ON ST. RUSTICUS OF TRIER, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, IN GALLIA BELGICA,
About the year 574.
HISTORICO-CRITICAL COMMENTARY.
Rusticus, bishop, confessor, at Trier. (S.)
BY S. D.
§ I. The memory of the saint in the sacred calendars, his cult, his age.
The saint, who, inscribed in the sacred calendars here mentioned, There meets us today a remarkable proof of human frailty and of divine mercy in St. Rusticus, bishop of the people of Trier, in whom, as sin abounded, so grace likewise abounded. The memory of this saint is indeed not found in the more ancient or classic martyrologies; but, though this be so, he nevertheless claims for himself a place here in our work: for today he stands inscribed in the more recent sacred calendars and in the present Roman Martyrology itself. Besides this, and this is the main point, already for more than a hundred years before the decree issued in the year 1634 by Urban VIII, by which he forbade that venerable servants of God not yet either beatified or canonized by the Church should thenceforth be honoured with public cult, unless perhaps they had obtained it already for more than a hundred years, either by the common consent of the Church, or by the writings of the fathers and holy men, or finally by the knowledge and tolerance of the Apostolic See or of the ordinary for a very long time, he enjoyed cult of this kind, as becomes clear from what I shall presently bring forward, when I have spoken of the sacred calendars that commemorate the saint today, as I have already indicated. The present Roman Martyrology mentions the saint today in the following manner: At Trier, of St. Rusticus, bishop; nor with many more words do the three Usuardine auctaria in Sollerius, in which he occurs today, do the same. Of these I transcribe here only that which is Molanus's. It has it briefly thus: At Trier, of St. Rusticus, bishop and confessor.
[2] he is adorned by Saussay also with a longer eulogy, which is transcribed here, But Saussay, who in the Martyrology compiled by him also celebrates the saint today, uses a quite lengthy eulogy to this end, which, in order to present to the studious reader at the very beginning of this Commentary a certain compendium of the saint's deeds, I transcribe here entire, conceived in the following words: At Trier, of St. Rusticus, second of that name, bishop and confessor of that see; who, when he had ascended to that chair by the degrees of the virtues, having afterwards fallen into the sin of the flesh, and being invited to penance by the prodigy of a little infant indicating its father by name, and its mother, at the exhortation of St. Goar, the priest whom, innocent, he was oppressing, raising himself from the mire of sin not so much by the judgement as by the benefit of God, he expiated the stain with profuse groaning; and, helped by the assiduous prayers to God of St. Goar himself, who had promised him the aid of seven years of prayer, he attained to the glory of such great purity that, by deeds of justice and pursuits of piety, and by acts of perfect chastity, he not only recovered the former esteem of his religious name, but also gained for himself far more abundant praise for a most approved conversation, with which he wonderfully adorned the pontificate. Until at length, pleasing to God and men, advanced in the heaps of merits more than of days, shining with every grace of beauty, he passed over to the enjoyment of the heavenly kingdom, which lies open only to pure minds. Such is the eulogy of Rusticus which I have thought fit to transcribe here entire; now I turn my discourse to what I have already insinuated above as to be proved about his cult, and to other things bearing on it.
[3] [and that he enjoyed public cult for more than a hundred years, the things here adduced] The most illustrious Hontheim, in the Prodromus of his Historia Diplomatica Trevirensis, volume 1, page 390, writes thus: The feast-day of St. Rusticus, bishop of Trier, is fixed at the 14th of October … our Wandelbert of Prüm relates more things about him in the Life of St. Goar, book 1; there, in chapter XIII, he mentions a few things about his penance; about his sanctity or religious cult he adds nothing, nor did he insert his name in his Metrical Martyrology: for it was not then the custom to describe in the martyrology saints to whom there was no public cult. In the Prüm Catalogue of the eleventh century he is not honoured with the title of saint; nor does he find a place in our more ancient calendars … as we have repeated several times, there were many saints, known to the learned and to others too, to whom there was no cult in the Church… Thus that writer, insinuating that public cult was paid to St. Rusticus neither in the ninth century, in which Wandelbert wrote, nor in the eleventh century; but although arguments by which I might prove this to be far from the truth are not at hand, that the saint at least enjoyed cult of this kind for more than a hundred years before the decree of Urban VIII praised here above at no. 1, which suffices for his being inserted in our work, is proved by a calendar which exists in our possession, and which was certainly written before the end of the fifteenth century, prefixed to the winter part of the breviary of the diocese of Trier; for this, which assigns which saints are to be venerated in the diocese of Trier on each day throughout the whole course of the year, prescribes that St. Rusticus is to be venerated on the fourteenth day of October together with St. Calixtus, pope; so that indeed, since this obtained its place before the end of the fifteenth century, as follows from what has already been said, the saint enjoyed public cult for more than a hundred years before the decree of Urban VIII, presently mentioned again, which was issued in the year 1634.
