Simplicius

CONCERNING SAINT SIMPLICIUS, BISHOP OF VIENNE IN GAUL.

AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FIFTH CENTURY.

Simplicius, Bishop of Vienne in Gaul (Saint)

By the Author I. B.

[1] This is a different person from Simplicius, or Simplidius, also a Bishop of Vienne, who is venerated on the eleventh of February: although by Johannes Lievraeus, chapter 16 of the Antiquities of Vienne, this Simplides and Simplicius are both used as names. But he lived a hundred years later than the other, the sixteenth Bishop of that Church according to Lievraeus and others, the fifteenth according to some. The sanctity of Simplicius, Bishop of Vienne, He himself is also considered a Saint, as Lievraeus, a Canon of Vienne, designates him without qualification. The Antiquities of Vienne published by Johannes Boscius state: The Blessed Simplicius succeeded Nicetius in the See of Vienne. And a little further on: After Saint Simplicius, Saint Mamertus was ordained Bishop of Vienne. The fact, however, that neither indicates his feast, as they do for the others, is evidence that he is not venerated even by his own Church. Nor in the Martyrology of the Blessed Ado or any other ancient Martyrology do we find his name. Andreas Saussaius inscribed it in the Gallican Martyrology on the third of the Nones of February, with this added encomium: At Vienne, Saint Simplicius, Bishop and Confessor, who, his feast: in the time of Pope Zosimus, governed that Church with wondrous sanctity, and added no less adornments of Episcopal virtues than decorations of honors to the See over which he presided, through pious vindications of sacred rights.

[2] He vindicates for himself the right of Metropolitan at the Council of Turin, Indeed, at the Synod of Turin he contended with the Bishop of Arles concerning the honor of the primacy, as is clear from canon 2; and this was determined by the Synod: that whichever of them should prove that his city was the Metropolis, he should obtain the honor of primacy over the entire province, and he should have the power of ordinations according to the precept of the Canons. This Synod is commonly believed to have been held in the year of Christ 397, under the consulship of Caesarius and Atticus, because the letters of Pope Siricius and Bishop Ambrose, of which mention is made in canon 6, not held in the year 397, are supposed to have been written to the said Synod: by what argument, we truly do not see. The words of the Synod are: If any wish to separate themselves from his (Felix, Bishop of Trier's) communion, let them be received into the fellowship of our peace, according to the letters of Bishop Ambrose of venerable memory, or of the Priest of the Roman Church, issued some time ago, which were read in the Council in the presence of the legates (of the Bishops of Gaul). But how could the letters have been issued "some time ago" if they had been recently written for the Synod? Why is Ambrose called "of venerable memory" when (as we shall show elsewhere) he did not die until the year 398? Sirmondus adds that the Synod was held after the death of Saint Martin, who was still living in September of the year 397, since Pope Zosimus in his second letter says that at that Synod Lazarus was condemned by the votes of the most weighty Bishops as a calumniator, when he had attacked the life of the innocent Bishop Briccius with false accusations: which he interprets as referring to Saint Briccius, Bishop of Tours, the successor of Saint Martin. Nor, however, can it be placed much later, nor much afterward. since the same Zosimus in that letter, given in the year 417, says that these things were done "some time ago" at the Council of Turin.

[3] It seems that Simplicius retained with impunity the right he had arrogated to himself for a long time; until Patroclus, although he had been intruded into the See of Arles while Heros, the legitimate Bishop, was still living, in the year 412, nevertheless, when the discords that Prosper attests had arisen among the Bishops of that region were quieted, vindicated the ancient right of his Church, usurped by Proculus of Marseilles and Simplicius of Vienne, but through the action of Patroclus, Bishop, with Pope Zosimus, by the judgment of Zosimus the Roman Pontiff; having therefore traveled to Rome, as is clear from Zosimus's fifth letter to Patroclus himself: What I have decided concerning the condemnation of Proculus, he says, your conscience holds, since you were present at my examination, and the authority of our proceedings is not unknown to you. As for what properly pertains to the case of Simplicius, in his third letter to the Bishops of the province of Vienne and Narbonne II, he writes thus: Nevertheless, that presumption of Proculus moved us greatly, because at the Synod of Turin, when something far different was being discussed, he thought it should be surreptitiously obtained to the injury of the Apostolic See, that the begged and obtained concession of that Council should grant him the power of ordaining Priests, that right is restored to the See of Arles, as Metropolitan, in the province of Narbonne II. And lest he alone should seem to have brought reproach upon this See by impudently requesting what was not owed, he associated Simplicius of the city of Vienne with himself: who with no dissimilar impudence demanded that the authority of creating Priests in the province of Vienne should also be permitted to him. A presumption improper and to be cut short at the very threshold -- to extort from Bishops meeting in Council for certain specific reasons what could not be conceded or altered, against the statutes of the Fathers and the reverence due to Saint Trophimus, who was the first Metropolitan of the city of Arles, sent from this See. For with us the ancient tradition lives with roots unshaken, and is confirmed. to which the decrees of the Fathers have sanctioned reverence. And since we command that the interrupted order be restored, let the Bishop of the Metropolitan city of Arles, since from Trophimus onward he possesses the series of ordination, strengthened by the passage of time, with inviolable authority in both Narbonne and Vienne. Given on the third of the Kalends of October, in the consulship of the Augustus Honorius for the eleventh time and Constantius for the second, that is, the year of Christ 417. The same points concerning the prerogative of the See of Arles he reiterates in his first letter given in the same year on the eleventh of the Kalends of April; the same in his second letter given on the tenth of the Kalends of October of the same year; likewise in the fourth given on the third of the Kalends of October; and the fifth on the same day; also the sixth, given on the third of the Nones of March of the following year.

