Ingenuinus

ON ST. INGENUINUS, OR GENUINUS, BISHOP OF SABIONA, AT BRIXEN.

AROUND THE YEAR 640.

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.

Ingenuinus, or Genuinus, Bishop of Sabiona in Tyrol (St.)

By I. B.

Section I. The episcopate of St. Ingenuinus, his public veneration, his works of mercy.

[1] Sabio, or Savio, or Sabiona, was a city of Rhaetia Secunda, graced with a Bishopric, which was afterward transferred to Brixen, ten thousand paces distant. Sabio is now a small town, Bishops at Sabiona, called by very nearly its old name Saben or Seben, as Philippus Cluverius writes in Ital. Antiq. book 1, chapter 17, and Wiguleus Hundius in Metrop. Salisb. volume 1. That St. Cassian, St. Cassian who is venerated on August 13, was Bishop of Sabiona, and thence expelled, opened a school at Imola, and at last was ordered to be killed by the pens of his pupils, is a constant tradition of the Churches of Imola and Brixen. From this it follows that the faith was preached and an episcopal throne erected at Sabiona at least from the time of Diocletian; under Diocletian. for he suffered martyrdom not, as some would have it, under the reign of Julian, but at a much earlier time. After him, St. Lucanus seems to have been Bishop there, St. Lucanus, 5th century whom the Church of Belluno venerates on July 20, and records that he was Bishop of Brixen in the time of Pope Celestine I, around the year of Christ 424: in which title our Rader warns in volume 2 of his Bavaria Sancta that an anachronism must be recognized, since at that time the Bishopric was not yet at Brixen, having been transferred there from Sabiona much later.

[2] About a century after St. Lucanus, St. Ingenuinus, St. Ingenuinus around the year 600. or Genuinus, or (as some write) Geminus, still held his see at Sabiona. He is inscribed as follows on the Nones of February in the Martyrology which Bellinus of Padua emended according to the usage of the Roman Curia and published at Venice in the year 1498: "In the city of Brixen, of the holy Confessors Geminus and Albinus, Bishops, inscribed in the Martyrologies, whose life is glorious for its miracles." Molanus in his additions to Usuard and Canisius in the German Martyrology have the same; likewise, but in other words, Richard Whitford in the Salisbury Martyrology, and Maurolycus, who, however, erroneously assigns them to Brescia, as do Galesini and Felicius; and the latter calls him Germinianus, who is in fact Genuinus. The modern Roman Martyrology: "At Brixen, of the holy Bishops Genuinus and Albinus, whose life was glorious for its miracles."

[3] Bartholomew of Trent wrote the Life of St. Ingenuinus, says Baronius in his Notes to the Martyrology. Peter de Natali, book 3, chapter 85, recites that Life, praised by writers. though not entirely free from errors, and adds this concluding remark: "These things from Brother Bartholomew." Rader also treats of him in volume 3 of his Bavaria Sancta; Hundius and Christophorus Gewoldus in the cited Metropolis; Janus Pyrrhus Pincius in his work on the lives of the Bishops of Trent, book 2; Aventinus in the Annals of Bavaria, book 3; Welser in his Bavarian History, book 3; and others.

[4] Apart from the letter of the schismatic conciliabulum of Bishops held at Marano, to which Ingenuinus subscribed, we have found nothing written about him before the eighth century of the Christian era, in which Paul Winfrid, son of Warnefrid, a Deacon of Aquileia, lived. He, in book 3, chapter 32, of his work on the deeds of the Lombards, where he commemorates the third expedition of Childebert, King of the Franks in Austrasia, against the Lombards, at the instigation of the Emperor Maurice, in the year of Christ 590, the fifteenth of Childebert himself, narrates the pious deed of Ingenuinus, of which presently. Gregory of Tours treats of that expedition in the History of the Franks, book 10, where he reports both that the Franks captured certain castles and exacted oaths from them, and then, compelled by disease and famine, departed from Italy. But Paul, after other matters: "Through Piacenza the army of the Franks came all the way to Verona, when the Franks were devastating many castles in Italy, and they destroyed very many castles taken peacefully after oaths had been given, which had surrendered themselves to them, suspecting no treachery from them. The names of the castles which they destroyed in the territory of Trent are these: Tesana, Maletum, Semiana, Appianum, Fagitana, Cimbra, Vitianum, Brentonicum, Volenes, Ennemase, and two in Alsuca, and one in Verona. When all these castles had been destroyed by the Franks, all the citizens were led away captive by them." Where most of these places are situated and what they are now called, Cluverius explains in book 1 of his Ancient Italy. Paul continues: "But for the castle of Ferruge, he saves Ferruge, through the intercession of Bishops Ingenuinus of Sabiona and Agnellus of Trent, a ransom was paid, six hundred solidi for each man's head." Aimoinus of Fleury assigns a far smaller price for the captives, their inhabitants redeemed by ransom, in book 3, chapter 83, of his History of the Franks, in these words: "But for the castle of Ferruge... a ransom was paid, one solidus per head of each man, up to the sum of six hundred solidi." Aimoinus also errs in wishing this expedition to have occurred in the second year after Childebert assumed the kingdom of Burgundy. For he only received this after the death of his uncle Guntram, in the year 593. But from Gregory of Tours, Paul the Deacon, and Aimoinus himself, it is established that the King of the Lombards at that time, while the Franks were ravaging far and wide, kept himself within the city of Pavia: and this was Authari, in the year 590 who afterward sent envoys to Guntram, asking him to obtain peace for himself from Childebert. Meanwhile, as Paul says in book 3, chapter 36,

"while the envoys were lingering in Francia, King Authari at Pavia on the Nones of September died from poison, as they report." That the death of Authari when Authari, King of the Lombards, died. occurred in the year of Christ 590 is manifest from St. Gregory: for in book 1, letter 17, given in November, Indiction 9, in the first year of his ordination, he writes thus: "Since the most wicked Authari, in the Easter solemnity that was recently completed, prohibited the children of the Lombards from being baptized in the Catholic faith; for which offense the Divine Majesty destroyed him, so that he might not see another Easter solemnity." The same may be gathered from Fredegar, who writes at the thirty-first year of Guntram, which is 591 of Christ: "And in that same year Duke Ago in Italy was raised to the kingship over the Lombards." Ago, or Agilulf, assumed the royal dignity, as Paul the Deacon writes in book 3, chapter 36, when November was already beginning: but afterwards, with the Lombards assembled together, in the month of May he was raised to the kingship by all at Milan; namely in the year 591.

