Martyrs of Milan

ON THE HOLY MARTYRS OF MILAN

NAZARIUS AND CELSUS,

AND ON THE SYNONYMOUS SAINTS OF EMBRUN,

PERHAPS OTHERS.

UNDER Nero.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Nazarius, Martyr, at Milan (St.)

Celsus, Martyr, at Milan (St.)

BY THE AUTHOR J. P.

§ I. The cult of the Milanese Martyrs among the Latins and Greeks; their eulogies.

The city of Milan, most celebrated throughout the whole world for the outstanding ornaments by which it is ennobled, the chief city of the duchy that shares its name, and the capital of all Insubria, can glory by a certain peculiar and most deserved right in these its holy Martyrs, Their memory among the Latins who are exceedingly well known among the Latins as also among the Greeks. Among the Latin calendars, the Hieronymian transcripts as edited by Florentinius commemorate them on the 19th day of June in these words: At Milan, the birthday of Saints Nazarius, Gervasius, Protasius, and Celsus the boy. And on this 28th day of July they have as follows: In Italy, in the city of Milan, of Saints Gervasius and Protasius, Nazarius and Celsus the boy. And on the 30th day of October they announce thus: At Antioch, of Januarius, Marcianus, Nazarius, Gervasius and Protasius and Celsus the boy. So as not to break the thread of the announcements which ought to be considered in this place, we defer them for the present. The Little Roman Martyrology on the said 19th day of June hands down these words: At Milan, of Gervasius and Protasius. And the commemoration of Nazarius and Celsus. It had earlier placed on the 12th of the same month: At Milan, of Nazarius and Celsus, whose discovery was on the 2nd of the Ides of June; their martyrdom on the 5th of the Kalends of August.

[2] In Ado, at the same 12th of June, these things are read: At Milan, the birthday of the holy martyrs Nazarius, and Celsus the boy. On which same day Usuard abridged the eulogy of this same Ado, which we shall shortly recite, thus: At Milan, the birthday of blessed Nazarius the martyr, whom Anolinus, amid the fury of the persecution stirred up by Nero, having long tortured and afflicted in prison, together with him the most holy boy Celsus, whom the same man had reared, ordered to be struck with the sword. Their bodies, as St. Paulinus writes, when they had lain hidden until the times of the emperors Honorius and Arcadius, blessed Ambrose discovered by the Lord's revelation. By what appearance of truth, then, does the newfangled Gallic Legendist in his historical collection of our Saints on the 28th of this month pronounce, as if from a tripod, that Usuard made no mention of St. Celsus at the 12th of June, but gave him other companions, who might be seen at that day, and whose memory he renews on the 28th of July, joining St. Celsus there as well? For our Usuard, as we have seen, most explicitly expresses St. Celsus at the 12th of June; but on the 28th of July he makes no mention of him, still less of any companions, although you will find their commemoration—that of him and of St. Nazarius—placed in the margin of the Prato codex, among the Supplements there; concerning which matter see also the observations at that day, where you will read that certain codices do indeed repeat Nazarius and Celsus at that time, but that this repetition of the same Saints is far removed from the Usuardine simplicity.

The same Legendist likewise errs when he says that Usuard at the 12th of June gives other companions to St. Nazarius himself; for the companions are not Basilides, Cirinus, and Nabor, whom we then read in him: both because they are placed under another announcement, and because, as is said in the observations, Usuard from a faulty reading transfers these Roman Martyrs to Milan. Consult our Acts at the same day. The announcement of the Roman Martyrology, abridged from Usuard, is briefer and obvious. Likewise we pass over other recent ones. Well known is the hemistich of Wandelbert which he composed on this day:

Nazarius with Celsus possesses the fifth.

[3] A eulogy is given Account must now be taken of the eulogies; of which the principal is that which the aforecited Ado excerpted from the Acts and expressed in these words: The father of blessed Nazarius was Africanus; his mother indeed Perpetua, both baptized by blessed Peter the apostle: he himself, St. Nazarius, was instructed and baptized by St. Clement. Whom Anolinus, amid the fury of the persecution which was stirred up by Nero, having long tortured and afflicted in prison, and with him the most blessed boy Celsus , whom the same man had reared, ordered to be struck with the sword. Whose bodies the Christians, having taken them by stealth, buried on the fifth of the Kalends of August outside the gate which is called Roman, in their own gardens. Now the most blessed Martyrs revealed themselves to a certain man named Ceratius, whose wife was Fortunata, and through a vision had admonished them that they were hidden on account of the fury of the persecution which the impious Nero had stirred up. And they lay hidden until the times of the emperors Honorius and Arcadius.

[4] Whom blessed Ambrose, by the Lord's revelation, discovered. from Ado; And when the tomb had been opened in which the body of St. Nazarius lay (who, when he suffered, as St. Paulinus writes, was until that very time unknown), those who were present saw the blood of the Martyr so fresh, as if it had been shed on that same day. His head too, which had been cut off by the impious, so whole and incorrupt, with the hair of the head and the beard, that it seemed at the very time when it was lifted up to have been washed and laid out in the tomb. They were also filled with so great a fragrance that it surpassed the sweetness of all aromatics. When it had been lifted up and laid on a bier, at once the holy bishop went to St. Celsus the martyr, who was placed in the same garden, to pray, and translated him to the basilica of the Apostles, which is in the Roman quarter. Now they were discovered and translated on the day before the Ides of June: but the feast is celebrated concerning the martyrdom on the fifth of the Kalends of August. Also the public and celebrated commemoration of them is frequented by the faithful peoples on the day of SS. Gervasius and Protasius, and is venerably honored.

[5] Thus far the text of Ado; which it seemed good to set forth whole, with a note on why the Saints are venerated on different days, both that some general idea of the Acts, as they are commonly circulated, might be suggested to the reader—one that will serve the following paragraphs—and that some preliminary notice might be given of the discovery and translation, concerning which more shortly; and finally that from this the reason might shine forth why our Saints are venerated on different days among the Latins: namely on the 28th of July, on which their bodies are said to have been buried; on the 12th of June, on which they were discovered and translated; and again on the 28th of July, on which the feast is celebrated, and, according to the above-mentioned announcement of the Little Roman Martyrology, also the day of martyrdom: and finally the public and celebrated commemoration of them on the occasion of SS. Gervasius and Protasius, on the 19th of June, as of companions—synchronous, as Notker, the transcriber of the Adonian eulogy, adds—which will be discussed hereafter. Certain lighter matters which Notker's text has differently we have noted in the margin of the Adonian text.

But why in the announcement from the Hieronymian transcripts as edited by Florentinius SS. Nazarius and Celsus are marked at the 30th of October, and indeed at Antioch, is wholly hidden from us; and, together with Florentinius himself in his notes, we suspect that after Marcianus and before Nazarius the word "Milan" is wanting; or that in place of the word "Marcianus" another "Milan" is to be restored. But even then there still remains a difficulty concerning the 30th of October; since among the Greeks they are venerated on the 14th of the same month, as will be made plain from what follows.

[6] For then the names of Nazarius, Gervasius, Protasius, Celsus are inscribed in the Greek Horologion of the year 1607; Their public veneration among the Greeks, but in the Horologion of the year 1601 Nazarius the Martyr alone is placed. The Menologion published by Canisius from Sirletus's translation uses these words: The birthday of the holy martyrs Nazarius, Gervasius, Prothasius, and the rest *, under the emperor Nero in the city of Rome, after the consummation of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, underwent the contest of martyrdom, etc. But in the Kalendar in Genebrard, in the Menologion of the Greeks of the emperor Basil in Ughelli, vol. 10 of the latest edition, among the anecdota edited by Ughelli, col. 275, and in the great printed Menaea of the Greeks, the said four Martyrs are joined together; which Menaea fit to them these little verses:

Τὸν Ναζάριον καὶ συνάθλους τρεῖς ἅμα Θεῷ προσῆξε Ναζαρηνῷ τὸ ξίφος. Σὺν τρισὶ Ναζάριος τμήθη δεκάτῃγε τετάρτῃ. That is: The sword brought Nazarius together with his three fellow-combatants to the Nazarene God. Nazarius with three was cut down on the fourteenth.

Nazarius together with three companions The sword joined to the Nazarene with God. Nazarius is added to three by the sword on the fourteenth.

The allusion is plain in the words "Nazarius" and "Nazarene," allusions of which kind recur more than once in the same Menaea with no great charm.

[7] and the sacred Office, But if anyone desires to see the sacred Office by which the Saints are honored there; John Peter Puricelli inserted it into his historical Nazarian Dissertation, published at Milan in the year 1656, chapter 81, furnished to him by the communication, Latin version, and observations of our Simon Wangnereck. The things that are said there in the canon composed by Joseph concerning the relics will be given below; which is found in the ninth ode: "The whole Church today, O Saints, is bathed in a certain blessing by celebrating this your solemnity"—it signifies clearly enough that their public veneration on the 14th of October was then both honorably celebrated and widely and far extended throughout the whole Eastern Church; which will be confirmed afterward from the sacred edifice restored in honor of St. Nazarius at Constantinople, and the relics brought thither.

[8] and also the eulogies: which however are not given here. Two eulogies especially concerning our Martyrs are in circulation, printed and translated from Greek into Latin; both, to speak candidly, of little value: for they cannot be of greater value than the Acts themselves from which they were abridged. And the one indeed is found in the great printed Menaea in the place assigned above; the other in the Basilian Menologion or Synaxarion, already mentioned; both rendered into Latin, since it can be read—this one in Ughelli, that one in Puricelli, in the places cited—and since certain points in the course of this Commentary will have to be excerpted from those eulogies, on the occasion both of the various attributes ascribed to our Saints, and of the Acts themselves, which in their place we shall endeavor to bring to the balance; therefore we have not thought it worth the effort to transcribe those eulogies here.

worth the price, so we have not transcribed those eulogies here.

Let us therefore pass to other matters, more suited to the plan we have set before us; and to the things which we have thus far gathered concerning the cult, let us add the propagation of that same cult in the East and West.

* Notker: "with the most blessed" etc.

* Notker: "they revealed"

* Notker adds "each"

* Notker: "however"

* perhaps "of Celsus, who"

§ II. By whom the discovery and translation were written; in what year, on what day and month they took place.

Among all the things that have been handed down to posterity concerning our holy Martyrs, the history of the discovery of the holy bodies, as also of their translation, deserves the foremost praise among the monuments of antiquity, [The author's trustworthiness, offices, and distinction from the synonymous Nolan.] extracted from Paulinus, who committed the Life of St. Ambrose to writing around the year 411; and who narrates the things which he himself had seen; being at all events present, an eyewitness, a witness and admirer of the things which he narrates.

Baronius, in the Life of St. Ambrose collected by himself (which is found before the works of that holy Doctor, printed at Cologne Agrippina in the year 1616), appends the Life composed by that Paulinus as author; and first prefaces some remarks concerning him, which we abridge for the sake of brevity. For that he was distinct from his namesake, the Nolan bishop, Baronius proves from the style and time of each, against certain persons who supposed him to have been the same. Among those, it seems to us, stood Usuard at the 12th of June, saying in his announcement concerning our Saints: Their bodies, as St. Paulinus writes, etc. As concerns his manner of life: that our Paulinus was a cleric of the Church of Milan, of a lower order, and subject to the deacon Castus; and that he was the amanuensis of Ambrose in his sacred writings, up to the latter's death—you will find noted in the same place from the Life of Ambrose, which this same Paulinus wrote; and that he was afterward made a presbyter, from St. Isidore, On Illustrious Men or ecclesiastical writers, chapter 4; but not by his manner of life a bishop, as from error he is inscribed in certain codices, Baronius observes in the same place; where much is found concerning the synonymous Paulini.

That most praised author, therefore, in that Life—published both elsewhere together with the Ambrosian works, and in Surius at the 4th of April—sets forth the matter thus, treating of the last years of the life of St. Ambrose: Nor did Theodosius the emperor, of most gentle memory, having received his sons in the Church and handed them over to the priest, remain long in this light. After whose death St. Ambrose survived nearly three years.

[10] In which time he translated the body of St. Nazarius the martyr, which was placed in a garden outside the city, The history of the discovery and translation having lifted it up, to the basilica of the Apostles, which is Roman. And we saw in the tomb, where the body of the Martyr lay (who, when he suffered, we cannot know to this present day), the blood of the Martyr so fresh, as if it had been shed on that same day. His head too so whole and incorrupt, with the hair of the head and the beard, that it seemed to us to have been, at the very time when it was lifted up, washed and laid out in the tomb. And what wonder? since the Lord promised this beforehand in the Gospel, that a hair of their head should not perish. We were also filled with so great a fragrance that it surpassed the sweetness of all aromatics. When the body of the Martyr had been lifted up and laid on a bier, we at once went with the holy priest to St. Celsus the martyr, who is placed in the same garden, to pray. Yet it was never before ascertained that he had prayed in that same place.

[11] But this was a sign of the revealed Martyr, if the holy priest should go to the place to which prayer had never before been made. it is given here from Paulinus himself. We learned nevertheless from the guardians of the place itself, that it had been handed down to them by their parents that they should not depart from that place throughout every generation and lineage of their descendants, because great treasures had been placed in that same place. And truly great treasures, which neither rust nor moth destroys, nor thieves dig up and steal: because their guardian is Christ, and their place the heavenly hall; for whom to live was Christ, and to die gain. And so, when the body of the Martyr had been translated to the basilica of the Apostles, where formerly the relics of the holy Apostles had been placed with the utmost devotion of all, while the bishop was dealing with it, a certain one of the people, filled with an unclean spirit, began to cry out that he was being tormented by Ambrose. But he, turning to him, said: Be silent, devil, for it is not Ambrose who torments you, but the faith of the Saints, and your own envy: because you see men ascend thither, whence you were cast down; for Ambrose knows not how to be puffed up. When this was said, he who was crying out fell silent, and was thrown prostrate on the ground, and no longer sent forth a voice by which he might make an outcry. Thus Paulinus:

[12] In what year this discovery and translation Whose narrative is to be elucidated by us, by satisfying certain questions which can be proposed from it. You will ask therefore, first: In what year did this discovery and translation take place? I answer, it is indeed established from the words of Paulinus that they took place after the death of Theodosius the Great; but in what determined year they took place, he left unsaid, and so it remains for us to see whether from elsewhere the individual reckoning of the time of the event can be elicited. Theodosius the emperor, of whom we here treat, departed from life on the 7th of January in the year of Christ 395 (concerning which matter one may consult Tillemont, History of the Emperors, vol. 5, article 84, and note 58 on Theodosius); but St. Ambrose is commonly placed as having died on the 4th of April in the year 397, as may be seen in Baronius at that year, and in Tillemont, Ecclesiastical Monuments, vol. 10, article 79: and thus the present event, according to what is to be said shortly concerning its day, would have to be attached to the year of Christ 395 or 396. Baronius, in the Life of St. Ambrose collected by himself, judges that this happened a little after the death of Theodosius, namely in the year 395; but this year cannot be hammered out from the words of Paulinus, and therefore we judge it rather to be supposed than posited.

[13] took place is inquired, Sigebert in his Chronicle at the year 397 says: The bodies of Nazarius and Celsus, martyrs of Milan, were discovered and lifted up by Ambrose: which reckoning of time cannot stand according to what has been said, if that discovery and lifting up took place after the 4th of April of that year; which will be discussed a little later. But it can stand, if anyone, with our Henschen in his special Exercise on the year and day of the death of St. Ambrose, in vol. 1 of April, page XXXVIII, should determine that that Prelate died in the year of Christ 398, on the 17th day of April, as the reader will there find proved at greater length; Godefroid Hermant dissenting, in his elucidations to the Life of St. Ambrose, which he published in French in the year 1679, page 24. But to reforge and settle this controversy is not the business of this place, which properly pertains to the 7th of December, on which the matter will have to be treated professedly, when St. Ambrose is found inscribed in the Roman Martyrology. Let us therefore say with Paulinus that those things took place after the death of Theodosius the Great, and in the last three years of the life of St. Ambrose.

[14] with the error of certain persons corrected. From these things it becomes plain how foolish and false are the things which the Martyrdom of SS. Nazarius etc., published by Surius at the 19th of June under the name of Metaphrastes, trivially and clumsily fabricates: When the great Theodosius had fallen upon them (he means Nazarius, Gervasius, Protasius, and Celsus)—for he was then at Milan, contending, I say, against the tyrant Maximus—when he had received portions of these sacred relics, in place of any spoils or booty, or rather in place of any arms and fortifications, he carried them into the royal city; confirmed by the miracles which he himself saw, and having obtained the Martyrs as unconquerable allies against the Scythians. As many words, so many most manifest falsehoods. Hence too the author of the Martyrdom of whatever sort in Mombritius, vol. 2, is convicted of manifest error, saying thus: God revealed their bodies during the reign of the emperor Theodosius; where he and St. Ambrose, approaching the place, etc. And these things indeed suffice as to the first question, namely in what year the discovery and translation of the bodies happened; now let us proceed to another.

[15] You will ask therefore, second: To what day is this event to be assigned, It is discussed and to what month? Difficult is the answer to this; for nothing sufficiently solid is at hand by which this question may be decided. Nevertheless, what forbids weighing the matter? The Little Roman Martyrology, as we saw above, assigns the discovery to the 2nd of the Ides of June, that is, the 12th of that month, the eulogy of Ado agreeing. The modern Roman Martyrology, at the 10th of May, in express words affixes our discovery to that day; for which Baronius then in his notations cites the tables of the Church of Milan. But another passage of the most wise Cardinal I do not sufficiently reconcile with this: for in his notations to this present 28th day of July he says that some mark our Martyrs at the day before the Ides of June: on which day indeed, he says, the solemn day of the discovery of the relics through St. Ambrose was celebrated. Among us, in the "Passed Over" at the said 10th day of May, it is reported that this discovery is celebrated with a solemn office among the Milanese.

[16] But if you try to reconcile the most wise Cardinal with himself, on what day and month: by saying that in the former place he treats of the cult of the discovery only among the Milanese, whose tables he cites; but in the second, of the cult of the discovery as it was marked in other places; we reply, that not even thus does it appear to us how these things sufficiently rightly subsist: for Usuard notes nothing at the 10th of May; Usuard, I say, the genuine one, whose Martyrology has been edited by us: although Molanus's second edition then places among the additions: At Milan, the translation of the body of blessed Nazarius, to the basilica of the Apostles; which words, while Puricelli in chapter 48 sets them forth as Usuardine, he sufficiently betrays that he transcribed them either from Molanus, or from another augmented or interpolated exemplar, not distinguishing Usuard well enough from the supplements added to Usuard. The same author, treating in the same place of the day and month on which especially the body of St. Nazarius was discovered and translated, says that this celebration is honored by the Church of Milan up to the present on the 10th of May. And this translation is noted on that day in the Milanese Ambrosian Missal, which was printed in the year 1522.

[17] But it is not here asked what is done nowadays, but what was done in the most ancient bygone ages among the Milanese concerning the day and month here disputed; which cannot be determined from the present cult among the Milanese, whence a sufficient argument might be furnished that on the 10th of May at that time this discovery or translation was celebrated among the Milanese, and therefore that on that day it was accomplished by St. Ambrose. But on the contrary, so far is it from being able to be proved from antiquity that it was then accomplished, that we suspect, not without foundation, that it was not accomplished then at all: for in Mabillon

was not accomplished at all: for in Mabillon's Italian Museum, vol. 1, page 107, there is mentioned, from the Ambrosian library, one of the older codices of that rite, which is entitled Antiphonary for all the festivities of the annual cycle of the Church of Milan; to which codex Tillemont, Ecclesiastical Monuments, vol. 2, page 85, toward the end of the historical collection concerning our Saints, after Mabillon, page 109, attributes an age of at least 500 years; there is mentioned, I say, that codex in whose text, which is appended, no jot is found concerning the discovery or translation here at issue in the month, still less on the 10th day of May—none in the month of June; none likewise in the month of July, except that then only there is placed at the 28th "of Nazarius and Celsus." But the silence of that codex proves too much, as we shall say below, and therefore proves nothing.

[18] Therefore, since that cult which is now practiced among the Milanese on the 10th of May is proved to us by no sufficient testimony of antiquity, as if the discovery had taken place on the 10th of May: that it was once celebrated there on that day, we certainly do not conceive by what means from this present cult one might legitimately infer the primeval and true discovery and translation, as if they had been made on the 10th of May by St. Ambrose; which, since they are so ancient, ought to be proved by a document accommodated to so great an antiquity. We meanwhile, relying on the testimonies of the Little Roman Martyrology and of Ado, think that that discovery and translation were truly made by St. Ambrose on the 12th of June; especially because the Little Roman most explicitly distinguishes the day of discovery from the day of martyrdom. There is added to this, that in the Martyrology in Puricelli, written, as he himself says, in a fairly ancient character, at the second of the Ides of June there is read: "At Milan, the festivity of Nazarius and Celsus, martyrs; when the same blessed Martyrs were discovered and translated by blessed Ambrose." Puricelli indeed is compelled to admit that this discovery and translation was celebrated on the 12th of June every year by the Roman Church: but he does not therefore concede that it judged this to have been accomplished then by St. Ambrose; and he says that Ado erred. But why, pray, did Ado err; why did the Little Roman err; why does it assign to the translation the 12th of June, if it did not believe that it took place then? Nay rather, why did it rather not believe that it took place then, when it then marked it? Why, finally, did the Roman Church once celebrate this discovery and translation on the 12th of June, if they did not take place then?

[19] which more probably took place on the 12th of June. For another cause, says Puricelli, which seemed to it sufficiently congruous and convenient; just as it has also sometimes pleased and still pleases our Ambrosian Church, as he adds, that the celebration of some Saint be transferred from its proper day to another. Thus he, in order to extricate himself from these entanglements, obtruding the very thing that is in question, and fearing lest from the dissonance of the Little or ancient Roman with the modern one he might impute error to the Church. But what sin would he have committed, if he had said that the true day of the discovery and translation is noted in the Little Roman; which the reformers of the modern Roman Martyrology perhaps changed to the 10th of May, because in this they wished to conform themselves to the Milanese, among whom it is now practiced? Certainly in the words of Baronius cited above we have, universally and without any restriction to the Roman Church, that on the 12th of June the solemn day of the relics discovered by St. Ambrose was celebrated. But the argument which Puricelli chose to draw from the fact that the celebration of some Saint etc. favors us here, and fights against him. He says indeed that the 10th day of May was destined to that same celebration by the Church of Milan from a most ancient and continuous tradition; but such a tradition is merely asserted by him alone, not proved. And it would certainly be a wonder if the author of the Little Roman and Ado had either placed a day different from the true and genuine one, or had been ignorant of the true one. The Antiphon, ancient, as it was called above, by its silence is equally a hindrance to Puricelli as to us: nay rather it proves too much: for since it marks no day of discovery and translation, it would follow thence that there was none. But since this argument is negative, whereas that of the Little Roman and of Ado for our opinion is positive, we think it far more probable that they took place on the 12th of June; until the learned Milanese instruct us better from suitable documents.

§ III. Reply is made to various other questions proposed concerning the translation of the bodies.

To the two preceding questions some others can be added, concerning various matters that regard the translation of the bodies of SS. Nazarius and Celsus. That there was not translated You will ask therefore, third: Were both these bodies translated by St. Ambrose to the basilica of the Apostles, or only the body of St. Nazarius alone? I answer, that this is not inaptly or idly asked; the handle of the proposed question being furnished from the words of Paulinus, who elsewhere clearly enough, but here ambiguously and obscurely, expresses his mind: for, having set forth the discovery of each Martyr, he intimates most briefly that the translation followed, saying: And so, when the body of the Martyr had been translated to the basilica of the Apostles; the body of one, and of which, or of both Martyrs? Of both, according to Baronius in the Life of St. Ambrose collected by himself, where he affirms it: but Puricelli in chapter 154 denies it, who wishes only the body of Nazarius to have been translated thither: which indeed he there asserts only in passing, having earlier tried to prove this at greater length in chapter 48; where he judges the text of Paulinus to favor him; with the Church of Milan agreeing, as he wishes, which celebrates the translation of Nazarius alone every year, no mention being made of the translated St. Celsus, whom, as he adds, it expressly excludes even in the third matins lesson.

