ON ST. FELIX OF COMO, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, IN THE DUCHY OF MILAN,
Towards the end of the fourth century.
HISTORICO-CRITICAL COMMENTARY.
Felix, bishop, confessor, at Como in the duchy of Milan. (S.)
BY J. B.
§ I. The memory of St. Felix in the sacred Fasti; in what year he began to sit at Como; of what country he was; whether he was the first bishop of Como, and a suffragan of St. Ambrose.
[1] St. Felix, whom we give today, bishop of Como in the duchy of Milan, St. Felix, although he is noted in the Roman Martyrology at the 14th of July, Galesinius first of the martyrologists recorded in the Martyrology composed by him in the time of Gregory XIII for the use of the holy Roman Church, at the 14th day of July, in these words: At Novum Comum, of saint Felix, bishop, who with great testimony of divine goodness presided over that city as its first bishop. Galesinius was followed by those who, under the same Pontiff, emended the Roman Martyrology, the words of Galesinius being partly a little changed, partly cut short, but announcing St. Felix at the same day in this manner: At Novum Comum, of saint Felix, first bishop of the same city. Further, for what cause it seemed good to Galesinius, and to the emenders of the Roman Martyrology who followed him, to record St. Felix at the aforesaid day is not clear enough; unless perhaps Galesinius had in his hands faulty tables of the church of Como (for he praises these and a Ms. book in his Annotations at the same day): but whether he said that the 14th day of July was sacred to St. Felix from faulty tables of the church of Como, or from a Ms. book, or finally learned it from elsewhere or did it for some other cause, it was the constant custom of the church of Como, as our predecessors advised among the Passed Over at the 14th day of July, to celebrate the feast of its holy Prelate on the 8th day of October; and for that cause they judged that St. Felix should rather be treated on this day, after the example of Ferrarius, who likewise on this day pronounced a eulogy of this kind on St. Felix, from the Breviary and monuments of the church of Como, in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy.
[2] Felix, a citizen of Novum Comum, born of a noble family, yet on the 8th day of October endowed with excellent manners, learning, eloquence and religion, is consecrated first bishop of the people of Como by St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, about the year of Salvation CCCLXXX. He, having undertaken the pastoral office, brought back to the true way very many of the people of Como who were straying from the right path on account of the Arian perfidy, and converted to the Christian faith those who were still held by the superstition of the heathen: which was the cause of the very great friendship between Felix and Ambrose, as the letters of Ambrose written to Felix testify. When Felix had presided over his church very piously and holily for many years, having chosen a successor for himself, being seized with sickness, he shortly flew away to heaven to the reward of so many labours on the 8th before the Ides of October, and was buried in the crypt of the Basilica of St. Carpophorus in a stone monument, that is, of flint. Aloysius de Tattis, author of the Martyrology of Novum Comum, also relates the deeds of St. Felix on this day, a little more in detail, writing thus of him: At Novum Comum, the natal day of St. Felix, bishop of Novum Comum and confessor, in the church of St. Carpophorus: who, born of a noble family, when he flourished in probity of life, learning and religion, was ordained prelate of his country by St. Ambrose. He dedicated the shrine of Mercury to the one true God and to St. Carpophorus, martyr, into which he brought the bodies of the same Carpophorus and his companions, which had been found, so that they might be venerated by the faithful with worthy honour.
[3] he is venerated at Como: He was present at Lodi, together with Ambrose himself and Bassianus, bishop of Lodi, at the dedication of the church of the Holy Apostles, where he freed a girl oppressed by an evil demon. He took part in the council of Milan, where with the other fathers he condemned the heresies of Jovinian. He led very many who were straying from the Catholic faith to the way of truth: he converted some also who were alien to the Christian religion to the worship of the true Deity. When he had long discharged this office holily and laudably, and understood that the day of his death was approaching him, having chosen Provinus as successor, he flew away to heaven to the rewards of his labours. So the praised Ferrarius and Tattus; but asserting not a few things which will need examination: meanwhile, however, let us hear Aloysius Tattus speaking a few words about the sacred cult wont to be shown to St. Felix at Como. Of St. Felix, he says in the Annotations at the 8th day of October, both the old and the new Breviaries of the church of Novum Comum treat on this day. Likewise the proper Offices of the same church, published under Lazarus Carafinus, who governed the church of Como from the year 1626 up to the year 1665. From that ancient Breviary Ferrarius exhibits some fragment of a Hymn on the holy Bishops of Como, which has thus concerning St. Felix and his next successor St. Provinus:
In the beginning Felix obtained the pontificate, After whom, second, by his deeds St. Provinus was renowned.
Which things indeed leave no doubt that the people of Como showed sacred honour to St. Felix already of old, and show it today; of which also a testimony is the noble
church, which Filippo Archinto consecrated in the year 1604 on the 21st day of November, as Tatti writes in the Sacred Annals of Como, volume 1, at the year 391, page 309. Now let us examine the deeds of St. Felix.
[4] Of the things which the eulogies of Ferrari and Tatti comprise concerning St. Felix, nor on the 14th of July, scarcely anything is certain, if you except those things which are contained in the letters of St. Ambrose to him which still survive today, or which can be gathered from them. Hence it comes about that among the more recent writers some affirm one thing and others another concerning St. Felix. More fully than the rest, so far as I know, the Tatti praised above writes of St. Felix in his Annals from page 242; and first indeed he disputes about the day, then about the year, on which he was consecrated or ordained bishop of Como; and then, of what country he was, and whether he was the first bishop of the people of Como, which he does not deny to be the common opinion of historians. As regards the day of his consecration or ordination, Tatti rightly contends that this did not fall on the 14th of July, on which the memory of St. Felix is celebrated in the Roman Martyrology. For just as Ambrose, in Letter 4 (otherwise 5 or 60), which is addressed to Felix, openly declares in these words, The ordination will not be found fault with which you received through the imposition of my hands and the blessing in the name of the Lord Jesus, that he had conferred the episcopal dignity on Felix through consecration, so too he has without doubt set out the day, namely the Kalends of November, on which the consecration or ordination of Felix took place, when he wrote in the same letter: Then I wove into our talk your birthday, which was to be at the very beginning of the Kalends of November.