[5] Furthermore, the castle of Ferruge, preserved through the efforts of Ingenuinus (which our Andreas Brunner, a most accurate historian of Bavarian affairs, book 4, and Cluverius in book 1, chapter 16, of his Ancient Italy, noted before us) seems to be Verruca, a castle praised by King Theoderic in Cassiodorus, book 3 of the Variae, letter 48: "Which," the site and name of Ferruge. as he says, "received a fitting name from its position. For it is in the midst of plains a rocky mound rising in a rounded shape... Past it flows the Adige, honored among rivers, with the purity of its pleasant stream, providing a cause of both defense and beauty. A castle almost unique in the world, holding the keys of the province: which is proved to be all the more excellent because it stands opposed to fierce nations. This remarkable fortification, this wonderful security — who that could wish to dwell there would not? — whom even strangers delight to visit?" Cluverius says that Verruca is now called by some Chiusa, or la Chiusa, a castle situated on the bank of the Adige, not far from Lake Garda; by others Rovereto, or Rovere, between Chiusa and Trent on the same river: but neither is in the midst of plains. He himself judges it to be what is called from its situation Castello della Pietra, or, as the locals say, Castel della Preda, which is still anxiously guarded by a garrison of the Austrian Princes, as being situated almost on the borders of their dominion.

Section II. The schism of St. Ingenuinus in defense of the Three Chapters.

[6] Paul the Deacon narrates another deed of Ingenuinus, and turns to his praise what was not without grave fault: St. Ingenuinus defends the Three Chapters, wrongly. namely, that he most fiercely defended the Three Chapters. The cause of these, agitated with long dissensions, must be traced back further, but briefly; it has been more extensively treated by Baronius in his Annals and others.

[7] When Nestorius had been condemned at the Council of Ephesus, and it was prohibited by imperial law, as Liberatus writes in chapter 10 of his Breviarium, that anyone should dare to read or defend his books; What were these? his supporters began to circulate the writings of Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia Secunda, composed against Eunomius and Apollinaris, who asserted a single nature (in which he so taught that there are two natures in Christ that he seemed to favor the Nestorian error), and seeking to deceive the most simple, said that Nestorius had not devised novel doctrines, but had followed the teaching of the ancient Fathers. Indeed, they maliciously translated those volumes into the language of the Syrians, Armenians, and Persians. Catholics disputed among themselves over these matters. Armenian monks and others attacked Theodore, but especially Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa, concerning whose conversion we have treated on January 15 in the Life of St. Alexander the Acoemete: John, Patriarch of Antioch, and others defended him. After Rabbula's death, Ibas his successor wrote a letter to Mari the Persian, in which, greatly praising Theodore of Mopsuestia, he criticized Rabbula and St. Cyril just as though they were Nestorius. At the Council of Chalcedon, in session 10, held on the 6th before the Kalends of November, in the consulship of Marcian, the year of Christ 451, Ibas was received after he had pronounced anathema against Nestorius and Eutyches. Theodoret also, Bishop of Cyrrhus, who had previously published a pointed commentary against the twelve anathemas of St. Cyril, and had been removed from his episcopate by Dioscorus, successor of St. Cyril, at the Robber Council of Ephesus, was admitted to the Council of Chalcedon, since Pope St. Leo had already restored his episcopate, as Facundus of Hermiane shows from the Acts of the Synod, book 5, chapter 3.

[8] Nearly a hundred years after these events, at the instigation of certain monks of Palestine, with the approval of Pelagius, Deacon and Legate of the Apostolic See, in the 6th century, at the instigation of the Acephali, Origen was condemned by decree of the Emperor Justinian, to which decree the same Pelagius and Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, subscribed. Then Theodore, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, persuaded the Emperor, with whom he was on familiar terms, that in order to reconcile the Acephali with the Catholics, he should condemn those three chapters of the Council by which the doctrine of the Mopsuestene, the letter of Ibas, and the commentary of Theodoret seemed to be approved: for thus, he said, the Synod, being as it were reviewed and purged, would be received by them in all respects and in all things. But the crafty man did not aim at this; rather, that once the authority of the Synod was undermined, the victorious impiety of the Monophysites or Acephali might triumph with impunity: for Theodore of Caesarea was himself both a defender of Origen and an Acephalus, as Liberatus writes in chapter 24. Those who, asserting a single nature in Christ, obstinately attacked the Council of Chalcedon were called Acephali, as though without a head, because, divided among themselves by various errors, they followed no definite leader: whom a certain writer aptly calls a "ten-horned orchestra," alluding to their ten ringleaders, the first of whom were Eutyches and Dioscorus.

