Ambrose of Cahors

ON ST. AMBROSE OF CAHORS, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR,

ABOUT THE YEAR 770.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Ambrose, bishop and Confessor, at Cahors. (S.)

BY J. V. H.

§ I. The memory of the Saint in the sacred calendars and his cult.

His memory in the sacred calendars: Usuard and various copies of Ado recall the memory of St. Ambrose on this day; but they do not agree among themselves concerning various circumstances which surround today's announcement. For in the Adonian copies, brought forward by Domenico Giorgi outside the text of the pure Ado, under the seventeenth day before the Kalends of November, there is found Martyrology of Ado, Rome 1715, p. 531.: At the city of Bourges, the birthday of St. Ambrose, priest and confessor: the Fulda Martyrology of an Anonymous too, which, on the testimony of the said Giorgi Ibid., Preface, p. XV., was written in the 10th century, announces the Saint in these words Ibid., p. 671.: The birthday of St. Ambrose, priest and confessor. Moreover Usuard too, as our Du Sollier edited him, has: In the territory of Bourges, of St. Ambrose, confessor; but because in the Usuard of Molanus there is written in another character: bishop of Cahors, therefore Molanus himself, and our Du Sollier who follows him, hold it as an addition. All these hagiologists therefore speak in such a way as if the mitre of Cahors were not to be ascribed to St. Ambrose: but nevertheless that silence ought not to prejudice our Saint's episcopate, which is expressly asserted in his Life to be published below; which, although it does not seem contemporary, is yet of such antiquity that it can prove its credibility concerning some chief circumstance of his life. But besides, the Usuardine reading which Du Sollier shows us is not wholly certain: for the Genuine Martyrology of the same Usuard, which Dom Bouillart, a monk of the Order of St. Benedict of Saint-Maur, published at Paris in the year 1718 as the autograph of the author himself, reads in another way, namely: In the district of Bourges, of St. Ambrose, bishop of Cahors. This reading indeed Du Sollier pronounces true, but the other, he says, which is ours, I judge truly Usuardine. We have no leisure to inquire more laboriously into the merits of the one reading or the other; especially since the said Benedictine himself admits that the announcement of St. Ambrose is placed on an erasure. From elsewhere, as we have already said and as we shall show more plainly below, it is established for us that our Saint occupied the see of Cahors. With full right, therefore, the Roman Martyrology, put together by Baronius, announces today: In the territory of Bourges, of St. Ambrose, bishop of Cahors. The Parisian Martyrology too, published by order of Cardinal de Noailles, and that of Auxerre, published by order of Charles de Caylus, ascribe the bishopric of Cahors to St. Ambrose, saying: Among the Bituriges, the deposition of St. Ambrose, bishop of Cahors. So then the Adonian copies which call the Saint simply a priest must be interpreted in such a way that his episcopal dignity nevertheless remains safe: unless therefore we assign this error of title to the ignorance of interpolators, it would be necessary to say that he is called simply a priest because, having laid aside the episcopal dignity, he reduced himself of his own accord to this lower order.

[2] founded also under his patronage What we have said thus far about the Martyrologies abundantly demonstrates that the cult of St. Ambrose, although not very widespread, rests nevertheless on the firmest foundations. The Church of Cahors keeps his memory with the rite, as it is commonly called, of semidouble, according to the present Breviary of Cahors: but formerly St. Ambrose was celebrated with double rite, as we have from the Proper of the Saints of the same diocese: a copy of each legend was kindly communicated to us by the Rev. Mr. Layrac, secretary of the diocese of Cahors: the antiquity of the same cult is proved by the Life inserted in the Sanctoral of Cahors, which Guillaume de la Croix shows in his book: Series and Acts of the bishops of Cahors. On account of the Saint's burial and of the monastery or chapter founded under his invocation, the diocese of Bourges also keeps his feast day, probably with semidouble rite: for the liturgical Calendar of Bourges which I have before me is of the year 1831; and therefore, on account of the concurrence of Sunday with the 16th of October, only a commemoration of the Saint is prescribed. In the Breviary of Bourges, published by order of Roland Hébert, archbishop, in the year 1625, a copy of which we have in use in a certain codex, partly manuscript, partly printed, and containing various proper Offices of the dioceses of the Gauls, the feast of St. Ambrose is celebrated with double rite and the following prayer is recited: Grant, we beseech thee, O Lord, to thy faithful worthily to celebrate the solemnities of St. Ambrose, thy Confessor and bishop, that what they faithfully perform they may both experience here by his help and lay hold of with eternal affections. Through Christ. The Canons Regular of the Gallican Congregation, however, to whom the church of St. Ambrose belonged, celebrated the feast of their patron on the 18th day of October, as the Rev. Mr. Figier, canon and secretary of the archbishopric of Bourges, writes to us in a letter of the 22nd of November 1840; from whom we have also received other excellent information about St. Ambrose. A most powerful argument of the cult is also offered us by the monastery

with the attached church founded under his invocation, or rather restored, by Geoffrey, called the Noble, viscount of Bourges. The charter of this matter exists among the Instruments of the Church of Bourges in the Gallia Christiana Vol. II, Instruments, col. 49.: and from it it becomes clear that the said Geoffrey did not so much found the church of St. Peter and St. Ambrose as restore to it what it had lost: for he speaks thus: The years that have passed from the institution of the Lord's Incarnation until this charter was made are one thousand and twelve… Therefore I, Geoffrey, viscount of the city of Bourges, render thanks to almighty God, who makes me look to and see the salvation of my soul and the honour of my body, in that I have wished to bring back into honour and stability the place of St. Peter and of St. Ambrose, who rests in his church; for to that place of Bl. Peter, prince of the Apostles, I, Geoffrey, and my wife Eldeburgis and our sons Geoffrey and Madalbert and the brothers of my wife, Odo and Ebbo, of good will RESTORE, for the remedy of the soul of my wife's father Radulf and for the remedy of our souls and of all our kinsfolk, King Robert assenting and Bishop Dagbert confirming, the lands which belong to that place, namely these… I give also from my own property two fairs, namely one on the festival of St. Peter in the month of June and the other on the birthday of St. Ambrose, and each for seven days and as many nights, etc. The goods which Geoffrey restores seem to have come to that church from the inheritance or dowry of Eldeburgis, since he restores them by the will of his said wife and her brothers, and above all for the remedy of the soul of Radulf her father: but when he indicates that he restores some things of good will to the church, but gives some from his own property, he sufficiently shows that the said church had once been endowed with its own goods, and accordingly that he is not so much the founder as the restorer. Indeed, that there was already a temple there even before the death of St. Ambrose is proved by the burial of Siginus, bishop of Bourges, who died a little after the middle of the eighth century, a fragment of whose epitaph is cited in the Gallia Christiana Vol. II, col. 19.:

Here lies a pastor of the church, and a faithful husband. The hard stone hides his dear inward parts.

[3] at Bourges a collegiate church. The church of St. Ambrose which Geoffrey founded or restored was, however, rather a secular chapter of canons than a monastery of regulars. For the said charter permits his prebend to the judgment of each canon, so that he can either give it to another canon or leave it; which freedom is very far removed from the rigour of religious life. Here are the words of Geoffrey: And I restore to them (the canons) whatever shall come to the altar of that St. Peter and to that whole church, whether in gold or in silver, or lands, or lights, or all things whatsoever that shall come or shall be given; we grant to those canons that how great a number it shall please them to add, or to take away from the company of their own congregation, shall remain in their right or power; the prebends too of that place we grant to the same canons on this condition, that no bishop, no abbot, no man shall ever presume to sell, or give, or take them away. But let each canon have power to give or leave his prebend to another canon by the counsel of the other canons who actually serve in the same place… This largess was made on the third day before the Nones of August, King Robert reigning in the tenth year, the prelate Dagbert presiding in the chair of the Church of Bourges in the eighth year. These chronological notes, however, do not agree among themselves nor with the year of Christ 1012. For Dagbert obtained the bishopric of Bourges more probably nine full years before Robert, his father Hugh Capet having died in the year 996, came to the kingdom of France: and accordingly the tenth year of Robert would rather concur with the eighteenth year of Dagbert's pontificate. But neither of the years agrees with the year of the common era 1012, but rather with the year 1005 or 1006; which chronology Guillaume de la Croix adopted in his book on the Series and Acts of the bishops of Cahors p. 34.. But since neither time nor resources, nor even the importance of the matter, permit the unravelling of these tangles, let it suffice here to have indicated the charter of Geoffrey, and accordingly that the restoration of the church of St. Ambrose is to be placed within the first twelve years of the eleventh century. The chapter of St. Ambrose of Bourges was in the course of time transferred from the secular state to the regular institute of the canons of St. Augustine under Pierre de La Châtre, archbishop, in the year 1151 Labbe, Library of Manuscripts, vol. II, p. 58., as we shall show more fully below.