[4] show, Besides this, Scheckmann, a monk of St. Maximin at Trier and librarian of his monastery, wrote a certain little work on the deeds and relics of the patrons of the collegiate church of St. Paulinus at Trier, which, in the second
work, composed in German by John Enen, doctor of sacred theology at Trier, and called the Medulla gestorum Trevirorum, which the same Scheckmann translated into the Latin language, is cited at folio 52 of his work, as will appear to anyone comparing this with the first page of the said little work; wherefore, since this work was composed in the year 1517, as it is permissible to gather from the dedicatory epistles which it bears at the front, it must be that the said little work was certainly written not later than the same year 1517; and in it Scheckmann, having touched on the deeds of St. Rusticus, which I shall give below, writes thus: In the year from the Lord's Nativity one thousand five hundred and fifteen, by indult of the Apostolic See (namely of Leo X), the sepulchre of the man of God having been opened, so great a fragrance burst forth, such a most sweet odour flooded the nostrils of all those standing by, as they had never drawn in by smell, all firmly believing that the Author of sweetness had come there and had made His saint Rusticus wonderful. It was then concluded with equal counsel that his glorious head should be reserved outside, which, being looked upon, might afford to mortals an incitement to penance, and a most secure assurance that God has had mercy on penitents.
[5] he enjoyed before the decree of Urban VIII, issued in the year 1634, Besides this, at the end of the same little work he enumerates the sacred relics which are kept in the church of St. Paulinus at Trier, and adds that these, among which he also reckons the head of St. Rusticus, were shown publicly at Trier on the feast of the translation of St. Paulinus with a solemn procession, the senate of Trier and a copious multitude both of clergy and of people being present; wherefore, since these things must necessarily have happened before the year 1518, inasmuch as they were committed to writing in the little work composed before this year, as I have just shown, and they prove that public cult was then paid to our saint, the consequence also follows that he enjoyed this for more than a hundred years before the decree of Urban VIII, issued in the year 1634, and already mentioned here more than once.
[6] and further continued to enjoy it after that, in the seventeenth century, Further, that the saint continued to enjoy the same honour while the seventeenth century was still running, there is proof in the Lectionary of certain saints of the Trier Office, accommodated to the use and rite of the Roman Breviary, which was printed at Trier in the year 1645, in which today the lesson third in order is proposed to be recited of St. Rusticus. This I transcribe here entire, if only because it in some way paves the road for determining the time in which the saint lived. It is conceived in the following words: Rusticus, to whom the pontifical chair of the people of Trier fell, when the secret sin of lust which he had committed was detected, touched by shame for the crime acknowledged and by keen penance, applied a timely remedy, taking for himself a period of seven years, which he spent holily and piously in the church of the Mother of God ad Martyres to wash away the guilt. Then, worn down by vigils and fasting, having seized the second plank after shipwreck, he most happily gained the harbour of a better and eternal station, on the day before the Ides of October, in the year of Christ five hundred and seventy-three, was laid up in the church of blessed Paulinus, and was placed in the number of the saints. He himself performed many miracles after death, and excited the longing for himself the more gratefully, the more securely he left an example of Christian penance. The ardour of lust shook off the discipline of chastity; but the priest, refined by the fire of charity, so buried the traces of this flame that in him you would not know whether to have repented profited more than not to have sinned. Thus the praised lesson; but let us now examine whether it rightly ties the saint's death to the year 573.
[7] [He was roused to penance for the sin into which he had fallen by St. Goar; but since the latter] That St. Rusticus was roused by St. Goar to do penance for the sin of unchastity, into which he had fallen when already bishop of Trier, only a few years before the latter died, is established from the two Lives of this saint, of which an anonymous writer of the seventh century wrote the one, and Wandelbert in the year 839 the other. So, in order that we may in some way be able to determine whether St. Rusticus, who, having obeyed Goar's rousing, died not many years after him, nor long before, is rightly said to have died in the year 573, it will help before all things to have inquired into the time of St. Goar's death. Brower, in the Annals of Trier, joins it with the year 575, and accordingly with the reign of Sigebert, who, according to Pagi's Critica on Baronius, whose reckonings it is pleasing to follow here in designating the years of the kings Childebert and Sigebert, reigned in Austrasia from the year 565 until the year 579; and Pinius, at the 6th day of July, in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Goar written by an anonymous author, judged that this opinion of Brower was to be embraced as the more probable and the truer; but Le Cointe and Mabillon, and, following them, Calmet and Baillet, contend that St. Goar departed from the living about the year 649, under Sigebert III, who held the kingdom of Austrasia from the year 638 until the year 656. Nor will there be reason for saying that this is contended by them altogether without merit, if by Childebert, king of the Franks, under whom the anonymous writer of the Acts of this saint, in our work at the place just cited, says that St. Goar came from Aquitaine into Germany, there ought to be understood, not Childebert I, who reigned from the year 511 until the year 558, but Childebert Col. 533F II, who reigned from the year 579 until the year 596. Let us therefore investigate this here.