[5] But, you will say, what has the birthday of St. Felix to do with the day of his ordination? Much indeed: for by birthday St. Ambrose did not here understand the day but on the Kalends of November, on which Felix was brought forth into this light, but the day on which he had been consecrated bishop of Como, as the words of Ambrose himself on the ordination of Felix, transcribed a little before, and the rest of the course of the letter cited, persuade: for Ambrose had set down a little before, speaking of the letter sent to him by Felix: At the same time, because you announced that the day would be at hand, celebrated by each of us, on which you took up the helm of the highest priesthood, that is, of the episcopate. In plainly the same manner Ambrose called his own birthday the day on which he was either consecrated bishop of Milan, or at least demanded by the people, in book 8 of the Exposition of the Gospel according to Luke, number 73, in these words: Beautifully is the beginning of the law read to me today, when it is the birthday of my priesthood. See more on this matter in Baronius, in the Annotations at the 18th day of January, on the Solemnity of the Roman Chair, first occupied by St. Peter. Let it stand, therefore, that St. Felix was consecrated bishop by St. Ambrose on the 1st of November, not on the 14th of July. Whether Galesini held the latter is of no consequence: Ballarini certainly held it in the Compendium of the Chronicle of Como, part 2, where he treats of Felix, and Tatti rightly refutes him.
[6] not of the year 379, Further, Tatti, as he rightly assigned from the said letter of Ambrose the day on which St. Felix was invested with the insignia of Como, so also he endeavoured to extract from the same letter the year in which that happened. That letter of St. Ambrose, he says, comprises three principal heads of matters: and first indeed Ambrose asks Felix to be willing to attend together with him the dedication of the church of the Holy Apostles, which St. Bassianus had raised at Laus Pompeia. Then he exhorts Felix to watch diligently over his flock: finally he congratulates Felix that some fruit has already been gathered from his labours; and he promises that there will not be wanting those who will relieve his labours; to which purpose he brings forward these words of the said letter of Ambrose: The harvest is great, but the labourers are few, and those who would help are hard to find. But this is an old complaint; yet the Lord is mighty, who sends labourers into His harvest. Certainly in that order of the people of Como most have already begun to believe through your teaching, and have received the word of God by your doctrine; but He who gave believers will also give helpers. That these things were truly said by Tatti will be manifest to anyone reading through the letter of St. Ambrose, to be recited below at number 13 and following. But, since the Ambrosian letter bears the mark of no year, how does Tatti gather from it that St. Felix was consecrated bishop of Como by Ambrose about the year 379? From this manner of speaking, he says, which Ambrose uses, it can probably be concluded that from the consecration as bishop of Como imparted to St. Felix up to the time of Ambrose's letter written to him, no more time had elapsed than one year. For otherwise it does not appear very credible that the people of Como first began to believe so late, if St. Felix had preached for a longer time in order to call them away from the errors of the heathen and heretics.
[7] as Tatti would have it, But Ambrose does not say that at the time at which he was writing to Felix he had then for the first time begun to reap some fruit of his labours; but he testifies that it had already then begun to be remarkable, and that a great part, or most, of the people of Como had received the word of God; and in order that St. Felix might bring the Catholic cause to that point, especially in that scarcity of helpers which Ambrose indicates, why could he not have spent even several years on it? But let us hear what Tatti brings forward further to show that Felix was ordained about the year 379: that letter, he says, was written on the last day of October; which is true: for to the words transcribed above at number 4, in which he says that Felix was ordained on the Kalends of November, Ambrose immediately subjoins: And that it had drawn near, if I was not mistaken, and was to be celebrated on the morrow. And the cause for which chiefly Ambrose wrote that letter to Felix was that he should attend the dedication of the church of the Holy Apostles which St. Bassianus, bishop of Lodi, was planning for shortly; but that dedication was performed in the year 380, as the diptych tables of the bishops of Como and of Lodi testify, as also does Ughelli in the Series of the bishops of Como.
[8] but he seems to have been consecrated bishop of Como in the year 375. We have given the Life of St. Bassianus, bishop of Lodi, in volume 2 of January, at the 19th day of that month, from Mombritius, who took it, as Galesini at least says, from a book written by the Saint's own disciples; but it is suspected of novelty by Tillemont in volume X of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, page 131. Mention is indeed made in it of the dedication of the church of the Holy Apostles, performed by St. Bassianus in the presence of SS. Ambrose and Felix; but the year of the event is not expressed. Let us grant, however, that it took place in the year 380; Felix could then, as I have already remarked, have spent several years in the pontificate; and so it cannot be concluded from this that Felix began to preside over the people of Como in the year 379: nay rather, from the 1st day of November, on which Felix was ordained bishop, as Ambrose testifies, and from the ancient rite of the Church of consecrating bishops on Sundays, begun from the evening of the preceding Saturday, it appears to me at least more probable that St. Felix had already been exercising the episcopal office from the year 375; if the diptych tables and Ughelli, praised by Tatti, rightly assign the year of the dedication of the church of the Holy Apostles made at Lodi: for in the year 380 the Dominical letter was D, and therefore the first day of November was a Sunday: but in that year, when it had advanced to November, the day of the episcopate entered upon by Felix was recurring; and so he had been distinguished with the episcopal dignity before that same year. The year 369 likewise had D as its Dominical letter: but Ambrose was not yet bishop of Milan in that year. There will remain, therefore, the year 375, in which the Dominical letter was D, and so a Sunday fell on the Kalends of November. And that this custom, that bishops should be consecrated on Sundays, was constantly observed in the Church, Thomassin shows in part 2, book 2, chapter 12 of the Old and New Discipline of the Church, and he mentions Pope Zosimus, complaining thus of Proculus, bishop of Marseille, in Letter 4, in Coustant, column 957, written in the year 417: And, that nothing might be done but out of season, not even the lawful day of ordination is adopted: that is, so that those to whom everything was lacking might lack also the lawful time. Granted that some examples to the contrary can be adduced: that this was likewise done in the case of Felix ought not to be presumed, unless it be shown from elsewhere.