[4] The Acts which will be published below The Acts of St. Ambrose are contained chiefly in four monuments: of which two are the lessons of the ancient Breviary of Bourges and of the Sanctoral of Cahors, and they agree among themselves well enough that they seem to have borrowed the historical narrative from one another. The third monument is a rhythmic hymn, which Guillaume de la Croix shows us Series of the bishops of Cahors, p. 36.. It has nothing which other writings do not relate: indeed in its narrative it embraces only those things which the Saint did at Cahors, no mention being made of the journey to Rome or to Tours, or of the death or burial at Bourges; after it has related, then, how the blessed bishop, discovered in the cave, came out of it, the people beseeching him to resume the government of his Church, the hymn ends with a brief prayer to St. Ambrose:

Ambrose, loving confessor, Be our intercessor, Be our advocate, For those with whom the judge is angry.

The fourth monument is the Life of St. Ambrose, written in a fuller style indeed, yet a simple one: this we publish below from the Library of manuscripts of Philippe Labbe Vol. II, p. 347.. To this edition, however, we shall add variant readings, chiefly from the codex of Queen Christina of Sweden, which our John Bolland excerpted accurately, as he himself testifies, and which we found in the cases of the Royal Library of Brussels. In this codex, however, since it is more recent than Labbe's, there are various additions, some of which illustrate the deeds done and agree with them as fully as possible: wherefore we shall subjoin these to Labbe's copy among the Annotations, or subjoin them to the text in the remarks: but the briefer variants, which consist in one or another little word added, omitted or transposed, we shall write in the margin of the primary text according to our custom, with the note RS, by which we shall indicate the codex of the queen of Sweden. To these monuments could be numbered the Life of St. Allogiosus, published in the Gallia Christiana Vol. I, Instruments of the Church of Cahors, col. 28., and which Edmond Martène drew out of a codex eight hundred years old Ibid., col. 118.. Of this Saint, the collectors say, no mention is found elsewhere: and from this Life we could not learn at what time he lived: wherefore we have relegated his Acts among the instruments. There was no Allogiosus at Cahors: it is a simple corruption of the name for Ambrose: for word for word, if you except a very few things, they are most similar to the Acts of St. Ambrose, as is plain even to one who inspects them in passing.

[5] are of sufficiently venerable antiquity. The Acts which we shall publish below have as their author a certain anonymous writer, who indeed does not indicate his age, except by these words with which he concludes the narrative: But his disciple (of St. Ambrose), Agrippinus by name, followed him wherever he walked, and taught all the things that are written. The text of the queen of Sweden is a little otherwise: But his disciple, Agrippinus by name, who followed him wherever he walked, taught us all the things that are written about him. From each text it may be drawn that the anonymous author drew his narrative from an eyewitness, namely Agrippinus, archdeacon of the Church of Cahors, very familiar with our Saint, and the only one who was aware of his secret withdrawal. There is also something else which smells of something native and contemporary, at num. 10: namely that the beard of St. Ambrose, as he came out of the cave, had come down to his breast, and that he was like a layman, because the razor in those three years had not gone up upon his head. An image of this kind, which depicts a very slight matter to the eye and agrees most fitly with contemporary manners, would scarcely, in my judgment, occur to a writer who had either not seen the matter in person or not heard it from an eyewitness. For that it was formerly the custom in the Western Church for clerics to shave the beard is testified first of all by St. Gregory VII, book VIII, letter X, to Orzocco, judge of Cagliari Labbe, vol. X of the Councils, col. 258 and following: The clergy of the whole Western Church from the very beginnings of the Christian faith has held the custom of shaving the beard. With this agrees the testimony of Ratramnus, monk of Corbie, a writer of the ninth century, who, in book IV, chap. V, Against the objections of the Greeks In d'Achery, Spicilegium, vol. I, p. 102. Paris edition 1723., says that the Greeks do not fear to blame for the shaving of the beard the clerics not only of the Romans but of all the Western Churches; and he fitly answers: This habit of clerics (of a shaven or grown beard) is not indeed uniform in all the Churches, but varied and different according to the custom of the elders, nor has contention ever arisen hence among the Churches either Western or Eastern, but each has held what it received from its elders, or what the usage of the provinces rather approved. A little below, however, he says: Following this custom the clerics of the Romans, or of almost all the Churches throughout the West, shave their beards. Whence it is given to be understood that a very few exceptions existed in the West itself: therefore the reading of canon XLIV of the Fourth Council of Carthage, celebrated in the year 398, is not to be held as Molanus shows it On the History of sacred images, p. 302, note y.: Let a cleric neither grow his hair nor shave his beard: as if it had been forbidden to African clerics to shave the beard. For codices of the best mark strike out the word: shave Labbe, vol. II of the Councils, col. 1203.: in which case the canon makes for our matter. Whoever wishes to know more about this discipline, let him go to Cardinal Baronius, Ecclesiastical Annals, year 58, § CXXXVII and following. Further, the antiquity of the said Life of St. Ambrose is made more certain by its silence about the second translation to Bourges, since he is said simply to rest actually in the village of Ernotrum; whereas it is established from no. 3, as it is read in the codex of the queen of Sweden, that already in the tenth century the body of the Saint, translated to Bourges, had a cult there; indeed it is probable enough that in the preceding century the Relics of the sacred body had been brought within the city on account of the furies of the Normans, as we shall see below. And hence it may be concluded that the codex of the queen of Sweden is of some more recent hand, inasmuch as it adds near the end the translation of the body. Labbe's text, treating of the village of Ernotrum, says: Where his body rests in peace, where through him the Lord has deigned to show many miracles: but the codex of the queen of Sweden has: where his body rested … afterwards, by the Lord's command, his body was translated

near the city of Bourges, and was placed in the place which is called Bissiacus, our Lord Jesus Christ reigning, etc. From all these it becomes clear enough that the Life to be published below was written by an Anonymous nearly contemporary.

§ II. The episcopate of St. Ambrose and the things done in it.

The time of the episcopate of St. Ambrose Of the birth, youth, and the things done before the episcopate of St. Ambrose his biographers relate nothing; for what is hinted at by the Life which is wrongly inscribed to St. Allogiosus, of which above at no. 4, as if St. Ambrose before his episcopate had been married and been tempted by his wife, is of no moment, since it is found in this codex alone, and there, enclosed in brackets and bound by no connexion with what precedes and follows, it seems wholly added. But what is to be regretted, no ancient writings disclose the time at which the Saint lived; whence there necessarily wavers both the epoch at which he took up the bishopric of Cahors and that at which he died his last day. The Sanctoral of Cahors asserts that he was bishop of the city of Cahors in the time of Pippin, king of the Franks. And the catalogues of the bishops of Cahors agree in this time. But it is not equally clearly established that St. Ambrose first occupied the see after Pippin was saluted king of the Franks in the year 752, as Guillaume de la Croix insinuates from the cited text of the Sanctoral, saying that the Saint lived after the year 751, in which Pippin was anointed king in the month of March; for many began the beginning of the year from the paschal solemnity. But such was the state of Gaul that some points about the widowed Churches seem to need to be noted beforehand. It is certain, namely, from the letter of St. Boniface of Mainz to Pope Zachary in the year 742, letter LI Würdtwein, Letters of St. Boniface, p. 106. Serarius, Letter CXXXII., that the state of the Church in Gaul had been very wretched, especially under Charles Martel: For the Franks, he says, for more than the space of eighty years have held no synod, nor had an archbishop, nor founded or renewed anywhere the canonical rights of the Church. But now for the most part throughout the cities the episcopal sees have been handed over to greedy laymen to possess, or to adulterous clerics, fornicators and publicans, to enjoy in worldly fashion. To turn away these evils, therefore, from the Churches of the Gauls, St. Boniface writes that Carloman, duke of the Franks, to whom the governing of Austrasia had fallen, wished to gather a synod in which the things which had for a long time been trampled on and scattered might be corrected and amended. And this was accomplished in some manner by the second canon of the Council of Les Estinnes Labbe, vol. VI of the Councils, col. 1537., by which, the bishops and Carloman consenting, it was decreed that the things which had formerly been taken away from the churches should indeed be retained, but under precarium and rent, so that from each household, or, as Pope Zachary speaks in letter LXX among those of Boniface Würdtwein, p. 184. Serarius CXXXVIII., from each married couple of serfs, twelve denarii should be paid every year; and moreover that, the lay possessor dying, the thing itself should be restored to the Church. I think it worth while to explain something here about the precarium, since pacts of this kind, used in ancient law but long since abolished, have scarcely left a trace of themselves. The doctors rightly define precarium from the very words of the canon law, c. III de Precario (III, 14): That which is granted for use at the prayers of the petitioner for as long as he who granted it permits. It is therefore a donation of use always revocable. From these it now becomes manifest that what in the Council of Les Estinnes is said to be granted under precarium, since it is subjected to another's use until the death of the lay possessor, cannot strictly be called precarium, and approaches the precaria, which is defined: That which is granted for use until the death of him to whom the use is granted. And that kind of pact is not to be confused with precariae: for precariae are a contract by which a thing is given for use for a certain time, and if the time of the grant be longer, lest its memory perish by its length, it is to be renewed every five years. The nature and difference of these pacts Hostiensis explains charmingly enough in four little verses:

Riae, Ria, Rium tria sunt, quibus est caput unum: Riae sunt solitae per singula lustra novari; Ria fit ad vitam, nec citra vult revocari; Finiturque Rium tunc quando vult suus auctor.

