Sanctinus and Antoninus

ON SS. SANCTINUS AND ANTONINUS, CONFESSORS: SANCTINUS, BISHOP, AND ANTONINUS, OR ANTONIUS, PERHAPS ALSO A BISHOP, AT MEAUX IN GAUL,

AT MEAUX IN GAUL.

PROBABLY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, WELL ADVANCED.

HISTORICO-CRITICAL COMMENTARY.

Sanctinus, bishop, Confessor, at Meaux in Gaul. (S.)

Antoninus or Antonius, perhaps also a bishop, Confessor, at Meaux in Gaul. (S.)

BHL Number: 2185, 7488

BY C. B.

§ I. The memory of the Saints in the sacred Fasti, their ecclesiastical cult, their spurious Acts of no credit.

Although St. Sanctinus the bishop, together with St. Antonius, who is said to have succeeded him immediately in the see of Meaux and is more commonly called Antoninus, St. Sanctinus, to whom, for the reason here adduced, we join Antoninus, is announced at the 22nd day of May in the Martyrology printed at Cologne and Lübeck in the year 1490, and likewise in Greven and Canisius, in this following manner, Of the holy confessors Sanctinus and Antonius, who successively ruled the church of Meaux in the pontificate and rested in the Lord, our predecessors nevertheless referred him from there among the Passed Over to this day, because he is venerated today at Meaux. Further, doing this again afterwards at the 22nd day of September, on which Antoninus is noted in Ferrari's general Catalogue of Saints not inscribed in the Roman Martyrology, and Sanctinus in the present Roman itself, these words being employed, At the city of Meaux, of blessed Sanctinus the bishop, disciple of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, who, consecrated by him bishop of the same city, first preached the Gospel there, they promised that we would treat here at the same time of St. Antoninus, although he was never venerated at Meaux on this day, but either on the following or on the 30th of September, as I shall show below. In order, therefore, to redeem the promise given by them, I am now about to treat here of St. Antonius as well as of St. Sanctinus, although meanwhile of these two Saints only the latter is venerated at Meaux today; and so much the more readily because, since Antoninus, who was not brought into our Work at the 30th day of September, the cult paid to him in the church of Meaux before the year 1640 according to what is to be said notwithstanding, cannot be suitably brought into it at the 12th day of October either, to which he was moved there in that year, considering the custom in use with us, since he has now been sent back from this day of October to the 30th of September among the people of Meaux, I think that he cannot be treated by us more conveniently or more opportunely in any other place than that in which, on account of what has just been said, St. Sanctinus, whom perhaps he in very truth succeeded immediately in the see of Meaux, is now to be treated here.

[2] These things having been premised, I approach the matter itself and begin from the things in the sacred Fasti here mentioned, at days which seem able deservedly to be desired by the reader concerning the memory of the Saints in the sacred Fasti and their ecclesiastical cult, besides what has just been said on this subject. To the sacred Fasti already mentioned, most of which celebrate St. Sanctinus in such a way that, as we shall see below, they seem to establish two Sanctini, there are added some others; and of their authors, all of whom, as appears, admit only one Sanctinus, some indeed note him at Meaux, others on the contrary at Verdun, or, as it is written by others, Virodunum, with no mention at all made of Meaux; but of those who acknowledge only one Sanctinus, whom they place at Verdun, I shall hold discourse only then, when I examine below whether a double Sanctinus or only one is in truth to be established; and as to the others, who record the single Sanctinus whom they admit at Meaux, I propose them here, beginning from the more recent. Those who composed the Paris Martyrology, which appeared in the year 1727, most expressly announce St. Sanctinus at Meaux today in it, and Castellan had already gone before them, placing Sanctinus at Meaux today among the Saints who are not then found noted in the Roman Martyrology. Further, the same was done by Galesini also and du Saussay, who are older than both Castellan and those who composed the Paris Martyrology, noting Sanctinus at Meaux in the Martyrologies composed by them not indeed today, as those do, but with the Roman martyrology at the 22nd day of September. Nor are Maurolico and Felici, who, no differently than du Saussay and Galesini, celebrate Sanctinus at the said 22nd day of September in the sacred Fasti prepared by them, to be judged to dissent from these; for although, while they do so, they do not express the place to which they attribute this Saint of ours, they nevertheless call him bishop of Meaux.

[3] four different ones, the reason why this But why, of the sacred Fasti or hagiologists just praised which note Sanctinus at Meaux, as said, or at least announce him as bishop of Meaux, do some do so on the 22nd of May, others on the 22nd of September, and others finally on the 11th day of October? Why also does the Centula Usuardine Auctarium in Sollerius, which likewise notes Sanctinus at Meaux, put it off to the 12th day of October? Since Sanctinus, according to what has been said and is further to be said, is now venerated at Meaux on the 11th day of October, there is surely no doubt that for that reason he is recorded on this day both by those who composed the Paris Martyrology praised above and by Castellan; nor do I know whether the memory of Sanctinus at Meaux is not also put off to the 12th day of October in the said Usuardine auctarium because on this day in the fourteenth century, at the beginning of which, as Sollerius teaches in his Preface to Usuard, num. 226, the Centula codex from which it was taken was written, Sanctinus enjoyed at Meaux the veneration proper to Saints. In the Breviary of the church of Tours, which is marked as printed in the year 1635 and exists with us, St. Sanctinus, bishop of Meaux, is honoured with an ecclesiastical office at the 12th day of October; and hence surely the suspicion can not undeservedly arise that he was at some time honoured likewise by the church of Meaux, from which his cult undoubtedly flowed to that of Tours, on that same 12th day of October; and it is to be increased not a little from the fact that the Lübeck-Cologne Martyrology and another published by Greven, in which Sanctinus is referred together with Antoninus on the 22nd day of May, as we saw at num. 1, also announce on the 12th day of October at Meaux blessed Schynnus, bishop and confessor, and therefore, as appears, Sanctinus, the name of Schynnus probably having been corruptly written for that of Sanctinus (for the church of Meaux knows no bishop and confessor distinguished by the appellation of Schynnus).

[4] As for the sacred tables in which Sanctinus is announced on the 22nd day either of May or of September at Meaux, or at least as prelate of Meaux, should be done in each of these, not certain enough, is inscribed, I cannot declare for what cause this Saint of ours, whom nothing at all suggests to have at some time enjoyed ecclesiastical cult on the 22nd day of May, is nevertheless then noted in the Lübeck-Cologne, Greven and Canisius Martyrologies praised at num. 1; but does this also hold as regards the sacred Fasti adduced above, or their authors, who celebrate Sanctinus on the 22nd day of September? Peter de Natalibus, created bishop of Equilium about the year 1370, as the Italia Sacra of Ughelli, enlarged by Coleti, volume 10, column 87 and following, clearly teaches, and therefore much older than Maurolico and the other hagiologists praised above who record Sanctinus on the 22nd day of September, in his Catalogue of the Saints, book 8, chapter 108, recounts in summary almost all the things which are related concerning Sanctinus in his spurious Acts, included in the letter of Hincmar to be transcribed here below, and then affirms that Sanctinus died on the 22nd day of September. Sanctinus, he says, fell asleep in Christ on the tenth day before the Kalends of October; and hence it seems possible to judge that it came about that Sanctinus now holds a place at the 22nd day of September in the sacred Fasti composed by Maurolico and the others praised above, and indeed in the present Roman Martyrology itself (for I do not think that he was brought into this before the age of the bishop of Equilium).

[5] But whence did this writer have it understood that Sanctinus died on the 22nd day of September? and in ecclesiastical cult at Meaux from the age of the bishop of Equilium, On what day this Saint of ours passed to the Lord his spurious and invented Acts, such as they are, which I have already praised, do not relate; and Hugh of Flavigny, who added to those Acts not a few chronological marks drawn from I know not what source, affirms in the Chronicle of Verdun in Labbe, Bibliotheca Manuscriptorum, volume 1, page 82, that this happened not on the 22nd but on the 27th day of September. The bishop of Equilium, as he himself declares in the preface prefixed to the eighth book of his Catalogue just cited, lists in it no other Saints than those whose festivities occur from the Kalends of September to the Kalends of October. What if, then, since perhaps he was persuaded that the festivity of Sanctinus was held at Meaux on the 22nd day of September, he judged that no other day than the one on which it was celebrated there was the death-day of this Saint of ours, and hence wrote in the place cited above that he died then? Surely that this, as it may have, also actually happened so, not

unlike the truth appears to me, if only from the fact that absolutely no documents older than the bishop of Equilium are found by which he could have been induced to put the death of Sanctinus on the 22nd day of September. However it may be, it seems that it must be concluded from what has now been said about that writer that ecclesiastical cult was shown to Sanctinus at Meaux, to treat now more specially of this, either already from the age of the bishop of Equilium or even before it.

[6] indeed even much earlier, as from Hincmar's, Indeed, I think it beyond doubt that veneration of this kind toward the Saint had place there even much earlier. Nor can the less advanced age of the sacred Fasti praised above, in which Sanctinus is announced on the 22nd day of September either at Meaux or at least as bishop of Meaux, prevent me from thinking so. For although all these are far later than the ninth century, indeed than the twelfth, and the description of Servants of God in Fasti of this kind is neither held as ecclesiastical cult nor is an indubitable argument that those whose memory is thus recalled are honoured somewhere with the veneration proper to Saints, the things which I shall now bring forward prove that Sanctinus enjoyed this among the people of Meaux before the fourteenth century, in which the bishop of Equilium flourished, indeed before the tenth century. In Surius, at the 9th day of October, there is subjoined to the Areopagitica of Hilduin, notice of which has already been supplied in our Work at the same 9th day of October in the Commentary prefatory to the Acts of Dionysius the Areopagite, num. 4, a letter of Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, born about the year 806, written to Charles the Bald about the year 876, as is understood from volume 4 of October of our Work, page 709; and by this, I think, I shall easily persuade the reader that the honour customarily paid to Saints was paid to Sanctinus among the people of Meaux even before the tenth century; but before I do so, I transcribe here that letter entire, because it will be of no little use here, together with the spurious Acts, such as they are, whether of Dionysius or of Sanctinus and Antoninus, which it contains, the reason also for which I think it is not to be denied to Hincmar being added at the end. It is couched in these following words: To the glorious Lord Charles, emperor augustus, Hincmar, in name, not in merit, bishop of Reims and servant of the people of God.

[7] which here Having read the Passion of blessed Dionysius, dictated in Greek by Methodius, sent from Rome to Constantinople, and written in Latin by Anastasius, skilled in both languages and most learned in every respect, librarian of the holy Apostolic See, as he narrates in his preface, I recognised that the things which I had read in my youth agree with those which are written there, namely through whom and in what manner the acts of the martyrdom of blessed Dionysius and his companions came to the knowledge of the Romans, and thence to the notice of the Greeks. For when, by God's disposition, you were born in the palace of Frankfurt, the bishopric of the city of Meaux was committed to Hucbert, precentor of the palace, where, on account of the length of age and long illness of bishop Hilderic, he found certain things pertaining to learning and religion, and also the buildings and all other necessary things, neglected. Wherefore he obtained from his familiar Bodo, a cleric of my lord and nourisher, Hilduin the abbot, chief of the clerics of the sacred palace, a certain cleric, a kinsman of that Bodo, named Wandelmar, who had learned chant excellently from master Teugar in the monastery of saint Dionysius, to instruct his clerics; to whom he gave the little abbey of blessed Sanctinus as a benefice.

[8] And this Wandelmar found in the place committed to him little quires, very worn, entire and with the things which had been written in them almost effaced, on the life and acts of blessed Sanctinus: which, on account of the acquaintance of familiarity, and because he thought me somewhat learned, he committed to me to draw out the things which seemed to be contained in those little quires, and to transcribe them clearly on new parchment. Which I both studiously accomplished, and restored the things committed to me to him who committed them: but because it is long since the same Wandelmar died, even before the death of Hucbert, and, as I have heard, the same place came to be neglected, and at length the Northmen were in that same city, and burned some things there with fire, and plundering carried off others, I do not know whether those little quires or copies of them can be found in that same city. For that reason I have thought that the copy of them which I kept for myself should be offered to your devout and good zeal, so that, if there are any remnants of those who denied that our lord and father, your patron Dionysius, is the Areopagite, baptized by the blessed Apostle Paul and ordained bishop of the Athenians and sent into the Gauls by blessed Clement, they may recognise as settled in this cause too, from the things which the Greek testimony and the attestation of the holy Roman See and the Gallican contestation intimate, what was said long before us: because truth, the more often it is shaken, shines the more into the light.

[9] "Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, illuminated with the truth of the faith by the excellent preaching of Paul the Apostle, and with the spurious, and baptized in the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, and at length sufficiently instructed in the secrets of the heavenly mysteries, was ordained bishop of the Athenians. And as time went on, out of desire for his master and love of blessed Peter, whom together with his preceptor Paul he had seen by revelation at the sepulchre of the prince of life and had heard teaching, having ordered the Church committed to him, he came to Rome, and found them already crowned with martyrdom by the cruelty of the most wicked Nero: and having been received lovingly and honourably by blessed Clement, the successor of Peter the Apostle, after some space of time he was sent with others into the Gauls to sow the seeds of the divine word. Who, by preaching and confirming the word with signs following, came, the Lord leading him, to Paris. Having also sent his companions through various cities to destroy the wiles of the devil and to win peoples for the Lord, he ordained Sanctinus bishop, and, the Lord inspiring him, sent him to Chartres to illuminate those who were in darkness and in the shadow of death: where he arranged for him to stay for some time. But afterwards he established him as pastor and bishop of the city of the people of Meaux, and applied to his assistance Antoninus, who was surnamed the younger to distinguish him from the elder Antoninus.

