ON ST. CAELESTIS, OR CAELESTIUS, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, AT METZ IN LORRAINE,
About the beginning of the IV century.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Caelestis or Caelestius, bishop and conf., at Metz in Belgica Prima. (S.)
BY C. G.
§ I. The memory of the Saint in certain sacred Calendars; the time at which his sacred remains were translated; the errors of the Acts, which are not to be edited, refuted, and namely as to the age of the Saint.
Saint Caelestis, or, as he is called by the more recent, St. Caelestius, whom our predecessors have already twice mentioned among the Passed Over, namely at the 7th day of May on account of the translation noted on that day in the Acts, The Saint, in the more recent sacred Calendars and at the 14th day of October just past, on account of the testimony of Claude Robert asserting that the Saint is venerated on the XIII of October — drawn I know not whence — Martyrologies, but not very ancient ones, ascribe to two places: to Metz indeed, a celebrated and ancient city of Lorraine, the Lübeck-Cologne edition of Usuard, in the Supplements in Sollerius, in this manner: In the city of Metz, of Saint Caelestis, second bishop and confessor of the same city; Greven adds: disciple of Blessed Peter the Apostle: the mutilated text of the Luxeuil codex has thus: On the same day, of Caelestis, bishop of the same city: a brief eulogy of the Saint also Meurisse transcribed from the proper Martyrology of the cathedral church of Metz in the history of the bishops of the same church, sounding thus: At Metz, of St. Caelestis, bishop and confessor: Chastelain has the same; but du Saussay adorns him with a more prolix encomium, conceived in these words: At Metz, of St. Caelestius, second bishop of that church, who, setting out from Rome to this city with Saint Clement, and having actively supported him in the work of salvation, then after his happy passing, taking up by office the care of the sheep in these most difficult times, in which the wrath of the impious raged more against the folds of Christ, sustained the protection of the flock with great virtue, and after XV years strenuously and religiously spent in this pastoral office, the Lord's holding having been somewhat increased, the faithful servant passed to the promised joy. He was buried in the Crypt of St. Clement, from which at length, on account of glowing signs of Beatitude, his venerable body was drawn out by the prelate Drogo and carried to Maursmünster in Alsace, where, resting up to now, he is held in merited veneration. This Martyrologist seems to have had as his source, which he enlarged oratorically, the Chronicle of Metz published in d'Achery, Tome VI of the Spicilegium, from page 643.
[2] mentioned, the sacred body to Maursmünster in Alsace But the Codex of St. Gudula at Brussels in the same Sollerius, with which our manuscript Florarium, written as the XV century was declining, agrees, attributes the holy prelate to Maursmünster in these words: At Maursmünster, of St. Caelestis, bishop, disciple of Blessed Peter the apostle, who, coming with Blessed Clement and Felix to the city of Metz, and after the first having been appointed bishop in the same city, led a heavenly life, and at length passed to Christ: namely on account of the Translation of the sacred body into it just mentioned, and the public veneration which the Holy Prelate obtained there, which Jodocus Coccius explains a little more at length in Dagobertus redivivus, chapter VI, subjoining this to the Translation he relates of the sacred remains of SS. Caelestius and Auctor to the said monastery: and today (St. Caelestis and Auctor) are there in much veneration, with a help often present and prodigious for driving out diseases, but especially fevers, and for raising up those who are bent in body, if, after pouring out prayers to God, they pass beneath the tomb in which the remains of the Saints rest. There are extant also great indulgences of the pontiffs, by which our elders were invited to the former veneration and more frequent cult of the patrons. And the said Monastery of the Benedictine Order, the place of deposition of our Saint, the authors of Gallia Christiana, Tome V, column 866, describe thus: It once had that name Cell of Leobard from St. Leobard, the first founder of this place, as from Maurus, fifth in the order of abbots, it was called Maursmünster; and some will have it that St. Leobard inserted by Chastelain in the Universal Martyrology at the XXXI day of December lived under King Childebert I, others better under Childebert II, as the VI century was verging to its end; it was founded at the third milestone from Tabernae in French Saverne in Alsace, in honour of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and of St. Martin, as is read in the precept of Theoderic IV, surnamed of Chelles, in Jodocus Coccius in the History of Dagobert, chapter 6, page 62, for us, who have the Molsheim edition of the year 1623, page 56. Mabillon, Tome I of the Benedictine Annals, writes similar things of the foundation of the same monastery, which he refers to the year 615. A few things must now be said of the time of the Translation.