[9] Tatti then inquires of what country St. Felix was; in which matter, he says, different people think differently; Of what country he was is not clear: he rightly says that those rest on too weak a foundation who say that St. Felix was a Roman, just as was St. Ambrose, whose disciple he was, and St. Savinus, bishop of Piacenza from the year 375. For, as regards St. Ambrose, he was indeed Roman by origin; but there are not wanting those who, if it is a question of his birthplace, would have him born in the Gauls, some indeed at Trier, others at Lyon, others finally at Arles, as Sassi at any rate writes in volume 1 of the Historical-Chronological Series of the archbishops of Milan, page 76. Nor, if Ambrose and Savinus or Sabinus, bishop of Piacenza, were born at Rome, must on that account either St. Felix or any other bishop ordained by St. Ambrose be said, without suitable testimony of the ancients, to have been born at Rome too. For the like reason Tatti proceeds hardly more solidly, nor does he deserve much greater credence, when he says that St. Felix was not only a native of Como, but also Lord of the Valle Cumana, or one of the chief men of that city at that time, citing on this matter only Galvano Fiamma and Ferrari, writers indeed far too recent to claim much authority for themselves in this matter, so long as they do not adduce older and suitable witnesses. It will be better, therefore, to leave the homeland of St. Felix undecided, until perhaps something more certain about it comes to light. From here he proceeds to the fourth question which he raises concerning St. Felix, namely whether the church of Como had not had another bishop of its own before Felix.
[10] That other bishops sat at Como before Felix, Tatti goes to great lengths to show that before St. Felix the people of Como not only could have had particular bishops, but that there actually were such, who, if not in a continuous series, at least in an interrupted one, governed in the first centuries of the Church the Christians whom Como then had. He admits indeed, in book 4, number 10, that the name of no bishop who sat at Como before Felix is known; but he contends that this ought not to stand in the way of the weight of the reasons which he himself brings forward; namely on account of the scarcity of ancient writers on the affairs of Como; on account of the violence of the persecutions, by which the prelates were compelled to seek hiding-places; on account of the edicts by which the books of the Christians were ordered to be given to the flames; finally on account of the various disasters and vicissitudes which the city of Como once underwent, as he discourses more fully in the four following numbers. But since these things, pronounced so generally, by no means suffice to
make it believed that there were several bishops, particular and proper to them, for the people of Como before Felix, Tatti brings forward besides his own weighty reasons, by which he attempts to make it proven. He therefore first of all sets before his reader these words of the ancient Breviary (called the Patriarchine, because it was formerly in use in the churches suffragan to the patriarch of Aquileia): Blessed Ambrose in the times of Pope Damasus and of the emperor Theodosius I ruled the church of Milan, holding an Apostolic legation, and he also presided over the Christians of the neighbouring regions of Liguria, Aemilia, Venetia, the Rhaetias and the Cottian Alps, which through the calamities of former times had been left destitute of bishops.
[11] Tatti does not sufficiently prove: From the words of the said Breviary here adduced it follows indeed that in the above-mentioned regions there were various cities which, although they had previously had their own bishops, were nevertheless destitute of them in the age of Ambrose: but which these were cannot be concluded from those words; and much less that Como had bishops of its own before the times of Ambrose. Tatti therefore has recourse to the Breviary of Como, from which he recites these words at the 8th day of October: Felix, the first in the order of the bishops of Como whose memory has been able to reach us, flourished about the times of Damasus and of the emperor Theodosius the Elder. If Felix, he says, is the first of our ancient bishops whose name is ascertained, he had predecessors who, as they were snatched from our eyes by the violence of the persecutions, so also, by a twofold calamity, were snatched from the memory of men. But although perhaps that opinion was settled with the authors of the Breviary of Como, neither they, nor those who composed the Patriarchine Breviary spoken of in the preceding number, are of such antiquity or credit that, so long as no more solid arguments are brought forward for the antiquity of the see of Como asserted by Tatti, we should dare to convict of falsehood the Roman Martyrology and the other writers who say that Como was first raised by Ambrose into an episcopal city. Nor can we be moved to that by the various bishoprics instituted throughout Insubria, Liguria and the Venetias before the ordination of Felix of Como, as he says, namely those of Pavia, Tortona, Lodi, Piacenza, Cremona, Genoa, Turin, Asti, Vercelli, Bergamo, Brescia, Verona, Padua, Vicenza, Treviso and Trent, whose bishops, for the great part older than Felix of Como, he enumerates by name: for either the antiquity of these sees is proved by suitable documents, or it is destitute of them. If the former, then if similar things are brought forward for the antiquity of the see of Como, we will gladly embrace it. But if the antiquity of some of the episcopal sees just enumerated should be destitute of suitable testimonies, we will attribute nothing more to their antiquity than to the antiquity of the see of Como.
[12] However that may be, there does not seem to me at least to have been a bishop sitting at Como certainly there had been no bishop there for some time when Felix came there: when Felix was sent there by Ambrose; since no mention of his predecessor is made in the Ambrosian letter, and so great was the scarcity of clerics there that on account of it he could not for a long time visit Ambrose his neighbour, although asked more than once on the ground of their old friendship. The former commends in the highest degree the diligent industry and untiring care of Felix in cultivating the vineyard of the Lord; the latter, his holiness, since mutual love is wont to flourish most among those alike in character. Both, moreover, can be gathered from the two letters of Ambrose to Felix which still survive today, which, since they are not very long and constitute the only surviving document of venerable antiquity concerning St. Felix, I am pleased to transcribe here from the Works of Ambrose reprinted by the labour of the Benedictines of St. Maur, volume 2, page 761. Ambrose had asked Felix, whose long absence he bore ill, to visit him. Felix wished to be excused to Ambrose, but he sent truffles gathered in the territory of Como, a slight gift indeed, but at the same time a testimony of their old friendship: Ambrose wrote back in this manner: Ambrose to Felix. You have sent me truffles, and indeed of wonderful size, so that they are a cause of amazement, being so large. I was unwilling, as they say, to hide them in my bosom: but preferred to show them to others as well. Therefore I sent part to friends, part I reserved for myself. A pleasant gift, yet not so overpowering as to suppress my complaint, justly raised, that you by no means visit again us who have loved you so long. And take care hereafter that you do not find swellings of grief. For of this name there is a different sense; for as they are pleasing in a gift, so in the body and in the affections they are troublesome. Prevail upon yourself, so that I may grieve the less at your absence; for the cause of my agitation is longing for you. Bring it about, if you can, that you be less dear. I have set out the matter, I have proved the case. That spear-thrown sentence, no common soldier's, must be hurled. You were surely afraid: but see how I am moved, so that it is pleasant to jest. Afterwards, however, do not excuse yourself: for although this excuse of yours is tributary to me, yet it judges ill of you, and no better of me, if you think either that your absence is to be compensated with gifts, or that I am to be bought off with gifts. Farewell, and love us who love you. This holds the third place among the letters of St. Ambrose in the Benedictines.