[8] [came under Childebert, not II but I, as from the anonymous author, whom rather than Wandelbert] Childebert I was the son of Clovis, who was converted to the faith by St. Remigius; but Childebert II was not the son of the same Clovis, but only his great-grandson; wherefore, since the Childebert under whom the praised anonymous writes that Goar came from Aquitaine into Germany is most expressly called by him the son of Clovis, it is to be believed that Goar came from Aquitaine into Germany under Childebert not II but I. Wandelbert indeed writes in the Life of St. Goar that the Childebert under whom St. Goar crossed into Germany was not the son of Clovis but sprung from the lineage of Clovis, and so gave occasion to the twisted interpretation by which Mabillon would have a great-grandson understood under the name of son in the anonymous author; but here we must stand, not by Wandelbert, but by the anonymous, who is more ancient than Wandelbert.
[9] There will perhaps indeed be someone who will reply here that more ancient Acts of St. Goar than those which, written by an anonymous writer of the seventh century, we edited at the 6th day of July, since here, contrary to what someone may contend, the Acts of St. Goar lighted Wandelbert's way, and that he, following them, asserted that the Childebert under whom St. Goar came into Germany was not the son of Clovis, but only sprung from the lineage of Clovis. The thing may indeed seem not destitute of all foundation: for Wandelbert in the Life of St. Goar differs from the Life of this saint composed by the anonymous writer of the seventh century in still other things. And first indeed he writes, at the beginning of his work, that St. Goar was a priest before his coming into Germany, while the anonymous only teaches that the saint was a priest, but does not add whether he was ordained before or after his coming into Germany; and then he relates, towards the end of the same work, that St. Goar, after the seven years in which he had promised that he would do penance for Rusticus were completed, was afflicted in health for yet three other years and as many months, and only then departed from the living, while the anonymous reckons these three latter years within those seven years in which St. Goar did penance for Rusticus.
[10] [does not seem to have had more ancient Acts of the same saint, than those already given in our work, lighting its way,] Wherefore, since Wandelbert affirms towards the end that in writing the Life of St. Goar he followed with entire fidelity the truth of very ancient exemplars, and studied to correct only the simplicity of the language, which could offend the learned not a little, it appears that it must be said that Acts of St. Goar more ancient than those which, composed by the anonymous writer of the seventh century, we have already brought into our work, as has just been said, lighted Wandelbert's way, and that from these he drew the things already said which he writes, and did not find in the Acts of St. Goar already brought into our work. So those may reason who, in order to throw St. Goar back into the seventh century, contend that Wandelbert rightly asserts that the Childebert under whom he went into Germany was sprung from the lineage of Clovis; but since they themselves lay down that St. Goar died about the year 649, and so in the seventh century, by what reasoning, I ask, can his Acts which lighted Wandelbert's way have been more ancient than the Acts composed by the anonymous writer of the same century and already brought into our work at the 6th day of July? Will they perhaps say that these were composed towards the end of the seventh century, but those immediately after the death of St. Goar, or in the same seventh century, when its middle part had not yet long elapsed? But this can in no way be proved, nor are the Acts which lighted Wandelbert's way necessarily to be judged different from the Acts which, composed by the anonymous writer of the seventh century, we have already brought into our work; for these agree exactly everywhere with the Acts written by Wandelbert, both in the argument they treat and in the substance of the narration they offer, as will become clear to anyone comparing them; and this writer himself supplies the means by which you may judge how it could come about that he nevertheless differs, in the things we related above, from the Acts which, composed by the anonymous writer of the seventh century, we have already given in our work.