[3] In the Acts no marks of the time at which the Translation was made are found, it was translated about the year 828. nor does the author of the first part of the Chronicle of Metz, who, as is gathered from its end, flourished in the XII century, bring forward more than du Saussay praised above; behold his words: He (St. Caelestis) was buried before the doors of the Crypt of St. Clement: but after the courses of times he was translated by Drogo, archbishop of Metz, into Alsace to Maursmünster. Drogo, natural brother of the emperor Louis the Pious, was made bishop in the year 823, as the Sainte-Marthe brothers would have it, Tome 3 of Gallia Christiana, page 712, and held the See of Metz 32 years, so that this Translation must be placed between the year 823 and 855: Le Cointe and Mabillon fix its epoch at about the year 828, from the praised Coccius, who asserts that Drogo translated the sacred remains of St. Caelestis and St. Auctor not without huge and religious pomp, and certain prodigies worked on the way (whoever desires to know these more at length, let him go to chapter VI of his Dagobertine History), after he, by order of his brother Louis, had restored the said Maursmünster, which in the mentioned year 828 had suffered a pitiable fire.
[4] That the deeds done by the holy prelate both before and in the episcopate were altogether unknown in the VIII century is testified by Paul Warnefrid, deacon of Friuli, the Acts of no value, nor therefore to be edited who in the same century wrote a little book or brief Chronicle on the bishops of Metz, edited in the corpus of Frankish History from page 172, and most recently by Calmet in Tome I of the History of Lorraine among the documents, subjoining this, after enumerating seven successors of St. Clement: By the zeal of all of whom it is certain that the church of God grew, although their deeds are specially hidden from us; the same for the XII century is proved by the following words of the Chronicler in d'Achery, which he subjoins, after a few things intervening, to those recited in the preceding number: His (St. Caelestis's) other deeds, although they are believed to be great, yet the writings of the earlier men have transmitted nothing to us; from the testimonies of which two writers it can be argued not lightly that the Acts of our Saint which are had in our parchment Codex, formerly of Clairlieu, an abbey of the Cistercian Order near Senones, marked Q. MS. 2, are later than the VIII and even the XII century; certainly that the same were written not few years after the mentioned translation is proved from this, that they record it very meagrely, without any circumstances of persons, time or other: But some time having elapsed (they say)
time (from his death), his most sacred body was translated by religious persons to Alsace, and honourably laid away at Maursmünster on the nones of May; where very many sick of diverse infirmities were restored to health and returned to their own unharmed with great joy. Since, therefore, St. Caelestius died more probably about the beginning of the IV century, as I shall prove below, it is clear that the biographer was separated from the Saint by too long an interval of years to have been able to have thorough knowledge of his deeds, especially since the testimonies of Paul the Deacon and of the Author of the d'Achery Chronicle, brought forward, prove that suitable monuments were lacking to him. And since so little, or rather no, authority is in the Acts, and they teem with fables, as will become clear from what is to be said presently, I have judged them altogether unworthy of the press.
[5] various Therefore, what the biographer says, that the church of the English was ever made fruitful with new offspring through the work of our Saint, since there is no mention of this matter occurring elsewhere, I judge a figment, no less foreign to the truth than the fable refuted by Bolland in the Notes to the Acts of the Blessed Marianus and Murcherat, Tome II of February, page 366, and by Limpens, Tome I of September, page 619, about certain disciples sent into Ireland to preach the Gospel by St. Mansuetus, companion, as the Acts would have it, of our Saint coming into the Gauls: for the rest, I readily assent that the holy prelate fulfilled all the parts of the episcopal office holily and laudably; but whether he was promoted to that office by St. Clement, already near to heaven, by angelic command, the age of the biographer makes me strongly doubt, and I fear that this assertion of his deserves no more credence than a certain other fiction, by which St. Clement, in a certain more recent copy of his Life, is said to have received from an angel a Catalogue of all his successors formed in golden letters, of which the author of the Life of St. Deicolus, writing about the middle of the X century, with us in Tome II of January, speaks thus: According to the order of the sites I see the most opulent city of Metz not moderately marked out, for which the divinity deigned to provide so much that the names of all its Apostles shine there in golden letters, written without doubt by an angelic hand; and that happy city merited those first fathers Clement, Felix, Auctor, Caelestis, etc.; which Catalogue, however, published by Calmet in tome 1 of the History of Lorraine, it is agreed among the authors was written in the reign of Charlemagne, not by an angelic but by a human hand.