[13] But when he had summoned Felix to Milan by another letter, and what manner of man he was and Felix had again excused himself by letter, Ambrose approached him again with another letter, which is placed in the fourth place in the Benedictines, and is conceived in these words: Ambrose to Felix, greeting. Although I was less well in the condition of my body, yet when I read the discourse of your heart, one in mind with me, I took no moderate favour toward recovery, as though refreshed by the pennyroyal of your address, and at the same time because you announced that the day would be at hand, celebrated by each of us, on which you took up the helm of the highest priesthood, about which I was speaking a moment ago with our brother Bassianus. For conversation having arisen about the dedication of the basilica which he has founded in the name of the Apostles gave way to this conversation; since he indicated that he was diligently seeking the presence of your holiness. Then I wove into our talk your birthday, which was to be at the very beginning of the Kalends of November: and that it had drawn near, if I was not mistaken, and was to be celebrated on the morrow, so that hereafter you would not excuse yourself. I therefore made a promise concerning you, since you too may do so concerning me: I promised him, I exacted it of myself; for I hold it as presumed that you will be present, because you ought to be present. Therefore my promise will not bind you more than your own purpose, you who have set it in your mind to do what is fitting. You perceive, therefore, that I did not so much promise boldly, as, being aware of you, I pledged it to our brother. Come, then, lest you convict two priests: yourself, for not being present, and me, for having promised so easily.
[14] from the letters of St. Ambrose to him And we will follow your birthday with our prayers, and do you not forget us in your vows. Our spirit will accompany you: do you also, when you enter the second tabernacle, which is called the Holy of Holies, do according to our custom, so that you bring us in too with you. When in the spirit you burn incense at that golden censer, do not leave us out; for it is that which is in the second tabernacle, from which your prayer, full of wisdom, is directed like incense to the heavenly places. There is the ark of the covenant, covered on every side with gold, that is, the doctrine of Christ, the doctrine of the wisdom of God. There is the golden pot having manna; the receptacle, namely, of spiritual nourishment and the storehouse of divine knowledge. There is the rod of Aaron, the emblem of priestly grace. It had withered before, but in Christ it flowered again. There are the Cherubim over the tables of the Testament, the knowledge of sacred reading. There is the propitiatory, above which on high is God the Word, the image of the invisible God, who says to you: "I will speak with you from above the propitiatory, from the midst of the two Cherubim." For so He speaks with us, that we may understand His speech; or because He speaks not worldly but intelligible things, as He says: "I will open my mouth in parables." For where Christ is, there are all things; there is His doctrine, there the remission of sins, there grace, there the separation of the dead and the living.
[15] And Aaron indeed once stood in the midst of them, it can be gathered, setting himself against it, lest death should pass over from the corpses of the dead to the ranks of the living. But this One, as the Word, always stands in each one, He whom we do not see, separating within us the rational virtues from the corpses of deadly passions and pestilent thoughts. He stands as one who came into this world to blunt the sting of death, to stop up its devouring maw, to give the eternity of grace to the living, to grant resurrection to the dead. For Him you fight the good fight, His deposit you guard, His money you put out at interest, according to what is written: "You shall lend to the nations." A good interest of spiritual grace, which the Lord at His coming will exact with usury, and when He has found that you have dispensed well, He will give you more for fewer: and it will be to me a most sweet fruit that my judgement concerning you will be approved. The ordination will not be found fault with which you received through the imposition of my hands and the blessing in the name of the Lord Jesus. Do, therefore, a good work, so that on that day you may find a reward, and that I may rest in you and you in me. The harvest of Christ is great, but the labourers are few; and those who would help are hard to find. But this is an old complaint: yet the Lord is mighty, who sends labourers into His harvest. Certainly in that order of the people of Como most have already begun to believe through your teaching, and have received the word of God by your doctrine: but He who gave believers will also give helpers; whereby both the necessity of excusing yourself for visiting us so late may be taken from you, and the favour of your presence may be restored to me more frequently. Farewell, and love us, as you do.
[16] Whoever knows St. Ambrose will require no other eulogy of St. Felix, whom he judged worthy of the episcopate and of his own intimate familiarity, who made Felix bishop of Como to whose prayers he commended himself, and whose Apostolic labours so great a man proclaimed, in order to esteem St. Felix a man most richly endowed with every kind of praise. But here another question arises: for since Como not only in this age of ours, but already formerly too, was subject to the patriarch of Aquileia, and indeed from all memory back, as some say, how did it come about that not Valerian, who held the prelacy of Aquileia at that time, but Ambrose, prelate of Milan, gave St. Felix to the people of Como as bishop and consecrated him? Ughelli writes, in the enlarged Italia sacra, volume 6, column 256 and following, that the bishopric of Como was always suffragan to Aquileia, and therefore says that St. Felix was set over the people of Como as bishop by St. Ambrose not as metropolitan but as Apostolic legate; which also the Breviary which they call the Patriarchine of Como seems to hint, in the words transcribed at number 10. Ballarini too relates the same, but from the opinion of others, in part 2 of the Chronicle of Como, where he treats of St. Felix. But since the office of Apostolic legate, which the authors attribute to Ambrose when he instituted the bishopric of Como, is destitute of ancient testimonies, there will perhaps be someone who will deny it with the same facility with which it is asserted by them.