[11] [nor ought to have, we must certainly stand by the writer of the Life of St. Goar,] For he insinuates towards the end of his work that not different Acts of St. Goar, but different old and very ancient exemplars of the same Acts, lighted his way. the writer of the Life of St. Goar, What, then, if the Acts of St. Goar, which already exist printed in our work at the place cited above, were written about the beginning of the seventh century, and then, the same century being already advanced by some years, various exemplars of them were made? What if, further, some of the copyists by whom this was then done rashly, or at least not prudently enough, changed certain things according to their own bent in the more ancient exemplars of the same Acts which they were transcribing, and Wandelbert then followed these as lighting his way? Thus indeed everyone sees that it could easily have happened that he, although he did not have Acts of St. Goar more ancient than those which, composed by the anonymous writer of the seventh century, we have edited, nevertheless committed to writing the things related above in which he differs from that anonymous. However that may be, that Acts of St. Goar more ancient than those which we have published lighted Wandelbert's way, and that from them it became known that the Childebert under whom St. Goar crossed into Germany was not the son of Clovis but only sprung from his lineage, is by no means certain; and since no one calls into doubt that the anonymous writer who composed in the seventh century the Acts of St. Goar which we have published is more ancient than Wandelbert, we must stand by the latter rather than the former, and accordingly the Childebert under whom St. Goar came into Germany was of the name
the first, or the son of Clovis, as he reports, I think.
[12] and by an argument sought from elsewhere Nor do only the things I have already said make me think so, but also Felicius, who, as the anonymous writer of the Acts of St. Goar in our work records, presided as bishop over the church of Trier when Goar first arrived in Germany: for since the second abbot of St. Maximin at Trier, who in the older Index of the abbots of that monastery is entered as Felicius, was called Fibicius, Felicius and Fibicius or Febicius, as Alexander Wiltheim observes in the manuscript Annals of St. Maximin at the year 511, according to the testimony of Hontheim, Historia Diplomatica Trevirensis, volume III, page 1004, are reckoned as if one and the same name; and in the most ancient Catalogues of the bishops of Trier, in our work, volume 4 of September, pages 366 and 400, and in Hontheim, Historia Diplomatica Trevirensis, volume 1, page XXIV, only one among them is found by the name of Fibitius during the whole of that time in which Childebert, whether I or II, reigned, marked immediately before Aprunculus, whom Gregory of Tours in the Lives of the Fathers, chapter VI, most clearly relates that Nicetius immediately succeeded.
[13] it is proved that he came from Aquitaine Wherefore, since he, as may be seen in Hardouin in the Collection of the Councils, volume 2, page 1183, letter C, was present at the council of Clermont celebrated in the year 535, it follows that Fibicius or Felicius certainly occupied the see of Trier before this year, and accordingly that St. Goar, when he first arrived in Germany, at which time, from what has been said, Fibicius or Felicius was bishop of the people of Trier, came not under Childebert II, who reigned from the year 579 until the year 596, but under Childebert I, who reigned from the year 511 until the year 558. The praised Catalogues or Lists of the bishops of Trier are indeed not found free of all error; but, though this be so, the learned generally judge that one must not depart from them without grave cause, and here I do not find a cause of this kind on account of which Felicius or Fibitius might be thought to be wrongly marked in them immediately before Aprunculus.
[14] into Germany, Further, since Childebert I, under whom St. Goar went into Germany, first began to reign in the year 511, it is necessary that that saint certainly did not do this before the same year 511; and that it was done by him also not later than about the year 520 I show in the following manner: Nicetius, whom I mentioned above, was raised to the see of Trier in the year 527, as becomes clear from Le Cointe's computation in the Annals at this year, which our predecessors approved by their own reckoning at the 1st day of July, in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Gall, bishop of Clermont, no. 4; and since Aprunculus, his immediate predecessor, as is clear from what has just been said, seems to have occupied it for about 7 or 8 years, Felicius or Fibicius, who in the above-praised Catalogues of the bishops of Trier is placed immediately before Aprunculus, was probably taken from the living about the year 520; and since this is so, St. Goar, who came into Germany under Childebert, who first began to reign in the year 511, and under Felicius or Fibitius, bishop of Trier, who from what has already been said died about the year 520, most probably did this in that space of time which runs from the year 511 until the year 520, and not later than this last year.
