had contributed everything, we would still have contributed less than we received. For it is of the divine benefit that we exist, that we know God, and that we even have what we may offer. And that is to be considered the most beautiful and most humane [principle], that God measures a gift not by the price and dignity of the thing offered, but by the affection and faculty of the one offering.”
4° What the abbot Gregory the Theologian especially demands of us, inculcating things worthy of memory and serious reflection: D “God demands these three things from every baptized man: right faith from the heart, truth on the tongue, and temperance of the body.”
5° For which reasons, one decides to attempt noble deeds well by obstructing every entrance to vain glory. “(f) If he (Julian) considered that we draw near to dangers through a desire for glory and not through a zeal and love for the truth, these things may truly be mocked among them by Empedocles and Aristaeus,
and certain Empedotimi, and Trophonii, and the chorus of such miserable men. A But to Christians it is more pleasant to suffer for the sake of piety, even if no one is to know of it, than for others to flourish in impiety and to live in glory. For we care very little about pleasing men; seeking only this, that we may obtain honor from God; indeed, we rise even higher. (I speak of those who are truly philosophers, and truly endowed with the love of God). Indeed, we desire to be joined to the Good for the sake of the Good itself, and not for the sake of honors stored up in another age. For this is the second degree of honorable and praiseworthy men, to do something for a price and reward; just as those who are deterred from crime and evil-doing by the fear of punishment are to be placed in the third class. »
6° He describes the laws of friendship in such a way that nothing more is to be desired for the perpetual harmony and survival of society, if only morals were fashioned according to that pattern: B Among Christians, each person is himself the law and norm of friendship, and he wills the same things for his neighbors as for himself. Moreover, he deems it a crime not only to have been evil, but even to have stood little apart from evil, since cupidity itself is punished almost as an act; among whom there is such a devotion to modesty that even the eye is bridled and restrained; and the bloody and murderous hand is kept so far away that even anger itself is checked; and perjury is considered so atrocious and nefarious that the oath itself is forbidden to us alone. »
7° He not only suggests kindness toward the poor, but urges it with the greatest arguments. C "Do you think that kindness is not necessary, but optional for you? And not a law, but a counsel? I, too, would greatly wish and hold it to be so. But that left hand terrifies me, and the goats, and the reproaches, which are cast by Him by whom they were placed there; not because their hands brought to others' goods, nor because they pillaged temples, or committed adultery, or admitted some other thing from among those which are forbidden, that they are punished in this order, but because they did not care for Christ through the poor." »
8° Finally, by compelling the Christian to consider himself either as having accumulated divine benefits or as being in great need, he excellently incites him to the duties of charity. D "You have a benefit, that it may remind you of many commandments: do not pass by contemptuously. Has a poor person approached? Let it come to your mind from what great poverty you have been advanced to how great riches. Lacking bread, or drink, and perhaps even some Lazarus cast before the doors of your house? Let the mystical table to which you have approached move you; let the bread of which you have become a participant move you, and that cup which you received when you were initiated into the passions of Christ. Has a stranger, homeless, an alien, fallen at your knees? Receive him through this One, who became a pilgrim for your sake, even among His own, and who immigrated to you through grace, and drew you to a heavenly domicile. Imitate Zacchaeus, him, I say, yesterday a publican, today endowed with greatness of mind and liberality. Offer all your wealth to the Christ who is entering in, so that, though you are small in bodily stature, you may nevertheless be exalted in spirit, having beheld Christ most excellently. Is a sick person lying there, and wounded? Let your health move you, and the wounds by which Christ liberated you. If you see a naked person, cover him, honoring Christ—your garment of incorruption—for as many as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. If you have found a debtor throwing himself at your feet, tear up the whole bond, as much the just as the unjust. Recall to memory those ten thousand talents which Christ remitted for you. Do not show yourself a bitter exactor of a lesser debt, and that indeed upon fellow-servants, when a greater sum has been forgiven you by the Lord; lest the punishments of that humanity itself, which you have not at all imitated as it was proposed to you as an example, be exacted from you." »
There are very many things in the works of Gregory pertaining to history, which it would be long to relate individually. I shall select a few from many. In Oration XXXIII (no. 11), he writes that Peter preached the Gospel in Judea, Luke in Achaia, Andrew in Epirus, John at Ephesus, Thomas in India, and Mark in Italy.
A He appears to include Saints Luke and John among the victims slain for Christ. "Have you not feared the victims slain for Christ? Nor have you stood in awe of the great champions, that John, Peter, Paul, James, Stephen, Luke, Andrew, Thecla, and those who after them exposed themselves to dangers for the truth? Who, with fire and iron, and beasts and tyrants, and present evils," etc. John and Luke, however, although they bore the mortification of the cross continually in their bodies, and suffered very many calamities for the sake of Christ and His Gospel, "by no means," as Elias of Crete writes [(b)], "in *Comment. in orat.* III, now IV, were they put to death, but in peace they returned to Him who is the God of peace."
Scribit Gregorius (Gregory writes) that Peter tolerated life on lupines bought for a single as: "A beautiful thing is the frugality of nourishment, he says [(c)]: it is a testament to me.... Peter, who was fed with lupines bought for a single as." Nicetas says, *Comm. in orat. al. xvi*, p. 659, that this was taken from a certain book that was not at all received into the ecclesiastical canon. Gregory ascribes these words to Peter in B *Epistola al. XVI*, p. 778: "A sick soul is close to God, as Peter speaks excellently in one place." Elias notes that this passage is taken from that little book which is entitled *The Doctrine of Peter*: *Commentario in orat. al. xvii*, p. 684. But these words: [(d)] "Let us hear Peter saying: Blush, you who hold the things of others, and set before yourselves God's equity to be imitated, and there will be no one who is poor," Nicetas writes [*Comm. in orat. al. xvi*, p. 672] that they were taken from the book of *Apostolic Questions*, which the Sixth Synod later rejected, as having been corrupted and shadowed by heretics.
Gregory [(e)] writes that the virgin Thecla, having first been rescued from the danger of death and fire, and then from the bites and claws of lions, which dared not at all to press with their teeth and tear the noble limbs of the virgin, was saved from the tyrant, her suitor, by the aid of Christ. [(f)] Although he does not assert that she shed her blood for Christ, yet he numbers her among the slain and illustrious victims for Christ: others call her a martyr. There was a sacred temple to this noble virgin at Seleucia, to which Gregory betook himself after resigning the see of Constantinople.
Regarding the Jews, Gregory [(g)] has these things, which are worthy of observation: "The whole world is indeed a column of calamity for them, through which they have been variously scattered and dispersed, and their divine worship suppressed and extinguished; and even the very soil of the city of Jerusalem, which is now hardly recognized, and C is hitherto accessible to them only to this extent, and they reap this much as the fruit of their former glory and magnitude, that they become conspicuous by day to weep over the desolation." Many writers relate the same and even more about the Jews, especially Jerome who says [(h)] that up to his time the Jews were forbidden from entering Jerusalem; and those who had bought the blood of Christ had to buy their own tears, that is, they obtained the opportunity by money so that on the day when Jerusalem was captured, destroyed, and overturned by the Romans, they might come to the fields where Jerusalem had been, and it might be permitted to them to weep over the ruin of the city. Eusebius testifies in *Hist.*, bk. IV, cap. 6, that the whole Jewish race was prohibited by the constitution of Emperor Hadrian from setting foot in the region around Jerusalem; so that they were not even permitted to gaze from afar upon the soil of their fathers. This, however, was later conceded, or rather bought with money, as Gregory notes.
From him we learn that Maximinus raged with a crueler persecution against the Christians than Diocletian and his successor Maximian. [(i)] "It was a persecution, and indeed the most atrocious and most horrible of all persecutions. I speak to those to whom the persecution of Maximin is known; which, having broken out after many who had existed a little before, brought it about that all others seemed humane and gentle." He relates that this notable statement was spoken by the father of Constantine the Great, Constantius, an excellent prince, who, when D setting out to move a persecution against the Christians, said among other things:
The bee's is [Greek text: Τῇ τῆς μελίσσης ἐστὶν ἡμερώτερον]; [Greek text: Ἀλλ' οὐδ' ἐκείνη τῶν τρυγώντων φείδεται] It is more gentle than an animal; Yet not even it spares those who carry off its honey.
62 Phil. iv, 9. (a) Or. 4, n. 49. (b) In edit. Bill., t. II, pag. 222, 223. (c) Or. 14, n. 4. (d) Or. 14, n. 24. (e) Carm. de præc. ad virgines. (f) Or. 24, n. 10. (g) Or. 6, n. 18. (h) In cap. I Sophon., t. III, p. 1653. (i) Or. 43, n. 5. (j) Carm. adv. iram.
Constantius replied: How is it you do not know, my good sir, That even for her the sting is not safe? She strikes, indeed, but she herself immediately perishes.
Does it escape you, best of men, That her sting is not without danger to itself? It strikes indeed, but it dies straightway.
He speaks very honorably of Constantius, calling him a most pious emperor, most loving to Christ, who is joined to God, who has received the inheritance of heavenly glory, and who, at his death, exchanged his empire for a better one. Hilary does not say these things, nor does Athanasius, nor Theodoret, nor other ecclesiastical writers. But these matters have already been diligently examined in the Preface to the fourth oration. The reader may turn to it if he wishes; we have no leisure to retract what has been said once; furthermore, the constraints of both the volume and of time force us to bring this preface to an end here at last.
THE LIFE OF SAINT GREGORY THE THEOLOGIAN, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, COMPILED PRINCIPALLY FROM HIS OWN WRITINGS.
—
Gregory of Nazianzus, who, on account of his exceptional knowledge of divine matters, alone found the title of Theologian after the Apostle John, has been testified to as to who, what kind, and how great he was, by all the Greek and Latin ecclesiastical writers of the better sort with one voice; yet they have committed fewer things to writing regarding his life and deeds. But Gregory himself supplied this with his own pen, both in the long and excellent poem that he wrote about his own life, and in various places in his other poems, orations, and letters, in which he commemorates many things about himself. Wherefore, the writings of Gregory are the basis and foundation of his Life and of those things which we write about him.
I. *Of Gregory’s fatherland: whether Nazianzus or the village of Arianzus.*
Most people suppose the city of Nazianzus in Cappadocia, not far from Caesarea, in whose diocese it was, to be Gregory’s fatherland, and that he was called Nazianzenus from it. There are those, however, who think he was born not at Nazianzus, but at Arianzus. Arianzus, moreover, was a village situated in the Tiberine region, which the most learned Tillemont and Godefroi Hermant think to be considered a suburb of Nazianzus: and they gather this from the fact that, when that region had been devastated by hail, Gregory exhorted the Nazianzen people to repentance, as those whom that calamity affected more closely. This was drawn from a collation of the fifth synod, where Euphrantas, bishop of Tyana, says: "Arianzus is indeed an estate, from which Gregory originated, situated under Nazianzus." The Bollandists say they do not understand why these things should be referred to his birth, since it is sufficient if Gregory’s father, or grandfather, migrated from that estate of his own possession to the city of Nazianzus itself, and there his mother gave birth to his son Gregory. Furthermore, they say: "Arianzus seems not to have been an estate, but a village, in which Gregory had an estate bought from a certain Rheginus." These are rather trivial matters to dwell upon any longer; and it matters little whether Gregory was born at Nazianzus or at Arianzus; especially since it is agreed that Arianzus was a neighbor to Nazianzus. Therefore, as Gregory the priest says in his Life, he had as his fatherland the second province of Cappadocia. A B
A It is worth observing Nazianzus, which, as we learn from Jerome in his book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis* and from Gregory, was once called Diocæsarea. It was indeed a small and obscure city, Nazianzus, held in no honor, but rather laboring under an infamy common to the rest of the Cappadocians. For everywhere in the world, the Cappadocians were spoken of in the worst terms; nor is there any writer, whether from among our own or from the pagans, who does not attack them with taunts; these have even grown into a proverb—or, I should rather say, an ancient sarcasm—*tria Kappa kakista*. Let us hear Isidore, among many others, speaking of the Cappadocians: "This nation is, for the most part, deceitful and wicked. It is offended by peace, is nourished by strife and discord, and possesses the same source for both sweet and bitter. In social intercourse, it speaks suavely and kindly, but in absence, it slanders. It is treacherous, impudent, rash, fearful, cavilling, ungenerous, crafty, inhuman, haughty, and stubborn; sad in the success of friends, joyful in their adversity, and insatiable. Under the mask of piety, it brings poor women into captivity and, in its insane love of gold, surpasses the Babylonian. It is prone to lying and quick to perjure itself. And finally, whatever sort of most wicked and thoroughly detestable giant you have, consider all Cappadocians to be like that, and hold it for certain... What have you to do with a race endowed with beastly morals? What have you to do with a barbarian nation? Why do you mingle with such ignoble people? Why do you clash with Cappadocians? ... Why do you sully your own reputation by comparing yourself with those whom no one with good sense would wish to use or even treat as slaves?" Such was the opinion of the ancients regarding the inhabitants of Cappadocia, and so too of the citizens of Nazianzus, since it was a part of that region—namely, an obscure city of second Cappadocia. But regarding our own Gregory, it was "so ennobled," to use the words of his biographer, "that it became famous and illustrious even to the furthest ends of the earth because of him. For Pella," he says, "is not more celebrated because of Alexander, nor were the Persians raised to such a magnitude of glory and splendor because of Cyrus, as this city has attained because of the great Gregory. Therefore, I believe that the debt due to it has been amply repaid because it educated Gregory, since it has become equally famous to the Indians and the Britons, who are diametrically opposed to one another."
Although Isidore felt and wrote so poorly of the Cappadocians, yet in another letter, after he had addressed Priscus the Cappadocian thus: "I fear lest you be of that part of the Cappadocians which is unjust in every kind of vice," he adds this: "For there is, on the other hand, another part of the Cappadocian nation which is most excellent, *panaristos*, from which those men have arisen who, by the light of their life and precepts, have enlightened the ends B of the earth, *dadouchęsantes*." By these words, Isidore surely intended to signify none other than Gregory and the great Basil, as he also says of them in epistle CCCLII: "I indeed agree that those holy men came from Cappadocia. And this is the strongest argument for the wickedness of those others; namely, that against the Cappadocians, whose morals were then disparaged while the virtue of the old holy Fathers was being sung."
Gregory, however, mentions Cappadocia not unwillingly, and, as occasion presents itself, praises it. Speaking of George the Cappadocian, who had shown himself most hostile to Athanasius, he says: "And I would wish this soil, which is to me most dear—my fatherland, I say—to be free from every crime: for wickedness is not to be assigned to the fatherland, but to those who, by the inclination of their own mind, have chosen it. For it [the fatherland] is sacred and is clear and illustrious among all for the praise of its piety." In another place he calls Cappadocia his "venerable fatherland," and the "good nurse of young men no less than of horses." And at the end of a poem to Nemesius, he calls the Cappadocians "his own," and declares that he glories in this name.
III. The Parents of Gregory.
The writer of his Life asserts that Gregory was born of noble parents; which, indeed, is uncertain regarding his father Gregory, unless one wishes to infer it from the fact that our Gregory, in the oration in which he pursues the praises of his deceased father, begins with these words: "He, therefore, as for his fatherland, his lineage, his natural gifts, his outward splendor, and other things for which C men think magnificently of themselves, I shall relegate these to the laws of encomium," etc. For while Gregory says that he relegates the lineage of his father, his natural gifts, and his outward splendor to the laws of encomium, does he not seem to indicate that it had been permitted to him to include these things in the praises of his parent; and that thus, in lineage, in natural gifts, in outward splendor, and in other things for which men think magnificently of themselves, he had surpassed him? For if he had not surpassed him in these things, the orator would certainly have provoked laughter with such an exordium.IV. The Heresy of the Hypsistarians.
Gregory’s father professed the sect of the Hypsistarians; which sect, "was formed," says our Gregory, "from Gentile error and legal vanity; avoiding certain parts of each, it was formed and constituted from certain parts of both. For, rejecting the images and sacrifices of the former [the Gentiles], they worship fire and the lamp: but, while honoring the Sabbath and a certain abstinence from some foods of the latter [the Jews], they reject circumcision." From these things it is clear that Gregory was not an idolater at all, although Gregory wrote in his poem *De rebus suis* that he had lived "under idols." By which word he signifies, not images of gods or animals, as John... DClimacus thought, but the elements of fire or lamps, as we have shown in the commentary on Oration XVIII (p. 329); and this is openly declared from the reported words of Gregory. A As for the name Hypsistarians, it falls from a Greek source, namely the word ὕψιστος, which sounds "Most High"; and they claim the name of Hypsistarians for themselves because they adore only the Most High. Nothing is read about this heresy in Epiphanius, Augustine, and others who have written about heresies. Yet Epiphanius relates things almost similar about the Euphemites, or Massalians, in heresy LXXX; for he says that they, paying attention to neither the Gentiles, nor Judaism, nor Christianity, say that there are gods; but they adore no one, but venerate only one, whom they call omnipotent. The Hypsistarians also have some likeness to the Caelicolae of Africa, who arose later, about whom Augustine speaks in Epistle CLXIII; the Codex Theodosianus, Book XVI, regarding heretics; and Book XIX, regarding the Jewish Caelicolae and Samaritans.
V. The character of Gregory the father
Gregory the father spent a long time in the error of the Hypsistarians, indeed until about the forty-fifth year of his age. Nevertheless, before he professed the Christian religion, he was a Christian in his morals. "For he," says our Gregory (a), "even before he had betaken himself to our camp, was ours. For his morals won him for us. For just as many who are of our number are not with us, because their lives remove them from the common body; so, on the contrary, many of those outside look toward us, whoever, namely, anticipate the faith by their morals, and lack only the name, while they possess the thing itself. B In which number my father also was; a branch indeed foreign, but in life and morals leaning toward us." Gregory excelled in the praise of purity; he was at the same time most lovable and most chaste, which two things do not easily concur in one. He was so tenacious of justice that, having been involved in great offices of the republic, he did not increase his wealth by even a farthing. But these things omitted, let us come to the year in which he gave his name to Christ, and, having professed the Christian religion, attained to true virtues. That was the year in which the Nicene synod was held, after the Virgin's childbearing, in 325. For he received baptism, imbued by the instructions of sermons, from the bishops who were hastening thither to oppose the madness of Arius, but especially from Leontius, who then governed the metropolis, when he had confessed his desire of his own accord, and had asked for the help of common salvation.VI, VII. Gregory the father receives baptism from the Nazianzen bishop.
He is forced to flee his homeland by an angry wife.
Therefore in the year 325 Gregory was baptized, or a short time afterwards; since, by the witness of our Gregory (b), "He approached the bath when he had first purged himself according to his own strength; and then, in soul and body, much more than those who long ago were to receive the tablets from Moses, he had purified himself." From these it is evident that Gregory had spent some time in washing away the filth before he was purified by the waters of baptism, so that the previous purification might offer firmness to the gift of purification, or place grace in a safe state. C A light shone around him as he went out of the water: struck by which miracle, the bishop openly and publicly proclaimed that Gregory would succeed him in the episcopacy. This is an argument that he received baptism at Nazianzus from the bishop of that Church, and not from Leontius of Caesarea, as Baronius thinks, whom Papebrochius follows. Because his mother, addicted to the worship of false deities, took this indignantly, he was forced to flee his homeland (c), for the sake of the heavenly and true inheritance of the Father, and sustaining for some time the lack of mother and wealth, and he bore this ignominy more equitably and easily than others bore the highest honors.VIII. He is created bishop
What had been foretold concerning Gregory as he ascended from the bath came to pass. He was created bishop in the year 329, or 328, as Godefroy Hermant pleases, about fifty years of age; and when he had most wisely administered the Nazianzen Church for forty-five years, having completed nearly a hundred years, full of days, he died most holily at the end of the year 373, or the beginning of 374.IX. Nonna, the mother of Gregory, came from a holy root.
His most pious wife Nonna did not long survive him: she was worthy of such a spouse, D just as he was worthy of such a spouse; and, to use the words of their pious son (d), "If anyone had desired to procure a most excellent marriage from the furthest ends of the earth and from the entire human race, no one could have been found anywhere more excellent or more apt than this. For the best and most illustrious of men and women had flowed together into one, so that this marriage was a knot of virtue no less than of bodies." Nonna had, as we learn from the epigrams published by the most learned Muratori, a father named Philtatius; her mother’s name was Gorgonia, her brother was Amphilochius, from whom was born that great Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium. Nonna came from a holy root; and she so increased the inheritance of virtue received from her parents with her own piety in leading most illustrious actions, that if one's mind were to run through each of them, a volume would be filled with them. But the reader will read these more sweetly and will draw from the source itself by reading the writings of our Gregory, in which frequent mention is made of Nonna. One must read above all Oration XVIII, which is entirely about Gregory the father and Nonna; poems I and II, etc. I shall relate only one thing, which would be a sin to omit. The transition of her husband from the sect of the Hypsistarians to the Christian religion is to be ascribed to Nonna, which she obtained by continuous prayers to God, beseeching Him night and day with tears and fastings: "The unbelieving man is sanctified by the believing wife" (1 Cor. vii, 14). Non-- A næ is to be ascribed the piety of the children, whom she brought forth and, no less by spirit than by flesh, taught to fear and love only God; whom she instructed and imbued with such excellent morals and precepts, that, with grace assisting, an ardent virtue raised each one of them to the heavens, and they are counted among the saints along with their holy parents; namely Gorgonia, who perhaps was the eldest in birth; Gregory, of whose life, deeds, and writings we are about to speak; and Caesarius.
X. In what year Gregory was born.
Of these parents, therefore, was Gregory born (a), "even from the womb dedicated to God, and given to Him by maternal promise." For Nonna, desiring male offspring, when she had obtained it from God by frequent prayers, like Anna of old with Samuel, having fulfilled her vow, the pious mother consecrated the son granted to her as a gift from God to Him from whom she had received him. B In what year this happened is a matter of great difficulty, and writers contend among themselves. Although it is not for us to settle such great disputes, the law of this work does not permit us to conceal what we think: but first we must weigh the importance of the various opinions. The most learned and pious Tillemont, along with many others, has determined that Gregory was born no earlier or later than the year 329, based on several of Gregory’s own words, for surely there is no other witness of his age who is more reliable. Foremost among these appear to be these words of Gregory’s father, urging his son to take up the pastoral office (b):
Οὔπω τοσοῦτον ἐκμεμέτρηκας βίον, Ὅσος διῆλθε θυσιῶν ἐμοὶ χρόνος. Nondum tot annos vita percurrit tua, Quot mi in sacris jam sunt peracti victimis.
From these two verses it is manifest that Gregory of Nazianzus was born when his father was already offering sacrifices to God; whether you understand those sacrifices to be the ones that any Christian offers from a pure heart, or those that it is for the priest or bishop alone, as a minister, to offer. Since, however, Gregory was not created priest and bishop before the year 328, it is necessary that Gregory the son was born of a father who was already a bishop, if you believe that the sacrifices he offered before the son was born were those that it falls to a priest alone to offer, and therefore [he was born] not before the year 328 or 329, in which he was created bishop.
XI-XIII. The opinion of Bollandus on the year in which Gregory was born. How many years Gregory devoted to the study of eloquence at Athens. The opinion of Bollandus is refuted.
The Bollandists raise an objection (c); they accuse the interpreters, they complain that the Greek words were wrongly rendered into Latin by them, and they exclaim that it is most absurd if Gregory of Nazianzus is said to have been born of a father who was a priest or bishop. That is indeed strange and utterly unusual, nor A is it very consonant with ecclesiastical laws. But that it is impossible even for Papebroch himself to understand the Greek words differently (d); for he cannot interpret them otherwise, unless by changing the Greek words of Gregory at his own whim, by the authority of no writer, and no handwritten codex. Which may seem strange in a man who demands [accuracy] concerning translations, and clamors that interpreters were not at all careful, when they should have been most scrupulous? He suggests, therefore, that we should read *etesion* instead of *thusion*:
Ὅσος διῆλθ᾽ ἐτησίων ἐμοὶ χρόνος. *Quot etesianorum transiit tempus mihi.*
This reading rests on no foundation, nor is there any sense behind it. For who would believe that Gregory wished to signify that Gregory the son had not lived as many years as he himself had lived? For thus does Papebroch himself interpret it (e): *Aetas peracta tam longa nondum est tibi, Quot, etc.*
But the "license" for his correction—for so he calls it himself—he acknowledged later; the candid man even confessed it was supported by the authority of no manuscript, and he finally promised that he would willingly abandon this [interpretation], when someone else found either another more grounded and certain one, or a more fitting explanation of that phrase. Papebroch himself found another reading (f), or rather invented one; the authority of which can be no greater than the former, since it is supported by the authority of no codex; and which, if it were admitted, would harm its creator more than it would favor him. He suggests, therefore, that we should read:
Ὅσος διῆλθε δὶς ἰὼν ἐμοὶ χρόνος. *Bis quantum eundo labitur tempus mihi.*
It is better, as our Prudentius Maran says in the *Vita sancti Basilii* (p. 38), to admit with Tillemont C that the ecclesiastical law concerning the continence of bishops had not yet flourished in absolutely all Churches, than to attack a most plain passage with conjectures of this kind. Rightly so, if it could first be demonstrated that such a law did not flourish in Cappadocia, which indeed would not be easy to prove.
There is another text of Gregory which seems no less suitable for confirming Tillemont's opinion on the year in which the holy man was born: for Gregory says, when he was preparing his return to his homeland from Athens in the year 355, that he had spent a long time in the study of eloquence, and that he was already about thirty years old. These are his words:
Καὶ γὰρ πολὺς τέτριπτο τοῖς λόγοις χρόνος. Ἤδη τριακοστόν μοι σχεδὸν τοῦτ᾽ ἦν ἔτος (g).
But the Bollandists oppose this (h), and dispute it. "It is assumed pointlessly," they say, "that this refers to the year of his age, when the year of study spent on acquiring eloquence at Athens can be understood much more congruously... For otherwise how [can] the time of [the] D
A eight or ten years (for you could not count more at that time, if he was only thirty) be called long, in relation to that training to which many devoted their entire lives, nor did they believe they had attained the perfection of rhetorical art even in extreme old age? Therefore, were not eight or ten years spent in the study of eloquence at Athens enough and more than enough for a Christian man who already for many years before, both at Nazianzus by his parents, and at Caesarea, and in other places by most learned teachers, had been instructed in every kind of literature and science, such that it was permitted for him to say that he had spent a long time in that course? Or is it really necessary that one should have devoted his whole life to the study of eloquence for him to truly say that he spent a long time in this exercise? Gregory could therefore say it, and it is manifest that he did say it. Indeed, I marvel that Gregory spent so many years at Athens; Gregory, I say, whom his mother had obtained from God through prayer, promising that she would dedicate him to Him if He answered her vows; whom she had cast unto God from the very womb; who knew himself to be dedicated to God by his mother; to whom, when he had already passed the age of childhood, she had instilled the examples of Holy Scripture, by which she had signified the parents' vows, the history of Abraham and Isaac, of Anna and Samuel; whom, when she offered him as a small boy to God, she had addressed thus (a): B
Beloved son, I offer thee to Christ, a gift, Whereby thou mayest confirm a mother’s vow and promises; I, who conceived thee through prayers, and as for thy best interests, I seek through burning vows, that thou mayest be excellent in life. This was the mother’s vow: to which I myself, however tender in age, Thought it right to yield.
Who, weighing these things seriously, could bring himself to believe that Gregory—who had drunk in piety from his parents with his mother’s milk—devoted his efforts to the acquisition of eloquence up to the fifty-fifth year of his age: nor that it was permitted for him, after eight or ten years spent in this study at Athens, to say that he had spent a long time at it?