[17] But not without grounds, you will say, did Ughelli say this, who deduced from the origin of the bishopric of Como, as metropolitan from its ancient customs, and from the subscriptions of councils, what concerning the legation of Ambrose
he said of the Apostolic legation: he writes thus: But who first sowed the Gospel in that city, the writers do not agree. The opinion nearer the truth, however, is that St. Hermagoras, bishop of Aquileia, disciple of St. Mark, after illuminating with the Gospel the Venetias (he understands not the city, but the Venetian region), Flaminia, Aemilia, Liguria, and the borders of Rhaetia, came to Como, and there established the Christian faith, and assigned a pastor to the new Christians, and afterwards returned to the church of Aquileia committed to him; and that from this the tradition flowed that the prelate of Como was already from that time suffragan of the patriarch of Aquileia, and in ancient times cast his vote in his election, and was present at the provincial councils of that patriarchate; and we have observed that at the Lateran council under Alexander the Third, in the year MCLXXIX, Anselm, bishop of Como, subscribed among the suffragans of Aquileia, that is, in the middle between Garsertinus, bishop of Mantua, and Gerard of Padua, which he certainly would not have done had he not been suffragan of the same patriarch. And he adds weight to the same opinion, that the judges in the diocese of Como were at one time accustomed to appeal to the patriarch of Aquileia after the sentence of the bishop. The church of Como, up to the year MDLXXXXVIII, used its own rite of chanting, called by way of honour the Patriarchine, which Clement VIII afterwards abolished, introducing the Roman. All of which seem to testify that the people of Como were instructed in the faith by St. Hermagoras, and that their pastor was subject to the bishop of Aquileia as Metropolitan.
[18] seems to have appointed. So Ughelli judged: but a greater reason, as it appears to me, militates to the contrary. If it is the tradition or the opinion of some that St. Hermagoras instructed the people of Como in the faith, others think that St. Barnabas did at Milan and at Como what the former say St. Hermagoras did at Aquileia and at Como, and among these Luigi Tatti, a native of Como, is numbered. Granted, then, that Hermagoras first imbued the people of Como with the faith of Christ; did he on that account give them a bishop of their own? Could not the church of Como have been ruled by priests? But Anselm, bishop of Como, who subscribed the Lateran council celebrated in the year 1179, was one of the suffragans of the patriarch of Aquileia. I do not deny it indeed: but how often has it not happened that lesser churches subject to greater ones have been transferred from the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of one place to that of the metropolitan of another? And that this happened to the church of Como, although the time of the event is hidden, is suggested not only by the ordination of Felix as bishop of Como performed by Ambrose, the metropolitan of Milan, but also by the subscription of Abundantius, bishop of Como, to the synodal letter sent by Eusebius, bishop of Milan, to Leo; and since that synod, celebrated in the year 452, was provincial, and Abundantius subscribed its letter (see the Works of St. Leo edited by Quesnel, volume 1, page 586) in these words: I, Abundantius, bishop of the church of Como, have consented to all that is written above; who would not rather infer from this that in that year the church of Como was still suffragan to that of Milan? But if the things that Ughelli further adduces are later than that year (and they are most probably so) — concerning the vote of the bishops of Como in the election of the patriarch of Aquileia, concerning their summoning to the councils of the province of Aquileia, concerning the appeal of the people of Como to the patriarch of Aquileia after a sentence passed by their bishop, and concerning the use of the Patriarchine Breviary extended up to the year 1598 — it certainly seems nearer the truth that the church of Como, from the time when it received Felix as bishop from St. Ambrose, acknowledged and venerated the church of Milan as its metropolitan at least up to the year 452.
§ II. What his deeds were in the episcopate.
The people of Como having been converted to the right faith, Felix, consecrated bishop of the people of Como by St. Ambrose, when he had arrived at Como, is said to have found the city infected partly still with the superstitions of the heathen, partly with the perfidy of the Arians, and to have applied himself not sluggishly to meet each plague. That there were indeed many at Como, when St. Felix came there, who lived entangled in the errors either of the heathen or of the heretics, becomes undoubted from Letter 4 of Ambrose, recited above; since in it Ambrose congratulates Felix that most of the people of Como had been converted to the Catholic faith. That there were moreover not wanting at Como Arians, for whose bringing to the true faith Felix toiled, scarcely appears doubtful from the condition of those times; since even the very see of Milan, after St. Dionysius had been driven out by order of Constantius, the Arian emperor, was occupied by the Arian Auxentius immediately before St. Ambrose; and Ambrose himself had to contend many times against the Arians, on whose side stood Justina, mother of Valentinian II, then still a boy, as is plain from his Life written by Paulinus the priest. Nay, even at that time the pagans went so far as to try to obtain at Rome from the younger Valentinian the altar of Victory and the restoration of the worship of the gods, as becomes manifest from the letters of Ambrose, who courageously opposed them, and from other monuments of undoubted credit. And in the territory of Trent, which is not very far distant from that of Como, the fury of the heathen broke out to such a degree that they wretchedly slaughtered SS. Sisinnius, Martyrius and Alexander, because they were preaching the faith of Christ in the Val di Non and had raised a church there, as St. Vigilius, bishop of Trent, testifies, by whom the Martyrs had been sent there, as may be seen in volume 7 of May, page 41 and following. These things indeed, although they do not make wholly certain what Ferrari and Tatti say of the heathen converted by Felix at Como, nevertheless lend them no small degree of probability.