[21] There is added to this, that (as Puricelli goes on) the college of the provost and canons of the Nazarian basilica to the basilica of the Apostles never numbered the body of St. Celsus among the relics of their basilica, nor venerated him as their own and resident Saint; such as, conversely, the Celsian basilica has hitherto venerated him, constructed, as he reports, on that site of the garden in which Celsus had at last lain. Lastly, finally, he confirms his opinion by the testimony of the writer of the Life of SS. Nazarius and Celsus in Mombritius; but an author so inept and miserably fabulous that he in no way deserves to be cited. We have already given a small specimen above, being about to meet with him elsewhere at greater length. But in chapter 97, from an ancient Kalendar, as he calls it, he touches the present controversy again, and pronounces again for the translation of St. Nazarius alone to the basilica of the Apostles, but using mere conjecture, which can in no way carry the matter; by no means to be settled even by the testimonies of writers, unless their authority and age were so great that they might seem in some measure at least accommodated to the point which we are now investigating.

[22] Equally, nothing is accomplished from the translation of St. Nazarius alone among the Milanese, the body of St. Nazarius alone; the third matins lesson etc., which Puricelli heaps up for his opinion: for since these argumentations are merely negative, and the matter is otherwise not positively proved by him, he will pardon us if we do not continually stand on his side; to whom it appears more probable that the body of each of our Saints was translated by St. Ambrose into the Ambrosian basilica. And this we think can be elicited from the words of Paulinus, which, as we saw, Puricelli wishes to favor him: for since Paulinus had first spoken both of St. Nazarius and of St. Celsus before he touched the translation; what was done with the other body, if by the phrase "of the Martyr" he did not wish both holy Martyrs to be understood? But if you contend that he spoke of one only, tell me, pray, why he is to be understood of St. Nazarius alone, and not rather of St. Celsus; especially because he had named the latter in the last place. For the ordinary context of speech is wont to require that when some appellative noun, such as here is "of the Martyr," takes the place of some proper noun, it should affect that proper noun which precedes it last and most immediately, not that which precedes it next-to-last and mediately. And so the proper and natural sense, regarding at all events the force of the words, designates St. Celsus: although Paulinus seems to have wished or at least to have been obliged to understand St. Nazarius also: he certainly neither wished nor was able to exclude him from this translation: concerning which it is altogether established from the Christian Monuments or Epigrams in Janus Gruter, in the work whose title is Corpus of Roman Inscriptions etc., page 1167.

[23] concerning which it is established from Ambrose; For there the verses of Ambrose himself are produced, which sound thus:

Ambrose built the temple, and dedicated it to the Lord By the apostolic name, by gift, by relics. The temple is in the form of a cross, the temple the victory of Christ: The sacred triumphal image marks the place. At the head of the temple is Nazarius of nurturing life, And the ground made sublime by the Martyr's remains. Where the cross has raised aloft the consecrated head with orb reflected, This is the head of the temple and the home for Nazarius. He who cherishes eternal rest, conquered by piety, For whom the cross was a palm, the cross is also a bosom.

These things are found there; whence also we learn in what part of the aforesaid temple the body of St. Nazarius was placed by that great prelate of the Milanese. But let us return to the often-mentioned translation of St. Celsus.

[24] but of St. Celsus himself also, is to us more probable. Ado in his eulogy, which we gave above at number 4, in most explicit words favors our opinion: for having spoken of the body of St. Nazarius etc., he at once subjoins: When it had been lifted up and laid on a bier, at once the holy bishop Ambrose went to St. Celsus the martyr, and translated him to the basilica of the Apostles… Now they were discovered and translated etc. What clearer thing could the Prelate of Vienne declare for our purpose? For indeed, whether he found in the Pauline exemplar of the history of the discovery and translation the word "of each" added to the phrase "of the Martyr" (which we indicated above is read in the text of Notker), or drew this from elsewhere; or whether, considering the text of Paulinus, he judged that its sense required this; it is plainly clear that he was of this opinion, that each of our Martyrs was together discovered, together lifted up, together translated to the Basilica of the Apostles: which hitherto appears to us also more probable. To the body of each Saint Tillemont also referred the said translation, vol. 2 of Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 88. From what has been said it follows that the things collapse which the author in Mombritius obtrudes in a truly pseudographic Life; as if forsooth St. Ambrose left St. Celsus covered over in the place in which he had been placed. And let these things be said concerning question 3.

[25] It is asserted somewhere that a booklet was found by the bodies; But now you will ask, fourth: When St. Ambrose found these bodies of the Saints (the words are Puricelli's in the same chapter 48), whether at the same time also a booklet

he found some booklet at their heads, in which their contest was described; just as at chapter 20, number 3, we saw St. Syrus admonish that it be placed, and just as we read that it had already been placed at chapter 19, number 4. "Such a doubt at all events," he says, "Paulinus himself injected into me by these words concerning Nazarius: 'Who, when he suffered, we cannot know to this day.' For if any booklet of that kind and subject had been found at the time when the bodies were discovered, it would certainly have been most well known also to Paulinus himself, who was then present and diligently inspecting everything; and from it that time of the Nazarian contest and martyrdom would easily have become known to him as well." Thus Puricelli, better objecting to himself the difficulties of the present point than resolving them; as becomes clear from what he subjoins in these words: "But not even such a conjecture abrogates for me the faith in those things which I recited at chapter 19, at the end of number 4. For there such a writing of the contest 'hidden away at their heads' (of which, namely, two copies had been made, as one may interpret, and one had been hidden separately near the head of each of them) was expressly affirmed to have remained hidden 'until the day of their revelation.' It follows therefore," etc.

[26] Now let us reply to the question concerning the booklet placed at the heads of the Martyrs, but because that assertion rests on apocryphal testimony, and found by St. Ambrose, in which their contest was described. We say therefore that this booklet is wholly apocryphal, spurious, and fabulous; which had been obtruded upon us by Puricelli at chapter 19, number 4, and which he cited just now above, from the testimony of the wretched little biographer in Mombritius; whose ill-timed trifling little-historian's nonsense, because Puricelli did not regard it clearly enough as he ought, was the cause why he attributes so much to dreams born in the brain of that or another such little manikin: but how far this is beyond what is fair and good will become clear elsewhere. But as for the catalogue of writers which he appends for confirmation and cites there, Puricelli, number 5, namely of the Greek author in Surius, of Vincent of Beauvais, of Jacobus de Voragine, of Peter de Natalibus, and of St. Antoninus—what even the least bit of weight can it reconcile with an event that supposedly happened (if it please the powers above) in the time of Nero, at an interval of so many centuries distant from their times?

[27] How much better, then, would Puricelli have done, if, weighing the force of the argument with Paulinus silent on this matter, it is rejected by us which he had objected to himself from the silence of Paulinus, and which, wrongly disparaging the word, he calls a conjecture, he had blown away that imaginary booklet, resting on the mere shadowy authority of a fabulist of no credit. And that the strength of the argument drawn from Paulinus may be perceived, let the reader combine these two things, if he can, so that they fitly cohere with each other. "We saw," says Paulinus, "in the tomb, where the body lay, the blood of the Martyr," with the marvelous accompaniments which he narrates. To these, "the head too so whole… with the hair of the head and the beard," etc. Paulinus saw, inspected, examined, and contemplated these things; meanwhile there was placed at their heads a booklet, as is narrated in Mombritius, nay a double one, if we believe the above interpretation of Puricelli; which St. Ambrose is supposed to have found, and in which the contest of the Martyrs was described: and yet of that marvelous booklet Paulinus makes no mention, so ignorant of all the things that pertained to the passion of St. Nazarius that, when he suffered, he candidly professes that he cannot know to this present day. Believe it, posterity, and combine these things with the pretended booklet. The circumstances in which that booklet is said to have first been placed at the heads of the Martyrs can be discussed elsewhere below. Now let us examine certain other things which are narrated to have happened in the translation of St. Nazarius.

[28] Puricelli, page 254, writes that he contracted, as it were into one, three lessons held for that translation in the codex of Carolus Andreas Septalius; from which, cutting away the rest, we excerpt these points. "Nazarius, before the translation, was laid away at the Three Mulberries in a garden… But when the frogs were croaking beyond the Three Mulberries, Three other things which they wish to pertain here are proposed. by the command of the holy Father, that they should croak no further, until this day they have not been heard there. But when they had come before the gate of the basilica of the Apostles, the body of blessed Nazarius could never be brought in. Then blessed Ambrose, understanding that these things happened out of reverence for the Apostles, brought it in from the rear part of the basilica, and there it was reverently laid away." Three things, therefore, from that codex of whatever sort (whose antiquity, until it be proved to us sufficiently suitable, will not be of great authority with us, taught by experience not to trust exemplars of this kind); three things, I say, from that codex are proposed to us which pertain here. 1. The place of the first burial of St. Nazarius. 2. The silence imposed by St. Ambrose on the croaking of the frogs. 3. The body of St. Nazarius divinely prohibited from entering by the gate of the basilica of the Apostles. Let us say something about each in the paragraph immediately following.

§ IV. The places of burial and translation; two miracles, as they wish.

The surname of the place in which the Martyrs were buried is disapproved; You will ask therefore, fifth, on what truth the surname of the first burial of St. Nazarius rests, namely "at the Three Mulberries," whether the place of that burial is thought to be so called from three trees of that kind, near which the Saint was laid in the earth; or whether that place did not have that name before, but that part of the garden then began to be observed and marked by a name, when so precious a treasure had been brought thither: however those who wish this may have taken the matter, we judge that it rests on no foundation, drawn at all events from the filthy sewer of the Acts in Mombritius, or at least from a little-historian of this kind who drew his filth thence. For indeed those Acts have it thus: "Anolinus ordered them to be led outside the city, outside the Roman gate, to the place which is called Three Mulberries," etc. Let us therefore acquiesce in the words of Paulinus, from which we have that the body of each Martyr was placed in a garden outside the city etc., adding nothing which is not better proved. But let these few things said concerning a matter of lighter moment suffice, which therefore ought not to detain us longer. But whoever is not satisfied by these, let him consult Puricelli from page 259; where he hands down that this place was in the suburb of the Roman gate; that Carolus a Basilica Petri confounded this garden with the garden of Philip, situated, he says, beyond doubt outside the old Vercelline gate, where now stands the Franciscan basilica, which was formerly called of SS. Nabor and Felix, and in which he says the bodies of SS. Protasius and Gervasius were divinely discovered by St. Ambrose; he likewise then adds some things concerning the etymology of the aforesaid place, Three Mori, or Muri, or Mauri? Concerning which matter he subjoins his conjecture. But the other two points, touched by us above, deserve a little more attention: for they contain two miracles, which are thought to have happened in the translation of St. Nazarius.

[30] as also the miracle which is said to have been done in the translation, Landulph the elder, concerning whom more below, in book 3 of the Milanese history, chapter 7, says: "In which translation, since St. Ambrose was living, what we have learned * he did at the command of the holy priest Ambrose, over the noisy frogs"—reader, understand St. Augustine to be the witness affirming: "When very many murmurs of frogs were making a din in the ears of the religious people, the Priest commanded that they be silent, and show reverence to the sacred prayer. Then suddenly the din poured around them grew quiet, and to this day the marshes are silent: so that you would scarcely or ever have found any of the frogs, especially at that time, croaking." Thus he in the Milanese edition of the writers of Italy most recently printed, vol. 4, page 100, whose faulty text in one place we have corrected in the margin from Puricelli, page 255; where he also indicates that in his manuscript exemplar, which he had, opposite these words in the margin there had been noted in red character: "The miracle of blessed Ambrose, which Augustine recounts."

[31] narrated by Landulph as author; But who would not wonder that such things are said so confidently, as if from a tripod, by that Landulph, an author of slippery faith, and that these things indeed are said from Augustine himself? Yet in very truth, says Puricelli, Augustine recounts nothing of the sort, at least among his works which are now in circulation; and rightly does Puricelli disallow them to Augustine, until some passage be produced from his works whence this event may be established: of which, because Landulph cites none, nor could cite any, and because otherwise he is convicted of many falsehoods, and therefore no credit is due to him here, we judge that we would be abusing our time if we should expend our labor in discussing the lucubrations of this holy Father on the present subject; especially since Paulinus makes no mention at all of it, who ought to have known it far better and more certainly, as an eye- and ear-witness, than Augustine; nor would he have omitted to commit to writing so marvelous a matter. Better, I say, and more certainly ought Paulinus, the author of the Life of St. Ambrose, to have known whatever there is of this history, than St. Augustine, since it was at the latter's exhortation that he composed it, beginning thus: "You exhort me, venerable father Augustine," etc.

[32] Puricelli further judges, page 255, that Landulph, slipping in memory, substituted Augustine for Ambrose himself; [which is wrongly elicited elsewhere from St. Ambrose, who speaks in the person of Pope Liberius.] where he adds many things, which we compress into a summary. He there sets forth a codex of the Metropolitan chapter (understand of Milan) in which this is found: "These are the words of blessed Ambrose in book 3 On Virginity to St. Marcellina his sister: 'It is a frequent saying that, when very many murmurs of frogs were making a din in the ears of the religious people, the priest of God commanded that they be silent,'" etc. And then most ineptly it follows: "It was St. Ambrose himself who, when the body of St. Nazarius was being carried… to his church, imposed silence on the croaking frogs": for St. Ambrose there speaks not in his own person, but in the borrowed person of Pope Liberius; which you will find afterward proved at length in Puricelli: and it appears most clearly from the whole context of St. Ambrose. At length, therefore, Puricelli, concluding this history of the frogs, says rightly indeed that it contains a miracle wrought many years before St. Ambrose translated the sacred body of Nazarius with solemn pomp to the basilica of the Apostles; but less rightly and less solidly he then adds: "So likewise we shall say that a similar miracle was afterward wrought by Ambrose, at the time when he was translating that very body." Puricelli will indeed say this, and perhaps many others will say it, who believe that what they wish is true; but they do not prove it.

[33] Certainly Puricelli in no way confirms this miracle, when he next asks: "For does anything conflict with it, that God through Ambrose renewed a miracle of that kind, which formerly, through that unnamed priest suggested by Pope Liberius,

he had wrought, as suggested by Pope Liberius? [Puricelli does not prove that miracle: another one also related by him we do not admit.] For thence only follows that that miracle could then have happened under St. Ambrose: which no one of sound mind would deny; but not that it actually happened; and therefore we do not dare to give it a place among miracles historically certain, because we think it apocryphal; since Paulinus says nothing of it, the present inspector of all things; whereas he nevertheless clearly treats of the outcry of the demoniac, a miracle indeed of a lower stamp than that of which we have here treated. And so neither the Septalian codex, of which above, nor the Metropolitan of Milan makes any credit here, nor deserves any: and this it appears to us must be said with equal right concerning another miracle excerpted by Puricelli from the same Septalian codex, as we said above: namely that, when they had come before the gate of the Basilica of the Apostles, the body of blessed Nazarius could never be brought in, etc. For neither was the praised Paulinus blind or dumb, that he should have written nothing of the sort.

[34] It is investigated in what place in the basilica of the Apostles But in what place of the said basilica St. Ambrose laid that sacred body, let us examine: concerning which matter it will help to hear Puricelli discoursing thus, page 252: "The body of Nazarius having been translated into the basilica of the Apostles, there ought to be no doubt that Ambrose laid it there under the altar, just as he had laid the relics of other Martyrs, formerly discovered by him, elsewhere in other places. What more? that he also composed an epigram in honor of the same basilica and of the Martyr (which we gave above at number 23) and from it it plainly appears that the body of Nazarius was placed at the head of the basilica. But a little more clearly still this same thing was indicated to us by Carolus a Basilica Petri, at last bishop of Novara. For he, when he was an ordinary canon of this metropolitan basilica of Milan, together with the holy Cardinal and archbishop Charles Borromeo had been present, and had diligently inspected everything, in the year 1578, when the sacred relics of that temple were examined, and namely the body of Nazarius. And so in the Life of the same St. Charles, book 5, chapter 6, he first enumerated the relics found under the principal altar, which was then in the middle of the church; and together with them he also counted the relics of the Apostles, from which this basilica obtained its first appellation.

[35] the body of St. Nazarius was deposited by St. Ambrose. But from the words which the same most illustrious bishop of Novara has in the cited place, and which Puricelli cites, we cull these things, which especially make for the present matter: "Under another likewise principal altar," he says, "set up at the head of the church… we found the relics of the most celebrated martyr Nazarius, whence the church received its present name." And since he adds a little after: "For we could not conjecture that the body had been moved from that time in which Ambrose laid it"; therefore it is to us very probable that the body of St. Nazarius remained in that same fixed and determined place in which St. Ambrose had first placed it in the basilica of the Apostles, and which has now been sufficiently indicated by us. But afterward St. Charles Borromeo translated that sacred pledge elsewhere together with other relics; as will be said afterward. And these things indeed concerning the place of the basilica of the Apostles, which the sacred remains of St. Nazarius first ennobled, are plain enough; but not those which we shall now here inquire concerning the primeval deposition of St. Celsus.

[36] Concerning the primeval place in which the body of St. Celsus We have already said that the body of St. Celsus was more probably translated together with the body of St. Nazarius by St. Ambrose to the basilica of the Apostles: but now it is incumbent on us to investigate whether there, or elsewhere, and where, it was deposited. Puricelli, page 258, who thinks that it was left and covered over in the same part of the garden in which it had been found, likewise now says that he doubts nothing but that an altar was straightway built over it too, and also that a church was as soon as possible constructed there in honor of the Saint himself. But these things are uncertain enough, and almost conjectural, as his own words also sufficiently intimate. Little strength too can be added to these from the Milanese history of Carolus a Basilica S. Petri, which embraces the Lives of the eleven first Prelates of this city, where in the life of Caius, third in order with him, he has these things: "Of the boy Celsus, nothing in Paulinus (which is true, if you understand it of the deposition or burial), who perhaps also from the beginning obtained a different burial; so that Ambrose could not dig up his body at the same time. His relics, laid away under the high altar in the church dedicated in his name, are venerated among us; of whose translation there is a memory about fifty-five years ago."

[37] Which words having been brought forward, Puricelli, playing rather the interpreter than the asserter, and heaping words upon words rather than confirming his own point, remained after the discovery, nothing certain is handed down. says: "Celsus therefore, at last buried there, and there afterward left by Ambrose, I INTERPRET." But in matters so ancient, by the interpretation of some junior author nothing whatever is proved. Since therefore all the traces of antiquity here are so obscure and obsolete, we are compelled to confess ingenuously that it is wholly unascertained to us what became of the body of St. Celsus; whether, namely, after St. Ambrose had translated it together with the body of St. Nazarius to the basilica of the Apostles, it was afterward carried back by Ambrose himself to the former place of burial; or whether it was kept in that basilica until after his death, and then transported thence by another; and if this happened thus, by whom and when it was done, is wholly hidden from us. This is not hidden, that the holy Martyr has his own church at Milan; that in that church are his sacred remains under the high altar; that finally that sacred deposit was translated many centuries after the first discovery: concerning which translation, as also concerning the church, account will be taken below. Perhaps equally uncertain is the tradition which we subjoin on the credit of him who narrates it.

[38] But it is a constant tradition, on the testimony of Puricelli, [It is said that a pillar was erected by St. Ambrose in the garden in which the bodies were found:] that Ambrose indeed, for the perpetual memory of that garden in which he had found Nazarius and Celsus, ordered a small pillar, or a somewhat high wall, to be erected in it; and that an image of the Virgin Mother of God was painted on it—that image which, at length illustrated by various miracles and by benefits toward its worshipers, gave occasion for constructing that most ornate church which is now called of the Mother of God at St. Celsus (it is beside and near his church); and in which the image and the pillar itself, unmoved in the foremost place, stand under the altar of the same Mother of God, and are seen through a little window open in the front part of the altar. And besides that pillar, there was also constructed separately within the space of the same garden a church which was called of St. Nazarius in the Field (which he mentioned at chapter 36).

[39] Wherefore it is then also clear enough that a Nazarian church of that kind was there built up in memory and indication of the place where also the churches of St. Nazarius. in which the body of Nazarius had rested entombed up to that very time in which at last it was found. "But from the field rather than from the garden, I think," he says, "they gave that Nazarian church its name, so as to distinguish it more expressly from the other Nazarian church in the Brolo, which obtained such a name for itself from the body of Nazarius translated to itself: for Brolium and garden were synonymous among our Milanese, as is established from what we have already said concerning the Brolo at chapter 37, number 7." And at chapter 36, number 5, he enumerates four churches which bore the name of St. Nazarius or Celsus; where he says it can be asked concerning the fourth, whether it existed in the time of Mirocles, who was a prelate of Milan. But many other things, and those more suited to our design, do not permit us to mingle ourselves too much in these incidental little controversies. Meanwhile, before we leave Milan, it will not be amiss to note some things which have a certain affinity with the sacred buildings of our Saints there.

§ V. The churches sacred to the Saints among the Milanese.

[Various notices are furnished concerning the basilica of St. Nazarius among the Milanese; enclosed within the city in the 12th century,] For a fuller notice, therefore, of these sacred buildings, the things which Puricelli diligently and laboriously collected for our purpose will be of great help to us. But some of them we shall indicate only in passing; others we shall deduce at greater length, as the greater or lesser congruity of the things to be known dictates that it be done. Concerning the basilica of the Apostles, then, built by St. Ambrose, of which frequent mention now recurs among us, he treats at chapter 37, where he treats of the time in which it was built; of its changed surname to "Nazarian"; of its situation; likewise of various Saints buried there, whose names I do not transcribe, chapters 59, 61, 63, and 64; of a most ancient fire, whether it is to be ascribed to this church, chapter 67; of certain goods bequeathed in favor of that basilica in the year of Christ 1052 by Petribertus, official, as he is called, of the church of St. John… Itolanus, chapter 88; of the fire which in the year of Christ 1075 consumed that church of St. Nazarius, chapter 93; of the officials of the same church, chapter 100. Nor indeed do we think it worth the effort to expound here from the egg on what occasion, at the time of the twelfth century, the Nazarian basilica was enclosed within the new walls of the enlarged city of Milan; since concerning these things Puricelli can be consulted, chapter 105.

[41] [the other of St. Celsus, and of St. Nazarius in the Field remain excluded thence until about the year 1550: whence the error of Galesinius] There, besides, it is said that the Celsian basilica, and likewise the other of St. Nazarius in the Field, remained outside the walls of the city until about the year 1550, about which year the present and far more ample walls began to be built anew by Ferdinand Gonzaga, governor of the Milanese dominion. "Hence," says Puricelli, "let me be permitted to conjecture the occasion on which Galesinius strayed from the truth, when in the matins of our Ambrosian breviary, printed in the year 1582, in the Lesson concerning SS. Nazarius and Celsus, he affirmed that their bodies were translated by St. Ambrose from that place in which they had long lain hidden into the city; because, namely, they were then translated into the basilica of the Apostles, and there laid away. That this basilica, the walls having at last been removed from the midst a few years before, was included within the city; but that that garden in which the buried bodies of the Martyrs had lain hidden was not included by them; Galesinius could not have been ignorant."

