minority, were accustomed to offer incense on this altar, and to touch it in taking solemn oaths (Ambr. Ep. 17, 9). It had been removed or covered up during the visit of Constantius, but was again restored under Julian, and Valentinian's policy had been against interference with such matters (Symm. l.c.). Its removal now caused great distress to the heathen party, who met in the senate-house and petitioned Gratian for its restoration. But the Christians, who had absented themselves from the curia, met privately, and sent a counter-petition through pope Damasus to Ambrose, who presented it to the emperor (Ambr. l.c.). The weight of this document enabled the advisers of Gratian to prevent his giving the heathen party a hearing. This blow was soon followed by another even more telling—the confiscation of the revenues of the temple of Victory, and the abolition of the privileges of the pontiffs and vestals, a measure extended to other heathen institutions (ib. 3–5; 18, 11 f.; Cod. Theod. xv. 10, 20).
These laws were followed by a famine in Italy, especially in Rome, which the pagans naturally ascribed to sacrilege (Symm. l.c.).
A much more serious danger was the revolt of Magnus Maximus, a former comrade of Theodosius in Britain, who was probably jealous of his honours, and was now put forward as emperor by the soldiers. [MAXIMUS (2).] This rising took place a.d. 383 in Britain, whence the usurper passed over to the mouth of the Rhine, gathering large bodies of men as he went. Gratian set out to meet him, with his two generals Balio and Merobaudes, the latter a Frank by birth. The two armies met near Paris, and Gratian was deserted by nearly all his troops (Zos. iv. 35; Ambr. in Ps. 61, 17). Only 300 horse remained faithful. With these he fled at full speed to Lyons. The governor received him with protestations of loyalty, and took a solemn oath on the Gospels not to hurt him. Gratian, deceived by his assurances, took his place in his imperial robes at a feast, during or soon after which he was basely assassinated (Aug. 25) at the age of 24, leaving no children. The traitor even denied his body burial (Ambr. l.c., and 23 f.; Marcell. sub anno).
Gratian was amiable and modest—in fact, too modest to be a good governor in these rough times. He was generous and kind-hearted, of an attractive disposition and beautiful person. His tutor Ausonius had taken pains to inspire him with tastes for rhetoric and versification. He was chaste and temperate, careful in religious conduct, and zealous for the faith. His great fault was a neglect of public business through devotion to sport, especially to shooting wild beasts with bow and arrows in his parks and preserves (Amm. l.c.; Victor, Ep. 73). He once killed a lion with a single arrow (Aus. Epig. 6); and St. Ambrose alludes to his prowess in the chase, adopting the language of David's elegy over Jonathan—"Gratiani sagitta non est reversa retro" (de Obitu Valent. 73; cf. the old Latin of II. Sam. i. 22).
The ecclesiastical policy of Gratian was more important than his civil or military government. His reign, coinciding with that of Theodosius, saw orthodox Christianity for the first time dominant throughout the empire. His measures in behalf of the church were often tainted with injustice towards the sects. But it is probable that the laws were very imperfectly carried out (see Richter, p. 327). His first general law against heretical sects is dated from Trèves, May 1, 376, and speaks of a previous law of the same kind (Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 4), which may, however, be one of Valens (and Valentinian).
In 377, shortly before the death of Valens, he condemned rebaptism, and ordered the Donatist churches to be restored to the Catholics and their private meeting-houses confiscated (Cod. Theod. xvi. 6, 2). The death of Valens was naturally the signal for the disciple of St. Ambrose to restore the Catholics of the East to their possessions. He recalled all those whom his uncle had banished, and further issued an edict of toleration for all Christian sects, except the Eunomians (extreme Arians, see Soz. vi. 26), Photinians, and Manicheans (Socr. v. 2; Soz. vii. 1). Theodoret (v. 2) appears to confuse this with the later edict of Gratian and Theodosius. On the strong representations of Idacius of Merida, the Priscillianists, an enthusiastic sect of Gnostics numerous in Spain (Sulpicius Severus, Chron. ii. 47, 6), were also excepted.
On his return from Sirmium, Gratian wrote the following affectionate and interesting autograph (Ambr. Ep. 1, 3) letter to St. Ambrose: "I desire much to enjoy the bodily presence of him whose recollection I carry with me, and with whom I am present in spirit. Therefore, hasten to me, religious priest of God, to teach me the doctrine of the true faith. Not that I am anxious for argument, or wish to know God in words rather than in spirit; but that my heart may be opened more fully to receive the abiding revelation of the divinity. For He will teach me, Whom I do not deny, Whom I confess to be my God and my Lord, not raising as an objection against His divinity that He took upon Himself a created nature like my own [non ei obiciens, quam in me video, creaturam]. I confess that I can add nothing to the glory of Christ; but I should wish to commend myself to the Father in glorifying the Son. I will not fear a grudging spirit on the part of God. I shall not suppose myself such an encomiast as to increase His divinity by my praises. In my weakness and frailty I utter what I can, not what is adequate to His divinity. I desire you to send me a copy of the same treatise, which you sent before [de Fide, i. ii.], enlarging it by a faithful dissertation on the Holy Spirit: prove that He is God by arguments of Scripture and reason. May the Deity keep you for many years, my father, and worshipper of the eternal God, Jesus Christ, Whom we worship." St. Ambrose replies, excusing his non-attendance upon the emperor, praising the expressions of his faith, and sending two fresh books of his treatise. For the new book, de Spiritu Sancto, he asks time, knowing (as he says) what a critic will read them. The subject was at this moment being largely discussed in the Eastern church.
It is assumed by De Broglie that the bishop and the emperor did not meet at this time, but St. Ambrose writes in the letter just quoted,