XIV. Beardless Gregory returned from Athens. Moreover, Gregory had so not yet reached his fifty-fifth year when he returned from Athens, that he says both he and Basil were then made men “out of beardless youths.” *If, then, we returned, having done a slight favor to the world and to the stage, and as much as to satisfy the longing of the many (for we ourselves possessed no theatrical or exhibitionist inclination), very quickly we became our own selves, and we pass from beardless youths into men, advancing more manfully in philosophy.* But can a man born fifty-five years ago call himself beardless? *“As, therefore,” Gregory says (b), “we returned home, when we had served the world and the stage a little—as much, that is, as was enough to satisfy the desire of many (for we ourselves were not inclined toward the theater and ostentation)—we immediately became our own masters, and having been made men from beardless youths, we applied ourselves more generously to philosophizing.”* What do the Bollandists say to this? They seem clever to themselves, twisting the words of Gregory into a metaphorical sense, C which is even signified by the added particle “as if from beardless youths.” Thus, they say (c), and it is not that Gregory says he was made a man “from beardless youths” that should be taken with respect to age, but it should be referred to the mind; which then first began to be manfully aroused and strengthened, when, having put aside the desire to please others, which is peculiar to the imperfect, they directed their efforts toward true and solid virtue, which belongs to perfect men. These things were truly and inconsiderately spoken by the Bollandists, if one may say so; nor did they think they were doing injury to Basil and Gregory, when they say, “then first,” namely, when they had reached the fifty-fifth year of their age, that their minds “began to be manfully aroused and strengthened, and having put aside the desire to please others, D they directed their efforts toward true and solid virtue.” A truly excellent praise of Basil and Gregory! Nay, the greatest insult. Did the minds of such great men not begin to be “manfully aroused and to direct their efforts toward true and solid virtue” until after fifty-five years had passed? Let the Bollandists consider what they have written.
XV. Objections of Bollandus. Papebroch objects many things: 1° How can it be that Gregory, who was barely older than forty according to Tillemont’s calculation, when a little later he wrote the poem *De rebus suis* upon the death of his brother Caesarius and sister Gorgonia, complains (d) that “my head is already whitening with gray hairs, and my wrinkled limbs are brought down toward the sad sunset of life”? 2° How did Nonna give birth to a son at fifty? For Gregory asserts that she was not only *homozygon*, “a yoke-fellow,” but also *homochronon*, “of the same age,” *isen poliē te kai ethesi*, “equal in manners and gray-haired age.” 3° How would the son have passed this over in silence in the oration in which he pursues the praises of his parents, weighing many things far more trivial? Tillemont’s opinion is not without its difficulties, but they can nevertheless be solved. Come then, 1° it ought not to be a wonder that the discomforts of old age overtook Gregory before he had reached that age which is called old age. For that is to be attributed not so much to his years as to his infirmities, the labors of his studies and penance, by which his body was already exhausted, and the discomforts of old age had encroached. But as to what they say, that Gregory would not have passed it over in silence if he had been born from a mother of such advanced age; even if we concede that, he certainly did not pass it over in silence, if less so in the oration in which he praised his parents, at least in the poem *De Vita sua*. For there, narrating how his mother offered him to God immediately from the womb; and then offering him again, when he was already a participant of reason, by the touch of his hands on the consecrated sacred books, with what words she addressed him, he proceeds thus (e):
Now [some man] gifted my dear son, a God-given boon, [excellent,
speeding so that she might act as a sacred victim, she led the offspring of the slow-bearing Sarah to the altar. Now I offer you to God as a living gift, as I promised. Comparing his own mother to that slow-bearing Sarah, Gregory sufficiently indicates that she too—to use his own words—was ὀψιτόκος, a slow-bearer.
XVI. A most serious difficulty in Tillemont’s opinion.
Indeed, a difficulty far graver than Tillemont’s opinion, and one which moves Papebroch to the greatest scruple—and not undeservedly, nor even to us ourselves—remains. For we can hardly be induced to believe that Gregory was born when his father was already a bishop, which father was more than fifty years old when he undertook the episcopal office. Nothing of the sort is found among all the writers of this century who have written words concerning Gregory. Nothing is found in Jerome, who used the custom of this doctor, and whose student he also boasts of having been in learning the Holy Scriptures. If Gregory had been born when his father was a bishop, how could Jerome, who surely would not have been ignorant of this, have written these words to Pammachius: "Bishops, presbyters, deacons are chosen either as virgins, or as widowers, or certainly as men who are chaste forever after their priesthood"? How would that same holy doctor have dared to address Jovinian thus (a): "Certainly you confess that a man cannot be a bishop who produces children in the episcopacy; otherwise, if he were caught, he would not be treated as a man, but would be condemned as an adulterer"? And indeed, one is not permitted to reply that Jerome is speaking only of the custom of the Western Church, since, in arguing against Vigilantius, he says: "What do the Churches of the East, what do those of Egypt, and of the Apostolic See do, which receive either virgins as clergy, or the continent; or if they have had wives, they have ceased to be husbands?" It would be right to set forth here the countless canons of councils and the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, by which it is manifest that in the fourth century priests abstained from their wives, and which do not allow us to believe that Gregory was born when his father was a bishop. If the scruple contained in Tillemont’s opinion were absent, we would follow this [theory], notwithstanding the difficulties—which are indeed lighter than those found in other opinions.XVII. The disadvantages of the contrary opinion.
Suidas writes that Gregory died at an age greater than ninety, and thus was born in the year 299; from which it would follow that Gregory was eighty years old when he went to Constantinople to defend the Catholic faith. But who would believe that an eighty-year-old man had performed there the deeds which he performed; or that he had had the strength at that age to endure such labors, or had possessed such force and efficacy in speaking that he bound to himself all his listeners, not only those addicted to the Catholic faith, but even the heretics themselves? For we learn from Gregory himself no one existed, whatever religion he professed, who was not delighted by his sermons, to which they were accustomed to come in a great throng. What if we add that Gregory, after he had left Constantinople and retreated into secure leisure, composed a long poem about his own life, and a kind of appendix to this poem (for so it is permitted to us to call it, composed as it was about the bishops of their times), and had also composed a quantity of other poems with a sharp and vehement style—or rather, a vast amount—which are called "swan songs"? Then, to omit the rest, Gregory, who was elevated to the sacerdotal dignity along with Basil, would have been sixty-three years old according to Suidas’s calculation, namely born in the year 299. However, he complains that he was made a priest too soon, in his second oration: "Lest extreme old age," he says (b), "should be thought to be provided for this matter, nor a long time." By which words he indicates clearly enough that he had been younger than he ought to have been; and later, to confirm what he had said, he adduces the words of Solomon: "Woe to thee, O city, whose king is a youth." Certainly a man older than sixty cannot complain, nor ought he, that he accepted the priestly office too soon.As regards the Bollandists, in their *Chronology of the Life of St. Gregory* reconsidered and updated, they embrace Suidas’s opinion; and to defend it, they strive with all their might in translating and explaining certain testimonies of Gregory which inconvenience them; and yet not successfully, if indeed they are compelled to reef their sails and bring forward new interpretations one after another, which do not even greatly please themselves. Wherefore they are not consistent with themselves, except in this: that they steadfastly deny that Gregory was born when his father was a bishop. Papebroch candidly admits (of whose candor of mind we have other testimonies worthy of praise), when he would have communicated to certain more learned friends some of the foundations of the chronology which he proposed to renew, that he had not found all of them equally in agreement. "There were those," he says (c), "for whom it seemed a superstitious care to take pains that Nazianzen should not be believed to have been born when his father was already a bishop; and they feared that the view would proceed from a prejudice of our own and a slightly earlier age, one that would stir laughter among those itching to be married to heretics, etc." In the end, after he had disputed for a long time, inclining now this way, now that, to him who is wavering, the opinion of Baronius seems almost the better one: "Meanwhile," he says (d), "whoever wishes nothing to be changed, in that the *Ethousai* themselves do not appear to be able to be taken by metaphor for the course of a year, let him follow the opinion of Baronius."
XVIII. The opinion of Baronius.
That, however, is the opinion of the father of the *Annals*: that Gregory the father had spoken hyperbolically when, with these words, "not yet so many years," etc., he was trying to persuade his son to undertake the pastoral care;how often people who are not much older than their juniors say that they knew the thing in question before the others were born. In this way he pulls the thorn from their minds who cannot be led to believe that Gregory was born when his father was already a bishop. For he supposes A that he was even born when his father was not yet a Christian. But Baronius both gives and takes away that thorn with his interpretation. To those who think that Gregory was not born with his father a bishop, he indeed takes it away; but he gives it to others, and especially to Tillemont, who affirms that Gregory could not have spoken thus without a lie, and that the truth is gravely offended by such hyperbole.
XIX. *Every opinion labors under its own difficulties. The one which maintains that Gregory was born when his father was a Christian, but not yet a bishop, is urged by fewer.*
There is none among all these opinions that does not labor under many and grave difficulties. Furthermore, the one that, as we ponder all the drawbacks, appeared to be pressed by lesser ones, is that which posits Gregory was born when his father was not yet a bishop, but was already a Christian, in the year 325 or the beginning of 326, from Gregory’s own words. "My year," he says B "was already almost the thirtieth," when he was thinking of departing from Athens in the year 355 or 356. Therefore, he must have been born at the end of 325, or the beginning of 326, so that his thirtieth year would be the one in which he left Athens. His father was not yet a bishop; but that he was a Christian at that time, although Baronius thinks otherwise, we infer from the fifth poem where Gregory says that he was offered to God by Nonna immediately after his birth: then he adds, "and he received the gift from his parents: καὶ ἐκ τοκέων ὑπέδεκτο δῶρον." Therefore, Gregory the father himself had also offered his son to the true God, and consequently he was worshipping Him at that time. In another poem also, after he narrated how he had been dedicated and offered to God immediately upon his birth, like a calf or a lamb; "for I dare not say, like a certain new Samuel, unless I look to the desires of those who gave him."
XX. *Another interpretation of the words of Gregory the father from the Memorials of Trevoux, April 1707, art. L, p. 711.*
But now, if you ask by what reasoning we interpret the text of Gregory, from which others collect that he was born when his father was a bishop, hear this. The very words must be recalled and placed before the eyes. Οὔπω τοσοῦτον ἐκμεμέτρηκας βίον, Ὅσος παρῆλθε θυσιῶν ἐμοὶ χρόνος. Not yet has your life traversed as many years, As the time of sacrifices that has passed for me.
Those who contend that he was born when his father was a bishop render the words of Gregory thus: but they add to their interpretation something that does not appear in the Greek text, namely, "have elapsed." Furthermore, let nothing be added to the text nor taken away, but let it be rendered literally. Thus, the author of the letter in the Trevoltian commentaries, from which we have drawn these things, has rendered it best:
Nondum tantam emensus es vitam, Quantum præteriit mihi sacrificiorum tempus.
"Gregory does not say that the sacrifices were done by him, either as a priest or as a bishop; but that his son had not yet finished as much life as the time of sacrifices had passed for himself." What, moreover, prevents us from saying that these sacrifices are the holy mysteries, in which he had participated after receiving baptism, of which he had been a partaker, nay, which he had even offered in his own way for some years, even if not as a priest, at least as a Christian, just as the faithful are wont to offer, according to these words of the Canon of the Mass: "Remember also, O Lord... and all those standing around, whose faith is known to you and whose devotion is known, for whom we offer to you, or who offer to you this sacrifice of praise," etc.? Therefore, from the time when Gregory had received baptism, he had attended the holy mysteries, he had been a partaker of them, and from that time the "time of sacrifices" had begun to flow for him, so that it was permitted for him to say while addressing his son: "Not yet hast thou traversed as much life, as the time of sacrifice has passed for me." Which indeed was far, very true. Nay, the Theologian himself, in his poem *On His Life*, addresses God thus: "I pray, if ever father and venerable mother have gifted you with pure and holy victims;" C no doubt, understanding by the name of "victims" pious works offered to God from an affection of charity; and in poem XI, he mentions "bloodless victims of the soul": what therefore prevents Gregory the father from having understood "sacred victims" in the same sense; and that he declared this alone in those verses; namely, that his son had not traversed as many years of life, as he himself had spent in offering Christian works to God?
XXI. *The mark of a lie must not be burned into the words of Gregory.*
Moreover, it is permitted to say, with Baronius, that Gregory spoke thus by hyperbole; which the poet could do without violating the truth. Certainly, Gregory the father neither deceived his son with these words, nor intended to deceive, nor could he have, nor did he finally mean to signify anything other than what was most well known to his son. It is truly surprising that a mark of a lie is branded upon these words of Gregory by those who admit, with the Bollandists, that it was permitted for Gregory to say, without a lie, that his mother was a contemporary of his father, ἴση πολιῇ τε καὶ ἤθεσι, although they concede that she was ten, or even more, years younger than he.
XXII. *Gregory was born when his father was not yet a bishop.*
All these things being weighed, we think that Gregory was born when his father was not yet a bishop, and that Gregory the father spoke by hyperbole, and that the truth is in no way attacked by his words. Whether indeed Gregory was younger or older than his sister Gorgonia, several doubt, nor is it easy to define, as Papebroch is pleased to say. "It could certainly," he says, "have happened that the birth of a female at the first delivery sharpened in the mother the desire for male offspring." But who does not understand that this is a D very light, nay, a null difficulty?
And truly, as regards Anna, whom Gregory is wont to compare with his mother, and where it is especially written, "At the first delivery the birth of a female sharpened the desire for male offspring," it would be more correct to infer that the younger Gorgonia was born before her brother Gregory, as many scholiasts (a) confirm.
XXIII. Gregory is born. His initial education in his father's house.
Thus Gregory seems to have been born (whether Gorgonia was older or younger) in the year 325 or 326, while his father was not yet a bishop, but a Christian, as we have already said. From his very cradle, he was piously nurtured by pious parents, who took upon themselves the care of directing his childhood. When he had passed that age which they say is devoid of reason, his mother, who had already yielded him to God immediately at his birth, and indeed had dedicated him even before he was born, offered and dedicated him again; she cleansed the boy's hands with sacred literature, showing him the divine books to be handled by his tender hands; she signified by what vows she had bound him, and exhorted him to fulfill in deeds the promises of his mother. He immediately assented, although in tender age, and held everything as ratified, and always strove to carry them out (b). Formed in his father's house by the best precepts, where he had before his eyes excellent examples of virtues, he exhibited some gravity of the aged, growing in age and reason at the same time. His desire for the good also grew, just as clouds are wont to gather from clouds. He was delighted by the reading of books that treat of divine things. He was frequently with upright men. Thus his tender mind was imbued with the best morals, and donned the form of piety, until the time arrived when Christ made it known that he should be washed in the sacred font; He who affected his servant with a singular benefit, and deigned to address him with words (c). He bound him to chastity, curbed his flesh, inspired an ardent love for divine wisdom, and for the monastic life—[Greek: μοναχὸν βίον]—which is a prelude to the future life.
XXIV. The ardor of preserving chastity.
A certain divine ardor for preserving chastity came upon the youth's mind, a zeal which a heavenly vision shown to him in dreams confirmed more and more. These are, as I indeed believe, miracles whereby God, who thus draws pious minds to salvation, added a spur to his desire, as Gregory himself writes (d), doubting whether he ought to read them, which belongs to an ungrateful mind, or preach them, which seems to savor of pride. Yet he himself discloses the whole matter in the poem
On the Calamities of his Own Soul
(e), and narrates the nocturnal vision by which God infused into him a love for a purer life, "when he was still a little boy, yet not altogether a little boy, but at that age when the images of good and evil are inscribed upon the soul, and the mind had not yet A received its form from fixed thoughts." From these words of Gregory it is manifest that this happened while he was still in his father's house, and not when he was already tarrying at Athens, as Rufinus erroneously wrote.XXV. The nocturnal vision by which he is kindled with the love of chastity.
He seemed to see two virgins standing near him, shining with white garments, both beautiful, and of the same age, to whom unadorned beauty was an ornament. To Gregory, asking who they were and whence they had come, one said she was Chastity, and the other Temperance: and when they had exhorted him to join his mind to theirs and torch to torches, so that they might carry him, shining with a wondrous glow, into heaven, they immediately flew off to heaven. Since, therefore, Gregory was kindled by the nocturnal vision, the love of chastity, whose brightness could not be contained in the innermost recesses of his soul, shone forth in him.
XXVI. He seeks the association of pious men.
He first sought, therefore, the congress of pious men who had fled the bonds of matrimony and had separated themselves from earthly men, that they might follow Christ the King with the wings of their mind (f). Loving them uniquely and embracing them with his whole heart, he had them as guides of his heavenly hope (g). Afterward, he shook off the heavy yoke of matrimony, desiring the excellent lot of those who flourished in perpetual virginity. Banquets, and whatever are wont to be the concerns of youths, did not please him; no soft clothing, no petulant laughter, no cliffs and mountains, no horses and hunting dogs. He cast all those things away; and having discarded all the happiness of this life, he submitted his neck to austere temperance. From that singular love of chastity which he then drank into his soul, you may rightly conclude, with Papebroch, that those distinguished poems were later composed by him, in which the praises of virginity and precepts for virgins are contained.
XXVII. Gregory's studies are carried outside his home.
After Gregory's childhood had been thus first established within his father's house, and formed by the studies of sacred letters and every kind of virtue, his studies were brought outside the threshold (h). Although he indeed never held anything more ancient than sacred letters, he did not disdain to investigate and compare external ones (i), for the very purpose that he might bring help to sacred letters against spurious ones; lest those who know nothing but empty eloquence situated in the throat and the sweet sounds of voices should boastfully exult; and lest he himself should be entangled in the knots of sophisms. Therefore, "When he had already grown in age," says the writer of his Life (i), "having set out for Caesarea, and having had intercourse there with certain outstanding teachers, and having collected no small amount of learning, he sailed for Palestine."
XXVIII. He sets out for Caesarea of Cappadocia.
There is certainly no place for doubting to which Caesarea Gregory traveled. For it was to the Caesarea situated in Cappadocia, not to the Palestinian one where the other Caesarea is, that he then sailed. However, many learned men, primarily Billius, Baronius, and even Tillemont himself, understand this to be the Caesarea of Palestine. The author of the Life of Basil, preceding the new edition of the works of the holy doctor (pp. 40, 41), impugns and refutes their opinion with most valid arguments.XXIX. Gregory first formed a friendship with Basil in Cappadocia.
Gregory Nazianzen relates (a) that he and Basil, like a certain stream of a river, having been divided from the same fountain of their fatherland into different regions out of a desire for learning, again, as if by arrangement—God, indeed, impelling it—met at Athens. Therefore, both had been joined in Cappadocia, a point which Papebroch (b) erroneously denies, asserting instead that Gregory and Basil first came to know one another at Athens, and that both having proceeded therefrom to various regions, one did not travel from Pontus and the other from Cappadocia. This is confirmed by the words of Gregory in the same oration (c), where he says that Athens had been "truly golden" to him, and, as to anyone else, a parent of good things. "For they," he says, "presented to me this man, not indeed previously unknown, but nonetheless to be known more fully." A *For they made this man known to me more perfectly, though he was not unknown even before.*The same is made manifest by the very words of Gregory, by which Tillemont, following Billius and Baronius, judges that the Caesarea in Palestine is indicated. These are the words of Gregory in his Oration on the Praises of Basil (d), delivered at Caesarea: "He hastens to the city of the Caesareans, to take part in the schools there; and I mean this city, the illustrious and ours, since it was also the leader and teacher of my own studies—the metropolis, no less of letters than of the cities over which it holds sway and power; and if anyone should deprive it of this renown in letters, he would have removed its most beautiful and peculiar characteristic. For while other cities boast in other ornaments, either ancient or new, such as they have, I suppose, in their stories or in what is seen; yet for this city, letters are its mark, just as insignia are in weapons or in plays." B Caesarea, so that he might be a participant in the schools of that city, he strives; this city, I say, illustrious and ours: for it stood forth as the leader and mistress of my own studies as well; which is no less a metropolis of literature and learning than of the cities over which it excels and dominates; which if one were to despoil of the palm of learning, he would have plucked away the most beautiful thing of all and that which is most especially its own. For, when other cities glory in other ornaments, whether ancient or new—according to my opinion, whether by their histories, or are adorned by the viewing of certain things—this, in contrast, just as, for example, weapons or plays are certain well-known marks and ensigns, so does the glory of letters ennoble and render it illustrious.
XXX. Caesarea of Cappadocia was renowned for literature.
There is nothing in these words, as our Prudentius Maran observes (e), which does not best suit the Caesarea of the Cappadocians. Aptly, indeed, did Gregory, indicating the city in which he was speaking by both voice and hand, say: "I mean this illustrious city, and ours; B Ταύτην δὲ λέγω τὴν περιφανῆ τε καὶ ἡμετέραν." Tillemont does not believe that this Caesarea could have been praised for its literary studies as the city’s chief ornament. But, to omit Eusebius, who testifies (f) that the prelates of Cappadocia shone among others for their learning, Basil himself joins his own testimony to that of Gregory, and gives the palm to literature among the ornaments of his homeland. C For thus he speaks (g) of that state into which it had been reduced by the division of Cappadocia: "It has become a most foul spectacle, which previously boasted of its learned men..." Similarly, in another letter (h), he commemorates especially the studies of literature among those things which had gained the city its name and fame. But could Gregory, having pronounced the name of Caesarea, have intended to warn his listeners that the Caesarea of which he was speaking was not the one in which he was delivering the oration, but that the other illustrious one in Palestine was meant? Certainly, if Gregory had spoken of the Caesarea of Palestine, he would have offended the minds of his listeners, let alone courted their favor, and would have justly given the Cappadocians cause for complaint, who did not yield the praise of literature and eloquence to the Caesareans of Palestine, nor to other cities. How, moreover, would it have been permitted to call the Caesarea of Palestine "our city," or rather to style it "our fatherland," where he says (i) that they "had been divided from the same fountain of our fatherland... and met at Athens?" D Gregory adds (j) these words, which resolve the dispute: "Let those who both educated him among themselves, and gathered the fruit from his very learning, explain what follows; namely, how great he was to his teachers, how great he was to his peers." What room is there for doubting to which Caesareans Gregory leaves the task of relating this? To those who were far remote, and who had derived no greater utility from the learning of Basil than other cities had perceived; or to those he was addressing, who were able to remember the studies of Basil, and who had been imbued with his teaching for so many years? Since, therefore, the Caesarea of the Cappadocians is manifestly known by these words, Tillemont seeks in vain—and I say this with the permission of so great a man—why Gregory, who was perorating at Caesarea, does not say in express terms that Basil came to this city; and why he does not designate it except by such marks as are at least common to it and the other Caesarea. Moreover, what Tillemont objects regarding the fact that Gre-Gregorius calls Caesarea, of which he speaks, "his city," because it was the leader and teacher of his studies—this, I say, which the learned man objects in order to prove that these words are not to be understood of Caesarea in Cappadocia, which it was permitted for Gregory to call "his" for other reasons, and primarily because it was the metropolis of his province—is easily turned back upon him. For, since Gregory called Caesarea "his" not only on account of the metropolitan rights but also on account of the disciplines which he had drawn from there, he had to add a reason why he called it "his" in a singular way; otherwise, everyone would have thought he was referring to the rights of the metropolis. A
XXXI. He betakes himself to Palestine for the love of letters.
The same love of letters which had joined Basil and Gregory at Caesarea in Cappadocia separated one from the other. For Basil departed thence to Constantinople, but Gregory sailed to Palestine, "lingering," as he says, "for the love of the rhetorical art in the schools of Palestine, which were then flourishing." For those schools were illustrious and most flourishing, in which, among Christians of old, Pamphilus the martyr, Eusebius, and other most learned men had taught; in those times, however, Gregory had as his rhetoric teacher, the master of eloquence, Thespesius, as Jerome writes; and among his companions was Euzoius, who afterwards, under the Emperor Valens, was created bishop by the patronage of the Arians, and occupied the see of Caesarea. B
XXXII. He seeks Alexandria.
Having tarried for some time in Palestine, Gregory betook himself to Alexandria, the schools of which city had once been illustrated by Clement, Origen, and other men to be commended for piety and science, and which Didymus at last rendered more famous. Our Gregory, although offered to God by a vow, was still a catechumen, by the custom, or rather abuse, of those times, which stood against the ancient customs and apostolic traditions of the Church, which Gregory himself, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa afterwards severely attacked. C
XXXIII-XXXIV. He sails to Athens and is tossed by a grave storm. The validity of baptism conferred by laymen was not sufficiently known to the Greeks.
Finally, having exhausted the fountains of the sciences of both Caesarea and Alexandria, and longing with greater ardor of soul for the rivers of Athens, and impatient of delay, having boarded an Aeginetan ship about the middle of November, at which time most dangerous storms are wont to arise, he sailed into Greece across the Parthenian Sea. And so the ship had scarcely proceeded a little way when a grave storm arose, which he celebrated in remarkable meter. Everything threatened present death to all: but to Gregory, death brought a far greater fear for his soul. "For I had come into peril, unhappy that I am," he says, "lest I should depart from life uninitiated, desiring the spiritual water amidst the destructive and deadly waves." He cried out, he implored, he sought a brief space of time; he offered up such groans, finally, that the others—which is scarcely credible—each leaving aside his own calamities, joined their prayers to the lamentations of Gregory, pitying his misfortune. All, even those who had not known God before, invoked God, as Gregory writes; which is certainly an argument that there were many faithful Christians on that ship, initiated in baptism, from whom Gregory himself, compelled by necessity, could have asked and received it, which indeed Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, and other doctors teach is permissible, and which even the Church approves. How then did it not come into his mind to seek baptism from one of the passengers? The validity of baptism conferred by laymen seems not to have been sufficiently known to the Greeks. Thus Basil, after Cyprian and Firmilian, in his canonical epistle, canon 1: "Wherefore," he says, "those who stand on their side, they have ordered that those coming to the Church should be purified by the baptism of the Church as if they had been baptized by laymen." From which words it is clear that baptism conferred by laymen was held to be invalid among the Greeks. D
XXXV-XXXVI. Gregory promises that he will live for God if he escapes safely. He recognizes that he was saved by the prayers of his parents.
For twenty days the storm raged, and for as many days Gregory lay groaning upon the deck, suppliantly beseeching God, promising that if he were freed from the danger of the sea, and should enjoy the baptism he desired, he would consecrate himself to Him from whom he had received his safety. "I am Yours," he cried out: "Before I was already, and now again. You will receive me twice, a precious possession for You, a gift from land and sea, consecrated to You by the vow of my parent and by most grave fear. I will live for You if I escape the double danger. If You suffer me to perish, a worshiper will perish for You. Awaken for me, or walk, and calm my fear." He had scarcely said these things when the storm was immediately calmed and changed into a breeze. Gregory recognizes that he was saved by the prayers of his parents, who, having been warned in their sleep into what a plight their son had been brought, had besought God with prayers and tears that he might bring aid to him in his peril. Nay, even in the very flame of danger, to a certain youth among the passengers
who was dearest to Gregory, there appeared in a dream his mother, Nonna, boarding the ship and drawing the vessel toward the shore; having seen and recounted which vision, tranquility immediately followed. Then all the passengers, as many as were infidels, recognizing and confessing the kindness of the God whom Gregory worshipped, and heartily embracing the Christian religion, obtained a double salvation. “We ourselves,” says Gregory, “were the gift of this very peril; for as we had vowed ourselves to God, if we should escape the danger; so, being delivered from the peril, we offered ourselves even more.” With these words Gregory indicates, if we are to trust Baronius, that both he and the passengers were at that time initiated into holy baptism.