[42] "Since indeed not only in his time did evident indications of such walls, and remains, exist here and there, he is corrected by Puricelli. but even at present they exist. But if besides

he had moreover observed that the circuit of the walls, before the Barbarossan disaster, and even in earlier centuries down to the age of Ambrose, was not such and so great, but was much narrower… who would believe that he wished to write so ineptly in a lesson of that kind, that he should nevertheless say those bodies were translated from that place of burial into the city? For both the basilica itself and that place were at that time alike in the suburbs, and outside the inner walls of the city; as I taught elsewhere," he says, "and here it helps to repeat… In my judgment, therefore, Galesinius did not observe such things; and this was for him the occasion of straying." To Puricelli's judgment we give our vote; advising that this error, left in the Breviary examined in the year 1635, ought to be corrected according to this observation. And these things concerning the basilica of St. Nazarius thus far: whose situation outside the city of Milan, asserted by Puricelli, will be confirmed from a like situation of the basilica of St. Celsus; concerning which shortly, in an instrument of the 10th century to be cited, and below at number 47.

[43] But lest anyone should think that the church of St. Celsus among the Milanese was neglected or ignoble, Monks added to the Celsian church by Landulph, it has seemed good now to exhibit the things which the praised Puricelli collected in its favor. To this contribute the things which he discusses at chapter 86, where he records that a monastery and monks were added to the Celsian church by Landulph, archbishop of Milan: which, by what cause and occasion it happened, he recounts from Arnulf, to pass over others cited by him. The things which are to our purpose we transcribe from his first book of the Milanese history, which was most recently edited among the writers of Italian affairs, vol. 4. From the preface prefixed to it by the very illustrious Ludovico Antonio Muratori you will learn that his native place was Milanese; that he flourished in the age of Gregory VII, and composed his history about the year of Christ 1085, and that he exhibits the deeds of those times accurately enough. In the place therefore assigned, chapter 10, these things are found: "In the year 980. For Landulph had already succeeded Godfrey as archbishop, who, on account of the excessive insolence of his father and brothers, suffered a grave envy of the people; … a conspiracy having arisen… a civil sedition, and a division of parties was made… A great contest was engaged in the city.

[44] But the prelate, seeing himself pressed on every side, and unable to suffice, on what occasion, and at what time. departed from the city with his brothers, leaving behind his father, who was already an old man and feeble in strength. Wherefore he distributed the resources of the church, and many benefices of the clerics, to the soldiers…" And a few things being interposed concerning the renewed conflict, and the very great slaughter on both sides, and the father of the prelate being run through in his bed by a household slave, Arnulf subjoins: "After these things, and many others, God inspiring, and by the intervening counsel of the wise men of both parties, a new peace dissolved the old hatreds… Moreover, the prelate, feeling that by his dispersed resources he had offended the church, in order to soothe the clergy and people, founded the monastery of the holy martyr Celsus, and enriched it with many resources: where, the number of his days being completed, dying he rested in his own tomb." But in what year this foundation was made, Puricelli discusses, judging that those come nearer to the truth who attach it to the year of Christ 992.

[45] Puricelli likewise there produces a fragment of the testament made by Landulph, and furnished to him from the archive of the Nazarian basilica, with this exordium: "In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Otto the third, by the grace of God august emperor, in the second year of his reign, in the month of November, [In the testament made by him goods are assigned to the abbot of the Celsian monastery;] in the eleventh indiction. I, Landulph, by the grace of God archbishop of the Milanese church, son of Ambrose, my father of good memory," etc. By which chronological characters the year of Christ 997 is marked. Then the aforementioned Puricelli, having contracted into a summary the substance of the testament, reports that this archbishop assigned to the abbot of the monastery of St. Celsus, which he himself had constructed outside (the words are those of the testament, expressed there in distinct character) and near the city of Milan, at the place where * it was anciently called "Three Mulberries"; Puricelli, I say, reports that this archbishop assigned to the said abbot certain goods, there recorded one by one, and described by their boundaries: but on what condition Landulph did this, receive in a few words from the words of the testament, which Puricelli proceeds to allege, and which not obscurely indicate that St. Celsus was held in great esteem by that founder, whose yearly memory he wished to honor by a solemn testification of his affection toward him; when he adds these things:

[46] yet on a certain condition. Notices concerning that Landulph and the monks. "So let the abbot of the same monastery of St. Celsus do concerning the things, or revenues, by which, from those very mills, or from the things themselves, on the anniversary of my life on the festivity of St. Celsus, he may honorably feed those decuman presbyters, officials of the churches of SS. Nazarius the martyr, and Ambrose the confessor: where their holy bodies rest: and let him give for each one three denarii, and one wax candle," etc. This archbishop Landulph is treated in Ughelli, vol. 4 of Italia Sacra, from col. 143; who places him as having died in the year 999, on the 22nd day of September; but in Puricelli the authors vary concerning the time of his see and life; among us, finally, in the Exegesis on the bishops of Milan prefixed to vol. VII of May, you have these things: "Landulph, sat 18 years, 3 months, died on the 10th of the Kalends of April: he was buried at the monastery of St. Celsus"; not, namely, before the year of the Lord 997, as is clear from the above testament. But of what institute the ascetics were who inhabited that place, and to whom it afterward passed, Gabriel Pennottus teaches, in book 2 of his Tripartite History, chapter 26, where among the colleges of regular canons existing in the whole dominion and metropolis of the duchy of Milan, he places as the eleventh that of St. Celsus, of the congregation of St. Saviour of Bologna; which was granted to them by Paul IV, in the year 1548, by his letters given on the 3rd of the Ides of March. It was of the Order of St. Benedict. From the book of Apostolic taxes.

[47] [An anniversary mortuary in the basilica of St. Celsus, and goods bequeathed to the monastery.] That Giximbertus de Isola, chamberlain of archbishop Arnulf II, who succeeded the aforesaid Landulph, instituted an anniversary mortuary for himself to be celebrated every year in the Celsian basilica, Puricelli reports at chapter 87, citing the Catalogue of Gualvaneus Flamma, of the Order of Preachers, famous in the 14th century, in which is cited the testament of the same Giximbertus… which was made in the 8th year of the reign of Henry I, in the month of April, in the 4th indiction, namely in the year of Christ 1021. Among other things which Puricelli there has concerning that testament, this is worthy of note, that after the lapse of many centuries the accurate execution of it so constantly persisted, that he testifies that he himself sometimes was present at that anniversary together with the provost and canons of his Laurentian basilica, in which from the year 1629 to the year 1656 he served as archpriest; likewise that there were present with him also the parish priests of those churches which are named in the testament itself, explained there at length. Add, from Ughelli cited a little before, col. 143, that Aribertus or Heribertus, archbishop, successor of the praised Arnulf, by his testament gives to the abbot and monks of St. Celsus 20 solidi. To the exordium of that testament is prefixed: "Conrad, by the grace of God august emperor, in the seventh year of his reign, in the month of March, in the 2nd indiction": with which concurs the year of Christ 1034. Concerning that Heribertus our Exegesis just assigned can be consulted, page 74. The bequest of certain goods in favor of the monastery of St. Celsus made by the aforesaid Petribertus in the year 1052 is found in Puricelli, chapter 88.

[48] We omit to say that St. Arialdus the martyr, illustrated by us at the 27th of June, Various matters concerning the church of St. Celsus in the year of Christ 1067 was carried from the Ambrosian basilica to the Celsian; as may be seen in Puricelli, chapter 91; and that in the church of St. Mary of St. Celsus, in which ineffable miracles… and graces happened, the venerable Virgin Mother of God appeared in the year of the Lord 1485; concerning which matter the same author treats at chapter 128, diffusely extended by authentic testimonies, public records, etc.; whence also are confirmed the things we said above concerning the situation of the church of St. Celsus outside the city of Milan even then; for there it is said that that apparition happened in the church of St. Mary near and beside the church of St. Celsus, outside and near the walls of Milan. As concerns the etymology of that church; "I indeed suspect," says Puricelli, page 613, "that that former chapel of the Mother of God (concerning which he had treated at chapter 121), constructed from the first foundations about the year of Christ 1430, was so disposed in situation that from it and from the neighboring church of St. Nazarius in the Field there coalesced only one, which afterward obtained the appellation of the Marian church at St. Celsus."

[49] But in the three-day and Ambrosian Litany-book, printed at Milan in the year 1494, here they are gathered together. on the third day of the Litanies there is described a procession from St. Euphemia to St. Celsus, on the testimony of Puricelli there; and then from St. Celsus to St. Nazarius in the Field: and while going hither, he says this antiphon is said: "King of Saints, O God, turn us; and in the evil time do not forsake us." And at the entrance of the church this one: "Blessed Nazarius together with little Celsus merited from the Lord a perpetual crown. Kyrie, Kyrie, Kyrie. Litanies at St. Nazarius in the Field." What Puricelli adds concerning the name of that sacred building; and why in the Greater Litanies of the feast of St. Mark it proceeded first to St. Celsus rather than to St. Nazarius in the Field, the same way being retraced not without inconvenience, we do not pursue at length, deliberately for the sake of brevity. Concerning the chaplaincies added by Philip Maria Visconti, duke of Milan, to the former chapel of St. Mary, concerning which above, built by himself, Puricelli can be consulted at the cited chapter 121. Now, having run through the things which pertain to the first translations of our Martyrs, and the places connected with them at Milan, we shall for a while survey their cult in the East; thence soon to return to Milan, and to the other cities of Italy, that we may scrutinize the ancient monuments of public veneration after the first discovery and translation.

* Puricelli: "what the Lord"

* perhaps "who"

§ VI. Public and ancient veneration in the East and at Milan, as also in other places of Italy, from sacred buildings and relics.

[The sacred building to St. Nazarius at Constantinople not built by Theodosius the Great;] That the public veneration of St. Nazarius became famous in the East in the ninth century, frequented there also in earlier centuries, is clear from Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the Life of his grandfather, where he speaks thus: "Moreover he also built the sacred building of the triumphant martyr Nazarius, which for many years back had not only collapsed but had been utterly abolished, far surpassing the former edifice in majesty, elegance, and beauty." Concerning that temple there made mention Baronius at the year 886 from Curopalates; and

Du Cange, Christian Constantinople, book 4, page 130. But in what part of the city, when, and by whom was that sacred building founded, which for many years back had stood, afterward at all events utterly abolished, and restored? The Life in Surius at the 19th of June, published under the name of Metaphrastes, if it spoke the truth, would instruct us very rightly concerning the present subject. "Before this great city," it says, "he (Theodosius the Great) raises for them (Nazarius, Gervasius, etc.) a beautiful and elegant temple, and in it deposits the sacred relics of the Martyrs." But these things conflict with the time in which the relics of the Saints were first discovered, and their name began to be spread abroad, as was said elsewhere.

[51] but perhaps in the time of Honorius and Arcadius. A little more probable and more coherent things Puricelli hands down, chapter 81, to whom "this ancient basilica… seems to have been that which was formerly constructed from the foundations in honor and reverence of Nazarius, Gervasius, Protasius, and Celsus, when their sacred relics were," he says, "brought from our city of Milan to Constantinople. Which indeed, if not in the time of the elder Theodosius, at least certainly in that of Honorius and Arcadius, his sons and nearest successors in the empire, nay even while Ambrose was still surviving, was done—this too I would consistently believe in this place," he says, "just as in that former chapter 49, number 10, I believed." We do not contradict Puricelli in his belief; and we readily allow ourselves to be persuaded of the probable verisimilitude of this matter; since in the Greek Canon alleged above there is that very honorific mention of the relics, which I transcribe here from the version of the above-cited translator. Ode 6, then, has thus:

[52] [The relics of St. Nazarius famous at Constantinople: whence the cult perhaps propagated to other places of the East.] "Unable to be healed by any art from the fitting diseases of bodies, you, through divine grace, O martyr Nazarius, brought a remedy: and moreover to all who approach your venerable relics, you administer an exceedingly fragrant ointment, by a certain welling up." And ode 8: "Ancient Rome," it says, "proclaims your contests, O Nazarius, victor of many palms: but New Rome (that is, Constantinople) sings your prodigies, wrought among the faithful through your sacred relics, which she possesses." And then: "That divine Nazarius, pouring forth the ointments of grace after the manner of a fountain, invites all who religiously take refuge with him, to draw from him light and cleanness of mind." The things which you see here inserted concerning ancient Rome, as the wrestling-ground of contests, will be discussed below. Nor further shall we refuse to believe that in other places of the East also the public cult of which we treat flourished; since Constantinople, the head of the East, so solemnly shone forth to other places in it; and it perhaps flourished at Antioch, if the announcement from the Hieronymian transcripts at the 30th of October, alleged and weighed above, is not faulty.

[53] But now let us pass to the West, to see in what manner, after the bodies of our Martyrs had been discovered and translated by St. Ambrose, [That in the first times after the discovery of the bodies a procession was instituted at Milan] then, by the lapse of time, the cult of the same was diffused to various places of Italy: which however we shall not survey before we have set forth with how great zeal of veneration the memory of the most esteemed Saints flourished among the Milanese. And concerning the yearly procession of the Milanese clergy to the churches in which the bodies of SS. Nazarius and Celsus are laid, Puricelli treats first at chapter 51; which solemnity he affirms to have begun from the very outset, citing the Milanese Chronicle of Landulph the elder, book 1, chapter 3; where the following are read: "It happened that, when a certain duke of the Goths of a foreign nation, named Ruilus, had unexpectedly caught sight of them (the Milanese priests) on the festivity of SS. Nazarius and Celsus, both elegantly arrayed for silence, and walking with the bishop (St. Ambrose), he believed and affirmed them to be not merely priests, but bishops, saying:

[54] 'Certainly, when by the command of the emperor Valentinian I have gone around almost the whole world, Puricelli asserts from the Chronicle of Landulph the elder, of slippery faith; and have seen, inquiring into their usage and customs, especially of religious bishops; yet never have I been struck stiff with so great amazement and so ineffable admiration.' Who, seeing and admiring these things, tarried a little: at last he departed, marveling within himself at the things he had seen." And Puricelli soon subjoins: "The metropolitan clergy, namely, with solemn apparatus and pomp, every year on the birthday festivity of those Martyrs, proceeded to the basilica of the Apostles, in which the body of Nazarius was placed; just as also on the following day it proceeded to the church of St. Celsus; because, namely, his body likewise rested there. The former procession, however, was far more solemn." That Chronicle of Landulph the elder was lately edited under the title of the Milanese history among the writers of Italian affairs, vol. 4; from which edition we have culled the text just set forth. The blots and vices of that author the very illustrious Ludovico Antonio Muratori uncovers and castigates in the Prolegomena, page 49; whence we do not see how even the thinnest crumb of faith that inept and absurd little-chronicler can make for the present subject, especially since he is both an unskilled writer and of slippery faith; and since he lived in the 11th century, what could he persuade us aptly and suitably concerning a matter which happened in the 4th century?

[55] Especially because Landulph is inept not only in ecclesiastical erudition, [which although it is not sufficiently proved thence, is nevertheless probable to us. The annual translation.] but also in the very narration of things which had happened not many centuries or years before his times, as you have there, page 50. But although that solemn procession among the Milanese in the first times, in which our Saints became known, is thus not sufficiently proved by Puricelli; yet it is credible to us that these or similar acts of public veneration toward Saints so dear to them were not omitted by the pious Milanese, by which they might merit for themselves their grace and patronage with God, and might most religiously and most becomingly honor the treasure found among them by so marvelous and remarkable a manifestation of God. To later times belongs the procession to St. Celsus on the fourth of the Kalends of August; concerning which Puricelli, chapter 97, page 467. The translation of St. Nazarius in the 11th century Puricelli sets forth, chapter 90, from the author of the Life of St. Arialdus, in these words: "And so Arialdus, of the decuman canons, began together with Landulph to sow silently among the clergy and laity of the city the things which outside (in the town of Varese, Puricelli inserts) he had preached in the open. And when the translation of blessed Nazarius was being devoutly celebrated by all the clergy and citizens," etc. Further, concerning the said author Puricelli had treated at chapter 64, number 26. Consult also among us the Commentary on the said Saint at the 27th of June. But that the author here speaks of the anniversary translation, and not of the first, celebrated at the time when the body of St. Nazarius was first found, he rightly judges against Ripamonti: as at the same chapter 90 may be seen from his words cited by Puricelli. In the Acts of the Church of Milan established by St. Charles Borromeo and edited at Lyons in the year 1683, part 7, page 1012, among the pastoral letters it is said: "On the feast days proper to this city and diocese, such as of divine Ambrose… Nazarius, Celsus… may you remember the ancient devotion of this people; who spent those days with vigils and processions, more frequent prayers, and exercises of piety; by whose example may you be more religiously stirred to the cult of those Saints."

[56] Serena adorns the place of the relics of St. Nazarius among the Milanese. Further, that St. Nazarius, already from the first years of his discovery, was venerated with the utmost veneration, and held in singular honor among leading persons, this is an argument, that Serena, granddaughter of the great Theodosius, and wife of Stilicho, adorned that part of the basilica in which the relics of that holy Martyr were laid, with Libyan marbles by vow, on the testimony of Tristan Calchi in the Milanese History, book 3, at the year 404; concerning which matter he reports that such an epigram exists:

Where the winding roofs rise up in a hollow recess *, And the head is bent by the orb of the consecrated cross, Nazarius of immaculate life, whole in limbs, Laid away, exults that this be the place of his tomb: Whom pious Ambrose marked with the image of Christ, Faithful Serena polishes with Libyan marbles, That she may enjoy, glad, the return of her spouse Stilicho, And her pious kin, her own pledges.

Concerning this epigram Puricelli treats at length, chapter 58; and our Jacobus Sirmond in his notes to Ennodius edited by him, page 87, records it.

[57] [St. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, places the relics of St. Nazarius in the church of Nola and Fondi:] These things concerning the religious cult of our Saints among the Milanese being thus set forth, now let us proceed to other places of Italy. St. Ambrose sent to St. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, relics of St. Nazarius: who, most pious prelate, received them with the utmost veneration, and placed them in the church of St. Felix at Nola. The event he himself sings in Poem 24 in these verses:

Here too the martyr Nazarius (whom by the faithful gift Of noble Ambrose I received with prostrate mind) Deigns himself too, a fellow-guest, to grace the summits of Felix, And adds fraternal homes to the private seats.

Of the same Saint too he placed the relics in the Fundan basilica which he was building; as is clear from epistle 12 to Severus; where among the verses concerning the relics interspersed by him in that same epistle, occurs in this pentameter:

And Nazarius illustrious by his blood.

[58] [St. Gaudentius among the Brescians; the Triventines claim the heads for themselves; relics sent to St. Zenobius.] Whose sacred pledges too St. Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia, deposited among the Brescians: for after enumerating the relics of certain other Saints, which he says he has, "After these," he says, "we have Gervasius, Protasius, and Nazarius, the most blessed martyrs, who a few years ago deigned to reveal themselves at the city of Milan to the holy priest Ambrose: whose blood we hold collected in gypsum, requiring nothing more; for we hold the blood, which is the witness of the passion." Thus that Saint in sermon 17, according to its editor and illustrator Paul Galeardus, canon of Brescia (who published those works at Padua in the year 1720), delivered a little after the year 397. Further, concerning the little vessels of glass and clay, in which the faithful were wont to collect the blood of martyrs, Paul Aringhi can be consulted, Subterranean Rome, book 3, chapter 22. Ughelli, Italia Sacra, vol. 2: "The cathedral church of Trivento, of ancient and noble structure, is dedicated to the tutelary Saints Nazarius and Celsus, martyrs; where their precious heads are kept in a silver casket, once translated thither by a certain bishop of Trivento of Milanese fatherland, in the times of St. Ambrose—it is the constant memory of the citizens and their fathers, besides the monuments of the same church." But an anonymous bishop of Trivento, the memory of fathers, monuments merely named, not proved—how little can they prove a matter so ancient! Carolus Bartholomæus Piazza in the Hemerologion of Christian and gentile Rome

at this 28th of July records that their relics are at St. John in Fonte, given, if we believe him, by St. Ambrose himself. But we desire more ancient testimonies for that donation. Concerning the sacred relics of Nazarius and Celsus sent by that prelate to St. Zenobius, bishop of Florence, treatment is made in Surius in his Life at the 25th of May; but in none of the three Lives given among us at the same day from page 52 do I find this; which however Razzi has, in Italian, On the Saints and Blesseds of Tuscany, page 80, from the Life ascribed to St. Simplicianus.

[59] That our Saints were not ignoble at Ravenna is gathered from this, [A shrine built to SS. Nazarius and Celsus at Ravenna by Galla Placidia. What at Pavia, Benevento, and Piacenza?] that Galla Placidia augusta, wife first of Ataulf, then of Constantius, and parent of the emperor Valentinian, built for the divine Nazarius and Celsus also a most elegant shrine, in which she wished to be buried… "The walls incrusted on every side with splendid marble, the pavement and the very vault of the shrine most beautifully adorned with mosaic work; over all which she not only was present but presided," on the testimony of Hieronymus Rubeus, History of Ravenna, book 3, at the year 449. At Pavia too the fame of St. Nazarius became famous, inasmuch as St. Ennodius, bishop of that city, famous at the beginning of the sixth century, and illustrated by us at the 17th of July, celebrated him in verse. At Benevento exists a sacred edifice dedicated to St. Nazarius, once a monastery of nuns (today consumed by antiquity) which Pope Pelagius suppressed for the religious order of Gregory the Great, then a Cardinal deacon, and joined and annexed in perpetuity to the monastery of St. Mary ad Olivolam, as may be read in Marius de Vipera in his Catalogue of Saints at this 28th of July; where a double rite is assigned to him. At Piacenza, finally, you will find a church of SS. Nazarius and Celsus in Pietro Maria Campi, History of Piacenza, part 3: as may be seen in the index of churches appended to the said part. It remains that we pursue the public veneration of the Martyrs propagated in other places outside Italy.

* Sirmond: "by the return"

§ VII. The Saints famous in other places through the West, especially in Gaul, from relics and sacred buildings, etc.

Sacred remains transmitted in every direction by St. Ambrose: The author of the sermon on the birthday of the holy martyrs Nazarius and Celsus, which sermon is attributed to St. Ambrose, and is found among his works—in the Cologne edition of the year 1616, vol. 5, from page 70, where it is sermon 14 in order; but in the Paris edition of the year 1586 it is 93 in order, and is found from col. 917; the author, I say, of that sermon, concerning whom the place for discussion will recur in its turn, left these things written: "Blessed… Nazarius, martyr of Christ, although the holy Church of Milan retains him whole in body with itself, has nevertheless transmitted him whole to the world in blessing. For this is the glory of the holy Martyrs, of whom, although a portion be scattered in ashes throughout the whole world, yet the fullness remains entire in virtues." And so the sacred remains of St. Nazarius were dispersed in every direction. Of the East and Italy we have already said this; but now we shall institute discourse concerning the other places to which it happened; to which were transmitted the venerable relics not only of him, but also of holy Celsus, Africa itself not even being excluded from this sacred treasure, as someone wished; but let us examine whether rightly enough.

[61] to the African bishops exiled in Sardinia For the African bishops, relegated to Sardinia on account of the Vandal persecution in the year—as Tillemont places it in the historical collection of our Martyrs, vol. 2 of Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 88—in the year, I say, 508, sought a blessing, that is, some relics of the holy martyrs Nazarius and Romanus; as becomes plain from St. Ennodius, book 2, epistle 14. Let his words be heard: "Which nevertheless you hope for by letters directed to our son H. the deacon, seeking a blessing of the blessed martyrs Nazarius and Romanus—we do not deny it to the faithful. Receive the venerable patronage of the unconquered Soldiers." This passage Sirmond, mentioned before, illustrated with notes; where among other things he rightly observes that this epistle was indeed written by Ennodius, but on behalf of Symmachus; in whose name too it is read among his other epistles in the ancient collections. Thus he; who also thinks that by "H. the deacon" is to be understood Hormisdas, who was a deacon of the Roman Church.