[15] Now indeed, since St. Goar, when he crossed into Germany, then under Sigebert, not III, had already been initiated into the priesthood, as Wandelbert teaches, and accordingly, according to the discipline of the Church which then flourished, was most probably at least thirty years old (see Thomassin, On the Old and New Discipline of the Church, part I, book II, chapter 68), it follows from what has been said that if, as Mabillon and the others praised above would have it, he prolonged his life until Sigebert III, who reigned from about the year 638 until the year 656, and did not depart from the living before the year 649, he had an age of more than a hundred and fifty years when this happened; and since this, although he is said by the anonymous writer of his Life to have died in a good old age, appears plainly incredible, it must be said that he did not remain surviving among the living until Sigebert III; and since, as is clear from his Lives written by the anonymous and by Wandelbert, he lived some years with the Sigebert under whom he died, and accordingly could not have ended his life under Sigebert II either, inasmuch as he reigned only a few days, nothing remains but that his death be fixed, with Brower and Pinius, under Sigebert I.
[16] And this I think must altogether be done also for this reason, but I, as from what has been alleged, that Mabillon and the others who would have St. Goar die under Sigebert III about the year 649 are compelled to interpose Fibitius or Felicius, under whom he came into Germany, and Rusticus, or our saint, between Modoaldus and Numerianus, bishops of Trier, against all the Catalogues of better note of the bishops of Trier, which, although they disagree with one another now and then elsewhere, here nevertheless all acknowledge no one between Modoaldus and Numerianus, as Le Cointe rightly observes in the Annals of the Church of Germany, book 7, no. 125.
[17] [moreover, the authority of Sigebert the chronographer and of the Utrecht manuscript having been considered, it is concluded,] I know indeed that the opinion which places St. Goar's death under Sigebert I, taken from the living about the year 579, is opposed by Sigebert of Gembloux and by the Utrecht manuscript of St. Saviour's, mentioned in our work in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Goar, no. 14: the latter indeed when it says: In the seventeenth year of the emperor Maurice St. Goar, coming from Aquitaine, is renowned in Gaul; the former when he writes thus in his Chronicle at the year 600: St. Goar, coming from Aquitaine, is renowned in Gaul; but thus they fix St. Goar's coming into Gaul, or into that part of Germany which was then reckoned to Eastern Gaul, or Austrasia, at a time when there was no longer any king of the Franks by the name of Childebert, and so they are opposed both to Wandelbert and to the anonymous writer of the Life of St. Goar, both of whom relate that his coming into Germany occurred when Childebert was king of the Franks. Besides, apart from the fact that Sigebert was more than five centuries removed from Goar's age, how unfortunate a chronographer he was the critics know, who long ago, says Schutz, perceived that the chronology in his works is often spurious, so that we attribute little faith to him here, as also to the Utrecht manuscript, inasmuch as it is not older than Sigebert himself, nay, almost transcribed from him, as I think from the agreement of style and words in many places.
[18] departed from the living about the year 575, Dismissing, therefore, Sigebert and the Utrecht manuscript which I mentioned, I consider, as I have already indicated, with Pinius and Brower, that St. Goar departed from the living under Sigebert I. But since he reigned from about the year 565 until the year 579, and accordingly for about fourteen years, to which of these years is the death of St. Goar, and at the same time of St. Rusticus, who, as appears from what is to be said, died not long before him, to be tied? St. Goar, after the miracle most worthy of the memory of all posterity to come, performed under King Sigebert, by which, accused by calumniators of a false crime, he proved his innocence before Rusticus, bishop of Trier, and a crowded assembly of ecclesiastics, remained surviving among the living for seven more years, if faith is to be given to the anonymous writer of his Life, and then in the eighth year, when he had fulfilled the seven-year penance which he had taken upon himself for Rusticus, departed to those above; but this, if Wandelbert is to be heard, happened three years and as many months later; wherefore, since Sigebert, under whom, he being taken from the living about the year 579, as I have already warned, that miracle happened and St. Goar closed his last day, seems neither to have begun to reign only one or two months before the first of these two events, nor to have ceased to live immediately after the second, I would think that he would not stray much from the truth who should believe that that miracle happened about two years after the kingdom was entered upon by Sigebert, or about the year 567, [Rusticus, as having died, as it appears, not long before him, seems to have died about the year 574.] and Goar's death about the year 575 or the following.
[19] As regards now the time at which St. Rusticus died: Sigebert, when by the miracle, which from what has been said happened about the year 567, the sin of unchastity into which Rusticus, bishop of Trier, had fallen had been laid open, wished to depose him and to put St. Goar in his place in the see of Trier, as both his biographers narrate; and then, when Goar had at that time refused it in every way, seven years later, as the same biographers report, he again thought of creating him bishop of the people of Trier; but since Rusticus had by then washed away by the works of long penance the stain of the sin for which he had deserved to be deposed, I consider that Sigebert thought again at that time of creating Goar bishop of the people of Trier, not because Rusticus was to be deposed, but because he had already died, and that he accordingly, being taken from the living not long before St. Goar, as it is easy to gather from what has been said, ceased to live about the year 574; being moved also by this, that he is commonly believed to have died not long after the seven-year penance had been completed, which, as it appears, had been begun immediately after the oft-mentioned miracle.