[20] Further, the huge number of Arians and heathen living at Como caused the shrine of Mercury St. Felix to fix his seat at first not in the city itself but in its neighbourhood, namely on a certain hill, on which a fortress (called the Baradello) was afterwards set by Liutprand, king of the Lombards, as they say. Felix could not stay there long without thinking of founding or adapting a church for sacred uses. Not far from here stood a shrine of Mercury, situated at the foot of the neighbouring mountain, which, the idol having been removed and the place duly purified, he converted to the worship of the true Godhead, and not only enriched it with the relics of SS. Carpophorus and his companions, martyrs of Como, which he had learned, by God's revelation, lay not far from there, but also willed it to be consecrated to the same Saints. So Tatti, here and there from the ancient Monuments of the church of St. Carpophorus: and as to what he asserts of the shrine of Mercury, he says it is plain from votive tablets inscribed to Mercury, found in the year 1568 when the monastery of St. Carpophorus was being restored, that it really existed there formerly; and he adds that a certain inner sanctuary was found there, on whose front these words were read inscribed: … VRIO SACR …, that is, sacred to Mercury, or sacred things of Mercury: and that throughout the diocese several inscriptions of this kind are found, and that in the village of Barnate, eight or nine years before he was writing these things, a stone was brought to light with this inscription: To Mercury, L. Rutticellius Secundus, of the tribe OVF., sevir augustalis, decurion of Como, fulfilled his vow. L. L. M. From which it becomes very probable indeed that Mercury was worshipped at Como by the heathen in a particular manner, and that his shrine there could have been converted by St. Felix into a church and consecrated to St. Carpophorus in that place. In the eleventh century Litigerius handed it over to Benedictine monks, from whom it passed to commendatories, and finally in the year 1511 it went to the Hieronymite monks, as Benedetto Giovio writes in book 2 of the History of Novum Comum.
[21] There are, however, those who would have the church of St. Carpophorus founded by Liutprand, converted into a church sacred to St. Carpophorus, king of the Lombards, who lived in the eighth century. Paul the son of Warnefrid treats of the churches founded by Liutprand in On the Deeds of the Lombards, book 6, chapter 58: there is indeed no particular mention there of a church of St. Carpophorus founded by Liutprand near Como: but Paul says of him in general: This most glorious king built many basilicas in honour of Christ in the several places where he was accustomed to dwell. Liutprand indeed stayed at Como from time to time, and is said to have raised also the castle of Baradello near it; and there exists his diploma, in Tatti, volume 1 of the Annals of Como, page 944, of the year 724, by which he grants various possessions to the same church; and the same Liutprand is read in the ancient Breviary of Como to have brought the relics of SS. Protus and Hyacinth from Rome to Como, and to have willed them to be deposited in the church of St. Carpophorus. But already long before the age of Liutprand the relics of St. Carpophorus, as also of St. Felix, seem to have lain in the same church; and so it must have existed long before the age of Liutprand. Nor does Liutprand in the said diploma, as it exists in Tatti, call that church founded first by himself: nay rather he hints that it had already existed for a long time, since he willed it to be free from anyone's jurisdiction according to the authority, as he says, of our predecessors the kings and emperors. And if he not only increased the church of St. Carpophorus with estates but also furnished something more to it, it is very probable that he either only restored and enlarged it, or substituted a new one for the old one founded by St. Felix: nor is it unusual that those who have restored or enlarged churches or monasteries should be called their founders.
[22] and he is said to have founded various churches, The church of St. Carpophorus is about a mile distant from Como, formerly called of the Seven Orders, in which perhaps, says the Giovio praised above, there were prebends of all the ecclesiastical orders: and the place where it was founded by Felix, since Carpophorus and his companions underwent martyrdom there, was called the little wood. It was the cathedral until Amantius, the successor of St. Felix next after St. Provinus, chose as cathedral another nearer to the city, sacred to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul: it was afterwards called St. Abundius's. At length, in the eleventh century, Albericus, bishop of Como, undertook a new cathedral in the city itself, which he dedicated to the Virgin Mother of God assumed into heaven, in the year, as Ughelli writes, 1025, on the 13th day of May: but Tatti, in volume 2 of the Annals, page 256, writes that it was consecrated by Raynaldus toward the end of the same century. St. Felix is said to have raised several other churches at Como: he consecrated a church to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, namely the one spoken of a little before. Likewise two other churches to St. George and St. Lazarus, which, the filth of demons having been cast out, Felix took away from the idolaters as from unjust possessors… He urged the citizens of Novum Comum to erect a small church to St. Peter, which they relate was the first built by the Christians of Novum Comum, says Ughelli. But all these things, says Tatti, are said by more recent writers without the testimony of ancient writers: and so he leaves anyone free to believe what he pleases on these matters. It displeases Tatti, however, that that little church of St. Peter, near the parish church of St. Eusebius but today profaned, should be called the most ancient of all that were at Como and at the same time the first raised by St. Felix: namely for this reason, that it does not seem credible to him that the bishops of Como who lived from Constantine to the times of St. Felix lacked any church whatever: but that there were bishops at Como before Felix Tatti does not sufficiently prove, as we have seen above. Finally, besides the churches already mentioned, he says that another is reported by Placido Puccinelli in the Life of St. Ambrose, chapter 51, namely that to SS. Nabor and Felix, having received their
relics from St. Ambrose, St. Felix raised; but that at Como no traces of it are seen: in the diocese of Como, however, there is indeed a church of this title, but by whom it was erected he has not ascertained. And these things indeed concerning the churches which St. Felix is said to have founded at Como or in its neighbourhood: let us now see whether more certain things are handed down concerning the other things done by him in the episcopate.
[23] and to have been present at the dedication of the church of Lodi: That St. Felix was invited by most friendly letters of St. Ambrose to the consecration of the church of Lodi, raised by St. Bassianus to the holy Apostles, we saw above: and although it is not plain from Ambrose that St. Felix went to Laus Pompeia, yet the mutual intimacy which subsisted between him and St. Ambrose, and the latter's all but command that he should go there, make it most probable that St. Felix was present together with St. Ambrose at the consecration of the church of Lodi; which the Acts of St. Bassianus also affirm, and they say besides that by the prayers of those three bishops, during the offices of the dedication, a girl was freed from a demon. That event happened, as we said, in the year 380, if we believe Ughelli; about the beginning of the month of November, so far at least as can be gathered from the letters of Ambrose. But since mention has been made of the coming of St. Felix to the dedication of the church of Lodi, it is necessary that I address Christian Lupus, on the Decrees and Canons of general and provincial Synods, in a few words. He writes in volume 5 of the Brussels edition, in the dissertation on the Roman consecration of bishops, chapter 7, concerning the ordination of St. Felix performed by Ambrose, in this manner: He (Valerian, the next successor of Fortunatian in the see of Aquileia) seems to have been made bishop in the same year after Saint Ambrose. And while this metropolis was still vacant, the bishop of Como, of Fortunatian's flock, died; Felix was elected in his place; Ambrose went there, approved the election and consecrated the bishop. Hear now what he writes about the coming of St. Felix to the dedication of the church of Lodi. To the dedications of basilicas many bishops were formerly wont to be invited, a synod to be held on that occasion, and questions arising to be decided. So it was done then also in the city of Lodi. Hence the bishop Felix feared to come: he feared that the consecration given him by a foreign metropolitan would be discussed and condemned. And Ambrose pledges to him that it will be approved, in order to bring the man there. He pledges it, not as to be admitted without examination, but as to be approved and confirmed. And undoubtedly it was so done. Far otherwise, I confess, have I spoken and do I think concerning St. Felix and his ordination. But Lupus seems, be it said with the leave of so great a man, to have indulged his own reflections here somewhat more than was right. Lest I seem to have said this without grounds, I undertake first of all to discuss those things which he affirms concerning the ordination of Felix.