[62] Pope Symmachus sends relics of St. Nazarius, This communication of relics Tillemont too attributes to Symmachus; not Baronius, who in his notations on this day, the 28th of July, ascribes both it and the epistle to Ennodius of Pavia: but Baronius, lest he conflict with himself, you will easily explain from Baronius, reconciling him both with himself and with others: for at the year of Christ 504 he confesses indeed that that epistle, although it is found among the writings of Ennodius of Pavia, is nevertheless rather to be called that of Pope Symmachus, but one that was written by his deacon Ennodius, in the name of Pope Symmachus. But it little concerns us to discuss this little controversy at length: another point, and indeed a chief one, offers itself to us concerning those relics of St. Nazarius—whether they ought to be reckoned ours or of another of the same name.

[63] which nevertheless seems to us more probably That they are the relics of our and today's Nazarius, Baronius and Tillemont judged, is clear enough from their text; his indeed in the cited collection; the other's in the notations. Puricelli, chapter 68, is of another opinion; which we too embrace as more probable, expounded by him in these words: "Since therefore this epistle was truly written either by Pope Symmachus, or in his name by Ennodius… Therefore those sacred relics of the martyrs Nazarius and Romanus were sent by the same Symmachus, or in his name by Ennodius, and indeed from nowhere else than from the city of Rome. Wherefore such relics also of St. Nazarius, I should indeed believe, were not those of our Nazarius, who was not even a soldier; but of that one whom later, at chapter 75, we shall see to have suffered at Rome, and to have truly been a soldier, on the testimony too of the Roman Martyrology; concerning whom we shall make mention also below on another occasion." Now let us proceed with Puricelli:

[64] "But if anyone should likewise ask of me," says the author already often praised, not to have been today's, "who then was likewise that other martyr and soldier, by name Romanus, whose relics too were sent to those bishops; I indeed should answer that he was no other than the one concerning whom the Roman Martyrology likewise, on the fifth of the Ides of August, has thus: 'At Rome, St. Romanus the soldier, who, pricked in conscience at the confession of blessed Laurence, sought to be baptized by him: and soon brought forth, and beaten with cudgels, was at last beheaded.'" But concerning that Martyr we reserve more things to be said at the 9th of August, on which he is inscribed in the Roman Martyrology. To us meanwhile the opinion of Puricelli appears more probable, namely that that Nazarius, whose sacred relics were transmitted to the African bishops, was not our today's one, but either that aforesaid Martyr, or another of the same name who suffered at Rome: 1. Because those relics were sent from Rome, and indeed by Pope Symmachus, as they themselves confess who are of the contrary opinion: but that the relics of today's Nazarius were directed thither, we do not know. 2. Because these relics, concerning which there is here controversy, were sent together with the relics of the martyr Romanus, who suffered at Rome. 3. Because they were sent under the name of unconquered soldiers; such as those two Martyrs were; but our Nazarius not so.

[65] Which certainly it happens to us to wonder that Baronius did not observe; nor Tillemont himself, elsewhere often more lynx-eyed than is fair, but another of the same name who suffered at Rome. but here so little observant; who in our judgment confused that Nazarius the soldier with our today's namesake. To us, I say, that opinion appears far more probable; for we do not dare to call it certain; for since the relics of our Nazarius were dispersed by St. Ambrose in every direction, what forbids that they could easily have been sent to Rome by the same prelate either to St. Gelasius the first of this name, or to Anastasius II, predecessors of Symmachus in the chair of St. Peter; and indeed most unconquered soldiers, in a sense sufficiently usual and proper, although in a metaphorical signification, can be called any Martyrs who, fighting the battles of the Lord, carried off the glorious crown of victory by shedding their blood for the faith. But of these more than enough. Now other places call us.

[66] The sacred pledges of Nazarius and Celsus, already from the times of Childebert I, That the relics of SS. Nazarius and Celsus were honored at Paris king of the Franks, were honored in Gaul, is gathered from the Pragmatic or royal diploma, which is read in Aimoin, book 2 On the Deeds of the Franks, chapter 20; and in which that king speaks thus: "I, Childebert, king… began to construct a temple in the city of Paris near the walls of the city… in honor of St. Vincent the martyr; whose relics we brought from Spain; and both of other Saints and of Nazarius and Celsus the boy… relics are said to be consecrated there." At the end of this instrument is placed: "Given, which was made, on the sixth day of the month of December, in the 48th year after Childebert the king began to reign." That temple of St. Vincent is now St. Germain-des-Prés at Paris, whose abbey the same king founded. The aforesaid pragmatic sanction is reported by Baronius at the year 561; in which, in Pagi, number 8, it is attacked as intermixed with Aimoin, spurious, and interpolated.

[67] in the time of Childebert I, is established from his diploma. It is found, however, in part 1, page 1, of the collection of documents for making credible the things which are narrated in the history of the royal abbey of St. Germain-des-Prés, published in French at Paris in the year 1724; with the year 558 appended to it. Concerning this royal diploma Mabillon can be consulted, Benedictine Annals, vol. 1, at the year 555, where that man, exceedingly skilled in diplomatic matters, in passing approves that diploma, saying that he heeds not certain cavils which more recent critics object to this diploma, etc. We do not decide this dispute, but relegate the further discussion of these entanglements to those who both have more leisure to spare, and whom it more concerns. For nearer indeed pertains here, what we have from the Life of St. Droctoveus, once abbot of St. Germain-des-Prés, edited by us at the 10th of March, page 39: there, namely, among the four altars contained in that church of St. Vincent, and consecrated by St. Germain, the same St. Germain consecrated the one which is to the west, to the Lord in honor of SS. Gervasius and Protasius, and Celsus the boy, and of holy George the martyr, who,

as is there said in the annotations, in the year of Christ 558 consecrated that very church. We wonder that nothing here is said of St. Nazarius.

[68] [An epigram of Fortunatus on the church of St. Nazarius built by Leontius, bishop of Bordeaux.] Concerning the lord Nazarius, martyr of Christ, on the occasion of a certain church which Leontius, bishop of Bordeaux, had built in his honor out of a chapel, there is in Fortunatus, book 1, epigram 10, composed in these words:

The venerable summits of conspicuous Nazarius shine, Whose limbs the ground, whose spirit the stars hold. Of earth-born seed, exempt from earthly uses, An immortal good, man born from dust. Willing nothing carnal, but demanding the rewards of Christ, By his own blood a victim worthy of God. These devoted temples sacred Leontius offers to you, And hence desires his own house to be greater. Here first a structure was built in a narrow circle, In which the venerable people could not then be contained. And, cast down to the ground, he founded it anew from the depths, And gave these things which now, enlarged, please.

Concerning that Leontius the Sammarthani can be consulted in the archbishops of Bordeaux; while we meanwhile proceed to weigh what remains to be cleared away concerning other tracts of the Gauls.

[69] who was famous also among the Aeduans; as is established from diplomas, That St. Nazarius was anciently honored there among the Aeduans or people of Autun with great veneration, this is an argument, that the cathedral church there under his name, doubtless as tutelary Saint, was dedicated already about ten or more centuries ago; in whose favor there exists a diploma in the Sammarthani, in the bishops of Autun, directed by the emperor Louis the Pious to Modoinus, prelate of that see: in which it is said that "the ancestor kings of the Franks caused the church of St. Nazarius the martyr, over which… Modoinus himself presides, to stand under their name and defense… Given on the 11th of the Kalends of August, in the second year, Christ being propitious, of the reign of the lord Louis, the most pious augustus, in the 8th indiction"; which characters of time concur with the year of Christ 815. Another diploma is there found, of King Charles the Bald to Alteus, bishop of Autun, given in favor of the same church; in which it is called "the see of the mother church, which is constructed in honor of St. Nazarius the martyr… Given on the 3rd of the Nones of July, in the 8th indiction, in the 4th year, Charles reigning, the most glorious king"; but the sixth year of Charles, which with the numeral letters transposed perhaps ought here to be read, concurs with the 8th indiction, and the year of Christ 845. Another diploma besides you will find there, which Jonas, prelate of the same chair, obtained from the same Charles the Bald for his church.

[70] In Launoy, in the opuscula On the arrival in Provence of Lazarus, Magdalene, etc., chapter 8, the cathedral basilica, coinage, and relics. page 95, is cited an author who lived in the century after him, and wrote these things, which we transcribe from Launoy: "The greater and more ancient basilica, mother and cathedral, was founded in honor of God and of the blessed martyrs Nazarius and Celsus." That author here mentions also St. Celsus; but in the Notitia of the bishoprics of Gaul which is France, in Andreas Chesne among the writers of the History of the Franks, vol. 1, page 65, where the discourse is of cathedral temples and their patrons, or the Saints in whose name they were dedicated, to Autun are given Lazarus and Nazarius, but not Celsus. In the year 1713 there appeared a book edited in the French language On the Lives of the holy Patrons, Martyrs, and bishops of Autun; which from page 106 treats of our Saints, weaving their Life and panegyric from Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, and the sermon edited among the works of St. Ambrose. That book is cited by us here, that it may be plain that SS. Nazarius and Celsus are held there today too in the utmost veneration; since in the title prefixed to the said panegyric they are called patrons of the diocese of Autun. Concerning the ancient Aeduan coinage, struck under the effigy of St. Nazarius, Saussay makes mention in passing at the 28th of July; and at greater length at the 6th of November, where he has thus: "At Autun of the Aedui, the arrival and reception of the sacred relics of St. Nazarius the martyr, the ancient tutelary of the cathedral church of the same: in whose name, the right of striking coinage being granted to it by the most Christian kings of the Carolingian stock, those coins which survive today, the church itself long ago stamped." And indeed in Chesne, in the place just cited, "I saw," says the collector of the said Notitiae, "a silver coin thus inscribed 'Coin of St. Nazarius,' and on the other side 'Aeduan city.'" The newfangled Gallic Legendist, treating at the 28th of July of our Saints, observes that the church of St. Nazarius at Autun is no longer the primary one, but that it ceded that very dignity to the church of St. Lazarus of Bethany. In the Aeduan Breviary, printed in the year 1534, SS. Nazarius and Celsus, beginning from the very vigil, are celebrated with a very solemn rite with an Octave: and in the prayer the people are said to be "set under so great patronage." John Rolin, bishop of Autun and Cardinal, among the synodal statutes of the year 1468 enjoins the observance of their feast, by abstaining from all servile work; as may be seen in Edmond Martène, New Thesaurus of Anecdota, vol. 4, col. 519. And there among the other synodal statutes of the same church, both new and old, col. 475, it had been said: "Let the feasts… of Nazarius and Celsus the martyrs… be enjoined to be solemnly observed."

§ VIII. The Saints honored elsewhere in Gaul; the synonymous ones of Embrun more probably distinct from today's; a miracle: the relics of an uncertain St. Nazarius below Nantes in Lesser Britain; a despiser of them punished; Nazarius of Vercelli.

The veneration of the Saints The same Gallic Legendist whom we just cited records that the cult was extended in the diocese of Paris; and as regards St. Celsus, he says that he was made in particular the titular of one parish of the archdeaconry of Josas toward the borders of the archbishopric of Chartres, called from the name of Celsus "St. Ceouls," and corruptly "St. Sous"; which the geographers have deformed still more, noting "Cinq-Sols" in their maps. The ancient titles of the parish call it "St. Cheours." But it seems to have lost the name and cult of our holy Martyr, after William de Lamoignon, first president in the supreme senate, having been made lord of the territory, ordered it to be called Courson or Launay-Courson. That this last compound was given to the place from the end of the 17th century, Castellanus hands down in his Supplement, page 697: where he also sets down other metamorphoses of the Celsian name, noting that St. Celsus is besides called St. Esceux, at Auch of the Ausci (Ausche) which is the metropolis in the province of Auch in Gaul; and St. Soux in the province of Bourges; and in the territory of Josas (le Josas) in the diocese of Paris: to which place some of his relics, brought to Paris, had given a name; as he reports from Aimoin, a writer of the 10th century; but he does not indicate its place. But now let us proceed to the church of Béziers; where some things offer themselves, not unworthy of note for the subject which we treat, and sufficiently show that our Saints had there something singular.

[72] in various places of Gaul. That our Saints have a proper Office, is noted in a transcript, which we keep, from an ancient manuscript Breviary of Béziers. In the instrument of an assembly of bishops, pronouncing anathema against the invaders of the church of Béziers, which is read edited from the cartulary of Béziers in the above-assigned Edmond Martène, with a note of time appended in the margin of the instrument, about 1090, these things are found: "A certain illustrious man, and a lavish performer of holy work… by name Atradulf, and his wife by name Garsindis, conferred upon the Lord God and the holy martyrs Nazarius and Celsus of the church of the see of Béziers, for the redemption of the sins of themselves and of all their lineage, and for the attaining of eternal blessedness, conferred in a certain village of our bishopric called Tortilias the church of the same village with its tithes and appurtenances, and with all things pertaining to it by right, and all their other allodium which they were seen to have in that village, above written, and in its boundary," etc.

[73] Hence we are made more certain concerning the ancient veneration of the Saints among the people of Béziers. places. Lest we leave Provence in Gaul unmentioned, the people of Cimiez and Nice have Celsus and Nazarius as patrons, as our Antonio Macedo notes in the Divine Tutelaries of the Christian World, page 162. It must also be said by us what is to be thought of the sacred relics of the holy Martyrs, whether of ours or only of homonyms, among the people of Embrun in the Dauphiné of Gaul; likewise of St. Nazarius in the territory of Nantes in Lesser Britain; finally of the holy Martyr likewise of the same name at Vercelli in Savoy.

[74] Let us begin, then, from the Embrun relics; concerning which Baronius on this day in his notations speaks thus: that their sacred relics were translated to Embrun from Milan, "They were translated also into the Gauls to Embrun; but on account of frequent incursions of the barbarians (say in the 5th century) now buried in oblivion, and again found, they gave occasion for Gregory of Tours, in On the Glory of the Martyrs, chapter 47, ignorant of the events, to suppose that the said Martyrs suffered at Embrun in Gaul, following the faith of a certain apocryphal source." Baronius here affirms many things in few words, which to us, saving a better judgment, do not seem able to be proved with the same ease with which they are asserted. For, by the good leave of the most wise Man, we ask, 1. Whence is it established that these Embrun relics are those of SS. Nazarius and Celsus of Milan, and not rather of synonyms who suffered at Embrun? 2. The things which are set forth concerning the translation from Milan to Embrun, and the oblivion there, and then concerning the discovery, what are they but mere conjecture, conceived from that same supposition, that among the people of Embrun are relics of our today's Martyrs? For by no indication does Gregory of Tours betray this: nay rather he betrays the contrary: for a little before in the same chapter he had treated markedly of the bodies of SS. Gervasius and Protasius buried at Milan; and a few things being interposed, he proceeds to the bodies of SS. Nazarius and Celsus pertaining to the people of Embrun. That he did this deliberately, why should it not be credible, lest anyone should think that in the latter he treats of those synonyms of Milan, just as in the former he had treated of the Milanese? However it is, Gregory rightly enough distinguishes each pair of Martyrs of the same name, concerning which there is here controversy.

[75] Let us set forth and weigh his words: "But of the limbs of holy Nazarius, Baronius judges from Gregory of Tours; and of Celsus the boy, whom the lection of the contest narrates to have suffered at the Gallic city of Embrun, the bodies themselves were both buried so secretly, on account of the persecution of the pagans, that in the times following they were given over to oblivion." Which why they ought to be fitted to our Milanese, nay rather how they can, so far do we not grasp, that we rather do not conceive by what appearance of truth the limbs and bodies, buried there, as is urged from the text (for soon Gregory narrates that over these

tombs that marvelous thing happened, which a little later we shall relate from him)—by what appearance of truth, to say it again, so great a mass of relics can pertain to our today's Martyrs, both on account of what has been said concerning their sacred remains transmitted in every direction throughout the world, and on account of what is to be said in the following paragraph concerning the state of their bodies at Milan? Nor from the fact that those words, just produced from Gregory, are found under the same title and chapter with those which he had prefaced there concerning the holy Milanese Gervasius and Protasius, may you infer that there too there is treatment of Nazarius and Celsus of Milan: for besides those things by which we have just anticipated this objection, there is against it that Theodoric Ruinart in his notes to this passage of Gregory edited by him, which we gave above, observes that these things are found under another chapter-title in the manuscripts; which therefore, joined together and confused, perhaps were afterward so arranged by some unskilled person, who, just as the former Saints, so also ours there, later in order, all of them Milanese in his idea, referred to one and the same chapter.

[76] However this our conjecture may stand; the lection of the contest, in so far as it narrates the Saints, concerning whom Gregory of Tours speaks, to have suffered at the Gallic city of Embrun, is to us neither apocryphal, nor will it be, so long as it is not proved such: but the Embrun ones seem different from the Milanese; especially since Ado distinguished today's Milanese from the Embrun ones in the clearest terms at the 12th of June: for after he had then begun his announcement from the Milanese, he concludes it with the Embrun ones thus: "But also of Nazarius and Celsus, whom antiquity celebrates in memory as having suffered, the two of them, at the city of Embrun." Could the prelate of Vienne more clearly, more distinctly, and more expressly separate the one from the other, each pair of these synonymous Martyrs? Why therefore should we confuse it? Nor do we here delay over the Sammarthani, who among the bishops of Embrun report concerning Artemius that he obtained the relics of SS. Nazarius and Celsus, their bodies having been dug up by St. Ambrose, for his church from the same; and the Embrun records are cited, which conjecture that this happened about the year 392: but in the latest edition, by the work and zeal of Dom Denis Sammarthanus, the very illustrious, of the Congregation of St. Maur, of the Order of St. Benedict, prior general, carried at Paris in the year 1725 in royal types up to the third volume, col. 1055, it is better said, in our opinion at least, that Artemius… placed in that church the relics of SS. Nazarius and Celsus, martyrs of Embrun, etc. But to return to Baronius, one may see the things which Puricelli, chapter 49, objects to him in favor of our opinion, where, the Baronian points being set forth, he confirms ours also from Ado. And so the Brussels Usuardine codex, while it does not distinguish the Milanese Martyrs from the synonymous Embrun ones (as is established from what has been said among the Supplements to our Usuard at the 12th of June), in this cannot be approved by us, but ought rather to be disapproved, having fallen at all events into the same confusion.

[77] to whose tomb Come now, since the things which regard those Embrun Martyrs, in the "Passed Over" among us, were remitted from the 12th of June to today, let us now relate the marvelous thing done at their tombs, which Gregory of Tours thus records at the cited chapter 47: "That man was wont to relate, who narrated concerning the aforesaid Saints (Gervasius and Protasius) the things which we have mentioned, that over these tombs a pear tree was born, and that a certain poor man made a little garden in this place, which enclosed this tree. But when it bore fruit according to custom at the due time, whoever, being infirm from any sickness, plucked a fruit thence with his teeth, soon, the infirmity being taken away, grew well: whence that poor man had great gain. But when the Martyrs, revealing themselves, had ordered the tree to be cut down, that poor man, bursting into great weeping, did not allow the tree to be cut down.

[78] marvelous things are recorded to have happened. Which being removed, the pear tree being felled, a basilica was built with marvelous work: on whose altar too the relics of blessed Genesius of Arles, martyr (concerning whom he treats at chapter 68), are venerated. And that poor man was so preferred for his faith, that he thenceforth merited the priesthood in this church." Further, the phrase "that man," from whose mouth Gregory learned this marvelous history, and on whose faith alone the whole truth of it rests, refers back to the preceding things, which are there found concerning the relics of SS. Gervasius and Protasius; for the discourse was on a certain occasion held concerning these, to certain religious [men], etc. "And the things which concerning these," Gregory adds, "I heard from a certain one (namely of those religious men) relating," etc. And these things, which concerning the sacred remains of the synonymous Nazariuses we have discussed diffusely enough, will help not a little, that, as far as it can be done, we may draw some notice, at least confused, concerning the Martyr of the same name, whose relics were deposited in a certain village among the people of Nantes in Lesser Britain; but before we transcribe what Gregory of Tours narrates concerning them in the whole chapter 61 of On the Glory of the Martyrs; we shall prefix a notice of the place; and a few other things, by which the time of the history to be narrated from him may be illustrated, we shall then assign.

[79] Ruinart in his notes to the cited chapter says: "That place, The relics of some Nazarius in the territory of Nantes; below Nantes, today too retains the name of St. Nazarius; where, besides the parochial church, there exists a priory subject to the monastery of St. Albinus of Angers": that an abbot presided over it in the time of Gregory of Tours, is gathered from his own words, which we shall produce. Who then that Nazarius may be, whose relics existed there; whether the Milanese one, or the Embrun one, or the Lorsch or Roman one (of the last of whom, the translation of his body, made by Chrodegang, bishop of Metz, we gave at the 12th of June, page 514), or finally the synonymous Martyr of Vercelli, of whom we shall treat a little later, it does not please us to divine. But whoever at last he may be, we think we shall do not amiss, if in this place we do not exclude an example of divine vengeance against the impious despiser of his relics: for if anywhere there is, here certainly is the place for treating of this matter: because it can easily pertain to one of those Nazariuses whom we now illustrate. Gregory of Tours, then, narrates it thus: "In the territory too of the city of Nantes, in a certain village upon the channel of the Loire, the relics of blessed Nazarius are contained. Therefore at a certain time a devout man placed upon the altar of that basilica a belt of the purest gold, most zealously fashioned with all its apparatus, praying that in his affairs the Martyr's power might deign to be present.

[80] "Which as he was departing, a certain Briton of the retainers of Waroch, count of the Bretons, of which the impious despiser is reported to have been punished and the first with him was present, and having violently taken away the apparatus of the belt, sought back the belt itself as well; the presbyter resisting and saying: 'These are things of God, and have been conferred on the holy Martyr for the refreshing of the poor, lest they suffer the most wretched hunger, who serve this temple with faithful devotion: whence you rather ought to bring something hither, not carry it off.' The preaching of that abbot did not soften the avaricious man's mind: but rather, inflamed, he began to threaten him, and to say: 'Unless without delay you pour back the belt, you shall be slain by my hand.' Then the abbot, overcome, placed upon the altar, by which the holy pledges are covered, the object, saying: 'Behold the very trifle which you seek: if there is no fear of the Martyr's power, take it away. For there will be, as we trust, forthwith a judge, if you presume to carry it off.' But he, fearing nothing, took it away, ordering a horse to be prepared for him before the very porch of the basilica. To whom the priest said: 'No one ever in this place has presumed to mount a horse. Give, I pray, glory to God, and honor the Martyr, lest you suffer some evil.'

[81] "But he, neglecting the priest's commands, having mounted his horse in the holy courtyard *, from Gregory of Tours. where he came to go out, his head being struck against the upper lintel of the gate, fell to the ground with his skull broken, and, carried off in the hands of his men, when he had entered the hut of a certain poor little man, which was nearby, at once breathed out his spirit. Which Waroch hearing, both restored the things which he had here carried off, and of his own conferred much, stricken through with terror." Thus Gregory of Tours sets forth this event; which, as Ruinart here observes, they think happened at the time of the war which was stirred up in the year 590. See Gregory, History of the Franks, book 10, chapter 9.

[82] The Nazarius of Vercelli is given from an epitaph. There now remains Nazarius, martyr of Vercelli; who, since he is otherwise wholly hidden from us, lest he continue to be utterly hidden from the world, this too seems an opportune place to exhibit him, whatever at last he may be, to lovers of the saints. The epitaph of the city of Vercelli (that is, of the Vercellian city) Gruter, cited above, sets forth, page 1169, composed concerning Sarmata the presbyter; which reveals that said Martyr to us. It runs thus:

Learn, you who read, that by divine gift a reward is rendered To merits, to whom a seat next to the holy Martyrs Has been granted by God, and a welcome resting-place, Which Sarmata the presbyter merited, his venerable life being spent. Seven times five years of the body he here passed through, Living in Christ, the place aiding him: For Nazarius likewise and Victor render safe The blessed man by their sides, and crown him with their merits. O happy he, who merited by a twin Martyr to be led To the Lord by a better way, and to merit rest.