[6] fables are set forth; and asserted in them To dismiss as trifles the other things about wild beasts kept safe from hunters and their wounds cured, about the daughter of the king of Metz raised from the dead — similar to which things Adso, abbot of Montier-en-Der in Champagne, fabled after the middle of the X century in the Life of St. Mansuetus, edited in our Work, Tome I of September, from page 639 — about serpents driven out of the bounds of the city of Metz (unless you interpret these as said figuratively of the idols and their worship removed, with Calmet in the Dissertation on the bishops of Metz prefixed to the History of Lorraine, and with the Benedictine Writers in the History of Metz printed in the year 1769), the Acts relate that our holy Prelate, who, as they say, is said to have been one of the seventy-two, and to have seen the presence of the Lord with bodily eyes, was sent into the Gauls by St. Peter the Apostle with SS. Clement, first bishop of Metz, Eucharius of Trier, Mansuetus of Toul, and several others, was a faithful helper to St. Clement in converting the people of Metz to the Christian faith, and immediately succeeded him, the founder of the episcopal chair in the same city; and so, according to the Acts, St. Caelestius held the See of Metz in the 1st century: this opinion is favoured, together with certain Martyrologies cited at nums. 1 and 2, by the praised Chronicle of Metz in d'Achery, where it is read thus: Blessed Clement passing to heavenly things, St. Caelestis succeeded him in the episcopal office; he sat also fifteen years, under Vespasian VII, under Titus II, under Domitian the rest; he died in the time of that very persecutor, under Pope Anacletus. These marks designate the year LXXXVI of the Christian era, which year Meurisse also expressed, with our manuscript Florarium; but all these are too recent to be able much to confirm the immediate mission of the Saint by St. Peter asserted by the biographer; not without reason, therefore, did Chastelain go far from this, who referred the episcopate of St. Caelestius to the III century, from whose opinion we, not departing much, have placed our Saint's death, at the head of this Commentary, about the beginning of the IV century. And lest we seem to have done this without reason, it will help to set forth reasons not dissonant from those by which Limpens and Perier were moved to tie to the IV century the episcopate of St. Mansuetus and St. Maternus, the companions of St. Caelestius coming into the Gauls according to our biographer and Adso in the Life of St. Mansuetus.
[7] the immediate mission of the Saint by St. Peter into the Gauls We could range more widely here in showing that the monuments of the church of Metz, which derives its origin, with several other churches of the Gauls, from the very times of the Apostles, are neither ancient enough nor suitable enough to create belief; but since these chiefly concern St. Clement, he will be able to do this more fully who shall illustrate his deeds at the XXIII day of November: we meanwhile observe here that certain things are read in the Life of our Saint which, if they are true, show that his episcopate must be referred to times much later than the Apostles: and the following are read: Which (the miracle of the serpents put to flight) having been seen, all raised a huge cry to the stars, that great and true is the God of the Christians, burning in rivalry to be catechized, to be baptized in crowds … then he established a church in honour of his master Peter, prince of the Apostles, where the faithful people might be able to assemble for celebrating the solemnities of the Masses, and to drink in with thirsting breast the mysteries of Catholic dogma; but, the king not yet believing, his only daughter dies … Blessed Clement is present with that inseparable faithful colleague Caelestis; they hear the king's vow, they fall prostrate in prayer: what more? The girl is raised up, restored to life; the father is baptized with all his household; the name of the Lord Jhesus from then on is freely and publicly preached, worshipped, venerated and adored by all. I have wished to set forth these things not because I judge the Life of the Saint worthy of credence, but because Paul the Deacon, in the Life of St. Clement published by Calmet in Tome I of the History of Lorraine among the documents, which is the chief foundation of the tradition, writes the same things, if you except the fable of the king's daughter raised up, about the city of Metz converted to the Christian faith, about the church built by St. Clement and dedicated to St. Peter, to which he also adds two others built by the same Saint; and so, if we wish to insist on the monuments on which the people of Metz chiefly rely, while our Saint held the See of Metz, the Christian religion so flourished there, idolatry being utterly exterminated, the faithful multiplied, three churches erected and the episcopal See founded, as much almost as ever elsewhere; but that this cannot hold unless the episcopate of St. Caelestius be referred to times much later than the 1st century, the following testimonies prove.