[9] Justinian seized upon the plan of restoring (as he believed) concord, and published a book in which those Three Chapters were condemned, condemned by the Emperor Justinian, and compelled Mennas and the other Patriarchs to subscribe to it. Many Catholics at first objected, including above all the Roman Pontiff himself: and by the Fifth Council, who nevertheless afterward both assented to that condemnation of the Chapters, with the reverence due to the Council of Chalcedon preserved, and received the Fifth General Council, convened at Constantinople by the Emperor in the year 553 to settle that controversy, among the ecumenical councils. at last even by the Pope:

[10] Many of the Bishops obstinately adhered to the defense of the Three Chapters: for which reason they were variously harassed by the same Emperor, defended by others even to the point of schism, as may be seen in the same Liberatus. Some remained separated from the Catholic Church by schism for a very long time, especially those of the provinces of Istria and Venetia, that is, the Aquileian province. Paul the Deacon, speaking of Pelagius II, predecessor of St. Gregory the Great, who sat from November 11, 577, to February 8, 590, writes thus in book 3, chapter 20: as by Elias of Aquileia, "This Pelagius sent to Elias, Bishop of Aquileia, who would not receive the Three Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon, a most useful letter, which Blessed Gregory, while he was still a Deacon, composed." admonished in vain: Paul errs, for Elias did not refuse to receive the Three Chapters, but refused to reject them; which Pelagius and Gregory urged him to do.

[11] When milder efforts did not succeed, the most wise Pontiff decided to use sterner measures. He therefore asked the Exarch Smaragdus to crush the contumacy of the schismatic men, at least those who lived under the Roman Empire. Elias had conveniently just died, and there was hope that his successor could more easily be induced to yield to reason. Paul narrates the event in book 3, chapter 27: whose successor Severus condemns them at Ravenna, "In these days, after Elias, Patriarch of Aquileia, had died after holding the priesthood for fifteen years, Severus succeeded him and undertook the governance of the Church. Smaragdus the Patrician, coming from Ravenna to Grado, personally dragged him out of the basilica and brought him to Ravenna with insult, together with three other Bishops from Istria, namely John of Parenzo, Severus, and Vindemius, and also Anthony, now an old man, a Defender of the Church. Threatening them with exile and subjecting them to violence, he compelled them to communicate with John, Bishop of Ravenna, who condemned the Three Chapters, who in the time of Pope Vigilius or Pelagius had departed from fellowship with the Roman Church. But after a year had passed, but having returned to Grado, he relapses into the schism, they returned from Ravenna to Grado: with whom neither the people wished to communicate, nor did the other Bishops receive them."

"Smaragdus the Patrician, not unjustly seized by a demon, receiving as his successor Romanus the Patrician, returned to Constantinople. After this, a synod of ten Bishops was held at Marano, where they received Severus, Patriarch of Aquileia, when he submitted a document retracting his error, at the insistence of Ingenuinus and other Bishops, because he had communicated at Ravenna with those who condemned the Three Chapters. The names of the Bishops who held themselves back from this schism are these: Peter of Altino, a most illustrious man, Ingenuinus of Sabiona, Agnellus of Trent, Junior of Verona, Horuntinus of Vicenza, Rusticus of Treviso, Fonteius of Feltre, Agnellus of Asolo, Laurentius of Belluno. But the following Bishops communicated with the Patriarch: Severus of Parenzo, John the Patrician, Vindemius, and John." So far Paul; in whose Leiden and Hamburg editions, Bishop Laurentius is wrongly called "of Luna" when he was of Belluno, as Bartholomew has it in Peter de Natali, who also adds Maxentius of Iulium and Hadrian of Pola. He calls Hosentius the one who is here called Horuntinus, Bishop of Vicenza.

[12] Here the error of Paul must be noted, who both wrote above that Elias of Aquileia had been admonished by Pope Pelagius to receive the Three Chapters, and here makes schismatics of those who condemned them; who are wrongly praised in this matter by Paul the Deacon when on the contrary it was all these who were schismatic at that time, refusing not only to communicate with John of Ravenna, but also to obey the Roman Pontiff and to accept the condemnation of the said Chapters. Following Paul, Bartholomew in Peter de Natali writes that Severus was compelled to communicate with John, "the heretical Archbishop of Ravenna, who despised the Roman Church." Ferrarius in his Catalogue of the Saints of Italy has the same. Thereafter the same error possessed other writers, so that they proclaimed as Catholics those who stubbornly defended the Three Chapters; and by other writers. and branded John of Ravenna with the mark of heresy, and Smaragdus the Exarch with that of impiety. And the same (remarkably) is maintained by Carolus Sigonius in book 1 on the Kingdom of Italy, an otherwise accurate writer; to pass over others of lesser note.

[13] Some indeed confess that John and Smaragdus acted out of zeal for the Catholic faith, so that Severus of Aquileia should return to favor with the Roman Church by condemning the Three Chapters; but that when he returned to his own people and relapsed into the former schism, Ingenuinus and his colleagues opposed him. Thus the Office of the Church of Brixen, approved at Rome, which Gewold cites: "There was still raging," it says, the Brixen Calendar corrected, "that unhappy schism against the Fifth Council of Constantinople, which condemned the Three Chapters of the Emperor Justinian. Which, having for many years miserably torn asunder nearly the whole Catholic Church, and having infected Severus himself, successor of Elias, Patriarch of Aquileia, and many Bishops; nevertheless Ingenuinus, together with certain few orthodox men, not only could not be induced to consent, but also laudably adorned the Synod of Marano with his presence and authority: asserting that Ingenuinus and his colleagues opposed the schism. in which the said Patriarch Severus, having retracted his error, was received back into the bosom of the Catholic Church." But these claims are clearly refuted by the letter of that pseudo-synod to the Emperor Maurice, concerning which we shall speak in the following section. Besides which, it is not correct to say that the Three Chapters of Justinian were condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council; rather, the condemnation of the Three Chapters, anticipated by Justinian, who arrogated to himself too much authority in ecclesiastical affairs, was confirmed by the Council.

Section III. The pseudo-synod at Marano in defense of the Three Chapters.