But now let us return to our Milanese Martyrs.

* others "on a horse," in Ruinart.

§ IX. The body of St. Celsus translated in the 10th century; found and replaced in the 16th century: that of St. Nazarius found, inspected, and translated with solemn pomp by St. Charles Borromeo, likewise in the 16th century.

That the body of St. Celsus was translated in the 10th century, That the body of St. Celsus was translated to the church at Milan of the same name, by the archbishop Landulph mentioned several times above, Puricelli reports at chapter 86; and he records that this happened with solemn pomp, and a great concourse of the faithful, nay even not without provincial bishops, called in for this very purpose; making credible the event from the verses which, by the benefit of Alciati and then of Fontana, are preserved; and which he testifies that the same Fontana recounted among his observations, annotated in the manuscript catalogue of the archbishops of Milan, in that very life of Landulph. Of Andrea Alciato we made mention in the preliminary Commentary of St. Arialdus the martyr at the 27th of June, page 280, number 7. Who indeed that Fontana seems to himself to be, Puricelli explains in the same chapter. Now I subjoin the verses, which in him consist of these words:

This altar embraces the excellent body of Celsus, Whom his pious mother offered to Nazarius in the country of Cimiez, That he might likewise scale the citadels of heaven: Death being met, and might likewise lie for a long age. Ambrose at length laid these two apart *, Carrying Nazarius elsewhere, and leaving Celsus. Until, after very many centuries, the prelate Landulph, Bards being called in, and neighboring crowds from everywhere, With the utmost joy and zeal and all vying, Translated him, and a place fit for divine uses He himself gladly built, and with marvelous adornment prepared.

Placed in the year 976.

[84] In "the country of Cimiez" the poet looks to the common

Acts, the metrical inscription testifies. The same found concerning which there will be treatment later. Whether St. Ambrose, translating the body of St. Nazarius, did not at the same time translate the body of St. Celsus, we have already disputed. By the name "bards" understand bishops. Consult Puricelli on this word; as also on the verb "built" (struxit), that is, "he equipped" (instruxit), "reformed for the better"; or, in place of the ancient church which stood there before, Landulph built there a more ample one from the foundations. The year 976, witness of the event, does not cohere with our Exegesis cited in the above place: for according to what was long ago said there, his ordination first falls about the birthday of the Lord in the year 978. From more ancient to more recent times Puricelli glides at chapter 136, where he sets forth what happened concerning the body of St. Celsus: namely that the sacred body of the Martyr was found in the year of the Lord 1521 under the principal altar of his church, and with solemn rite again placed in it; citing a manuscript book from the archive of the Celsian monastery, in which he says is contained the following memorial, which is excerpted word for word from the book of a certain person, especially devoted to this Saint, and whose these words are.

[85] "In the year of the Lord 1521, on the 20th day of April, the abbot or commendatory of the church of St. Celsus caused digging to be done beneath the high altar: and replaced in the 16th century is proved from various sources, and there was found the body of St. Celsus, and three vessels, in which were some of the blood of the Saint himself, and of the relics of the Apostles, and of SS. Faith, Hope, and Charity. On the 28th of the aforesaid month and year the said abbot caused the body and relics to be replaced with the greatest honor in the high altar of St. Celsus, in the presence of lord Ruphinus, vicar of the archbishop, and the scholars of St. Mary, and a great multitude of the people. And also I, Ambrose Brasca, and John Baptist my son were present. And of this an instrument was made"; sought by Puricelli very diligently, but in vain. Then, some other things being interposed for the confirmation of this event of which we treat, he subjoins fuller notice concerning that Ruffinus, who by surname was Belingerius, to be found in him, page 640. But those things which we said were interposed are of this substance.

[86] He there proceeds further to establish the truth of the matter from this, which are set forth from Puricelli, that on the first white page of paper before the book of Francesco Petrarch printed at Milan in the year 1494, and given to him on loan—which page corresponds opposite to the printed beginning of the book, and is wont to be placed before books when they are bound—written in a very ancient character, according to the idiom used, he says, in that time by our ancestors, these words are read; which then without doubt the owner of that book is to be believed (as often is wont to happen) to have added for the memory of posterity; which we thus render into Latin from the Italian: "Jesus, 1521, on the 20th day of April, at the 21st hour, the most reverend lord bishop of Alessandria (thus I translate the word 'Lisandria,' which is in the text, now commonly Alessandria, in the duchy of Milan), abbot of St. Celsus, ordered a search to be made in the said church. He found the body of St. Celsus; and still many other relics of various Saints, various kinds, were found beneath the said altar of St. Celsus. There was a very great solemnity in the said church. I truly believe that on that day there came more than two hundred thousand persons to see that blessed holy body." And it is subscribed: "John Anthony da Ro." Thus far there. Then follows, on the testimony of the same Puricelli, on the same page, in the same, as it seems to him, or at least very similar character, written in these words; which from the Italian sound thus in Latin:

[87] "Memorial, how the most reverend and most illustrious lord caused the body of St. Celsus to be replaced in its said place, in the presence of a great multitude of the people," etc. Which happened on the 20th day of April, by testimonies. 1521. But it is not credible that for so great a multitude, flocking together to the sight of a treasure so unusual with such religious and pious eagerness, so brief a strait of time sufficed; which not amiss Puricelli too noted, rightly believing that it was truly replaced and laid away in the altar on the 28th of that month, as in the former book we saw testified. That from the characteristics Puricelli seems to wish to reconcile equal authority with the former writing to this last testimony, is by no means proved to us: for we do not see how it can have been written before the times of Pope Urban VIII, who elevated the title "most illustrious," formerly proper to Cardinals, to "most eminent," the title "most illustrious" being then left to bishops, who before were called "most reverend," as is expressed in the immediately preceding testimony. Unless perhaps in this last testimony that bishop is called "most illustrious" by reason of his family; or for some other singular cause. And let these things alleged concerning the sacred deposit of St. Celsus among the Milanese suffice. The things which Puricelli adds in confirmation of the matter from the testimony of Carolus a Basilica Petri, at last bishop of Novara, can be consulted in him, page 641. But the passage itself these things illustrate:

[88] How it was enclosed among the Milanese. "From this very twenty-first year," says the same author, page 642, "I should easily believe that that custom prevailed, which we now too behold retained in use: namely, that from the iron gratings surrounding the principal altar hang two little parchment tablets, in which it is declared that the very body of St. Celsus is laid away in that altar. Very ancient indeed they still there persist: and the one which corresponds to the left side of those entering is such: 'The body of St. Celsus laid away under the high altar of this church, and his name shall live forever'… The altar, moreover, is compacted of large slabs of white marble: and has a square window in the middle of its back, blocked with an iron grate; through which is conveniently seen an ark, likewise of white marble, enclosed, distant about a palm from the outer slabs. And carved around it stand various images of Saints: and those three which are opposite the window seemed to me indeed to be of Christ the Lord, and of the Apostles Peter and Paul," etc. In that ark, then, the body of St. Celsus is believed to be, and there it is adored by the faithful. And just as I do not at all doubt that it was there so placed in that year of the Lord 1521; so also I judge that nothing afterward, up to the present day, was changed within that marble altar; although some ornaments were then externally added." Thus Puricelli.

[89] [The inspection of the body of St. Nazarius in the year 1578, and the translation in the year 1579, on what occasion] But now it is time that we come to elucidating the things which regard the body of St. Nazarius. Far most celebrated is the inspection of that sacred deposit, and its translation: of which the former indeed was performed in the year 1578; the latter in the next year 1579 by St. Charles Borromeo. Both the most illustrious Carolus a Basilica Petri, mentioned above, an eyewitness of the events, teaches us, while in the Life of St. Charles Borromeo, book 5, chapter 6, he writes these things: "The fifth provincial Council celebrated in the year 1579 by that same holy Prelate of the Milanese, was adorned by the translation of the relics of the basilica of the Apostles; just as the translation itself was greatly illustrated by the presence of the bishops. Charles had moved them the year before: when the canons wished to restore and adorn the ancient edifice. But he had not replaced them in the destined place, so that with greater honor and celebrity, when the council was held, they might be carried through the city, and their translation might be altogether more splendid, and more efficacious for piously stirring the people." Then, a discourse being prefaced concerning the sacred relics found by St. Charles under the principal altar of the basilica of the Apostles, he thus sets forth our material, instructing us admirably concerning the state of the body of St. Nazarius then:

[90] "Under another likewise principal altar set up at the head of the church, by St. Charles Borromeo which likewise had to be removed and set up in a more convenient place, we found the relics of the most celebrated martyr Nazarius, whence the church received its present name: which were laid deep under the ground between certain thin and polished marble slabs. I saw," he says, "something moist adhering to the lower slab, which I indeed judged to be a vestige of the fresh blood, which Paulinus narrates was marvelously found by St. Ambrose with the relics of this Martyr: for we could not conjecture that the body had been moved from that time in which Ambrose laid it. Near the little coffin of St. Nazarius an ark was found, containing the bones of two bodies," etc. But from each place a great sweetness of odor, when the tombs were opened, was breathed out. Then, after he had spoken of another ark found on the right side of the church, embracing the body of a certain holy Ulric or rather Henry (concerning whom there was treatment in the preliminary Commentary of St. Udalric, bishop of Augsburg, at the 4th of July, page 92); he thus continues his narration:

[91] "These relics, then, Charles, having found, piously collected with his own hands, were performed, we," he says, "serving him in the holy office: whom he ordered always to be present at actions of this kind. But when the council of bishops was concluded, he carried out these bodies with very religious and celebrated pomp, and, through a fitting circuit of the streets, himself with the bishops bearing the holy biers, he set them forth to a most numerous people for veneration. All the aforementioned relics he placed under the great new altar, except those carried off from the right side of the church… The method of laying away relics, which Charles used, and which he prescribed for the future, was certainly more than ancient, so far as I perceive, and both fitter for preservation, and more suited to memory; which indeed is contained in his published books." Thus far Carolus a Basilica Petri, who would have won the greatest favor from erudite lovers of the saints, if, besides those things which he narrates gravely and faithfully concerning the body of our Saint found, examined, and translated, he had recounted a little more distinctly and expressly in what state it then was, and what and what sort of larger or smaller parts of the limbs, bones, or members remained in it. A few appended details, however, which he here suppressed in silence, we shall give forthwith from his History of the Milanese Church, in the life of St. Caius III.

[92] Paul Morigia, History of Milan, book 2, is reported from an eyewitness. chapter 23, adapts this solemn translation of the relics to the 10th day of May; and adds that the body of St. Nazarius was carried separate from the head: of which things he himself saw. Further, the narration of the event produced from the Life of St. Charles is illustrated by a few things from the author of the same Life in the History just assigned, which, since they are not there so clearly reported, lest perhaps they be missed by anyone, it has seemed good here to supply from it. "The body of Nazarius," he says, "was buried deep, as much as is the common length of a man, enclosed and pressed between marble slabs, and fortified with lime, and with bricks up to the floor of the church, with a brick tomb standing above the floor itself behind the altar… Charles the archbishop opened the tomb covered with a very large stone, so that even several

priests could move it only with difficulty." And these things, both in this and in the preceding paragraph, being thus set forth concerning the relics of both our Martyrs, we can in no way give our vote to Saussay, who at today's day says that the more important (parts of the relics) were carried into the Gauls.

* that is, "separately"

§ X. Posthumous glory from St. Ennodius; from the sermon edited among the works of St. Ambrose, from a manuscript hymn among the people of Prüm; and from other printed ones, and the Ambrosian Missal.

[The posthumous glory of the Saint is sung in a poem of St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia:] Among the chief ancient authors who by their writings ennobled the posthumous glory of our two Athletes, St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia (concerning whom, as also concerning his age, we made mention already above at number 59), deserves rightly to be remembered, when he composed a hymn in honor of St. Nazarius in Poem 18, bound in iambic dimeter meter, and poured out with a not inelegant vein: which, since it is so ancient, and not unduly long, although printed, seems nevertheless to be given here by us. Thus, then, the Saint sings the Saint: "The lofty times of life, confined within small bounds, holy Death grants to increase, the Eternal prepares the ends. From the harvest of chances it comes, whereby the human race may rise: in a good stock Nazarius from death added light. Happy under the emperor Nero, having endured various evils, he traversed the world, not stiff with grave fear of heart: but that he might implant in the profane by what path they should ascend the heavens, the true master gave examples by deeds, not by words. For that leader is brave, who teaches wars by his strength. Whom does the word draw as a soldier, if the leader abstains from the deeds to be done? Windy is the exhortation of the tongue; that which the model furnishes, it has not. But after he had poured back the great seeds, the earth being written with the hoe, into the best clods, he soon sought Milan, in which by a noble triumph he repelled the ruin of the flesh. Who, lying in an unworthy seat, soon, dread, admonishes the Bard *, that, poured back into the world, he might again add bright gifts."

[94] in the sermon likewise edited among the works of St. Ambrose; The sermon attributed to St. Ambrose, and edited among his works according to what was said in §8, embraces certain singular points, by which the posthumous memory of our Martyrs may be elucidated; which, before we summarily derive them hence hither, we prefix some things to be observed concerning it. That sermon indeed is attributed to St. Ambrose; but is it not wrongly? Carolus a Basilica Petri, in the cited Milanese history, page 25, assigns another author for it in place of that holy Doctor, where he speaks thus: "That the sermon, which is the last of St. Ambrose's sermons, concerning these Martyrs, is of St. Maximus (of Turin), I indeed do not think should be doubted; since to the reader suitable arguments readily show themselves, which deny Ambrose to be the author. And from it Radulph of Tongeren cites some things under the name of Maximus, in his book On the observance of canons": which book is found in the Library of the Fathers edited under the name of Marguerin de la Bigne at Paris in the year 1589, vol. 6, from col. 771.

[95] but which others against others St. Maximus, bishop of Turin, flourished in the 5th century, and there was treatment of him among us at the 25th of June. As concerns the present matter; we judge indeed that that sermon is not St. Ambrose's; but although it be not his, we do not therefore dare to assert that it is St. Maximus's, bishop of Turin; whatever the aforementioned Carolus ascribes it to him affirmatively enough. Nor for settling this controversy does it suffice that Radulph of Tongeren cites it under the name of Maximus, as the same Carolus added. Whether and how Radulph cites it, it is not worth the effort to investigate, by running through his book; and indeed that author is far too young, belonging as he does to the end of the 14th century, than that he ought here to move us even a little. And grant that he had been more ancient, that many writings are cited under the name of some determined author as if truly his, when nevertheless it is either not sufficiently established that they are his, or is proved that they are another's, we judge to be too well known to need establishing. A more recent English bibliographer says that the sermon On the Life of Nazarius and Celsus is thought to be Maximus's, although it is not found among his works. Tillemont, in his notes to our holy Martyrs, vol. 2 of Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 502, says nothing of Maximus; but determines that it cannot be Ambrose's, because it speaks of the Church of Milan as of an external one. He observes likewise that the whole exordium seems to hint that this sermon was delivered in the place where the Martyrs were born; that Nazarius was born at Rome according to his Acts. Of which city those words placed near the beginning of the said sermon can rightly, in our opinion at least, be understood: "Behold, we peoples possess the Martyrs."

[96] But now Tillemont, considering the style, says it seems they disallow it to him that it has some conformity with the style of St. Leo; and that it is at least difficult that the oft-mentioned sermon should not be of some one of the bishops of those first centuries, in which the more polished letters were still cultivated. But although, as he besides observes, it detracts from its authority that its exordium agrees verbatim with the exordium of St. Eucherius's homily on St. Blandina; yet he does not dissemble in adding that the rest is to him sufficiently established, so as to merit esteem and credit. Ludovico Muratori, in the preface to the little work On the site of the city of Milan etc., which is among the Writers of Italy begun to be edited a few years ago, vol. 1, part 2, mentions a codex of the Ambrosian library, in which is found "A sermon on the birthday of SS. Nazarius and Celsus, delivered in the temple of St. Nazarius"; which the ancients, but wrongly, attributed to St. Ambrose. But whether that sermon was delivered at Rome, as it seemed to Tillemont, or at Milan, in the edifice sacred to St. Nazarius, as Muratori notes, or in both places; whether likewise it had St. Maximus, or another, as author; whoever at last he may have been, he seems to be ancient, meriting esteem, and worthy of credit. Meanwhile there can be consulted the things which our Papebroch noted concerning that sermon at the 19th of June, from page 829, on the occasion of SS. Gervasius and Protasius; where you will find that it is of an author younger than St. Augustine, and not of a bishop of Milan, nor also of St. Maximus of Turin; but he wishes rather that it be of some bishop of Sion in the 9th century; but the things which he conjectures both concerning this bishop of Sion and concerning that age do not carry the matter. Nor do we see why we should depart from Tillemont, sufficiently timid and circumspect in asserting things of this kind, who judges that sermon to be much more ancient; concerning which these things suffice more than enough: for we do not delay over our Raynaud, who below at number 125 has recourse to a certain Eusebius Gallicanus: concerning whom let him himself see.

[97] various notices are given Now therefore we shall cull some points, proper to our Saints, other things which are not of this kind being omitted, from the praised sermon, both that authority may accrue to their posthumous glory from the antiquity of the writer, and that thus little by little certain seeds may be prefaced, by which both the Acts of the Saints may increase, and be somehow purged from the tares of falsity, in which they abound. The following, then, we excerpt thence: "Blessed… Nazarius, martyr of Christ, although the holy Church of Milan retains him whole in body with itself, has nevertheless transmitted him whole to the world in blessing… Blessed Nazarius, whose glorious victory over the enemy of the world the universal Church today celebrates with festal exultation, since he was born in the time of gentility of not ignoble parents, while still a boy began of a sudden to detest the military service and likewise the doctrine of his sacrilegious father; and, forestalling the streams of most holy regeneration from his innocent mother, who, already marked with the titles of the Christian faith, sedulously clung to Christ, being now instructed in spirit and faith as a faithful child, he demanded that they be shown to him.

[98] to the present design "For not yet having attained baptism, but perfected among the beginnings of religion… What that gift of divine grace, and how signal, that, having already received the saving laver, after innumerable signs of virtues, after traversing on every side for the preaching of Christ innumerable regions, when for the confession of the most high God almost the whole world raved against him through various tortures, and now he was straitened to be tormented with the most atrocious punishments, now was transported to be exiled in far-off borders, so with the most robust breast of the Athlete of Christ he vanquished all torments, that he might carry off a strenuous trophy from the prostrate enemy: and, amid the bloody commands of Caesar cast into the gulfs of the vast sea, it was granted him by divine providence to walk upon the waters, and, nature being astonished at the matter, bringing his suspended step through the new ways of an unwonted journey, he trod the swelling backs of the sea. You would see the watery waves spread beneath his holy merits, and him, above, strengthened by angelic addresses, exult in the praises of Christ Jesus. Behold, the profane enemy never so much profited the blessed Martyr by service, as he profited by hatred.

[99] suited. "But at length, the contest of the struggle being finished with little Celsus the boy, whom he himself had taken up as a holocaust for God, from the polluted world, he is absolved by a cruel command by condemnation, is consecrated by the sword… Since these things are so, dearest ones, although here so great a Witness of Christ, precious by confession, more precious by blood, more precious by his cruel wound, and by his dyed garment more shining; although here he be thought the peculiar Saint of the Milanese by the privilege of the tomb, yet he is of all by the communion of intercession. For neither has the overflowing charity of that city, and its avaricious faith, so much derogated from this Martyr, while it arrogates him to itself, that it has believed the benefits of his patronage would be present only toward its own walls." And afterward, mention being injected of the Gospel lection concerning the calling of the apostle Philip, and Nathanael found through him, establishing a parallel between the latter and St. Celsus, that this happened, says the author of the sermon, "agrees most aptly to today's festivity; because just as the apostle Philip called Nathanael, so the blessed martyr Nazarius led Celsus the boy to the Lord. For to him too it most aptly consonates: 'Behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile.' For boys are wont to be without guile and treachery. Whence in another place the Lord says: 'Unless you become as this little one, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" These things the author of the said sermon, not a few of which it will help to recall in their place later.

[100] There is at hand a rhythmic manuscript poem, containing the history of SS. Nazarius and Celsus, A few things are briefly culled from a manuscript rhythm of Prüm, patrons of the collegiate church of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Prüm; and taken from a manuscript codex of the choir and church of the collegiate church of Prüm (as is ascribed to our transcript of the same). But because partly to the context of the matter are inscribed antiphons to the psalms of Vespers; partly a hymn; partly finally an invitatory At Matins; it is a sufficient indication to us that those rhythms served the canonical hours, employed for the glory of our Saints. Further, since they lack suitable antiquity, and are nothing but a cento of the common history of the Acts, they do not merit to be transcribed. Behold a specimen from

the beginning, which has thus: "Uroldus, a noble man, and venerable abbot of the monastery of Prüm, Father of this college, to the praise of the other Saints who are there named, and of blessed Nazarius… dedicated this basilica." Concerning which matter Mabillon can be consulted, Benedictine Annals, vol. 4, at the year 1017, page 255. In the printed compendium On the imperial foundation of the monastery of St. Saviour at Prüm, and preserved among us under the title, which is added by hand, "of the Sacristy of Prüm," Uroldus is placed, "of the stock of Dhuna, a praiseworthy man, and venerable abbot, the 17th, presided 9 years, died in the year 1018." And by these things the present matter is, as much as suffices, explained.

[101] Two hymns in the said Aeduan Breviary; and the one which Ferrarius printed from Sannazaro, and by other hymns printed, and the Milanese Missal. it is enough merely to have named; as also the proper Masses of our Saints, which both on the eve or vigil, and on the feast itself, the Ambrosian Missal exhibits, printed in the year 1522. Puricelli, chapter 50, gives the hymn which… the Church of Milan is wont to chant, and from so ancient a time, that "I," he says, "have found it even in the most ancient manuscript codices of the Ambrosian Office." But that hymn agrees in substance with the first of the two among the people of Autun, and so has the same author; who was not St. Ambrose, as Puricelli there proves. We have already advanced so far that certain attributes of the holy Martyrs seem first to be elucidated, which are interspersed in their Acts, before we approach the discussion of them. This, then, we shall accomplish through several following paragraphs, beginning from the birth of St. Nazarius.

* that is, St. Ambrose the bishop

§ XI. The birth; the baptism of the parents and of St. Nazarius; under whom he suffered, and where; a scheme of his peregrinations.

What St. Ennodius sang above, "Nazarius in a good stock," indicates his illustrious or at least noble birth, The noble birth of the Saint, with the author of the sermon edited among the works of St. Ambrose in agreement; by whom he is said to be "born of not ignoble parents." But more explicit and more express than both those testimonies is that of St. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, already produced by us on another occasion at number 57; where the Martyr is praised as "and Nazarius illustrious by his blood." But although the word "illustrious" appears at first sight equivocal, whether it is to be understood of the blood of martyrdom, or of birth; we think nevertheless that St. Ennodius took that word rather in the latter sense, lest otherwise he should have praised the Martyr by an epithet which is common to all Martyrs, and separable from no Martyr at all, if he had taken it in the former signification, who shed his blood for Christ. From testimonies concerning whose antiquity and authority it is not equally certain, as concerning those already produced, to be alleged for the further confirmation of the matter of which we here treat, we forbear, being about to proceed to the parents of the Saint.

[103] the parents, and their names. His father was sacrilegious (understand a gentile) and a soldier; but his mother innocent, who, "already marked with the titles of the Christian faith, sedulously clung to Christ," on the testimony of the author of the praised sermon. For the rest, concerning their names nothing; doubtless because in the source whence he drew his narration, he had found nothing of them. But whence the common Acts of the martyrdom, which are in circulation, took them; and the other writers to whom those Acts gave light, and how truly and certainly they express their names, we do not dispute; nor do we wonder that Paulinus in the Life of St. Ambrose, concerning which we spoke in §2, betrayed nothing of them, from whom at all events at the beginning of the 5th century both these and most other things of this kind were hidden; for the holy Martyr, when he suffered, "we cannot know to this present day," he says. But the names, of the father indeed Africanus, of the mother Perpetua, we already prefaced at number 3 from the eulogy of Ado; yet in such a way that in this place certain things concerning the person of each remain to be examined, as will become plain from the following.