[8] That up to the year 250 of the Christian era, [from the Passion of St. Saturninus, from the letter of seven bishops to Radegund.] in which Decius and Gratus held the consulship, few churches were erected, not in all but only in some cities of the Gauls, few worshippers of the Christian faith, but very numerous shrines of the Gods in all the cities, is testified by the anonymous Author of the Passion of St. Saturninus, edited by Ruinart among the Genuine and Select Acts of the Martyrs, Paris edition of the year 1680, page 109, if not contemporary, at least nearly so: After (he says) the sound of the Gospels went out gradually and by degrees into all the earth, and with like progress (namely gradually and by degrees) the preaching of the Apostles shone in our regions, when rare churches were rising in some cities by the devotion of a few Christians, but nonetheless, by the pitiable error of the gentiles, temples were smoking frequently in all places with foul fumes, fifty years before, as by the public Acts, that is, under the consuls Decius and Gratus, as is retained by faithful recollection, the city of Toulouse had begun to have Saint Saturninus as its first and highest priest of Christ. In the IV century too, in which St. Martin presided over the church of Tours, seven prelates of the Gauls, in a letter to Queen Radegund written in the year, as all agree, 570, assert that the ineffable Sacraments or mysteries of the Lord's Trinity had come within the Gallic borders to the knowledge of only a few; since, therefore, the things which are narrated by Paul the Deacon in the Life of St. Clement, and by our anonymous writer in the Acts of St. Caelestius, about the whole city of Metz converted to the Christian faith, idolatry extirpated, churches built, are altogether foreign to the I century, as the testimonies brought forward make manifest, it is necessary that the people of Metz either convict the monuments on which they chiefly rely of manifest contradiction, or defer the mission of their first prelates to a time much later than the I century; and, to win some appearance of truth — not indeed for the Acts of our Saint, but for the Acts of St. Clement, whose words in Calmet are these: At that time, … when the city … of the Mediomatrici … abounded with copious crowds of peoples, to it Blessed Peter the Apostle sent one named Clement… raised to pontifical dignity — let them understand this mission in the sense which Jean Cordes supplies in the dissertation on the time of St. Martial's being sent into Aquitaine, published with us in Tome 5 of June from page 538: Since the Roman church he says has always been called the See of Peter, those who were sent as legates from that See were said to have been sent by Peter, although they came from the successors of Peter long times after: which, manifest in very many places of the writers, is confirmed by the dignity of Boniface, sent as legate by Gregory II into Germany for the sake of the Gospel, who is called the envoy of St. Peter in the letter of Charles Martel and in chapter 2 of book V of the Capitularies.
[9] a certain objection which could be opposed And indeed, if the people of Metz wish that the state of the Christian religion in their city was in fact such as is depicted by Paul the Deacon and the biographer of our Saint while St. Clement and then St. Caelestius were discharging the episcopal office, the testimonies brought forward of the author of the Passion of St. Saturninus and of the seven bishops altogether require that they believe these first prelates lived at least some years in the IV century under Constantine the Great, before whose reign the Gospel could not be preached with so much fruit, nor so securely and freely, idolatry exterminated, and churches publicly built; but indeed, although those who fight for the mission of the first bishops of Metz in the I century will accuse of error the monuments asserting that the Christian religion bore such rich fruits at Metz in that same century, they will contend that it is not yet a consequence from the praised testimonies that our Saint did not discharge the episcopate in the same city in the I century; for these, they will say, although in the I century not so that, idolatry being utterly extirpated and several churches erected, through the error of the gentiles frequently with foul fumes in the city of Metz
temples should cease to smoke, prove that the Gospel faith held dominion, yet seem in no way to stand in the way of a church having already been founded there at that time, consisting of a fairly large number of the faithful, who were ruled by their own bishop.
[10] So they can still argue, in order to defend the glorious antiquity of the church of Metz: resolved, and rejected from the Sacred History of Sulpicius Severus. but, since before the middle of the III century, according to the praised author of the Passion of St. Saturninus, there were few worshippers of Christ in only some cities of the Gauls, and by their devotion only a few churches were erected, anyone will easily acknowledge that the Christian religion could not have flourished in the I century in the city of Metz, on account of its greater distance from Italy, even in that manner which we have set forth according to the sense of our adversaries, who considers that the light of the faith was most probably brought from that same Italy sooner into cities nearer to Italy than into those situated farther from it, and that the city of Lyons, much nearer to Italy and then the metropolis of the Gauls, only in the II century obtained as its first bishop St. Photinus, crowned with Martyrdom in the year 177: moreover, since the monuments by which they try to vindicate so great an antiquity for the church of Metz are not older than the VIII century, and are liable to manifest contradiction, as is clear from what has been said, the patrons of the opinion which places the episcopate of our Saint in the 1st century are compelled for the like cause to ascribe the same antiquity also to most other churches of the Gauls, which are not destitute of similar traditions and monuments; and now, if in all those cities of the Gauls among which, under the reign of Charlemagne, such rivalry blazed up for the antiquity of their churches that they affirmed their first prelates to have been sent either by St. Peter or by St. Clement — and namely in that of Périgueux, of the Vellavi, of Châlons, of Le Mans, of Auvergne, of Tours, of Paris, of Sens, of Reims, of Meaux, of