Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/47

 GREGORY

23

GREGORY

quite generally resorted to during the Middle Ages as a method of lending money without contravening the laws in regard to interest. It grew out of the earlier practice whereby the creditor acquired both possession and use of the property which secured the loan. By a later modification the borrower retained possession and use, but ceded to the lender a real right in the property. Finally, the system here re- ferred to was introduced, the creditor was entitled to an income from the property which, however, still l>e- longed to the borrower ; the lender purchased the rental. Originally such agreements were binding in perpetuity; but in course of time they were so framed that the par- ties might withdraw under mutually accepted condi- tions.) He argued that contracts surrounded by such provisions were not contrary to natural law and were therefore permissible in all cases where no positive law forbade them. He also advocated these views as collaborator in the opinion which a theological com- mission, by order of Gregory XIII, elaborated in 1581. It was in connexion with this matter that Gregory's superiors sent him to Rome, where his personal ac- quaintance with conditions in Germany would enable him to state all the more accurately the question at issue and its significance. On other matters of im- portance also he was consulted by the Duke of Bavaria and by his own superiors in the society. In the witchcraft question Gregory unfortunately did not have the grasp of the situation subsequently shown by Friedrich von Spec of the same society. Sorcery he thought was a frequently occurring fact; hence in the opinion which he expressed in 1590, he aimed, not to set aside the juridical procedure then in vogue, but simply to temper the undue severity of its application. Still it was unjust to reproach him for the statement (Commentarii, div. Ill, col. 2008, sqq.), that where the guilt (of sorcery) is legally estabhshed the judge must inflict penalty even though he were personally convinced of the nullity of the charge.

In this matter Gregory only followed the then prevalent teaching taken from St. Thomas Aquinas, viz. that a judge's personality and private knowledge should not be allowed to affect his official decisions; in the special case of witchcraft Gregory could not consistently make an exception. This opmion indeed is controverted; it seems to grate on natural feeling; but this apparent harshness vanishes when we further consider what is laid down by the adherents of this view, especially Gregory, in their treatment of the more general question, namely that a judge is under grave obligation to make all possible use of his private knowledge towards securing the acquittal of the ac- cused person, and if needs be to refer the case to a higher court or to endorse and support a well-grounded plea for clemency. That Gregory meant this prin- ciple to apply in the case of condemnation for sorcery is quite obvious; moreover, in the very passage for which he is criticized (III, 2009), he refers to an ear- lier part of his work (III, 1380) in which he discus,ses the duties of a judge. In 1592 Gregory resigned as professor at Ingolstadt to devote himself more fully to the editing of his "Commentarii theologici". In 1598 he was sent to Rome to teach scholastic theology. A more important work, however, awaited him there; the vindication of the Society's teaching on grace. A book by Molina (d. 1(100) entitled " De Concordia liberi arbitrii cum grati;e donis etc.", had created a stir. On many points in which it set forth essentially the Society's doctrine regarding grace, it was su.s- pected of heresy and was formally denounced by the Dominicans. Pope Clement VIII ordered both par- ties to debate the matter publicly before him and the College of Cardinals. Acquaviva, the General of the Jesuits, selected Gregory as champion of the Molin- istic doctrine.

At the first public disputation, 20 March, 1602, Gregory had to prove that Molina had not deviated

from St. Augustine's teaching by any undue extension of man's freedom. He maintained his position so ably against the objections of Father Didacus Alvarez, O. P., that friend and opponent alike awarded him the palm. Then the method of debate was changed. Isolated statements taken from Molina's book had to be compared with similar passages all through the works of St. Augustine. It turned out to be a la- borious and seemingly endless undertaking. The second debate was not held until 8 July. Tomds de Lemos was selected to represent the Dominicans in this and in most of the subsequent debates (9 July, 22 July, etc.). The ninth occurred 30 Sept. Greg- ory's bodily strength, already reduced by illness and mental strain, gave way at the close of this debate, although the pope, contrary to custom, had permitted him to remain seated during his discourses. He was sent to Naples in the hope that his health would be restored and the debates were discontinued for a month and a half, the pope having expressed the wish that Gregory would be able to continue the defence. Only when this seemed hopeless were the public discussions resumed. Pedro Arrubal was then selected to take Valencia's place. The assertion that Gregory had tampered with certain texts of St. Augustine and had fainted when the pope charged him with it, is as myth- ical as the rumour that the Jesuits poisoned Clement VIII for fear lest he should pronounce their doctrine heretical.

Mederer, Annates Ingohtadiensis Academia (Ingolstadt, 1782); Southwell, Bibliotheca scriptorum S. J. (Rome, 1676); Eleutherius (Meyer), Historim controversiarum de Auxiliis (.\utwern, 1705): Sommervogel, Bibliotheque de la Comp. de Jisus (Brussels and Paris, 1898): Werner, Geschichte dcr kalh. Theologie seit dem Trienler Concil (.Munich, 1866); HuRTER, Nomenelator; DuHR. Geschichte dec Jesuiten in den Landem deutscher Zunge im 16. Jahrh. (Freiburg im Br., 1907).

Aug. Lehmkuhl.

Gregory the Illuminator, b. 257?; d. 337?, sur- named the Illuminator (Lusavorich), is the apostle, national saint, and patron of Armenia. He was not the first who introduced Christianity into that coun- try. The Armenians maintain that the faith was preached there by the Apostles Bartholomew and Thaddsus. Thaddaeus especially (the hero of the story of King Abgar of Edessa and the portrait of Christ) has been taken over by the Armenians, with the whole story. Abgar in their version becomes a King of Armenia; thus their land is the first of all to turn Chris- tian. It is certain that there were Christians, even bishops, in Armenia before St. Gregory. The south- ern provinces had been evangelized from SjTia, from Edessa and Nisibis especially, which accounts for the Armenian adoption of the Edessene story. A certain Meruzanes was "Bishop of the Armenians ' ' when Dionysius of Alexandria (248-205) wrote them a letter "about penitence" (Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xlvi). This earliest Church was then destroyed by the Per- sians. Ardashir I, the founder of the Sassanid dy- nasty (226), restored, even extended, the old power of Persia. Armenia, always the exposed frontier state between Rome and Persia, was overrun by Ardashir's army (IChosrov I of Armenia had taken the side of the old Arsacid dynasty); and the principle of_ uniformity in the Mazdean religion, that the Sassanids made a chief feature of their policy, was also applied to the subject kingdom. A Parthian named Anak murdered Khosrov by Ardashir's orders, w-ho then tried to exterminate the whole Armenian royal family. But a son of Ivhosrov, Trdat (Tiridates), escaped; was trained in the Roman army, and eventually came back to drive out the Persians and restore the Armenian kingdom.

In this restoration St. Gregory played an important part. He had been brought up as a Christian at Caesarea in Cappadocia. He seems to have belonged to an illustrious Armenian family. He was married and had two sons (called Aristakes and Bardanes in