[104] Whether both That both were baptized by blessed Peter the apostle, Ado there says; with the Menologion of the emperor Basil in Ughelli agreeing, but that being silent which Canisius edited with the most eminent Sirletus as translator, as also the eulogy in the printed Menaea at the 14th of October. But on the contrary, the Roman Martyrology at the 4th of August, on which it numbers St. Perpetua among the other Saints of that day, reports indeed that she, baptized by the same Apostle, led Nazarius her son, and Africanus her husband, to the faith of Christ; but concerning the baptism which they wish St. Peter to have imparted to Africanus, it records nothing. The author of the produced sermon neither denies that baptism, nor suggests any probable indication whence you might gather that Africanus, having received it, died a Christian. Most openly the Martyrdom in Mombritius favors baptism; which, although, attributing the observance of the sabbaths to Africanus, it not only indicates that he was a Jew, but by the things which it besides adds, expressly declares that he sedulously strove to deter his son from receiving baptism; yet, the scene being then changed, the writer of the same Martyrdom says, proceeding little by little to the end of his history, that the Saint, meeting his father, now worn out by long old age, yet believing in Christ, found him continually sweating in the work of the Lord with devotion; and that the father narrated to him… how blessed Peter the apostle appeared to him through a vision, and imbued him with the doctrine of the Christian religion, etc.

[105] baptized? "Terrified by the novelty of so great a vision, now I decided," he says, "that nothing else was permitted to be done, than that, admonished by that apostolic precept, that I should believe in Christ, I should purify myself with the wave of baptism." Where baptism indeed is asserted, but of St. Peter as its minister there is silence. But how little value those Acts published in Mombritius have, will be shown in another place below; so that this disputed baptism ought to be reckoned to rest on no testimony, which rests on such; and it is a wonder that the most wise Baronius cited those Acts in his notations at the said 4th of August, for the deeds of St. Perpetua; concerning whom we shall then have to treat. Meanwhile, while we cannot prove the baptism of Africanus from ancient documents solidly enough, we suppose it not unwillingly, content to have reported what is said by others concerning it; where nothing is at hand for us, whence we might determine what truly ought to be said concerning that fact. These things, then, being dismissed, let us return to St. Nazarius; who, by whose hands he received the laver of baptism, is not sufficiently established, nor easy to determine; so that therefore we shall again say the things which have been said before by other authors.

[106] The Menologion translated by Sirletus and edited by Canisius records St. Nazarius could have been baptized by St. Peter the apostle; that he was baptized by St. Peter the Apostle; that this was done by Linus the Roman patriarch, the Menologion of the emperor Basil hands down; that by Linus likewise he was baptized, is noted in the Acts in Mombritius. But in the Ambrosian Breviary of the year 1635 it is thus: "Nazarius… imbued with the mysteries of the faith by blessed Linus the pontiff, is baptized." And now let us recount the rest. The opposite of what has been said Ado, cited, teaches; for he wishes that neither by St. Peter nor by St. Linus, but by St. Clement he was instructed and baptized. These things, which Puricelli, chapter 89, brings from blessed Peter Damian: "Nazarius… a distinguished martyr, as the scriptures testify, by the authority of Peter received baptism from Linus his successor"; can suggest nothing historically certain, on account of the age of the author, who flourished only in the 11th century. The oft-designated sermon recounts indeed that "from his innocent mother… he demanded that the streams of most holy regeneration… be shown to him," and soon there is mention of the saving laver received; but from whom he received it, we do not there find. The time above all does not conflict with his having received baptism from St. Peter the Apostle (although suitable proof is lacking which might urge this fact), because he died in the year of Christ 65 according to what is said in the treatise On the Patriarchs of Antioch which is before vol. IV of July, in the treatment of St. Peter the apostle; and therefore enough time is given him to have washed Nazarius, even as a boy, in the saving waters at Rome, as is said; 25 years having been spent in administering the Apostolic See there.

[107] Concerning SS. Linus and Clement, at least as Roman Pontiffs, it cannot be said that they conferred baptism on our Saint: but not by SS. Linus and Clement, when they were Roman Pontiffs. for the time of the Nazarian martyrdom stands in the way, which by all is placed as having happened under Nero, who laid violent hands on himself in the year of Christ 68; and so such a baptism can in no way cohere with the age of the baptized, with so many peregrinations, and with the whole history of the martyrdom, requiring an interval of very many years, if you wish this to have been conferred by Linus; and much less can it be understood that St. Clement conferred it. I said "at least as Roman Pontiffs"; for if you contend that it was done before their pontificate, thus far we do not see why it could not have been done through them. But these and other things which regard those two holy Pontiffs, it is not the business of this place to treat: concerning them at all events there will have to be treatment with the Roman Martyrology at the 23rd of September, and the 23rd of November. This difficulty concerning the baptism conferred by Linus the author of the martyrdom doubtless saw, which we have taken from the Utrecht manuscript of St. Martin: where the following are noted: "But whereas it is said that he (St. Nazarius) was baptized by Linus the Pope; it is understood that he was not then Pope, but that he was about to be. For Nazarius after his baptism… survived many years; who nevertheless suffered martyrdom from Nero."

[108] And indeed that this happened under Nero, many things persuade. For hither too aims that of Ennodius, which we gave above, The Martyr suffered under Nero, "Happy under the emperor Nero, having endured various evils, he traversed the world," etc. In which matter we believe that certain more ancient Acts or documents gave light to Ennodius; which, although Paulinus did not see, as is established from his words alleged at number 103, it does not thence follow that none existed at that time. In marking this tyrant likewise agree Ado, Usuard, and the other Martyrologists, Greek and Latin, not to mention the Acts of our Saints of whatever sort. Puricelli attaches the martyrdom to the year of Christ 69, the 28th day of July, but attributes more than is fair to the fabulous author in Mombritius, not sufficiently known to himself, when he contends to prove this year from him. Let us say with Ennodius that our champion Nazarius was crowned with the laurel of martyrdom under the emperor Nero; but concerning the determined year it is not established. Nero began to reign in the year of Christ 54, ceased in the year 68, as may be seen in Tillemont, Ecclesiastical Monuments, vol. 2 toward the end, where he exhibits a chronological table; within which time, if we believe Ennodius, the triumph of St. Nazarius happened, and therefore also that of St. Celsus, necessarily. Wrongly, therefore, the Slavo-Russian Menologion of Sparwenfeld

at the 14th of October mentions the holy Martyrs Nazarius, Gervasius, Protasius, and Celsius, as having suffered under Aurelius in the year 171.

[109] At Milan. The wrestling-ground of the martyrdom was Milan, on the testimony of the praised Ennodius in the cited Nazarian Poem 18: for there the Saint is reported "by a noble triumph to have repelled the ruin of the flesh"; or, as we interpret it, to have laid down the remains of his body, ennobled by the blood shed there for the faith. The Martyrologists agreeing with this same wrestling-ground we gave above in paragraph I. The Arabic-Egyptian Martyrology at the 14th of October notes these things: "The contest of St. Nazarius, Gervasius and Protasius, and Celsus, who contended at Rome": by which phrase if you understand (and indeed it seems it ought to be so understood) that our champions consummated their martyrdom at Rome; we openly profess that we defer more to the testimony of Ennodius and of the hagiologists, than to a Martyrology of uncertain author, of uncertain time, and of uncertain credit; and that therefore it neither ought nor can be an authority to us, to snatch the glorious wrestling-ground of SS. Nazarius and Celsus from the Milanese. The Canon among the Greeks, concerning which above at number 52, by those words, "Ancient Rome proclaims your contests," produced there, if it wishes the wrestling-ground of the contest and martyrdom to look thither—which appears to us to be indicated by that phrase—is refuted by what has been said.

[110] It is given from the Acts in Mombritius As concerns the peregrinations, the history is long, the windings long; and the alternation and variation is various and little credible, so that that narration which the author of the Acts in Mombritius exhibits, and other Acts, which, although they be briefer, yet in the substance of things agree with it, appears to have been devised rather for the stage than exacted to historical truth. The said historian in Mombritius, then, places St. Nazarius at Rome, saying: "Blessed… Nazarius went daily to the studies of Roman discipline… His parents… from their goods gave him seven loads of animals with a great weight of gold and silver. Nazarius, having gone forth from the city of Rome, gave many alms," etc.… "Making his journey through the several cities of Italy, he taught all the people to be baptized… But after ten years of his departure from the city of Rome he entered the city of Piacenza, preaching the remission of sins through the baptism of salvation… A few days having passed… he came to Milan: where… he found the confessors of Christ Protasius and Gervasius kept in custody by the prince Anolinus… Anolinus ordered him to be beaten with cudgels… And commanded him to be cast outside the city. Who, rejoicing… went from place to place… He came into a city of Gaul, which is called Cimiez: in which… a certain noble woman of the leading citizens… brought to him her son, Celsus by name…"

[111] "Having gone forth thence, he began through all the neighboring places to plow human minds like a prudent farmer with the plowshare of spiritual virtues… At Trier… when it was engaged, bound, in the cults of idols, it is certain that it first came to know the author of its salvation, holy Nazarius preaching… A report was sent by Cornelius the vicar to Nero, letters being given to him, whose copy is there recited. Nero, having received the letters… sends his soldier Dentus first, to fetch Nazarius. And after many things said and done back and forth, Caesar, the shipmasters being called, commits the Martyr to them, that in the middle of the sea, the framework of the bilge being loosened, he might perish… And after the episode continued with fables; concerning which there is treatment below from number 150, at the entrance of Nazarius that whole ship, ruined, was made solid again; and they were led into the city of Genoa… But Nazarius and the Boy, having entered the city of Genoa, did not cease day and night to preach… Not many days after, having gone forth thence through villages and cities, exhorting, he urged." In which I do not see how the genuine character of truth or of a credible historian, at least as they are here reported, can be found; but let us pursue the rest.

§ XII. Other things regarding the peregrinations of the Saint, and their history recalled to examination.

"But when he had gathered together an infinite multitude of those believing in the Lord… he came to Milan: and at once sought out those whom he had left, the blessed Protasius and Gervasius… placed in prison… Anolinus, hearing of him, That long history of so many peregrinations is to us dramatic, said to his soldiers: How did this man escape the hands of Nero? And ordered that, placed on a cart, they should cast him farther from the city… It was indicated to him that he had been destined to exile… He commended Celsus the boy to a certain Christian woman… and himself awaited the chosen day. He is exterminated from the city; another copy of the letters given by Anolinus to Nero is produced," etc. Cast out from the city of Milan, and destined to exile, he is said… to have hastened to Rome… "And so Nazarius, while undauntedly preaching the word of God at Rome, the opinion of his doctrine was borne far and wide… Having returned thence to Milan, the Boy being sought again, he gave his labor to the word of God… Anolinus… ordered… them to be led outside the city… and there they beheaded them secretly." You have at last, reader, a long and grim-to-read summary of so many ways and journeys; or a new Odyssey somehow adumbrated in our holy Hero, which does not so much instruct the reader by narrating coherent and true things, as delight by heaping up marvelous matters, unexpected outcomes, continual changes, and finally a truly scenic and theatrical apparatus.

[113] Which, lest anyone think it said by us gratuitously, let us discuss the matter more attentively, and give the reason why it is marked by us with so black a pebble. That this may be done, we must return to the baptism of St. Perpetua, nor does it sufficiently cohere with other facts, the mother of St. Nazarius; who, as that author hands down, who is edited in Mombritius, "was baptized by the hands of Peter the apostle at the city of Rome, Simon being now vanquished." Whether that victory happened under Claudius, or under Nero, was disputed long ago among us at the 29th of June, page 407; and that it happened under the latter, not under the former, you will there find: which Tillemont attaches to the year of Christ 65 in what he has concerning St. Peter, Ecclesiastical Monuments, vol. 1, article 34. The Mombritian author soon proceeds, subjoining these things: "And when blessed Nazarius was nine years old, and was being taught by his mother," after many "logoi" which the author obtrudes, "blessed Linus the bishop baptized him." Now recall to memory the things which in the immediately preceding paragraph the same biographer narrated; where "Nazarius, having gone forth from the city of Rome… making his journey" is introduced "through the several cities of Italy… But after ten years of his departure from the city of Rome," he is said to have entered "the city of Piacenza."

[114] which the author of the same history narrates. Recall also to memory the things which with great effort and gaping that same writer then pursues concerning so many peregrinations, preachings, and other deeds, which ought to have been accomplished not at a youthful age, but at a maturely adult one; not in a modest space of a few years, but of many; with Nero recurring again and again and strenuously and graphically playing his parts; recall, I say, all these things to memory, and you will soon understand that the said author obtrudes by no means coherent things, when he composes all these with the reign of Nero, who could survive no longer; but by a good space of years, say twelve or fifteen, had already departed from life, and perhaps longer, so that, after the holy Martyr's baptism, received in the ninth year of his age, as the author wishes, the consequent age, which flowed from it, cannot be fitted to accomplishing so many and so great marvelous, not to say paradoxical, deeds; unless you have recourse to miracles without necessity, which a writer of no name, of no merit and value, ought in no way to impose upon us: since the things which he asserts with great facility are deservedly denied by us, until they be confirmed by the testimony of a better stamp; which would that it might be done! but I fear that it may ever be done.

[115] [The things which concerning the peregrinations in general another author reports,] But so much the more ought that to be done, because that anonymous author, not content to have culled the substance of things piecemeal, determines the individual and singular circumstances of them; namely by expressing the names of places and persons, and other characters which he interspersed again and again in his narration, so wholly intent on every side, that you would say he had drawn all and each thing with his own eyes and ears, did he not betray himself as another sort by ill-combining things which can by no shadowy likeness of truth be so combined. But on this subject we shall meet him at greater length later; now let the discourse return to the peregrinations: which the oft-mentioned author of the sermon thus commemorates indefinitely, and the signs of virtues, the preachings, the punishments and torments, the exile, the trodden waves of the sea, the angelic addresses, Celsus the boy taken up, he so extols with generic and at the same time oratorical phrases mixed in here and there, that he cautiously abstains from all characters of places, persons, etc., and does not even express the name of the Caesar whom he reports. But whether he did this because he found no more; or if he found more, because he did not approve what he found; who would define prudently enough?

[116] we do not dare to disapprove. For indeed we cannot wonder enough that he commemorates such marvelous things concerning St. Nazarius, nor sufficiently understand where he found them, especially since he wrote after Paulinus, the writer of the Nazarian discovery, or at least after the body of St. Nazarius had been found by St. Ambrose, who, that we may repeat the same many times, "when he suffered, up to this present day, on the testimony of Paulinus, we cannot know." Whence, then, could that anonymous author of the sermon know so many and so great things? For that he wrote after Paulinus, or at least after the discovery of the body of St. Nazarius, is certainly established from his words with which the text alleged above from him at number 97 begins. But just as Ennodius shows himself to have known more, and therefore to have drawn from somewhere concerning the deeds of the Saint, than Paulinus; so the author of the sermon could find somewhere more than this one or that one; and therefore his narration, although sufficiently marvelous, and in so far as it attributes so many peregrinations to the Saint, so far conformable enough to the Mombritian one, we do not dare to accuse of falsity, still less to disapprove, since sufficient argument is not furnished to us for either alternative from the admirableness of the things which that author of the sermon summarily touches (for God is marvelous in his Saints), which, since it is confirmed by ancient possession, and is not otherwise weakened by contrary arguments, let it persevere in the same possession which it now enjoys.

[117] But if anyone, not acquiescing in the peregrinations set forth in general, [It is another matter concerning the determined peregrinations, and their circumstances in Italy,] should wish to proceed further, and to survey more deeply their individual circumstances, he will scarcely find where to fix a firm foot in any way, both on account of matters of uncertain credit, and on account of episodes openly fabulous. And of this last kind are those things which the Mombritian author narrates to have happened before St. Nazarius set out from Rome, about to begin his peregrinations. "His parents," he says, "from their goods gave him seven loads of animals

with a great weight of gold and silver." The same author wishes to persuade us that he found at Milan Protasius and Gervasius kept in custody by the prince Anolinus; then that he came into a city of Gaul, which is called Cimiez, in which a certain woman… brought to him her son Celsus. But in our Fulda manuscript the scene is changed, and by the command of Nero Dentus the count goes forth against him with soldiers to seek out St. Nazarius: who, when he had come to the city of Embrun, found St. Nazarius building an oratory, and with him two young men, Gervasius and Protasius, who had gathered to his teaching, and an infant named Celsus, handing up stones.

[118] With these agrees our transcript from the Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour. But another, Gaul, which we have as a copy from the library, as it is ascribed, of the queen of Sweden, vol. 1566, parchment in octavo, very ancient, dispatches the matter more briefly; for SS. Gervasius and Protasius being omitted, "Dentus… found Nazarius in the city which is called Embrun, building an oratory toward the east, and an infant named Celsius sat counting stones." In the lection of the Milanese or Ambrosian Breviary, of which we made mention above, the Saint is said to have traversed many provinces, and Gaul above all, where he baptized the boy Celsus, instructed by him in the Christian religion. Let us now hear the Greeks too. The great printed Menaea and the Anthologion place with our Saint that at Piacenza there were together SS. Protasius and Gervasius, who are there said to have been cast into custody under or by, ὑπὸ, the prince Anulius *; but ours, expelled thence, is said to have come into a city named Κίμελις (Cimelis), and to have taken up St. Celsus τριετῆ ὄντα παῖδα, that is, a boy of three years; which age too the Basilian Menologion in Ughelli expresses. Further, Cimellus and Κίμελις will without doubt denote the same place in Provence of Gaul, not far from Nice, commonly called Cimiez or Cimies: concerning which Adrien de Valois treats in the Notitia of the Gauls at the name Cemenelium.

[119] Hainaut. For the rest, Cimellus, so akin in formation to another place in Hainaut, which is called Cimay, and is plainly different from that former one, may have furnished a handle for drawing our Saints into Hainaut, as if forsooth they had preached the doctrine of Christ there. See the Belgian and Burgundian Fasti of Miraeus at the 28th of July, and the Annals of the province and county of Hainaut collected by Franciscus Vinchant, and augmented and brought to an end by Antonius Ruteau, of the Order of Minims. But, as we indicated before, whoever should wish, beyond a certain generic substance of the peregrinations, to survey the individual places, so many, which our Saint is said to have traversed, will scarcely find where to fix a firm foot; so uncertain is the authority on which they rest. To which too we think must be referred that assertion of the printed Menaea, of the Anthologion, and of the Menologion in Ughelli; for this says: "Twenty years old, he traversed all Italy." But those: "In the twentieth year of his age, St. Nazarius, passing through and preaching in the cities of Italy, led many by the hand to the faith."

[120] Whether and how certain proper names of places can be explained. But, to relegate the former path of Gaul, the said Menaea with the Anthologion wish that our Martyr, together with Celsius, betook himself to the cities of Tiberius, evangelizing; concerning which matter the Menologion in Ughelli is silent. The Martyrdom edited by Surius under the name of Metaphrastes says: "Nazarius departs into neighboring Temerus with the boy Celsius. Now this city Temerus is near Melia." Away with these little-Greek trifles, which it is enough to have mentioned. Although perhaps someone might suspect that Τιβερίου (Tiberii) and also Temerus are written faultily; and that in place of each should be read Τρηβιρῶν, which Ptolemy has, "of the Treveri" (Trier). Thus in Surius, in place of "Melia," curtailed by aphaeresis, perhaps should be placed "Cimela" (which word Usuard uses at the 14th of May) so that it may coincide with Cimellus. But if this is so; then Metaphrastes, the author of that Martyrdom, or another author of the same or similar bent, betrays himself a very bad geographer, who joins Trier and Cimela, places at all events by no means sufficiently known to him, and divided by the whole intervening space of Gaul, in a near neighborhood to each other. But both concerning this matter, and concerning the peregrination of St. Nazarius to the people of Trier, which we reported above from the Mombritian author, and here touched incidentally, more things remain to be said.

* Anulinus

§ XIII. Our judgment concerning the remaining peregrinations imputed to the Saint, and their circumstances.

Whether St. Nazarius to the people of Cimiez, Our Theophilus Raynaud, in his Hagiology of Lyons, from page 412, striving to restore these two names of places already explained to their due reading, concerning the word "Melia" agrees sufficiently with our explanation, which we just gave; but concerning "Temerus" he applies one plainly different from our above. "There is," he says, "Intemelium on the extreme edge of present-day Liguria"; and a few things being run through in its praise, he thus proceeds: "That there lived there… SS. Nazarius and Celsus, driven from Cimiez, the ancient Acts of these Saints represented by Metaphrastes hand down, greatly deformed by the fault of the copyist." In place of "Melia," then, he advises that should be read "Cemelia," rubbed out by error or by a usage familiar to the Greeks, the first syllable truncated; which usage he proves by examples: and this perhaps holds place concerning Intemelium, which likewise they pronounce with the first syllable cut off… "That St. Celsus was born at Cemelia, while he was staying there, is beyond controversy; and therefore St. Nazarius preached the faith of Christ there." Thus Raynaud. The Reverend Lord Peter Jofredus, in his Nice illustrated by sacred monuments, and printed at Turin in the year 1658, page 57, exhibits St. Celsus the martyr as a citizen of Cemenelium, a historical narration concerning each of our Saints being subjoined; but of little value on account of the authors whom he cites at page 62.

[122] But now Raynaud, having proceeded to discuss the name and place Temerus, of Ventimiglia, judges that in place of that word "Treverim" (Trier) is not to be read, whither, driven from Melia, Nazarius withdrew with the infant Celsus; but that from the copyist's unskillfulness it was so written, the neighborhood of both those places not being sufficiently observed, which the writer of the Acts asserts, and which we indicated a little before from his words; from which the city of Trier is far separated, and most separated from the sea: into which, however, Melia being turned aside, they say that St. Nazarius, cast in by enemies of the faith hostile to him elsewhere too, emerged by divine protection, says Raynaud, citing the Acts; attesting to his preaching at Intemelium, as he wishes, and through the rest of Liguria, and the adjoining Insubria: whereas of his labors undertaken for Christ at Trier there is not even a vestige to be found. Of Trier we shall shortly discourse. Meanwhile Raynaud, as you see, says many things in this above fragment; but of the things he says, he proves nothing whatever by documents sufficiently suited to producing historical credit, relying solely on the Acts edited under the name of Metaphrastes: which, because they are wretched, the consequences too which are deduced from them must necessarily be wretched; and although he calls them ancient, he ought to have examined whether those Acts truly merited such a name; which must have been composed only after the interposition of so many centuries from the death of St. Nazarius, if indeed they be of Metaphrastes.

[123] And so Raynaud brings no proof for his Intemelium, set out for Liguria and Insubria; while he brings such; none likewise for the birth of St. Celsus among the people of Cimiez; so that it is a wonder that Raynaud says so affirmatively that that point is beyond controversy; and therefore that St. Nazarius preached the faith of Christ there. What he adds concerning Liguria and Insubria is worth just as much: not because we can say with sufficient foundation that all those things are false; but because they are not proved true; and therefore they do not merit credit, especially on account of the silence, or rather the ignorance, of the more ancient authors; among whom Paulinus had nothing sufficiently ascertained which he might say to the present purpose; but Ennodius and the author of the oft-mentioned Sermon indicate indefinitely that the Saint traveled abroad; but they do not definitely determine the places of the peregrinations. And why, pray, did all those more ancient authors abstain with such concordant silence from determining the places of the peregrinations individually, and even from expressing the very provinces and regions by their own proper name? For this reason, as we think, that they knew nothing at all to say of them individually, still less to determine severally and by name; so that those who afterward attempted this, seem to have taken refuge, not that they might say certainly true things, but lest they should say nothing, either in a verisimilar or in a dramatic diction or composition.