[14] At the very beginning of his pontificate, St. Gregory strove diligently to recall the Bishops of Istria and Venetia to communion with the Church, judging (as he afterward wrote to Constantius, Bishop of Milan, in book 3, letter 2) that it was just when St. Gregory summoned Severus, Archbishop of Aquileia, to Rome, that the Apostolic See should exercise its care, so that it might in all things preserve the unity of the universal Church in the minds of the Bishops. He therefore summoned Severus, Bishop of Aquileia, to Rome for a Synod in the month of November, Indiction 9, the year of Christ 590, by letters both his own and those of the Emperor Maurice. For he writes in book 1, letter 16, to Severus himself: "And indeed, as greatly as we had rejoiced that you had long since been incorporated into the unity of the Church, so much the more are we now confounded that you have been dissociated from Catholic fellowship. For which reason, upon the arrival of the bearer, in accordance with the command of the most Christian and most Serene Lord of affairs, we wish you to come with your followers to the threshold of the Blessed Apostle Peter, so that, God being the author, with a Synod assembled, judgment may be made upon the doubt that exists among you, as shall be just."

[15] The schismatics did not obey the Pontiff's command, but contrived new artifices to evade it, by summoning a pseudo-synod to Marano. Marano, which the Italians commonly now call Marano, is a town of Venetia situated on the left bank of the Gelina, or Zelina, Ingenuinus and his colleagues convene a synod at Marano, river, on an island, as Cluverius states in book 1 of his Ancient Italy, chapter 20; where he also relates that the Zelina flows through marine marshes into the mouth of the Stella river, formerly called the Anassus. Leander Albertus in his description of Friuli says that Marano is a most strongly fortified town, excelling in the number of its colonists, in wealth, and in nobility. But he labors under the common error, already refuted by us above, when he writes that under Smaragdus the Exarch ten Bishops adhering to the Roman Pontiff held a synod here, and were afterwards restored to their Sees.

[16] If Paul the Deacon narrates truly in the passage cited, those Bishops must have assembled at Marano twice: a second one on that same cause: first, when Severus, having returned from Ravenna to his own people, retracted what he had publicly professed there, and was received back into the communion of the former schism; and again after he had been cited to Rome by St. Gregory. For then, in the manner of the other schismatics, in order to escape ecclesiastical judgment, they appealed to the Emperor Maurice, submitting to him a libellus which Baronius cites in the appendix to volume 8 of his Annals at the year 590, from which libellus we have thought it well to excerpt some things here.

[17] They begin thus: "To be submitted to our most clement and most pious Lord, the Lord Maurice Tiberius, the humble ones of Venetia and of Rhaetia Secunda, Ingenuinus, Maxentius, and they write to the Emperor Maurice. Fonteius," etc. Then, having adjured him to give them a gracious hearing, they coax his goodwill with these words: "For even though our sins have for a time subjected us to a most grievous yoke, with the Lord helping us, no weight of pressures has been able to make us waver in any way from the integrity of the Catholic faith. Furthermore, we have not forgotten your holy Republic, under which we once lived in peace, and with the Lord's help we hasten to return with all our strength."

[18] Then, having narrated the cause of that controversy over the Three Chapters, they profess that they defend them, and set forth what they have therefore suffered, and what they still either suffer or fear: "And although afterward, by imperial pressure, individuals were gradually constrained one by one to consent to the condemnation of those Chapters; yet the venerable predecessors of our provinces, whom we have unworthily succeeded, having been instructed by the aforesaid teachings of Vigilius, they have always rejected the condemnation of the Three Chapters, could by no means be inclined to this. Whose example, with God's favor, we preserve, together with the entire people entrusted to us; following also in all things the definition of the holy Council of Chalcedon, we both pay reverence to the defense of those Chapters, and it is known that we abstain by Divine grace from communion with those who condemn them. And when Smaragdus the Chartulary was repeatedly distressing our father of holy memory, Elias, Archbishop of the Church of Aquileia, on account of this same cause; for which reason Archbishop Elias suffered much. with the counsel and consent of all of us he directed petitions to the pious footsteps of your Principate, supplicating that, with the mercy of God awaited, and all our fellow Bishops of our synod recalled to the power of the holy Republic, they might come into the presence of your Clemency, and that your judgment in this cause might be awaited. Which the piety of your gentleness, receiving it with clement condescension for the reward and praise of your empire, gave its command to the aforesaid glorious Smaragdus, that he should in no way presume to disturb any of the Bishops on account of the question of communion; until the Emperor himself intervened; but, with the mercy of God working, it should be waited for until, with the hostile nations subdued,

all the Bishops of the Council might come to liberty under the holy Republic. Then our aforesaid Archbishop Elias died."

[19] After a few intervening words, they continue with what pertains to Severus: "After this, when the most blessed Archbishop Severus was ordained in the holy Church of Aquileia, what insults were inflicted upon him, and with what injuries and bodily beating with sticks, and with what violence he was brought to the city of Ravenna, then his successor Severus captured for this reason, and held in custody, and by what necessities he was oppressed and crushed, could without doubt have reached the pious ears of our Lord. But we, learning that our Father and Archbishop was afflicted by such unheard-of calamities — which is known never to have been done under a Christian Prince — are wounded by the stings of incurable sorrows. For at this time we have again learned that the Reverend Pope Gregory has sent for the appearance of our same Father, now summoned to Rome: with the most sacred command of your piety, that he should be brought to the city of Rome on account of this same question of communion. Hearing which, although we were certain that such a command of our Lord had been surreptitiously obtained, especially by the shameless importunity of our adversaries, we wasted away; and crushed and wounded with the most grievous grief, we came to the point of ultimate despair, that our Metropolitan should be compelled to appear before the judgment of one with whom the very cause is known to lie, and whose communion from the beginning of this controversy until now our predecessors and we, together with all the people, have avoided."

[20] Then, having revealed the ecclesiastical authority, they ask that when the hostile nations have been conquered and Italy pacified, they may be able to render a full account of their faith and communion to the Emperor himself. [they ask for a deferral, until Italy is pacified and they can render an account of their faith to the Emperor himself:] "For," they say, "we cannot submit to the judgment of the one with whom the cause itself lies, and whose communion we avoid" — namely Gregory, the Roman Pontiff. Then unjust cunning employs its ninth weapon, perhaps the most powerful for moving the minds of secular Princes: the danger, namely, that the Archbishops of Gaul might gradually usurp jurisdiction over churches subject to the Empire, since various churches, spurning the communion of one whom they would see sharing the opinion of the Roman Pontiff on the condemnation of the Three Chapters, would resort to them, abandoning their Metropolitan of Aquileia, for the ordination of their Bishops. But it is better to hear their speech, stitched together with the worst deceits.