Orléans, of Rouen, and finally, the one of which we are treating, of Metz — there had in fact existed already from the 1st century a fairly great number of worshippers of Christ, and bishops set over them, it would follow that there was no difference as to the time of the Christian religion's being received in Italy, none even as to the manner, unless perhaps that it already then flourished more in the Gauls than in Italy; and so Sulpicius Severus would have strayed from the truth, writing thus in book II of the sacred history: Under Aurelius, son of Antoninus, the fifth persecution was set in motion, and then for the first time Martyrdoms were seen within the Gauls, the religion of God having been received later beyond the Alps than, namely, in Italy; there would have strayed also the author of the Passion of St. Saturninus, asserting that rare churches had risen in only some cities before the middle of the III century through the devotion of few Christians, and the seven bishops, asserting that in the IV century the ineffable Sacraments of the Lord's Trinity had come to the knowledge of only a few: but since no one will bring himself to this who has weighed that Sulpicius Severus, an author certainly most weighty, in the IV century, the author of the Passion of St. Saturninus about the end of the III century, and the seven bishops about the middle of the VI century flourished in the Gauls themselves, and accordingly had excellently grasped the matters which they record concerning the state of religion in the Gauls in the first centuries, it remains that, on account of the authority of these witnesses, the episcopate of our Saint be referred to a time later than the 1st century, which we shall try to determine in some fashion in the following § from the catalogues of the prelates of Metz.
§ II. The Chronotaxis of the bishops of Metz is ordered, and the age of the saint is determined in some fashion.
[Neither did Symeon, seventh in the series of the bishops of Metz, sit at Metz in the II century, nor Sambatius in the III century, as certain Catalogues would have it;] The praised author of the Chronicle of Metz edited by d'Achery, who assigned to each bishop of the same city the years of his See passed over by Paul the Deacon of Friuli, the first compiler of the Catalogue of the prelates of Metz, and arranged them according to the Chronological series of the Roman pontiffs and emperors, writes thus of St. Symeon, seventh prelate of Metz: He presided XXX years, in the last time of Antoninus Pius, in the times also of the emperors Marcus, Verus, Lucius Commodus, in the time of Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherius; he died under Eleutherius and the emperor Commodus. Pagi's Critica on the Annals of Baronius ties the last year of the Pontiff Eleutherius, and the sixth of Commodus, reigning after his father Marcus Aurelius, to the year of Christ 185; after St. Symeon he places Sambatius, or, as the name of him — bishop of Madauros and suffragan of the church of Metz — is variously read in Meurisse, Sambacus, Sambatus, whom he says sat XVIII years under the Apostolic ones Eleutherius, Victor and Zephyrinus, in the times of Lucius Commodus, Helvius Pertinax and Severus. The last year of the emperor Severus and the 15th of Pope Zephyrinus, according to the same Pagi, falls in the year of Christ 211; after Sambatus he lists Rufus, Adelphus, Firminus, Leguncius, Auctor, the last of whom he asserts, with the Chronicles of the praised Paul the Deacon and of Sigebert of Gembloux, held the Chair of Metz when Attila was laying waste the Gauls: but, besides that the space of about 240 years which elapsed between the year 211, as the Chronicler would have it the year of Sambatius's death, and the devastation of the Gauls by Attila is greater than could have been filled by four bishops between Sambatius and St. Auctor, even if the latter perhaps sat already some years before the disaster of Attila, unless a fairly long vacancy of the See is devised, the Council of Agrippina shows that neither did St. Symeon preside over the church of Metz about the end of the 11 century under the emperor Commodus, nor Sambatius about the beginning of the III century under the emperor Severus, but that their episcopate must be placed much later.
[12] [since Victor, fifth in the same series, in the year 346, as from the Councils of Agrippina] The Acts of this Council, published by various collectors of Councils, and namely by Labbe, Tome 2, column 615 and following, were solidly vindicated, after Henschenius and several other notable patrons of the same Council, by Cornelius de Bye in our Work, Tome V of October, from page 594, against the various objections of the adversaries, who traduce them as doubtful and suspect or even plainly reject them as false and supposititious; where the reader will find it proved that the said Council is not to be held a figment of the IX or X century, but truly took place: and in this Synod, which these Chronological marks prefixed to it — After the consulship of Amantius and Albinus, on the IV of the Ides of May — show was celebrated in the year 346, there is named, and listed among the bishops who sent men to be present in their name, Victor of the Mediomatrici, or of Metz: the published Catalogues of the bishops of Metz of more approved note show two Prelates of this name, namely fifth and sixth in order. Since, therefore, it is a consequence from the Council of Cologne that Victor, whether the first or the second, held the See of Metz about the middle of the IV century, it becomes a further consequence that neither St. Symeon nor Sambatius flourished in the mentioned II and III centuries, since in all the Catalogues of the bishops of Metz which I have consulted they are placed after both Victors. But since even those who most of all hold it as genuine admit that errors have crept into the names of the bishops expressed in the Acts of the said Synod through the unskilfulness or carelessness of copyists, and accordingly, if anyone should argue, as he could not rashly, that the name of Victor, bishop of the Mediomatrici, is found erroneously marked there, the argument drawn from the Council of Agrippina for fixing the Chronotaxis of the bishops of Metz would become altogether feeble and nerveless, it will help to have shown here that there is nothing which greatly persuades that this error was committed, but that the name of Victor is more probably rightly read in the Acts of the same Council.