§ II. The order in which he sat among the bishops of Trier, brief Acts, his burial.
It is proved that Rusticus sat at Trier between Nicetius and Magnericus, It may not undeservedly be judged that St. Rusticus occupied the see of Trier between Nicetius and Magnericus; for he was raised to it only after the first of these, and yet not after the second, as will become clear from what is now to be said. Sigebert I, when he had begun to reign, at once restored Nicetius to the see of Trier, from which he had been driven, as Gregory of Tours teaches in the Lives of the Fathers, chapter 17; wherefore, since Nicetius was certainly bishop of the people of Trier at the very first beginning of the reign of Sigebert I, and yet, as anyone will conclude from what we discussed in the immediately preceding §, Rusticus also occupied the see of Trier while the same Sigebert I was reigning, it must be that he was raised to it only after Nicetius. Further, this was not likewise done after Magnericus: for Magnericus certainly prolonged his life beyond the year 590, as it is permissible to see at the 6th day of July in the Commentary prefixed to his Acts, no. 10; wherefore if St. Rusticus was raised to the see of Trier only after him, it will follow that he was certainly not bishop of the people of Trier while Sigebert I, who died in the year 579, was reigning, contrary to what the Acts of St. Goar
written by an anonymous author of the seventh century and published in our work, openly require, as anyone will recognize without difficulty from what we said in the immediately preceding §.
[21] and Hontheim, who contends the opposite, by no means [proves this,] Hontheim saw this, and, nevertheless unwilling to allow Rusticus to be between Nicetius and Magnericus, he inserts him, in volume I of the Historia Diplomatica Trevirensis, in the series of the archbishops of Trier composed by him, page LX, between Fibicius and Aprunculus, placed immediately before Nicetius; and then in volume III of the same history, page 974, he insinuates that it could easily have come about that Wandelbert, a writer of the ninth century, when he narrates in the Life of St. Goar what St. Rusticus did when already bishop of Trier, strayed from the truth by applying to one of the kings, namely Sigebert, the first of that name, those things which will perhaps pertain to another, namely Theoderic, who reigned in Austrasia before the year 527, or before Nicetius was created bishop of Trier. But what Rusticus did when already bishop of Trier is narrated not only in the Life of St. Goar written by Wandelbert, but also in the other, which the anonymous writer of the seventh century composed, and both this one and that relate clearly that these things were done under King Sigebert; so that indeed Hontheim, as most manifestly fighting not only with Wandelbert but also with this latter writer, who, as I have already shown, is more ancient than Wandelbert, deserves to be abandoned here.
[22] which he wishes to prove by the reasons here adduced, But to maintain that Rusticus did not immediately succeed Nicetius, and could not therefore be placed between him and Magnericus, he still reasons thus at the place just cited: Fighting … for the immediate succession of Nicetius and Magnericus is Abbot Ebervinus in the Life of St. Magnericus, chapter 1, no. 1, where: "the most holy Nicetius, bishop of the same city, departing at the city of Trier, Magnericus succeeded in the episcopate." From him Venantius Fortunatus does not differ in the poem on St. Magnericus, which we edit in volume I, page LII, whom it is more fitting both to the words and to the sense to understand of the immediate succession of Nicetius and Magnericus, especially if the more ancient diptychs of Trier be called to aid, which also keep this order. Harsher is what Brower, at the place cited, objects to these, when he calls these catalogues bare indexes of pontiffs without reason. Surely their own age, equal to the most ancient monuments we have, adds reason and weight to them, as does also the care in forming and keeping them, which we indicated in § I of this dissertation, and which has moved us hitherto, and will move us in future, not to depart from them except on the authority of contemporary and undoubted documents.
[23] Such are the arguments contrary to us which Hontheim brings forward here; from Ebervinus but as regards Venantius Fortunatus, and Abbot Ebervinus, who subscribed to him, let it not be irksome to hear Brower again here, who reasons thus in our favour: Those will perhaps have something to delay faith in the history who remember that Venantius Fortunatus makes Magnericus the successor of his master Nicetius, to whom indeed, I confess, Abbot Ebervinus also subscribes, substituting Magnericus for Nicetius in the memorial of his Life … that Fortunatus, then, joins Magnericus to Nicetius, you may take it thus, that by the manner of speech he used he did not on that account deny that he also followed after an interval; for what forbids a disciple, and one proceeding from the school of Nicetius himself, from having reached that highest summit even later?