XXXVII. Arrival in Athens about the year 350.
A Meanwhile the ship touched at Rhodes, through a calm sea; and setting sail from Rhodes to Aegina, through favorable winds, Gregory at last arrived at the long-desired Athens. But it would be difficult to define with certainty the year in which he arrived. We learn only from him that he was still beardless when, fanned by a love for letters, he sought Athens. For with these words he begins to relate the storm that befell him while sailing toward this city:
“The down had not yet covered my cheeks, yet a burning love for letters had already seized me, etc.”
In Oration XLIII, n. 25, he also says that he and Basil, upon returning home from Athens, had become men from beardless youths, “and we attained to the status of men from having been beardless.” This certainly utterly overthrows the opinion of those who think he spent thirty years in Athens in the study of eloquence. Yet the words of Gregory, to tell the truth, can be and are rightly taken to mean that we should regard him as beardless when he first left his father’s house to travel through many cities for the sake of his studies—both Caesareas, Alexandria, and finally Athens, which he desired to reach above all, as the seat and home of learning. Therefore, as is probable, he went there about the year 350; if indeed he was already living in Athens when Basil, whose arrival rumor was already announcing, came there in the year 351, having stirred up great expectation in everyone, but especially in Gregory, who indicated by a remarkable declaration that Athens had become “golden” for him upon the arrival of Basil: “Athens truly became golden for me,” he says, “and, if for anyone else, for my good parents. For they provided me with a man, not indeed previously unknown, but yet to be known more fully. And searching for doctrine, I found blessedness; and to me in a different way the same thing happened as happened to Saul, who, seeking his father's asses, found a kingdom..... Athens held us, like some flow of a river, separated by a desire for learning from the same ancestral source into different regions, and again, as if by appointment—God, evidently, so impelling—coming together.”
XXXVIII-XL. Gregory rescues Basil from a foolish rite. They bring aid against the Armenians. Close intimacy between Basil and Gregory.
B Gregory received Basil with all the duties of humanity; and he provided him, upon his arrival, with service that was especially grateful, by leading a man of gravity and modesty away from the foolish mockery customarily practiced at Athens toward new students who flocked to this city. This insane rite is elegantly described by Gregory in his Oration on the Praises of Basil; he soon brought no less aid to his friend against certain Armenians. These Armenians, who had once been fellow students of Basil under his own father, seeing his praises with envious eyes, being longer-established in Athens, were rashly provoking Basil, by whom they were easily refuted. Gregory indeed, loving Athens, and grieving that their reputation should be endangered by the Armenians being surpassed by Basil, fearing that the city might receive some dishonor if a new arrival should surpass the older ones, at first brought aid to the Armenians; but when he perceived their treacherous plan, he turned himself entirely to Basil, and with his help the Armenians were utterly defeated. C This, for Basil and Gregory, was the kindling not merely of a spark, but of a clear and sublime torch of friendship. For by these services of friendship Gregory so endeared Basil to himself, and Basil, by the gravity of his morals, so captivated Gregory, that having become like-minded, each seemed to the other most happy for having found such and so great a friend. These are the foundations of the closest friendship between Basil and Gregory. That is the most perfect example of Christian friendship, by which they were known and celebrated, both by the men of their own age and by all subsequent centuries.
XLI, XLII. Friendship grows between Gregory and Basil. They seemed to be one soul for the other. One study for both was virtue.
Such holy friendship grew still further in the course of time by the agreement in their wills and studies. For when they had confessed to one another their mutual desire for the pursuit of philosophy, then each was everything to the other: companion, housemate, like-minded, hoping for one and the same end, rejoicing in the same things. Who could worthily describe the excellent fruits of so extraordinary an intimacy? To whom could one recount the great abundance of learning, how both progressed in literature and in piety? Gregory alone could accomplish this. “Equal hope of doctrine,” he says, “that is, of a thing most envied by all, was guiding us: and yet envy was absent, while emulation was held in high regard. This competition existed for both, not as to which of them should carry off the first prizes, but which of them should concede them to the other, for each was holding the glory of the other as his own. One soul seemed to belong to both, bearing two bodies.... One work and study for both was virtue, and to live for future hopes, and so to compare ourselves, that,
before our departure from this life, we might migrate from here. Keeping this before our eyes, we directed all our life and actions, both by following the guidance of divine precept and by sharpening each other’s zeal for virtue; and, if it does not seem too arrogant to say so, we were to each other a rule and a square by which the straight is distinguished from the crooked. For we kept company not with the most petulant and shameless of our fellow students, but with the most chaste; nor with the most pugnacious, but with the most peaceable, whose company brought the greatest fruits: being assured of this, that it is easier to contract vice than to impart virtue, just as it is easier to be infected by another’s disease than to bestow health. Furthermore, we took delight in disciplines that were not so much the most pleasant as the most excellent; for from these too, young people are formed either for virtue or for vice.
XLIII-XLV. As constant visitors to sacred houses, they desire to be and to be called Christians. Athens is pestilential to others, but they suffer no harm, but are confirmed in the faith.
A Two paths were known to us: the first and more excellent, and the second and of lower value: that one, namely, which led to our sacred houses and to the teachers who were there; the other, which led to outside schoolmasters. All the rest—those leading to festivals, spectacles, crowded gatherings, or banquets—we had left to others with an equal and willing mind.... Now, since there are certain common names for others, whether accepted from parents or from themselves—that is, acquired from the actual studies and customs of life—for us, on the contrary, it was a great thing and a great name both to be and to be called Christians.... And to condense the matter into a few words, while Athens is indeed pestilential to others insofar as the salvation of the soul is concerned... to us, no harm was brought by them, since we were fortified and blocked in our minds. Indeed, we were rather confirmed in the faith thereby. Hence it happened that that excellent pair of friends was celebrated not only throughout Greece, but even outside Greece; and as their teachers equaled the fame of Athens, they themselves also, wherever their teachers were known, were on the lips of men and were placed far above all others as Orestes and Pylades.
Whatever else Gregory honors by speaking of Basil in private, it is permitted to no one to doubt that it must be understood of Gregory himself as well, even though a man so modest as to allow his own praises never to be spoken by another even once, passes over it in silence. Let it be permitted, therefore, alongside the author of his Life himself, to say of Gregory what our own Gregory wrote of Basil; namely, that Gregory was endowed with such character that he would have possessed praise even without learning; but that to this character and excellent disposition there was added such a supply of learning that no one could be compared with him, whether in rhetoric, which forms the tongue toward Greek elegance, collects history, prescribes laws with B verses; or in all parts of philosophy: that not even geometry was neglected by him, nor astronomy, nor arithmetic; but, having left aside those things which could not profit piety, he took to himself from those disciplines only as much as was sufficient so that he could not be harassed by those who boasted of themselves in this kind of knowledge.
XLVI. The teachers whom he used at Athens.
The teachers whom Gregory used at Athens were as famous among as many men as Athens itself. These were Himerius and Proaeresius: the first was a pagan, the other a Christian. He, because of his copiousness of speech, was sent first to the Gauls, then to Rome by Constantius, and there, by decree of the senate, was gifted with a statue ennobled by an inscription of this kind: ROME, QUEEN OF ALL THINGS, TO THE QUEEN OF ELOQUENCE. We have called him a Christian, whatever Eunapius may have written, who claims him as a pagan. For Proaeresius was so addicted to the Christian religion that when Julian, having given a law that Christians should not be teachers of the liberal arts, had permitted him to teach Christians, he deserted the school of his own accord: which we learn from Jerome. Indeed, Eunapius himself writes that Proaeresius was removed from lecturing by the sentiment of Julian. But would Julian, most studious of pagan philosophers, have removed Proaeresius from lecturing by his own decision, had he not professed the Christian religion?
XLVII. Regarding Julian, Gregory’s prophecy.
Gregory had at Athens, among his associates in study, Julian the equalizer, whom he addresses in the nineteenth oration (n. 12 and 16); also a second, far more famous Julian. This was Julian, successor to the Augustus Constantius, most notorious for his defection from the Christian religion, and to be execrated by all subsequent ages. When he had come to Athens about the middle of the year 355, as soon as Gregory met him, he recognized the man; and whatever the unhappy outcome later proved, he foresaw and did not hesitate to predict in these words (b): "What an evil the land of the Romans fosters!" Οἷον κακὸν ἡ Ῥωμαίων τρέφει πόλις.
XLVIII. He meditates a return to his homeland.
Not long after Julian’s arrival, Gregory and Basil, with a ship full of the goods of learning, meditate a return to their homeland, so that they might complete their plan of beginning a holier way of life (c). The day of departure was at hand, and whatever pertained to the departure—the final addresses, the processions, the revocations, the groans, embraces, D and tears. Then a chorus of associates, peers, and even some teachers gathers around them: they deny that they will grant them the power to leave; they entreat, they force, they exhort, they promise that they will give the prize of eloquence to Gregory by their own votes: they leave nothing undone to obstruct their return. Basil breaks through everything; but Gregory, partly softened by the prayers of his friends, and partly betrayed by Basil himself—for this is how he himself brings a charge against Basil...
A that I had returned to live in your company and to philosophize with you. Yet I failed in my pledge, not of my own will or willingly, but because one law surpassed another: the one, namely, which commands the honoring of parents, surpassed the law of companionship and intimacy.” In the meantime, however, Gregory followed the way of life he had promised to God as much as he was permitted; and since he was not given the opportunity to retire into solitude, being cut off from the company of his friend, he established his life in his paternal home in such a way that, walking a middle path, he might give himself both to action and to contemplation. For this middle path, although it was not that kind of life which he had promised he would lead in solitude with Basil, was nevertheless not at all alien to the goal of the philosophy he proposed. Indeed, it was a monastic life itself, if not lived in the desert and in solitude bodily, at least in mind and character. “For the monastic life is of the character, not of the bodies,” as Gregory himself testifies in these words B where he describes that middle way: “For the remaining (monē) is a habit of the mind, not of the bodies.” So also Sozomen, calling them “those who are philosophizing,” labels as monks not only those “who have hidden themselves in solitude,” but also those who, even if they lived in the middle of the crowd of cities, lived as lowly and abject, and in no way distinguished from the common people. C Truly, therefore, Gregory was leading a monk’s life in his father’s house, not yet in the wilderness; and he was a monk in truth, not in body, but in life and character.
LII. That he would embrace the monastic life, he had also bound himself by a vow.
For who indeed would require more than what Gregory performed in order to believe that someone had led a monastic life and should be considered a monk, especially at that time when the solemn vow of dedication to God was not yet in use? His mother dedicated him to God, from whom she had received him; whatever his mother had promised, Gregory held as binding. He himself more than once offered and addicted himself to God; he bound himself by a vow to embrace the monastic life when, tossed by a storm D and in danger, he repelled the peril through prayers and a vow. He performed his promises faithfully. He despised all things, even the labors of eloquence, just like those two philosophers, one of whom deserted his estates, the other of whom threw the silver collected from his sold fields into the sea. Marriage was sent away, he vowed chastity, which it was always fixed and immovable for him to embrace: “It was decreed long ago”; he stripped himself completely of all things: “The rest, indeed,” he says, “I left to the command and the Spirit; and I exchanged the precious pearl with all those things which I once had; and I became, or, to speak more correctly, I desire to become that great merchant, who buys great and eternal things with small and altogether perishing ones.”
A LIII. He receives baptism. At what time this happened is uncertain.
Gregory doubtlessly embarked upon a life of such perfection after receiving baptism; but at what time he received it, writers do not agree. Baronius thinks it happened when he was sailing to Athens, after he had been freed from danger. “But as to what he (Gregory) says, that being freed from danger he offered himself to God immediately by a vow, we think this is nothing else than that he attained the baptism he so greatly desired.” The author of Gregory’s Life believes he had postponed baptism until his thirtieth year, when he returned home from Athens. “We,” says Papebroch, “do not think that baptism was postponed until the end of his stay in Athens, nor that it was immediately received after the danger of shipwreck, but after another peril of life from an earthquake.” The same Papebroch, in an appendix to the ninth day of May, imagines that Gregory had travelled from Athens to Antioch to hear Libanius, and on that occasion had come to Nazianzus to congratulate his father on the bishopric of his homeland, which he had received, and that he received baptism at his hands, and again betook himself to Athens. But these are fabrications, which rest upon absolutely no foundation. Furthermore, Libanius did not teach at Antioch until after the year 351. Therefore, in our view, we must stand by the opinion of Gregory the priest, who writes B that our Gregory, being restored to his homeland, was first washed in divine baptism, having already been illuminated by the power and faculty of it beforehand.
LIV. He imposes upon himself the law of never swearing, and keeps it. Then he imposed upon himself the law of never swearing, as long as he should live in this life, which he kept even to his final day. Then, taking counsel for himself, he offered himself to God, so that, separated from the world, he might be joined in the way of life with Him who alone is most pure, and from a familiar reading of the sacred books he might draw the splendor of truth. This he did not cease to do throughout his whole life. “Preferring rather to be a monk,” says the writer of his Life, “than a man of the world, and a pauper than a seeker of gain.” Then to Him who took him into His lot and saved him, he gave all as a gift—wealth, splendor, etc. “For in other things,” says he, “I do not deny that I am more sluggish and languid than any other man, for I have cast away every desire, from the time I gave my name to Christ C (ἀφ᾽ οὗ Χριστῷ συνεταξάμην); neither am I held by any of the things which are wont to seem pleasant and desirable to others, not by riches, etc.” Many other things it would be permitted here to relate concerning the life and deeds of Gregory after he received baptism, whose grace for that very reason was more abundant, because he had simultaneously consecrated himself to the ascetic life and had stripped himself of all things, as he had long ago determined (προθέμην ῥῖψαι), that he might put on Christ entirely.
LV. Gregory strips himself not only in affection, but in reality. Nor was it only in affection, as it has seemed to some, but in reality that Gregory stripped himself of all goods. Nothing, however, can be objected against this from his own will; since, according to the custom of those times, it was permitted for him to enter upon his parents' inheritance. Moreover, he did not enter upon the inheritance for the purpose of keeping it for himself, but to execute the final wishes of his pious parents, who had left their wealth to be distributed to the poor. Nay, rather, he was no less poor even in his episcopacy. Having been made bishop of Zazima, he says he did not even have bread to offer to a guest (μηδ’ ἄρτον ἔχων τῷ ξένῳ διακλάσαι). Nor was he any richer at Constantinople. “Will they seize my money?” he says. “If it is my own, let them at the same time cut off my wings too, with which I am not at all clothed.” In a poem in which he asks Julian the levý-collector to exempt his personal property from taxes, he says that he had distributed his wealth to the poor, out of a desire to bear the cross, and that it was a common harbor for those sailing, a common relief for the needy. In another poem, questioning himself as to where his wealth is, he answers: “God has part, the other part cursed envy has handed over to rapacious hands.” Writing to a friend who had asked for some books from him, he addresses him in these words: “But if it seems to you that it is not at all philosophical to ask for the price of books, you pay me the money, but let the poor pay your objection.” All of which things clearly demonstrate that Gregory stripped himself of all his wealth.
LVI, LVII. He left all things, even letters, to Christ. Other things are vain, other is useful eloquence, the handmaid of the Word. This Gregory desires for himself and his friends. This alone he embraces: in this he most of all delights. He kept nothing for himself out of all things except eloquence, which he had acquired with such labor, having travelled to many regions of the East and West: “One thing was in my loves,” he says, “the splendor of letters, which the East and West brought me, and the ornament of Greece, Athens. In these I labored long and much; but even those I laid down before Christ, and fixed them to the ground, yielding to the great Word of God, which far surpasses every varied and mutable discourse of the human mind.” For he left all other things to those who wanted them: riches, nobility of birth, glory, etc.; but he embraced eloquence alone, nor did he ever repent of the labor he undertook to acquire it. For just as vain and
A useless is the eloquence that consists only in words, which Gregory spurns and condemns, so there is another kind whose utility he acknowledges, and he undertakes its defense against Julian, whom he thinks showed himself unjust and wicked in no matter more than when he attempted to steal discourses from Christians. "Whence, therefore," he says, addressing Julian (a), "O most vapid of men, did this come into your mind, that you should steal discourses from Christians?" Thus he defends Christian eloquence against the Apostate; he desires this for himself and his friends: "(b) And would that the strength of discourses were present to me and my friends!" He confesses that he embraces this alone, as being the handmaid of the Word, and that he would never willingly neglect this possession; nay rather, that he loves and cherishes it and takes greater pleasure from it than from all other things combined, in which most people delight: he adopts this as the companion of his whole life, as an upright counselor, and a comrade, and a leader on the way that carries one to heaven, and a ready fellow-soldier. And because he spurned all pleasure situated on the earth, all his love, after God, was poured into Christian eloquence, or rather into God as well, since it draws one to God with prudence, through which God is also sincerely perceived, and preserved, and grows within us.
LVIII. Gregory did not fail in the faith given to God: in what way he failed in that given to Basil.
But whither does our oration carry us, discussing Gregory's effusive love for eloquence? Let us return to Gregory himself, whom we left returning from Athens to his father’s house, walking the middle path that he had entered, so that he might at once fulfill the vow he had pledged, by which he was bound to God, and satisfy the piety owed to his parents, by acting and instituting a life such that he would not postpone one for the other, but fulfill both. Replying to Basil's complaints, Gregory admits that he did not stand by his promises, and that he failed in his faith. Truly, he understands these promises and the faith given to Basil, to whom he had promised at Athens that he would retire with him into solitude, in order to lead a solitary life. By these promises, as has now been mentioned, he did not stand; he failed in this good faith: "(c) Not spontaneously and willingly; but because one law surpassed another law, that of course which commands us to honor our parents, [surpassing] the law of companionship and familiarity." But he in no way failed in the faith given to God, and he stood by his promises, by first living that life in his father's house which he had promised he would lead in solitude; and then in the eremus, into which he retired as soon as it was permitted.
LIX. It is credible that Gregory also led a solitary life in Tiberina, in which Arianzus was situated.
Moreover, it is credible that Gregory, when he had returned from Athens to his paternal home, moved from there to the region of Tiberina, where the estate of Arianzus, his native soil, was located, not far from Nazianzus; so that at once C he might lead a solitary life and be able to show the piety owed to his parents; and furthermore, keep the faith he had given to Basil, whom he invited by letter to betake himself into this solitude. It is likely that Basil came there, although he did not endure long delays. The author of the new edition of Basil's letters acknowledges that Basil at first wished to receive him into Tiberina, which he confirms in his 14th epistle with these words (d): "Now therefore you understand into what danger I, a fool, have come, who have struggled to trade a place of this kind for Tiberina, an abyss of the world."
LX-LXII. Gregory seemed to be many things in his father's house, other than what he actually was. The care of household affairs brings troubles to Gregory. He invites Basil to come to him, that all things might be in common.
At what time, therefore, Gregory managed the care of his parents—who were exhausted by their years—he seemed to be nothing less than what he was in reality. For a part of his philosophy was this, "(e) Not to appear to perform the labors of the primary life, and to be rather than appear to be a friend of God." But a greater love for the monks held him, although he seemed to be mingling among many people. Nor did he meanwhile show any less solicitude for his parents, cherishing their old age, judging nothing more pious than to offer, after God, the highest honor to his parents. Nevertheless, he confesses that the care of household affairs brought him the greatest troubles. "(f) While observing and cherishing my laboring parents, I smoothed over my spirit with hopes," he says, "as if fulfilling some best thing, and performing the duty imposed by nature. It is certainly established that the way of the wicked is filled with abysses, since even from good, evil happens to me. For many and troublesome anxieties, which gnaw at my mind and limbs day and night, cast my soul down from heaven to earth. For example, to hold command over slaves, what a net of destruction is that? They always hate harsh masters, yet they impudently trample upon the pious; they are neither gentle to the wicked nor docile to the good... Then indeed, to administer household affairs, and to always sustain the weight of Caesar upon my shoulders, and to hear the harsh voice of the tax collector... After that, to be concerned about the tumult of the crowded forum, and to dwell in high places, while anxious with wretched lawsuits, and to be deafened by the noise of quarreling speakers, and to suffer annoyances from the winding snares of the laws; where fights and labors occur, and more is attributed to the bad than the good, and the very arbiters of the laws are venal to both sides; and if the wicked man is wealthier, he is the best."
Although this whole manner of Gregory in the conduct of his life might appear worthy of praise and admiration, the holy man nevertheless doubts (g) whether from this flowed for him all the difficulty and harshness of life, through which he had an inconvenient and rugged path to philosophy, and not sufficiently worthy of his desire and the purpose of his soul. Wherefore, writing to Basil, who objected that he had not withdrawn with him into solitude, as they had mutually promised each other they would do from Athens,
A he confesses that he has broken his pledge, but promises to keep his faith henceforth. "I have broken my faith," he says, "but I will not break it altogether, since this will be grateful to you. For let us be partly with you, and do you, I pray, not take it ill to be partly with us, so that everything may be in common, and our friendship equal. For thus it will come about that we shall not afflict our parents with grief, and yet may enjoy your company." Thus Gregory invites his friend to come to him, namely to the solitude of the Tiberine region, which, being near to Nazianzus, his parents would not take ill, and to whom he could also provide care, while at the same time leading a solitary life with his friend, as he had promised. It was not, therefore, Basil who tried to persuade Gregory to withdraw into the Tiberine region, as it seemed to the Bollandists, but Gregory who tried to persuade Basil. They rightfully say, however, that they do not doubt that Basil went to Arianzus to visit his friend.
LXIII. Basil, having built a monastery, attempts to attract Gregory.
Meanwhile Basil, who had abandoned the task of teaching among the Caesareans—to which his most pious sister Macrina and also Gregory had impelled him—visited various monasteries in the East and in Egypt, and returning to his homeland around the year 358, without any delay, he retired into solitude, burning with a desire to imitate the excellent examples of virtues which he had observed with amazement in the monasteries of Egypt, Palestine, Coelesyria, and Mesopotamia. He chose a place suitable for seclusion on the bank of the river Iris, which, rising from Armenia, irrigates Pontus, completely remote from all human intercourse, in the region of the monastery which Macrina had built on the other bank of the same river.
LXIV. He betakes himself to Basil in the solitude: both lead an ascetic life. The austerity of life, poverty of goods, manual labor, etc.
There, first of all in Cappadocia, Basil established the cenobitic life, which he deemed far preferable to the solitary life. He had wished to find some brother who would profess the ascetic life, so that together with him he might pass the brief tide of this life. He had hoped to live with Gregory; but the necessity laid upon his friend of caring for his parents' old age was an impediment, so that he was less able to carry out what they had agreed upon while they were at Athens. Wherefore, destitute of that support, after he had traveled through various monasteries, he retired alone into solitude; and as soon as he had tasted its delights, having sent letters to Gregory, he tried to attract him with a very pleasant description of the place. Gregory, burning with a desire for his friend and for solitude, as soon as it was permitted, betook himself into Pontus to Basil, in the year 358 or 359. There he admires and praises the remarkable harmony of the brethren whom Basil was instructing in piety; the sweet singing of psalms and hymns, with which he was greatly delighted; B and the poor life which was led there, and which he himself describes, when bread so hard was set before them that it would break their teeth; and such was the poverty of all things that, had not Basil’s mother provided for them opportunely, they would have had to die. Gregory also commemorates the labor of their hands, the dung of Augeas removed from the house so that the gardens might be made fertile, and the massive wagon drawn by his own and Basil’s neck and hands. To these he adds the carrying of wood, stone-quarrying, the planting of trees, and irrigation.
LXV. Gregory devotes himself to the study of sacred letters, and is wonderfully delighted by that study.
Whatever leisure remained from the duties of their ascetic life was devoted to the meditation of the Scriptures. This was by far the most delightful thing to Gregory, to whom, as he consulted and fluctuated regarding his choice of a way of life, it had seemed that this was to be chosen above all others, in which he could more frequently and freely turn over and meditate upon the sacred books. Both, therefore, with harmonious minds, with equal study and equal success, devote themselves to this sacred reading, and gather those fruits which redounded not only to their own benefit, but even to that of the whole Church. I have no doubt that these things pertain to Gregory's first seclusion, nor do these words of Gregory himself, writing to Basil and longing after those pristine delights which he had tasted with him in his seclusion some years later, allow one to doubt: "Who will restore me to the state of those former days, in which I had affliction with you for delight? ... Who will give me those psalmodies and vigils, and the pilgrimages to God through prayer, and that life free from matter and incorporate? Who will give me the harmony and conjunction of minds of those brethren who were made divine and raised on high by you? Who will give me the contest for virtue, and the incitement to it which we fortified with written laws and rules? Who will give me the study of divine oracles and the light found within them under the guidance and auspices of the Holy Spirit?" C When, however, they attributed more in the study of the Scriptures to the ancient writers than to their own genius, they collected the most notable observations from Origen, which, being reduced into one body, they called the Philocalia.
LXVI. The Philocalia and the Monastic Rules are fruits of the studies of Basil and Gregory.
In learning the Scriptures, Basil and Gregory provided mutual assistance to each other, even conferring familiar discourses among themselves about these things when they were in the hermitage, where they testify they learned them. But they had the Holy Spirit as their chief teacher in the study of the divine oracles, by whose guidance and auspices they declare that they found the light D within them. Besides the Philocalia, another fruit of Gregory's stay in Basil's monastery survives, and it is a work common to both, as we learn from Gregory himself, namely, the monastic laws and rules. Who can…
... [the] contest of virtue, and to that excitation which we have confirmed by written laws and rules? These words of Gregory do not allow us to doubt that he contributed his own effort together with Basil toward the writing of these laws and rules of monastic life. Had he not done so, surely a modest man would not have boasted of it.
LXVII. Gregory attains his wish, carving out a middle path between anchorites and cenobites.
Thus he enjoyed peace and solitude in Basil’s monastery. He had loved this life from the beginning and had vowed it to God amidst the greatest and most serious dangers. Having attained his wish, he followed the middle path which he had long ago conceived in his mind: between anchorites and cenobites. With the former he could meditate; with the latter, he could engage with the Scriptures and be of service to others; with the former he could contemplate, and with the latter he could act. He devoted himself day and night to psalms, hymns, prayers, vigils, fasting, and the meditation of the Scriptures. What more? He had what he had desired with his whole mind, and he was so delighted by that way of life, however harsh it might be, that after two years had passed in it, he could say that he had achieved something of what he had desired, and was, as it were, at the threshold A, and had been kindled with an even greater desire from the very taste of it. For he uses these words for his burning love of solitude, a desire by which he was so gripped that even several years seemed like a brief time.
LXVIII. Pious duty toward his parents recalls Gregory from the delights of the desert.
We do not, however, believe that Gregory spent thirteen years in Basil’s monastery, as Rufinus narrates, having entered it in the year 358 or 359, and being drawn from it in the year 360 or 361 to betake himself to his father, who was suffering greatly at being deprived of such support. Thus, piety toward his parents, which had kept Gregory at Nazianzus upon his return from Athens, also recalled him from the delights of the desert. This first withdrawal of Gregory is to be distinguished from the second, which occurred after he had been created a presbyter, as the Bollandists rightly observe against Baronius, whom they also refute.
LXIX. Basil attempts to recall Gregory.
Basil attempted to recall the absent Gregory to solitude through letters he sent to him, to which his friend replied. Hence those bantering letters exchanged between them: Gregory, who praised his own Tiber river and cast aside the Pontic forests; and Basil, who mocked the Tiber and celebrated the Pontic solitudes. But however much Gregory might jest, he could not hide the fact that he was possessed by an immense longing for the solitude he had left behind, and he declared it with these words B: "What I wrote before about the Pontic commemoration, I wrote in jest, not in seriousness; but what I now write, I write quite seriously. Who will restore me to the state of those former days in which I counted my affliction with you as a luxury?" … Yet these things are easy to wish for, [but] not as easy to accomplish. But do you stand by me… Indeed, I myself breathe you in more than the air, and I live only for the fact that I am with you, whether in person or absent through the phantom of the mind.