[21] "We submit, therefore," they say, "O pious Ruler, that at the time of our ordination, each Bishop issued at the holy See of Aquileia a written guarantee, with earnest care, concerning the faith of our ordainer: that we would keep our faith intact toward the holy Republic: which the Lord Himself knows we have faithfully kept with our whole heart and continue to preserve unceasingly up to now. [there is reason to fear, moreover, that the Archbishops of Gaul would intrude themselves into that province,] If that disturbance and coercion is not removed by your pious commands, should any of us who now seem to be alive happen to die, no one from our congregations would afterward suffer himself to come to the ordination of the Church of Aquileia: but since the Archbishops of Gaul are nearby, they will without doubt resort to their ordination: and the Metropolitan Church of Aquileia, established under your Empire, will be dissolved — the Church through which, with God's favor, it possesses churches among the nations; so that what had already begun to happen some years ago, as had been done before: and in three churches of our Council, namely the churches of Breone, Teurnia, and Augsburg, the Bishops of Gaul had established priests: and had not the disturbance of our parts been removed at that time by the command of the late Emperor Justinian of divine memory, for our sins the Priests of Gaul would have overrun nearly all the churches belonging to the Synod of Aquileia." And after a few words: "For those who seek to deceive our pious Lord otherwise have neither the judgment of God before their eyes, nor regard for the welfare of your holy Republic, nor for the reputation of your pious Empire, which they do not fear to see torn apart by the murmuring of the entire people of these regions, who clearly suspect that persecution is being directed against Christians."

[22] The subscriptions read as follows: "Ingenuinus, Bishop of the holy Church of Rhaetia Secunda, subscribed this report made by us. Ingenuinus subscribes in the first place. Maxentius, Bishop of the holy Church of Iulium, as above. Laurentius, Bishop of the holy Church of Belluno, as above. Augustus, Bishop of the holy Catholic Church of Concordia, as above. Agnellus, Bishop of the holy Church of Trent, as above. Junior, Bishop of the holy Catholic Church of Verona, as above. Fonteius, Bishop of the holy Church of Feltre, as above. Felix, Bishop of the holy Church of Treviso, as above. Horontius, Bishop of the holy Catholic Church of Venetia, as above."

[23] From the letter of Maurice to Pope St. Gregory, which Baronius likewise cites, it is evident that a threefold petition was transmitted to the Emperor by the Bishops of the Istrian provinces through certain clerics sent to him: one from the Bishops and cities held by the Lombards; another from Severus, Bishop of Aquileia, and the other Bishops who were with him; and a third from the same Severus alone. Maurice, moreover, without having conducted any more diligent examination of the truth and equity of the matter, wrote among other things to the most holy Pontiff Gregory: Maurice commands St. Gregory to desist: "Since therefore your Holiness knows the present confusion of Italian affairs, and that it is necessary to act in a manner suited to the times; we command your Holiness in no way to cause trouble to those Bishops, but to allow them to be at peace until, by the providence of God, the affairs of Italy are otherwise settled by peace, and the remaining Bishops of Istria and Venetia are again brought back to their former order." It is fitting to append the most weighty and most truthful exclamation of the most wise Cardinal Baronius: "After his custom, the Emperor, contrary to the practice of pious Emperors, does not ask but commands with arrogant pride what he strives to obtain from the Pontiff: which was an unjust command which indeed he was accustomed to do not by imperial but by tyrannical right, as will be made clear by what will be said in its proper place below." So Baronius.

[24] Gregory recalls this imperial command in book 2, letter 32, given in July, Indiction 10, that is, in the year 592, to John of Ravenna, writing thus: "Concerning the cause of the Bishops of Istria, everything that your fraternity has written to me I had already perceived to be so from the commands that came to me from the most pious Princes; insofar as I should in the meantime suspend myself from compelling them. I indeed greatly rejoice in the zeal and ardor you have shown in what you have written, and confess myself to be a debtor to you in many ways. Know, however, as St. Gregory perceived. that I will not cease to write back to our most serene Lords concerning the same matter with the greatest zeal for God and with freedom."

Section IV. Certain statements of the Synod at Marano explained.

[25] In which churches Ingenuinus and his companions complain that priests were installed by the Archbishops of Gaul, these according to Baronius are those of Bremen, Teurnia, and Augsburg. the Breonensian Church furnished with priests by the Bishops of Gaul; Bremen, situated on the Weser, a famous city of Old Saxony, is very far distant from the Aquileian province; and that region had not yet received the Christian faith at that time. We scarcely doubt that Breonensian, or Breunensian, or Brennensian should be read here. Fortunatus leads us to this, who in his letter to Gregory of Tours, prefixed to the first book of his poems, describes his journey to Gaul thus: "Setting forth from Ravenna, crossing the Po, Adige, Brenta, Piave, Livenza, and Tagliamento, hanging suspended along the Julian Alps, through mountain turns, crossing the Drava in Noricum, the Inn in the Breonensian territory, (for the Breones are dwellers along the Inn. the Lech in Bavaria, the Danube in Alemannia, the Rhine in Germany," etc. The same Fortunatus mentions the territory of the Breones near the end of book 4 of the Life of St. Martin:

"You proceed to Augsburg, which the Wertach and the Lech water; There you will venerate the bones of the holy Martyr Afra. If it is possible to take the way, and no Bavarian opposes you, Where the neighboring places of the Breones lie, proceed through the Alps, Entering where with its rapid current the Inn rolls."