[10] "At length Domitian, the most impious caesar, boiling over after Nero with a most savage persecution against the Christians, which to itself sent into the Gauls lictors to search out and seize Dionysius, whose fame in destroying idols and converting peoples to Christ he had heard through many, that they might diligently search for him, and, having found and seized him, either compel him to sacrifice to idols or kill him afflicted with various punishments. When blessed Dionysius learned that these were approaching the borders of the Parisians, he summoned Sanctinus and Antoninus to him, and commanded them that they should skilfully attend to his words and contests and commit them to memory, and, beholding by what kinds of torments he would end the life of the body through the punishments of the passions, should strive as quickly as possible to announce them in order to the Pontiff of the Roman See and to the faithful whom they should then find there (because there, whence the persecution was proceeding into the world of the Christians, it was blazing most ardently): and should earnestly ask them to make these things known to the citizens of the Athenians, so that they too might give thanks to the Lord for the course of his labours fulfilled, and might become of good mind toward his cult.

[11] has as its circumstances, "Blessed Dionysius having been consummated by the palm of martyrdom, Sanctinus and Antoninus, as had been commanded them, hastened to undertake the journey to Rome: and coming into Italy, Antoninus was seized with a strong fever. Sanctinus, having remained some days in attendance upon him, by the counsel and consent of the same Antoninus, lest the command of blessed Dionysius should be hindered by any occasion whatever, arranged to accomplish the journey begun, and, having entrusted sufficient gifts and honourable linens to the master of the house in which Antoninus lay, he asked and adjured him by the Lord that, if Antoninus recovered, he should then minister to him most abundantly; and if he should depart from life, he should bury him most honourably: and so he took up the journey which he had begun to accomplish it. And when Sanctinus had already reached the borders of the Romans, Antoninus departed from life. The master of the house, retaining all the things which had been entrusted to him for his attendance, raised the planks of his stable, in which his animals stayed, and threw him into the pit where the dung and urine of the animals flowed down, and put the planks back over it.*

[12] to the Acts of St. Sanctinus "All which things Sanctinus presently knew through the Holy Spirit, and having returned with the greatest haste to the house in which he had left Antoninus lying, he arrived weeping and grieving, and asked the master of the house: 'Where,' he said, 'is Antoninus, my dearest brother?' And he, with feigned groans and sighs and simulated sadness, said: 'He is dead, and I buried him most honourably out of the things committed to me by you.' To whom Sanctinus said: 'You lie, son of the devil; you threw that holy and just Man into the dunghill; and now come with me to the place of the stable into which you threw him.' And he, struck with fear, did not dare to resist coming with him to the place where he had thrown him. And raising the planks from there, Sanctinus cried with tears in a loud voice, saying: 'Brother Antoninus, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, for whose name and love the most glorious martyr Dionysius suffered, arise, and let us together accomplish the obedience which the same father and master of ours commanded us in common.'

[13] is transcribed, "And at once Antoninus, wrapped in dung, arose; Sanctinus drew him out of the pit of the stable, and washed him most diligently, and clothed him in clean and most honourable garments: and so, offering to the Lord the sacrifice of praise, they partook of the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ: and taking food they were strengthened, and setting out on the journey begun, they came to Rome with the Lord's help: and, blessed Clement having already been crowned as a martyr, they found consecrated Pontiff in the same See saint Anacletus, a Greek by nation from Athens, who had been ordained presbyter by blessed Peter the Apostle. To him they narrated in every detail, as blessed Dionysius had ordered them, his acts and the order of his martyrdom. And the business accomplished, they returned to the city of the people of Meaux, where, pressing on with holy preaching and pious works, Sanctinus, full of faith, virtues and good works, passed to the heavenly kingdoms. Antoninus succeeded him in the episcopate, and, spending many years in the holy office, with a manifold fruit of good works and gain of souls, passed to the Lord, to whom is honour and glory through all ages of ages. Amen."

[14] This letter, and is vindicated for Hincmar, the Acts of St. Sanctinus included in which from num. 9 deserve absolutely no credit, as everyone, unless I am mistaken, will without difficulty recognise on account of the reasons adduced in the Commentary prefatory to the Acts of Dionysius the Areopagite, § V, and therefore not to be repeated here, Calmet affirms, in his Dissertation on the first bishops of the church of Verdun prefixed to volume 1 of the History of Lorraine, column 64, is to be held for a counterfeit instrument forged under the name of Hincmar; and that Tillemont suspects the fiction is to be attributed to Wandelmar, whom, not long after the year 823, as we shall see below, Hubert I, bishop of the people of Meaux, set over the abbey of blessed Sanctinus at Meaux, Duplessis, in the History of Meaux, volume

1, page 5, insinuates. But the things which are had at the beginning of that Letter are to be distinguished from the Acts of St. Sanctinus, which are recited in it toward the end. Tillemont, volume IV of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 721, seems to suspect that these, but not likewise those which properly constitute the letter of Hincmar, were forged by Wandelmar; and although he might perhaps also seem to have doubted whether that letter is truly Hincmar's, no one would nevertheless deservedly suspect that it is on that account to be denied to this archbishop of Reims. Sirmond indeed, as Tillemont says in the place cited, does not count the same letter among the Works of Hincmar. But Flodoard, listing the letters of Hincmar to Charles the Bald in book 3 of the History of the church of Reims, chapter 18, numbers among them a letter On the Life or acts of blessed Sanctinus; and since he thus, as appears, designates the letter of Hincmar of which we are speaking here, there is surely reason for us to judge, moved by the authority of Flodoard, who flourished in the tenth century and was therefore almost contemporary with Hincmar, that this is by no means to be denied to that archbishop of Reims, but on the contrary to be attributed to him.

[15] Further, Hincmar, who, as I have just shown, from the letter it becomes plain, enjoyed, and that, wrote the said letter and, according to what has been said, flourished in the ninth century, certainly wins indubitable credit for himself in the things which he records in it concerning matters then done, unless perhaps somewhere a matter is treated which he could not have had sufficiently investigated. But, you will ask, to what end these things about Hincmar and the letter written by him to Charles the Bald? Hucbert, mentioned in it above at num. 7, was created bishop of Meaux at the time when Charles the Bald was born, and therefore in the year 823, as Hincmar shows there, and not long after, as appears, granted to Wandelmar, to whom he had committed his clerics to be imbued with the art of singing, the little abbey of St. Sanctinus at Meaux as a benefice; and since this is so, this abbey, which, as Duplessis teaches in the place cited above, its former state having been changed, at length became the collegiate church distinguished by the name of the same Saint of ours which is still seen at Meaux today, was certainly built there, considering what Hincmar writes in the aforesaid letter above at num. 7, already from the ninth century not yet far advanced, if not even much earlier; wherefore, since the servants of God after whom churches are named are by that very fact venerated as Saints, and these are accustomed to be honoured with ecclesiastical cult chiefly in the sacred places dedicated under their name, it is surely not to be doubted that this cult was shown to Sanctinus here at Meaux at least already from the said ninth century, if not even much earlier. Nor indeed has it ceased to be shown to him there up to now; indeed it has also been propagated thence elsewhere. Both the latter and the former I shall show below, as soon as I have spoken of the veneration with which Antoninus is likewise honoured at Meaux.

[16] [which, no differently than the cult, to St. Antoninus, although inserted in only a few sacred Fasti,] To the general Catalogue of Saints not inscribed in the Roman Martyrology of Ferrari, in which Antoninus is noted at the 22nd of September, and to the other sacred Fasti mentioned at num. 1, in which he is noted at the 22nd day of May, as I showed there, there is added our manuscript Florarium, which at this latter day, Sanctinus having first been announced as a martyr, then very briefly mentions Antonius the confessor; and with it must be joined the ancient Martyrology of the church of Meaux and the Gallican one composed by du Saussay. The last, which celebrates Antoninus today, does so with a more prolix elogium, drawn almost entirely from the spurious Acts of St. Sanctinus included in the letter of Hincmar just recited, and therefore, if only for that reason, not to be transcribed here; while the first, as Duplessis teaches, History of Meaux, volume 1, page 622, announces Antoninus at the 30th day of September in only a few words, thus: On the day before the Kalends of October, in the city of Meaux, of St. Antoninus, bishop and confessor. So that ancient monument of the church of Meaux. Nor do I find any other hagiology besides those just related here and above at num. 1 in which St. Antoninus is mentioned; so that he surely exists inserted in only few and almost only more recent sacred tables: but although this is so, and he has not obtained a place even in the present Roman Martyrology, he nevertheless enjoyed ecclesiastical cult at Meaux, if not, like St. Sanctinus, already from the ninth century, certainly not later than already from the thirteenth century. This can be gathered not ineptly, as appears, from the letters of the dean and chapter of Meaux given in the year 1259, which Félibien records from the very autograph among the instruments serving to prove the History of Saint-Denis, at the end of the History written by himself, page 125.

[17] likewise shown there from a very long time. These, that the studious reader may himself without difficulty pass judgment on the matter by himself, I transcribe here entire. They read thus: To all who shall inspect the present letters, J., Dean, and the whole chapter of Meaux, eternal salvation in the Lord. We make known that we, attending to the devotion which the religious and honourable men Matthew, abbot, and the whole convent of blessed Dionysius in France have toward us and our church and have had hitherto, wishing to follow them with kindly favour and to honour them with fitting gifts for the honour of God and especially of blessed Dionysius the martyr, their patron, favouring with pious affection their petition, by which they asked with the greatest humility that relics of the Saints who rest in our church of Meaux, namely of the blessed Sanctinus and Antoninus, confessors of Christ, be given them by us, by the common counsel of all of us and of the venerable father A., by the grace of God our bishop of Meaux, and with our consent intervening to this, we have thought fit to confer liberally and in perpetuity on the same abbot and convent one rib from the body of the aforesaid saint Sanctinus and one of the bones of the arm of the aforesaid Saint Antoninus. In testimony and safeguard of which matter we have thought fit to grant to the same abbot and convent the present letters, strengthened with the safeguard of our seal. Given in the year of the Lord 1259, in the month of August. Since, therefore, as is understood from these letters, the monks of Saint-Denis in France asked with earnest and suppliant prayers from the dean and canons of the church of Meaux for relics of SS. Sanctinus and Antoninus, and these granted them, as no small gift, to the aforesaid religious men in the year 1259, the bishop of Meaux consenting, this is surely an invincible argument that then among the people of Meaux, who believed without doubt, although not rightly according to what is to be said below, that the relics of St. Sanctinus as well as of St. Antoninus rested among them, these two Saints of ours, and therefore Antoninus, of whom we are speaking here by name, were held in the highest veneration; and since this is so, it surely does not appear that it should be doubted that he, who no differently than Sanctinus is called a Saint in the letters already given, enjoyed the honour proper to Saints at Meaux at least already from the thirteenth century.

[18] Further, the religious veneration of our Saints, still perseveres today, which, as everyone will elicit from what has just been said, has held place at Meaux already for many centuries, perseveres there constantly today too, a change, however, having now and then been introduced into the ecclesiastical cult with which they are honoured. This will become evident from what is now to be said. Duplessis, History of Meaux, volume 1, page 622, writes opportunely for our purpose here things which, turned from the French language into Latin, come almost to this: According to the manuscript Breviary of the diocese of Meaux of the year 1492, St. Antoninus was then venerated at Meaux on the 30th day of September with semidouble rite, the office of St. Jerome, who was then likewise venerated there only with semidouble rite, being moved to another day. But Jerome, having been made of double rite in the year 1640, was celebrated on the 30th day of September, St. Antoninus being put off to the 12th day of October, which immediately follows the feast of St. Sanctinus. In the Breviary of Meaux which exists with us and is marked as printed in the year 1640, an office of St. Jerome of double rite is prescribed at the 30th day of September, and at the 12th of October an office of St. Antoninus of semidouble rite; so that surely what Duplessis says in the words just now recited concerning the change introduced in that year into the cult of St. Antoninus and St. Jerome is exceedingly consonant with the truth. Nor is it to be doubted that what he presently subjoins to these is also true, writing thus of the cult with which Antoninus is still honoured at Meaux today: Today St. Antoninus is no longer venerated with semidouble rite, and he is sent back, but only under a simple commemoration, to the 30th day of September, sacred to St. Jerome. So he, having already before, in the volume of the History of Meaux cited, page 620, spoken almost in the following manner of the cult of St. Sanctinus likewise still persevering at Meaux today: St. Sanctinus is venerated in the manuscript Breviary of the church of Meaux of the year 1492 with an office of double rite; and this was raised in the year 1546 to the greater double rite with an octave; but after the edition of the new Breviary Sanctinus is celebrated only with double rite without an octave.