LXX, LXXI. He is created a presbyter, and flees into Pontus. He returns for the feast of Easter, and delivers his first oration. Afterward, in a longer one, he gives an account of his flight and return.
Gregory achieved this more quickly, however, than he had expected. For when his father had created him a presbyter against his will and while he was resisting—for he calls it a "tyranny"—he fled back to Basil, offended, both to soothe his grief with the conversations of his friend and also to deliberate with him about what he ought to do. We judge, with Nicetas and Tillemont, that he was ordained on the twenty-fifth of December, which was the day of the Natal of the Lord, and that he fled into Pontus on the feast of the Lights, which is celebrated a few days later; but he returned to his homeland after a very short time, namely, for the day of Easter. Whence, in an oration which he delivered, "The mystery," he says C, "has anointed me: I withdrew for a little while into the mystery, that I might examine and explore myself; I enter into it along with the mystery." By these words he signifies that he had departed on a feast day, after he had been created a presbyter, and had returned on a feast day as well. As to the year, it was 362; for Julian had not yet come into Cappadocia, nor had he employed on the Christians that cruelty of which he left behind horrid monuments in the regions which he traveled through—setting out from Constantinople in the month of May in the year 362, bound for Antioch—and on which he later piled up further horrors in the East. For Gregory, in the *Apologeticus*, which he wrote or delivered, interpreting the causes for why he had fled into Pontus after having been created a presbyter, and why he had returned to Nazianzus, speaks these words about Julian D: "And indeed, I do not fear the external war, nor that beast which has now launched an attack against the Churches, even if it threatens fire, and even if it threatens swords, etc." From these it is clearly evident that the Apostate had not yet come into Cappadocia and exercised his cruelty, but had only threatened it, from which Gregory, guessing what he would do, wrote these things. Therefore, Gregory was created a presbyter on the 25th of December, 361; and when he had fled into Pontus, he returned to his own people by the day of Easter of 362, and on that day he had a brief oration about the feast; but shortly after, he wrote or delivered a long one, in which he gives an account of why he had fled into Pontus and why he had returned.
LXXII. Gregory twice torn from his solitude.
And so twice did Gregory betake himself to the Pontic hermitage; twice was he torn away from his beloved solitude, and compelled to return from Pontus to his own people at Nazianzus. The first time was around the year 361, the second, on the day of Easter in the year 362, when on the 25th of December of the year immediately...
preceding, he was ordained presbyter. He himself explains in the oration which occupies the first place formerly, and now the second, the reasons for his second journey to Pontus and his return. Why his father dragged him from the monastery of Basil and compelled him to return to Nazianzus in the year 361 is not entirely clear. I do not dwell on what Baronius wrote in his Life of Gregory. For he, confusing both of our Gregory's stays in the Pontic solitude and muddling the times—a fact which the Bollandists remark upon more than once—carries his account up to the reign of Valens, A claiming it was he who, favoring the Arian heresy, stirred up troubles against the Catholics and promoted Gregory's return. This, says Baronius, was the cause that led the father of Gregory to act so vehemently to recall his son from the wilderness. For the father was now weakened by old age, and, being unequal to bearing the labors, he urged him with prayers, and as a father, through commands, and finally as a bishop, through his authority. For although he had, as they say, been telling his tale to a deaf man for a long time, at last he bent him, forced him, and extorted from the unwilling son his return to Nazianzus. Upon his return to his homeland, he delivered that excellent oration which is inscribed *Apologeticus*. He also delivered at that time his celebrated oration, the title of which is *On the Holy Lights*, etc. Such is Baronius. But the excellent oration which is inscribed *Apologeticus* was delivered under Julian, not under Valens; and the oration *On the Holy Lights* was not "then," as Baronius wishes, but nearly a year later.
I would not deny that the troubles stirred up by the Arians were the reason why Gregory returned to Nazianzus; but, while granting that, I certainly do not believe these to be the troubles stirred up by Valens, as it seemed to Baronius. Nor can I be induced to believe, with the most learned Tillemont, that the father Gregory had signed the formula of Ariminum at that time, and that the Nazianzen monks had already departed from his communion when his son, having left the delights of the Pontic solitude, returned to Nazianzus in the year 361; or that this was the reason for his return, that he might bring help to his aged father, who had signed the Ariminum formula, so that he might emerge from that mire.
LXXIII-LXXV. The Arians stir up troubles. The fraud of the Arians. They drive many into deception.
The Arians certainly stirred up great troubles in the year 360, when, after the mournful synods—held at Ariminum in the West, at Seleucia in the East in the year 359, and also at Constantinople in the year 360—relying on the protection of the Emperor Constantius, they acted by force and by craft; and they compelled the bishops throughout the entire Church, as far as it extended, B to sign a formula which artfully contained all the venom of their impiety, hidden away. For this was the fallacy and the treachery of the Arians, that they should hand over the *homoousion* to be signed and professed, introducing a great discrepancy of sense by the change of a single letter; they taught, namely, that the Son was not of the same substance as the Father, which *homoousion* signifies, but they said, rather, that He was *homoiousios*, that is, similar to the Father and not consubstantial. "There was at hand," says Gregory, "ink and a slanderer at one's back. This matter drove many of us, men otherwise unconquered, into deception; who, although they had by no means lapsed in their minds, were nonetheless led astray by their subscription, and they consented with those who were wicked on both accounts; and if they were not partakers of the flame, they were at least partakers of the smoke." Such a tempest followed thereafter for the Catholic Church, that those who seemed to be pillars of the temple were prostrated, or at least shaken, inasmuch as even the unwilling were seduced; and, to use the words of Jerome, the world groaned and marveled that it had become Arian.
LXXVI. The father of the Theologian signed the Ariminum formula after the middle of the year 362.
Within the number of those, however, who signed the Ariminum formula at that time, namely during the reign of the Emperor Constantius, that Gregory was not present, and that he did not sign until after the middle of 362, and that the discord between the bishop and the Nazianzen monks arose then, is proven by so many points that no doubt about this matter can exist. First of all, our Gregory does not say that the commands of the Emperor Constantius, or the perturbation of affairs, which was at its height then, were the cause of his father's signing, but a desire for peace and for entering into communion with some people. Second, before that dissension, the Nazianzen Church was accustomed to be called the ark of Noah, as it alone had escaped the deluge of the whole world, as Gregory testifies. C He would truly be a lying witness if the Nazianzen bishop had been deceived by the wiles of the Arians in the time of Constantius; and he would have said falsely that the Nazianzen Church—of which he himself was the bishop, having been ensnared by artful words into a perverse society—had escaped the common deluge of the whole world.
LXXVII-LXXVIII. The schism of the monks on account of the subscription of the father Gregory did not occur under Constantius. This discord was brief.
But much weightier points are available. When Gregory returned to Nazianzus from Pontus for the feast of Easter in the year 362, the Nazianzen Church was enjoying the greatest peace, which he extols with great praise: nor does he fear to say that he would not concede that the most spacious cities and the most numerous flocks should be preferred in any respect to the Nazianzen Church. There was, therefore, no discord at Nazianzus in the year 362, nor was there any subscription of the father Gregory then, from which a dissension erupted. On the contrary, the turmoil was recent when our Gregory was writing his first oration against Julian, as is manifest from these words: "And would that that congregation also might join our choir, who, having previously—not at all an adulterated and ignoble song to us—"
A with God in concord, and had once been deemed worthy, and will soon, I trust, be deemed worthy—I know not by what impulse they were moved—suddenly changed their song to a different key, and placed themselves in a different rank and order; and not even for the sake of our common joy, which I wonder at even more, can they be brought to join us." These words surely, "when previously they joined us in singing to God... they suddenly changed their song to a different key," indicate sufficiently that the discord of the monks had recently arisen; as do their hope of return, the gentleness with which Gregory embraces them as his own members [(a)], and finally the fact that he says not once, but repeatedly [(b)], that these monks were the last to depart. From these facts, it is likewise concluded that Gregory’s subscription was also recent, or at least that he had not subscribed long before. For if the bishop of Nazianzus had subscribed under Constantius, in the year 360 or 361, how could the monks have suppressed their indignation in their hearts until the year 363? Or if they had suppressed it for so long, why does Gregory attribute the secession to a sudden and rash decision? How, I ask, could the monks have suppressed their indignation for so long, whom he himself [(c)] calls "the more fervent part of the Church"? Who, as the same Gregory says in another oration [(d)], even if they are otherwise peaceable and moderate, yet in this matter do not bear being gentle and compliant, when by silence and quiet the cause of God is betrayed; but here they are very warlike, and in contention keen and fierce; for such is the heat of this zeal, and they would sooner attempt something which they ought not, than omit something which they consider a duty. Let those consider, who believe that Gregory the father subscribed to the formula of Ariminum under Constantius—from which it would follow that the monks dissimulated their indignation for two or even three years—how they can reconcile these things; especially since, according to Gregory, the discord was brief. "For those," he says [(e)], "who were at variance out of zeal for piety, my father reconciled both to himself and to the rest, being the last of those separated from us, and the first to return." A very brief division, I say, it was, according to the testimony of Gregory, who writes [(f)] that this calamity had lasted until that time, so that through this discord, those who had been divided understood how great a good peace was, and immediately held that hatred in contempt and detestation. "By which speed of peace," he says, "what happened in between was almost overtaken and obscured." But who would think that a discord which lasted for at least three or four years was so quickly repaired and restored that it could scarcely be believed to have existed? Who could believe that the monks, whom our Gregory writes [(g)] were "very warlike and keen and fierce in contention," had suppressed their indignation for so many years? What more? How long was the Nazianzen Church divided, Gregory remained silent, as he himself testifies. For it was not yet divided when he delivered the first three sermons to the people in the year 362. And this is also evident from the fact that Gregory says nothing in these orations against the dissension, and nothing about peace, which an orator so fond of peace certainly would not have omitted; but he even praised the Nazianzen Church [(h)] as "being of one and the same mind, and thinking one and the same thing."
LXXIX. Towards the end of Julian’s reign he subscribed to the impious formula, but kept his heart unharmed.
Gregory, therefore, does not seem to have subscribed to the less orthodox formula under Constantius, but towards the end of Julian’s reign, deceived by the wiles of the Arians who, in the absence of his son, found an opportune moment to circumvent the old man, and under the pretext of pacification drew him into their perverse society. I have said "in the absence of his son," who, sometimes withdrawing from the cares of his father’s house, used to fly away to the friendly solitude of Pontus to visit Basil; for they would never have dared to lay snares for the father while he was present. Gregory’s subscription excited great disturbances in the Nazianzen Church, and the monks immediately departed from his communion; which happened in the year 363, if indeed they had not yet departed when, in the year 362, Gregory was praising the concord of the Nazianzen Church; but the departure was recent when he was writing his first invective against Julian, who was already dead. Finally, the discord, which had not been long-lasting, having been settled and composed, etc., concord was restored in the year 364. For Gregory reconciled to himself and to the rest the monks who had dissented from him out of zeal for piety, both on account of reverence for him and because of the sameness of their dogma. "For he alone," as our Gregory says [(i)], "was believed to have remained sound in mind, and his soul not to have been infected along with his ink, although he had been led astray by the simplicity of his spirit, and on account of the sincerity of his heart, being alien to all deceit, he had not been at all on his guard against deceit." Thus, the grave tempest of the Nazianzen Church was settled by the prayers and admonitions of Bishop Gregory, with a companion in piety and work having meanwhile been born; who, being a companion and helper to his father in every good work, and running as it were at his side, contributed by the grace of God the far greater part of the labor and study.
LXXX. The Theologian speaks as if he himself were the guilty party, which must be attributed to his piety towards his father.
Someone might perhaps marvel why Gregory, speaking of the sedition stirred up against his own father by the more fervent part of the Church, speaks as if he himself were guilty and had been drawn along with his father into the perverse society: "For when," he says [(j)], "a sedition was excited against us by the more fervent part of the Church on that account; because the writing..."
A of our father, and our own, had been circumvented by artificial words, we had been dragged into a perverse society." But far be it from us to think that our Gregory, an excellent champion of Catholic doctrine, was deceived, together with his father, by the Arians. For it must be deemed a gesture of piety towards his parent and humanity that he speaks, as it were, of a common debt of guilt. Yet when he excuses not himself, but only his father—"who alone is believed to have kept his heart unharmed, and not to have stained his soul with the ink," he indicates that he himself did not subscribe, and therefore that he did not err by any outward act. Furthermore, it should be noted that the blame for the father’s subscription was mainly transferred to the son, because he retained communion with his father who, it seemed, had lapsed, and did not separate himself from him, as the more fervent [members of the Church] did.
LXXXI. Gregory's noble sentiment on this matter.
Let us put an end to our investigation concerning the discord of the Nazianzen Church and the restored peace with this noble sentiment of Gregory: "Nothing," as the holy man observes in the oration he delivered on peace, "reconciles those who worship God with a sincere affection of the soul as much as doctrine that is in agreement concerning God; just as, on the contrary, nothing is so ready and prepared for discord as a difference of opinion in this matter. For in this case, even one who is most fair and easy-going in other affairs, becomes most fervent; and one who is truly mild becomes pugnacious when he sees that, through his own lenity, he is causing ruin to God—or, to speak more correctly, that through his own fall he is bringing damage upon God, who holds us as His wealth and renders us wealthy." Thus, therefore, we too bore ourselves more moderately in the contention itself; so that the concord became even clearer than the division itself, and through those things which were joyful and convenient on both sides, that which happened in the middle was almost stolen away and obscured.
LXXXII. Gregory strives to heal the discord arising in the Cæsarean Church, and composes orations against Julian.
At the time when the Nazianzen Church was split, another schism, no less destructive, threatened the Cæsarean Church and was about to arise from the frictions which Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea—a prelate indeed famous for his honesty of morals and distinguished for his piety—was fomenting against Basil; for which reason he incurred the hatred of all men of good character, and especially of the monks. For they, bearing with an indignant mind that their leader, Basil, was being removed from the administration of the Church and treated with injury, immediately decided with daring defiance to withdraw from the Bishop’s communion, and they drew away with themselves no small part of the laity and the honorable men. But Basil, a son of peace, was not one who would allow the Church to be torn asunder for his own sake; using Gregory as his counselor and encourager, he withdrew with him into the Pontic solitude: "To us," B says Gregory, using the counsel of advisers and monitors in this matter, "he fled with us into Pontus." The author of the Life of Saint Basil, chapter 9, n. 6, proves that this secession is to be placed at the end of 364 or the beginning of 365: therefore it happened when the Nazianzen schism was already quenched.
Gregory had indeed met Basil, who was not yet initiated into the presbyterate and was living in solitude, in the year 363, after Julian the Apostate had been taken from the living, and while the Nazianzen schism was still raging; and there he had written both orations against the Apostate, with Basil assisting or advising, as the learned gather from these words of the second Steleutic (for as such they are called): "These things [are] for you, Basil and Gregory," etc. He did not imprudently, as it seems to Peter Cuneus, hold Julian up to public ridicule, "as if on a stage"; but he was compelled by many and important reasons to publicly denounce the Apostate. We set forth only the main ones, having omitted the others for the sake of brevity. First, therefore, it was necessary to confirm in the truth by this example those who, while they might confess God in all things, nevertheless, because of the levity of their soul, are inflamed in their thoughts by the pride of the impious man, and do not bear the peace of sinners, nor do they sustain the waiting for God's counsel. Then, by the narration of Julian's crimes, it had to be shown to the Gentiles "what those demons teach them." Finally, the faithful themselves, by an exposition of the things they had suffered, had to be admonished not to forget, in tranquility, the storm they had passed through, nor the disease in health, nor the captivity—returned safe to Jerusalem—nor Egypt after Egypt. From these orations we learn two further things, of which the first pertains to the history of Gregory and Basil; the second is suitable for instructing the faithful who live under an impious king. Thus Gregory teaches that he and Basil were reserved by Julian as the last for persecution, thus addressing him: "These things for you, Basil and Gregory... whom you had already known to be famous and celebrated in life and speech, and in mutual concord, from Greece onwards... you reserved as the last for persecution." Gregory recalls the temple of Fortune that was overturned by the Cæsareans of Cappadocia under Julian, and the punishments exacted from them on that account, and he reveals his own opinion on that matter in the first Steleutic in this way: "What Julian inflicted upon our Cæsareans—who were, I say, endowed with greatness of soul and fervent in the study of piety—it might perhaps not be even fair to hold against him. For, moved by just indignation on account of Fortune, which was affected by misfortune at a more fortunate time, he seemed to have proceeded to this vengeance: since some concession must be made to prevailing injustice." But that Gregory in no way exceeded the limit in denouncing the Apostate, and in his Warnings already demon-
demonstrated, and if anything remains to be said, let it be added to the contents of the second volume.
When those orations had been brought to a close, A when Basil had come to Caesarea, and had been created a presbyter by Eusebius, the bishop of the city, in the month of September of the year 364, he signified the pain he had conceived from this fact in letters sent to Gregory; to which Gregory replied thus: "I praise the preface of your letter. But what of yours is not worthy of praise? And you have been captured, just as we have also been taken in the snare: since we have been drawn to the rank of presbyter... Perhaps it would have been better if this had not happened... But since it has happened, one must bear it, as it seems to me, and especially on account of this time, which brings upon us many tongues of heretics." That this time is to be referred to the beginnings of the Emperor Valens, when the Arians, indeed, trusting in his patronage, hoped that all things would turn out according to their own will, the author of the *Life of Saint Basil* has proved with most certain arguments. Not long after, there occurred the disputes of Basil with his bishop Eusebius, which were mentioned before; and this was the occasion for their reconciliation.
LXXXIII. Gregory is invited by Eusebius to a spiritual assembly or to a feast day.
Gregory, being most honorably summoned by Eusebius to some spiritual assembly or feast day, wrote back, and freely complained about the injury brought upon Basil. "I am glad to be honored by you... But I feel burdened that an insult has been brought upon my dearest brother Basil by your piety, and is still being brought... While you honor us, treating him with contempt, you seem to me to be acting as if someone were to stroke the head of one man with one hand, C and strike his cheek with the other; or like one who paints the walls and adorns the exterior parts of a house while the foundations are being torn up. Therefore, if you think you should listen to me, you will do this. But I ask and insist that you comply: for it is only fair. If you shall cherish him, as is right, you yourself will in turn be respected by him. But we shall follow, as shadows follow bodies, being small and more inclined toward peace." Eusebius took the frankness of Gregory as an insult, who wrote back that he had not written insultingly, but in accordance with the laws of the Spirit; for it was fair that Eusebius, although superior in rank, should concede just freedom. Soon, in another letter, Gregory signified to Eusebius that he had conceived no offense in his mind; but even if he had, he would gladly lay it aside when he saw the beasts rushing into the Church, and Eusebius resisting them generously; to whom he promises that he will come, if it seems right to him, so that he may fight with him against the heretics.
LXXXIV. Gregory makes peace between Eusebius and Basil.
Gregory, having been made certain that his effort would not be unwelcome to Eusebius, immediately betook himself to him; and when he had understood from clear testimonies that he was softened D by time, like iron by fire, and was inclined toward showing benevolence to Basil, nay rather, toward writing to appease him, he signified this to his friend as quickly as possible, and Gregory exhorted him to occupy the bishop, either by arriving or by writing, and at the same time promises that he would be the companion of his journey. Basil consented, and Gregory immediately led him out from his Pontic solitude into the arena of the struggle. By such prudent counsel, Gregory earned great merit from Basil, from Eusebius, and from the Caesarean Church; for the disputes were extinguished, concord was restored, and the Arians were put to flight, who, when they had already conquered some Churches, were attacking others, and hoping they would conquer yet others; nor were they raised to any hope of overturning Caesarea, over which the Emperor Valens, surrounded by a troop of Arian bishops, was looming in the year 365, more than by Basil's absence and the leader's lack of skill. The victory having been reported over Valens and the Arian bishops, a great part of which was Gregory himself, he joined Basil so closely with Eusebius that it was not burdensome for the bishop to be surpassed in knowledge, and eloquence, and counsel, and virtue, by one over whom he was superior in rank; nor did Basil for that reason honor and respect the bishop any the less, because he was superior and more eminent than him in so many parts. Tillemont, Hermant, Pagi, Baronius, the Bollandists, and others think these things happened in different years. We, however, with the most recent editor of Basil's letters, believe that Basil withdrew in the year 364, or at the beginning of 365, and in the same year returned to Caesarea through the effort and counsel of Gregory, and reported the victory over Valens and the Arian host.
LXXXV. The age and illnesses of his parents do not allow Gregory to be away.
This last sojourn of Gregory in the Pontic solitude was not long, of which he does not even make mention in his poem *On His Own Life*. For neither did the advanced age of his parents allow themselves to be destitute for a long time of the assistance of their son, which was so necessary, and also the frequent illnesses, to which their old age was exposed; and which did not allow Gregory to leave the house; or, if he was ever away, they recalled him. Thus, as Basil was insisting that he should betake himself into the solitude, he excuses himself, bringing forward the illness of his mother. "For we are sitting," he says, "with our lady mother, who has long been laboring under a grave illness. If we are to leave her in a doubtful and uncertain state, believe me, we shall by no means be free of your presence." He also recounts the grave illness of his father in the eighteenth oration, in which he pursues his praises; from which, by a singular benefit of God, he was suddenly delivered, so that on the day he was thought to be about to die, he rose and celebrated the synaxis with the people. In the same oration, he reports that his mother, laboring under a grave illness, recovered, by an unexpected and no less miracle, as an apparition divinely shown to him taught that the sickness by which she was held had been lifted.
LXXXVI. The death of his brother Caesarius brings great grief to Gregory; and after his passing he is overwhelmed by most troublesome business.
If Gregory was frequently compelled to expend care and concern upon his parents, who were worn out by old age and sometimes falling gravely ill, the death of his brother Caesarius, the overseer of the treasuries in Bithynia, brought him far more serious cares and hardships. When Nicaea was nearly completely destroyed by an earthquake, the greatest within human memory, on the eleventh day of October in the year 368, Caesarius was almost the only one of the distinguished men, or certainly with very few others, to have escaped unscathed by a marvelous benefit of divine providence. But he did not prolong his life for long, for he died at the end of the same year or the beginning of the next, namely on January 25, 369, as the Bollandists maintain. At the death of Caesarius, Gregory, upon whom the care of the family business devolved, was overwhelmed by unwelcome tasks. For since Caesarius was holding a public office at the time of his death, and had left all his belongings to be distributed to the poor, as soon as he breathed his last, the A “enemies”—namely those rapacious officials—made an attack and plundered his property most wantonly and insolently. “He was the guardian of the treasuries,” says Gregory, “but he dies in the midst of his duty, and a multitude of dogs falls upon the money of the deceased; and whatever he left, servants, strangers, and friends all tear apart. For who does not plunder a fallen oak?” Basilius, who considered Gregory’s affairs as his own, writing to Sophronius, the prefect of Constantinople, recounts that servants and other men no better than servants had plundered all the most precious things of the deceased, and very little had been reserved for his parents, which was immediately distributed to the poor according to the wish B of the dying man, who had said: “I wish all my things to be the poor’s.” Basilius adds that many feigned creditors had come forward declaring that Caesarius had received money from them; to whom was paid out whatever they requested, so that some regretted that they had not asked for more. But as the number of such sycophants grew, it became necessary to refuse those who asked; those who were denied brought lawsuits, and Gregory was cast into the greatest troubles, from which Basilius asks Sophronius to deliver him. This might perhaps be the place to speak of Caesarius’s piety, his deeds, his erudition, etc.; but Gregory said enough of these in the oration he gave before his parents concerning him. Let the reader read this, if he wishes. He similarly adorned with a funeral oration the most excellent virtues of his sister Gorgonia, who was removed from the living shortly after Caesarius. C
LXXXVII. Gregory rebukes Basilius for acting with too little caution in providing for the election of the bishop of Caesarea.
In the year 370, Gregory showed singular prudence and strength of mind in a matter of the greatest importance, and, having broken through all the obstacles that stood in the way, he brought the matter to a happy conclusion. For it is certain that it was mostly through the efforts of Gregory that Basilius was elected bishop of Caesarea. Indeed, no one was more worthy of such a see than Basilius, who had already sustained many duties of administration committed to him by Eusebius. How great his piety was, how outstanding his doctrine, and finally how great his merits were toward the Church of Caesarea, escaped no one. Nevertheless, many things stood in the way, which, had Gregory not removed them with his own prudence, the matter would have come to naught. Basilius himself, when Eusebius was already held by the middle of death, not even suspecting D that eyes were cast upon him, summoned his friend Gregory, writing in these words, as if he were giving up his own last breath and wished to say a final farewell to his friend as he died. Gregory, having received the letter, poured forth a flood of tears, groaned, and prepared himself for the journey. But when he later sensed that the bishops were hastening to the city, he understood Basilius’s plan, turned the prow of his ship, and refused to set out. Then, having given a letter to Basilius, he freely pointed out how incautiously he was acting. “You seem to me,” he says, “to have the reputation of a constant and solid man, endowed with strength of mind; yet you deliberate and execute many things more simply than cautiously or circumspectly. For he who is free from vice is also accustomed to be slower to suspect vice. Something of this kind has now also happened. You have called us to the metropolitan city when a consultation about creating a bishop had been proposed.” Having prefaced this, he continues, critiquing what seemed to have been done incautiously by Basilius: “I began to wonder, first, if you failed to perceive what was fitting and honorable, nor thought that the tongues of wicked men must be countered, which weave calumny most swiftly against the most simple. Secondly, if you do not think that the same things which are convenient for us are convenient for you, for whom life, doctrine, and all other things are held in common, having been associated by God already from our earliest age. Thirdly—for it is permitted to say this too—if you judged that such elections should be those of holy men and those who fear God, and not of powerful men who are in favor with the common people.” For these reasons Gregory signifies to Basilius that he has turned the prow of his ship and refused to set out, and he advises him to flee the tumult and base suspicions by a prudent retreat. It is likely that Basilius followed this advice and sought a hiding place while the election was carried out.
LXXXVIII-LXXXIX. Both Gregorys strive to have Basilius placed in charge of the Church of Caesarea. Nothing was left undone by them so that the matter might proceed successfully.
Meanwhile, both Gregorys strive no less that Basilius be substituted in the place of Eusebius. The bishops who had already gathered in the city invited Gregory to Caesarea to be bishop; but they did so so ungraciously and impolitely that they signified neither that he ought to be present, nor for what reason, nor at what time. They wrote back—
A the venerable old man did not overlook the injury done to him, nor did he refuse to be present. But since he did not doubt that there would be various factions among the people in choosing a bishop, he made it known to the bishops that he had no one whom he could prefer to Basil, on account of the holiness of his life and his excellence in doctrine; and indeed, that the weakness of his body should not be an impediment, since it is a bishop who is sought, not an athlete. He promised that he would be present if they would accept that vote, and that he would give them his labor, whether in spirit or in body; but if the way was to be taken under certain conditions, and if factions were clashing against fairness, he would be glad that he had been despised. The Bishop of Nazianzus wrote the same thing to the Church of Caesarea, which had honorably invited him, regarding Basil, whom he decided should be chosen before all others. Nothing was left undone by the good old man that the matter might turn out prosperously. He wrote letters (which is proof that more were written by him than survive), he admonished, he reconciled the people, the priests, and the rest, as many as were clergy; he entreated, he cast his vote, he ordained even B while still absent; he gave this to his gray hairs, that he might use his authority among strangers as if they were his own people. The state of the Church of Caesarea seemed to demand this solicitude from Gregory, in which there was a great dissension of spirits. The most select part of the people, the whole clergy, and the ascetics all preferred Basil. But the magistrates and the most lost of the lowest mob, joined with the magistrates, envied and resisted, and indeed the bishops themselves did so, which provided material for mockery to the enemies of religion.