[24] and from Fortunatus Now if it is true, as the provincial histories relate, that Rusticus, having abdicated the priesthood, shut up for seven whole years, washed away by penance the stain he had contracted, it again cannot be denied that his episcopate, whether administered by Magnericus himself immediately or by some other provincial bishop, was, on account of that very blot of the disgrace committed, in obscurity, and so Magnericus is also rightly given as successor to Nicetius, Rusticus being passed over. It is truly strange that this interpretation of Brower did not so far suffice for Hontheim that he does not go on to heap up Venantius Fortunatus, especially since Venantius in the same poem also names Magnericus the successor of Auctor, in these words: And thou art held the worthy successor of pious Auctor; between whom, however, and Magnericus a whole century at least intervened: and indeed, since this is so, what, I ask, prevents the succession of Magnericus and Nicetius from being understood with the interval of Rusticus?
[25] and from the more ancient diptychs of Trier, Let us come now to the more ancient diptychs of Trier, to which, on account of the reasons alleged above by him, Hontheim is so glued, so to speak, that he will not depart from them except on the authority of contemporary and undoubted documents, criticizing Brower because he cares not a straw for these catalogues; but since Hontheim himself confesses in more than one place that one may depart from those diptychs, or the most ancient catalogues of the bishops of Trier, without any sin if a grave reason for doing so occurs, I do not quite see why he thought this should not be done here; for no graver reason for departing from those catalogues seems able to be brought forward than if they are detected to be erroneous in the very matter about which the question is; and this obtains here. For the dispute is about the order in which St. Rusticus is to be placed among the bishops of Trier; and that in that very order those catalogues are erroneous at that place is plain from this, that they place Rusticus immediately before Nicetius, whom Gregory of Tours, as I have already warned above, most clearly teaches immediately succeeded not Rusticus but Abrunculus.
[26] Hontheim indeed, Historia Diplomatica, volume 3, but he is shown to fight with Gregory of Tours page 962, writes thus: We, following the man of Tours and Venantius Fortunatus, keep this order: Fibicius. Aprunculus. Rusticus. Nicetius. Magnericus, etc. But that Nicetius is not given by the man of Tours as the immediate successor of Rusticus, contrary to what Hontheim indicates, will become manifest to everyone who has considered the words which Gregory supplies in the Lives of the Fathers, chapter VI. And they are the following: Then also Aprunculus, bishop of the people of Trier, passed away; and the clergy of that city, gathered to King Theoderic, asked for St. Gallus as bishop; to whom he said: Go away and seek another; for I have the deacon Gallus destined elsewhere. Then, electing St. Nicetius, they received him as bishop. What could the man of Tours have said more expressly against Hontheim in our favour?
[27] and with himself; Besides this, Hontheim, writing in the same place what I have already said, fights with himself, when, weaving the series of the bishops of Trier in volume 1 of the Historia Diplomatica Trevirensis from page LVII, he places Aprunculus in it immediately before Nicetius, judging, namely, that this was to be done, because he then observed that the words of the man of Tours just recited require it. Nor do I doubt that he would likewise have placed Rusticus in it between Nicetius and Magnericus, if he had considered that in the time of Aprunculus, between whom and Fibicius he places Rusticus, not Sigebert but Theoderic reigned in Austrasia, and accordingly that neither the Acts of St. Goar which the anonymous writer of the seventh century composed, nor the others composed by Wandelbert, by any means allow Rusticus to be placed before Aprunculus, inasmuch as they most openly require, as is clear from what has already been said above, that Rusticus be believed to have sat not under Theoderic, Sigebert's paternal uncle, but under Sigebert himself.
[28] [and there is no doubt that, if he had considered these things, he himself would have admitted the order in which we have established that Rusticus sat.] Besides, the same writer himself, in the above-praised series of the bishops of Trier which he composed, makes me think it even less to be doubted that Hontheim, if he had considered the aforesaid things, would have granted Rusticus a place between Nicetius and Magnericus. For in it, after he has shown that Nicetius departed from the living in the year 566, he affirms that Magnericus was created bishop of Trier only in the year 573, and so by this placing leaves room for Rusticus between the two. But whatever Hontheim would finally have done, if he had weighed what has already been said, we for our part, following the opinion of Brower and Pinius for the reasons already alleged, have granted Rusticus a place in the series of the bishops of Trier between Nicetius and Magnericus.