[19] to other places also here mentioned So the praised writer teaches us in these words that this Saint of ours is still venerated at Meaux today; and since Sanctinus is ordered to be venerated with exactly the same rite on the 9th day of October in the Breviary of Meaux of the year 1640, already cited above, which exists with us, he perhaps understands by the new Breviary which he mentions nothing other than this very one. However it may be, I now turn my discourse from the cult with which Sanctinus is still honoured at Meaux on the 11th day of October to the cult which he enjoys in other places too. Among these, as appears, there must chiefly be numbered Verdun, Tours, Chartres, the celebrated abbey of St. Dionysius in France, and finally a village of the diocese of Limoges, which, with an appellation partly received from St. Sanctinus, is called Saint-Xantin de Malemort, and is situated there, as the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana note, volume VIII, column 1597, near Brive. The cult of Sanctinus in the first of these places is indeed not altogether certain, but only like the truth, because this Saint of ours is not certainly, but only probably, as will become evident from what is to be said below, one and the same with St. Sanctinus, whom the people of Verdun venerate every year on the 11th day of October, as we shall see afterwards, as their first bishop.

[20] spread itself, But of the cult which he enjoys in the four other places just now mentioned one must speak otherwise; and first indeed, that he is honoured every year at Tours with the veneration proper to Saints, the Breviary of Tours of the year 1635, praised above and existing with us, establishes, in which at the 12th day of October, and not, as Baillet and after him Duplessis say, at the 13th, an ecclesiastical Office of St. Sanctinus, bishop of Meaux, is prescribed to be recited under double rite. Nor do Calmet and Duplessis allow it to be doubted that this holy prelate is also venerated as a Saint at Chartres and in the abbey of Saint-Denis in France, with which we saw above that the canons of Meaux wished to share relics of our Saints in the year 1259. For the former of these, the latter in his

Dissertation on the first bishops of the church of Verdun, page 65, expressly affirms the latter, and both he himself there and Duplessis, History of Meaux, volume 1, page 614, teach us that there exists at Chartres in the cathedral church a chapel, consecrated to God under the name of this holy bishop, in which Sanctinus is honoured; and as for the cult of the same Saint of ours in the said village of the diocese of Limoges, Duplessis, praised again just now, writes thus there from monuments of the church of Limoges, which he cites in the margin, in French words rendered by me into Latin: The inhabitants of Saint-Xantin de Malemort in the diocese of Limoges judge that they possess part of the skull of this holy Prelate; but by what means or at what time they received these sacred relics they do not declare. The village meanwhile, out of veneration for the Saint whom it holds as patron, has imposed his name on itself; and although this is written there a little differently (namely Xantin for Saintin), he is nevertheless the very one whom the inhabitants of the place believe to have been bishop of Meaux.

[21] The cult, therefore, which we assert Sanctinus enjoys also in the four places last mentioned here [although meanwhile what Sanctinus is narrated to have done, in Acts of proven credit] appears altogether certain from what has been said. Would that the things which this Saint of ours is recorded to have done were likewise certain! But the Acts, whether of Dionysius or of Sanctinus, included in the letter of Hincmar transcribed here above, on which most of these rest, are so ridiculous, so destitute of all appearance of truth, that they will certainly find credit with no one who has even greeted the art of Criticism from the threshold and has weighed the things bearing on this which I brought forward in the Commentary prefatory to the Acts of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, num. 87. Calmet indeed, in his Dissertation on the first bishops of the church of Verdun, page 61, exhibits in compendium other Acts too of this Saint of ours, from which, if they were of proven antiquity and note, some of the things narrated about St. Sanctinus could be proved; but besides that they were written not earlier than the tenth century, as Calmet teaches there, their anonymous author expressly affirms, contrary to what the older Acts included in the letter of Hincmar transcribed here above themselves relate, that Sanctinus, whom he brings into the Gauls together with Dionysius the Areopagite under St. Clement the Pope, already an old man, ended his life by martyrdom, and he records nothing which is sufficiently founded on documents of venerable antiquity and undoubted credit.

[22] Hugh of Flavigny, who flourished in the eleventh century, had those Acts lying before him, are not founded. and put together partly from these and from the older Acts included in the letter of Hincmar some third Acts of St. Sanctinus, which exist in Labbe, volume 1 of the Bibliotheca Manuscriptorum, from page 78, augmented with various circumstances received I know not whence, and furnished with chronological marks dictated by a chronology which he had either invented for himself or at least wished to follow. Hence it came about that, although in the older Acts included in the letter of Hincmar no mention is made either of Verdun or of the episcopate of Sanctinus there, Hugh nevertheless in the Acts composed by himself did not follow the opinion of those who, as Berthar, presbyter of the church of Verdun toward the end of the ninth century and the beginning of the following, testifies in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, page 252, believed that Sanctinus was placed first in the Catalogue of the bishops of Verdun only because, going to Rome with St. Antoninus to carry thither the Acts of the martyrdom of St. Dionysius, and afterwards returning thence, he was the first to announce the Gospel at Verdun; but affirmed, with the anonymous author of the Acts of St. Sanctinus of the tenth century praised above, that St. Sanctinus, when he was already presiding over the church of Meaux and had returned from Rome, whither he had gone, was truly elected bishop by the people of Verdun, and thus indicated that this Saint of ours was held by him as bishop of Verdun in the strict sense of the term and nevertheless one and the same with St. Sanctinus of Meaux; but whether he strayed from the truth in this matter, as he probably did in most other things concerning the same Saint of ours, it will be for the reader to discern from what we are to say in the following §.

cœperat*

§ II. Whether St. Sanctinus of Meaux was a disciple of St. Dionysius of Paris, and whether he is one and the same with St. Sanctinus of Verdun.

Sanctinus, whom of Meaux That Sanctinus, who is venerated today every year with solemn rite in the church of Meaux, was bishop of it is now the common opinion, founded chiefly on a tradition whose beginning is unknown. I find Sanctinus, let alone his episcopate at Meaux, mentioned in no writing or monument which is older than the spurious Acts of St. Sanctinus included in the letter of Hincmar transcribed here above; but since Sanctinus, as we showed above, has been honoured as a Saint for a very long time, indeed already from the ninth century, who, I ask, would believe that this would have happened unless he had at some time existed in the nature of things? And from the fact that no monument older than Hincmar, or than the ninth century, can be assigned in which the episcopate of Sanctinus at Meaux is asserted, it does not follow that it was not believed before that century; nor is this Saint of ours, whom the ancient Breviaries not only of the church of Meaux but also of the churches of Verdun and Tours propose to be venerated as bishop of Meaux, and whom all the Catalogues of these published by Démocharès and others, and by name by the authors of the old and the new Gallia Christiana, count among the bishops of Meaux, rashly to be struck out of these on account of the silence of writers and monuments older than the ninth century. Certainly I would not dare to do so, even having weighed all the reasons which Launoy alleges as conducing to it in his Judgment on the Areopagitica of Hilduin, page 123 and following. But was Sanctinus the first or the second bishop of the people of Meaux?

[24] and indeed the first Hildegar, himself also bishop of Meaux, who in the reign of the emperor Charles the Bald composed the Life of St. Faro, likewise bishop of Meaux, writes thus in it in Mabillon, Acts of the Benedictine Saints, volume 2, page 616: From Waldebert ... after Gundoald, the nineteenth order of prelates shone in this city (of Meaux) from saint Dionysius the first; and hence it came about that some, moved by the authority of Hildegar, made Dionysius the first bishop of the people of Meaux as of the Parisians. But as Dionysius, because, sent by the Apostolic See to Paris, he preached the Gospel to the whole region round about, was called by some by this name first bishop of the cities neighbouring Lutetia, so by name of the city of Meaux by Hildegar. Surely, since he took as his see not this but the city of Paris, the series of the bishops of Meaux is to be begun from Sanctinus, who did otherwise, and who is held by the very ones who make Dionysius the first bishop of the people of Meaux as his immediate successor. So, almost, the Writers of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, volume 8, column 1597; and these are supported not only by Duplessis, whom they had immediately preceding them, volume 1 of the History of Meaux, page 612 and following, but also by many others, and by name by those who in their Catalogues of the Bishops of Meaux grant the first place to Sanctinus, the Sainte-Marthe Brothers and Claude Robert; nor do I see what solid enough can be opposed to them whereby they may be convicted of error here. Sanctinus, therefore, seems not only to be counted among the bishops of Meaux, but also to be numbered first among them. But what is now to be judged of the opinion by which he is thought by some also to have presided over the people of Chartres in the office of bishop?

[25] Duplessis, History of Meaux, volume 1, page 614, writes thus in French words, and was never bishop of Chartres, rendered by me into Latin: According to certain monuments which are at my hand, Souchet, canon of Chartres, in his manuscript History of the city of Meaux, says that it is well established that St. Sanctinus was its bishop; and since he speaks so, he must have believed that the arguments which he had for proving it were very strong. Sanctinus nevertheless is neither mentioned in the Breviary of the church of Chartres nor counted among the bishops of Chartres in their Catalogues, and all the cult which is shown to him in the diocese of Chartres is reduced to a single chapel, dedicated to God under his name in the cathedral church. So he, and surely, as I discovered after maturely discussing the matter, most rightly; but since this is so, how then did it come about that Souchet, praised by Duplessis, judged the arguments which were available to him for showing the episcopate of St. Sanctinus at Chartres to be very strong? The spurious Acts of St. Sanctinus above in the letter of Hincmar, num. 9, have: He (Dionysius) ordained Sanctinus bishop, and, the Lord inspiring him, sent him to Chartres to illuminate those who were in darkness and in the shadow of death; where he arranged for him to stay for some time: but afterwards he established him as pastor and bishop of the city of the people of Meaux.

[26] So the said Acts, nor do the Acts prepared by Hugh of Flavigny in the manner the things here adduced suggest, which I set out at num. 22 disagree with these here as to substance. Hence it came about that Wassebourg, in the Antiquities of Belgic Gaul, folio 28, wrote that Sanctinus was first bishop of Chartres and then of Meaux, some others besides also assenting to him. Hence most probably it likewise came about that Souchet, judging that it could be argued very strongly from those Acts in favour of the episcopate of St. Sanctinus at Chartres, affirmed that it was well established; but the Acts of St. Sanctinus included in the letter of Hincmar, by the words just transcribed here, Hugh of Flavigny supplying words consonant with these, relate only that Sanctinus was ordained bishop by Dionysius and sent to Chartres to illuminate those who sat there in darkness and in the shadow of death, and add nothing by which it is intimated that this was done with the city of Chartres assigned to Sanctinus as a fixed see; indeed, on the contrary, since they presently also subjoin that Sanctinus, having stayed some time at Chartres, was afterwards established bishop of Meaux, with no mention at all made of the see of Chartres which he previously occupied, they seem thus to insinuate that he was not bishop of Chartres before he was set over the church of Meaux. Besides, even if the said Acts, both those included in the letter of Hincmar and those composed by Hugh of Flavigny existing in Labbe, asserted most clearly that Sanctinus was bishop of Chartres, it would not on that account be to be believed; for those Acts, as I have already shown, deserve no credit at all, and therefore cannot by their authority bring it about that we judge that Sanctinus, who obtains a place neither in the Breviaries of the church of Chartres nor in the Catalogues of the bishops of Chartres, was bishop of Chartres. Now then, since this is so, and no other arguments occur by which Souchet could have been moved to judge the episcopate of Sanctinus at Chartres certain, there is surely reason for us to stand here by the Catalogues of the bishops of Chartres, in which this Saint of ours nowhere appears, and so to judge that he was never in truth bishop of Chartres.

[27] [thrust forward as a disciple of Dionysius of Paris, but, as appears, not rightly,] Further, just as some nevertheless make Sanctinus bishop of Chartres, so too they make him a disciple of Dionysius; but neither in this matter are they to be agreed with. Supporting them indeed

here again they have the Acts of St. Sanctinus, both those included in the letter of Hincmar and those composed by Hugh of Flavigny existing in Labbe; but to these, although they relate the matter most clearly, no one certainly will give credit who has considered how destitute they are of all authority, from what has already been said. Nor is there reason for you to allege the tradition of the church of Meaux; for who would assert for certain that this, by which, as they say, Sanctinus is held to have been a disciple of Dionysius, is genuine? I incline to believe it corrupted in this matter by uncertain rumours of the common people, if only because, as appears, Sanctinus lived later than to have been able to be a disciple of Dionysius. For Dionysius, as we have already shown in our Work in the Commentary prefixed to his Acts at the 9th day of October, was afflicted with martyrdom not later than the year 286; but Sanctinus flourished not earlier than about the middle of the fourth century, as you will understand from what is now to be said. Between St. Sanctinus, the first, according to what has been said, bishop of the people of Meaux, and St. Faro, likewise bishop of the people of Meaux, only eighteen intermediate bishops intervened, but between Dionysius, first bishop of the Parisians, and Agilbert, likewise bishop of the Parisians, thirty, as may be seen in the published Catalogues of the bishops of Paris and Meaux; and this difference, since St. Faro and St. Agilbert were contemporaries, or both flourished in the same seventh century, probably arises from the fact that the series of the bishops was begun, that of Paris from Dionysius, who, as said, underwent martyrdom not later than the year 286, but that of Meaux from a bishop who died much later, indeed not earlier than about one century elapsed after Dionysius. Wherefore, since the bishop from whom the series of the bishops of Meaux was begun was, according to what has been said, none other than Sanctinus, it follows that he probably occupied the see of Meaux not earlier than about the middle of the fourth century, and departed from life not very long before the year 386, and that therefore he was not a disciple of Dionysius.