[-riae, -ria, -rium are three things which have one head: the -riae are wont to be renewed every five years; the -ria is made for life, and will not be revoked short of it; and the -rium is ended whenever its author wills.]

[7] it seems that it can probably be placed about the year 745. But this restoration of the Churches seems, as the said letter of St. Boniface insinuates, to concern Austrasia, which Carloman ruled, without its having to be extended to the rest of the Gauls, in which Cahors was. Nevertheless letter IX of Pope Zachary Ibid., given on the day before the Kalends of November, in the reign of the lord most pious Augustus Constantine, great emperor crowned by God, in the year 27, in the year 5 of his empire, in the 14th indiction, plainly says that a synod was gathered through the mediation of Pippin and Carloman; and indeed that in the said synod the annual rent of twelve denarii to be paid to the Church was treated of. Yet no record exists of a council at which Pippin and Carloman came together with the bishops of all Gaul: it is probable therefore that the synod was twofold, namely at Les Estinnes for Austrasia in the year 743 according to Philippe Labbe Vol. VI of the Councils, col. 1537., or, as Mansi will have it Vol. I of the Supplement, col. 551., in the year 745, and at Soissons for the rest of Gaul in the year 744; and from the third canon of this Council Labbe, vol. VI of the Councils, col. 1553. it is plain that legitimate bishops were then established throughout the cities, and that likewise an annual rent was to be paid for the things taken away: whence it appears that the synod of Soissons agrees very greatly with that of Les Estinnes. It can be asked, therefore, whether in the said year 744 St. Ambrose was set over the Church of Cahors: nor would the answer in the affirmative be doubtful if the state of Aquitaine had been peaceful: but since at this very time all things in that province were greatly disturbed, I would easily admit that one or another year passed between the synodal sanction and the restoration of the see of Cahors: we are not compelled, however, to prolong the episcopate of St. Ambrose to the time of King Pippin, that is, to the year 752; but since in the year 744 and the following Carloman went into Aquitaine, it is probable that he then settled ecclesiastical affairs; and accordingly that the episcopate of St. Ambrose is to be begun from about this epoch. It seems therefore that we must depart from the opinion of Guillaume de la Croix Series and Acts of the Bishops of Cahors, p. 32. and of Adrien Baillet, who thought the beginning of our Saint's episcopate was to be fixed after the year of Christ 752, in which Pippin was saluted king: the historian of Cahors Cathala-Coture History of Quercy, vol. I, p. 82. (of whom we shall also have to treat below) seems also to need correction, who says that St. Ambrose took up the government of the Church of Cahors in the year of Christ 742; in which year certainly affairs in the Gauls were not ripe enough for a reformation of the ecclesiastical state to be begun.

[8] Things done in the episcopate: Of the things done by St. Ambrose in his episcopate the Anonymous hands down very few, at no. 1: All days, he says, and nights he was always intent on vigils and prayers: for he trusted not in the riches of the world nor in the treasures of the Church, but in the mercy of the Lord, because he was full of the grace of God: he did not love the world, nor the means that are in the world, and he gave away to the poor the property of the Church and the private wealth which he had, he covered the naked, he fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, redeemed captives, prepared for himself treasure in heaven. All the senators in the city spoke wicked words against him. And when the Saint of God Ambrose saw all of them seething against him, turning in prayer to the Lord, he said: O Lord my God, who didst bless Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, bless my soul and all that is within me in thy holy name, and lead me out of this city and from this wicked people which is opposed to me and blasphemes the works which I do in thy name. When he had said these things, full of the grace of God, he shut himself up in a little cell which was next to the church… And after these things he remained there many days. From this tenor of life we readily give credit to what is read in the Breviary of Cahors: Ambrose… desiring to renew the splendour of his Church, afflicted by long-lasting disasters, undertook to amend the discipline of the clergy and the morals of the people by salutary admonitions and examples. If, therefore, we read in the Anonymous that our Saint was shut up next to his church, this is to be so understood that he cultivated the solitude of his little cell, without, however, the pastoral care suffering any harm. Rightly, therefore, the said Breviary of Cahors, closely following the footsteps of the Anonymous, adds that his miracles carried away the sounder part of the people into admiration of him: which surely would not have happened if, neglectful of the episcopal office, he had given himself solely to contemplation. Next, how could they have said, at no. 8: Woe to us sinners who opposed his works and did not see the many miracles which God did through him, if the Saint had not ruled the people committed to him by words and examples?

[9] the time at which he left it: It is uncertain, further, how long St. Ambrose presided over his Church before, leaving the burden of the episcopate, he hid himself in a solitude unknown to all. The Breviaries of Cahors fix seven years of government, but supported by no fit witness, at least none that appears. The historian of Cahors Cathala-Coture Ibid., p. 87. conjectures that St. Ambrose began to inhabit the wilderness in that year in which the basilica of Figeac was consecrated, in the presence of Pope Stephen II Sometimes also called Stephen III, as can be seen in the Chronologers. and King Pippin, because his name does not recur among the bishops who were present at the said consecration. But I have not yet found any ancient author who would recite the names of the bishops present at the consecration of Figeac. Guillaume de la Croix, who at no. 67 Series of the Bishops of Cahors, p. 59. describes at length this prodigious consecration, says indeed, from the Acts kept in the archive of Figeac, that many Bishops were present, among whom the Most Blessed Vivianus of celebrated memory, who then flourished as bishop and count of the see of Saintes. But our men, at the 28th of August Vol. VI of August, p. 461., establish that St. Vivianus of Saintes died about the middle of the fifth century: this is certain, that St. Gregory of Tours, who died in the year of Christ 595, says in his book On the Glory of the Confessors, chap. LVIII Maxima Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. XI, p. 883., that St. Vivianus or Bibianus rests in the suburb of the city of Saintes; and accordingly it is certain that he died at least sixty years before the consecration of Figeac. The Acts of the archive of Figeac are therefore suspect in this part, and do not deserve credence. Indeed, this very prodigious consecration of the church of Figeac, at least in so far as it would have to be propped up by contemporary diplomas, wholly totters. Le Cointe accurately proves At the year 754, § LXXIV, vol. V, p. 449. that Pope Stephen II, who is said to have given a bull

Gallia Christiana, vol. I, Instruments, col. 43. in the same monastery (of Figeac) on the seventh day before the Ides of November, in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 755, in the 7th indiction, and in the 4th year of the Lord Pope Stephen II, was not in the Gauls in that same year 755: and if the consecration be put back to the preceding year, in which Stephen actually stayed in the Gauls, the difficulty is not solved; since it is established that Pope Stephen, leaving Paris, went by a straight road over the Alps into Italy, and was at Rome in the month of January of the year 755. Then the very bull of Pope Stephen, given, as is supposed, at Cahors, shows some things which do not square with the style of the eighth century: for it is said in the cited bull: Moreover let no archbishop, or bishop, or cardinal have the faculty of excommunicating him (the abbot of Figeac), but only the Roman Pontiff. Although the dignity and pre-eminence of the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church is most ancient, yet it seems to belong to later centuries that the cardinals should be recalled by special mention. And hence too the bull of Figeac seems wholly to have undergone some interpolation.