[4] Another letter of Zosimus to Simplicius himself is cited by Boscius and Lievraeus, which reads as follows: Zosimus the Bishop to Simplicius, Archbishop of Vienne, greeting. It has been revealed to us how you prosecuted the affairs of your diocese at the Synod of Turin. And although, before your legate arrived, we had written to the Bishop of Arles that, on account of the reverence due to Saint Trophimus, he should have the right and authority over three provinces; whether this was divided by other letters of Zosimus? nevertheless, if it is as your writings sent to us contain, in the meantime, until the matter is more clearly examined, we allow the ancient authority to remain with you: so that, as was decreed by the peace-making counsel of the Synod of the most weighty Bishops at Turin, you may claim for yourself the nearer cities within the province, until the Apostolic Authority pursues the order of the matter more fully. Know that Lazarus, unduly ordained as Bishop, a false accuser of his brother, has been condemned by our judgment. Given on the day of the Kalends of October, in the consulship of Honorius for the eleventh time and Constantius.

[5] So far the letter: whether it should be considered genuine, let others judge. We shall not easily be persuaded of this. Not even Patroclus himself is addressed as Archbishop by Zosimus, nor others by Leo, Hilary, etc. it does not seem genuine. But why does he say it was "revealed" to him, when it had been done in the Synod long before? Or did he write "reported"? Namely through the legate of Simplicius, who had arrived after the letters given two days earlier. How inconsistent those things are with the customs of that Curia! Zosimus was not ignorant of the Acts of the Synod of Turin, which he had cited in his earlier letters: nor had he passed sentence against Simplicius except after carefully weighing what Simplicius wished to bring forward in support of his case -- since he writes in his third letter that he discussed Proculus's case in a full hearing; although Proculus himself, long awaited, disdainfully bearing the delays assigned to him, pretended not to appear. If the same thing happened in the examination of Simplicius's case, does it follow that he would immediately, upon hearing the legates in passing, rescind what the most wise Pontiff had decreed two days before?

[6] What, however, the Synod of Turin had recommended, and what Zosimus is said to have established in this letter, was afterward decreed by Saint Leo in his fifth letter to the Bishops of the Province (according to Sirmondus), given on the third of the Nones of May, in the consulship of the Augustus Valentinian for the seventh time and Avienus, that is, the year of Christ 450, and was afterward confirmed. For he thus terminated that controversy, concerning which mention will need to be made in the Lives of certain Bishops of both Sees: Having considered the arguments of both sides presented by the Clergy, this was done by Saint Leo I, Pope, we find that both Vienne and Arles have always been illustrious cities within your province, so that by an alternating arrangement of certain matters, now this one, now that one, has excelled in ecclesiastical privileges; although the same common right was once shown to have belonged to both from the civil records. Wherefore we do not allow the city of Vienne to be entirely without honor, as far as pertains to ecclesiastical justice, especially since it already enjoys the reception of a privilege by the authority of our decree. This power, taken from Bishop Hilary, we believed should be assigned to the Bishop of Vienne. Lest he suddenly seem to have become inferior to his former self, he shall preside over four neighboring towns, that is, Valentia, Tarantasia, Geneva, and Gratianopolis, so that with these, Vienna itself may be the fifth, and the Bishop of Vienna shall have the care of all the aforesaid Churches. But the remaining cities of the same province shall stand under the authority and ordination of the Bishop of Arles. So Saint Leo. Other changes occurred afterward, and several more Metropoles were established.

[7] Whether Simplicius acquiesced in the decree of Zosimus, or whether death overtook him while he wished to press his case further, remains unclear. He certainly does not seem to have died much later, nor much sooner. For the Pontiff would not have accused of impudence one who had long since died. Indeed, Leo I had rebuked Hilary of Arles much more sharply and punished him more severely, yet in his second letter to the Bishops of the Province, given in the year 449, calls him, already deceased, "of holy memory." Nor does it seem to have any likelihood of truth, what is asserted in the Antiquities of Vienne according to Boscius and Lievraeus, that Saint Mamertus, the successor of Simplicius, flourished in the times of Arcadius and Honorius, who seems to have survived until about the year 426. Nor can we infer that Simplicius was alive much beyond the time of Zosimus, from what is found in Gregory of Tours, book 2 of the History of the Franks, chapter 13. At Clermont, he says, after the passing of Saint Artemius, Venerandus from the Senatorial order was ordained Bishop. When did Saint Simplicius die? Moreover, what manner of Pontiff he was is attested by the Presbyter Paulinus, who says: For if you should see these Priests worthy of the Lord -- whether Exuperius at Toulouse, or Simplicius at Vienne, or Amandus at Bordeaux, or Diogenianus at Albi, or Dynamius at Angouleme, or Venerandus at Clermont, or Alethius at Cahors, or now Pegasius at Perigueux -- considered among the foremost Bishops of his age. however bad the evils of the age may be, you will surely see the most worthy guardians of the entire faith and religion. Whether this is that Paulinus the Presbyter by whom the Life of Saint Ambrose was written, as on the eighteenth of January we said appeared to us not unlikely in connection with the Life of Saint Venerandus, or some other person, certainly his contemporary, who declares that the evils of his age were tempered by the virtues of these Bishops, and implies that he knew and had seen them; he indicates nevertheless that all had died by the time he wrote, except Pegasius. Concerning Saint Exuperius, renowned in the writings of Pope Innocent I and Jerome, we shall treat on the twenty-eighth of September; concerning Saint Amandus of Bordeaux on the eighteenth of June. From this we also gather that Simplicius was reckoned among the Bishops of the most celebrated virtue.