[28] one and the same with Sanctinus, the first bishop of Verdun, The matter surely appears likely from what has been said, and will become still more likely from what is now to be subjoined here. The people of Verdun contend that they too had a bishop named Sanctinus. And indeed it cannot, as appears, be denied that he whom the church of Verdun venerates as a Saint on the 11th day of October was in actual fact bishop of the people of Verdun. The constant tradition of that church holds this, expressed also in the ancient Martyrology of the cathedral church of Verdun at the 11th day of October in these words: The birthday of St. Sanctinus, bishop of Verdun. And that Sanctinus is not only to be counted among the bishops of Verdun, but that the first place among them is to be attributed to him, the published Catalogues of the same establish, in all of which Sanctinus is mentioned before all the others. To those Catalogues is added an instrument enclosed in the Reliquary into which, as we shall see afterwards, Richard, bishop of Verdun, transferred the relics of St. Sanctinus in the year 1044, in which Sanctinus is expressly called first bishop of the church of Verdun. Besides, among the writers who number Sanctinus among the bishops of Verdun I find none at all who does not attribute to him the first place among them; so that surely the opinion by which Sanctinus is judged not only to be among the bishops of Verdun but also the first of them seems not undeservedly to be embraced. Now then, since this is so, and that holy bishop of Verdun probably, as we shall see below, both occupied the see of Verdun about the middle of the fourth century and prolonged his life for a long time still afterwards, hence surely the opinion by which we establish that Sanctinus of Meaux presided over the church of Meaux not earlier than about the middle of the fourth century, and did not depart from life very long before the year 386, and was therefore not a disciple of Dionysius, becomes more likely, since Sanctinus of Verdun is probably one and the same with him, as the things which I now subjoin suggest.

[29] Greven, who together with Canisius and the Lübeck-Cologne edition of Usuard, made in the year 1490, as both from those here praised, who only one announces St. Antoninus as well as St. Sanctinus at the 22nd day of May as bishops of Meaux, as we saw above, records today St. Sanctinus alone at Verdun as bishop of this city, and then again, imposing on him only the title of bishop without expression of the see, and corruptly, as I already noted before, the name of Schynnus, on the following 12th day of October at Meaux; and the same is also done by the Lübeck-Cologne edition of Usuard just praised, Canisius meanwhile commemorating Sanctinus at Verdun today only; so that those sacred tables, since they celebrate Sanctinus, whom in one place they make bishop of Meaux and in another bishop of Verdun, on different days and in different places, introduce, as appears, two different Sanctini, of whom one was bishop of Meaux and the other of Verdun. But rightly? Maurolico and Galesini in the sacred Fasti composed by them, and the most learned men themselves who reformed the present Roman Martyrology, list in it only one Sanctinus, whom they make bishop of Meaux, and whom therefore most probably, because he is said by Peter de Natalibus in the Catalogue, book 8, chapter 108, to have died on the 22nd day of September, they thought should be recorded on that day; and although the supposititious Acts of St. Sanctinus which the letter of Hincmar to Charles the Bald contains, transcribed here above, and the elogia taken from these with which Peter in the place just cited and St. Antoninus, part 1, title 6, chapter 28, §1, adorn Sanctinus, make mention neither of Verdun nor of an episcopate held by him there, the praised martyrologists, who drew from those Acts or elogia whatever they record at the 22nd day of September concerning Sanctinus, bishop of Meaux, nevertheless seem to have judged him the same as Sanctinus, bishop of Verdun.

[30] seem to establish Sanctinus, I judge so because, although they had lying before them Greven and the Lübeck-Cologne edition of Usuard mentioned above, in which today, as I have already shown, St. Sanctinus is announced as bishop of Verdun, they nevertheless do not record Sanctinus of Verdun today, judging, namely, that they should so act, probably because they thought that this had already been done by them when they commemorated Sanctinus of Meaux at the 22nd day of September. Now then, since this is so, and they therefore acknowledge only one Sanctinus, who, according to what is to be said below, was probably first bishop of Verdun and then of Meaux, there is surely reason why they should be believed to oppose the sacred tables praised above, which, as I said, seem to establish two Sanctini distinct from one another, of whom one was bishop of Meaux and the other of Verdun. No less, as appears, does Molanus conflict with the same sacred tables, who in his Additions to Usuard records Sanctinus today in these few words: At Verdun, of blessed Sanctinus, bishop and confessor of the same place. For just as the praised martyrologists, because, although they had lying before them Greven and the Lübeck-Cologne edition of Usuard, in which, as said, Sanctinus is announced today as bishop of Verdun, they nevertheless do not record Sanctinus of Verdun today, seem to have made him the same as Sanctinus of Meaux, whom they had already earlier recorded at the 22nd day of September, so too Molanus, because, although he had lying before him Greven and the Lübeck-Cologne edition of Usuard, in which, as we saw, Sanctinus is announced at the 22nd day of May as bishop of Meaux, he nevertheless by no means records Sanctinus of Meaux on that day, is to be judged to have made him the same as Sanctinus of Verdun, whom he celebrates today.

[31] in the sacred Fasti, Ferrari, who undoubtedly had Molanus before his eyes, probably observed this. Certainly he clearly insinuates, in the index subjoined to his general Catalogue of Saints not inscribed in the Roman Martyrology, that Sanctinus, whom he records today at Verdun, was bishop at once of Meaux and of Verdun, and thus makes the latter the same as the former, no differently than Molanus and the other hagiologists praised above, with whom may also be joined today's Brussels Auctarium of Usuard in Sollerius. Nor do I doubt that likewise the founders of the Paris Martyrology published in the year 1727, who announce Sanctinus at Meaux today and nowhere note him at Verdun, judged that Sanctinus of Meaux and of Verdun are one and the same; and the same is to be said of du Saussay; for although he announces in his Gallican Martyrology at the 22nd day of September Sanctinus at Meaux as bishop of Meaux, and then today at Verdun as bishop of Verdun, he nevertheless makes it plain by the elogia which he employs in both places that discourse is held by him concerning one and the same Sanctinus. Now then, since this is so, and no martyrologists or sacred Fasti distinct from those already mentioned, all of whom, as I have already shown, acknowledge only one Sanctinus, are found which with Greven, Canisius and the Lübeck-Cologne edition of Usuard establish two Sanctini, there is surely reason for us to judge, if only for that reason, that this is wrongly done by these. But it will help to have proved this, or the opinion which makes Sanctinus of Meaux the same as the one of Verdun, in yet another way, since the opposite opinion, which distinguishes the one from the other, is also not destitute of all probability.

[32] Berthar the presbyter, praised above, who toward the beginning of the tenth century composed a brief History of the bishops of Verdun, both from the ancient, by Berthar writes thus in it in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, page 251 and following: We read that in this church (namely of Verdun) thirty bishops have already preceded, the first of whom is called saint Sanctinus, concerning whom we have endeavoured to note here what we think. For we read that saint Dionysius sent Sanctinus, bishop of the church of Meaux, and Antonius the presbyter with the Acts of his passion to Rome to saint Clement, and that their journey was through this (namely of Verdun) city, and that in going and returning they were the first to preach the word of God here. And they say that for that reason he is placed first in the order of the bishops of this church. Those, therefore, of whom Berthar speaks here, made St. Sanctinus, who is judged the first bishop of the people of Verdun, the same as Sanctinus of Meaux, a disciple, as they thought, of Dionysius of Paris. The things which Berthar subjoins to the words just recited make us judge that then indeed, or in Berthar's age and before, there were also some who judged that Sanctinus, first bishop of the people of Verdun, flourished at the time of the council of Cologne to be mentioned below, and therefore in the year in which it was celebrated, 346; but he adds nothing at all by which he intimates that they therefore judged the first bishop of the people of Verdun to be different from Sanctinus of Meaux, and it may be that they believed nothing whatever about the latter on account of which he should be distinguished from Sanctinus of Verdun.

[33] Besides, in the twelfth century too there were some who, [and by Laurence of Liège mentioned, who Sanctinus of Verdun with the one of Meaux] as Laurence of Liège, who then flourished, teaches in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, page 275, wishing to bring into concord two opposite opinions, one of which held that Sanctinus of Verdun is one and the same with Sanctinus of Meaux, whom they believed to have been a disciple of Dionysius of Paris and to have lived in the first century of the Christian era, and the other that he flourished at the time of the council of Cologne and therefore about the middle of the fourth century, introduced to this end two different bishops of Verdun,

distinguished by the name of Sanctinus, the first of whom would be one and the same with Sanctinus of Meaux and would have lived in the first century, while the second would have flourished at the time of the council of Cologne, or about the middle of the fourth century. Wherefore, since they seem to have done this, which is founded on no ancient documents that are known, and is contrary also to all the Catalogues of the bishops of Verdun in which only one Sanctinus appears, only because they did not dare to assert that Sanctinus of Meaux was distinct from Sanctinus, the first bishop of the people of Verdun, it can surely be argued from this that the latter was then commonly believed to be the same as the former; and since in Berthar's age, as I have just shown, there were also some who were persuaded of this very thing, it follows from what has just been said that certainly before the twelfth century the opinion which makes Sanctinus, the first bishop of the people of Verdun, one and the same with Sanctinus of Meaux flourished most greatly. This, further, whence it is also confirmed to have flourished then, was embraced also by those who flourished in the tenth and eleventh centuries, Hugh of Flavigny and the anonymous writer of the acts of St. Sanctinus, of which, as I have already noted at num. 21, Calmet exhibits a compendium; and these were most probably followed afterwards by those who composed the Breviary of Verdun of the year 1625, already praised above, and likewise those who composed the Breviary of Meaux of the year 1640, likewise already praised above.

[34] judged the same, it is shown, it is probable, However it may be, certainly both these and those, in the Lessons which they propose in the ecclesiastical office of St. Sanctinus, most expressly make Sanctinus, the first bishop of the people of Verdun, the same as Sanctinus of Meaux, no differently than Hugh and the praised anonymous writer; and since this and other things bearing on this stand thus, as I said, and nothing proves that the said opinion, by which Sanctinus, the first bishop of the people of Verdun, is established as one and the same with Sanctinus of Meaux, is certainly foreign to the truth, there is surely reason for us to embrace it, if not as certain, at least as probable and likely, relying both on the sacred Fasti praised above, which establish only one Sanctinus, and on the older writers mentioned by Berthar and Laurence of Liège, who clearly judged Sanctinus of Verdun the same as the one of Meaux. But now, someone will perhaps say, the things alleged do not yet seem to suffice for Sanctinus, who first presided over the church of Verdun, to be believed to have been probably one and the same with the Sanctinus who governed the church of Meaux. For these two churches are separated from one another by too long a space for him to have been able conveniently to govern both at the same time. Nor does it appear sufficiently with what appearance of truth he can be said to have governed the one after the other. For in that case he would have to be said to have passed either from Verdun to Meaux, or on the contrary from the latter to the former; but the old discipline of the Church did not have in use the translations of bishops and changes of sees, and it was even forbidden by the 15th canon of the synod of Nicaea that they should be frequent. So it can be argued against the opinion by which we establish Sanctinus of Verdun as probably the same as the one of Meaux; but it can be proved by not a few examples, which I omit for Brevity's sake, that changes of sees, when either necessity or great utility demanded them, were lawful and now and then even took place.

[35] and first, as appears, of Verdun, Wherefore, since some legitimate reason, although unknown to us, could have underlain why Sanctinus should pass either from Verdun to Meaux or on the contrary from the latter to the former, why, I ask, should either the said canon of the synod of Nicaea or the old discipline of the Church prevent us from believing that this was done? Will you perhaps say that examples can indeed be alleged from which it is established that in the Eastern church, but not likewise equally easily others from which it is likewise established that in the Western church, changes of sees, a legitimate reason requiring them, were now and then in use in the first centuries of the Church? But what if it be said that St. Sanctinus, when the Huns and Alans (see volume 3 of May of our Work at St. Servatius, num. 13), after the death of Gratian, were making incursions into the regions of Upper and Lower Germany and devastating Tongres and Reims and other neighbouring cities, being compelled to leave Verdun, migrated about the year 384 to Meaux, and on this occasion, without abdicating his former see of Verdun, received this city to govern in the office of bishop, and died not so very long after? Surely I incline to believe that this, as it may have, also actually happened so, also because nothing arises from it except what agrees perfectly with the opinion by which I think that Sanctinus acted as bishop first at Verdun and then at Meaux; and I think this, on account of what is presently to be said, more likely than the opposite opinion. It is indeed expressly asserted in the Lessons of the ecclesiastical Office which the Verdun Breviary of the year 1625, existing with us, prescribes to be recited concerning him today, that this Saint of ours presided first over the church of Meaux and then over that of Verdun; but the contrary is affirmed no less expressly in the present-day Lessons concerning the same Saint of ours which the Meaux Breviary of the year 1640, likewise existing with us, contains; and it seems that one should stand by these rather than by the Lessons of the Verdun Breviary.