[10] on which occasion the monuments of Figeac are discussed, A diploma of King Pippin is cited too d'Achery, Spicilegium, vol. III, p. 319., given in the same place (namely in the monastery of Figeac) on the sixth day before the Ides of November in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 755, in the ninth indiction. But since in this charter the king says that, the Lord Pope Stephen being present, he beheld (the monastery of Figeac) wonderfully consecrated by God; the same things seem able to be objected against the charter of King Pippin which were opposed to the bull of Pope Stephen, namely that no trace exists of a journey of Pope Stephen toward Aquitaine; nor can a fitting time be found, whether we look at the fifty-fourth year or the following. Nevertheless the subsequent bulls of various Roman Pontiffs, who ground new privileges granted to the monks of Figeac on the primary bull of Stephen, seem to wipe away blemishes of this kind: whence also the authors of the Gallia Christiana Vol. I, Instruments, col. 43. say that all authority is not to be taken away from the letters of Stephen. But the bulls which are brought forward are themselves also deservedly judged suspect: for there is cited first of all a bull of Paschal I of the year 822 Ibid., in which it is said that the monastery which is called Conques should be under the government of Aymar as it had formerly been, and that he should restore it (him) in the dignity of a priory, because it was destroyed. But these things are wholly contrary to those which are found written in the Life of Louis the Pious by a contemporary called the Astronomer: inasmuch as in it Dom Bouquet, vol. VI, p. 95. the monastery of Conques is numbered among the many monasteries repaired, nay built from the foundations, by Louis the Pious. The narrative of the contemporary is strengthened by a diploma of the same Louis Gallia Christiana, vol. I, col. 236., given on the sixth day before the Ides of April, in the sixth year, Christ being propitious, of the empire of the lord Louis, most excellent Augustus, in the 12th indiction. Done at Aachen, the royal palace. Now in this sixth year of Louis, that is, of Christ 820, a church is said to have been built there in honour of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Medraldus the abbot is named, a congregation increasing daily is also mentioned, which at length began to serve as soldiers under the rule of St. Benedict. All which in no way square with the things which are claimed to have been written two years later by Paschal I. Nor can the rescript of Urban II, cited by Guillaume de la Croix Series of the Bishops of Cahors, p. 56., bring help to the said bull, by which the Pontiff, after an opening most similar to the Paschaline bull, grants a plenary indulgence to the church of Figeac: for it is addressed to Stephen, bishop of Cahors, whereas it is established that in the year of Christ 1093, in which the bull is said to have been given, not some Stephen but Gerald II occupied the see of Cahors, as the authors of the Gallia Christiana prove Vol. I, col. 127 and 128.. I believe, accordingly, that all these bulls are fictitious, and fictitious for this reason, that a suit was being conducted between the monks of Figeac and of Conques concerning the primacy of one or the other monastery. The monks of Figeac cited on their own behalf, besides the said letters of Pope Stephen and King Pippin, a diploma of the same prince, by which Mabillon, Benedictine Annals, book XXVII, § III, vol. II, p. 395. the hermits of Conques were commended to the abbot of Figeac, so that he might supply their want from his abundance: and because they lived in most rough, steep and most narrow places, they should have a head in a spacious and delightful place, where their bodies might both be relieved from labour and refreshed from penury. Then concerning the election of the abbot these things are added: But when the abbot of these (of Figeac) shall have died, so long as they can find one among themselves, let them choose from their own one who can rule them according to the rule of St. Benedict. But if among the hermits of Conques a better one shall seem good to them, let them not disdain to take a father for themselves from there; yet in such wise that the reverence of the abbacy be reserved to the earlier monastery, that is, Figeac, and the dignity of the priory remain at Conques. Thus far indeed the monks of Figeac. But the monks of Conques sing a wholly different tune, who show a diploma given by Pippin, king of Aquitaine, son of Louis the Pious Bosc, Memoirs toward the history of the Rouergue, vol. III, p. 153.: on the tenth day before the Kalends of September, in the 1st indiction, in the 25th year of the empire of Louis Caesar Augustus and the 22nd of our reign, that is, the year of Christ 838. In this charter indeed it is said: Meanwhile it has pleased our serenity that, since the same monastery (of Conques) is established in steep and most rough places, so that by its narrowness it hinders the habitation of very many, and by its roughness prevents provisions from being brought thither, a monastery should be built in the place whose name is Figeac, which, however, it has pleased us from now on to be called New Conques, so that, the same place being relieved from the narrowness and penury of carrying food, those dwelling there may serve God more freely and more delightfully … yet in such wise that the dignity of the priory and the reverence of antiquity be reserved to the earlier monastery, Conques. These things certainly cannot stand with the assertions of the monks of Figeac, inasmuch as they are plainly contradictory: meanwhile it is not mine to settle an entangled suit: let it suffice to have observed that some forger lies beneath here: in my opinion the diploma of Conques flows clearly enough, and uses a tenor of words which does not seem apt for settling the controversy, for example dignity of the priory, which the monks of Figeac adroitly twisted to their own advantage. The unpleasant suit was at length settled by Urban II in the council of Nîmes in the year 1097, when he left each monastery its own right [Mabillon, Acts of the Benedictine Saints, saec. III, part II, p. 448, and Gallia Christiana, vol. I, Instruments, p. 44.]. But enough of these things: the discussion must be brought back to our St. Ambrose.

[11] and the historian of Cahors is refuted From the monuments of Figeac, as we have seen, nothing can be deduced for establishing the time at which St. Ambrose withdrew into a solitude unknown to all: indeed it seems it must be put off to the year of Christ 760, when Waifar, duke of Aquitaine, began to rebel against King Pippin, because, as Ademar says in his Chronicle Labbe, Library of Manuscripts, vol. II, p. 157., he would not consent to the rights of the churches. About that time our Saint, weary of useless labour among an unteachable people and of the continued plundering of the goods of his Church, more probably sought solitude. To this is added also that the Saint must have cultivated his flock for some years before he could lawfully lay down the episcopal burden on account of the unteachableness of the people: whence it is wholly likely that the Saint withdrew about the year 759, as the more recent writers have it, among whom is Baillet. Seizing this occasion, the advocate Cathala-Coture, in his History of the district of Cahors History of Quercy, vol. I, p. 82., condemns as from a tripod the manner of acting of St. Ambrose, as abnormal and discordant with right reason: here are his words rendered into Latin: There were still seen in that century examples of such imprudent fervour. Men deserted their essential offices without remorse in order to follow austerities of their own choosing, which, the more singular they were, the more they both harmed and attracted, while they carried away the ignorant common people into admiration. This manner of acting of St. Ambrose, although in itself worthy of praise, is far from our manners and would provoke guffaws. Yet how many are there even today who, though by reason of the endowments in which they abound and the offices which they discharge they could best take care of the commonwealth, cheat nature and so humanity of its hope in them, when they give themselves to studies which they prefer to the public good? So true it is that the men of all times, all but most perfectly, are like themselves! Thus the advocate Cathala-Coture.

[12] Cathala-Coture of Cahors, If we cite these things and append a brief refutation to them, it is not that we judge the book of our advocate so celebrated that it could be dangerous; but since there come here repeated the things which, after the fashion of the 18th century, were sung everywhere by all who affected novelty, and which are still handled in common conversation and in written books, it will be worth while to refute what has been said in a few words, that truth may have its place. First of all the advocate Cathala censures St. Ambrose because, having given up the episcopal office, he hid himself in solitude: he calls such a manner of acting imprudent; namely, conscience ought to have pricked the Saint because he preferred voluntary austerities to his office. Yet the advocate ought to have known from canon law, of which it is not right for a jurisconsult to be ignorant, that among the legitimate causes of renunciation is numbered the unteachableness or malice of the people committed to one. For these things are read in c. X de Renuntiatione (I, 9): On account of the malice of the people a prelate is sometimes compelled to withdraw from its government, when the people is of so hard a neck that he cannot make progress with it, but on account of its hardness, the more he strives, the more, by a just judgment, he is permitted to fail: the Lord saying through the Prophet Ezekiel III, 26: I will make thy tongue cleave to thy palate … for it is an exasperating house. And the Apostles are read to have said to the Jews [Acts XIII, 46; the Vulgate a little otherwise: Since you reject it (the word) and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn, etc.]: Behold we turn to the gentiles, because you have made yourselves unworthy of the word of God. Yet a pastor ought not to desert his flock for every fault, lest he be compared to the hireling who sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees: but with the leave of a superior he can then at last, not so much timidly flee as providently withdraw, when the sheep are turned into wolves: and those who ought to have humbly obeyed now irrevocably contradict, since, although such persons are to be gravely punished for their crime, they are nevertheless for the time usefully to be tolerated: because he who wrings too hard draws blood. The cited canon seems to depict in its true colours St. Ambrose in the midst of a people unwilling to hear its pastor: rightly therefore did the blessed man withdraw himself from the malice of an unteachable people. About the same time St. Ado in his Chronicle shows us a similar resignation of a see Pertz, Monuments of German History, vol. II, p. 319.: Wilicarius, when the Franks, by a furious and quite insane counsel, were turning the sacred property of the Churches to their own uses, seeing his church of Vienne unbecomingly humbled,

leaving his bishopric, entered the monastery of the Holy Martyrs of Agaunum and led a venerable life. The province of Vienne and that of Lyons being devastated and scattered, both Churches were for some years without bishops, laymen sacrilegiously and barbarously holding the property of the sacred Churches. Wilicarius leaves his Church because it was devastated; besides this consideration, the unteachableness of the people and the certain hope of having a successor in the bishopric urged our Saint to flight into solitude. If therefore in similar circumstances at the present time some bishop, having abdicated his mitre, should seek solitude, it would accord excellently with manners, and, far from provoking guffaws, would be of the highest edification even to men of today.