[13] To establishing not lightly our opinion, by which we judge that the name of Victor is rightly expressed in the Acts of the Council of Agrippina, and of Sardica, is proved, the Synod of Sardica is of service, which is generally tied to the year 347, the one immediately following after the Synod of Agrippina was held: for among the bishops of Gaul there subscribed the Synodical letter sent to the absent bishops, that they might confirm its Acts by their suffrage, as may be seen in Labbe, Tome II, column 679, two Victors, without expression indeed of their episcopal Sees; but that these are the same who in the Acts of the Council of Agrippina are named Victor of the Vangiones, or of Worms, and Victor of the Mediomatrici, or of Metz, I am persuaded from this, that all the other names of bishops (except those of Sanctinus and Pancharius, which you will seek here in vain) which are read expressed in the Acts of the Council of Agrippina are found subscribed to the said Synodical letter; and so, since, if an error had crept into the name of Victor, bishop of Metz, expressed in the Synod of Agrippina, the same error would not probably have been repeated in all the editions of the Council of Sardica, in which, as Pagi testifies in the Critica, Victor is constantly read, it follows that Victor, who in all the Catalogues of the bishops of Metz is listed fifth in order — since the same Catalogues assign only a few years of the See to his successor of the same name — truly had part in the Council of Agrippina and confirmed the Acts of the Council of Sardica with his suffrage.
[14] Otherwise indeed, among our predecessors, Henschenius in the Commentary on St. Servatius, Tome III of May, page 214, and in the historical exegesis on the bishopric of Tongres and Maastricht, resolved, which from the Acts and also Sollerius in the Commentary on St. Auctor, Tome II of August, page 536 and following, thought that Victor is wrongly read in the Council of Agrippina, contending that in his place Auctor should be read, who is listed in the Catalogues of the prelates of Metz eighth after Victor: and surely, if we should wish to agree with the Acts of St. Auctor of Metz written by Paul the Deacon in the VIII century, and the Acts of St. Servatius written by Hariger, or rather Heriger, abbot of Lobbes, on the border of the X and XI centuries — both of which relate that St. Servatius, returning from the Roman pilgrimage which this Saint, bishop of Tongres, had undertaken to avert the disaster impending on the Gauls from the irruption of the Huns, came to St. Auctor and warned him of the future destruction of the city of Metz, and so make these two Saints contemporaries — since we do not think, with our praised predecessors, that besides the one who in the IV century was present at the Councils of Cologne, Sardica and Rimini, another St. Servatius sat in the Chair of Tongres in the V century, it would altogether have to be confessed that St. Auctor, and not Victor, had part in the said Councils, and so that the latter's name appears falsely expressed in them: but since the Acts of St. Auctor and of St. Servatius — which induced the praised Henschenius and Sollerius into this opinion the more easily because they followed the then more common opinion, but now rejected by very many learned men, about several churches founded in the Gauls in the 1st century, and according to it thought that Victor presided over the church of Metz long before the Council of Agrippina — are not apt, their age being considered, to create great belief, it is more probable, in my judgment at least, that these are to be corrected from the often-mentioned Councils of Agrippina and Sardica, rather than the Councils themselves from the same Acts.