[36] I set out why this is my view. Duplessis, History of Meaux, volume 1, than he governed the church of Meaux. page 4, writes thus of St. Sanctinus in French words, rendered by me here into Latin: Whether he exchanged this mortal life for the immortal at Meaux or at Verdun I do not believe can be drawn into controversy. His sacred bones, says a certain critic (namely Tillemont, volume 4 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 721), may have been brought from Verdun to Meaux. But if it were so, the church in which these were deposited does not seem to have been built rather outside the city than within the circuit of the walls. For the Market of Meaux, where this church is situated, was for a long time only an empty place outside the gates of the city. It agrees, therefore, more with the appearance of truth that he should be believed to have died at Meaux and to have been buried there, but according to custom outside the city, and that the church which has its name from him took its origin from nothing other than the burial and tomb of the Saint. Since, therefore, Sanctinus, as Duplessis deservedly contends by the reasons which he adduces here, more probably died at Meaux than elsewhere, from this and at the same time from the fact that men depart from life far more frequently in those places in which they have fixed their seats than in others to which they have turned aside by chance, it follows that Sanctinus, at the time when he died, more probably had his fixed see at Meaux than at Verdun; and since this is so, and it probably took place for no other reason than that he had then passed, as everyone will elicit from this, from the church of Verdun to that of Meaux, it further follows that he probably governed the latter first and the former last. The Verdun Breviary praised above does indeed, as I have already said, relate the contrary; but whatever is recorded in it on that matter is all taken either from Hugh of Flavigny or from the anonymous writer who in the tenth century wrote the Acts of St. Sanctinus expressed in compendium in Calmet in the place cited above; and these, although they also have Wassebourg in the Antiquities of Belgic Gaul, folio 28 and following, agreeing with them, deserve no credit at all, as I showed at num. 21 and following, in the things which they record concerning our Saints and which cannot be solidly confirmed from elsewhere, as is the case here.

§ III. At what time our Saints flourished: whether either of them was a martyr, and whether St. Antoninus as well as St. Sanctinus was a bishop.

To one about to inquire into the time in which our Saints flourished there opportunely occurs here the council of Cologne, Sanctinus, whom the council of Cologne of the year 346, celebrated in the year 346 in the cause of Euphratas, bishop of the same city. For from this, which exists in several editors of the councils, and by name in Labbe, volume 2 of them, column 615 and the two following, it becomes likely that St. Sanctinus, and therefore, according to what is to be said below, also St. Antoninus, were living about the middle of the fourth century, as I shall give proved here. But since the truth of the said council is called in doubt, and what I say I am about to prove could not safely be proved from it if it were merely fictitious, it will help before all things to have shown here that it is probably not to be held as supposititious. Although indeed we may readily admit that errors have crept, through the unskilfulness of copyists who for that reason could not conveniently read them, either into the names of the bishops who are named in the Acts of the council here to be discussed or into the names of the sees which they occupied, written perhaps in abbreviation in the autograph, nothing nevertheless compels us either not to admit as true the said council, in which Euphratas, bishop of Cologne, is narrated to have been deposed, or cast down from his see, for obstinately denying the divinity of Christ, or to reject its Acts as spurious and certainly supposititious. There are indeed not a few writers, celebrated even for learning, of whom some represent those Acts as doubtful and suspect, others repudiate them as even certainly false and supposititious; but there are also those, inferior to them neither in number nor in learning, who defend the same Acts as genuine and authentic; nor do I see clearly enough why we should without doubt oppose them in this matter, to whom most recently, in the History of Strasbourg, begun to be published in the year 1777, Grandidier, its author, has also joined himself. For the reasons which the patrons of the contrary opinion allege for themselves do not appear solid enough for us to embrace it as certain.

[38] as supposititious, Nor can I be moved by those very ones which Artzheim, who did so in the year 1759, alleges in his Preface to the councils of Germany, § XXVI, to think that the synod of Cologne of which we are speaking here is a fiction of the ninth or tenth century. For besides that mention is made of a synod or council of Cologne not only in the Life of St. Servatius cited by Berthar the presbyter praised above, who flourished in the ninth century, and therefore probably not first written then, but also in the Acts of St. Maximinus, bishop of Trier, written by an anonymous author who, as Henschen teaches at the 29th day of May in the Commentary prefixed to these, num. 4, Ceillier also giving him assent in this matter in volume XIX of the Sacred Authors, page 59, flourished in the eighth century, and published there by the same Henschen, to what end should we believe that its Acts, in which Euphratas, bishop of Cologne, is exhibited as deposed for heresy, were forged so long a time after his age? Who, I ask, would persuade himself that that which could only turn to the greatest ignominy of Euphratas, who would otherwise be held by all posterity as thoroughly Catholic, was done by someone who was removed at least five centuries from the age of that prelate of Cologne, and therefore was driven by no stings either of hatred or of envy against him? Besides, that council, in the year, as the chronological marks which it bears at its head indicate, 346, on the 12th day of May, and therefore on a Sunday, on which, according to the tables

of Easter, the 12th day of May fell in that year, was celebrated according to the custom then in use, nor is it found anywhere to transgress the form prescribed by the ancient canons of the Church for the celebration of councils; and since this is so, and its Acts, considered in themselves, are therefore furnished with absolutely all the characters of truth which are required in the genuine and authentic Acts of Councils, why should we hold them, or the council whose they are, as a pure and simple fiction?

[39] It is certain, says Artzheim in the place cited above, that the heresy of Photinus did not become known to the Eastern Church before the year 346 as the things which here against those who the contrary opinion and the synod of Sardica. How then could the Fathers of the Western Church, separated by so great an interval of places and times, have learned of it a year earlier at Cologne and condemned it? How could Euphratas be condemned before the year 346 as defiled and contumacious in this error? But that what Artzheim here affirms to be certain is by no means certain is clear from what Pagi writes in the Critica at the year 347, num. 5. For the Photinian heresy, as he shows there, was first condemned in the synod of Antioch, and therefore already from the year in which this was celebrated, 345; and since this is so, why could not that heresy have become known to the Western church in the following year, and Euphratas have been condemned as defiled in that error by the Fathers of the Council of Cologne, which was then celebrated, and not, as Artzheim says, in the year 345? Besides, even if we were to grant for the moment that the heresy of Photinus did not become known to the Eastern church before the year 346, or indeed before the year 347, to which the synod of Sardica is commonly tied by the learned, nothing could nevertheless be inferred from this against the truth of the council of Cologne or its Acts. For in these no mention at all of Photinus occurs, nor is it necessary that Euphratas be said to have drawn from him the error on account of which he was condemned in the council of Cologne.

[40] Hear what Sirmond says here, opportunely for our purpose, in Labbe, volume 2 of the Councils, column 1805, in his posthumous Notes on the council of Cologne. with a very strong also That Euphratas ... learned from Photinus, he says, there is no one who relates, no one who can prove, although he taught similar things. For he could have been taught either by the Paulianists, whose heresy was the same, or have devised it himself without an author, just as Facundus of Hermiane, book 1 On the three Chapters to Justinian, is the authority that the monk Leporius said the same things in Gaul which Nestorius afterwards taught. Thus, unless I am greatly mistaken, the argument drawn against the synod of Cologne of the year 346 from the Photinian heresy, which could not have been known to the Eastern, and therefore to the Western, church before the year 346, turns out entirely nerveless and feeble; and as for the remaining arguments which are adduced against the same synod or its Acts by Artzheim or other writers, most can be dissolved without difficulty by anyone who has admitted that errors of copyists have crept into them through either unskilfulness or drowsiness; and since it is therefore not worth the trouble to unravel all of them one by one, I here propose only one more, not equally open to a clear solution as the others.

[41] defend by the argument here proposed, That which can be held as worth all the rest, and which so greatly moved Baronius that he judged the synod of Cologne either altogether false and fictitious or to be put back after the times of Sardica, comes almost to this: Euphratas, bishop of Cologne, not only was present in the year 347 at the council of Sardica, which is called in doubt by no one, among the orthodox Fathers who, assembling in that city of Illyricum, asserted the divinity of Christ and the consubstantiality of the word against the Arians and Anomoeans, but also, as Athanasius teaches in his letter to those leading the solitary life, was chosen by the holy synod in preference to other bishops, not a few of whom were conspicuous for the confession and defence of the orthodox faith, to go together with Vincent, bishop of Capua, to the emperor Constantius and to ask him that Athanasius and his companions be restored to the sees from which they had been driven against right and justice; and since it is not credible that so honourable an embassy would then have been decreed to Euphratas if in the immediately preceding year he had been condemned as a heretic and cast down from his see by the Fathers of the council of Cologne, almost all of whom were present at that of Sardica, that council of Cologne of the year 346, in which Euphratas was deposed, is to be held as supposititious. Such is the argument which surely fights very strongly against it, and which I have judged should still be proposed here; but even if it were of such a kind that it could by no means be dissolved, the Acts of the same council would not on that account immediately have to be rejected as supposititious.

[42] brought forward For these, as I have already shown, include absolutely no mark of falsity if they are considered in themselves; and it not rarely happens that, although indeed the difficulties objected which prevent some deed from being believed seem scarcely, if at all, to be able to be solved, they nevertheless presently vanish if all the circumstances which are joined with that matter and were previously unknown become known. Wherefore it can not undeservedly be judged that this too would probably take place as regards the argument just proposed by which they attack the Synod of Cologne, if all the circumstances which pertain to it and are still unknown were to become known. For the rest, although circumstances of this kind are still now in obscurity, reasons are nevertheless not lacking by which those who stand for the synod of Cologne try, and not with vain labour, as appears, to untie that knot. And first, to do this, Petau, Sirmond and others, and most recently Grandidier in his Dissertation praised above, answer, bringing forward examples of bishops also who, when they had sincerely returned to the Church from the heresy on account of which they had been cast down from their sees, were restored to them, that Euphratas, condemned in the council of Cologne, by afterwards revoking his errors with most evident signs of a sincerely repentant mind, could have moved the Fathers of the council of Sardica, the memory of his lapse being in a certain manner obliterated, to decree to him an honourable embassy to that prince, as one who, by the singular favour which he enjoyed with the emperor Constantius, would more easily and more certainly obtain that Athanasius and the other catholic bishops be restored to their sees.

[43] But since it is not established from ancient monuments that Euphratas had very great favour and influence with Constantius and retracted his errors, are adduced, and not all will easily persuade themselves that an embassy of this kind would have been decreed to him, however repentant, by the Fathers of the council of Sardica, I do not know whether it is not better to say, with our Henschen at the 13th day of May in the Life of St. Servatius which he illustrates there, num. 2, that the bishop of Cologne condemned by the council assembled in that city in the year 346 is different from the bishop of Cologne who, distinguished by the name of Euphratas, was present at the council of Sardica, and that the first, who was called Euphraxius or Euphrasius or in some other similar manner, was confused, on account of the similarity of the names, with the latter, who was substituted for him when he was deposed for heresy, by an unskilful copyist or some smatterer who disfigured the name of the heretical bishop far even from the true one. If this displeases, two bishops of the same name, of whom one immediately succeeded the other in the same church, are found in various catalogues of bishops; and since this is so, what if we also say, with Pagi in the Critica at the year 346, num. 6, that both the bishop deposed in the council of Cologne and the bishop substituted for him were called Euphratas or Euphrates, and that the second, or orthodox, is wrongly confused with the first, who was a heretic? It can indeed be replied that only one bishop who is called Euphratas is listed in the published Catalogues of the bishops of Cologne, and that it is related in the history of St. Servatius that Severinus was at once substituted for the bishop who was condemned in the council of Cologne; but everyone knows that those Catalogues are very imperfect and untrustworthy in the first bishops of Cologne, and the anonymous author of the History of St. Servatius, in which that is related, certainly not much older than the ninth century, nevertheless blindly followed them.

[44] Hence it came about that, believing that only one bishop of Cologne existed suggest, probably not to be held, named Euphratas, he for that reason made him the same as the bishop who, himself also called Euphratas or by another not much unlike name, was condemned in the council of Cologne, and committed to writing that Severinus, who in all the praised Catalogues of the bishops of Cologne is subjoined immediately after Euphratas, and truly succeeded the orthodox Euphratas, not indeed in the year in which the council of Cologne was celebrated, 346, but, as Henschen thinks in the Life of St. Servatius praised above, which he illustrated, about ten or sixteen years after, was at once substituted for him in it by the Fathers of the council. Therefore I judge that both what seemed good to Pagi and what seemed good to Henschen concerning the bishop condemned by the Fathers of the synod of Cologne is very like the truth, and at the same time opens a way easier and plainer than all the rest for lifting and entirely enervating the argument proposed above, than which no other fights more strongly against the synod of Cologne. Further, Grandidier, in his Dissertation praised above, records these which various learned men assign, and then, having set out to the reader the reasons, or certainly most of them, by which the truth of the synod of Cologne on the one hand and its falsity on the other is made likely, at length concludes his disputation on that matter thus, in French words rendered here by me into Latin: In this conflict of verisimilitudes, must not sentence be given in favour of the truth of the Acts of the synod of Cologne, which, considered in themselves, exhibit nothing by which they are rendered suspect, and besides, as Petau observed, are founded on the suffrage of all antiquity and of the greater number of more recent authors? So he, and surely, in my judgment at least, not ineptly; and since this is so, and the synod of Cologne of the year 346 is therefore to be judged to have truly taken place, it follows that the Sanctinus who is named in it of Articlavus or of the Articlavi, and is listed among the bishops who sent men to attend the council in their name, flourished about the middle of the fourth century.

