ON ST. THEOSTERICTUS, CONFESSOR UNDER CONSTANTINE COPRONYMUS.
Cardinal Baronius reports at volume XXXVII: yet again on folio 105 of the Basel edition Scardeonius asserts that Julian lived while the Republic of Padua still flourished, long before the destruction of the city: that is indeed what he had noted above.
[6] Wion's testimony about the cult of individual saints, Arnold Wion, when he had reported at August 2 the Canonization of all the Saints who rest in the monastery of S. Justina (in which, however, only three had been treated), notes the following: We have placed this present Canonization of these Saints here because among them there were three of the monastic Order (namely Benedictine, about which alone he writes) professed members, namely St. Arnald the Abbot, St. Urius the monk, and St. Felicity the nun: of whom we have treated more fully on their natal days; who until the year just past were wont to be observed by the monks with the greatest veneration and concourse of the people in the time of holy Lent: but for what reason, or under the pressure of what cause, they were abolished, I cannot sufficiently wonder; and the presumption that Blessed Urius was a Benedictine, since they are held by the church as Saints, as is clear from the foregoing. So opportune a testimony of public cult continued until the year 1594 surely deserves that the error committed about Arnald, in so great an obscurity of past events, be pardoned: and that he ascribed Blessed Felicity and St. Urius to his own Order is to be pardoned to his private affection; for which indeed there could be no room in the opinion of Scardeone, who makes them earlier than the destruction by Attila. But now, since nothing is established about their age other than that they lived before the eleventh century, we do not wish to dispute about this matter: since Urius (to say nothing of Felicity) could have professed religious vows at the end of his life, or at least have died in the religious habit, although no mention of this is made in the epitaph.
[7] Urius, I say, the same who to others and in the epitaph itself is Julian: for Arnold Wion, treating of him at this 17th of March, says: the same as Julian, In a very old Calendar of the monastery of St. Justina his natal day is noted on this day: of whose Acts I could learn nothing else, except that he carried thither the Relics of certain holy Innocents, and after many labors endured in religion, renowned for miracles, rested in peace. He lies in a certain altar of that church. He was canonized by St. Leo IX, Pope, on the 2nd day of August. So that it is altogether necessary that the same man, Julian by name, was Urius by surname, or that this was corruptly formed from that: since there appears no likelihood that a Saint so solemnly declared should have been passed over in the Calendar, and another entered in it, of whom it is wholly unknown who or of what sort he was. That he is the same, moreover, is suggested by that opinion about the bodies of the Innocents brought to the Paduans by Urius: by which argument also we judge that it was the body of the same Blessed man which, together with the bodies of the holy Innocents, first disclosed itself again in the year 1177, dug up again in the year 1177 with the same Innocents, when once more, under Bishop Gerard Pomadella, the private gladness of the city of Padua, in the repeated finding of the bodies of the Saints, served as a prelude to the peace to be ratified at Venice between the Emperor Frederick and Alexander III, and to the pacifying of Italy after so many tossings: whose monuments, restored in the previous century under Bishop Bernard, a voracious fire had wrapped and buried in the ashes of the sacred building itself and of the whole city, ravaging almost all the public and private buildings of the nobly restored city.
[8] These things are narrated in an account written at that time, and drawn out by us at Milan from the manuscripts of the Ambrosian library: but its author was so wholly taken up with admiration of the body of St. Luke the Evangelist, then found in the same place, that he made distinct mention of no other except St. Justina, and that very much in passing; first, however, of the holy Innocents in this form: And so, in loosening the joining of the stones, they found two fragrant caskets, one of marble, the other of lead, in which the little bodies of the Innocents had been placed: which we so understand that the marble chest, prepared for covering the bones of Blessed Julian, also enclosed the leaden casket containing the said little bodies. For why should we believe that, after the first finding, those were separated whom our forefathers had joined for so good a reason? And these indeed, together with the other remains of the Saints, in the church raised up from its ruins, we do not doubt were placed most honorably, and that it came about from this that the feasts of the individual Saints were celebrated on different days, perhaps on those on which, as the work proceeded, the individual bodies were found, for whom under Leo IX only a common feast had been instituted: which, however, gradually ceased to be observed after, in the year 1562, the bodies of the Saints having been translated from the old into the new church, and in the year 1562 translated into the new church, a common celebration of the translation was instituted on the 14th of March for the three who were held only as Blessed, Arnold, Urius and Felicity, as we have said.