[24] He was ordained, says Lupus, by St. Ambrose, prelate of Milan, on the occasion of which while the see of Aquileia was vacant and Valerian had not yet been consecrated its bishop. But the contrary seems plainly certain: for Valerian was present at the Roman Council celebrated under Pope Damasus, in which the Arian Auxentius, who had invaded the see of Milan, received sentence of deposition, as is gathered from the synodal Letter in Labbe, volume 2 of the Councils, column 889, whose title runs thus: The bishops convened at the holy council at Rome, Damasus, Valerian and the rest, to their beloved brethren the bishops who are in Illyricum, greeting in the Lord. And Paulinus in the Life of St. Ambrose expressly affirms that he was elected bishop of Milan, Auxentius having died. That the Valerian of whom mention is made in the said synodal Letter was bishop of Aquileia, no one, I think, will deny: yet if anyone should obstinately wish to deny it, I will turn to Jerome and to Rufinus, monk of Aquileia. Rufinus wrote Invectives against St. Jerome, in book 1 of which, near the beginning, mention of Valerian, prelate of Aquileia, having been introduced, he speaks thus of himself: I, as both he himself and all know, about thirty years ago, being already placed in a monastery, regenerated through the grace of baptism, obtained the seal of the faith through the holy men Chromatius, Jovinus and Eusebius, most renowned and most approved bishops in the Church of God, of whom one was then priest of Valerian of blessed memory, another archdeacon, another deacon, and at the same time father to me and teacher of the creed and of the faith.
[25] of Christian Lupus concerning SS. Felix and Ambrose At what time Rufinus wrote this is gathered from Jerome thus: St. Jerome wrote his apology against Rufinus about the year 401, as Martianay, the most recent editor of the Works of St. Jerome, rightly says: for so Jerome himself speaks in book 3 of his Apology: Would she (the Church) confess that through all these four hundred years she had erred and been ignorant of what is true? And Rufinus had begun to compose his invectives against Jerome at least three years before Jerome wrote his Apology, who, in the book just cited, again says of the invectives of Rufinus: For your books, which you polished for three years, are more eloquent. Put, therefore, that Jerome wrote his Apology in the year 402, or, if you will, 403, and from the years 403 take away first the 3 years which Rufinus spent in writing and polishing the books of his invectives; and again 30 years, so as to come to the year in which Rufinus says he was baptized under Valerian, bishop of Aquileia, and you will easily arrive at the year 370, in which Valerian was already from that time bishop of the people of Aquileia: but the learned today commonly write that Ambrose was made bishop of Milan only in the year 374, nor is there, so far as I know, anyone among them who affirms that this happened before the year 373. There is no reason, therefore, why Lupus should say that Valerian was made bishop of the people of Aquileia in the same year in which Ambrose was made bishop of the people of Milan, and indeed later than Ambrose. Nor is there likewise any reason why he should say that Felix was ordained by Ambrose while the see of Aquileia was vacant through the death of Fortunatian. Finally, that before Felix there was another bishop at Como, who was suffragan of Fortunatian and had then recently died, ought at least to be held doubtful from what was said at number 17. Now let us take a step to those things which Lupus writes concerning the coming of St. Felix to the dedication, to be performed together with him and St. Ambrose, of the church of Lodi erected by Bassianus to the Holy Apostles.
[26] some assertions St. Felix, invited to Laus Pompeia by St. Ambrose, both in his own name and in that of St. Bassianus, to the dedication of the church of the Holy Apostles, feared to betake himself there, says Lupus. Feared? Whence does Lupus gather this? From nowhere else, I think, than from the repeated letters which Ambrose was compelled to send to Felix before the latter would go out of his diocese. But turn and turn again the letters of Ambrose to Felix: you will indeed see in them that St. Ambrose, from whom Felix had nothing to fear, pressed him more than once by his letters to come to him at Milan; but that he should betake himself to Laus Pompeia, Ambrose is known to have sent only one letter, on receiving which Felix most probably hastened to Laus Pompeia, as he had been asked. But for what cause did Felix fear to go to Laus Pompeia? Namely, as Lupus says, He feared that the consecration given him by a foreign metropolitan would be discussed and condemned; and for that cause he was unwilling to go to Laus Pompeia unless he received a pledge from Ambrose that his consecration would be approved in the assembly of bishops to be held at Laus Pompeia. For this is that very thing which St. Ambrose wished to signify, as Lupus interprets, by the following words: It will be to me a most sweet fruit that my judgement concerning you will be approved (at Laus Pompeia, as he would have it). The ordination will not be found fault with (by the bishops who were to come there, according to Lupus) which you received through the imposition of my hands and the blessing in the name of the Lord Jesus. I recognize here the words of Ambrose, but not his sense.