[45] and Sanctinus, of the people of Verdun, But what is the word of the Articlavi there? In that council, not only as it is exhibited in Labbe in the place cited above, but also as it stands published in Chapeaville from the additions of Giles, monk of Orval, to the Deeds of the pontiffs of Tongres by Hariger, volume 1, chapter 24, of the Articlavi is written, and hence chiefly, unless I am mistaken, it came about that Sirmond, in his Annotations on it in Labbe, in the volume 2 of the Councils cited above, judged that one should read not of Laticlavus but rather of Articlavus, as is had in the Surian edition of the same council. But what people or what nation is signified by the Articlavi, what place by Laticlavus or Articlavus? Giles, monk of Orval, in Chapeaville, in the place just cited, shows that he judges the people of Verdun to be signified by the Articlavi; and Sirmond, in the Annotations

just cited, affirms that the prelate of the people of Verdun is certainly designated by Sanctinus of Articlavus, because, namely, as he adds, both Sanctinus was bishop of Verdun and Verdun was formerly called the city of the Clavi. So he, citing for himself, to give proved what he says last here, Berthar the presbyter, who, speaking in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, page 252, of St. Sanctinus, bishop of Verdun, says that it is read in the Life of St. Servatius that Sanctinus, bishop of the city of the Clavi, had a part in the deposition of bishop Euphratas which was made in the council of Cologne; and so he not only teaches that the city of Verdun was formerly called the city of the Clavi, but also brings it about that we can judge this, which he indicates is so called in the Life of St. Servatius, to be one and the same with the city which is named either of the Articlavi or Articlavus in the Acts of the said council.

[46] as appears, bishop, If, therefore, one must agree here with Giles and Sirmond, who have supporting them Berthar, a writer, as I showed above, of the ninth century and the following, and indeed the Life of St. Servatius, even older than he by whom it is praised, it can be concluded from the council of Cologne, since, according to what has been said, it is not to be held as fictitious, as some will have it, that there was a bishop of Verdun who was both called Sanctinus and flourished about the middle of the fourth century. But Valois, in the Notitia of the Gauls, page 598, contends that Verdun was formerly called neither the city of the Clavi nor Articlavus or the city of the Articlavi; and this is his view because, as he says, Verdun is found so called by no ancient writer. But, says Tillemont, volume IV of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 721, no other city is found by Valois to which an appellation of this kind is attributed and over which bishop Sanctinus could have presided; and since this is so, and, even if we were to grant for the moment that the council of Cologne is merely fictitious, it is in no way likely to have happened that those who forged the Acts of the council set Sanctinus over a city in them which did not exist, unless they are to be said, against all appearance of truth, to have wished themselves to destroy their own fiction, it remains that it be admitted, with Giles, monk of Orval, and Sirmond, that by the city which is called either Articlavus in those Acts is designated the city of Verdun, which, although indeed by neither of these names, is nevertheless distinguished by an appellation which comes very near to either one or the other of them by Sigebert also at the year 1047, and likewise in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, page 276, by Laurence of Liège, with no account taken of the Council of Cologne either, and further had been accustomed to be distinguished so even long before the eleventh century and in that very century, as Hugh of Flavigny, who then flourished, testifies in Labbe, volume 1 of the Bibliotheca Manuscriptorum, page 79.

[47] But, you will say, let it be as is contended here; let Verdun be signified in the Acts of the council of Cologne by the city of the Articlavi or Articlavus; not different from the first bishop of these of the same name, commemorating, yet it will not yet certainly follow from this that Sanctinus, who in those Acts is called Sanctinus of Articlavus or of the city of the Articlavi, was undoubtedly bishop of Verdun, and not of another city. For since, according to what was said before, errors have crept into the names of the bishops and of the sees which they occupied expressed in those Acts, it may be that the see which Sanctinus occupied is perhaps not rightly called in the same Acts the city of the Articlavi or Articlavus, and that therefore, since perhaps another city, over which a bishop named Sanctinus presided in the episcopal office, is to be substituted for it, it can also not undeservedly be called in doubt whether the one who is named in the said Acts Sanctinus of the Articlavi or of Articlavus was bishop of Verdun or of another city. So it can still be argued, so that Sanctinus, bishop of Verdun, who had a part in the council of Cologne, may not be admitted; but it appears that it must be concluded that no other city over which a bishop named Sanctinus presided is to be substituted for the city which is named of the Articlavi or Articlavus in the Acts of the council of Cologne, if only from the fact that no other city is found over which a bishop named Sanctinus presided at the time of the council of Cologne, or in the year 346, nor did anyone ever even dream that the city of Meaux, which Sanctinus also ruled, was called the city of the Clavi or Articlavus; and since this is so, Sanctinus, mentioned in the council of Cologne, into whose name at least nothing suggests that an error has crept, was probably bishop of no other city than Verdun; and since neither from the Catalogues of the bishops of Verdun nor from any other trustworthy documents is a bishop of Verdun named Sanctinus known who is different from the Sanctinus whom the people of Verdun venerate as a Saint and as their first Bishop, it follows from what has just been said that the latter is that very Sanctinus who is mentioned in the council of Cologne as bishop of the city of the Articlavi, or of Verdun.

[48] renders it likely that he sat about the middle of the fourth century, Hence further, and at the same time from the fact that that council, probably, as I have shown, not to be held as supposititious, was, according to what was said above, celebrated in the year 346, it further follows that this holy Bishop of ours of Verdun probably occupied the see of Verdun then, and therefore about the middle of the fourth century; and that this is so is made still more likely if only from the fact that the Acts of the same council, even if perhaps, contrary to what I showed above, they were to be held as certainly supposititious, are at least older than the ninth century, inasmuch as they are praised by an author who, as I showed at num. 38, flourished in the eighth century, and that, since the impostor by whom they were forged followed the opinion by which St. Sanctinus is believed to have presided over the people of Verdun in the office of bishop about the middle of the fourth century, this opinion too must be older than the ninth century. Nor indeed does what I said, that St. Sanctinus presided over the church of Verdun about the middle of the fourth century, become more likely from this alone, but also from the Life of St. Servatius; for this is praised in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, page 252, by Berthar, presbyter of the church of Verdun, named more than once further above, who flourished in the ninth and tenth centuries; and since, as he says here, the writer of that Life records that Sanctinus, bishop of the city of the Clavi, and therefore, according to what was said above, of Verdun, had a part in the deposition of Euphratas, bishop of Cologne, made by the council of Cologne of the year 346, he too undoubtedly followed the opinion by which this holy bishop of ours of Verdun is thought to have sat at Verdun in the year 346, or about the middle of the fourth century; and since this is so, there is surely reason, on account of all that has already been said on this subject, for us too to embrace the same opinion, which even by itself, as I have shown, the council of Cologne already often mentioned makes likely, and therefore to admit, if not as certain, at least as likely, that St. Sanctinus, first bishop of the people of Verdun, presided over the church of Verdun about the middle of the fourth century.

[49] by martyrdom his life, probably prolonged long still The time, therefore, in which Sanctinus occupied the see of Verdun having now been in some way determined in this manner, let us now also examine up to about what time this Saint of ours prolonged his life after the said council of Cologne of the year 346, and whether he ended it, as is also found recorded, by martyrdom. Between Sanctinus, whom the people of Verdun venerate as their first bishop, and Pulcronius or Polychronius, who is established to have begun to sit about the year 450, only three intermediate bishops, namely Maurus, Salvinus and Arator, are numbered in all the published Catalogues of the bishops of Verdun of more approved note; and since between the year 450 and St. Sanctinus, if he had presided over the church of Verdun only two or three years more after that council, not fewer than a hundred years would have intervened, and it is not likely that only three bishops occupied the see of Verdun in so great a space of time, it appears necessary that Sanctinus be established to have presided over the church of Verdun certainly more than two or three years after the same council. But to what number indeed did these amount, or up to about what time did Sanctinus still govern the church of Verdun after the year in which the aforesaid council was celebrated, 346? Nothing at all, as it certainly appears to me, prevents this Saint of ours from being believed to have been still a young man at the time of this council, to have afterwards occupied the see of Verdun still up to about the year 375, indeed perhaps (see what was said above at num. 35) up to the year 384, and to have died a little after, when he had previously received the church of Meaux to govern.

[50] And indeed that this, as it may have, also actually happened almost so prolonged after the year 346, did not end, appears likely to me, first, because only about seventy years, which would thus have elapsed from the time at which Sanctinus migrated from Verdun to Meaux to the year 450, about which, as said, Pulchronius began to sit, remain to be divided among Maurus, Salvinus and Arator, and these could easily have been filled by these three bishops of Verdun if each is established to have sat a little more than twenty years, which by no means shrinks from the appearance of truth; and then, because, as appears, nothing stands in the way either of believing that at Meaux, in about the 250 years which, reckoned according to what has been said from the time of the death of St. Sanctinus, ran to the year 626, in which St. Faro began to occupy the see of Meaux, the eighteen bishops of Meaux who, as I have already shown above, intervened between him and St. Sanctinus sat. Further, to come now to the other thing which I just proposed to examine here too, and which we had already earlier promised among the Passed Over at the third day of October, at which Sanctinus and Antoninus are announced by Ferrari, as we shall presently see, as Martyrs at Lutetia of the Parisians, that it would be examined on this day: that Sanctinus is wrongly placed under Domitian or Nerva, and that he therefore, even if it were granted that he underwent martyrdom, did not undergo it under either of those emperors, everyone will surely elicit from what we have already said both about the time in which Sanctinus sat at Verdun and about that in which, migrating thence to Meaux, he died there; but did this Saint of ours even end his life by martyrdom? Du Saussay, who had announced him as a confessor both at the 22nd of September and at the 11th day of October in his Gallican Martyrology, afterwards, as though about to correct what he had written in it, noted him together with Antoninus as martyrs at the third day of October in the Supplement of that Work.

[51] But although indeed in the elogium with which he adorns both these Saints of ours there, [although meanwhile he is found presented with the title of martyr, and indeed to have undergone martyrdom] he affirms that they were carried off from Meaux to Paris, on the same recurring day indeed but in a different year, and there, an outstanding contest having been accomplished by each separately, obtained the palm of martyrdom, and I find no one so far who recorded these things before him, he is nevertheless wrongly said by Duplessis, History of Meaux, volume 1, page 620, to have been the first to attribute the title of Martyr to Sanctinus

for Ferrari had already done this before him, who, although he announces Sanctinus today in these few words, At Verdun, of St. Sanctinus, bishop, without the title of Martyr, nevertheless, which may surely seem strange, notes the same as a martyr at the third day of October in this manner: At Lutetia of the Parisians, of the holy Martyrs Sanctinus and Antonius, under Domitian. Nor is Ferrari alone in that matter to be judged to have preceded du Saussay, but also those who composed the Verdun Breviary which exists with us and is marked as printed in the year 1625. For although these ascribe to Sanctinus not the title of Martyr but only that of Confessor, they nevertheless expressly affirm, in the Lessons which they propose to be recited today concerning this Saint of ours, that he ended his life by martyrdom. But although this is so, there is nevertheless no reason either why they themselves should be judged the first to have thrust Sanctinus forward as a Martyr. For his Acts, exhibited in compendium by Calmet in the place cited above, and, as this writer says, written in the tenth century, also relate most clearly that this Saint of ours was crowned with martyrdom; indeed, since most of the other things which are narrated in the said Lessons of the Verdun Breviary were, as appears, drawn from these Acts, I think that those who composed them drew from the same the martyrdom of Sanctinus which they relate.

[52] is said in the Acts, and contracted into a compendium by Calmet, But must we agree with those Acts which make Sanctinus a martyr? Since neither Berthar, praised above, who was born in the ninth century, nor any other writer who flourished either in the very tenth century in which the said Acts were composed or earlier, supplies anything anywhere from which you might gather that Sanctinus ended his life by martyrdom, indeed, since the very fictitious Acts of St. Sanctinus which the letter of Hincmar transcribed above includes clearly show that he was not taken from among the living by martyrdom, whence, I ask, did the anonymous writer who composed the Acts exhibited in compendium by Calmet learn the contrary? This I cannot declare; but since most of the things which he narrates are, as appears, invented, and, as I have already noted, he wins credit for himself only when he records something which can be well confirmed from elsewhere, surely, since the martyrdom of St. Sanctinus can by no means be proved from elsewhere, there is no reason why we should agree with him when he asserts it. Hugh of Flavigny, who, as I indicated at num. 22, had lying before him the praised Acts of St. Sanctinus which that anonymous author wrote, also records the things which he had read in these concerning the martyrdom of the same St. Sanctinus, and yet by no means judged that this was to be believed, although meanwhile he admits most of the other things which are narrated in the same Acts, however much they shrink from every appearance of truth. Hear what he says, opportunely for our purpose, in Labbe, volume 1 of the Bibliotheca Manuscriptorum, page 82.