[13] and it is shown how ineptly But as for what the advocate Cathala further says in wonder, that such weakness of mind still persists, it seems at first sight that it must be concluded that it is a thing which by its very frequency cannot stir up so great a wonder: for since it has existed always and everywhere, as he himself admits, that error must be laid back upon the character of Christianity. How further does our advocate dare by his own authority as a private man to condemn so peremptorily what is approved by the judgment of all ages? The advocate must therefore be said to feign wonder in order that he might at least obliquely carp at those institutions of the Church which, devoted chiefly to prayer and contemplation, were most attacked in that period (the year 1785) in which the author put together his History of the district of Cahors. Hence he says that nature and so humanity are cheated of their hope when anyone applies himself to studies of his own choosing, less useful to the commonwealth. By which words he points at those devoted to the monastic life, whom he pretends to be given to frivolous things; as if to spend one's life in continual prayer and to wear down the body with austerities were frivolous. But those who have tasted the first principles of the Christian religion even with the tips of their lips know that human affairs rest on prayer to God, and accordingly that it is useful both to individuals and to the whole commonwealth that there should always be those who pray in every place, lifting up pure hands I Timothy II, 8, that the scourges of divine wrath may be turned away, and that perseverance may be granted to the just and amendment of morals to sinners. This usefulness of the anchorites St. Augustine certainly acknowledged in book I On the Morals of the Catholic Church, chap. XXXI Vol. I of the Works, p. 710. Paris edition 1679.: I will say nothing of those … who, most secluded from every sight of men, content with bread alone, which is brought to them at certain intervals of time, and with water, inhabit the most deserted lands, enjoying converse with God, to whom they have cleaved with pure minds, and most blessed in the contemplation of His beauty, which cannot be perceived except by the understanding of the Saints. Nothing, I say, will I speak of these: for to some they seem to have deserted human affairs more than they ought, these not understanding how much their mind in prayers profits us, and their life as an example, whose bodies we are not allowed to see. But to dispute about this I think long and superfluous: for how can this so excellent summit of holiness be made to appear by our speech to one to whom it does not of its own accord seem to be wondered at and honoured? Only those are to be admonished who vainly boast that the temperance and continence of the most holy Christians of the catholic faith have gone so far that to some it seems they should be restrained and as it were recalled to human limits; so far are their minds judged to have gone beyond men, even by those to whom it is displeasing. So St. Augustine, aptly for refuting our advocate.

[14] carps at St. Ambrose. But if the advocate Cathala should reject these things, in so far as they are drawn from the inmost principles of the Catholic religion, let him attend, I pray, that monasticism is not only useful in order that the evangelical precepts and counsels may be kept intact and others provoked to a holier life, but also profits civil society very much. For, to pass over here how much help the monks formerly brought to the spreading of agriculture and the preserving of the sciences and arts, no one who looks with an attentive eye at the present state of things will deny that even in our century it is to be wished that there were more who would pursue solitude. For such is the condition of our times that almost all who have but learned a little of letters easily think themselves born for all things; there is nothing so lofty or arduous that they do not hope to attain it with a light hand. One thing often stands in the way of their reaching the goal sought with most ardent wishes, namely scanty family means or a fortune weighed down with debt, which closes every access to honours and pleasures. Hence there is nothing they do not devise, nothing they do not attempt, to get possession of riches at last; for acquiring which there is no easier way than if, the commonwealth being disturbed, they can invade the fortunes of others without any trouble. They gape after the wealth of others, which they desire to be theirs without labour, and try by all means to scrape it together. Now who does not see clearly that in this tempestuous time the peace and quiet of the state would be best provided for if there were monasteries to which youth could flock, burdensome to itself, unbecoming to its family, hostile to the whole of society? They would there waste their body with fasting, vigils, even stupendous austerities; or even, if they so pleased, given to idleness, they would play with anagrams, chronograms, or other literary toys of that kind: then surely, to the very great profit of both commonwealths, they would themselves be at rest, and would allow the other citizens to enjoy tranquillity: in one word, not to have done harm would be of the highest usefulness. We see today so many ringleaders of impiety threatening ruin and destruction to their fellow citizens, who vex the commonwealth, disturb it, try to overthrow it, who, if they were monks, would lead a harmless, even if perhaps useless, life De Maistre, Du Pape, book III, chap. II.. So true is it (let it be permitted to set our epiphonema against Cathala's) that men otherwise active forge from petty and fictitious circumstances principles which, if they were carried into practice, generate most grievous evils, to be paid for not by one alone but at times by a whole kingdom. Let these things said about the opinions of the advocate Cathala suffice.

§ III. The opinion of Casimir Oudin is discussed, who makes St. Ambrose of Cahors the author of the Books On the Mysteries and On the Sacraments, commonly attributed to St. Ambrose of Milan.

Oudin supposes that the books On the Sacraments and On the Mysteries Singular was the opinion of Casimir Oudin On the Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, vol. I, col. 1827 and following, attributing to our St. Ambrose the treatises On the Mysteries and On the Sacraments, which formerly commonly went under the name of St. Ambrose of Milan, Doctor of the Church. For however much we would wish nothing detracted from the glory of the Saints whose lives we comment upon, we would nevertheless fail in our office and in the reverence due to the Saints if we busied ourselves to adorn them with others' spoils. Nor yet did Oudin put forth his opinion with that design, that these treatises should accrue to the praises of St. Ambrose of Cahors, but rather that he, a crafty man, might overthrow most powerful monuments of catholic tradition. For he knew that much of their authority would be lost if he should prove them both four centuries more recent and issued by some obscure bishop, who is also called a rhapsodist. It will be worth while therefore to weigh the singular opinion of the apostate writer, and to refute it as far as the plan of this work requires. Oudin props up his opinion with roughly these arguments: he asserts first of all that one and the same author wrote both the treatise On the Mysteries and the six treatises On the Sacraments: and upon this assertion then, as upon a strong foundation, he builds another conjecture, namely that this writer is not the holy bishop of Milan, but seems wholly to be some Gallic bishop, to be placed between the years 774 and 800: whence, in Oudin's judgment, it flows as it were of its own accord that no other father can be assigned to these treatises than St. Ambrose, bishop of Cahors. To prove such opinions Oudin heaps together various things, which must now be accurately examined, lest the same labour have to be repeated at the 7th day of December, when St. Ambrose of Milan will have to be treated of.

[16] are by St. Ambrose of Cahors, for which matter he brings forward reasons: The Benedictine brethren of the Congregation of St. Maur, in the new edition of the Works of St. Ambrose which they prepared in the year 1688, wholly affirm that the holy bishop of Milan is the author of the book On the Mysteries Vol. V of the Works, p. 177 and following, Venice edition; but they then write that it seems to them that the author of the treatises On the Sacraments is different from St. Ambrose, who is the author of the book On the Sacraments Ibid., p. 199.; receiving the same opinion, the Venetian editors of the year 1781, whose edition we use in the present dissertation, approved it by their reckoning. Oudin says On the Ecclesiastical Writers, vol. I, col. 1829. that they borrowed this opinion from Aubertin, a heterodox theologian, his name, however, being kept silent: he namely had concluded the first chapter of book II On the Sacrament of the Eucharist with these words, which we copy out from Oudin himself in the place cited: Let the readers judge, then, whether it is foolish to be in doubt about the author of these books (On the Sacraments), as Bellarmine very rashly pronounces, or whether it is not on the contrary an injury to wish to attribute them to him? Of the adversaries themselves (the Catholics) Arnauld He means Doctor Arnauld., citing them in On Frequent Communion, part I, chap. XIII, says, "If indeed they are Ambrose's." I judge them to be of an author of the seventh century, patched together from the treatise of Ambrose on those who are initiated into the mysteries, expanded, and attributed to Ambrose on account of their likeness, since the name of the rhapsodist was unknown. Whether the Benedictine editors attained by their own sagacity to the view that one and the same author of both works does not exist, or whether they borrowed this opinion from Aubertin praised above, or from Godefroi Hermant, writer of the Life of St. Ambrose of Milan, matters little. One thing comes here to be discussed, by what weights of reasons Oudin was led into this opinion and defended it as for altars and hearths. He confirms his opinion by a fourfold reason, to be examined in turn: the first is that in many codices the books On the Mysteries and On the Sacraments are found joined under the name of Ambrose: the second is drawn from the likeness of style in each work: the third from the uniformity of a certain singular doctrine: the fourth finally from the connexion which exists between these various treatises, so that, just as the second book On the Sacraments calls for the first, so also the treatise On the Sacraments necessarily supposes that the book On the Mysteries was sent before it. The Benedictine editors have already met the first difficulty in their learned prologue which they placed before the books On the Sacraments Vol. V of the Works, p. 204.. For when many of the ancients were cited who ascribed these books to Ambrose, the editors replied: Those writers did not discuss the matter (namely who the author of the books was) by themselves and with deliberate design, but either some followed others, or they trusted their manuscripts, in which they found the same little work in one place inscribed with the name of Ambrose, in another joined to some treatise bearing the same inscription. For since all the most ancient codices show no name of an author, those who gave their efforts to copying them, when they knew that Ambrose had written on this very matter, did not hesitate to assign them to him: and others, although they did not think them Ambrosian, yet judged that they should be subjoined to the book On the Mysteries on account of the likeness of the subject. This very last reason Aubertin, cited above, ratifies; therefore

the two treatises are found joined almost everywhere, because the others were patched together from the one, and are accordingly most similar to one another. And this same argumentation indeed easily discloses the cause why Ratramnus called the book On the Mysteries the first book On the Sacraments. See Natalis Alexander, Ecclesiastical History, saec. IV, part I, chap. VI, art. XXVII, § II Vol. IV, p. 313 (Venice edition 1778)..