And these are the Breones described by Theoderic, King of the Goths, in Cassiodorus, book 1 of the Variae, letter 11, to Servatus, Duke of Rhaetia, where he speaks thus: "Wherefore, moved by the petition of Maniarius, we address you by the present oracle: warlike, that if you truly discover that the Breones have unreasonably carried off his servants — a people accustomed to military duties who are said to oppress civil order while armed, and for this reason disdain to obey justice, since they always incline to wars of Mars, and by some means it is difficult for those who fight constantly to maintain the measure of morals," etc. Paul the Deacon in book 4, chapter 4, calls them Briones: "In the region of the Briones also," he says, "blood flowed from the clouds; and meanwhile the rivers ran like streams of gore."

[26] These same people seem moreover to be those whom Horace in book 4, Ode 14, of his Odes calls Brenni or Breuni:

"Drusus," he says, "the Genauni, a fierce race, And the swift Brenni, and the citadels who are also called Brenni, Placed upon the fearful Alps, The keen warrior overthrew."

Many call them Breuni, and say that many manuscripts read so. Lambinus also testifies that Breuci is found in some copies, or Breuni; and doubts whether Brenci, Brenni, or Breuni should be read. And indeed Ptolemy in table 5 of Europe, chapter 13, places the Breuni among the Vindelici. Strabo also in book 4: "The Vindelici," he says, "and the Norici hold for the most part the outer highlands, for the Breuci are Pannonians, together with the Breuni and Genauni, who already belong to the Illyrians." But in book 7: "The nations of the Pannonians," he says, "are the Breuci," etc. These too Ptolemy places in Lower Pannonia in table 5, chapter 16. Suetonius in his Life of Tiberius, chapter 9, writes that in the Rhaetian and Vindelician war the Alpine nations, together with the Pannonian Breuci and Dalmatians, were subdued. On which passage Laevinus Torrentius judges that in Horace Breuni should be read, as also in Pliny, book 3, chapter 20. Several editions of Horace have Brenni; likewise Florus in book 4, chapter 12.

[27] It is remarkable that Acro calls these Brenni nations of the Gauls; Porphyrio calls them Cisalpine. Pliny counts them among the Alpine nations. themselves Alpine, And manifestly Florus: "The Norici derived their courage from the Alps and snows, to which war could not ascend: but all the peoples of that quarter, Brenni, Senones, and Vindelici, he thoroughly pacified through his stepson Claudius Drusus." A trace of the name of the Brenni may be recognized in the mountain which is commonly called the Brenner, in Tyrol between the Inn and the Adige. Beatus Rhenanus in book 3 of his German Affairs says it is called the Prennerus, and by the ancients (whose testimonies he brings forward) the Pyrenaeus. the inhabitants of the Brenner mountain, I have moreover learned from a trustworthy person who had visited those places that many ruins of ancient citadels are to be seen on the various ridges of that mountain and of others, between Brixen and Innsbruck; perhaps those which Horace describes as "citadels placed upon the fearful Alps."

[28] From all of which it is evident that the Brenni, or Breones, dwelt on both sides of the Inn; not only between the Lech and the Inn, as Welser wrote in book 8 of his Vindelician Affairs. Indeed their settlements seem to have extended perhaps as far as the Adige, and beyond. Certainly in the Life of St. Corbinian on September 8, it is said that Grimoald, Prince of the Bavarians, ordered through his agents that the inhabitants of the Alps should not permit the holy man to leave the borders of Bavaria if he should ever return that way, and then it is added: extending even toward Trent) "But on his very journey proceeding to Rome, when he came to the Breones," etc., and shortly after: "When the man of God reached the castle of Trent," etc. But when his return is discussed, after Trent had been passed through, it is added: "When he had entered the castle of Mais, he was seized by the guards, just as we said far above that it had been commanded by Duke Grimoald: nor would they allow him to go further unless he promised to go to their Prince." Upon these inhabitants of the Alps, therefore, that command had been imposed by Grimoald. And indeed, as is soon added, the tomb of St. Valentine the Bishop, concerning whom we treated on January 7, was situated in that same castle, and we have related from the Bavarian Annals of our Brunner that that castle was not far from Meran in Tyrol. The Breones were therefore not far from there, or perhaps even the castle itself was among the Breones. So far concerning the Breonensian, or Brennensian, or, as wrongly written in Baronius, the Bremen Church.

[29] The second was that of Teurnia, concerning which we treated on January 8 in connection with the Life of St. Severinus, Apostle of Noricum. Eugippius reports in that Life, chapter 6, number 25, that the citizens of Teurnia, fighting with the besieging Goths in various encounters, could scarcely, having made terms of a treaty, among other things and the church of Teurnia, metropolis of Noricum; deliver to the enemy a contribution which they had already collected together and which they had delayed sending to Severinus, the servant of God. And in the following chapter, number 29, he says that Teurnia was the metropolis of Noricum, and that there the Priest Paulinus, returning from St. Severinus, was compelled to assume the principate of the highest priesthood. Pliny calls it Teurnia in book 3, chapter 24; Ptolemy writes it Teurnia. Some interpret it as the town of St. Veit in Carinthia, Cluverius as Villach on the Drava river, others differently, as we have noted at chapter 6 of the Life of St. Severinus, letter c.