[53] show It is indeed read, he says, in the older acts of him (namely of St. Sanctinus) that, when he had returned to Meaux, he rebuked a tyrant because he had plundered the goods of the Church, and that for this the latter, burning with headlong anger, having driven a sword into the blessed Man, sent him across to perpetual life. There appears even now on the very head of the most blessed Man, as has been related by those who saw and handled his most holy bones, a cut of a material sword, so that the middle part of the head, namely the front part itself, in which the windows of the eyes are placed, is not had with the rest of the body, and the back part seems as it were cut and divided from the front by a sword. In what manner, therefore, the Lord called His servant to Himself, He Himself knows, who chose him beforehand before the times of the world; we believe that, even if the sword of persecution did not take away his soul, he nevertheless did not lose the palm of martyrdom, because the course of his whole life was a continual conflict with the prince of the world. So he; nor is there reason for anyone to judge that one should dissent here from Hugh on account of the things which Hugh himself writes in these words. For since it can happen that the heads of the dead are split in two by force applied to them either by chance or even deliberately, it surely cannot be inferred from the fact that the back part of the head of St. Sanctinus seems as it were divided from the front by a sword that this Saint of ours was taken from among the living by a sword with which his head was cut in two.

[54] And indeed, since Sanctinus flourished, not under emperors who most cruelly persecuted the Christians, here adduced, but, as everyone will gather from what has already been said above, when peace had long since been restored to the Church, it does not appear likely that he fell by the sword for the faith. His older Acts praised above do indeed relate, as Hugh, who had these lying before him, shows by the words just now recited, that Sanctinus was slain, not because he would not deny the faith of Christ, but because he had rebuked a tyrant who had despoiled the goods of the church; but who is that tyrant mentioned in these who, even when the faith of Christ had been widely propagated, dared to plunder the goods of the church and kill a bishop for defending them? I most vehemently suspect that he, no differently than almost all the other things which are read in those Acts, was born of mere licence of invention. Almost all the sacred Tables in which Sanctinus stands inscribed either distinguish him only by the title of Confessor or certainly do not call him a Martyr. To the sacred Tables is added the church of Meaux, which, as its Breviary existing with us establishes, venerates Sanctinus today not as a Martyr but as a Confessor. Nor, as appears, is the church of Verdun here entirely opposed to the church of Meaux. For although, as I have already shown before, Sanctinus is said, in the Office with which he is honoured by it today, to have undergone martyrdom, he is nevertheless called Confessor both in the title which it bears and in the prayer which it proposes; and the same is also done both in the three different prayers which the Verdun Missal of the year 1554, existing with us, supplies today in the Mass of St. Sanctinus, and in the Kalendar prefixed to it. However it may be, since the martyrdom of Sanctinus, who besides is asserted to have died in peace in the Verdun inscription of the eleventh century to be given here at num. 65, is not, according to what has been said, founded in Acts of proven credit, I think that one must altogether stand, on account of what has been said, with Duplessis and the learned commonly, by the opinion which makes him a Confessor; and thus, content to have shown what was lastly to be shown here concerning Sanctinus, I now turn my discourse to St. Antoninus.

[55] It is asserted in his Acts transcribed here above, which the letter of Hincmar includes, that this Saint of ours succeeded St. Sanctinus immediately in the episcopate of Meaux, and the same of St. Antoninus, who himself too was perhaps a bishop, and that very thing is also clearly related in the other Acts of St. Sanctinus which, as I showed at num. 22, Hugh of Flavigny composed, and likewise in the Martyrologies of Greven and Canisius praised at num. 1, with which the Lübeck-Cologne edition of Usuard also agrees. Besides, in all the published Catalogues of the bishops of Meaux Antoninus occupies the place next after St. Sanctinus, and almost all the writers who make Sanctinus bishop of Meaux substitute Antoninus immediately after him in this see. Nor are monuments lacking which must also be added to these, which, although indeed they make Antoninus neither the immediate successor of Sanctinus in the see of Meaux nor bishop of Meaux, nevertheless distinguish him by the title of Bishop. But although this is so, and further Antoninus is also venerated as a bishop in the Meaux Breviary of the year 1640, and indeed in the Kalendar or Directory prefixed to it is called Bishop of Meaux, yet in the ancient Breviaries of the church of Meaux, as I find noted in Duplessis, History of Meaux, volume 1, page 622, he is not counted among the bishops of Meaux. Besides, no monument at all is found, equal or of like antiquity with the Life of St. Servatius and the Acts of the council of Cologne praised above, which, together with the other things adduced above, stand for the episcopate of St. Sanctinus, in which even an episcopate is asserted of Antoninus. Hence above, since it seems to me that the episcopate of St. Antoninus cannot be asserted as safely as that of St. Sanctinus, I attributed the title of Bishop to Antoninus at the head of this Commentary only with the particle perhaps, which is customarily that of those who doubt, employed.

[56] [and it is to be said that he died in the same advanced fourth century as Sanctinus.] Besides, since St. Sanctinus probably prolonged his life some time also, as I showed above, beyond the middle of the fourth century, and further St. Antoninus, even though he is commonly believed to have lived on after Sanctinus, nevertheless departed from life, as I think, in the same fourth century as he, a great part of it having already elapsed, I indicated above in the margin that both our Saints probably died when the fourth century was well advanced. For the rest, it must be said that this, as according to what has been said it did not come to Sanctinus, so neither came to Antoninus through martyrdom. For although this Saint of ours is presented with the title of Martyr at the third day of October by Ferrari in the general Catalogue and likewise by du Saussay in the Supplement of the Gallican Martyrology, yet in all the other sacred Fasti in which he stands inscribed he is called only Confessor; nor are Ferrari and du Saussay sufficiently consistent with themselves, since the former in the said Catalogue at the 22nd of September, and the latter in his Gallican Martyrology itself at the 11th day of October, make Antoninus only a confessor. Further, to the sacred Fasti which, as I said, distinguish Antoninus only with the title of Confessor, can be joined the very fictitious Acts of St. Sanctinus which the letter of Hincmar transcribed here above contains, which, together with the others already often praised which Hugh of Flavigny composed, clearly relate that St. Antoninus ended his life not by martyrdom but in peace. Nor is St. Antoninus venerated as a Martyr but as a Confessor in the Meaux Breviary of the year 1640 which is at my hand; so that surely there is no reason why this Saint of ours should be believed to have ended his life by martyrdom, whom not even the invented Acts of Sanctinus which Calmet exhibits in compendium, although, according to what has been said, making Sanctinus a martyr, relate to have obtained the palm of martyrdom. Hence, and at the same time on account of what I said at num. 54, I ascribed at the head of the Commentary the title of Confessor to St. Antoninus as well as to St. Sanctinus, employing no formula of speaking at all which would betray a mind doubtful of the matter.

§ IV. The body of St. Sanctinus is carried from Meaux to Verdun, and there afterwards, a part of it having meanwhile been shared with the people of Meaux, is translated a second and a third time into new reliquaries.

The body of St. Sanctinus, which at Meaux for a long time Duplessis, History of Meaux, volume 1, page 4 and following, having said by way of preface some things concerning the church which is now called St. Sanctinus's at Meaux, already set before the reader's eyes here at num. 36, then proceeds thus in French words rendered by me into Latin: *The faithful preserved the precious spoils of his body for a long time in this venerable place. In the eleventh century certain Merchants of Verdun, envying the people of Meaux this honour, turned to their own advantage the famine which was afflicting the whole region, and to those who guarded the treasure, having given some

sum of silver, obtained that it be permitted them to carry off those sacred relics, and deposited them at Verdun in the abbey of St. Vitonus, where they are still preserved today.* So he, plainly indicating that the body of St. Sanctinus was then still preserved at Meaux, until it was carried thence to Verdun, which according to what is to be said below was more probably done in the year 1044, in the church distinguished by the name of this Saint of ours; but whether he does not stray from the truth in this matter it seems can be doubted. For the dean and canons of the chapter of Meaux, who, as is clear from their letters transcribed here at num. 17, thought in the year 1259 that the body of St. Sanctinus still rested with them, seem to have been of the cathedral church of Meaux, not of the collegiate church of St. Sanctinus.

[58] Besides, Wassebourg, in his Antiquities of Belgic Gaul, folio 29 verso, affirms that the body of St. Sanctinus, deposited in the cathedral church of Meaux more than forty years having elapsed after his death, had been preserved, rested there until the time at which it was translated to Verdun; and Hugh of Flavigny supports him, who, writing in Labbe, volume 1 of the Bibliotheca Manuscriptorum, page 123, that St. Sanctinus was carried from Meaux to Verdun by the people of Verdun, expressly relates that Sanctinus was then placed at Meaux in the greater, or cathedral, church. Hence too, unless I am mistaken, it came about that Tillemont, volume IV of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 721, doubted whether the people of Meaux in the ninth century thought that his sacred body rested at Meaux in the cathedral or in the church of St. Sanctinus. But whether that sacred pledge was preserved then and afterwards, until it was translated from Meaux, in the one or in the other of these churches, it was truly carried thence to Verdun, as will become evident from what is to be said below. How the matter took place, a priest who had a large part in it narrated to a monk of St. Vitonus at Verdun who had afterwards come to Meaux. So Calmet teaches us, the very words of that priest also being transcribed, from manuscripts of the abbey of St. Vitonus at Verdun, in his Dissertation on the first bishops of the church of Verdun, column 64 and following.

[59] Hear what he says there in French words, rendered by me into Latin: and which, by the method here set out, by merchants of Verdun A religious of St. Vitonus, he says, named Richard, sent by his abbot to Chartres on account of certain business, passed through Meaux, and lodged there in the suburb opposite the old church. A priest of very advanced age brought him things which would serve to refresh his body, and when he had understood that he was of Verdun, he asked him whether he knew saint Sanctinus, bishop of Meaux, and the place in which he was buried. The religious answered that he knew that Saint, since he had also been bishop of Verdun and his body was in the highest veneration in the abbey of St. Vitonus. The priest added: "If you will promise me silence, I will tell you how that sacred pledge was carried to your monastery." Richard having promised what he asked, the priest went on and said to him: "A severe famine having arisen in this region, many, both clerics and laymen, were compelled to go away elsewhere. The bishop permitted this to them on this condition, that four presbyters should be left in the church of Meaux, to perform the office there and to guard the relics and the treasure; one of the four who remained there was I. In that interval of time certain merchants of Verdun, returning from Spain, came to Meaux and invited me to supper. In the course of conversation I declared to them that the body of St. Sanctinus was placed under my custody. They asked me so earnestly to give it to them that at length I promised that I would do what they asked. They bestowed on me no small sum of silver; this I divided with the three other priests, guardians of the relics. Together we opened the reliquary; we entrusted the sacred bones to them, and they carried these off to Verdun with the greatest possible haste."

[60] obtained, thence by these, not in the year 866, nor in the year, This translation of the relics of St. Sanctinus, which, as will become evident from what is to be said below, was truly made, Hugh of Flavigny ties to the year 866; but it will now help to have shown here, before I proceed to other things, that this is wrongly done by him. Berthar, already praised more than once above, author of the brief History of the Bishops of Verdun, wrote this not before the year 915, as Tillemont proves, volume IV of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, page 722, and therefore not before about fifty years had elapsed from the time to which Hugh of Flavigny ties the said translation of St. Sanctinus from Meaux to Verdun; and yet, while he did so, he most clearly shows in that History, in d'Achery, volume 12 of the Spicilegium, page 252, that he had not ascertained in what place the body of St. Sanctinus existed, unless it was at Meaux; and since this historiographer of the bishops of Verdun lived at Verdun, was a canon of the cathedral church there, and had received a commission to commit to writing whatever he had either read or otherwise learned concerning the bishops of Verdun, who, I ask, would persuade himself that he would have been ignorant of it if the body of St. Sanctinus had been brought from Meaux to Verdun only about fifty years before? Undoubtedly, therefore, Hugh strayed from the truth in determining the time at which the body of St. Sanctinus was carried from Meaux to Verdun. But when, then, shall we say that this was done? The matter certainly did not happen before the year 915, as everyone will gather from what has been said; and since the words of the priest of Meaux transcribed here from Calmet in the preceding number establish that it was done at a time when a severe famine had arisen in the region, it must be that the body of St. Sanctinus be established to have been carried from Meaux to Verdun while some famine which arose after the year 915 was afflicting the Gauls.