XC. They summon Eusebius of Samosata from the East. Furthermore, when there was danger from the Arians, lest they occupy and destroy the Church of Caesarea, which was laboring under dissensions, Gregory, who could not yet be present, summoned the great light from the East, Saint Eusebius of Samosata, having sent letters through the deacon Eustathius, in which he declared in what great danger the Church of Caesarea was struggling. The holy martyr hastened into Cappadocia, as Basil asserts and Gregory confirms, who testifies that the Holy Spirit stirred up men distinguished for piety and burning with zeal from foreign regions to anoint Basil.
XCI. Basil is elected Bishop of Caesarea by the efforts of both Gregorys. What more is there to say? When among the number of bishops who were about to proclaim Basil, one was missing for the canonical election, the Bishop of Nazianzus C not only broken by age but also by sickness, and nearly at the point of death, did not hesitate to undertake the journey, so that he might aid the election with his vote, trusting in the help and assistance of the Spirit. As my Gregory was departing, he gave letters to Saint Eusebius, whose zeal, labors, and gratitude toward God he praises, and attributes to him the restoration of his father’s old age, from whence he also hopes for the matter to turn out according to his wishes. "Old age is renewed, sickness is overcome, those affected flee from their beds, the infirm gird themselves with strength." These things bring me to the conjecture that our affairs will turn out according to our mind, and that you have my father, both in his own name and in our name, who will place a beautiful end upon his whole life and venerable gray hairs, namely, this present struggle for the Church. But I am certain that by your prayers, upon which everyone ought to rely, we shall receive him back firmer and stronger. Gregory’s hope was not in vain. It could not happen otherwise, as he himself says, but that the Holy Spirit would prevail; and indeed, He prevailed abundantly. Basil was elected Bishop of Caesarea, ordained, and placed on the throne. These things being done, Gregory, who had set out, carried as if dead upon a litter, returns as a young man, firm and strong, having his eyes raised up, strengthened by the laying on of hands and the anointing, I add also by the head of him who was being anointed. Let this then be added to the old narratives: that labor brings health, that the alacrity of the soul raises the dead, and old age, anointed by the Spirit, leaps up. Thus Basil, by the efforts of both Gregorys and Saint Eusebius of Samosata, assumed the bishopric of the Church of Caesarea in the year 370, as our Prudentius Maran confirms with many arguments after Petavius and Tillemont; nor should the Bollandists and Baronius be heard, who write that Basil was ordained in the year 369; but much more to be rejected is Pagius, who defers his ordination until the year 371.
XCII. Gregory was neither present at the election of Basil, nor did he visit him after the election; he responded to Basil who complained of being neglected. It was doubted by no one that Gregory, who had not been present at the election of Basil, would hasten to Caesarea to congratulate the elect. But consulting Christian modesty, and fleeing the envy of those times, he repressed his desire to see his friend and stayed at home, meanwhile having sent letters, in which he confesses that he was suffused with the greatest joy when he learned that the lamp was placed by the Holy Spirit as victor upon the lampstand; and at the same time he explains the reasons why he did not fly to him immediately, and prays that he not demand it of him. Basil did not accept the apologies of Gregory and complained that he was despised and neglected by him. To Basil’s complaints he responded very sharply: "If you are angry at us because you..."
admire your own virtue less than you deserve, you must be angry at all mortals as well. For no one else has praised you enough, or ever will, except for yourself and your own sublimity in speaking; if it were possible for someone to proclaim their own praises, and the law of discourse permitted such a thing. But if you charge us with holding you in contempt, why do I not go mad first? And why are you indignant that I philosophize? With your kind permission I might say: this one thing is even more sublime and excellent than your doctrine and erudition." A Basil eventually yielded, and approved of his friend’s prudence by his own judgment; just as later, when Gregory came to Caesarea (a) and refused the seat of higher honor among the presbyters offered to him by his friend, Basil did not accuse him of this act, but praised him.
XCIII. Concerning the attack made by Valens against the Church of Nazianzus, and the victory gained together with his father.
Towards the end of the year 371, it seems to have occurred, as Gregory narrates of his father’s zeal (b), who with great strength of mind "opposed himself to the heretics, when they, together with the imperial impiety, undertook an expedition against the Nazianzene Church, as though intending," says Gregory, "to bring us also under their power, and attach us to the others who were already almost all oppressed by servitude." By "imperial impiety" he understands Valens, who, having made peace with the Goths, turned the forces of the empire to attack the Catholic faith, and, surrounded by a heretical host, betook himself to Cappadocia. The arrows of Valens were aimed primarily at Basil; but, heading for Caesarea at the end of the year 371, or perhaps departing from there in the following year, he made a journey to Nazianzus and attacked the bishop, who was worn out with age; but the bishop reported a glorious triumph over him. Our Gregory certainly had a great role in that triumph, which he himself, though a man of the greatest modesty, was forced to admit, when he said that his father Gregory had been "a great help to those at Nazianzus struggling against the imperial impiety, both through himself alone, and perhaps also through us," says Gregory (c), speaking of himself, "whom, like bold and noble whelps, he would send against those heretics as though against the wildest beasts, in this way training us for piety."
XCIV. Gregory is an associate to Basil when he struggles against the same Valens.
Gregory was also an associate to Basil in his remarkable struggle against the same emperor, and a sharer in the noble triumph he gained over the enemies of the Catholic faith, who were vanquished and defeated at the end of 371 and the beginning of 372. That Gregory was present at these struggles we learn from himself. For he testifies that he entered the church together with Basil (d), B and does not hesitate to say that he heard those voices which he is accustomed to call "the voices of God," when he was addressing the emperor who had gone to him once and then a second time, so that he might enjoy the conversation of Basil, which he had long since desired. Nor does it seem certain to us that he was present only at Basil’s conversations with the emperor, but also at those held previously with the prefect and the master of the kitchens, who boasted of the swords of his art, and was "sent to the fire suited to him," as Gregory facetiously jokes (e). Basil had invited him to be present at the proposed struggle, and he had promised to come; therefore, we must hold for certain that he did come. Tillemont thinks that the illness of Gregory’s mother caused the delays, and was the reason why he did not go immediately when called by Basil. But, to omit that the utility of the Church was dearer to Gregory than putting her aside to sit by his sick mother and refusing to hasten to defend the Church; certainly, in those letters upon which Tillemont relies, nothing is read concerning the most grave causes for coming, and nothing concerning the promises of Gregory, who, when the time for fighting arrived, had promised that he would be present; but he signifies only that he is held by the desire of seeing Basil, to whom he says he will make satisfaction (f) if his mother is healed by Basil’s prayers. Wherefore this letter pertains to another time; and whatever Gregory narrates (g) concerning Basil’s long and sharp altercation with the prefect Modestus, he must be believed to have heard it with his own ears.
XCV. Gregory plays his part in Basil’s other battles.
The same must be said of Basil’s various battles with the others sent ahead by the emperor, whether "from the class of judges," or "from the military order," or "from the gynaeceum." In all these, Gregory was Basil’s associate, who, joyful and alert, girded the side of the victor, strenuously performing the parts assigned to him by Basil. For Basil, because of the straits of time, had adopted this method: that he himself claimed for himself the dispensation of the Word, but committed the liberty of speaking to Gregory, whom, because of the obscurity of his name [so the modest man speaks (h)], no one would blame and cast into exile. "And so," he says, "our Gospel was firm and valid, supported by the help of both." From these things it is permitted to glimpse what labors, what difficult and dangerous burdens Gregory sustained, when, attacking the adversaries at close quarters and joining hand-to-hand combat with them, he incited the keener hatred of them against himself. It would be superfluous to say more of these things, since there is almost no ancient writer who does not proceed at length concerning these remarkable struggles of Basil, and the distinguished service rendered to him by Gregory in these contests. But we wish to warn the reader, [that] more recent [authors], in
the ordering of these events, sometimes err. Not even Tillemont, than whom no one is more cautious or diligent, is immune from all error. A certain passage of our Gregory, misunderstood, has cast the learned man into the greatest difficulties. After Gregory related that Valens, struck with admiration for Basil, had forbidden that violence be offered to him, and had wavered in a miraculous manner while offering gifts, and that when he had returned again to the church, he had heard the divine voices of Basil behind the veil; after, I say, Gregory related these things, he continues thus A (a): «Αὐτὴ γίνε- ται τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως περὶ ἡμᾶς φιλανθρωπίας ἀρχὴ, καὶ κατάστασις πρώτη, τοῦτο τὸ λήμμα τῆς τότε διοχλούσης ἐπηρείας τὸ πλεῖστον, ὥσπερ τι ῥεῦμα ἔλυσεν. This was the beginning of the Emperor's humanity and clemency toward us; this was the first calming of matters, this was the occasion which, like some flood, broke and dissolved the greatest part of that pressure by which we were then vexed.» Tillemont refers this to Valens’s second entry into the church, and from this he concludes that Basil and all the churches of Cappadocia retained peace for the remainder of the time of the Emperor Valens, or at least for a long time after Valens’s colloquy with Basil. But that peace can in no way be reconciled with the persecution which the author, Gregory, asserts followed after Valens’s second entry into the church. Tillemont attempts to solve this difficulty with conjectures. But what need is there for conjectures, when the matter is in itself plain and simple? For these words of Gregory: «This was the beginning of the Emperor’s humanity toward us, this was the first calming of matters,» are not to be referred to Valens’s colloquy with Basil behind the veil, but to that admiration of Basil’s virtue B by which, being struck, Valens forbade that violence be offered to him: which indeed is clear from the whole series of events. For Gregory says that Valens, having heard what Basil had done, had come to such an admiration of his virtue that he forbade that force be offered to him, and came to the church for the sake of making satisfaction to him, where at the mere sight of Basil he trembled, and later returning, satisfied his long-felt desire to see Basil. Therefore, what Gregory adds immediately, that this was the first calming of the storm, should be referred to the order of Valens, who, having wondered at Basil’s supreme constancy in the contest against the prefect—which had been recounted to him by the prefect—forbade that force be offered to him, and decided to betake himself to the church and converse with him. Moreover, these words of Gregory prove the same thing: καὶ κατάστασις πρώτη, «this first calming,» which Billius did not render. For it is certain that the tempest was calmed for the first time when Valens forbade that violence be offered to Basil, which indeed he forbade before he betook himself to the church. It is enough to have pointed this out. Let him who wishes more read the *Life of Basil* prefixed to the new edition of the works of the holy doctor, ch. 20, p. 104, n. 8.
Here it will also be permissible to read, excellently treated in chapter 23, whatever regards the discord which arose after Valens’s departure between Saint Basil and Anthimus, bishop of Tyana, from the division of Cappadocia into two provinces; and what Gregory did in order to support his friend’s side and defend his rights against Anthimus. Where, as soon as Gregory heard that difficulties were being caused for Basil, he spontaneously offered him his service C (b), and promised that he would come to Caesarea, both to assist him with counsel and to share in the insults with him, although he knew for certain that Basil would do nothing at all unworthy of philosophy. Which words sufficiently indicate that the letter formerly 25 was written on account of this dissension, in which there was no question of faith or doctrine, but of revenue and the size of the see. The civil division of Cappadocia, which was instituted at the beginning of the winter of the year 372, was not immediately followed by the division of the ecclesiastical province, which seems not to have happened until after Valens’s departure, about the month of March of that year. Then indeed Anthimus contended that the city of Tyana, which had been made the metropolis of the second Cappadocia, should have the same authority in ecclesiastical matters, and he claimed for himself those parishes which had recently been attached to the new province, as now belonging to him and having been torn away from Basil. Basil, on the other hand, held to ancient custom, and to this division which had been made formerly by the Fathers. Most of the bishops of Cappadocia followed the side of Anthimus: «There were indeed three causes,» says Gregory (c), «why many, even before, had a mind toward him (Basil) that was little gentle or candid. First, because they did not agree with him at all in the matter of faith, except insofar as that was strictly necessary for them due to the pressure of the multitude. Second, because they had not yet entirely cast from their minds the grief conceived from his election. The last, because they bore most bitterly that they were surpassed by him by such a long and wide degree in glory; although it was most disgraceful to admit this... From this contention very many evils were already in part happening, and in part were impending. Assemblies were being withdrawn from the new metropolitan; revenues were being plundered,» etc. D
XCVII. Gregory comes to Caesarea, joins himself as a companion to Basil, and takes part in the struggle near Sasima against Anthimus.
Having heard these things, Gregory does not let pass the duty owed to this time, and he immediately, as has already been said, promises his service to Basil; which was very grateful to his friend. Nor was there any delay; Basil asks Gregory to come to him as quickly as possible; and when he had come, both set out together for Mount Taurus, where there was a certain place, or church, under the name of Saint Orestes, from which the bishop of Caesarea used to receive annual revenues. While they were returning, Anthimus, whom the Tauric revenues were driving into a great fury, inasmuch as those being transported to Caesarea he viewed with an unjust mind...
[[A]] and while he occupies the narrow passes with a pillaging band, he blocks the passage of the mules of the passer-by, which were laden with goods received from Saint Orestes, so that they might proceed no further. This struggle took place near Sasima. For Gregory (a) jokes not without indignation at Basil, because he had appointed him bishop of Sasima, so that he might wage war with Anthimus, if ever he should seize Basil’s mules while holding the narrow passes, and like Amalek constraining Israel. He even says in his poem *De vita sua* that he was given to Sasima because he had shown warlike fortitude for the defense of Basil's cause: which is evidence that he was present at the battle near Sasima.
XCVIII. Gregory is consecrated bishop of Sasima at Nazianzus, not Caesarea, in the year 372.
Basil turned this dissension, however, to the advantage of the Church by multiplying bishoprics: "From this," says Gregory (b), "three most excellent things resulted. For both a greater care for souls was undertaken; and each city had [assigned to it] its own revenues; and the war was thereby suppressed and extinguished." Among the number of these episcopal sees which Basil erected were the Sasima, an ignoble place indeed, over which he determined to set our Gregory as bishop; and he compelled him, reluctant and dreading the episcopal burden and fleeing it altogether, to yield and, if not his soul, at least to submit his head to the ordination, with the help of Gregory’s father. This ordination was performed not at Caesarea, as the most learned Tillemontius wishes, but at Nazianzus, as Gregory himself testifies (c), who explicitly asserts that Basil had come to Nazianzus: "But my most beloved Basil came to us," etc. [[B]] Then he narrates how, with his father helping Basil, he had been deceived. Moreover, on the day he was ordained, he delivered an oration before his father and Basil and the other bishops who had ordained him. Who could believe that the elder Gregory, worn out by old age, came to Caesarea for the sake of this ordination; or if he had come, that Gregory would have passed it over in silence, he who admires a similar journey of his father, undertaken for Basil's sake, as a model of the highest fortitude of mind in a frail body? Gregory was ordained bishop of Sasima before Easter, which in the year 372 fell on April 7th: for Saint Eusebius of Samosata, responding to letters given shortly after Easter of that year, signifies that this ordination had not pleased him.
XCIX. He is visited by Gregory of Nyssa, whom Basil sent.
Very few days after the ordination, Gregory of Nyssa visited our Gregory, sent by a friend to console his namesake. Tillemontius judges this friend to be Saint Eusebius of Samosata or Saint Meletius; but this friend is none other than Basil himself. For after Gregory, in the introduction to the oration which he delivered before Nyssenus, asks his audience whether they wish to have the matter explained more clearly, he immediately brings Moses and Aaron into the middle; and having compared them very shrewdly among themselves, he again asks whether his oration has not clearly depicted his namesake, that is, Gregory, and his like-minded friend, that is, Basil. "One of these," he says (d), "anointed us, and brought us who were in hiding into the middle... not as was worthy, with the spirit which is in him.... The other came to console us, and to confirm, and to be gentle in spirit." Since, therefore, Gregory of Nyssenus was sent by Basil, which is manifest from what has been said, he could not have arrived the day after the ordination, as Baronius thought, [[C]] and as is read erroneously in Billius in the interpretation of the title of the eleventh oration: nevertheless, he arrived a few days after the ordination. In that oration, as in the one he had previously delivered before Basil, he complains of the violence done to him, but nevertheless professes his obedience. He grieves that Nyssenus came later, like help after a slaughter, a pilot after a storm, medicine after a scar: yet he declares that he now yields and finds confidence, which is evidence that this oration was delivered before he had fled away into solitude.
C. Complaints of Basil against Gregory, and of Gregory against Basil.
Nyssenus had left Nazianzus, when Gregory, feeling that he had been deceived, fled again, and enjoys the delights of solitude. Basil, seeing his plans completely ruined by Gregory’s flight, complained gravely to him. But Gregory, already bearing a deep wound inflicted upon his heart, from the moment he had been ordained by force by Basil, answered no less sharply. Hence those letters, not indeed joking as before, but indignant and vehement, exchanged between them, by which, while each defends his own cause, they also teach that there are angers even in heavenly souls; which, had they proceeded further, we would not have as perfect an example of Christian friendship in Basil and Gregory.
CI, CII. Gregory complains of the fraud done to him. Basil is blamed by many.
Having received Basil’s letters, Gregory wrote back, and began with these words (e): "Will you at last cease to harass us with insults, as if [we were] dull and rustic, and destitute of friends, and not even worthy of life, since you have dared to understand and perceive those things which we have suffered?... The fraud into which we have been led, we have recognized, later indeed than we ought, but yet at last. And we confer the blame for this thing upon the episcopal throne, inasmuch as it has suddenly raised us above ourselves... This of all the things we suffer is the most ridiculous, or rather to be pitied, namely that the same [persons] are both subjected to injury, and accused." Basil did not escape censure, because he treated his most faithful friend and [one who had] best served him in the episco--
-- pales cares, against his own will, had cast him; and what was less worthy of excuse, that a man distinguished for piety and eloquence, who could have performed excellent service for the Church, he had relegated to a most obscure corner, destitute of all the comforts of life. Others brought other objections, as they were either compared in their morals, or were angry for Gregory’s sake: but the most kindly A maintained that Gregory had been neglected and treated with contempt by Basil, and that after he had made use of his services, [Gregory had been] cast aside like some ignoble vessel. Gregory declares (a) that he could not bear arms, and "fight for infants and birds as if for souls and canons." He asks that he himself [Basil] should wage war with Anthimus, and grant him [Gregory] peace instead of all things. Finally, he closes the letter with these words, which most indicate his grief: "Wherefore, do you indeed act manfully, and be strengthened, and draw all things to your own glory, like B rushing rivers; neither holding friendship, nor the habit and familiarity of life, as of greater value than virtue and piety, nor caring at all what the opinion of men concerning you may be hereafter, or rather, dedicating yourself uniquely to the Spirit alone. We, for our part, shall take only this much profit from your friendship, that we shall hereafter trust friends very little, and prefer nothing to God." Indeed, I would not believe that Basil had heaped upon himself those curses which are contained in the previous words of the letter; but Gregory, from excessive grief, deemed that they followed from his words. That this letter was written not only after the ordination, but also after the flight from there, is evident from the fact that Gregory says he perceived the fraud committed against him, and requests that peace be granted to him by Basil in place of all things. The very curses themselves, by which he complains that he was attacked by Basil, prove that he had already fled. He also wrote the thirty-second letter (b) in his retreat, in which Gregory is indignant that he is accused of sloth because he did not accept Sasima, and professes that he glories only in leisure and peace.
Tillemontius C thinks that Gregory’s letter to Nicobulus (c) was written during these quarrels; but undeservedly. Gregory, sending Basil’s letters to Nicobulus along with his own, placed those which were Basil's in the first place, and attached his own, wishing indeed to be united with Basil everywhere, but preferring him to himself. Tillemontius (d) seems to have understood these words poorly: "Since I have always preferred Basil the Great to myself, even though the contrary may seem to be the case to others: even now I prefer him, etc.," that is, says Billius, "even though he prefers me to himself." For these words should not be accepted as if Gregory thinks that Basil attributes more to him than to himself.
CIII. Gregory, recalled from solitude by his father, with Basil pressing, delivers an oration before both.
From the solitude into which D Gregory had withdrawn after his ordination, he was quickly recalled by the command of his father and the insistence of Basil; wherefore in the oration (e) which he delivered before both after his return, he uses this exordium: "Nothing is stronger than old age, nothing more venerable than friendship. I was led by these to you, bound in Christ, not with iron chains, but constrained by the most tenacious bonds of the Spirit." Gregory declares in these words that he came from elsewhere; hence this oration was not delivered immediately after the ordination, as seemed to Tillemontius, but after his return from flight. Then he adds that he had previously left everything for others, so that he might philosophize with them, and had thought of the Carmel of Elias and the desert of John; which he could not have said on the day he was ordained bishop of Sasima, if indeed it was not solitude, but the burdensome labor of helping his father that followed this ordination. Furthermore, he indicates in clear words the solitude into which he had withdrawn, when he says (f) that he, "did not endure to share conversations even with those most dear to him and his brethren, so that, free from all business, he might philosophize by himself." What more? He recants (g) whatever he had said more harshly against Basil after the ordination out of grief: "Now indeed I cast aside my anger, let the meek hear and be glad; and I look with a peaceful countenance upon this hand which brought force upon me, and I smile at the Spirit, and my heart commotion is stilled, and reason returns; and friendship, like a suppressed and extinguished flame, revives and is excited again from a small spark. My soul refused to be comforted, and my spirit was affected with anxiety (Ps. LXXVI, 3). I said, I will never have faith in friendship hereafter." Certainly, no cause for a quarrel existed between Basil and Gregory before the ordination; the ordination alone stirred up the strife: these words, which Gregory confesses he said, "I will never have faith in friendship hereafter," are read at the end of the thirty-first letter, which he wrote after he rejected the plan of governing the Church of Sasima. All of which things manifestly demonstrate that the oration [which is] now the tenth was not delivered after the ordination, but after Gregory returned from flight.CIV. Gregory in his oration professes that he has changed. Anthimus tries in vain to draw Gregory to his side.
In that oration Gregory professes a sincere change, and ratifies everything, and finally seems to have brought his mind to take up the helms of the Church committed to him. Therefore he decides to go to Sasima, but before he set out on the journey, he invited Eulalius, a bishop who was one of those in the city of Doaris, which was a city of the new Cappadocia.A He ordained him, along with his father Gregory and several other bishops, and delivered the discourse which is now the thirteenth. But since these things were done while Basil was absent, and perhaps even unaware of them—for he bore himself against Anthimus as the metropolitan and head of both Cappadocias; and because the controversy had not yet reached its end—there was fear that he might receive this ordination in an unequal spirit, as if it had been done as an insult to him. Gregory countered his friend’s complaints with these words (a): “We have not come to the contempt and dishonor of that great pastor who presides over the splendid city. We know him to be honorable, we acknowledge him as our head... We have studied to increase the priests and prelates, not to subtract from them; to overthrow heretics, not to diminish the orthodox.” B When Gregory had arrived at Sasima, or was preparing to arrive, Anthimus had, with great diligence, preoccupied his plan and had seized the marshes of Sasima beforehand. Furthermore, he wrote a letter full of abuse and reproaches to Gregory—who was already opposing and threatening him—like one singing a song of triumph over a defeated foe. “The most stalwart Anthimus,” says Gregory (b), “came to us with certain bishops, whether to visit my father—for he also made a pretense of this—or to carry out what he had, in fact, done. And when he had tried by many ways to break our spirit, mentioning the parishes, and the marshes of Sasima, and our ordination, now speaking blandly, now demanding, now threatening, now expostulating, now praising, now vituperating, and finally using various circles of speech, tropes, and evasions, as if he alone were to be set before our eyes, and the new metropolis, as being greater and more excellent...” This Anthimus, when he saw that in no way was Gregory yielding to him, departed in anger with no business accomplished, upbraiding his “Basilism” as though it were some kind of “Philippism.” Not long after, Anthimus summoned Gregory to a synod; and because this was burdensome to Gregory, and he cried out that an injury was being done, Anthimus asked that at least, through his help, Basil might be brought to deliberate with him about the matter. Gregory promised this, and wrote to Basil, leaving the whole matter to his judgment. But Gregory's letters did not reach us.
CV. Gregory repels new complaints from Basil with other complaints.
Although Gregory had defended Basil’s cause sufficiently strenuously, as it seems, Basil was nevertheless offended by his letters and quarreled with him as if he favored Anthimus. To these words Gregory replied (c), jokingly, indeed, but sharply criticizing Basil: “How fiercely, and after the manner of horse-colts, you leap in your letters! Nor is it a wonder that, having recently been raised to glory, you wish to display to us what glory you have attained, so that by this reasoning you render yourself more narrow, just as painters who, having depicted excellent forms...” C Then he briefly explains the cause of his actions, and demonstrates that it is not right that, since he came into offense with Anthimus on Basil’s account, he should displease Basil as being too inclined toward Anthimus. Finally, he closes the letter in this way: “But if you are held by too great a desire for ostentation and glory, and you address us from a higher place, as if you were a metropolitan and we the inhabitants of a small city, or even of none at all, we also have disdain to set against you. For this is most easy for all, and perhaps more equitable.”
CVI. Having cast off Sasima, Gregory returns to solitude.
Moreover, Basil did not repudiate the condition proposed by Anthimus, that a deliberation be entered into for the restoration of common peace; on the contrary, he willingly accepted it. Meanwhile, since Gregory saw that no access lay open for him to take over the post that Anthimus had occupied and was protecting with armed soldiers, and he was unwilling to hang in suspense on obscure hope and blind expectation for the result of the deliberation on composing the peace, he returned to the solitude he loved and had long desired. Gregory the presbyter writes in his *Vita* that he fled to a home for the sick, *εἰς φροντιστήριον ἀσθενῶν καταφεύγει*. Then he adds: “But they report that he performed neither the oblation, nor any ordination, nor anything else of those things which are established in the custom and institution of bishops at Sasima; but as soon as he was ordained bishop, he conceived the flight in his mind.” Thus Gregory shook off so heavy a burden; thus he cast off the hateful Sasima, which brought forth so many hardships for him—hardships which no day, as long as he lived, could ever exhaust: Sasima, I say, from which, to use his own words (d), “all the inconstancy and perturbation of my life flowed forth.” Who that place is, and of what kind—the source and origin of Gregory’s calamities, and also so famous from his poems—we learn from Gregory himself.
CVII. Description of Sasima.
D There is a certain station in the middle of a much-traveled road, In the land of the Cappadocians, which is split into a triple path. Without water, without greenery, having nothing generous, A truly horrid and narrow village. Everything here is dust, and din, and chariots, Laments, wailings, tax-collectors, tortures, shackles; And the people indeed, as many as are travelers and wanderers. This was the church of my Sasima.... What then, by God, was it right for me to do? To be content? To receive the incursions of evils, To be struck by the sword, to be stifled in the mud? And to have nowhere to lay this old age, While I am always forcibly driven from my bed? Nor was I to have bread to break for a guest...... Again a certain fugitive and runner onto the mountain, Stealing away the friendly manner of life, my delights. But what have I gained? For I was not a constant fugitive, As it appears. But although I know how to endure all things, In this one thing I am a coward: I do not bear a father’s wrath (e), etc.
CVIII. Gregory assumes the administration of the Church of Nazianzus, by his father's command, on the condition that after his death he be free to depart where he wishes.