[15] of St. Auctor And that I should think altogether so, I am further moved not a little by this, that this narration of Paul the Deacon and Hariger about St. Servatius coming to St. Auctor from no other source than from what St. Gregory of Tours, book II
of the History of the Franks wrote, seems to have arisen through mere conjectures: this holy father of Frankish History had treated, in chapter V of the cited book, of the Roman pilgrimage of St. Servatius, and of the revelation he received, by which St. Servatius had learned at Rome that it had been altogether decreed in the deliberation of the Lord that the Huns should come into the Gauls; then, having related the return, death and burial of this Saint, St. Gregory ends the said chapter V: then in the following chapter he narrates another revelation about the oratory of St. Stephen at Metz in these words: Of which Oratory, what I have heard from certain persons I have not put off narrating: for they say that, before these enemies came, a faithful Man saw in a vision as it were the blessed levite Stephen conferring with the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul about this (the city of Metz's) destruction and saying: … but if the crime of the people has grown so much that nothing else can be done but that the city be given to fire, at least let this Oratory not be burned: to whom they say: go in peace, most beloved brother; your Oratory alone shall be free of fire. These two revelations, of which St. Gregory ascribes the former, from common report or tradition, to St. Servatius while he was at Rome, but the latter — of which he speaks doubtfully and only from the particular narration of certain persons — not to St. Servatius but to a certain faithful Man, whose name he probably had not ascertained, and so carefully distinguishes the one from the other, Paul the Deacon, confusing them into one, asserts were shown to St. Servatius at Rome, from this conjecture alone, by which he thought that that faithful Man, according to the mind of St. Gregory plainly different from St. Servatius, to whom the holy prelate of Tours had attributed the said revelation about the Oratory of St. Stephen at Metz in chapter VI of his History, was no other than St. Servatius, of whose Roman pilgrimage and of the revelation received about the impending irruption of the Huns into the Gauls the same Saint had treated in chapter V: and once this conjecture was laid down, it was not difficult for Paul the Deacon to add another to it, by which he believed that the bishop of Metz was warned by St. Servatius of the future disaster of the city of Metz; and since moreover this writer, with the praised St. Gregory of Tours, confused several irruptions of the Huns into the one of Attila, more famous than the rest, and perhaps knew from elsewhere that St. Auctor presided over the church of Metz while Attila was raging in the Gauls, he could easily seize from the ill-founded conjectures just mentioned a handle for associating St. Servatius and St. Auctor, although separated in age and living under different irruptions of the Huns.
[16] Hariger agrees sufficiently with Paul the Deacon, except that, and the other, which from the Acts of St. Servatius whereas that Deacon of Friuli makes both St. Servatius and St. Auctor contemporaries of Attila's irruption into the Gauls, this Abbot of Lobbes, making no express mention of Attila, seems to refer both those holy prelates to another, earlier entry of the Huns into the Gauls, which Henschenius proved happened about the year 384 from the words of St. Ambrose answering the tyrant Maximus, who complained that count Bauto had let the barbarians loose upon him, that the Hun had been summoned not against him but against the Juthungi, who were laying waste the Rhaetias; for the rest, he labours under the same conjecture by which Paul the Deacon confused into one, and ascribed to St. Servatius, the two revelations mentioned above, probably distinct according to the mind of St. Gregory of Tours; he invented the same error about the walls of the city of Metz falling down of their own accord; whence it comes about that the narration of Hariger about St. Servatius's coming to St. Auctor seems probably to have flowed from the same author of the Chronicle of Metz, and so, the conjectures of this Chronicler being rejected, there falls also the difficulty which is raised from Hariger against our opinion, by which we judge that St. Servatius and St. Auctor were separated by an interval of many years: nor does it stand in the way that this compiler of the Chronicle of the bishops of Tongres, Maastricht and Liège had before his eyes the more ancient Acts of St. Servatius which he praises, and could therefore seem to have woven his narration from these; since he sufficiently betrays that he mixed into them, if indeed they were themselves genuine enough, errors drawn from elsewhere, when at the very beginning of his narration he asserts that St. Servatius — the first in the series of the bishops of Tongres, as the learned do not doubt even today — was the tenth in the same series, and wrongly makes St. Lupus, bishop of Troyes in Champagne, contemporary with him, from ancient verses which yet by no means intimate this, as Dolmans has skilfully observed, Tome IV of August, page 40, num. 19.