[124] whether likewise to the people of Trier; Come, now let us inquire whether and on what foundation the Trier expedition of St. Nazarius can be established or overthrown. The Mombritian narrator asserts, with such solemn emphasis, that he deserved well of the people of Trier, that it is certain, if we believe the speaker, that it first came to know the author of its salvation, he preaching. To allege our other transcripts of the Acts concerning that Trier preaching is of no importance; nor those whom Puricelli sets forth at chapter 13, Vincent of Beauvais in the Historical Mirror, book 9, chapter 52; Jacobus de Voragine in his Legendary, chapter 97; Peter de Natalibus in his Catalogue, book 6, chapter 147; finally St. Antoninus, in part 1 of his Chronicles, title 6, chapter 27: for authors of this kind, so recent and mere transcribers or compilers of the common Acts, can bring no support whatever to the matter here disputed; since they cannot be worth more than the instruments they employ. Our Christopher Brower, commemorating the apostolate of St. Nazarius among the people of Trier in his Annals of Trier, at the year of Christ 65 speaks thus: "He IS WRITTEN to have come to Trier, and, a great multitude of men being led from the sway of Stygian tyranny to the yoke and service of Christ, to have founded churches, dedicated basilicas, and finally filled up all the numbers of a vigilant and good Christian priest." But by what appearance of truth foundations of churches and dedications of basilicas cohere with the persecutions stirred up under Nero against the Christians, under whom nevertheless these things were done according to Brower, we do not conceive.

[125] Behold now for you, if it please the powers above, St. Nazarius a priest and bishop from Brower's narration; whether he there exercised the office of priest and bishop. which however he moderately tempers throughout by the word "is written"; intimating what has been written concerning that matter, but not indeed what ought to have been written, or what can truly and sufficiently be proved to have been written. And indeed the cited Raynaud, page 413, rightly, although he could have done it a little more modestly, refutes him in these words: "Brower, a most accurate writer of the affairs of Trier, sweats to find how he may set sail with the worn-out rumor concerning St. Nazarius's arrival at Trier; and besides Ado, whom he alleges in vain, since he has plainly nothing to this matter, he adduces two obscure testimonies of more recent writers of scanty accuracy, misled from corrupted Acts: and finally the sermon published under the name of St. Ambrose, which is plainly disallowed to St. Ambrose, since it is a cento woven together from various leaves of Eusebius Gallicanus, read here and there, accommodated to SS. Nazarius and Celsus: in

which likewise there is nothing that favors the Trier apostolate of St. Nazarius; except that the holy Man is said to have traversed altogether various regions; which is easily taken of the so many shores of Italy traversed by him, already an exile from Rome; but that of Ennodius, which we gave above, 'he traversed the world'; and other things from the author of the sermon attributed by some to St. Ambrose, which we have alleged, indicate something more than the shores of Italy alone. That this sermon is "a cento woven together from various leaves of Eusebius Gallicanus read here and there," Raynaud says, but does not prove; nor do we conceive how it can be sufficiently proved: for so great and so various is the controversy of writers concerning the author of that sermon, that nothing in this matter can be determined with sufficient probability, according to what was said at number 94 and following.

[126] As concerns "the two obscure testimonies of more recent writers of scanty accuracy, misled from corrupted Acts," which he carps at as adduced by Brower; Raynaud does not seem to reject this last peregrination consistently enough. another could carp with better right, to whom the Acts of St. Nazarius are not of so great value as they are to Raynaud; for Brower cites Metaphrastes; that same one Raynaud cites, nay rather on that single source he founds, as we saw, the Saint's peregrination among the people of Intemelium. And so with equal step both proceed. Two more recent writers besides, namely Vincent of Beauvais and St. Antoninus, Brower alleges, since they are worth as much as the Acts are worth, which they follow. Little weight too have the things which Raynaud advises concerning the obscurity, scanty accuracy, and corruption; since there are no Acts of St. Nazarius which are not corrupt, and least accurate, and depraved; and so no Acts more can patronize Raynaud for his Intemelium people than Brower for his Trier people. That the Roman Breviary is cited by Brower, either Raynaud did not observe, or knowingly and willingly rather dissembled: concerning which however there is by no means need to labor here. Thus it reads at this 28th of July concerning our Martyrs: "Who, going together to Trier, in the persecution of Nero were both cast into the sea."

[127] By what appearance of truth is the sea connected with the approach to the city of Trier? What the Roman Breviary [says of it.] But the Roman Breviary accommodates itself to the Acts; prescribing in good faith not what ought historically truly to be read, but what it wishes piously to be read. Add that that Breviary, in so far as in it are contained the lections concerning the Saints for the nocturnal Office, is so recent that from the great antiquity of Breviaries no prejudgment can be formed concerning the truth of some most ancient fact, as was said long ago in the Responses of Papebroch to Sebastian a S. Paulo, part 2, article 17, from number 5; many things being there curiously observed in the course of the discussion to the present subject: to which we send the reader. And so the consequence is that the learned people of Trier must either patiently bear that we candidly say that the apostolate of St. Nazarius among them is not sufficiently established to us; or that they establish it by better documents, by which it may be established.

[128] But what of the peregrinations through Italy at Genoa and Piacenza? [The Saint is said also to have gone to Piacenza; likewise to Genoa: where they wish] The former indeed, besides the anonymous Mombritian author, the Acts in Surius hand down, and our transcripts from the manuscripts of Windberg, of St. Maximin of Trier, the Anthologion among the Greeks with the printed Menaea: concerning which what should be said may be abundantly gathered from the preceding observations concerning the other peregrinations. Let the judgment be the same concerning the Genoese peregrination, which is adorned with the fabulous resuscitation of St. Celsus from the dead, described in our Fulda codex Q Ms. 6, folio 21, in the Passion of SS. Nazarius, Gervasius, and Protasius, and Celsus the boy: "But Nazarius went away with Celsus the boy into the city which is called Genoa; and there Celsus the boy lost his spirit: and there was no spirit in him, nor did he speak. Steadfast in mind, and trusting in the mercy of God, St. Nazarius prayed, saying: Lord God of my fathers, show me if the Boy is truly dead, that I may bury him in this place: but if he lives, waiting I will wait for him. And as he prayed, a voice came to him saying: The Boy shall rise again, and shall announce to you joy.

[129] "But about the ninth hour the Boy arose, saying to him: St. Celsus called back by him to life. Hail, father Nazarius. And Nazarius said to him: Hail, son Celsus: tell me, where have you now been. Who answered: In the congregation of the just; and there I saw you standing beside the throne of Almighty God; and he was speaking to you of immortal life. But St. Nazarius, filled with joy, kissed his head; and the Boy kissed his footsteps. And they remained that night within the city. And after three days, rising, he walked with Celsus the boy," etc. Our copy from the library of the queen of Sweden, assigned above, discloses a most similar scene, nay rather in substance the same. This fabulous resuscitation, I say, the Genoese will never persuade fair estimators of things, so long as they produce for its truth no better foundation than Acts of this kind. But what we were saying concerning the Saint's peregrination among the Genoese, we could wish to be strengthened by better monuments of antiquity, so that that might more securely be believed which Uberto Foglietta has, Genoese history, book 1, page 14: "Our city received the Christian religion and doctrine from Nazarius and Celsus."

[130] The peregrination to Vienne and Geneva wrongly ascribed to the Saint by some; Finally Saussay opens to us a new place of apostolate and peregrination in his Gallican Martyrology, at the 28th of July, using these words in his announcement concerning SS. Nazarius and Celsus, by which he attributes to them the title of Apostles of Vienne of Gaul and of the Alpine region; with equal appearance, namely, of truth and authority, with which he soon weaves in the eulogy those apocryphal things among the peregrinations of St. Nazarius: "Having entered Geneva… he first preached the grace of Christ to the citizens; from among whom he baptized Celsus, still a boy, instructed in the saving precepts; and together with him, having proceeded to Trier," etc. He may therefore have found, as we conjecture, either from the words Cimellus, Gemellus, Genebellis, perhaps not sufficiently known to him, or he himself formed Vienne and Geneva, led into error by the akin likeness of the syllables. Unless rather he took this new apostolate among the people of Geneva from Claude Robert in his Gallia Christiana, near the beginning of the Catalogue of the bishops of Geneva; where he mentions the preaching of St. Nazarius, by which among the other citizens of Geneva St. Celsus was converted to the faith.

[131] with a peculiar cult among the people of Geneva. That St. Francis de Sales, bishop and prince of Geneva, was also of the same opinion, I would not dare to say; but Charles Augustine de Sales, in the Life of this his uncle, book 5, page 257, enumerating those Saints whom that most holy Prelate had wished to be celebrated with a peculiar new or ancient cult in his diocese, places "In July, on the 28th, the divine martyrs Nazarius and Celsus: of whom the former, making his journey from Italy to Trier, and having tarried some time in the city of Geneva, converted very many there to the faith; among whom Celsus, quite a young man, a citizen of Geneva… With a double Office": where, besides the new apostolate of St. Nazarius, you have a new fatherland of St. Celsus, plainly different from Cimiez: which, as concerns this place, is not sufficiently established from what has been said; but much less can we ascribe it to the people of Geneva.

§ XIV. Whether St. Nazarius was synchronous with SS. Gervasius and Protasius?

That synchronism long ago called into doubt among us; By the common vote of authors, according to what was said at number 108, the martyrdom of St. Nazarius happened under Nero; which being posited, to ask whether SS. Gervasius and Protasius were synchronous with him and found by him in prison, is almost the same as if you should ask whether, as his, so also their age coheres with the Neronian times. There was treatment of that controversy long ago among us at the 19th of June in the Commentary of SS. Gervasius and Protasius, §5; where, various difficulties being proposed against the affirming opinion, Papebroch at last thus concludes, leaving the matter undecided: "For the rest, what we have said in favor of the opinion referring SS. Gervasius and Protasius to the times of Antoninus and Verus, I would not have taken otherwise than as said by conjecture." And soon he subjoins: "Meanwhile it remains doubtful, matters standing thus, whether SS. Gervasius and Protasius had anything in common with SS. Nazarius and Celsus, besides the place of martyrdom at Milan, and the cult there and at Constantinople, and likewise in the Martyrologies," etc. To what was then said there, let us add here a few things, and let us elucidate the matter, as far as we can, briefly, at least so far as it regards the age of St. Nazarius.

[133] In the first place, no Acts, whether Greek or Latin, at least as they are now in circulation, which even now from ancient monuments present sufficient authority to be able probably to persuade us of the age of which we here treat: for concerning their scanty credit there is no one who can doubt, if he has attended in mind, both to the specimens prefaced from them, and to our fuller castigations of them, to be gathered in their place, all party-zeal being laid aside. It remains therefore to be examined whether and what may be hoped from elsewhere, from better monuments of antiquity. The things which St. Ambrose reports in epistle 54 (we here cite the Cologne edition of the year 1616) to his sister Marcellina: "We found two men of marvelous size, Protasius and Gervasius, as the ancient age bore"; who there too are said to have been "long before unknown"; add likewise this which is subjoined: "Now the old men recall that they had once heard the names of these Martyrs, and had read the inscription"; those things, I say, are indeed an argument that they belong to the primeval times of the nascent Church, but they by no means decide the present matter, since they define no determined year or emperor. Nothing more will you hammer out from that in St. Augustine, book 9 of the Confessions, chapter 7 (where he speaks of the bodies of those Saints revealed to St. Ambrose), "which for SO MANY years incorrupt," etc. And indeed it would be a wonder if Paulinus had known anything more to the present purpose, and if in the Life of St. Ambrose, where he treats of these holy Martyrs revealed to him, he had said nothing else that makes for this point, than that: "But of the martyrs Protasius and Gervasius, as their names, so also their tombs were unknown"; which indeed argues a great antiquity of the martyrdom, but does not demonstrate that which we inquire.

[134] But the same author, treating of St. Nazarius, "When he suffered," he says, "up to this present [St. Nazarius could have been baptized by St. Peter the apostle; is not proved; as neither from an ancient column, as is said;] day we cannot know"; and so he can be neither arbiter nor judge of this our controversy, no more than the author of the sermon ascribed to St. Ambrose, in whom we meet nothing of this kind,

that would help here, and that might impart to us, dug out of these Cimmerian shadows, even at least a glimmering light. Nor indeed can the synchronism of this our Saint with those two others be established from an ancient monument, as is supposed, among the Milanese (concerning which Francesco Bernardino Ferrari wrote in a letter given on the Ides of December of the year 1608 to Rosweyde), from a most ancient marble column (we use Ferrari's words) "which in the year of the Lord 1602 here at Milan near the citadel was dug up, with an inscription of this kind, in letters almost vanishing:

In this place where this * column is fixed Saint Paxius * was beheaded in the year From the Incarnation of the Lord 57, on the 19th day of June, under Count Astasius."

But that inscription is deservedly suspect to us, nor can it be reckoned so ancient that it be referred to the cradle of the Church.

[135] but which on several counts is deservedly suspect For since it reckons the years from the Incarnation of the Lord, it is plain that it did not exist before the times of Dionysius Exiguus, who flourished in the 6th century: to whom we owe it that in his Cycle he began to number the years not by olympiads or consuls or indictions, but from the Incarnation of Christ the Lord, as Baronius reports at the year of Christ 527. But the word "count" (comes) which is applied to Astasius, was not yet in the first or second century employed as a title of dignity; as Tillemont observes in the second note on SS. Gervasius and Protasius, vol. 2 of Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 500. He says that this word was not yet in the first or second century employed as a title of dignity; which appears to Tillemont to be able to be said to have been instituted by Constantine the Great, as may be seen in him, History of the Emperors, vol. 4, article 84; although, as he there notes, the thing itself in itself seems to be more ancient, and its beginning able to be referred to the times of Augustus, who took to himself several senators as "comites," namely companions of his journey, and helpers in the transacting of affairs; which in this manner were carried through with the same authority as if they had been carried through in a full senate, as may be read in him in the place just cited. And thus perhaps is understood "Flaccus, count" (comes), in the Acts of St. Petronilla at the 31st of May, page 420, who came… to her with soldiers, that he might take her to himself as a bride.

[136] it is shown. But whether some Albinus before Constantine was called "count," without adding "of such an emperor," you will find in the same volume, note 68 on Constantine; but if you suppose that Albinus was both a count and lived before that emperor; since that example is perhaps unique, says Tillemont, that ought not to stand in the way, but that to Constantine be referred the origin of the title "count" in the manner in which it was employed both under him and under his successors. For the rest, some things regarding the notion of this word we briefly touched at the 22nd of July on the occasion of St. Joseph the count, whose history we then illustrated. Since therefore that column is overthrown by the two defects now shown, it can suggest no rule either of the age of SS. Gervasius and Protasius or of its own antiquity. Add from Ripamonti, to be cited below, page 55, where, treating of "a little column… dug up near the citadel of Jove," and so doubtless treating of the same, he says it is "an adulterated monument, by the argument of the letters, which of a more recent form ill conceal, namely, the marks and strokes." Therefore from that column nothing is accomplished. Whence then shall we derive that rule of antiquity here disputed? Not from instruments of whatever sort, suspect, or falsely claiming antiquity, ought it to be brought forth, but from the most ancient monuments and of almost the first centuries; and such as are so accommodated that they can conciliate credit for the times of the writer and of the thing written not distant from each other by too great a length. Nor indeed object to us Ambrose's epistle 53, in which mention is made of the discovery of the bodies of SS. Protasius and Gervasius, a booklet being found at their head, of Count Astasius, of the Marcomannic war, etc.: for Tillemont, in note 2 on those Saints, which is placed among the notes on the persecution of Diocletian, page 499, deservedly disallows it to that holy Doctor, as spurious to him, and in several points contrary to epistle 54, which is truly his. More the cited note will give (whence it may suffice to have culled these few things) and the Commentary among us on the 19th of June concerning those Saints, §3, from page 820.

[137] Since therefore on such uncertain principles rests the assertion of the Acts which join SS. Gervasius and Protasius to our Martyr in age, [A system is proposed concerning that synchronism not sufficiently proved from elsewhere,] we candidly profess that we desire greater authority, that in that fact we should agree with the Acts, being compelled in several other matters to depart from their history; and it remains doubtful to us, as long ago it was to Papebroch, whether those two Saints have anything in common with ours, besides the place of martyrdom among the Milanese, and the cult there and at Constantinople, and likewise in the Martyrologies, etc. But if, without offense to those who otherwise join these Saints to each other, it be permitted us to expound the sincere sentiments of our mind on this matter, we shall form a certain system, by which it may be given to understand whence that conjunction took its origin, in what manner it then proceeded, and finally how widely and diffusely it crept into the writings of the Middle Ages, adopted also by other more recent writers. A mere system, I say, all those things will be; or a hypothesis, which we propose especially to the learned Milanese to be weighed for a while, until either they themselves or others suggest more certain things to us, being meanwhile most ready to be taught, and to change our conjectures, if either sufficient reason, or suitable documents, or some probable authority persuade us of the contrary.

[138] We therefore thus judge: that our Saints are joined with SS. Gervasius and Protasius in time, and handed down in the Acts, that St. Nazarius found them at Milan in prison, exhorted them to martyrdom or consoled them in their afflictions; that both Acts were mixed together, etc.—all that must be traced back, as to the first source of the conjunction made, to this, that the wrestling-ground of martyrdom was the same for all, and the place of discovery morally the same; the time of passion the same at least so far, that to the primitive age of the Church SS. Gervasius and Protasius belonged; but ours to Nero, at least according to what we could establish before on this matter. Which things standing thus, what more accommodated or more desirable could happen, to the purpose of authors of suspect credit, following the times of St. Ambrose and St. Ennodius, and also of that Paulinus who committed the Life of St. Ambrose to writing, than that, this opportune occasion being offered to them, they should adorn some things from the Acts of those Saints on both sides; and this perhaps with little or no suspicion of their own or of others, of an ornament of this kind; which, inasmuch as so many congruous agreements seemed to favor it?

[139] But that this was done in the eighth or ninth century, [and in the Middle Ages or perhaps earlier adopted, by the example of the Acts of another Saint] we cannot certainly define; but that either then, or even earlier, or at least in the age of the Middle Age, it was done, we seem able to suspect with some foundation, mindful of the things which we advised long ago in the Commentary of SS. Gervasius and Protasius, §5, number 40, and which are read interspersed by a mature examination concerning their Acts, and also those of SS. Nazarius and Celsus, although with respect to these then still premature, in these words: "Equally famous as the four Saints of whom hitherto, and patron of the Church of Milan, St. Victor the Moor, from the military service of the emperor Maximian, having suffered under him and his counselor Anolinus in the year 303, was not much more fortunate in his Acts; because, though they be faulty, as we showed at the 8th of May, yet Maximianus, the notary of the emperor Maximian, feigns that he himself wrote them, as he had seen while present. Meanwhile he introduces the Martyr foretelling that the emperor would die in that very year, who nevertheless survived until the year 310." I omit other things once noted: it is enough to have touched these here in passing; that it may be established that there were in the Middle Age at Milan men indiscreetly pious, who thought they were rightly consulting public devotion, by composing the Acts of those Saints, of which none existed, from the ill-cohering traditions of the common people, and from their own conjectures.

[140] which is set forth, and confirms our conjecture, But they did this under ancient names, apt, if they were true, to produce most certain credit; as, wrongly done, we now late detect; being about to find credit only with difficulty themselves among those preoccupied in favor of the fables, propped by the prescription of long time: so long did the imposture lie hidden even from distinguished writers and men otherwise erudite. To judgments of this kind, however in appearance harsher than is fitting, both here and in six hundred other places in the course of our work, we are compelled by the open and at the same time shameless lust of fabling, by which biographers of that kind sell us, for matters most serious, suspect matters and mere trifles; we are compelled likewise by the love of truth, which both everywhere else always and here especially must have its place; we are compelled finally by the true glory of the Saints, which, content with its own splendor, is honored by true praises, disgraced by false ones. But that the Acts of our holy Martyrs, especially the Mombritian ones, underwent a similar fortune, will become clear below. But concerning the controversy now agitated, whether St. Nazarius lived together with SS. Gervasius and Protasius, acted together, etc., let this have been said hitherto from our conjecture.

[141] not too rigid and exotic, Which, lest it seem to anyone too rigid, marvelous, and exotic, let him hear what the learned Milanese themselves judge concerning it, and how affirmatively they set forth their sentiments. Let one suffice (for to inquire after more is of no importance), Giuseppe Ripamonti, who in decade 1 of the Histories of the Church of Milan, book 1, page 44, has thus: "To Nazarius and Celsus various Annals connect Gervasius and Protasius, and explain the offices of mutual charity, by which the one helped the others, when they were held by the same chains. That report how greatly it strays from the truth, and confounds the times and order of things. For it is established by the most certain credit of letters and monuments that Gervasius and Protasius existed some years after this very time." And there, page 55: "For the rest, the year of martyrdom," he says, "to every writer of such matters, attentively and anxiously investigated, still lies hidden in obscurity, and by a marvelous winding and variety of contentions the whole matter is drawn to this part or that." And, some difficulties being recounted, he thus concludes the matter: "These things, contrary and diverse among themselves, cannot be composed by our authority. Certainly it is established that they were later than Nazarius and Celsus, contrary to what some writers have handed down." Thus he.

[142] so that it can deservedly displease the Milanese themselves. When he pronounces so affirmatively that SS. Gervasius and Protasius were later than Nazarius and Celsus, he says perhaps more, as is our suspicion, than can from ancient and credible monuments be solidly proved

to be able to seem. From solid, I say, and credible monuments; in whose number we by no means place their common Acts, nor the pseudo-Ambrosian epistle, and so not even the chronological characteristic of the Marcomannic war inserted in them. Consult Baronius in the notations of the Roman Martyrology at the 19th of June, as also our annotations cited a little before at number 136, letter o. Nor do the Legends of Victor the Syrian, of whom we now spoke, move us; nor those of St. Hermagoras, foisted under the pompous, so to speak, shadow of ancient names upon contemporary witnesses, concerning which one may consult the above-assigned Commentary of SS. Gervasius and Protasius, §5. Would that they were of a better stamp, the things which are found in the historical Commentary on St. Juventius at the 8th of February, §2, page 153; where it is reported that he received the gore of blessed Nazarius from a certain handmaid of God, when his neck had been cut; that with it he healed a demoniac, and did other miracles, and promoted the faith.

* "this"

* "Protasius"

§ XV. The writers of the Acts; the examination of those which are in Mombritius.

Let us begin with the writers of the Acts, being about then to proceed to examining the Acts themselves. But since they are in circulation of a twofold kind, The Greek Acts are attributed to Symeon Metaphrastes; namely Latin and Greek, or translated from Greek into the Latin tongue; first concerning these, then concerning those, so far as pertains to their writers, we shall treat. Of the Acts which exist translated into Latin in Surius at the 19th of June, and which, as we said, are mixed with the Acts of SS. Gervasius and Protasius, Leo Allatius judges the author to have been Symeon Metaphrastes, in his Diatribe on the writings of the Symeons, page 130. They begin thus: Νέρωνος αὖτις τὰ Ῥωμαίων σκῆπτρα διέποντος ὁ θαυμαστὸς Ναζάριος. That is: "Nero again wielding the scepters of the Romans, the wonderful Nazarius." The title is this: "The Life and contest of SS. Nazarius, Gervasius, Protasius, and Celsus." Under that author's name too Surius gives them, under which we too have alleged the same several times above. Let them therefore be his; although we judge it very difficult to say which Acts are truly his, and which spurious to him. Our Greek exemplar does not display the author's name. Nor do more things occur which we might say concerning the author.