Thus Gregory, casting aside Sasima, withdrew into solitude; but another struggle had to be undergone by him with his father, who, when he could in no way prevail upon him to hold Sasima, at least attained by prayers and commands that he should return to Nazianzus and undertake the administration of that Church, for the ruling of which he was unsuited by age. He undertook the vicarious administration of the Nazianzene Church, his father forcing it upon him, under this law: that he should be held bound by these ties only while his father was alive; but when he was taken from the living, he should be free to depart where he pleased. He himself testifies to this in the oration which he held to the Nazianzene people (a): "For now, indeed, I do not refuse to undertake this charge with my distinguished parent, just as a chick B flying from nearby, not unwelcome to a great eagle flying on high. But afterwards, I will offer my feather to the Spirit, to be carried where He wills and however He wills; nor will there be anyone who can compel me or lead me elsewhere, while I consult with Him.... These things I have said, O Nazianzen men, which I might say to you with a simple mind full of benevolence, and this is the secret of my heart." In his poem *De vita sua*, he declares that he took on the Nazianzene Church by his parent's command, as he thus reflected and spoke with himself (b):
For this matter will not constrain me, though unwilling, Who am held by no proclamation, nor any promise: "For this," I said, "does not hold me against my will, Which neither a proclamation nor a promise restrains; Thus fear, having overcome, led me back." So the victor, fear, brought me back.
From this office of Gregory, in which, spurred by his father, he unwillingly undertook the care of administering the Nazianzene Church, not a few have judged that he had been ordained bishop of this Church. But whatever the ancients and the moderns have written about this matter, there is no witness more reliable than Gregory; nor should greater faith be held in any other than him. These are his own words when writing to Gregory of Nyssa (c): "For it is clear to all that I was not created bishop of Nazianzus, but of Sasima, although out of reverence for my father and those who as suppliants begged this of me, I undertook the office for a short time like a guest," etc.
CIX. Gregory defends Basil, who had been accused by a certain monk of not calling the Holy Spirit God.
The time had not yet come to drink, when, as is accustomed to happen at banquets, talk of us arose. Furthermore, with everyone lauding your virtues with the greatest praises, and joining us also, as being devoted to the same studies of life... this philosopher took it ill. "And what is this," he said, exclaiming quite furiously, "O men, how very mendacious and sycophantic you are! The other things of these men may indeed be praised, if it so pleases you, I do not object: but regarding that which is greatest, I will not concede to them. In the name of Orthodoxy, Basil is praised in vain, Gregory in vain; the former because he betrays the truth in his sermons; the latter because he betrays it at the same time by his patience." Then Gregory refuted the reviler with these words: "Whence, O vain man, and in the name of arrogance, do you come to us as a new Dathan and Abiron? Whence do you come to us as a proclaimer of dogmas? Will you thus make yourself a judge of such great matters?" Then he said: "I come now from the synod of the martyr Eupsychius, and I have it as a witness of my statement (for so the matter stood), and there I heard Basil the Great, discoursing indeed most excellently and perfectly concerning the Father and the Son, and as hardly anyone else could easily match: but concerning the Holy Spirit, he was evasive and evasively shifting," etc. Therefore that philosopher was criticizing Basil because he had not called the Holy Spirit God in his preaching; and as if he were declining from the truth, preached it more politically than piously. Gregory defended the side of Basil strenuously, and gave the reasons C why he did not expressly and openly call the Holy Spirit God; although he believed that He is God, no differently than the Son, and even demonstrated it in words, namely that the heretics were in ambush, watching to see if they could snatch any naked word from his mouth, so that, he being ousted, they could seize the Church and pillage the other Churches; and therefore it was better to omit one word, the meaning being kept safe, than to bring the Church into such danger. This compromise, which Magnus Athanasius later approved, displeased those who were present, and they attacked Gregory himself with shouts, as if he were looking to cowardice more than to sound doctrine.
After the administration of the Nazianzene Church was undertaken by Gregory, and the twelfth oration delivered, it seems that there occurred the quarrel which arose between him and a certain monk concerning Basil. Gregory narrates the matter thus in epistle 26: "There was a certain banquet, at which very many most illustrious men and those joined to us by friendship were reclining, and among them was a man D who bore the name and appearance of piety.
CX, CXI. Gregory signifies to Basil the controversy undertaken for his sake, asking that he himself teach how far it is permitted to use economy, so that he might repel those who contradict. Basil receives Gregory's letter in a worse light.
Having sent letters to Basil, Gregory narrated the whole matter, asking that he teach how far it was permitted to proceed in the dispute concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and what words to use, and how far to use economy; not for his own cause, indeed, who would be the most miserable and foolish of all if he doubted Basil's opinion, but so that he might answer those who contradicted. These letters of Gregory, although filled with the greatest possible caution and with every sign of honor and love, Basil received in a worse light.
A But I do not see, he says, why Basil, even after the disturbances at Sasima, could not claim for himself the praise of never having violated that friendship, especially since Gregory in several places says that Basil in this matter preferred the Spirit to his friendship. Thus, in the oration *On the Praises of Basil*, speaking of the disturbances at Sasima, which he had not yet cast from his heart: "Unless," he says (f), "someone accepts this from me as an apology for him, that because he felt things more sublime than the human condition allows, and from this, even before departing this life, he had transcended it, he referred all things to the Spirit; and the duties of friendship, which he otherwise observed holily, he spurned here alone, where it was necessary for God to be preferred." In another oration before Basil: "Since," says Gregory (g), "you perhaps value us more than all others; so also, in return, you place the Spirit far before us. You did not allow the talent to lie buried and hidden in the ground," etc. Basil could, therefore, even after the Sasima disturbances, say that he was "conscious to himself of no guilt toward Gregory, neither small nor great." And certainly, it was permitted to Gregory to say that, to whom harsher words against Basil escaped: how much more so to Basil?
CXIV. That enemy is not Valens.
Now, however, it must be weighed whether the enemy who was waging war against Basil was Valens the emperor; or whether the conflict, to which Basil summoned Gregory in order that he might fight along with him, was the conflict which he thought was imminent for him from the approaching Valens at Caesarea. That indeed is the opinion of the most learned Tillemont and our own Prudentius Maranus, whom, on account of their excellent virtues and singular knowledge, we hold in the greatest respect. Here, however, we depart from their opinion; for it does not seem to us that the words of Gregory and Basil ought to be understood as being about Valens. Basil, calling upon Gregory to the conflict against the enemy, addresses him in these words: "For if you only appear, you will suppress his force, and those who conspire to overturn the affairs of the country you will scatter, when it is known to them that you, by the grace of God, are the leader of our band." Can one, I ask, write this, and was it permitted for Basil to say these things about the force of Valens? Or did Basil ever think that Gregory was so terrible or so well-received by either the emperor, or the prefect, or the master of the cooks, that either by his authority or favor—nay, by his mere presence and his association with Basil—he could immediately retard, not to say entirely "scatter," such great forces? Moreover, in these conflicts with the prefects sent ahead by the emperor, and with Valens himself, Gregory was present: what, then, did he perform that was like what Basil trusts he would perform?
CXV. Eustathius of Sebaste is to be understood as the one hostile to Basil.
The words of Basil, therefore, are not to be understood as being about Valens, but about his suffragans and other bishops.
First, Eustathius of Sebaste, who attributed to Basil the errors of Sabellius and Apollinaris. Furthermore, because of the economy which Basil employed when speaking about the Holy Spirit, some branded him with a mark of timidity, others of betrayed or even innovated faith; a mark which, upon his arrival and through his communion with Basil, Gregory was able to wipe away and wash off completely, since everyone acknowledged him to be the most steadfast champion of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and one who surpassed all others. For this reason, Basil calls upon Gregory with these words: "If you only appear, you will suppress his force, and you will dissipate those who conspire to overturn the affairs of the fatherland," etc.
Neither, indeed, should you conclude from what follows that the "force" of Valens is signified. For Basil might even then have expected to be ejected from the church and from his ancestral homes, not only by the Arians, who attempted this in the year 372 and again in the year 376; but even by many Catholics, who themselves, carried away by blind zeal, opposed Basil. Moreover, Eustathius of Sebaste, a versatile man, who was at that time in communion with the Arians and was most closely joined to them in hatred for Basil, and the Eustathians were lacerating the bishop of Caesarea with infamous pamphlets; so much so that he was ill-spoken of by many, even by the orthodox, and his integrity in the faith was in doubt.
CXVI. That Gregory was bishop at that time is certain.
Furthermore, it seems to us that it can be certainly gathered that our Gregory was at that time a bishop, from these words of that same letter which Basil wrote to him: "For if, according to the ancient covenants, and according to the care which we now owe to the churches, we had spent the greater part of the year with one another," etc. These words certainly denote that Gregory, no less than Basil, was a bishop, and that the care of the churches rested upon both of them now as a new and equal responsibility. Whence it follows, "we spent the greater part of the year with one another," which the old interpreter rightly rendered in Latin thus: "We should have met more often throughout the year, which especially benefits bishops, and frequent synods prove this." Wherefore Basil traces the cause of the evils to the fact that they do not meet together. Finally, these words of the same letter confirm that Gregory was then a bishop: "Since, by the grace of God, you preside over our assembly," or as the old edition has it, "you will preside over our convent," or as Tillemont says, "you show and exhibit yourself as the head of our Church": which no one is unaware belongs properly only to bishops.
CXVII. In Epistle 26 of Gregory, mention is made of Oration 12, from which it is certain that the Epistle was written after the Oration.
Let there be added to this as a culmination (a fact which Tillemont does not deny is inconvenient for his opinion), that the Oration of the Theologian, held in the year 372, after Gregory, having cast off Sasima, had undertaken the administration of the Church at Nazianzus by the order of his father, is praised in the aforementioned Epistle 26: "And at the same time," he says, "he mentioned a certain utterance of mine (a monk who was attacking Basil atrociously), when I, in a very crowded assembly, speaking about the divinity, had interrupted with that well-known saying about the Holy Spirit: 'How long shall we hide the lamp under a bushel?'" Which are contained in the same words in the oration. From which it follows that these things happened after the oration, which was delivered in the year 372; and consequently, that Epistle 26 was written not in the year 371, but in the year 372, and that after September, in which month falls either the commemoration or the assembly of the blessed martyr Eupsychius, from which the monk had snatched the opportunity to slander Basil. Nor did Hellenius, who brought Gregory’s letters to Basil, and who was in charge of settling the taxes of Nazianzus, set out for Caesarea any sooner in that year.
Moreover, at the time when Gregory was administering the church of Nazianzus together with his father, whether before or after the controversy arose with the monk regarding Basil, he betook himself to Caesarea, and there delivered that excellent oration which is inscribed *On the Love of the Poor*. It was delivered primarily for the sake of those who, in the hospital house built by Basil the Great for the feeding of the poor, were suffering from the "sacred disease" (leprosy). The following orations also belong to this time; namely, the fifteenth, in praise of the Maccabees, whose sufferings he recounts not from the holy books which bear the name of the Maccabees, but from the book of Josephus, *On Imperial Reason*, and adorns them with the flowers of his eloquence. The sixteenth, to his father, who was silent on account of the hailstorm by which the Tiberine region, the native soil of Gregory, was afflicted in or about the year 373. The seventeenth, to the citizens of Nazianzus, smitten by grave fear on account of an otherwise unknown offense, and to the angry prefect.
CXVIII. The death of Gregory the Elder and his wife Nonna.
How Gregory, having cast off Sasima, sought solitude a second time, and being drawn back, undertook the care of the church of Nazianzus at the request or by the order of his father, we have already narrated. But he undertook this, as has been said, on the condition of a vicarious prefecture, so that, upon the death of his father, he might be allowed to depart and go wherever he wished. Not long after, upon the death of both parents, our Gregory shook off the rule of the church of Nazianzus and claimed himself for himself. For in the year...
374, around springtime, death took away Gregory’s father, who was nearly one hundred years of age, having presided over the church of Nazianzus for forty-five of them. Not long after, Nonna, the wife of the elder Gregory, being of nearly the same age, was also taken away by death. Although it is not known exactly how long she survived her husband, it is reasonable to infer that she did not survive him for long, because the Theologian writes that, soon after he undertook the care of the church of Nazianzus, he was bereaved of his parents. Perhaps she died on the fifth of August, the day on which her memory is celebrated both among the Greeks and the Latins. Certainly, it is agreed that she was already dead by the following year, when Gregory set out for Seleucia.
CXIX. Bereaved of his parents, Gregory betakes himself to Seleucia.
Baronius asserts that Gregory, once bereaved of his parents, could not be brought to remain in the administration of the church of Nazianzus even for a single day, although he was petitioned by Basil, by other bishops together, and by the citizens with urgent pleas; from all of whom he escaped by taking flight, having set out for Seleucia for the sake of piety, to the memorial of Saint Thecla, where there was wont to be a frequent pilgrimage of the faithful. Tillemont, however, writes more correctly that Gregory accepted the governance of this church, overcome by the pleas of Basil and other bishops and citizens, and that he persevered in it for some time. Yet he did not cease in the meantime to ask the bishops to provide a pastor for this church, which he had accepted only until a bishop should be appointed. But since they were not moved by Gregory's prayers, nor did he obtain what he was asking for, he fled and betook himself to Seleucia, having governed the church of Nazianzus for only about three years before and after his father's death.
B Gregory stayed in Seleucia for no small amount of time, as he himself testifies; namely, until the death of Valens, who, having been defeated by the Goths and struck by an arrow, was carried to a rustic hut which was set on fire, in which he was consumed by avenging flames on the ninth of August in the year 378. Yet he was not permitted to enjoy the desired peace and leisure which he had hoped for there. "He found nothing good," to use his own words; "rather, business matters, which he had intended to escape, fell upon him as if by conspiracy and brought violence." It is not permitted to define what those business matters were; perhaps by these words he means that he was harassed by heretics. The writer of Gregory's life writes that the Theologian returned to Nazianzus and could not be swayed by any pleas of the citizens; which he gathers, as it seems, from those words in which Gregory himself confesses that the usual calamities had fallen back upon him after he sought Seleucia by flight.
C
CXX. With the death of Basil, a heap of calamities is added to Gregory’s own.
In the following year, 379, Gregory was still residing at Seleucia, and indeed was detained by a serious and dangerous illness, when the death of Basil the Great was announced to him. The extent of the grief Gregory felt while mourning the death of so dear a head, he alone suffices to relate. It seemed as though, with the death of Basil, a heap of calamities had been added to his own. "This also," he exclaims in an epistle in which he consoles his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, over the passing of Basil, "this also was left to this wretched life, that I should hear of Basil's death," etc. In another epistle: "You ask," he says, addressing Eudocius, "in what state our affairs are? In a very bitter one. I do not have Basil; I do not have Caesarius, my brother in the flesh and in the spirit: my father and my mother have forsaken me, to speak with David. My body labors under adverse health, old age presses upon my head: cares are woven upon cares. Business matters rush in, friends are faithless, the affairs of the church lack a pastor and a governor. Goods are perishing, evils are naked and open, navigation is in the night, the torch is nowhere, Christ is asleep. What am I to do? My only relief from evils is death. But even the things of the other life are fearsome to me, when I form a judgment of them from the things of this life." The illness from which Gregory was suffering was an impediment that prevented him from being present to his common friends in this sad event and from kissing the sacred ashes of Basil. The solitude of the church of Caesarea, despoiled of such an ornament, was a spectacle that was altogether intolerable to Gregory. He seemed to himself to be dead and dismembered by half, having lost such a companion; by whom he was even warned and rebuked through nocturnal visions, just as he was when he was alive, if he had done anything done less decorously. Gregory followed Basil's funeral with a strict and prose oration. Indeed, he wished his funeral poem, consisting of twelve epigrams, to be a monument of his love and longing for Basil; but much more abundantly, when he returned to Constantinople, he gave an illustrious oration in praise of Basil, in which he poured out all the powers of his talent and the flowers of his eloquence. If there is credit to be given to Baronius in the Life of Gregory, when he was somewhat relieved of the infirmity by which he was detained, he wrote that most noble panegyric in praise of Basil, by which he consigned his life exactly to perpetual monuments.
D
CXXI. Gregory sets out for Constantinople, summoned by the bishops of Thrace and the orthodox.
However illustrious the things we have narrated regarding Gregory thus far may be, there remain far more illustrious things to be said, namely those which he did in Constantinople over the course of two or three years; whether he was sent there by the synod of Antioch, as it seems to Baronius, or...
[Translation starts here]
the Constantinopolitans, he betook himself. I believe, indeed, that the bishops, those defenders of the truth, to whom, after Valens—that enemy of the faith—had been cut off, Gratian gave the opportunity of returning to their own churches, had entered into councils in order to heal the wounds inflicted upon the Churches by the Arians and to repair their sorrowful ruins; I believe also that councils were held for this purpose. I would not, however, believe with Baronius (a) that our Gregory, by a decree of the Council of Antioch, was ordered to set out for Constantinople for the same reason; but rather that he was summoned by the bishops of Thrace and by the orthodox who were dwelling in the royal city. Gregory himself testifies to this, whose words do not signify that he sought Constantinople by order of the Council of Antioch, as Baronius desires.
Ἐπέμψεν ἡμᾶς ἡ χάρις τοῦ Πνεύματος, Πολλῶν καλούντων ποιμένων καὶ θρεμμάτων, Λαοῦ βοηθοὺς καὶ λόγου συλλήπτορας.
*The grace of the Spirit, at the calling of many* *Both shepherds and flocks, sent us forth to these,* *As helpers of the people, and defenders of the Word.* (b)The biographer of Gregory interprets his words in the same sense as we do, although he errs regarding Basil, who had already died by then, when he says—with no mention of the Council of Antioch made—that he immediately arrived in Constantinople, with Basil, that great luminary, as it were striking sparks into his own desire and eagerness, and urging him on to spiritual struggles, and many other bishops and citizens of the prince’s city, endowed with piety of faith, vehemently contending with him that he might offer himself as a repeller of evils to those in need of help. Gregory himself confirms this in his poem A *On his own life* (c), where he writes that the love of the Constantinopolitan citizens for him was born of the fact that he had been summoned by them and was "their work":
Οἱ δ᾽ ὡς ἑαυτῶν ἔργον εἶχον ἀσμένως.
In another poem, however, relating how he was snatched away from his own sweets and all good things and dragged far off, and was forced to betake himself to Constantinople, Gregory does indeed mention the "conventions of bishops":
Τὸ δ' οὖν πρόδηλον, σύλλογοι τε ποιμένων, Καὶ λαὸς ὀρθόδοξος...
But there is no need to interpret these words—as Tillemont (d) rightly observes—concerning the Council of Antioch, which was not convened until the end of the year 379, since they can conveniently and rightly be understood—and indeed ought to be—concerning the conventions of the bishops of Thrace. Finally, Gregory was compelled to bring aid to the Constantinopolitans by friends as well, among whom, besides Basil, were Meletius, Bosphorus the bishop of Colonia, and many others. Thus he set out, some time after the death of Basil, "not of his own accord, but compelled," as he himself testifies (e):
Οὕτω μὲν ἦλθον οὐχ ἑκών, etc.
He repeats the same thing in various places, especially in the oration which he B delivered to the Arians at that time: "I," he says (f), "was born, as it were, from an obscure and ignoble fatherland, and I came to you; and that, not of my own accord, nor offering myself, as is the custom for most people today, who leap rashly to the helms of the Church, but summoned and compelled by force, and obedient to fear and the Spirit. But if I speak falsely, I pray this as a penalty for my crime against myself: that I may endure the vexations of this war here in vain for a longer time, and free no one from error, but that they may have their wish who pray for the barrenness of my soul."
CXXII. The deplorable state of the Church of Constantinople.
The face of all Churches was then sorrowful, but none was more sorrowful than the Constantinopolitan, in which the Arian plague had already raged for forty years, under pontiffs who were leaders of the heretics and even founders themselves of new dogmas; and under princes such as Constantius and Valens, who upheld the cause of the heretics, harassed the Catholics, and fought with the whole body of the empire, so to speak, for error against the truth. How deplorable the state of the Church of Constantinople was, anyone will easily gather just by hearing the names of those who held that see from the year 339, in which the Arians, having slain the defender of the orthodox faith, the pontiff Paul, were allowed to rage in it with impunity. Having left the see of Nicomedia, Eusebius, that leader of the Arian host, immediately invaded it in that year, after which this unhappy Church fell into the hands of Macedonius. Driven out by the Arians themselves in the year 360, on account of his unheard-of cruelty and the inconstancy of his doctrine, Eudoxius, the dregs of heretics and an utterly lost arch-heretic, the disciple of Aetius, who was by far the most impious of the Arians, was substituted. He completed the course of his impiety in the year 370.
CXXIII. The Arians hold sway widely in the city: they occupy the temples; others have been turned into tombs.
It was then that the Catholics seemed to breathe a little, and had already chosen Evagrius as bishop for themselves. But soon the Emperor Valens, the guardian of the Arian perfidy, having driven Evagrius into exile along with the presbyter Eustathius, who had been the author of his election, substituted Demophilus, who was equally impious and wicked, in place of Eudoxius. Thus, the Arians, having gained the upper hand in the affairs of the Church, had left behind scarcely the remnants of piety and, as it were, seeds of the faith to be awakened by Gregory. Some of the temples were occupied by the heretics, and first and foremost that most spacious one (g), nicknamed "Sophia," then a "bulwark of the devil" rather than a church, where he had stationed his own soldiers and defenders; C nay, where there were armies of demons and legions of impure spirits. Other temples (h) were turned into tombs, others were splashed with the blood of the saints and profaned; presbyters were burned; the Catholics were "vexed with insults, with the plundering of their goods, with exile; driven from their churches, their homes, and even from the wildernesses themselves... (i) a tiny flock, and not even a flock, but a mere...
trace of a flock, or the remnants; they thought it was dealt with excellently if they were allowed to steal away their own safety. [CXXIV]. Various heresies were rampant in Constantinople besides the Arian.
(a) Not only did the Arian plague run wild in Constantinople, but the Novatians, Macedonians, Photinians, Marcellians, Sabellians, and Eunomians, and the Apollinarians now burgeoning, had declared war on the truth and the faith along with the Catholics. For as Baronius says (b), with legions brought forth from the gates of hell and stationed in Constantinople as if in permanent camps, the ancient enemy attacked the Catholic faith.
In such a sad, and even “more sad” state, if you hear Gregory himself (c), were the affairs of the Church of Constantinople, when, because of his fame for knowledge and sanctity which crossed the sea, having been called and summoned by both bishops and the people with prayers and entreaties, the Theologian came to Constantinople to be the founder of the old faith once again.
[CXXV]. With what arms Gregory came prepared to fight against the heretics.
He came with authority by no means to be despised, and with the authority of the emperor, as some interpret it; although the arms of our David against Goliath and the Philistines were not carnal, but powerful in God. For what could be more infirm than the appearance of his body (d): “A wandering preacher and an outsider; born in a small city—or rather not even a city, but in a dry, unpleasant, and unfrequented place—hidden until now in an obscure corner of the earth; with limbs contracted by old age, and a body bent to the ground, a face hardly elegant, furrowed with wrinkles, tearful and emaciated from hunger, with a rough and harsh voice, in vile clothing; most impoverished, and no better equipped with money than with wings.” Thus Gregory depicts himself in his poems and orations. A man so small in body, but powerful in Spirit, in deed, and in word, he advanced to destroy “the munitions, councils, and all the height that exalted itself against the knowledge of God,” intending to acquire for himself the “triumphal name of Theologian,” to speak with Baronius.
[CXXVI]. Received into hospitality by his relatives. His was a pious house, in which the orthodox used to assemble.
Therefore, coming to Constantinople in the year 379, Gregory was received into hospitality by certain of his relatives. For at that time there was no church for Catholics in that city, so greatly had the Arian faction prevailed. Regarding the house that received the Theologian, he writes this (e): “A certain pious house, glowing with the love of God, refreshed us, not otherwise than the house of the Shunammite did Elisha; a house, I say, of men joined to me by kinship of both body and spirit; among whom this people was also gathered together, when they secretly and amidst persecutions, harassed and afflicted, might draw in the faith; by no means freely nor without danger.”
[CXXVII]. That small place, afterwards called Anastasia because of the restored faith.
That place was small where the people first gathered at that time, and it was changed into a church; it is the same one which, having been expanded because of the Catholic faith restored and awakened in it as if from the dead, was soon called Anastasia.
*Anastasia, most venerable of temples,* *Which hast awakened the faith that lay upon the ground.* (f)
Some wish to confirm this appellation, following Sozomen, by the resurrection of a woman and the fetus she carried in her womb; and the relics of the holy martyr Anastasia were later deposited at the pulpit of the Lord, or, as others please, the portico where the temple of Anastasia is situated by the learned. But whatever may be the case regarding the resurrection of the woman and her fetus, and the relics deposited in this temple by Patriarch Gennadius, it is certain that it was called Anastasia because the faith that had collapsed was awakened there; which Gregory testifies to again and again, and so clearly that there can be no doubt. Let us now pursue the account of his deeds well performed at Constantinople.
[CXXVIII]. Anastasia grows so that in a short time it surpasses all the churches of Constantinople in size and magnificence. In this new Bethlehem, Gregory attacks and puts to flight all the heretics.
Small, as we have said, was the place Anastasia at first; but being changed into a church, it grew in such a short time that by the year 398 Nectarius was seeking marble with which to adorn it, and even in magnificence and size it surpassed the sacred edifices of Constantinople, according to Socrates and Sozomen (g). Therefore, in this “new Bethlehem,” by which name Gregory calls it, the ancient faith of Christ revived because of the narrow limits of the place, and returned from being “half-dead” to life. Finally, in this “Silo,” after having been carried around in a desert for forty years and having wandered in uncertain dwellings, the ark was fixed, and the other ark of Noah rested, bearing and preserving the seed-bed of a new world and the orthodox. “Through such a narrow opening,” as Baronius well says (h), “just as if in a very broad field, the Theologian fought against the enemies of the faith; with one sweep of his sword he pressed hard and routed the heretics positioned around him—Arians, Macedonians, Photinians, Sabellians, Apollinarians, and Novatians... His hands were against everyone, and the hands of everyone were against him; and thus the works of God were exalted, such that one put to flight not only a thousand, but even ten thousand.” There still exists, continues the most eminent writer, hanging in the church, wrapped in a pallium, that sword behind the Ephod, with which our leader, strong in hand, put the hosts of the Philistines to flight. There exist, I say, sublime
orations of Gregory, most precious furniture of the Church of God, with which he opposed the aforementioned heresies; among which the most celebrated are those which are entitled *De Theologia*, etc. [CXXIX] Gregory defends the cause of the faith excellently. The time had need of such a defender.
Gregory defended the cause of the faith with these most eloquent sermons, teaching the Catholics and refuting the heretics. The time had need of such a defender; the sorrowful state of the Church of Constantinople required so skilled an orator for the defense of the Catholic faith; and this was the reason why he betook himself to this city, or rather, why he was sent to it. The city, which was full of Arians and other heretics, had fermented upon the arrival of Gregory, B and, stirred up by his orations, it raged against him. Whether he took the beginning of proclaiming the true faith concerning the Trinity from those orations which survive, is not certain. The oration which is now the twentieth, but was formerly the twenty-ninth, might not undeservedly be thought the first, or at least one of the earlier ones which the Theologian delivered at Constantinople. [CXXX, CXXXI] In what manner Gregory treats divine matters. Gregory's method of debating against heretics: he debates with a calm mind, soothing with marvelous urbanity. He detracts nothing from the truth, while debating gently.