[29] [No other deeds of his become known than those which are read in the Life of St. Goar. Hence for the reader, from Scheckmann,] Furthermore, as we warned above, no other deeds of his become known than those which are narrated about his fall and penance in the Acts of St. Goar; these have been edited by Surius, Le Cointe, Mabillon, Le Cointe's Annals of Germany Callesius, and at the 6th day of July by our Pinius, with notes subjoined and with a Commentary which he prefixed to them. These the reader eager to know what pertains to Rusticus may consult; but so that he may spare himself this labour, if he wishes, I here present an epitome of all that pertains to Rusticus in those Acts, from Scheckmann, who, since he differs from the anonymous writer of the Life of St. Goar only in a more succinct manner of narrating, deserves to be heard here.
[30] an epitome of these, which [shows in what way St. Goar cleared himself of the charges] Having prefixed, therefore, a brief eulogy of St. Rusticus, in which he indicates that he washed away by penance the stains of the sin he had committed, he writes thus: But let us finish the story: Goar, truly beloved of God, was endowed with the highest holiness, given to the highest abstinence, which, however, out of the love of charity and in regard to hospitality, he generally broke if strangers had come; whence, as if impatient of fasting, being denounced to Bishop Rusticus by the malicious accusation and false suspicion of certain envious persons, he was summoned by the bishop's order and compelled to appear. Goar therefore meets his denouncers and envoys, of whom one was called Albiwinus, the other Adaluuinus; and, finding them exhausted by want of food and almost failing in their limbs, he restored their weary limbs to their former vigour by anointing them with evening milk milked from three hinds.
[31] before Rusticus, The humble priest Goar is set before Bishop Rusticus, a man in all things upright and simple, so much so (that) he hung his cloak on a ray of the sun shining through a chink of a certain corner, thinking it would be a wooden bar; but the beam of the radiant sun did not deny it the hardness of wood, nor the office of a holder. Rusticus ascribing these wonderful works to magic arts, Goar, humbly excusing himself, said: "God, just, strong and patient, searcher of hearts and inspector of secrets, knows that I have never at any time known nor do know anything at all of the magic art; nor have I milked wild beasts with any incantations; likewise, I do not well know that my garment hung on a ray of the sun, but on an oaken staff. As to my being said to eat and drink in the morning, let God, the knower of all, see and judge whether I did it by the vice of gluttony or by the office of charity."
[32] While Goar was going on with these things, there came up one of the clerics, Geobisus by name, [and he, when the hidden sin which he had committed had been laid open by a miracle wrought at the prayers of St. Goar,] carrying an infant born three nights before. Seeing it, Rusticus, rejoicing that everything had come according to his wishes, said, addressing his courtiers: "Ho! now the works of Goar will be proved, (whether) they come forth from God or from the adversary." Then, turning to Goar, he said: "Come, let the little infant designate its parents by their own names." Then you might have seen Goar afflicted, distressed and saddened, yet neither able nor daring nor willing to resist the bishop's commands, but with tears his face
bathed, in the name of the Trinity bids the infant of three nights declare and make known its parents. And it, incapable of speech, with hand stretched out towards the bishop, answered most plainly: "That Bishop Rusticus is my father, and my mother is called Flavia."*
[33] had been brought to penance, he sets forth, is here exhibited, But the prelate, seeing himself caught by the just judgement of God, falls prostrate at Goar's feet, having been brought, begging pardon with submissive entreaties, that he would obtain for him indulgence for his sins with the Most High; which he promised he would do unweariedly. Then Rusticus, having undertaken a voluntary penance (as we have related), deserved to be a model and a mirror: and hence it came about (that) there was afterwards a resurrection and an advance for those to whom before there had been destruction and scandal. Thereafter, leading his life in holy simplicity without crime, he at length rested with a happy end on the day before the Ides of October. These are the things which, related more fully by the anonymous and by Wandelbert, I have inserted in this Commentary by way of a compendium.
[34] [and the place where he performed it, and the other where he was buried, are assigned.] Where St. Rusticus accomplished his penance the anonymous and Wandelbert are silent; but Scheckmann, in the eulogy prefixed to the saint, and more recent writers record that he was shut up for seven years in the monastery of Blessed Mary on the bank of the Moselle, St. Goar meanwhile, as he had promised him, praying to God for him without intermission; until at length, most fully expiated, he reached the harbour of eternal happiness, a truly memorable example of human frailty, and a mirror of true penance for the fallen. He obtained a place of burial, according to the testimony of the same Scheckmann, in the church of St. Paulinus there at Trier, in the apse of the right side, behind the altar of Blessed John the Evangelist, next to the baptistery.