[17] first the confusion of the name; then the likeness of style and of a rite In the same way is solved the difficulty which is drawn from the likeness of style, which some admitted, as can be seen in Oudin, chap. 1, no. 3: but others denied it, as the Benedictine editors Vol. V of the Works of St. Ambrose, p. 207., Tillemont [Memoirs toward the Ecclesiastical History, vol. X, note LXII on St. Ambrose, p. 765.] in the Ecclesiastical monuments, who also cites Cardinal Bona, Rerum Liturgicarum book I, chap. VII, Dom Ceillier, On the Ecclesiastical Authors Ecclesiastical Authors, vol. VII, chap. IV, § XIV, p. 487., and even the heterodox: for Aubertin, when he says that the books On the Sacraments Works of Ambrose, vol. V, p. 200. swarm with barbarisms, have many things, of which some are both ridiculous and wholly unworthy of Ambrosian gravity, some also repugnant and contradictory, etc., Aubertin himself, I say, did not acknowledge a likeness of style between the two works. There is, however, some likeness between the two; namely as often as the author of the books On the Sacraments plucks something from the book On the Mysteries, except where at times he depraves it too much. But as often as he tries to fly, as it is commonly said, on his own wings, then he is wholly unlike the true Ambrose, nor are the genuine works of Ambrose of Milan sprinkled with those cold and childish questions which occur in the books On the Sacraments. But what the adversary comments about the likeness of a singular doctrine concerning the washing of feet has long since been confuted. For what, indeed, will you call so singular there? That the feet were washed after baptism? But that this was done both at Milan and elsewhere is noted both by Basnage himself Preface to Canisius's Lectiones Antiquae, chap. V, § XXXV, vol. I, p. 57. in the edition of the Lectiones of Canisius, and by Cornelius a Lapide in the Commentary on John chap. XIII, verse 1, citing Gabriel Vásquez: the same is also testified by C. Chardon History of the Sacraments, vol. I, p. 351. in the History of the Sacraments and by many others. But, forsooth, the author of the book On the Mysteries, chap. VI, asserts that by the washing of feet hereditary sins are taken away; for one's own are remitted through baptism: with which accords what is said in book III On the Sacraments, chap. I Works of Ambrose, vol. V, p. 222.: There are, however, those who say and try to excuse it, that this is not to be done in the mystery, not in baptism, not in regeneration: but that the feet are to be washed as for a guest (which reason, however, is hinted at in the Gothic Missal and in the old Gallican Missal Giuseppe Maria Tommasi, Codices Sacramentorum, p. 335 and 475.). The one is of humility, the other of sanctification. Finally hear that it is a mystery and sanctification: Unless I wash thy feet, thou shalt have no part with me (John XIII)… Because Adam was tripped up by the devil, and venom was poured upon him over his feet, therefore you wash the feet; that in that part in which the serpent lay in wait, a greater aid of sanctification may come, by which he cannot afterwards trip you up. The author of the book On the Mysteries was more than sufficiently vindicated from all error in the note which the Benedictine editors added at the cited place. In no dissimilar manner is the author of the books On the Sacraments freed from fault; for his very words sufficiently indicate in what sense he said that the washing of feet is a mystery, that it was instituted for sanctification: for first of all, if the author had believed that sin is taken away through the washing of feet, when he had objected to himself that the Roman Church does not have this custom, he would certainly have accused this Church of a grave and most damnable error: how then does it come about that he immediately adds: whose type and form we follow in all things? so as to put forward the cause of this omission: perhaps it declined it on account of the multitude? Certainly the author would not have pleaded a cause of this kind if he had believed that the washing of feet was a sacrament instituted for the remission of original sin: nor finally would he have added: I say these things, not that I may reprehend others: (which he ought to have done if it were a question of the neglect of a most necessary Sacrament) but that I myself may commend my own offices.

[18] wholly singular, But the author's very words most evidently vindicate him from all grave error; for a little below, explaining those words: He that is washed needeth not to wash again, save only to wash his feet, he says: Why this? Because in baptism all guilt is washed away. Guilt therefore departs: but because Adam was tripped up by the devil, and venom was poured upon him over his feet, therefore you wash the feet; that in that part in which the serpent lay in wait, a greater aid of sanctification may come, by which he cannot afterwards trip you up. You wash the feet, therefore, that you may wash away the venoms of the serpent. It profits also for humility, that we may not blush in the mystery at what we disdain in service. In express words the author says that in baptism all guilt is washed away, or, as the Council of Trent speaks, Session V, canon 5, that the whole of that is taken away which has the true and proper nature of sin… But that concupiscence or the tinder remains in the baptized, this holy synod confesses and perceives… But this concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be truly and properly sin, but because it is from sin and inclines to sin. To this evil, then, all guilt having been washed away, the aid of sanctification is brought, that is, heavenly grace, by whose help, as the Council of Trent has it in the place cited, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist; nay rather, he who has striven lawfully shall be crowned. From these things, therefore, the singularity of doctrine which some wished to fasten upon both works vanishes wholly: the third argument therefore collapses, by which Oudin tried to prop up his opinion.

[19] finally the sevenfold number, But now the Oudinian Achilles comes forth into the open arena, whom no one, as he himself indeed says On the Ecclesiastical Writers, vol. I, col. 1835., could break, and which was therefore probably passed over in silence by the Benedictine editors, that they might make more plausible their distinction of the Treatise On the Mysteries from the six books On the Sacraments. Namely, Oudin calls the treatise On the Mysteries the first book among those which were written On the Sacraments: and this indeed for a twofold reason; first, that the sermons may have their sevenfold number, then that certain words of the first Book On the Sacraments may obtain a convenient interpretation. To each the answer is easy. For there seems to be no necessity that a sevenfold number of books or sermons be admitted: and even granted that a whole week was spent in instructing the neophytes, it in no way follows that Easter Sunday was not a day too much occupied for a sermon to be held. But, even that necessity being admitted, not even then would it follow that the book On the Mysteries is to be attached to the treatises On the Sacraments: for it may deservedly be suspected that there were formerly seven sermons, as may be seen in the Benedictine editors in their preface near the end Ambrose, vol. V, p. 208. and in note b to book VI, chap. V, no. 25 Ibid., p. 246.: but on this hypothesis, since that sermon which would have to be called the seventh is shorter, it would seem somewhat truncated. Whatever may be the case with that conjecture, the author of the books On the Sacraments so begins the first book as manifestly to show that he was then beginning for the first time to treat of the Sacraments: here are his words: On the Sacraments which you have received I undertake a discourse, the reason of which matter it was not fitting to set forth beforehand. And he who elsewhere always connects the following sermon with the preceding one, whether by express words or by repetition, says nothing at all in the first sermon On the Sacraments by which he would even lightly indicate that the day before he had held a whole treatise On the Mysteries! But, says Oudin On the Writers, vol. I, col. 1834., let us see the first (that is, the book On the Mysteries) called for by the second (that is, the first book On the Sacraments), for about the others there is no doubt. These are the words of the second sermon (otherwise the first book On the Sacraments): "And behold, as a dove, the Holy Spirit descended. Not a dove descended, but as a dove. Remember what I have said: Christ took flesh, not as flesh, but the truth of this flesh; He truly took flesh. But the Holy Spirit in the likeness of a dove, not in the truth of a dove, but in the likeness of a dove." Oudin says the treatiser alludes to the sermon, as he himself calls it, the first, On the Mysteries: but we interpret those words, remember what I have said, as said to sharpen the attention of those present, namely that they might rightly understand the difference between a dove and as a dove, which he unfolds by a certain likeness taken from the mystery of the Lord's Incarnation, as becomes manifest to the reader.

[20] of which the first would be the book On the Mysteries. But Oudin attributes a wholly different meaning to these words, asserting that the words remember what I have said are to be referred to the book On the Mysteries, and indeed to chap. IV, which he recites at length, and where I judge that the hearers would have found what Oudin says lies hidden there the less, the more difficult I assert it is even for the sharp-eyed, furnished with a commentary, to do so. And lest I seem here to be practising deceit, here are the words of St. Ambrose to which the author of the books On the Sacraments is said to have alluded, commenting on the words of John 1, 32 Ambrose, vol. V, p. 188.. Because I saw the Spirit descending as a dove, he says this: And here why did the Spirit descend as a dove, except that you might see, except that you might recognize that that dove too, which the just Noah sent out of the ark, was the likeness of this dove, that you might recognize the type of the sacrament? And perhaps you may say: Since that which was sent out was a true dove, and here He descended as a dove, how do we say that there was a likeness there, here the truth; since according to the Greeks it is written that the Spirit descended in the likeness of a dove? (The Greek text of Luke III, 22 has: Καταβῆναι, τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον σωματικῷ ἔιδει, ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν, ἐπ᾽ ἀυτόν.) But what is so true as the divinity, which abides always? But a creature cannot be the truth, but a likeness, which is easily dissolved and changed. At the same time, because the simplicity of those who are baptized ought not to be in likeness, but true … but we read likeness taken also for truth, both of Christ: And in likeness found as a man; and of God the Father: Neither have you seen His likeness. To one who compares both cited places it becomes evident that the author of the books On the Sacraments could not, when he says, remember

what I have said, be pointing at the cited place from the book On the Mysteries, and accordingly that the treatise On the Sacraments in no way calls for the book On the Mysteries.