The Christian orator treated divine matters in his sermons gently, moderately, and prudently; not by disputing, but by teaching; not as a philosopher, but as a disciple of the apostles; not as a profane man, but as a sacred orator and herald of the Gospel. He refuted the pernicious dogmas of the heretics, not by assailing them with reproaches, for he never harmed anyone even in speech, but by fighting with invincible reasons and arguments, so that he either persuaded them or rendered them speechless. He declared war on errors, not on men; he inveighed against perverse dogmas, not against the men themselves; he was held by such a desire for their salvation, C that he would not have refused to be anathema from Christ, even, and somewhat as one condemned, to suffer, provided they were joined with him, and with united minds they worshiped the Trinity. From Gregory himself we learn what manner he followed in defending the truth and refuting the dogmas of the heretics. "Do you wish," he says, addressing the fathers of the Council of Constantinople, "that I add something more youthful? Do you see the adverse tongues softening, and those who declared war on the godhead no longer causing us any trouble? This too is of the Spirit, this too is of our husbandry. For we do not teach unlearnedly, nor do we assault our adversaries with reproaches and insults, as most people do, who fight not with the dogma but with the upholders of the dogma, and cover the weakness of their reasons and arguments at times with curses; not otherwise, as they say, than cuttlefish vomit ink before themselves, that they may escape the fishermen." D But we, for our part, declare that we carry on this war for Christ, according to that meek and clement Christ who bears our infirmities. Such was Gregory's method of disputing concerning matters of faith: he was accustomed to act with a calm mind, refraining from wrangling, and soothing them with a certain marvelous urbanity and grace. He delivered an outstanding oration in that style at Constantinople, *On the observance of moderation in dispute*. But he was not one who, in order to gather for himself a reputation for moderation, would detract anything from the truth by contending more softly. "Nor indeed," he says, "when we strive for peace at the risk of the true and orthodox faith, do we remit somewhat of the contention of minds, in order to collect for ourselves a reputation for moderation and equity (for we do not wickedly angle for what is good), and yet in the meantime cherish peace, fighting of course legitimately, and containing ourselves within our own limits and the rule of the Spirit. And concerning these matters, I feel thus, and I lay down a law for all dispensers of souls and arbiters of right doctrine: that they should not ulcerate the minds of adversaries by their harshness, nor render them more insolent by their submission; but conduct themselves prudently and considerately in the cause of the faith, and not cross the lines of moderation in either of these." [CXXXII] He is approached by all Catholics, heretics, and infidels for his sermons.
All approached with a great concourse to hear such an orator, not only Catholics, but also heretics of whatever sect, nay even outsiders and those alienated from the faith; some charmed by his doctrine, others by his eloquence. The followers of the sound faith exulted with joy when they saw the truth, which for so many years had been in exile in the city and seemed extinguished, returning and living again and being preached freely; the heretics, however, who had so long run riot, were so vanquished and overwhelmed by such a wealth of speaking and by such firm arguments that they dared not even mutter, and even the most stubborn bent their ears to the words of the Theologian. [CXXXIII] Gregory not only confirms the dogmas of the faith and refutes errors, but also hands down precepts of morals.
Nor indeed was it Gregory's goal only to refute errors and overturn perverse dogmas; he was also fixed on handing down precepts of morals, so that he might instill into the ears of his hearers what would profit them. He encouraged them to exercise themselves in the law of God, by feeding the poor and strangers, bringing aid to those suffering from sickness, celebrating God in hymns, in prayers, groans, and tears; by sleeping on the ground, holding in their senses; by curbing gluttony, laughter, anger, and the flesh; by tempering the tongue, so that they might speak not everything, nor everywhere, nor before anyone, but only as much, when, and to whom it was opportune to speak. These things and many others, not for the sake of the display of talent and doctrine, but for the sake of inciting piety.
and moving the people, he handled with the power of an unfaked eloquence. This was the method of speaking and teaching practiced by Gregory regarding the instruction of morals; from which it may be gathered that very many orations of this kind, delivered at Constantinople, have perished.
134, 135. When an example is added to the orator's words, and prayers are joined to a holy life, it bears wonderful fruit. He had hoped to have these fruits, and perhaps God had shown them to him.
But when an example was added to the words and the holiness of life to the orations, and deeds corresponded to his words, it is wondrous what successes Gregory had; how many of the Catholics he recalled to a better life, and heretics from error to sound doctrine; how many lost sheep he brought back to the fold; how many wolves, having laid aside their ferocity, he counted among the sheep; finally, what an immense flock he beheld from a small one. He had, indeed, hoped for this before it happened, when he saw that the Arians were widely dominant in Constantinople; for, reflecting within himself, he solaced himself with these words and with the hope of a better time: "The Arians have houses, we have a host; they have temples, we have God, and furthermore, because we are the living temples of the living God, living victims... They have peoples, we have angels; they have rashness and audacity, we have faith; they have threats, we have prayers and orations; they have the insolence to strike, we have patience; they have gold and silver, we have the purified doctrine of the faith... But is my flock small? Yet it is not led to the precipices. Is my fold narrow? But it is inaccessible to wolves... Nor do I doubt that I shall one day look upon it as broader. For many of those who are now in the number of wolves will be counted by me among the sheep, and perhaps even among the shepherds." Gregory adds: "This is announced to me happily by that good Shepherd, for whom I lay down my life for the sheep." By which he seems to signify that, through the benefit of God, he had been refreshed by the vision and promise of those goods which were to be in the future.
136. These fruits are to be attributed not to eloquence, which was nevertheless great, but to the piety and patience of the orator. God sometimes grants such fruits through the prayers of a single righteous man vexed by persecution.
Such happy exits are to be ascribed not so much to the eloquence of Gregory, which was nevertheless very great, as to his own piety and patience. He received these most rich fruits of preaching, with Him giving the increase, who makes the poor man rich, who kills and makes alive, who does and changes all things by His will alone... and this being moved for the most part by the prayers of one righteous man vexed by long-continued persecution. That very man was the Theologian, who, vexed by the long-continued persecution of the Arians; who, not only by taunts, insults, calumnies, and injuries B provoked, but even dragged to the judgment seat, and finally pelted with stones as one accused of murder, suffered patiently, saying with Stephen: "Lord, do not lay this sin to their charge," rendering rich blessings for curses, pouring out prayers for his persecutors. With such patience he won the souls of many lost men to himself, and achieved this, that he provoked his conquered enemies to embrace the Catholic faith. Which matter indeed ought to be a lesson to our people, that although the aids of talent and doctrine are required to convert souls to Christ, yet the observed innocence of life and morals and patience profit much more than writings or disputations.
CXXXVII. Permotus Gregorii fama Hieronymus, e Syria Constantinopolim venit, ut ejus fiat discipulus.
The fame of Gregory, because of his deeds performed so many, so brilliantly, and so piously, spread far and wide, so much so that Jerome came to Constantinople from Syria, from so great a distance of lands. "The thing is clearly worthy of admiration," to speak with Baronius, "that a man whom Western bishops would consult on account of his distinguished erudition, who would teach the world, should have traveled such long and difficult journeys, that he might deserve to be a listener to Gregory, and could profess himself a disciple under so great a teacher; thinking he would thus procure for himself the highest ornament of glory with an accession of doctrine. Indeed, for this reason, that he might decorate himself with certain royal honors of a sort, C he was accustomed to boast, 'I glory and exult in him as my master.'" And writing to Pammachius, he affirms that he learned the sacred Scriptures with him explaining them, and calls him his teacher. "My former teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus," he says, "asked by me to explain what was meant in Luke by *deuteróprōton*, he played elegantly: 'I will teach you,' he says, 'on this matter in church, in which, while the whole people acclaims me, you will be forced against your will to know what you do not know; or certainly, if you alone are silent, you alone will be condemned for stupidity by all.'" At which time Jerome was clinging to Gregory, and attempted to explain that most obscure vision of Isaiah concerning the Seraphim, just as he himself testifies in words: "Concerning this vision about thirty years ago, when I was in Constantinople, and was being educated in the studies of the Scriptures by the most eloquent man, Gregory of Nazianzus, then the holy bishop of that city, I know that I wrote a short and sudden composition, that I might make a trial of my little talent, and I obeyed the command of my friends." Therefore Gregory was at that time bishop of Constantinople; Jerome D used him as a master, as he himself asserts; who if he repaired to this city in the year 379, as Baronius thinks, it is necessary
to grant that he was resident in this city for nearly three years. Upon returning from his journey, he was once again received with the greatest kindness by Gregory, was numbered among his friends, and was showered with benefits. Yet the writer of Gregory’s life is mistaken when he says that Maximus was enrolled in the clergy by him. For he only laid aside his long hair at that time when he was ordained bishop by his own party.
[CXXXVIII] Occasioned by the dissension that arose among the orthodox, the heretics seize an opportunity to insult them, whom Gregory refutes.
In the meantime, a dissension arose among the orthodox in Constantinople, from which the heretics seized an opportunity to insult them, whom the Theologian refutes in two orations A *On Peace*. This dissension appears to us to have been nothing other than the contention between Meletius and Paulinus for the bishopric of Antioch, the cause of which was not merely the city of Constantinople, but the whole world, which was divided into contrary parties. Enough has been said on these matters in the introductory notes to both orations, for both are on the same subject. In one, the Theologian exhorts the dissenters to peace; in the other, he gives thanks for peace restored. Gregory held other orations in the same year, 379, but it is more convenient to treat of these in the preliminary notes to each.
[CXXXIX] Maximus the philosopher comes to Constantinople. Who and what sort of person Maximus was. He is received with the greatest kindness by Gregory, whom he deceives with such wiles and lies that he delivered an oration in his praise.
After so many storms, another trial, even graver and more troublesome, came upon Gregory: we are speaking of the disturbances in the Church of Constantinople stirred up by Maximus in the year 380. The beginnings of this year were indeed very happy. B The Emperor Theodosius, having now defeated his enemies and secured his throne, having been baptized by Ascholius, the Catholic bishop of Thessalonica, and having issued a law on February 28th, decreed that the faith which Damasus in Rome and Peter in Alexandria professed must be held. With the affairs of the Catholics changed for the better, Gregory had some hope that he would finally enjoy peace, when Maximus stirred up a new and more dangerous tempest. He was an Alexandrian by birth, a philosopher by sect a Cynic, as well as by his profession, attire, and customs. He had come to Constantinople, displaying the philosopher in his bodily condition, his staff, his mantle, his beard, and his long hair, but in his words a Christian; he boasted himself to be the son of martyrs and a martyr himself; he lied, saying that he had been beaten with stripes for the sake of the Catholic faith and banished into the vast solitude of the Oasis, whereas in reality he had been sent into exile for the most shameful crimes, as Gregory testifies. What more? Gregory, deceived by his wiles and lies, had received him most humanely, deigned to share his table and roof with him, venerated him as a martyr, and finally praised him before the congregation: for he delivered that oration in his praise, which is titled *In Praise of Hero*, which was perhaps delivered at the end of the year 379. Gregory asked him to return to Constantinople, since he said he was going elsewhere, and he returned. Received again with the greatest kindness by Gregory after his journey, he was numbered among his friends and showered with benefits. Yet the writer of Gregory's life is mistaken when he states that Maximus was enrolled in the clergy by him. For he only laid aside his long hair when he was ordained bishop by his own party.
[CXL, CXLI] Maximus attempts to depose Gregory from his seat and invade it himself. When Maximus was performing his crime and applying himself to the work, he was caught and cast out of the city.
With what wiles and deceits this most wicked man attempted to carry out this nefarious plan, which he had long conceived in his mind, Gregory recounts at length in his poem C *On His Own Life*: it will be sufficient for us to follow the main points of the matter. After Maximus, D "a skilled artificer and plotter of crimes," circumvented the Theologian with his lies—a man sincere, not at all suspicious, and occupied and accustomed to other far different arts—he set out to depose him from his seat and invade it. He had prepared himself for this crime by gradually turning some away from Gregory whom he knew to be alienated from him; and by taking on as a partner in his crime one of Gregory's own priests, a man barbarian in nation and morals, who, although showered with benefits by Gregory, was burning with old hatred and envy toward him. Both of these ungrateful men conspired together against Gregory; they gathered to themselves seditious men, prepared for any crime, and sailors hired with money. A certain presbyter, who had come to Constantinople from the island of Naxos to buy slabs of Proconnesian marble for the use of his church, provided the money. They tore Peter of Alexandria away from Gregory and pulled him into their own opinion; I say they took Peter away, and by their own frauds achieved that he, who had recently by letter appointed Gregory bishop of the Church of Constantinople, now labored to appoint Maximus to this Church, having cast Gregory aside, and sent Egyptian bishops to decree the bishopric to him. With these things thus prepared, there was need for action, and the final hand had to be applied to the crime, that is, the wicked plot. They approached the matter by the friendly darkness of night, having found an opportune occasion when Gregory had fallen ill. They invaded the church, hastening to enthrone Maximus. But before they had finished, so nefarious a matter became known, and it struck everyone, not only the orthodox but even the Arians themselves, with horror. Everyone ran to the church, surprised the foreign bishops engaged in the work, and cried out against them. Upon these clamors, Maximus with his Egyptians fled: they entered a sordid little house of a flute-player, and there in secret finished the started crime. This was the ordination of Maximus, who, while the populace raged and poured out a flood of insults upon him, was cast out of the city. He also suffered rejection from Theodosius, whom
A Maximus with his bishops approached near Thessalonica about the month of August of this year, to implore aid; and he demanded of him that he either enable him to obtain the see of Constantinople, or that he surrender his own throne to him; but the praetor, arriving with military force, drove Maximus out.
CXLII. Struck with grief, Gregory consoles himself with the hope that he would obtain permission to depart.
Meanwhile, Gregory, though struck with the greatest grief, nevertheless had this consolation, that some hope shone upon him that he would be able to obtain permission to depart from the city. When the populace had learned of his plan from certain words with which he was exhorting them to be mindful of his labors; A then, forming a procession, men, women, youths, virgins, old men, the noble, and the lowly, stood about complaining, all but offering violence, and striving by their lamentations to move their pastor from his purpose. When he steadfastly refused, they besought him with prayers that he might at least remain, and not abandon the flock to ravaging wolves: and thus it was granted to him to depart from the city, so that he might restore a little his body and mind, which had been somewhat damaged during that stormy time. Not long after, upon his return, he delivered an oration, formerly the twenty-eighth, now the twenty-sixth, which breathes the pastor's wondrous charity toward his sheep.
CXLIII-CXLV. Theodosius comes to Constantinople. He receives Gregory honorably; he expels Demophilus; he restores the churches to the Catholics. Gregory enters the major basilica together with Theodosius; the sky, which before was clouded, clears upon Gregory's entry into the temple.
B He enters the major basilica: as soon as they had entered, the sun, which before had been in the clouds, shone forth. "There," says Gregory, "when this spectacle had infused confidence into our souls, the infinite multitude began to shout with all their strength and to demand us in the present, not otherwise than if this one thing alone had been lacking; and the prince, and the greatest from the supreme prince himself, was this gift, to be preferred over the very thrones of the city, if we were to be endowed by him with the see of the city (episcopal). This, men of distinction, this, the lowest rabble, were agitating. All alike desired the thing. The women were calling this out in a loud voice, almost more than would be becoming for women. A certain incredible thunder was heard, with the noise echoing back."CXLVI, CXLVII. Although all petitioned that he ascend the episcopal throne, he could not be compelled. Gregory is installed in the see of Constantinople.
Then indeed the moderation of the Theologian was victorious, nor could he be compelled to ascend the episcopal throne: but to offer thanks to God for the devotions of the people, the divine man—these are the words of Theodoret—turned them with provident dexterity. C The Arians were gnashing their teeth, but the soldiers standing about kept them in line: "Only one sword was bared and then sheathed, and the audacity of the populace was broken." Some time later, when to the unanimous petition of all orders, their vows and clamors, there had been added the formal suffrage of the bishops and the plenary, ecumenical council which Theodosius had convened, Gregory was installed in the see of Constantinople, weeping and groaning. "Whatever," says he, "the East possessed, except for Egypt, the people and the prelates, even to the second Rome, came together, having been stirred from the innermost recesses of land and sea. Over these presided a man most great in piety... better in morals and in name (he signifies Meletius). They install me and establish me on the august throne, while I am weeping and groaning, yet for one reason not entirely resisting."
Such was the state of affairs when Theodosius came from Thessalonica to Constantinople on November 24, in the year 380. From the very beginning of his reign, he had considered nothing more important than to deserve well of the Catholic faith. "With the most just and merciful laws," to use the words of Augustine, "he had not ceased to aid the Church laboring against the impious," which Valens the heretic, intensely favoring the Arians, had vehemently afflicted; and of this Church "he rejoiced to be a member, more than to reign upon the earth." Theodosius received Gregory most honorably, embraced him, spoke to him kindly, D and delivered the chief church of the city, namely that of Holy Sophia, which the Arians had occupied for forty years, addressing him with these words: "God gives to you and to your labors through us this temple," etc. The emperor summoned Demophilus, who had himself succeeded to the Arian bishopric in the see of Constantinople after the Arian Eudoxius, and admonished him that, having renounced his heresy, he should profess the Catholic faith with his own; and upon his refusal, Theodosius ordered the heretics to depart from the churches, which he restored to the orthodox. Socrates attests that these things occurred on November 26; Marcellinus, however, in the month of December, from the Chronicle. Soon the emperor enters the major basilica together with the bishop of this city, and asks of him that he either make him obtain the see of Constantinople, or yield his own throne to him; but the praetor, arriving with military force, expelled Maximus.
CXLVIII. Gregory is installed in the see of Constantinople by the highest consensus; scarcely anyone's suffrage was lacking.
Nor does the consensus of the Egyptians seem to have been lacking; those, indeed, he addresses chiefly with these words: "Yesterday installed, today persecuted; from the throne, that is, in which you yourselves installed me yesterday, today casting me out. Thus, there was lacking no one’s suffrage, practically speaking, in the whole general council. Finally, the consent of Gregory himself was not lacking, though for one reason yielding not entirely." Hence it appears how legitimately and in accordance with the canons Gregory was created bishop of the Church of Constantinople, and how he is to be held.
CXLIX. Weeping and groaning, yet not entirely resisting, Gregory is installed.
But what was that one reason, why a man so
modest in the care of governing the Church, which he had so often refused, should not have eventually declined to accept it? It was his zeal for peace. For as he had first fled from the bishopric of Sasima, and then from that of Nazianzus, it was for the same love of peace that he accepted the Constantinopolitan see. For he had the hope that, in the royal city, he might be able to reconcile souls and extinguish the discord which had arisen on the occasion of the schism of the Church of Antioch. What Gregory achieved and what he accomplished in Constantinople, it is his own pleasure to relate: "I have labored, I have gathered a people in the midst of wolves, I have provided for the flock that lacked water to drink from the fountain of my doctrine, and I have sown the seed of that faith which is founded in God; I have revealed the light of the Trinity to those who had previously dwelt in darkness. And so, just as a kind of coagulant in milk, I was a strong medicine of persuasion. And some I held already bound, others were nearly there, and others were about to do the same; but in all of them the anger which had previously boiled within them was turned aside, and my teaching was by now tempered with a certain benevolence. The same seemed to be hoped for regarding the whole people," etc. Such were Gregory’s successes in Constantinople; this happy change of affairs was obtained by his own cares and labors; this was the new and splendid face of the faith and of religion, which had been horrible when he betook himself to the city, whose every church the leaders of the Arians—relying on the power of the emperors—had occupied for forty years. But these things, since they are certain from the Greek historians, are confirmed also by the testimony of Ambrose himself in his book *On the Holy Spirit*.
CL. The Deeds of Gregory in the City of Constantinople.
The manner of life that Gregory led in the royal city, the plots prepared against him, the complaints of his adversaries concerning him, and finally his own defenses—these Gregory himself was compelled to declare, both in his poems and in his orations: "I know not," he says, "in what words I might recount the things that followed, which drag a huge mass of matters and concerns with them... Yet I will tell it as temperately as I can" (b). First, he decided within himself (c) not to imitate those who sat at the gates of kings and magnates, and who conducted themselves indecorously by accusing others or by ambitiously seeking gain from piety; he preferred to be missed rather than to be hated; he bought for himself a reputation for veneration through his rarity. Those whom he saw anxious on account of those things committed against him, of which they were conscious, he treated with beneficence; others he helped with money; he delivered all of them from fear. When an assassin entered his chamber and, moved by the atrocity of his own intent, fell at his knees and wept, he addressed him before everyone with these words: "May God save you; but as for me, who have been saved, it is no great thing to seem gentle to an assassin. Your boldness has made you mine: see how you may show yourself worthy both of me and of God" (d).
Being made the prelate of such a great Church, and having come into possession of the revenues and an infinite and exquisite abundance of property of every kind, he did not increase his wealth by even a single drachma; yet he could have collected a vast quantity of talents, had his own will carried him that way. He did not even demand an accounting of the revenues and administration from those who had managed the business of the Church; yet he was not unaware that this would be disapproved by those who were inferior in funds, and who do not understand how unseemly the suspicion of avarice is in the ministers of the Church. B It was even cast in his own teeth that he made use of neither a sumptuous and luxurious table, nor a magnificent garment, nor went out into public with splendor, nor received those who approached him with gravity and haughtiness. This accusation, indeed, he diluted in his farewell oration before the universal council (f): "For I did not know that we were in an emulation and a contest with consuls and prefects and most illustrious commanders of the army, who abound in so many riches and resources that, having nowhere to cast them, they cannot hold them; and that it was fitting that we, abusing the goods of the poor for luxury and delights, should have our bellies pinched on every side, and that what was necessary should be squandered on superfluous things, and that the very altars should be contaminated by our belching. I did not know that we were to be carried by noble and wanton horses, to be lifted up magnificently on chairs and in carriages, and to be led forth with haughtiness and pomp, and to be caressed as if by a soothing hand, and that everyone was to yield the way to us C just as if we were wild beasts, and to be split and distracted on either side of the road, or that there should be such a great crowd of forerunners that our approach should be visible from afar." Since, however, there were many whom this apology stung, hence it is that Gregory professes himself to be a stranger to the morals of many, nor would he be surprised if he were at some time restrained in bonds as a burdensome and morose man, or even thought to be full of new wine, just as the disciples of Christ spoke in tongues: (g) "The multitude, forsooth, being ignorant that this is done by the power and faculty of the Spirit, not by a distraction of the mind." Elsewhere we know by what recreations he was accustomed to relieve his labors: "I used to walk," he says (h), "by myself, when the sun was already declining. The place, furthermore, in which I walked, was the shore of the sea. For I am always accustomed to dissolve and relax my labors with such recreations; since the sinew cannot bear perpetual tension." In what manner he conducted himself towards those who had fallen during the time of the persecution, Gregory himself teaches in these words (i): "I for my part do not even receive those who were in no way, or not sufficiently, crushed, nor consider the committed D crime...
as equal to the correction and amendment of life; and when I do receive them, I assign to them a place appropriate to themselves."
CLI. Theodosius convenes the general council in the year 381.
Having set forth the summary of Gregory’s episcopate in the city of Constantinople, let us now review the individual matters. We have already mentioned that after the churches had been restored to the orthodox, a council was summoned by Theodosius. From the entire East, bishops gathered at Constantinople to the number of 150, so that they might confirm the Nicene faith and appoint a bishop for the royal city. Perhaps no council was ever celebrated to which so many prelates distinguished for their holiness came. Among these stood out Saint Meletius of Antioch, Saint Gregory of Nyssa and his brother Saint Peter of Sebaste, Saint Amphilochius, etc. But there were also not a few present who were far different and vastly unlike in their conduct, whom our Gregory treats somewhat harshly. Among these were some who, in the time of Valens, after the orthodox bishops had been driven into exile, had occupied the vacant sees through the favor of the Arians. Such prelates, serving the times, were Arians under Arian princes, but under the orthodox they professed the orthodox faith.CLII. In that council, the ordination of Maximus is declared void; Maximus is ejected from the Church. Gregory's election is confirmed. He presided over the council, at least after the death of Meletius. Death of Meletius.
In this council, which is the second general one and the first held at Constantinople, the case of Maximus the Cynic, who had attempted to creep into the Constantinopolitan see and had stirred up such great disturbances, was agitated. By the common consent of all, the Cynic's ordination was held void; it was decreed that Maximus neither had been nor is a bishop; and that those who had been ordained by him in any grade of the Church were not to be considered clerics. In a word, whatever had been done by him or around him was disapproved and rescinded by the council, and Maximus was ejected from the Church and removed from the fellowship of the faithful. These things having been accomplished, the Theologian’s election was approved and confirmed by the common vote of the Fathers; he was placed in the Constantinopolitan see—much groaning, yet not as before resisting—by Saint Meletius, the president of the council, who is believed to have come to the city even before the council, so that he might confirm Gregory’s election and "give the bridegroom to the bride," as Nyssenus, who gave an oration on this day, expresses it. Our Gregory seems to have been president of the council, if not immediately upon being established in the episcopal chair, at least after death carried off Meletius, a man lamented by all good people, but by none more lamentable than by Gregory. Meletius was a prelate distinguished in this age for his character, piety, and knowledge, but especially for the struggles he undertook for the defense of truth against the heretics under the emperors Constantius, Julian, and Valens, by whom he was often driven into exile. The holy A prelate, dying, had commended the peace of the Church to the bishops, as Gregory testifies; and he himself, being most studious of peace, had allowed himself to be placed in the Constantinopolitan see for this one reason: that he might recall the Orientals and Occidentals—of whom some stood for Meletius and others for Paulinus—to concord, and extinguish the mournful schism by which the Catholic world was being torn apart.CLIII-CLV. Gregory was of the opinion that a successor should not be ordained for Meletius.
But he so failed to persuade others that he stirred up the hatred of almost all against himself. The faction of younger bishops prevailed, who even dragged the seniors into their own opinion; and Flavian, an Antiochene presbyter, was elected successor to Meletius. The Oriental and Occidental bishops, for various reasons, did not oppose Gregory, who wished to resign his see. Therefore, Meletius having been taken from the land of the living, Gregory’s opinion was that agreements must be kept, and that a successor should not be ordained for Meletius; for it had been agreed beforehand that whichever of them should die first, whether Paulinus or Meletius, no one should be substituted, and the survivor should occupy the Antiochene see. This, I say, was the opinion of Gregory, and if the others had indeed obeyed it, that great dispute would have been settled. He tried to persuade them that Paulinus, already worn out by age, should be allowed to occupy the Antiochene see alone for the few days that his life remained; and upon his death, the Orientals could then substitute whom they wished in his place. These were his words to the Fathers of the Constantinopolitan council (a): "Let him who has held the throne until this day (namely, Paulinus) retain it: what harm will this do," etc. Gregory achieved nothing with such a prudent opinion, and he so little persuaded what he wished, nor recalled the dissenting parties to concord, that he inflamed the hatred of all against himself. Yet in his opinion, as a man tenacious of what is just and right, he persevered constantly, protesting that he would rather surrender the episcopal throne than follow them if they were to resolve upon wicked things. This protest of Gregory was received with indecorous clamors (b): "They shout from every side, like a crowd of daws," etc. And so the faction of the younger bishops prevailed, who drew the seniors into their own opinion; and they even dared, not indeed by themselves, but through Gregory’s acquaintances, to tempt his own constancy so that they might persuade him of that which they were contemplating regarding substituting Flavian in the place of Meletius. But they suffered a repulse. "What need is there to say with what words our gray hair was tempted by these friends?" These and many other things [said] Gregory, who, indignant, "began to withdraw his foot from the midst; nay, he even moved from his house to another, B withdrawing himself from the depths of the church, where the episcopal house was, so that he might be far from evil discourse and meetings." As the people heard that the house had been changed by Gregory, it is almost incredible with what groans, with what great and numerous tears all the Catholics bewailed their pastor, and with what prayers they contended with him so that he might desist from his purpose. To these, indeed,A his vows yielded, yet they did yield. Nor was the love of peace and concord the only reason, but many other good things were also the cause why Gregory laid down his episcopate. This can be seen in the various poems and letters of the Theologian, but most especially in that excellent oration which, having received permission to depart from the Fathers of the council and from the emperor, he delivered in the primary temple of the city before one hundred and fifty bishops and the people of Constantinople, before he departed. Whoever reads this will scarcely be able to refrain from tears; for nothing is more eloquent than this speech, nothing more apt for moving the soul; most of all, indeed, when he speaks his final farewell to his groaning flock, steeped in tears, and to his most beloved Anastasia, which clung to his very marrow, and clung there always; so much so that it was ever in his mind, ever on his lips, and even appeared to him in his sleep as he rested. With such force he dissolved all the complaints of his adversaries, and so clearly and manifestly did he display his own innocence, charity, and pastoral solicitude to the eyes of all, that it would be a wonder if his detractors were not suffused with shame, and if all individually, lamenting his departure, did not try to deter him from his purpose.