[61] Wassebourg, in his Antiquities of Belgic Gaul, folio 29 verso, writes thus in French words, as Wassebourg first thought, which I render into Latin: The relics of the body of St. Sanctinus, honourably and reverently deposited in the cathedral church of Meaux, ... remained there until the time of Robert, king of the Franks, son of Hugh Capet, in whose reign so severe a famine afflicted France that the four presbyters, guardians of the said church, sold them to certain merchants of Verdun, who carried them to Verdun to the church of St. Vitonus, where they are still preserved today honourably enclosed in a great reliquary and silver bier, about the year 1032, when St. Richard was abbot of the said abbey of St. Vitonus and Rambert bishop of Verdun. Robert, king of the Franks, of whom Wassebourg speaks here, departed from life in the year 1031, as Pagi shows at this year in the Critica, and the famine here mentioned seems to have arisen only after his death. For, as I think, it was not different from the famine which Ralph Glaber, in du Chesne, Writers of French History, volume 4, page 43, records arose after he has first narrated the death of the said king. The words in which he does this and vividly describes the horrible famine of which he speaks I partly transcribe here, because they will still be of use below. They read thus: In the following ... time famine began to grow strong in the whole world, and the destruction of almost the whole human race to threaten. For the temperature of the air became so unseasonable that no fitting time came for any sowing, nor was it opportune for harvest, especially on account of the flooding of the waters. For the elements themselves seemed to be waging a battle of discord among themselves ... For the whole earth was so drenched with continual rains that in the space of three years no furrows useful for seeds were found.

[62] So he, presently adding many other things on the same subject not bearing on our purpose and therefore not to be transcribed here. 1032, but in the year, as afterwards, his opinion having changed, But was the body of St. Sanctinus carried from Meaux to Verdun about the year 1032, as Wassebourg says in the words transcribed here above, while the famine mentioned by him lasted, which, although later than the death of king Robert, could nevertheless have taken its beginning already from the year 1032? Duplessis, History of Meaux, volume 1, page 621, writes thus: As to the determinate year of that event (the translation of the body of St. Sanctinus to Verdun), it could be fixed here, with the same author (namely Wassebourg), to the year 1032, or, if you like, to the year of the death of King Robert. For Ralph Glaber (see his words just recited) teaches us that in that same year so severe a famine weighed upon France that it was little short of one man eating another. These things the praised Duplessis; but since Glaber supplies the words which I recited from him in the immediately preceding number only after the death of king Robert has been narrated, he certainly does not teach by these, as will be evident to one who considers it, that the famine of which he speaks prevailed in France in that very year in which king Robert died. Besides, even if we were to grant for the moment that that famine arose in France in the year 1032, and that the body of St. Sanctinus was translated from Meaux to Verdun while it lasted, it could nevertheless not be inferred from this that that translation is to be tied to the determinate year 1032, since that famine, as Glaber relates in the words recited at num. 61, prevailed for three years. Wassebourg, who had referred that event to about this year by the words recited at num. 61, afterwards, his opinion having changed, moved it back to the year 1044 by the words which he exhibits in his Antiquities of Belgic Gaul, folio 234 verso, treating of Richard I, bishop of the people of Verdun from the year 1039 to the year 1046.

[63] the same Wassebourg established, It will help to have set these too, turned from the French language into Latin, before the eyes of the reader here. They are the following: I also find that he was the first who ordered the body of St. Sanctinus to be enclosed in a bier or reliquary, which had been carried from Meaux to Verdun in the time of Rambert, his predecessor, as is contained in certain acts of the abbey of St. Vitonus, which nevertheless seem here to have strayed from the truth. For if we attentively weigh the true historians, such as the supplement of Eusebius and Sigebert, we shall say with them that the said sacred body was carried from Meaux to Verdun in the time of the said Richard, and indeed in the very year one thousand and forty-four, and not in the time contained and expressed in those Acts, which is the year one thousand and thirty-two; which is not credible. For just as it is consonant with the truth that it was carried to Verdun by merchants of no low note of Verdun, by whom it had been bought from the people of Meaux, during the great famine which truly afflicted Gaul and Germany in the said year one thousand and forty-four, so too it is certain that the said Richard first had it enclosed in a casket and placed on a bier. What Wassebourg here says is related in the supplement of Eusebius and in Sigebert I nowhere find in these; but this writer seems to mean that it is recorded in the Supplement of Eusebius and by Sigebert, who has in the Chronicle at the year 1044, A severe famine strikes down Gaul and Germany, that a severe famine prevailed in Gaul and Germany in the year 1044,

and that hence it follows that it happened that the body of St. Sanctinus, which he knew from elsewhere had been carried thither when a famine had arisen in the Gauls, was then translated to Verdun, perhaps only wishes to say.

[64] and more probably, from the things here adduced However it may be, it appears more likely to me that that sacred pledge was carried to Verdun not about the year 1032, or at the time when the famine mentioned by Glaber, but in the year 1044, or at the time when the famine which Sigebert mentions in the words just given had arisen in France; first, because the famine mentioned by Glaber afflicted not France and Germany alone, but the whole world (see the words of this writer transcribed here above), while the famine on the occasion of which the priest of Meaux of advanced age, alleged by Calmet in the place cited above, related that the body of St. Sanctinus was sold and translated to Verdun raged not throughout the whole world (for in this case many do not seem likely to have withdrawn from Meaux elsewhere for the sake of escaping famine, as he asserted was then done), but only, as appears, throughout Gaul and the neighbouring Germany; and then, because the body of St. Sanctinus, carried from Meaux to Verdun, was not put into a reliquary at Verdun before the year 1044, as one may gather from the words of Wassebourg just transcribed here, and as Duplessis himself, who nevertheless, as we have seen, thinks that that translation can be fixed to the year 1032, admits in volume 1 of the History of Meaux, page 621; and it is not likely that this would not have taken place earlier if that sacred pledge had been brought thither already from the year 1032.

[65] There would indeed be reason why someone could judge the contrary if it had been carried thence to Verdun together with the reliquary appears, 1044, to Verdun truly, in which it was preserved enclosed at Meaux; but the narrative of the aged priest of Meaux, transcribed here above from Calmet, establishes that the sacred bones of Sanctinus, drawn out of the reliquary in which they were enclosed at Meaux, were handed over to the merchants of Verdun and so carried by them to Verdun. All the things, therefore, which bear on this subject having been diligently weighed, the opinion which ties the translation of the body of St. Sanctinus to Verdun to the year 1044 appears to me more likely than the opposite opinion, which binds it to the year 1032, and I think it is to be adhered to as such. But, you will say, why so much here about the year in which the translation of which we are treating here was made? The event itself by no means appears certain here, and the dean and chapter of Meaux believed, as their letters given in the said year 1259 and transcribed here above at num. 17 establish, that the body of St. Sanctinus still existed in their possession in the year 1259, and therefore was not translated from Meaux to Verdun either in the year 1032 or in the year 1044. I admit that it is so; but everyone, unless I am mistaken, will easily recognise from what is now to be said that that chapter, or the canons of the church of Meaux, were deceived in that matter, and that the body of St. Sanctinus was truly translated from Meaux to Verdun and deposited there in the abbey of St. Vitonus.

[66] Adalbero, the second bishop of Verdun of this name, as the inscription here alleged who, as the Catalogue of the bishops of Verdun subjoined to Calmet's Dissertation on the first bishops of the church of Verdun, already often praised above, teaches us, occupied the see of Verdun from the year 1131 to about the year 1150, in the year 1132, as Wassebourg teaches in his Antiquities of Belgic Gaul, folio 234 verso, transferred the sacred body of St. Sanctinus, as it was certainly thought to be at Verdun, into a new reliquary; and then, as the same Wassebourg says there, there was found in the old casket from which it was then drawn out this following inscription, composed in the manner of an epitaph: Here lies the most precious body of saint Sanctinus, who was teacher and first bishop of the holy church of Verdun. Also consecrated pastor of the people of Meaux by saint Dionysius the Areopagite, when by his order after his martyrdom he was making his way to Rome with Antoninus, and they were making their passage through this city (namely of Verdun), and he preached the Word of Life to the citizens, and had converted very many to the faith of Christ, by God's will he was elected bishop, all the Christians applauding, in the church of St. Peter, in which he had first performed the Sacrament of Baptism and which he had consecrated with the episcopal blessing. Afterwards, making his way to Rome according to the command of saint Dionysius, in Italy he raised to life by his merits his fellow-disciple Antoninus, who had died of a severe fever, and with him, the spiritual business accomplished, he returned to the city of Verdun, and died in peace at Meaux full of virtues. Whose most precious bones merchants of Verdun after a long time purchased for a price, and brought them hence here and laid them up honourably in this (St. Vitonus's) monastery. Where also his eternal memory shines from that time with many signs of miracles, and will remain for ages of ages.

[67] proves, was carried, afterwards there, This inscription, which Richard I, bishop of Verdun, when he first enclosed in a reliquary at Verdun the sacred bones of St. Sanctinus brought thither from Meaux, which according to what has been said was done in the year 1044, caused to be attached to them, as Wassebourg teaches in the place last cited, contains not a few things which are contained in the invented Acts of St. Sanctinus included in the letter of Hincmar transcribed here above, and is also much later than the anonymous writer of these, since he, according to what has been said, certainly flourished not later than the ninth century. But although this is so, it was nevertheless composed, as everyone will elicit from what has been said, not long after the translation of St. Sanctinus from Meaux to Verdun which it records, and nothing occurs on account of which it should be held of suspect credit in the things which it relates about this. Wherefore, since it does not conflict in any way with the account of the priest of Meaux transcribed here above, it is surely no longer to be doubted that, as it affirms, the most precious bones of St. Sanctinus were both purchased for a price by the merchants of Verdun and carried from Meaux to Verdun, where, deposited in the monastery of St. Vitonus, they were afterwards adorned more than once with new Reliquaries. The purchase and sale of those sacred pledges could indeed not be done without enormous and shameful guilt. But to it the merchants of Verdun could have been carried away by a most vehement and immoderate zeal for obtaining the sacred spoils of the holy Man by whom they believed their city, equally with that of Meaux, had been illuminated with the light of the faith, and the presbyters of Meaux, the guardians of these, by an immoderate greed for money, with which they could procure food and avoid the death from famine which they had to fear, the region being most greatly oppressed.

[68] a part of it also having been shared with the people of Meaux, Nor is there reason either why it should happen as very surprising to anyone that the canons of Meaux still believed in the year 1259 that the body of St. Sanctinus, which, according to what has been said, had been carried from Meaux to Verdun, and indeed not later than the year 1044, existed in their possession, and then also gave the letters transcribed here at num. 17, by which they showed that this was believed by them. The priests of Meaux who sold the body of St. Sanctinus to the merchants of Verdun, as said, granted to them, as one may gather from the account of the priest of Meaux transcribed here at num. 59, only the bones of that sacred pledge, and not also the reliquary in which these were preserved enclosed at Meaux; and since, in order to conceal that shameful and impious crime of theirs, they most probably substituted some other bones, either of St. Sanctinus or of some other Saint, for the sacred bones of St. Sanctinus which they had drawn out of it and, having received the price, had handed over to the people of Verdun, it could easily have come about that the canons of Meaux, deceived by that fraud, took these for the bones of St. Sanctinus; and since this is so, what wonder that they believed for a very long time still, indeed until at least the year 1259, in which by the letters transcribed here at num. 17 they gave one rib of St. Sanctinus, as they thought, to the monks of Saint-Denis in France, that the body of St. Sanctinus still existed in their possession, although the people of Verdun protested? But they do not seem to have been constantly persuaded of this until now. For in the year 1622 they received a thigh bone, as the true thigh bone of St. Sanctinus, from the people of Verdun, which they otherwise do not seem likely to have done, as is established by the Charter of Dominique Séguier, bishop of Meaux, which Duplessis recites among the documents serving to prove the History of Meaux, in the second volume of it, page 384 and following.

[69] In this he, attesting that on the 30th day of October in the year 1658 several sacred relics of Saints whom he names were translated by himself and enclosed in a casket of gilded silver, was transferred more than once into new reliquaries. which he had given to his church of Meaux, counts among these in the first place a thigh bone of St. Sanctinus, granted, as he adds, by the religious of the monastery of St. Vitonus at Verdun to our church, as is clear from the testimony of the said religious given in the year 1622 on the 21st day of July. Further, the body of St. Sanctinus, a part of which, as everyone would also gather from what has now been said, was both granted by the people of Verdun to the church of Meaux and is still most honourably preserved by it today, was in the very year 1044, in which, as I showed above, it had more probably been carried from Meaux to Verdun to the abbey of St. Vitonus, first enclosed in a bier, or silver casket, by Richard, the first bishop of the people of Verdun of this name; then in the year 1132 it was brought from this into a new casket by Adalbero, bishop of Verdun, who had ordered it to be made more precious than the former, on the feast of the Lord's Ascension; and finally in the year 1477 it was transferred into a larger casket, inlaid and adorned with gems, enclosed in which it is still preserved today in the said abbey of St. Vitonus, by Matthieu de Dame-Marie, abbot of the same abbey, who had then caused it to be fabricated at its expense; all which things are taught us partly by Wassebourg in his Antiquities of Belgic Gaul, folio 234 verso, partly by those who for the most part have followed him here, Calmet and Duplessis, the former in his Dissertation on the first bishops of Verdun, already often praised above, column 68, and the latter in the History of Meaux, volume 1, page 5.