[21] It is shown that the rite is different in each work: The reasons of our critic having been refuted, it is fair to show that there are various things which indicate a different author of each work. First of all the ceremonies of baptism employed by each prelate differ from one another. For the author of the books On the Sacraments, book I, chap. I Ibid., p. 209., inquires at length why the nostrils are touched in baptizing, while St. Ambrose has nothing of this kind in his book On the Mysteries, chap. 1, but says simply that the touching of the mouth is omitted in women. Then St. Ambrose has in the book On the Mysteries, chap. VI: After these things, surely (after baptism), you went up to the priest: consider what followed: was it not that which David says: Like the ointment on the head which ran down upon the beard of Aaron, Psalm CXXXII, 2. By which words the Saint indicates that the sacrament of confirmation was conferred. After the seal of sacred confirmation follows the washing of feet: We are all anointed into the kingdom of God and into the priesthood by spiritual grace. You went up from the font; remember the gospel reading. For our Lord Jesus washed the feet of His disciples, etc. Then he concludes this whole passage with these words: After these things you received white garments, etc. But he who wrote the books On the Sacraments fulfils the solemnities of baptism in a wholly different order: for in book III, chap. I Ibid., p. 222., after baptism, with no intervening rite, follows the washing of feet: You went up from the font, what followed?… The high priest, girded, washed your feet, etc.; in the following chapter, after the washing of feet has been explained: there follows the spiritual seal, which you heard read today, etc. How different this order of ceremonies is from the Ambrosian, everyone will see. Oudin indeed contends Writers, vol. I, col. 1854 and following that here it is a question, or can be a question, of the presbyteral anointing, which was made upon the newly baptized by a priest of the second order, and which, introduced after St. Gregory the Great, designates an author more recent than the seventh century. But even granting Oudin's argumentation, which I in no way approve, there nevertheless remains what is here the head of the matter, namely that the two treatises differ in the order and succession of the rites. In confirmation of our argument other things could be brought forward, such as the difference of the version of Sacred Scripture, the anointing before the renunciation, the beginning of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, etc. All of which show that one and the same author is not the author of both treatises.

[22] each book is cited in the ninth century And these things having been set out first, we have now completed half the way. Now it comes to be shown that the books On the Sacraments, although they do not seem to be ascribed to St. Ambrose of Milan, are yet by no means to be attributed to St. Ambrose of Cahors: which being done, it will become manifest that he is not the author of the treatise On the Mysteries either, unless one should wish to say that the copy is older than the original. The arguments by which Oudin tries to prop up his singular opinion are of a twofold kind: namely, that on account of the identity of name the confusion of Ambrose of Milan with Ambrose of Cahors was easy, chap. VI, no. 2 Writers, vol. I, col. 1858.: then that all the characteristics befitting these little works can be fitted admirably to St. Ambrose of Cahors, ibid., no. 3 Ibid., col. 1860.. But, I ask, at what time did this confusion of names arise? Oudin hints that it could have arisen between the eighth century and the twelfth, since he says in the place cited: The manuscript codices which are found in very great number in the libraries are either anonymous, or with the name simply of Ambrose or of St. Ambrose, and none which add or determine bishop or archbishop of Milan. Nor, so far as I know, before Alger and Hugh of St. Victor, writing in the middle of the 12th century, did anyone expressly bring them forward under the name of Ambrose, archbishop of Milan. That they were not expressly attributed to the holy bishop of Milan I would easily grant: but what follows from that? Shall we therefore ascribe them to the bishop of Cahors? and that especially since in the ninth century the prelate of the Milanese is already pointed at, as is sufficiently established from the treatise of St. Paschasius Radbertus On the body and blood of the Lord, in the preface Library of the Fathers, vol. XIV, p. 730.. For no sensible person will doubt that Ambrose of Milan is meant in the following words: But that your infancy may read these things through more securely, it has pleased me, dearest one, that the catholic Doctors of the Church be noted at the beginning: from whom we have strained out a few things out of many, like the milk of tenderness, namely Cyprian, Ambrose, Hilary, Augustine, John, Jerome, Isidore, Hesychius and Bede. He would be said to look for a knot in a bulrush who should doubt that Paschasius here speaks of Cyprian of Carthage, of Hilary of Poitiers, of Augustine of Hippo: who then will deny that here too Ambrose of Milan is meant? especially since he is placed in quasi-chronological order among the cited Doctors of the Church? To these reasons weight is also added by this, that Paschasius Radbertus, writing his treatise about the year 831 (as is established from the exile of the abbot Wala), as he insinuates in the preface, that is, scarcely thirty years after the death of St. Ambrose of Cahors, if we follow the chronology of Oudin himself, would not have placed his name in the midst of the Doctors praised above if it could have been understood of the bishop of Cahors, then scarcely known.

[23] under the name of Ambrose of Milan. The same also holds for Ratramnus, who calls his Ambrose a holy Doctor, which simply does not befit our Ambrose of Cahors, recently dead. But since he seems to have cited only the book On the Mysteries, there is no reason for us to linger See Literary History of France, vol. IV, p. 138.. Indeed Oudin himself seems to give up his hands, conquered, to the truth, when near the end of the cited no. 2 Writers, vol. 1, col. 1839. he says: Paschasius and Ratramnus, then, with others following, reading the name of Ambrose the bishop or of St. Ambrose, and not knowing Ambrose bishop of Cahors by fame or name, yawningly and inadvertently supposed these treatises to be of Ambrose of Milan. He repeats the same near the end of the cited no. 3, lest it slip from memory: Already in the ninth century, in the times of Ratramnus and Paschasius, these little works were believed to be of the archbishop of Milan, and were cited by both as genuine works of his. Oudin therefore admits that Paschasius and Ratramnus, when they name Ambrose, are to be understood of the bishop of Milan: why then does he say that no one expressly brought forward these treatises under the name of the archbishop of Milan, if they so wrote that they can be understood only of this bishop? All danger of confusion is therefore absent when the name of Ambrose or of St. Ambrose, with no other title added, is prefixed to the said treatises: for it is established, by the judgment of Oudin himself, that the prelate of Milan is designated. The matter is finally settled by what John Mabillon narrates in his Museum Italicum, vol. I, part II p. 4 and 7., that there is in the monastery of St. Gall a codex written in majuscule letters a thousand years ago: since therefore Mabillon published his book in the year 1687, the treatise On the Sacraments would already have existed before the times of St. Ambrose of Cahors. Oudin, in the place cited, presses his argument from this, that the work On the Conflict of the vices and virtues was attributed to St. Ambrose of Milan, which nevertheless belongs to Ambrose Autpert, abbot of St. Vincent on the Volturno, a writer of the 8th century: the treatise of St. Ambrose of Cahors could therefore have been ascribed to the same bishop of Milan. Although an argument drawn from a likeness of this kind does not bind strongly, we answer first that this did not so much come from the facility of confusion as from ignorance of the true author; for the treatise On the Conflict of the vices was ascribed not only to St. Ambrose but also to SS. Augustine, Leo and Isidore, as the editors of the works of St. Augustine have it Vol. VI of the Works, Appendix, p. 219.: then this error prevailed after the 11th century; for the chronographer of St. Vincent asserts in express words that Autpert composed the book On the Conflict [Acts of the Saints of the Order of St. Benedict, saec. III, part II, p. 263, no. 7.]: it is no wonder, therefore, that some error prevailed in later centuries. But in the case of St. Ambrose of Cahors, if we give credence to Oudin, his very contemporaries would have attributed his work to another. And let these things be said about the facility of confusion.

[24] Neither do Gallicisms point to some Gaul, Nor is our critic happier in judging the agreement of the characteristics, which is the other part of the proof. Oudin strives first to show, in chaps. IV and V Writers, vol. I, col. 1845. of his dissertation, that some Gaul is the writer of both treatises: There are three things, he says, from which we plainly gather that some Gallic bishop was the writer of these treatises or sermons: 1. From the washing of feet in the neophytes, which he confesses was in use in baptism in his Church: 2. from the conformity of the Liturgy and of other rites of the Roman Church in the Sacraments, which he likewise embraced. 3. From the Gallicisms, barbarous in Latin, with which all these sermons are sprinkled. Let us press the footsteps of our critic, but in a somewhat inverted order. What he objects about Gallicisms barbarous in Latin proves too much, and accordingly nothing: they would prove, namely, that the treatises do not so much belong to the 8th or 9th century as are to be referred to the beginning of the 18th, since most of the French locutions which he sets against the Latin ones are so proper to this age that they were not in use before this time and afterwards became obsolete. Let the reader read moreover chap. IV, no. 3, where he will sometimes find, instead of the pretended agreement, a plain difference between the two idioms: and he will confess that the cited phrases are no more French idioms than Italian, Spanish or even German. Finally Oudin sticks in a false supposition, as it is commonly said, as if the use of the French language flourished in the 8th century as it now flourishes: in the said century the language which the inhabitants of the Gauls used was Latin corrupted by various idioms, but especially by the Teutonic Compare Literary History of France, vol. IV, p. 139.. Nay, even if we should grant that the French language as it flourishes today flourished in the kingdom of the Merovingians, still the inference would not hold for Aquitaine, which, up to King Pippin, under whom St. Ambrose lived at Cahors, was rather subject to the Visigoths and Saracens; Oudin would certainly have been happier if he had assigned Arabic or Gothic idioms in the sermons of St. Ambrose.