159, 160. In the year 381, at the end of the month of July, he left Constantinople. There were bishops who took this ill, stopped their ears, and fled so as not to see another sitting on Gregory's throne.
Thus Gregory left Constantinople in the year 381, as July was drawing to a close, after a sojourn of three years in the city; he had held his see for only a few weeks, from the time, that is, when he had been installed in it by the general council, by the emperor, and with the whole people looking on and applauding. Hence Gregory addressed the bishops thus: "Yesterday you placed me on the throne, today you cast me down." Although, however, the bishops were too ready to grant his requests, we learn from Gregory that some nonetheless bore it ill, and stopped their ears, and even fled so as not to see another sitting on his throne: whose names, though he remains silent, we believe these bishops to have been—Amphilochius, Gregory of Nyssa, Peter of Sebaste (his own brother), Helladius, and other prelates to be commended for singular piety and knowledge, who had long been bound to Gregory by familiarity and knew his virtue.
CLXI. Testamentum condit Gregorius.
It is not our design to follow the other things which were done in the Council of Constantinople after the departure of Gregory; these, although they are of great moment, do not seem to pertain to our present purpose and would lead us too far astray. Let us follow Gregory leaving the city and seeking his homeland again. At what time he departed from Constantinople is not clear; but it is credible that he set out as soon as he could, and did not wait until another was sub-
-Astituted. Before he departed, he made his will, which still exists today, with the names of many bishops who were then staying in Constantinople appended to it. "Indeed," says Possevinus, "this will is most worthy; bishops, and those who hold fat priesthoods, ought to study it seriously and imitate this man, if they truly wish to care for themselves and the salvation of their souls far away from flesh and blood."
CLXII. Gregory returns to Nazianzum.
Gregory, having finished so many glorious battles against the heretics, and having exhausted so many labors in restoring the ancient faith, which had almost collapsed in Constantinople, finally, after so many noble deeds, returned to his homeland, delighting in joy, in which he hoped to enjoy leisure, rest, and the desired solitude. Yet his joy was mingled with sorrow: for he did not leave behind without dry eyes the sweet children whom he had begotten in the Catholic faith, and dear Anastasia. He arrived in his native soil ill, and yet he did not therefore approve of his abdication to many at the time, although all would later admire such a noble deed, decreed with such self-forgetfulness and accomplished with such high-mindedness. The various opinions of friends regarding this matter did not escape Gregory. To Philagrius, a man of standing, who excused himself by letter for not visiting him and indicated his fear that Gregory himself had deserted his Church too inconsiderately, he responded as follows: "And know that I am afflicted with very poor health... The matters about which you wrote are by no means of small or light importance to us; therefore, we did not come to this judgment perfunctorily or negligently, but most accurately, having considered and weighed the matter. We have been exhausted and broken, battling against envy and against those holy bishops who destroy common concord and treat the cause of the faith as secondary to private contentions. Therefore, we decided to turn the bow of the ship, as the saying goes, and to withdraw into ourselves: and to watch others from afar, attacking one another."
CLXIII. He attempts in vain to appoint a bishop of Nazianzum.
However, having returned to his homeland, he was not immediately permitted to enjoy the rest for which he so greatly yearned, nor was he allowed to be idle at home. At that time, the see of the Nazianzene Church was vacant, notwithstanding Sozomen's contrary writing. For Gregory himself testifies in his iambic poem, formerly XXIII, now CLX, that he found this Church, most dear to him, like a ship bereft of its pilot, wandering in the midst of the waves, driven by tempests, and exposed to the incursions of the Apollinarists:
For when I had come, leaving the site Of a foreign land and the dear people, As soon as I saw, it immediately occurred to my mind B The Ark, which alone Escaped the flood... For when the true doctrine Had almost failed, My great father saved it C By the wood, Rendering the whole a worshipper Of the Trinity. This one, afflicted and without a ruler, Like a ship on the deep, Lacking a pilot, Tossed by the tempest Of greatest evils, I wished to pull from the abyss.
230 But when there was neither the spirit left to hold the helm of the nearly broken ship, nor was it permitted by his health; yet, mindful of his pious father in governing and restoring labors, he could not bear that it should perish entirely by shipwreck. Therefore, he took care to appoint a man fit to break the onsets of the swelling waves, a man indeed still a layman and one recently established as steward of the church's treasury, but otherwise notably adorned and abundantly instructed in the virtues one would require in a bishop. But the outcome belied the hope, for the envy of the priests of the Church was aflame; a part of whom, called by Gregory "Sarcolatrae" (Tillemont interprets this as Apollinarists), resisted openly and clearly; part, under the guise of compliance, opposed him secretly: and, what is more to be wondered at, the prelates who professed themselves friends of Gregory, and who had pledged their help to him in this matter, betrayed the faith they had given. How gravely he endured this, he signifies in the same poem by these and other words:
But I have been deceived, O Trinity Preached by me! Faith in God has perished, It has perished among men. To whom shall one turn? And with whom Should one join as a companion?
CLXIV. He retires to Arianzum, and from there he goes to Caesarea.
Then indeed Gregory, having entrusted the care of the Nazianzene Church to the presbyter Cledonius, retired to Arianzum, to his paternal home, for reasons of health and from a love of solitude, and did not return to Nazianzum until about the middle of the year 382. Meanwhile, he betook himself to Caesarea, in order to pay his last respects to Basil the Great, who had been summoned to the heavens nearly three years before: which indeed he carried out in his oration now XLII, so that in recounting the noble deeds of his friend he poured out all the resources of Christian eloquence, and closed the mouths forever of those detractors who had dared to accuse Basil's character, or to carp at his doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit and his manner of preaching it.
CLXV. What he did in solitude.
In what manner Gregory conducted himself in solitude, with what things he occupied himself, and with what sentiments he pursued his friends and his enemies alike—this he declares himself in a letter to Amazonius with these words: "If anyone should ask you, of the many friends of whom I trust I have a great number, where Gregory is now, and what he is doing..."
do not hesitate to say that he is engaged in quiet and tranquil philosophical study, and that he is not concerned with those who have inflicted injury upon him, any more than he is with those from whom [his present state] may have come to light and life; he is [a man] of such unconquerable strength of mind that he is unknown and obscure. But if the same person should ask you again how he bears the separation from his friends, you are not now to answer confidently that he is philosophizing, but rather that he is of a very humble and abject spirit. For some are softer in other matters, but I in friendship and friends."
CLXVI. Calamities by which the Church was afflicted at that time.
While he was doing this and enjoying his desired leisure, the Church was being agitated by violent storms, being torn apart on one side by the Antiochian schism, and disturbed on the other by the endeavors of the Apollinarists; who, although rejected by both East and West, labored no less diligently to disseminate their errors now openly, now secretly. In addition to these, that Cynic A who was shamefully driven from the see of Constantinople, and had first retreated into Egypt and turned everything upside down with his calumnies, was agititating Italy with the same arts. Thinking that these evils should be met as quickly as possible, Pope Damasus decreed that a general council be held at Rome. But the emperor, saying it was better for the matter to be managed in the East, convened a synod at Constantinople, for which he especially desired Gregory's presence. Gregory, having been informed of this wish through Procopius, and recalling the unhappy outcome of all the synods he had hitherto attended to his memory, put forward his infirmities as a reason for not obeying the Augustus. "I, for my part," he says [(a)], "if I must write the truth, am in such a frame of mind that I flee every assembly of bishops; for I have seen no end of any council that was happy and auspicious, and none that did not have an increase and augmentation of evils rather than their removal... To this judgment of mine is added the patron of illness, for it so twists me that I am almost every day breathing my last, nor can I make use of myself for anything." The emperor, however, considered this excuse to be feigned, and he did not accept it, but pressed upon Gregory with new mandates through the illustrious Icarius and Olympius, the governor of Cappadocia; upon receiving these, the man who knew not how to lie [(b)] replied to Olympius: "This is more grievous to me than the illness itself, that although I am sick, I am not believed to be sick, but am ordered to undertake such a long journey and to plunge myself into the midst of commotions; from which it was so pleasing to me to have withdrawn, that on this account I have almost come to be grateful for the affliction of my body... I wrote this not long ago to the most illustrious Icarius also, when I had received a similar order from him; and now I ask of your magnanimity that you would not be burdened to write this on our behalf as well." Finally, Gregory's modest refusal—which he had already determined beforehand never to attend bishops' councils, as he himself confesses, writing to Theodore, Bishop of Tyana [(c)]—was overcome: "Are you asking? We, indeed, hasten. We hasten, however, that we may meet alone with Him alone. We bid farewell to synods and colloquies from afar; from which time, indeed, I have discovered many of their [proceedings], to speak sparingly, to be wicked and flagitious."
Although Gregory avoided synods, yet the solicitude of all the Churches held him, just as if he were presiding over the world, always intent on observing those things which pertained to the extinction of heresy or the propagation of the faith. "Everything," he says [(d)], "is by the benefit of God going well with us, with this one exception, that we are anxious and solicitous about the Churches which are so shamefully disturbed." The Nazianzen Church primarily troubled him, which the Apollinarists were attempting not only to corrupt but to invade. For while sickness had led Gregory further away to the Xanxaridas baths, the men of the faction they had in Nazianzus presumed to appoint a bishop against justice and law. He had wanted to render them gentle and placid by his own mildness and to soften them gradually; but he made them worse: "For neither," he says [(e)], "does gentleness bend wicked men." But when, being absent, he could not remedy the evil, he substituted letters in his place, writing to Olympius the prefect in these words [(f)]: "Wicked men, summoning certain bishops whose dignity had been abrogated by the universal council, or abusing those passing through, in violation of all imperial constitutions and all your edicts, have imposed the name of bishop upon a certain man of their impious and adulterous flock, trusting in nothing, I suppose, so much as in my extreme infirmity." Then he seeks vengeance for this crime, yet one milder than such audacity deserved.
CLXVII. He takes care of the Church of Nazianzus.
Around the end of the year 382, because the bishops and the whole people, both the little ones and the great, were crying out and beseeching him to take up the helm of the Nazianzen Church and save her from an imminent shipwreck, he yielded. "To your piety," says Gregory [(g)], in a letter sent to Bosporius of Colonia, "I give this notice, that we yield and give way—and, God granting, we shall undertake the care of the Church, since you contend for this, and especially because this tempest is pressing, on account of the imminent incursion of adversaries, as you write, and we shall accommodate this humble body to God, for as long as it shall last, and our strength shall permit," etc. These words, "for as long as it shall last, and our strength shall permit," will sufficiently prove that the letter is not to be referred to the year 374, as Tillemont wishes, when Gregory, after his father had died, took some care of the Nazianzen Church; since at that time he had not promised that he would remain at Nazianzus as long as his strength permitted, but only until another bishop was elected.
A CLXVIII. *Gregory delivers his fatherland from great danger.*
About the same time, he delivered the citizens of Nazianzus from a great danger, and the city itself from destruction, which the prefect of Cappadocia threatened to level to the ground in vengeance for a most heinous crime. "A bold crime," Gregory confesses (a), "but one that resulted not at all from common counsel, but from the rash impulse of certain young men." Perhaps on account of some rather heavy tribute imposed, a sedition had arisen; certain wanton youths, having violated the emperor's decree, had even killed a man. Meanwhile, Gregory, suffering from illness, since he could not approach the prefect, wrote letters to move him to mercy. By these letters and the prayers of Gregory, the city was liberated. Baronius (b) believed that the seventeenth oration was delivered on that occasion before the prefect (who was Olympius), which is inscribed, *To the Nazianzen citizens in fear and the angry governor*; but he seems to be mistaken. For this oration was delivered while Gregory’s father was still alive; furthermore, the fault of the Nazianzen people, which is the subject of the oration, is not nearly as grave as that which is mentioned in the letter to Olympius.
CLXIX. *He takes care that Eulalius be appointed bishop of Nazianzus.*
Baronius (c) writes that Gregory remained in the city of Nazianzus until firm security was restored to it and an excellent prelate was provided there, and that he at the same time acted before Helladius, the metropolitan bishop of Cappadocia, to have Eulalius, a man of the highest probity, appointed to the Nazianzen Church, while he himself in the meantime was meditating a retreat into solitude. We learn from Gregory himself that the matter happened a little differently. He had indeed taken over the government of the Nazianzen Church for as long as his strength would allow, and he ruled it for some time. But when he was suffering from a serious illness, he sent letters to Theodore of Tyana, signifying that he had been drawn away from the government of the Church by sickness, and that this charge did not rest upon Theodore himself: but if he were not listened to, he adds that he would publicly proclaim to all that this Church was in need of a pastor (d). "I testify before God and the elect angels, that the flock of God is suffering unworthily, in that it is neither pastured nor visited because of my broken health... But since your piety is situated in a higher place, it is necessary that my eyes should be directed toward you. Take care of your Church, as it shall seem best to you... But if, saying and writing these things, I am not heard... I shall make it clear that the Church is in need of a bishop." Gregory performed what he threatened he would do: he resigned the government of the Nazianzen Church, nor could he be forced any further to undertake it. In vain did Bosporius of Colonia, to whom he had first yielded, urge him again to remain for a while, until they had appointed a bishop in his place; having met with a refusal, B he was forced to drop the matter. Wherefore the bishops of the Nazianzen Church were compelled to provide a shepherd, and Eulalius, a man of remarkable piety, was created bishop. Once he was ordained, a false rumor spread that Gregory had been deprived of the Nazianzen see by Helladius of Caesarea; from which calumny he cleared Helladius and the other bishops who had ordained Eulalius, excusing them in a letter to Gregory of Nyssa (e), and at the same time announcing that he himself had never been created bishop of the Nazianzen Church.
CLXX. *The life of Gregory in solitude.*
From that time, Gregory, in his paternal fields, having obtained his wish, remained hidden and passed all the days of his life that remained; and, to speak with Jerome, "practiced the life of a monk." He was so alienated from the company of women that when a certain kinsman of his, by the name of Valentinian, placed his residence in the vicinity among women, he moved his own place, complaining in a letter written to him at that time in these words (f): "Through a supreme crime we are driven out... It would have been much better, had a tablet been publicly posted, to notify us of secession, than through the women whom you have placed in our region... Unless this is bold to say, you have driven us out through Eve from paradise as well." Thus did Gregory consult for his own safety, not only so that he might remove scandal from his eyes, but also so that the sting of the flesh, the angel of Satan who had been given to him, might not inflict a lethal wound. It is truly astonishing that a man wearied by the most serious distresses and troubles, broken by old age, suffering from illness, living in a desert, and subduing the flesh with continuous fasts and vigils, should have been forced to grapple with the spirit of fornication; yet faith must be given to him, C when he confesses this again and again with lamentations. "With a raging fury the flesh rages," he says (g), "nor does it ever rest from war... Wherefore I dwell in mourning and squalor, and I, a suppliant, beseech that heavenly King, who holds all things by His command, that He may settle the controversy of body and soul, and suppress the war." While he was always fearing the outcome of this war, he urged Christ to calm the storm and repel the enemy not only with the groans of love: "Fearing the pernicious waves," he says, "I place constraints upon my belly, I afflict my mind with grief, I pour out a stream of tears, to the eternal King I bend my weakened knees, and I walk about defiled." With the same ardor of spirit, the blessed old man, knowing nothing but Christ, and Him crucified, found for himself a new method of mortification. Grave in age and broken by disease, he had relaxed somewhat from the austerity of life, though against his will: but so that he might always offer the mystical sacrifice with Christ and die to this world continually; so that he might purge the faults of the mouth and the special vice of old men, who sometimes speak too much, he imposed upon himself continuous silence throughout the entire time of Lent. "Thus I," he says (h), "seeing the impulse of my rash speech exceeding..."
its bounds and rule... found an excellent remedy," namely, by restraining his entire discourse with a noble heart, so that the tongue might learn to discern what should be said and what should not. A
CLXXI. He writes to Nectarius against the Apollinarists.
In this tract of time, the heretics raised their heads in the royal city, to such an extent that they held assemblies freely and preached their own dogmas. Some indeed did this merely by the tolerance of the bishops or prefects; but the Apollinarists, with tacit or express license, were permitted to equate themselves with the orthodox and enjoy the same liberty as they. Having heard these things, Gregory wrote a letter to Nectarius, whom he had already found to be well-disposed towards him, which was numbered among the forty-six orations; in it he complained most vehemently concerning the license granted to the Apollinarists: "But that," he says, "out of all ecclesiastical calamities is the most bitter, the license of the Apollinarists, which I do not know how your piety could have allowed, permitting them to arrogate and usurp to themselves the authority of holding assemblies just as we do." We conjecture that those heretics had deceived Nectarius by hiding their error, from the fact that Gregory believed a clear exposition of those dogmas should be inserted into his letter; to which exposition he added this: "If it is permitted to them, as if they were thinking piously (namely, inasmuch as they think piously), to teach and freely promulgate what they think, who does not see that the Church’s doctrine is condemned, as if truth stood on their side? For the nature of things does not admit that two contrary doctrines concerning the same subject should be true." B It is not only from the fact that they are tolerated, but from the fact that the Apollinarists are judged to think piously, that Gregory concludes the Church's doctrine is condemned. By this observation the falsity of what Barbeyrac put forward concerning this reasoning of the holy doctor is convicted.
Gregory sent other letters to Nectarius on behalf of Bosporius, the bishop of Colonia, who was accused of errors regarding the faith and of breaking the canons. It was to be feared that a case of this kind would be tried in a public praetorium; Gregory begged earnestly that this might not happen: "But that," he says, "should by no means appear bearable to your reverence, that our affairs should be conducted in public praetoria. For although they are Christians, as indeed they are by God’s kindness, the judges of such matters: what has the sword in common with the spirit? And if we even concede this, how or where is it just that a dispute about the faith should be entangled with other controversies?" C
CLXXII. He is occupied with writing letters and composing verses.
Thus Gregory, after resigning the care of the Nazianzene church, burning with no less desire for the dignity of the house of God, entirely applied himself to the advantages of the Catholics; and that his life in solitude was not idle is sufficiently testified to by so many poems, the greater part of which were composed by him at that time; by so many letters, in which he undertakes the defense of innocence against oppressors; by which he did not cease to follow the greatest teacher with singular honor, and generously provided him with the necessary aids for alleviating the old age and infirmity of the man whom he loved. Gregory, as befitted a bishop, not by amplifying praises, but by giving salutary admonitions, proved himself worthy as one mindful of benefits. Obsequious to the genius of a man of exquisite learning, he dedicated a poem to him, by which he might reproach him for the vanity and falsehood of idols, and bring him to the worship of the one God, gifted as he was with many excellent qualities. Nemesius received the precepts of so great a master with a calm mind, betook himself to the holy doctor, and discoursed with him about religion; and it is quite plausible that, instructed by the pontiff’s sermons and struck by his sanctity, he renounced idols, and that this philosopher is the Christian named Nemesius, who published the work *On the Nature of Man*, which has been published among the works of Gregory of Nyssa.
Gregory was occupied in solitude with such tasks and with composing poems which breathe nothing but Christ and piety, and contain the safest dogmas and precepts of morals. Everywhere there are pious arguments, whether the purification of soul and body, or theology, or prayers for imploring divine aid against the flesh and the evil demon soliciting to sin; or the groans of a pious man, lamenting his calamities and praying to Christ that he might bring an end to his life. The most pious bard did not cease to sing until the very last breath of his life, seeking solace for his illness; and as this increased daily, and death approached, he continued to play in verses and to compose what are called swan songs. D
CLXXIII. Gregory dies.
Although he had always led a harsh life, horrible in its regimen, savage to the body, afflicting his flesh with vigils, fasts, and other labors of penance, feeling that the final struggle of life was impending, he now felt as if he could see "tar-darkness, horrible," and "the flame of fire, and the deepest night." Then, a suppliant, he stretched his palms to the stars, calling out to the choirs of the blessed to bring him aid, and with his whole heart aspiring to God, Christ
A strongly implored that He receive him and not abandon His own image. Thus the most blessed old man, near to death, singing a swan song to the Lord, rendered his most pure spirit to God, and attained the desired rest with the hosts of the blessed. We learn from Jerome, in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, where he writes about Gregory, that he died in the eleventh year of the Emperor Theodosius, or the year 389: "He departed almost three years before this under the Emperor Theodosius." Furthermore, Jerome testifies that he wrote this work in the fourteenth year of the same emperor, from which it follows that Gregory, who had died three years earlier, passed away in the eleventh year of Theodosius, and thus in the year 389.
CLXXIV, CLXXV. Of what stature Gregory was. His feast day.
Gregory had a robust body, but by assiduous illnesses and the burdens of life, and besides by fasts, vigils, and sleeping on the ground, he was so broken and debilitated that he hastened his own old age, as he himself testifies. An anonymous Greek, praised by Baronius, describes his stature in these words in codex 540 of the Vatican Library: "He was of medium stature, slightly pale, but not without charm: with a depressed nose, eyebrows extending straight, his look gentle and pleasant, his other eye—the right one—somewhat sad, which a certain scar contracted, his beard not long, but dense nevertheless. Where he was not bald, for he was partially bald, he had white hairs, and he showed the upper parts of his beard as if covered with smoke." The likeness of Gregory’s soul can be sufficiently perceived from the deeds we have recounted, as well as from his own writings, in which he depicts himself. He had prepared his own epitaph, which captures the chief events of his life in twelve elegiac verses. The feast day of Gregory is held on the ninth of May among the Latins; among the Greeks, however, on the thirtieth of January, along with Saint Basil and Saint Chrysostom. But the twenty-fifth day of the month of January is specifically sacred and solemn for Gregory alone among the same Greeks.CLXXVI. How great was the esteem for Gregory among all.
How great the esteem for Gregory and his works was among the ancients and still is among the moderns is evident from the fact that all the Fathers, not only Greeks but even Latins, as well as theologians and interpreters of the Scriptures, use his authority everywhere to establish the dogmas of the faith, to attack errors, and to expound the Scriptures. Augustine may serve as an example, and let him stand for all, who in Book 1 D of *Against Julian*, asserts original sin against the Pelagians by the authority of Gregory: "But there will not be lacking to you a bishop of great name and most famous reputation, illustrious even in the parts of the Orient, whose utterances, deservedly of great grace, have shone forth everywhere, even having been translated into the Latin tongue." A Let holy Gregory therefore sit with these Fathers, and among them may he suffer the empty envy of your accusation, provided that he brings forth his own medicinal sentence against your novelty-seeking plague. These things Augustine says of our Gregory; who, after bringing forward many of Gregory’s testimonies, proceeds thus: "Does the authority of the Eastern bishops seem small to you in the one person of Gregory? He is indeed a person of such stature that he would not have said this except from a Christian faith most known to all; nor would they have held him so famous and venerable, had they not recognized these things said by him in accordance with the rule of most known truth."CLXXVII. Translation.
The sacred relics of Gregory were translated from Cappadocia to Constantinople, in the reign of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who entrusted the letter written by himself to Gregory of Nazianzus to those who had been assigned the care of conveying the sacred treasures to Constantinople. This letter requested Gregory not to be burdened by coming to Constantinople: "Do not doubt to approach us, from whom you are never absent in spirit and favor, and who did not allow us to be truly orphans... Therefore, assent to pious prayers, incline yourself to us, return to the flock which is held by such yearning for you, visit your people kindly, enter the city in which you formerly excellently confirmed the cause of the orthodox religion which was in peril." This letter exists in the oration held on the translation, which oration the Bollandists published in Latin from a Greek manuscript of the King of Sardinia, p. 448, etc., and also in Greek, p. 769, etc. Those who had been sent found the bones of Gregory completely intact, breathing forth an unusual and inexplicable fragrance, and, having placed them in a casket prepared for this purpose, they brought them back with joy. The emperor with the priests and all the inhabitants of the great city went out honorably to meet the sacred relics, which were first deposited within the royal buildings, in the palace church or oratory, and afterwards were placed in the temple of the Apostles beside the body of Saint Chrysostom.CLXXVIII. Another translation of the body of Gregory CP. to Rome.
We have learned by a firm and certain tradition of "another translation of the body of Saint Gregory from Constantinople to Rome," says Baronius, "for this reason: that with barbarians ravaging those regions, the consecrated women, in whose church such a treasure was stored, taking thought for their own chastity, took and placed the venerable body onto a ship, fled and brought it to Rome, a safe asylum of piety; and they buried it in the temple of Saint Mary in the Field of Mars, which had been granted to them by the Apostolic See; and there in the adjacent house in which they lived, they performed the divine praises every day according to their native custom." To whom now life CA also applied itself, and Gregory, as if it were a part of his duty, applied his own otherwise most brilliant spirit, that he might exercise it.
He, in demanding manners according to the rigor of Christian discipline, was so religious that he seemed even too severe. This one, however, embraced the highest austerity of life so tempered with divine joy that he insinuated it to all as being in the highest degree lovable.
The moderate and gentle nature of Basil exhaled majesty: against this, a certain fiery force of intellect and a lively sharpness shone forth in Gregory. The former was so diligent in gravity and modesty that, although he possessed most witty charm in joking, he nevertheless shrank entirely from those things which wore even the slightest appearance of a jest. The latter sprinkled his jokes with such a juice of piety that he instilled virtue into souls amidst wit and pleasantries. Finally, Basil won for himself more the respect, and almost the worship, of men; but Gregory, by the sweet amenity of his manners, more deservedly won for himself the love and devotion of all.
There shines forth a certain divine majesty in the orations of Gregory, such that I see nothing either more ornate or more sublime that could ever have been created, by which the authority of our mysteries is vindicated, their reverence preserved, and their dignity asserted. How great their force and power are can be understood most of all from this, that he was called "The Theologian" from that source, as being greater than all others by way of exception. And thus one would wrongly derive his native character from the letters of Gregory.
But it is otherwise with Basil; his letters express him entirely, which have such sweet enticements that they surpass all those that all Greek antiquity has transmitted down to us. He composed nothing here in restricted language, but whatever the ancients consigned to this kind of writing of more refined humanity, he surveyed with sagacious judgment and exquisite selection, and he discussed many things filled with most salutary precepts, by which he might pave a safe way for young people in reading books of this kind; lest, as often happens, they might strike against hidden rocks on every side, or receive no utility from them. Nor is this enough. B
Gregory conferred even greater aids upon us. For he mixed the useful with the sweet, so that we might more willingly taste the most holy precepts of virtue, seasoned with a certain sweet flavor of pleasure; and thus he himself wrote various and most cultured poems, which, if you look to the subject matter, are all entirely serious, breathing nothing but Christ and piety: if to the style, nothing is more harmonious or easier, so that you might recognize Homer. But when I call them the poems of Gregory, I do not call them those which shine with the fictitious paint of the poets and are smeared with the lying pigments of fables, but those which shine with the sincere light of truth; which, under a simple guise, produce a wonderful invention of the artist combined with a singular elegance of language; which, in short, savor of a native amenity of a certain happy genius, easily attainable by no one,