[144] The Acts which Mombritius edited are anonymous, What Mombritius edited seem composed by an anonymous Milanese: and in vain therefore would you investigate the author's name. Otherwise we judge concerning his fatherland; for that he was a Milanese is an argument that in his preface he says: "Of our Patron too the prerogative." And soon: "Our most celebrated Martyr." Which, because they can be said more properly by none than by a Milanese, therefore those suffice for us, that from a certain probable conjecture we ascribe that anonymous author to the Milanese. But as concerns his age; he did not write before the times of St. Ambrose: for toward the end of his history he treats of the revelation, discovery, and translation of the bodies of SS. Nazarius and Celsus. Nay rather that he wrote long after, this is an indication, that on the occasion of the miracles that followed the translation of St. Nazarius, he says "up to the present day." But whether he lived in the Middle Age, in which we were saying that indiscreetly pious men lived among the Milanese at number 139; or even earlier, or later, wholly escapes us. We find nothing to our purpose in Tillemont in his notes, nothing in Puricelli. This is manifest, that, whoever he was, in whatever time he lived, he ill combines his matters, sells fables, and represents a pious and scenic drama: for to these three heads we shall reduce our examination concerning his Acts.

[145] And first indeed, he ill combines, I say, his matters. who ill combines his matters, Of whose number in the first place is the baptism of St. Perpetua, mother of St. Nazarius, with Simon Magus now vanquished, connected most ineptly by that author with the ninth year of St. Nazarius, and so long a subsequent series of deeds and peregrinations, and finally with the martyrdom under Nero; consult what we said above at number 107. Nor with a better connection do we understand the observance of the sabbaths of Africanus, father of St. Nazarius, and that, "The father on the sabbath day in the observance of his law" (namely the Jewish) to cohere with the following, which are imputed to Africanus as said to his son: "To you I will give the mystery of my religion, and you shall be glorious in the sight of the princes of the city of Rome." For what has Nero, or the other, if you will, gentile Roman princes to do with Jewish observance? Of the same bran are those: "The most holy bishop Linus sitting on the chair of the Roman Church, who by first religion succeeding blessed Peter the apostle," etc.; from whom, as is soon said, our Saint sought and received baptism; see the cited number 107; where we said that it does not cohere. But these: "His parents… from their goods gave him seven loads of animals with a great weight of gold and silver"; concerning which matter we made mention at number 100; these likewise: "Having gone forth… from the city of Rome… making his journey through the several cities of Italy, he taught all the people to be baptized," etc. These, I say, are they the deeds of a nine- or eleven-year-old boy?

[146] which we show by no means cohere, And a little after it is said: "But after ten years of his departure from the city of Rome, he entered the city of Piacenza, preaching," etc. See the follies: baptized at nine years by St. Linus the pontiff, already a Roman pontiff, he suffers martyrdom under Nero: how then, in that case, does he appear at Piacenza, unless already dead? But what is narrated afterward, namely that our Saint, "a few days having passed… came to Milan; there, while he sedulously preached the word of God… found the confessors of Christ Protasius and Gervasius"; this we here leave untouched: for whether and what St. Nazarius could have in common with them, was discussed in §14. What then afterward? "It was announced concerning him to Anolinus, governor of Italy; who at once… orders him to be dragged to him with speed." Baronius in his notations at the 28th of July places four synonymous Anolinuses or Anulinuses, and one of these under Nero; but the question is, whether and whence this last can be persuaded to us; whether, I say, from better documents than are the Acts which we discuss, or writings of that kind of bran. To prove this certainly we profess that they by no means suffice. Meanwhile see the things which concerning the synonym who lived under Maximian are said among us in the Commentary of St. Proculus at the 23rd of March; of St. Victor at the 8th of May, and in the Acts of SS. Nabor and Felix, the 12th of July: whose name, or that of another who raged after Nero, we suspect to have been intruded here, and wrongly placed under Nero: concerning which matter the Commentary of SS. Gervasius and Protasius will instruct you at greater length, number 43; where that Neronian one is blown away.

[147] but to fight with the truth, Let us proceed with the Mombritian Acts: "He began to found an oratory to the Lord, and ordered it to be consecrated"—our Saint, namely, who never, as far as we know, was a bishop. See above at number 125. And indeed how do those things cohere which the author in Mombritius records, wishing to conciliate authority to his narration from them; but because they openly fight with the truth, he greatly injures himself and his Acts by alleging things so similar: "A certain philosopher, a follower of St. Nazarius," he says, "wrote from the beginning a booklet of his contest, which he faithfully kept hidden with himself. But being admonished in a vision by the Saints, he brought that same writing of the sacred contest to Ceratius, who had buried their precious bodies: and just as it had been commanded to Ceratius by the same Martyrs, laid away at their heads, until the day of their revelation it remained hidden." Let the reader combine these things with those which soon follow: "But afterward… God revealed their bodies… to the most blessed Ambrose, bishop of Milan… during the reign of Theodosius the religious emperor"; who had already died, as we proved at number 14. For Paulinus, an eyewitness of that discovery, an inspector, and a most accurate describer of all, even the most minute, things which he saw in it; was either blind, if he did not see that booklet laid away at their heads, but hidden until the day of their revelation, and therefore then found; or beyond belief negligent and careless, not to say mendacious; since, when the Saint suffered, "up to this present day I cannot know," he professes. Do you see into how many ἀνακόλουθα, ἀσύστατα, ἀσύναπτα (incoherences, inconsistencies, disconnections) that Mombritian author has struck, by ill combining his matters?—which in the first place we had undertaken to prove.

[148] The second, that he sells fables, we thus show. In the first place, the epistle or report, with fables as it is there called, under this exordium, "To Nero Caesar and most pious consul, Cornelius greeting," in these circumstances of things, persons, and time, is displeasing; whose substance it is tedious to describe. There follows: "Nero, having received the letters, moved by the wrath of indignation, called to him Dentus, his first soldier; and said to him: With all haste, soldiers being received, hasten into the province of the Gauls, and set the contumacious Nazarius, murmuring against the gods, bound in neck and hands, before our tribunals to be punished: which done, Nero… Dentus being summoned, ordered a talent of gold to be given to him." A lid worthy of the dish! Nor are these more tolerable: "When Nero had sent hunters into the mountains near him to catch wild beasts, and with all effort that multitude of beasts was driven, descending to the lower parts, it sought with rabid course the doors of the pleasure-garden in which Nero was, many of his armor-bearers being slain: very many too were worn down by biting, so much that Caesar himself, disturbed by excessive fear, fleeing from that place, struck in the foot, weary reached the palace nearby… And when Nero, torn by the chance of the wound, had lain sick for many days," etc.

[149] Then "one of the soldiers, striking him, fell in the foot, and dashing against a stone lost his eye"; and more things of this bran, to be besprinkled, which are subjoined, and of which we shall treat a little later, what do they contain but apocryphal matters? But those: "Anolinus, hearing of him, now having set out for Milan, said to his soldiers: How did this man escape the hands of Nero? And ordered that, placed on a cart, they should cast him farther from the city. And… it was indicated to him that he had been destined to exile. Then… he commended Celsus the boy to a certain Christian woman," etc.; those, I say, who would read patiently enough? Whom likewise would it not move to commiseration, that other copy of the letters by which "To the emperor Nero, and most pious consul, Anolinus says greeting," and concludes it with these words: "I await the letters of your greatness, that on a man of so great audacity you may impose the term of a compendious death." For truly credulous and very simple must he be, who in the whole heap of the narration does not detect the palpable texture of concatenated fables, so disposed by that author and ordered with such distinct connections of the smallest circumstances, that you would say these things could not have been so expressed otherwise than by one who counted, so to speak, the individual steps of the Martyr in person; which how

far this is from that author, is manifest from what has been said.

[150] and a pious and scenic Now concerning the third point, which we undertook to demonstrate, and which we said is placed in a pious and scenic drama, receive these few things out of many, that we may consult brevity. But to pass over the prologue, and the frequent dialogues in the course of the Acts, and the scene of places changed again and again and castigated above by us, the apparition of the mother, the intercession of the wife of Denovaeus, governor of the Gauls, with her husband on behalf of the Martyrs, another apparition of an angel, etc., which smack of the theater; behold for you the chief episode: "On another day, Nero, rising at first dawn, came to the sea-harbor, in which was a multitude of ships, and Nazarius being led out of prison, said to him: Tell me, seducer, what madness held you, that you reduced to nothing the loosed names * of the gods? Now I order you to be thrown into the depth of the sea… Then Caesar, the shipmasters being called, said to them: Provide a ship, and the rebellious Nazarius being placed on it, withdraw farther from the land, and in the middle of the sea, the framework of the bilge being loosened, that he may perish, leave him shattered among the waves… And if by magic arts he overcomes the seas, pursue him cast up on the shore, and burn him alive with fire, and cast the ashes of the burnt body into the sea… And report to me; and I will give you the goods of this world, and you shall be glorious, augmented by the king's gifts."

[151] Nazarius and the Boy are taken up into the ship… "They cast them into the sea. exhibiting a drama And straightway a great light shone upon them… But the angel of the Lord descended to them, and showing them the testament of the Lord, comforted them." What more? There follows then the shipwreck of the sailors, their conversion, the ship made solid again, the entrance into the city of Genoa, the sacrament of the mystery handed to the sailors, Nazarius preaching, etc., "who came to Milan; and at once sought out those whom he had left, the blessed Protasius and Gervasius… placed in prison, and having found them comforted them," etc. What is it to weave episodes, if this is not? But this is not yet the end: for at the time when blessed Nazarius, cast out from the city of Milan, and destined to exile, is said to have hastened to Rome; and in his own house, being sought, "he met his father, now worn out by long old age, yet believing in Christ, continually sweating in the work of the Lord with devotion. Whom, when blessed Nazarius solicitously questioned, whether he followed the Lord even to perfection, he narrated in order all the things that had been done concerning him: how blessed Peter the apostle appeared to him through a vision, and imbued him with the doctrine of the Christian religion, asserting that it was not just that, his wife and Son going before him to the heavenly kingdom… he himself should pay the penalty of cruel hell." But not even the burial of our Saints lacked an apparition, which was made by them, if we believe our writer, to a certain man named Ceratius; which we do not transcribe.

[152] Puricelli praising it in vain. We have therefore in that writer, as we were saying, matters not cohering among themselves, interspersed with fables, and adorned with dramatic apparatus. Who after these things would not wonder that Puricelli could ill defile so many pages in reforging his matters through the course of his Nazarian Dissertation? And indeed "the Life elaborated by him seems to me by far both richer and nearer to the truth," as he says at chapter 3. "The author set before us," he says at chapter 4, "we here too accompany, hanging on his mouth and pen." At chapter 14 the author is praised… "chosen by Mombritius, and by that very choice commended to posterity for following, as of more certain credit"; but how with no right Puricelli decorates with so many praises one whose worth at all events he did not sufficiently know, is abundantly clear from what has been said. But let us proceed from these Acts to examining others.

* perhaps "the deities" (numina)

§ XVI. Other exemplars of the Acts castigated; which and why of them especially is here given by us.

Since the other exemplars of the Acts, both printed and manuscript, which we shall shortly commemorate, lack all authority suitable for persuading, From our censure of the Mombritian Acts the others can be corrected. and are heaped with such filth as leaves us no doubt but that all smell of one and the same, or at least a most similar, bilge; this is the reason why we think we should forbear from collecting the several dregs of them, the collection of observations being about to be of use for this matter, which we just now assigned concerning the Acts of all—the worst, that we at least have seen—published in Mombritius; by the aid of which observations any others similar or akin in subject, although smaller in bulk, and so far better, can be castigated by anyone who is pleased to compare them with each other. To say nothing of the Acts in Vincent of Beauvais, Jacobus of Genoa, Peter de Natalibus, and St. Antoninus; obvious are those which are given in Surius; where the author, treating of the parents of St. Nazarius, is plainly singular in this, that he says: "God, as it were rewarding their piety… gave them a son, heir at once of virtue and of goods"; which certainly do not agree with the preceding statements in this Commentary, numbers 103 and 104: where we treated of the Saint's father. The parachronisms concerning Theodosius the Great wrongly produced we detected above at number 14.

[154] Alfonso de Villegas in his Flos Sanctorum at the 28th of July Certain errors are noted, professes to give the Life of our Martyrs from Simeon Metaphrastes; but toward the end he says that the emperor Theodosius, the second of this name, built a temple for them, on this occasion, that passing through Milan, he received their relics, and carried them with him; and then, victory being obtained by their visible aid in a battle against the Scythians, in grateful memory of the benefit received, he elaborated a sumptuous temple for them, as the said author wishes; adding that while their bodies were being placed in it, God worked many miracles through them. But by what authority did that Legendist substitute for Theodosius the Great, whom, though wrongly, the Life ascribed to Metaphrastes expresses explicitly, Theodosius the second, grandson of the first synonym through his son Arcadius?

[155] Besides, we desire to learn whether and when Theodosius the younger was at Milan. into which a certain legendist struck. That the barbarians conspiring against Theodosius were punished by God, and their leader struck by lightning, we know; concerning which matter Baronius can be consulted at the year 425; but nothing there do we find concerning our Saints. Concerning the places in which their bodies were deposited, enough has been said above; whence the cited Legendist is convicted of falsity in what he brings concerning that temple, and the bodies of the Saints replaced in it. You see, reader, to how many errors those writers are liable who neither sufficiently understand nor sufficiently aptly combine the things which they rashly throw onto paper. Nor can the alleged author be exempted from hallucination when he fitted the Lorsch translation to our St. Nazarius, to be understood of another synonym of his according to what we prefaced at number 79. Our Pedro Ribadeneira in his Flos Sanctorum at the 28th of July composed a compendium of the common Acts; but rightly consulted his own interest, because he omitted those things into which the above-said Legendist erroneously struck. That the name of St. Nazarius was erroneously inserted in the Commentary of St. Ambrose on chapter 13 of Luke according to the greatest part of the printed exemplars, Tillemont observes in his notes on SS. Nazarius and Celsus: otherwise it will be necessary to say that he did not lay down his arms, and that he did not declare himself a Christian in a loud voice, except for the cause of persecution; which does not rightly agree with what is narrated in his own deeds: as the same author there well observes.

[156] Very many manuscript exemplars are recounted We have at hand several manuscript exemplars of the Passion; namely transcripts from the Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour, and of St. Martin, from the library of the queen of Sweden, vol. 1566, parchment in octavo, very ancient; from the Fulda one, which is noted as collated with the very ancient manuscript of Velser; to which add our copies from the manuscript of St. Maximin of Trier, from the Barberini manuscript Legendary; likewise of the monastery of Böddeken of the regular canons of St. Augustine, of the diocese of Paderborn, from a parchment manuscript passional of the month of June, marked f 80, p. A, finally from the Windberg manuscript; to say nothing of our Vaucelles codex; and three besides anonymous, P Ms. 18, Q Ms. 2, Q Ms. 7; but so manifold a catalogue of exemplars makes only the number of the Passion transcribed and rewritten several times, not credit, not authority, not a credible history; as becomes clear from the few specimens which we propose. In the Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour and the Fulda one, as also in our codex Q Ms. 2, Nero is said to have been strangled by demons. From the Böddeken, Barberini, and Windberg ones we have Nero dead with his right foot dried up; to which is added the copy from the library of the queen of Sweden, in which it is faultily said, "the right foot of Nero was cut off," etc.; but the copy from the manuscript of St. Maximin of Trier, because it places the martyrdom of St. Nazarius under Domitian, therefore consequently fables: "The right foot of Domitian dried up, and he died."

[157] and in some are markedly castigated; The same trifles concerning the dried-up right foot and the death of Nero our codices P Ms. 18 and Q Ms. 7 hand down. And indeed who would sufficiently conceive that dreams of this kind concerning a matter so commonly known, so historically certain—the death of Nero, I say—could fall into a sane brain; which at all events he anticipated, already imminent to him by public authority, by laying violent hands on himself; as may be read in Baronius at the year 70, and Tillemont, vol. 1 of the Emperors, in the treatment of Nero, article 31. The same fabulous pottery seems to smell of the tragic death of Denovaeus and Anolinus, whom some of the cited exemplars record as strangled by the devil. But now there is enough and more than enough filth for a judgment to be formed how of no merit are the Acts which are commonly circulated concerning our Saints, most worthy certainly of a history of a better stamp.

[158] Which, while it fails us, it has seemed good to select for the press before so many other exemplars that Passion before which is here printed the copy from the Utrecht manuscript of St. Martin. which is noted as copied from the Utrecht manuscript of St. Martin, and which exists, as is ascribed to our copy, in the Thuringian manuscript; not because it is good, but because among so many bad ones it is at least so far less bad, since it dispatches the history of the Martyrdom most briefly. But from other characteristics we cannot praise it before others as true, genuine, and sincere. For it is a rivulet derived from a filthy spring, and itself filthy. Concerning the author, or at what age this Passion was written, do not ask. We could have interwoven into this paragraph the testimonies of various authors who treat of matters regarding the Saints; but with none would it be worth

the effort; since the authors are not ancient, and therefore ought or can be worth as much and not more in most ancient matters, as the sources are worth from which they drew their own. If, however, anyone desires to see those authors, let him go to Puricelli's Nazarian Dissertation toward the end. These things being prefaced, now we exhibit to the reader a Martyrdom of whatever sort to be inspected, with a few annotations. More the preliminary Commentary will give, to be cited here again and again to the point of nausea, did we not refer the reader to it.

MARTYRDOM

From the Utrecht manuscript of St. Martin.

Nazarius, Martyr, at Milan (St.)

Celsus, Martyr, at Milan (St.)

BHL Number: 6049

FROM THE MANUSCRIPT.

Nazarius, son of a most illustrious man named Africanus, but a Jew, and of a mother Perpetua, most Christian and most noble among the Romans, The parents and baptism of St. Nazarius: and baptized by Peter the Apostle, when he was nine years old, wondered greatly, seeing his father and his mother so dissimilarly varying in the observance of religion, and that his mother followed the law of baptism, but his father the law of the sabbath: whence to which he ought rather to cleave, he doubted greatly, since each strove to draw him to his own faith. At length, by the will of God, he clung to the footsteps of his mother, and received holy baptism from blessed Linus the Pope. But his father began to turn him from his holy purpose, and to explain in order the kinds of torments which were inflicted on the Christians. But whereas it is said that he was baptized by Linus the Pope, it is understood that he was not then Pope, but that he was about to be. For Nazarius after his baptism, as will be said below, survived many years: who nevertheless suffered martyrdom from Nero, who in the last year ^a of his reign crucified Peter. But Linus was Pope after the death of Peter.

[2] But when Nazarius by no means assented to his father, but rather most constantly preached Christ, he is dismissed by them for fear of persecution: at the prayers of his parents, who feared lest he be killed, he went out from the city of Rome, and taking seven pack-horses ^b laden with the riches of his parents, he came through the cities of Italy, and distributed all to the poor. But in the tenth year of his departure from Rome, coming to Piacenza and then to Milan, he found the holy Gervasius and Protasius kept there in prison. But it having been heard that Nazarius was encouraging the aforesaid Martyrs, he is quickly dragged to the prefect, and persevering in the confession of Christ, is beaten with cudgels, and thus cast out from that city, while he went from place to place, his mother, who had died, appeared to him, and comforting her Son, admonished him to hasten to the Gauls.

[3] And when he had come to a city of Gaul, which is called Gemellus, and had there converted very many, a certain matron ^c offered him her son named Celsus, an elegant boy, having set out into Gaul he receives Celsus the boy; asking that he baptize him, and lead him with him. And the prefect of the Gauls, hearing this, shut him up in prison with the boy Celsus, bound with hands behind and constrained at the neck with a chain, that on the morrow he might afflict him with torments. Then his wife sent to him, asserting that the judgment was unjust, that he should kill the innocent, and presume to vindicate the all-powerful gods. By which words the governor, reproved, absolved the Saints, but admonished and forbade that they should presume to preach there.

[4] he goes then to Trier; but thence is led to Nero. He came to the city of Trier, and there first preaching Christ, converting many to the faith of Christ, he built a church there. Which Cornelius the vicar hearing, intimated to the emperor Nero: who sent a hundred soldiers to seize him. Whom, when they had found him beside the oratory which he had built for himself, they bound his hands, saying: Great Nero calls you. To whom Nazarius: A disordered king has disordered soldiers. For why, coming, did you not say honorably, Nero calls you, and I would have come? Bound, therefore, they led him to Nero; and Celsus the boy weeping, striking him with blows, they urged him to follow. Which when Nero had seen, he ordered them to be shut up in prison, until he should destroy them with tortures devised.

[5] Nero is punished, the idols are broken by St. Nazarius: Meanwhile, when Nero on a certain occasion had sent hunters to catch wild beasts, suddenly a multitude of beasts breaking forth entered the pleasure-garden of Nero, where it both tore many and killed very many; so much that Nero, disturbed, fled, and with wounded foot scarcely came to the palace. But lying sick for many days with the pain of that wound, at length he remembered Nazarius and Celsus, and thought the gods were angry with him, because he permitted them to live so long. By the emperor's command, therefore, the soldiers, pounding Nazarius with kicks and beating the boy, led them out of prison, and set them before the emperor. But Nero, seeing his face bright like the sun, thought he was being deluded phantastically, and told him to lay aside his magic arts. Nazarius, therefore, being led to the temple, asked that all go out, and thus, as he prayed, all the idols were broken.

[6] [who by his command together with Celsus is cast into the sea, but is divinely preserved.] Which Nero hearing, ordered him to be cast into the sea, commanding that if perchance he should escape, those following him should burn him with fire, and cast his dust into the sea. Nazarius, therefore, and the boy Celsus are placed on a ship, and led into the middle of the deep are cast down; but at once around the ship a great tempest is stirred up, and around the Saints a great tranquility is discerned. And when they feared to be endangered, and repented of the evils which they had committed against the Saints; behold Nazarius with the boy Celsus, walking upon the waters, appeared to them with cheerful countenance, and climbing up onto the ships, they now believing, by his prayer calmed the sea.

[7] [He preaches at Genoa; at Milan finds SS. Gervasius and Protasius; at Rome learns of his converted father.] And thence with them he came to a place about six hundred paces from the city of Genoa; where, when he had preached for a longer time, he came at last to Milan, where he had left the holy Gervasius and Protasius. Which when Anolinus the prefect had seen, he directed him into exile, Celsus remaining in the house of a certain matron. But Nazarius, coming to Rome, and finding his father now old and a Christian; asked how he had been converted. Who answered that the Apostle Peter had appeared to him, and admonished him to follow his wife and Son going before him to Christ. Then by the pontiffs of the temples he is compelled to return with much injury to the city of Milan, whence he had been sent from Rome into exile.

[8] Where he is presented with the boy Celsus to the governor, who, being led out beyond the Roman gate, Martyrdom at Milan, a paralytic healed, burial. in the place which is called Three Walls, was beheaded with the boy Celsus; whose bodies, when the Christians had snatched them, and placed them in their gardens, in that very night the Saints, appearing to a certain man named Ceratius, said that he should bury their bodies more deeply in his house on account of Nero. To whom he: I pray, lords, first heal my paralytic daughter. Who when she had been at once healed, he took their bodies, and, as they had ordered, buried them.

[9] But after a long time God revealed their bodies to blessed Ambrose. The bodies revealed to St. Ambrose are translated, and produce miracles. But leaving Celsus in his place, finding Nazarius with fresh blood, as if buried the same hour, fragrant with a marvelous odor, whole and incorrupt with hair and beard, he translated him to the church of the Apostles ^d, and honorably buried him. Celsus too he afterward took up and buried in the same church. And then many blind, lame, possessed, and paralytic were healed. Nazarius and Celsus suffered under Nero, who began to reign ^e about the year of the Lord 57 ^f.

ANNOTATIONS.