[27] Consult the words of Ambrose which immediately precede and follow those just cited, are refuted. and you will discover that Ambrose says things wholly other than those which Lupus adduces. These precede: For Him you fight the good fight, His deposit you guard, His money you put out at interest, according to what is written: "You shall lend to the nations." A good interest of spiritual grace, which the Lord at His coming will exact with usury, and when He has found that you have dispensed well, He will give you more for fewer. In which words he partly praises Felix for having administered the episcopate rightly, partly exhorts him to continue to apply himself diligently to the salvation of his people, setting before him the reward he would receive from the Lord at His coming; and he says that it will then come about that his ordination, and Ambrose's judgement concerning him, by which he had deemed him worthy of the episcopate, will be approved by God the judge. Wherefore also to the words cited by Lupus he immediately subjoins these: Do, therefore, a good work (that is, administer your flock diligently), so that on that day (on which God the judge will demand of you an account of your administration) you may find a reward, and that I may rest in you and you in me. This, as I think, is the genuine sense of Ambrose: nor do I see how any mention is made, in the words adduced from Ambrose, of a future synod of bishops at Laus Pompeia, to which Felix dreaded to join himself as a member on account of a consecration received from a foreign metropolitan. And that Ambrose was not a foreign but more probably the proper metropolitan of St. Felix seems able to be gathered from what was said at number 17.
[28] The remaining things which are narrated of the deeds of Felix seem to have been drawn rather from those things In several Councils too which happened in Italy while he presided over the people of Como than from the monuments of ancient faith. Tatti, in the Martyrology of Como, in the words transcribed above, mentions one council, namely that of Milan, at which Felix was present: but in the Annals he mentions several. Palladius and Secundianus, Arian bishops, complaining that they were unjustly defamed of the Arian heresy, had extorted from Gratian a universal council in which they might clear themselves: but Ambrose, pleading that the bishops of the whole world ought not to be convoked chiefly on account of two men, prevailed so far with Gratian that he proclaimed a council at Aquileia in the year 381 in the month of September, to which he convoked the bishops of Italy; but he willed the bishops of the remaining provinces to be free either to go there or, if it so seemed good, to remain among their own. Thirty-two bishops assembled at Aquileia, by whom Palladius and Secundianus, convicted of the Arian heresy, were condemned. Further, that St. Felix was of their number is probable to Tatti: yet he does not dare to assert it affirmatively: and not without reason indeed: since among the names of the bishops inscribed in the very Acts of the Council two named Felix appear indeed, but of whom one was bishop of Zara, and the other the legate of the Africans; and many were present at that council only through legates, as is read in the Letter of the Council to the emperors; which perhaps Felix also did, for just causes, even though Aquileia was not very far distant from Como; he who, besides, could not be torn away from his diocese except with difficulty, as can be sufficiently conjectured from those things which we saw above to have passed between him and St. Ambrose.
[29] But it seemed more certain to Tatti that St. Felix was present at the council he is believed to have been present which Pope Damasus celebrated at Rome in the year 382: this was almost three times more numerous than that of Aquileia: and since the names of only a few of the bishops who were present at it are known, it could easily have happened that Felix was of their number, even though ancient monuments by which this might be shown with certainty are lacking: yet Tatti's reasons, drawn from the number of the bishops who assembled at that council, and from the now more joyful and more peaceful face of affairs throughout the diocese of Como, or from the custom of bishops of going to Rome every year, and mostly on the recurring day on which they had been created pontiffs, do not prove it with certainty: for various obstacles, though unknown to us, could have arisen, so that St. Felix could have been absent from that council without fault. It is no less probable that he was present at the council of Milan celebrated by St. Ambrose against Jovinian and his followers in the year 390; and perhaps he is the very one who is read signed, though without the name of his see, between the bishops Maximus and Bassianus in the Rescript of the bishops assembled at Milan to Pope Siricius, in Labbe, volume 2 of the Councils, column 1027. In the Roman edition indeed, as the Benedictine editors of the Works of Ambrose observe at column 970, the Felix already mentioned is written to have been of Jadera, that is, of Zara; but the names of the sees of the individual bishops are missing in the ancient editions, the Labbean and the Quesnellian; no slight argument, they say, that they were repeated from the council of Aquileia. No see is assigned to Eustatius in the Roman edition of the council of Milan, perhaps because it was not expressed in the edition of the council of Aquileia either, whence the sees of the others seem to have been taken here.
[30] but these and other things The council of Milan was preceded by some years by that celebrated finding of the holy martyrs Gervasius and Protasius at Milan. He says not only that St. Felix was present at this in the year 386, but that, having also received from St. Ambrose some portion of their relics, he raised a church to the same holy martyrs in the suburb of Como: but Ballarini and Ughelli write that that church was the work not of St. Felix but of Provinus, his successor: nor does Felix seem to have been present at the said finding. Ambrose himself describes it in the Letter to his sister Marcellina, and makes no mention of any bishops who were present at it, although perhaps some bishops were present, if that finding took place when Ambrose wished to dedicate the Ambrosian basilica — which only the Roman edition has, as the Benedictines say, reading for when I wished to dedicate the basilica, when I had dedicated the basilica. Tatti indeed adduces these words from Letter 53 of Ambrose: Calling together, therefore, all the brethren round about and the bishops of the neighbouring cities, and relating all that I had seen, in their presence I was the first to come forward as digger of the earth; and the other bishops followed, etc. But the said letter is rejected by the learned as spurious; nor does it seem sufficiently to agree with the Letter of St. Ambrose to his sister, which all acknowledge as genuine, where he says that not he, not the bishops, dug up the earth, but that he ordered the clerics to do so. That some portion of the relics of those martyrs was thereafter distributed to various persons is indeed undoubted from St. Paulinus of Nola, Letter 32 to Severus, in Muratori, page 207; from St. Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia, Sermon 17; and from Gregory of Tours, book 1 On the Glory of the Martyrs, chapter 47: but that some part of them also fell to St. Felix, even though he was most friendly with St. Ambrose, I dare neither affirm nor deny.
[31] are uncertain. And these are the principal things which Tatti and other more recent writers record concerning the deeds of St. Felix: how long he ruled the church of Como no ancient monument teaches. He died, as they say, having chosen a successor for himself, namely St. Provinus, of whom we have treated in our Work at the 7th day of March. Tatti writes that his body, which was laid in the crypt of the church of St. Carpophorus, was inspected in the year 1611 by Father Bassiano Gatti, Prior, and the other monks of the monastery of St. Carpophorus of the Congregation of St. Jerome; and he adds that the notable church erected at Como by our Society to SS. Amantius and Felix, consecrated in the year 1604 on the 21st day of November by Filippo Archinto, prelate of Como, is to be numbered among the most beautiful churches of the city.