[17] Since, therefore, it is so, and these errors, which Hariger commits is raised against it, the difficulty being resolved, when, among the many torches lit by divine providence at that time — that is, among the many Holy Men set over the government of the churches at that time, namely when, as he had premised, St. Servatius presided tenth over the church of Tongres and this Saint sought that a reconciliation should be made on account of the barbarian irruption — he lists St. Lupus, and so makes this prelate, who undoubtedly governed the church of Troyes while Attila was laying waste the Gauls, equal in age with St. Servatius, were absent from the more ancient Deeds of St. Servatius, if these were genuine, and accordingly were brought from elsewhere by this author into his work on St. Servatius, the errors which we noted at num. 15, common to both, make it very probable that Hariger borrowed from elsewhere, and indeed from the Chronicle of Paul the Deacon, the narration itself of St. Servatius coming to St. Auctor, especially since in the Preface prefixed to his Work he makes it plain that he collected the times and deeds of the Pontiffs of the See of Liège which could be scraped together from anywhere, up to his own times: and hence it further follows that, just as what Paul the Deacon devises about St. Auctor warned by St. Servatius, returning from Rome, of the impending disaster of the city of Metz seems to rest on uncertain conjectures, as we observed before, so whatever Hariger records about St. Servatius's coming to St. Auctor is also uncertain and doubtful. Nor would these things be less suspect of falsehood even if, contrary to what we think, they had not been drawn by Hariger from the Chronicle of Paul the Deacon: for besides that this writer committed to writing very many things straying very far from the truth, as is commonly known to the learned even today, and was deluded even in matters later than the age of St. Servatius, he lived removed by so many centuries from the episcopate of SS. Servatius and Auctor that what he writes of these holy bishops, unless it can be confirmed by a sufficiently firm testimony of more ancient monuments, is either to be held of only small value, or even to be altogether despised; and so it now comes about that from the uncertain testimony of Hariger, of very doubtful credibility, it can by no means be proved that St. Servatius and St. Auctor were Synchronous, and that therefore the name of the latter is to be substituted for that of Victor expressed in the Councils of Agrippina and Sardica.
[18] flourished Certainly neither the authority of Hariger nor of Paul the Deacon held back Sigebert of Gembloux — to whom the Chronicles written by them were probably not unknown — from separating in age those Holy bishops of Metz and Tongres, writing thus at the year 453 of the disaster of Attila: Auctor the bishop is taken captive, and immediately subjoining: This destruction impending on the Gauls Servatius of Tongres had long before foreseen in spirit, and had learned at Rome from Peter the apostle that this judgment of God would be inevitable: therefore also, since it is sufficiently clear from St. Gregory of Tours's History of the Franks, cited book II, chapter V, that a very small interval of time intervened between the return of this bishop of Tongres from Rome and the Saint's death, St. Servatius ceased to live long before this destruction, which, as the praised Sigebert intimates, he foresaw long before, and long before … at Rome … learned would be inevitable, and so also long before St. Auctor presided with episcopal office over the church of Metz, namely in the year 384, about which year the foretold slaughters of the Gauls seem to have had their beginning: and so I shall hold myself persuaded that St. Servatius and St. Auctor were separated in age, so that the former died about the mentioned year 384, which Henschenius, from Wendelin, assigned to him as his year of death, and the latter lived at the time of the slaughter inflicted on the Gauls by Attila about the year 451, as the praised Sigebert and also Paul the Deacon teach, although he erroneously refers St. Servatius to the same time; and accordingly that Hariger and Paul the Deacon, who associated them, strayed from the truth — until either the followers of Valois show from more certain monuments that a certain second Servatius sat in the chair of Tongres about the middle of the V century, or until, as Henschenius posited, it is proved that St. Auctor and St. Servatius were contemporaries in the IV century by an authority greater than that of Paul the Deacon and Hariger, which, what has been said thus far in this § being considered, cannot greatly hinder that it remain most probable that Victor in that same IV century truly had part in the Councils of Agrippina and Sardica, as all the copies of both Councils demonstrate.
[19] from which it follows that our Saint probably died about the year 320. And now, since Victor, fifth in the series of the bishops of Metz, presided over the church of Metz in the year 346, as his name subscribed to the often-mentioned Councils of Agrippina and Sardica shows, it is clear that the Chronicler of Metz in d'Achery was enormously deluded when he placed the death of St. Symeon about the end of the II century, and that of Sambatius, his immediate successor, about the beginning of the III century: not without reason, therefore, do we reject the rest of his Chronotaxis, since he seems to have assigned the years of those first prelates at will, and to have increased them immoderately, in order to bring back St. Clement, the first bishop of the same see, to the times of the apostles; and we order it more rightly in this way, that nine prelates of the church of Metz filled the intermediate space of about 80 years between St. Auctor, contemporary of Attila, and St. Sperus or Hesperius, subscribed to the Council of Clermont held in the year 535: and the space which is found between the year 451 and 347 is sufficient for there to have been able to sit in that time, in part, St. Auctor and St. Victor, and between these 8 successors of the latter. Further, since from St. Victor up to our Saint Caelestius only two intermediate bishops are numbered, namely SS. Patiens and Felix, let ten years be given to each of these: the episcopate of our Saint will have to be removed far from the times of the apostles, and his death can be placed about the year 320, to which calculation the authors of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, tome XIII, column 679 — which tome we obtained after this Commentary was already prepared for the press — also seem to adhere.