[30] Concerning Augsburg, where priests are also said to have been installed by the Bishops of Gaul, there is no doubt and Augsburg of the Vindelici; that it is the metropolis of the Vindelici: for Augusta Praetoria was always attached to the Church of Milan, as the editor of the catalogue of the Bishops of Augsburg of the Vindelici has observed: who also rightly notes that this seems to have happened when Augsburg, after the Goths were defeated, fell back into the power of the Franks. When or how this occurred, Agathias narrates in book 1 of the Gothic War, where, having reported that the Alemanni were subdued and made tributaries by Theoderic, King of the Goths, he says that after his death, when war was brought against the Goths by Justinian, they drew together all their forces from every quarter to defend Italy, neglecting everything else, and adds: Thus then the nation of the Alemanni, dismissed by the Goths, at the time of Theodebert I and Theodebald, Kings of Austrasia, Theodebert received under his dominion: upon his death, his son Theodebald, together with others, likewise passed into his power. Theodebert, of whom we here speak, succeeded his father Theoderic, the son of Clovis the First, in the year of Christ 533; he himself died in the year 548; his son Theodebald in 555, as stated elsewhere. That those schismatic Bishops together with Ingenuinus complain that priests were ordained by the Gauls in the Church of Augsburg, they indicate that this occurred around that time, while the Emperor Justinian was still alive, and of the Emperor Justinian, who at last died on November 14 of the year 565, having reigned thirty-eight years and eight months. Even if, however, the Alemanni and Vindelici had not at that time been subject to the Frankish empire, Bishops could nonetheless have gone from Gaul to the Alemanni with apostolic zeal, by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, as to other nations, in order to call them away from their ancestral superstitions, which Agathias there relates, to Christ; and on that occasion could have consecrated priests at Augsburg, when perhaps no Bishop presided over that See; or could have placed priests consecrated elsewhere in various places of that diocese.

Section V. The conversion, exile, death, and translation of St. Ingenuinus.

[31] Having explained these matters, let us return to Ingenuinus, concerning whom one may ask: If he so obstinately resisted the command of the Apostolic See together with his colleagues, how is he a Saint? For that excuse which holds good elsewhere cannot be offered here — that he did not know what the judgment of the Roman Pontiff was, and thus erred through mere ignorance. He knew that all the Pontiffs from Vigilius to St. Gregory had decreed the contrary: and therefore both he and his colleagues, and their predecessors, had abstained from communion with them. St. Ingenuinus was first a schismatic: It must therefore be admitted that he did indeed err, but that he always retained the orthodox faith, and that afterward, instructed perhaps by the afflictions he endured, he was reconciled to the Catholic Church and its universal Pastor. In the offices of the Church of Brixen, the following is related concerning him: Under Autharit Flavius, King of the Lombards, who was devastating Italy, he was driven into exile: where, worn out by hardships, yet glorious in miracles, he departed to heaven on the Nones of February. Raderus relates the same in volume 3 of his Bavaria Sancta: but these accounts are refuted by the aforementioned pseudo-synod held at Marano, the second after the death of Autharit, at which Ingenuinus was present and subscribed the letter to the Emperor Maurice in the first place. Baronius places his exile at the year 638, inflicted by Rothari, King of the Lombards.

[32] The same offices of the Church of Brixen record that the city and church of Säben were restored by Ingenuinus through the generosity of Theodo III, Duke of Bavaria. whether he rebuilt Säben, Others deny that Säben, after it was destroyed by the Huns and Attila, was ever restored; but that the town of Klausen, situated at the foot of Mount Säben, succeeded it. If, however, Theodo III contributed the expense for the restoration of that church, Ingenuinus must have already withdrawn from the schism. and when? For Theodo, who had recently been joined to Christ and depended entirely on the counsels of St. Rupert, would not have deemed an enemy of the Church worthy of such favor and munificence: rather, what St. Gregory wrote to John of Ravenna in book 2, letter 32, would have occurred to him: "Concerning what you say, that alms should be sent to the burned city of Severus the schismatic, your fraternity so judges because it does not know what bribes he sends to the palace against you. Even if he were not sending them, we should have considered that mercy should first be shown to the faithful, and afterward to the enemies of the Church."

[33] It is therefore probable that Ingenuinus, especially after Queen Theodelinda — first drawn into the party of the defenders of the Three Chapters, then recalled to communion with the Catholics through the efforts of St. Gregory (as is evident from his letters to her and others) — as many others through the efforts of St. Gregory, he too yielded to the truth, since he was in other respects a good man and devoted to works of mercy, as is evident from what has been said above. Perhaps the charity of St. Gregory won him over, by which he both called back the erring to himself and embraced those who returned, as may be seen from his letters, especially book 4, letter 93, and book 5, letter 147. The former invites the Bishops Peter and Prudentius of Istria to Rome, and on the last page stipulates: "But whether divine mercy shall have moved your hearts to agree with me, or whether — God forbid — you should persist in that dissension, we shall take care, according to my promise, to allow you to return to your own places whenever you wish, without injury or molestation." In another letter, to Leo, Bishop of Fano, he writes thus: "Just as those who persist in the perverse zeal of schism (so it seems it should be read; one edition has 'schismatici,' another 'in schismaticis') are to be rebuked and detested; so those returning to the bosom of Mother Church are to be consoled and, moreover, cherished." And then he warmly commends a certain John, who, having accepted reason, was converted from the error of the Istrians to the unity of the holy Church, by the mercy of God.

[34] Ingenuinus may have experienced this same charity, whether of St. Gregory or of his successors, and of St. Rupert and Duke Theodo, if he took refuge with the latter for the rebuilding of the Church of Säben. so he too was at last converted, What Hundius writes must be corrected, however: namely that after the city and church were restored with the consent and help of Theodo III, Duke of the Bavarians, the first to be converted to the faith of Christ through St. Rupert, he was made Bishop and the second Pastor of this Church, consecrated by Elias, Patriarch of Aquileia. Elias had long since died when Theodo III was converted: if Welser, Brunner, and other most learned men have rightly arranged the chronology of Bavarian affairs, on which subject we shall treat on March 27 in the Life of St. Rupert. Nor can we agree with Aventinus, who writes that St. Ingenuinus was Bishop at the time when Amalaswintha (as he writes, who is commonly called Amalasuntha), after the death of her father Theoderic, in the year of Christ 526, governed the kingdom of the Goths in Italy on behalf of her son Athalaric.

[35] Baronius, as we have indicated above, signifies that he survived to the year 638 and beyond, then driven into exile, and that he was driven into exile at Brixen in Germany by Rothari, King of the Lombards, an Arian (who was substituted for Arioald in that year), and that he died there. But Raderus in volume 2 of his Bavaria Sancta, in the Life of St. Lucanus, and Gewold following him, deny that Brixen was a town at that time, he did not die at Brixen, or that its name existed, but that it was first enclosed with walls and obtained the name of a town under Otto III. Yet this is not easy to believe, since most learned men judge that the Brixentes, whom Pliny in book 3, chapter 20, counts among the Alpine peoples, dwelt in that region where Brixen now stands, by the river Eisack; and that these are the same whom Ptolemy in table 5 of Europe, chapter 12, calls Brixantes, although he writes that they inhabited the more northern parts of Rhaetia.

[36] But whatever the case may be regarding Brixen, or the Brixentes, Hundius writes that St. Ingenuinus died at Säben, but at Säben; and was buried in the church formerly built by St. Cassian. When the bishopric was later transferred to Brixen, the bones of the blessed Ingenuinus, Bishop and Confessor, were also translated thither: where, illustrious in miracles to this day, he rests, enrolled among the number of the Saints, then translated to Brixen, whose memory is celebrated on the same day of his death in the Church, together with his successor many centuries later, the blessed Bishop Albuinus. We shall treat of Albuinus below.

[37] Gewold cites a diploma of the Emperor Conrad II, given on the seventh day before the Ides of June in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1027, Indiction 9, in the third year of his reign, the first of his empire, in which he testifies that he handed over to the holy Church of Brixen as its own property, where a church was dedicated to him, the church constructed in honor of the Saints Cassian the Martyr and also Ingenuinus the Confessor, the county formerly entrusted to Welf, namely from that boundary which separates the diocese of Trent from that of Brixen, as far as it extends in the valley of the Inn with Klausen situated below Säben, etc. The number of the Indiction must be corrected, for in that year it was the tenth. Moreover, from that diploma the conjecture of Cluverius is confirmed, that the place called Sublavio in the Antonine Itinerary, and Sublabio in the Peutinger Table, more correctly "sub Sabione" or "sub Savione," was near Brixen, from which city Klausen is not far distant.

[38] By whom, however, the relics of St. Ingenuinus were translated to Brixen is not easy to determine from the catalogue of Hundius, who writes that St. Albuinus transferred the episcopal See from Säben to Brixen, and then attributes this to Bishop Hartwig; by whom and when was this translation made? whom, however, he erroneously says was made Bishop in the year 1038, if the diploma of the Emperor Conrad the Salic is legitimate, in which he writes that he handed over what we have described to the Church of Brixen, prompted by the petition of Hartwig, Bishop of Brixen. Galesinius mentions the translation in his Martyrology in these words: "At Brescia, of the holy Confessors Ingenuinus and Albinus: the latter was Bishop of Brescia, the former the second Bishop of Säben; whose body was translated to that city many years later by Constantine, his successor. The life of each is illustrious, with many deeds done divinely and wonderfully." Three things must be corrected here; whether he himself was the second Bishop of Säben? for his body was not translated to Brescia, which is a city of Italy, but to Brixen: nor was he the second Bishop of Säben, if what we reported at the beginning about Saints Cassian and Lucanus is true; and what Ingenuinus himself and his colleagues, in their letter to the Emperor Maurice, not indeed wisely boast — that their predecessors could never be induced to subscribe to the condemnation of the Three Chapters: they therefore had predecessors who lived in that age. And indeed, who would believe that if the See of Säben had been vacant for two or three hundred years, precisely at a time when the city was also destroyed, as they maintain, and barbarians held wide dominion in those regions, a Bishop was at last created there after so great an interval? Constantius Felicius and Maurolycus also assign Ingenuinus to Brescia; but the latter calls him Geminus, the former Geminianus.

[39] The people of Brixen deny that the translation was carried out by Constantine, or Constantius, but rather some centuries later. There is indeed in the list of the Bishops of Säben, after St. Ingenuinus, a St. Constantius, his successor Constantius and even a second St. Constantius, as Hundius writes. Welser acknowledges only one in book 5 of his Bavarian Affairs. "That place," he says (namely Säben), "had, from Cassian — whom we related was pierced by the styli of schoolboys — a good number of Bishops, is held to be a Saint, among whom Ingenuinus and Constantius were distinguished by their reputation for sanctity: of the rest only the bare names survive, and those often uncertain." Peter de Natalibus, at the place cited, says: "To this Ingenuinus, St. Constantine succeeded." Our Raderus also calls him a Saint in volume 2 of his Bavaria Sancta, and says: "Why the sacred calendar of the people of Brixen should have passed him over, yet he is not venerated, nor deign to honor him with any mention in the public rites, I cannot understand, since in the roll of the Bishops of Brixen he is called a Saint." Ferrarius likewise in his Catalogue of the Saints of Italy calls him St. Constantine, or Constantius.

[40] Since, therefore, no memorial of Constantius is made in the calendar of Brixen, we have not enrolled him on this day in our calendar, nor on this day: although Constantine Ghinius in his Birthdays of the Canonized Saints writes thus: "To this Ingenuinus succeeded St. Constantine, whose memory is also celebrated on this day: whose bodies were first translated to Brixen; afterward, however, the body of St. Genuinus was carried to Brescia, and buried together with the body of St. Albinus, likewise Bishop of Brescia." These last assertions

have already been refuted. The memorial of St. Constantius is not otherwise celebrated on this day, his deeds, except that mention is made of him in the Acts of St. Ingenuinus. Hundius relates this one thing concerning the deeds of St. Constantius: that he preached the Word of God to the people of Säben at the time when the blessed Haimeranus was preaching to the people of Regensburg. Brunner writes that the latter came into Bavaria around the year of Christ 649. We shall treat of St. Haimeranus, or Emmeram, on September 22. That the body of St. Constantius was translated to Brixen, we read nowhere except in Ghinius. and translation.