[25] nor the washing of feet used after baptism, Oudin further brings forward as a proper and singular ceremony of the Gallican Church the washing of feet in baptism: and hence he deduces that both treatises belong to some Gallican bishop. But these things were refuted above at no. 17 in such a way that they need not be repeated here. What our critic says about the conformity of the Liturgy and of the other rites of the Roman Church in the Sacraments must be weighed more at length here. But whoever has run through even in passing the treatises On the Mysteries and On the Sacraments will easily persuade himself that these books belong rather to the fourth or fifth century than to the eighth. For who, when the discipline of the secret to be strictly kept, the multitude of adults to be baptized, the instant danger of persecution, the dissertations on language, the heresies of the fourth and fifth centuries attacked, of the Arians,

of the Priscillianists, of the Macedonians, and other things of that kind, shall have seen them, who, I say, will persuade himself that these books were written in the middle of the eighth century? These things would abundantly suffice to overthrow the Oudinian system. But Oudin, from these words of book III On the Sacraments, chap. I, We are not ignorant that the Roman Church does not have this custom, whose type and form we follow in all things, reasons thus in chap. V, no. 3 Writers, vol. I, col. 1854.: This Gallic Anonymous follows the Roman order in all the rites of baptism, except the washing of feet, as he himself expressly says. But since that little work of the Roman order was written after the Roman Pontiffs were freed from the yoke of the Lombards through the mediation of the kings of the Gauls Pippin and Charlemagne: it is clear that the Anonymous who follows it, who imitates it, flourished only toward the end of the eighth century. This is Oudin's conclusion. But the critic abuses these words, by which the writer says that he follows the type of the Roman Church in all things, as if by these words he pointed at the Roman Order such as it existed in the eighth century. For if the writer were to be understood in this sense, he would not have added a little after, as one having power concerning rites: In all things I desire to follow the Roman Church: but yet we too are men and have sense; therefore what is more rightly observed elsewhere, we too more rightly keep. If the Roman Order had already then been received, with the consent of both powers, which of the bishops would have dared to call its rites to examination and subject them to his own sole judgment?

[26] nor conformity with the Roman Order, But if we compare the rites of the Roman Order Library of the Fathers, vol. XIII, p. 639. with those which are described in the books On the Sacraments, we shall see that a great difference lies between them. Only some things are to be noted here, lest the discourse run on too far. In the books On the Sacraments no mention is made of the litanies, of the blessing and the dipping of the paschal candle into the water, all which are found in the Roman Order Ibid., p. 693 and following: the questions taken from the creed are different, the form of confirmation is different: these things suffice to show that the writer did not have the Roman Order before his eyes. But Oudin is pressed still more closely, because in the cited books not even the Gallican Order is shown: whence it follows that the writer does not belong to the Gauls. For in book I On the Sacraments, chap. II Ambrose, vol. V of the Works, p. 210., the renunciation of those to be baptized is twofold, while in the Old Gallican Missal Tommasi, Codices Sacramentorum, p. 475., published by a man distinguished no less for learning than for holiness, Bl. Giuseppe Maria Tommasi, cardinal, only one is found, as also in the Gallican Sacramentary of the 7th century in Martène On the Ancient rites of the Church, vol. I, p. 65. Venice edition 1783.. But in most other rituals of the Gauls three renunciations are marked, as the said Martène has in the place cited. And in the eighth century the custom of the threefold renunciation seems to have flourished everywhere in Gaul, as is plain from the Council of Les Estinnes of the year 743 Harzheim, Councils of Germany, vol. I, p. 51., and from other monuments which the celebrated Anton Binterim, a man praiseworthy on so many counts, brings forward in his learned German work on the Antiquities of the Catholic Church Denkwürdigkeiten der Christ-Katholischen Kirche, vol. I, part I, p. 94..

[27] or with the Old Gallican. It is helpful to compare here another rite which was wont to be kept in the Gallican Church, of which, however, nothing is said in the book On the Sacraments. St. Gregory of Tours, book I On the Glory of the Martyrs, chap. XXIV Library of the Fathers, vol. XI, p. 837., has: Then the whole people with devotion draws the water sanctified with exorcism, the chrism having been sprinkled over it. And a sprinkling of this kind was in use not only in Spain, of which Gregory speaks; but the same can also be seen both in the Gothic Codices Sacramentorum, p. 334. and in the old Gallican Missal Ibid., p. 475., which the above-praised Bl. Giuseppe Tommasi published. Nevertheless our author, who, by Oudin's divination, would be a Gaul, wholly omitted this rite too, book I On the Sacraments, chap. V Ambrose, vol. V of the Works, p. 213.; for, describing the consecration of the baptismal water, he is silent about the chrism. Here are his words: For as soon as the priest enters, he makes the exorcism according to the creature of water, and afterwards offers the invocation and prayer, that the font may be sanctified and the presence of the eternal Trinity may be there. The author unfolds most accurately both this and other rites: his silence therefore creates a presumption not easily to be obliterated, namely that this Gallican custom did not flourish in his Church. Which is confirmed also by this, that in the said place he is wholly occupied in unfolding why Christ first descended and afterwards the Holy Spirit came: for if the rite of the chrism had been kept, I do not doubt that the author would have alluded to it, since among the Holy Fathers the metaphor of the chrism for Christ is common. To one who compares the rites described in the books On the Sacraments with those found in the ritual books of the Gallican Church, various other things will occur from which it will become manifest that these sermons cannot be ascribed to some Gaul who lived in the 8th century, and accordingly are to be denied to St. Ambrose of Cahors. If therefore the books On the Sacraments do not have our Saint of Cahors as author, how much less the treatise On the Mysteries, which, for the reasons which the Benedictine editors set out at length in the prologue placed before this book, and very many others, even of the heterodox, is not undeservedly reckoned among the genuine works of St. Ambrose of Milan. Which judgment indeed is confirmed by the work itself: since some liturgical things which are found in it still partly flourish at Milan, and the baptismal rites, as they are described in the Acts of the synods held at Milan under St. Charles Borromeo Acts of the Church of Milan, p. 410., are founded on this treatise.

[28] Since therefore the books On the Sacraments certainly do not have the holy bishop of Cahors as author, but do not seem to have the one of Milan; [It is concluded that it is uncertain who was the author of the books On the Sacraments.] some, going further, have tried to track down who is to be held the writer of the books On the Sacraments. Various men have followed various opinions. The Benedictines in the Prologue to the books On the Sacraments Works of Ambrose, vol. V, p. 206. seem to incline to the opinion of Godefroi Hermant in the Life of St. Ambrose [Hermant, Life of St. Ambrose, Clarifications, p. 30. Compare Le Brun, Explanation of the Mass, vol. III, p. 25 (Paris edition 1777 80), who judges the writer to be of the 6th century.], who judges that the said books belong to one of the disciples of this Saint, who not long after him presided over the Church of Milan. What chiefly prevents us from casting our vote with him is that the author, in book III, chap. I, professes that in sacred rites he wishes to follow the footsteps of the Roman Church Works of Ambrose, vol. V, p. 222.: We are not ignorant, he says, that the Roman Church does not have this custom, whose type and form we follow in all things: yet it does not have this custom, to wash the feet… In all things I desire to follow the Roman Church: but yet we too are men and have sense; therefore what is more rightly observed elsewhere, we too more rightly keep. From these words it is manifest that the writer follows the Roman rites then flourishing, one being added, namely the washing of feet. Since therefore it is a known axiom: The exception confirms the rule; it is to be concluded that all the remaining ceremonies agree exceedingly well with the type and form of the Roman Church. But a conformity of this kind cannot befit the Ambrosian rite, such as it existed at every time, even before St. Ambrose. We lack the ritual books to unfold these things more at length. One thing I shall bring forward here, by which some thought they scented the Milanese rite: the author, in book IV On the Sacraments, chap. V Ibid., p. 232., has this form of consecration of the bread: Take and eat of this, all of you; for this is my body, which shall be broken for many. Pamelius, vol. I of the Latin Liturgy, says this form is Ambrosian. But Muratori wholly denies it, in August Krazer On the Antiquities of the Liturgy, p. 631.: He (Muratori), he says, asked the celebrated Giuseppe Antonio Sassi, prefect of the Ambrosian library, to send him the canon of the Mass from the most ancient of all Ambrosian Missals. He consulted a most ancient parchment codex, whose antiquity he judged to belong to the 9th or 10th century, and found the WORDS of consecration THE SAME as the Roman, AND THE WHOLE CANON similar to the Roman. Hence it is likely that Pamelius was deceived by the author of the book On the Sacraments, which were formerly attributed to St. Ambrose, but are now more rightly denied to the prelate of Milan by critics of keen scent. This is of great moment; for it is a question of the most holy form, which is scarcely ever changed once assumed: whence this argument alone makes probable the judgment of those who deny that the said books belong to some bishop of Milan. In vain should we seek some other author in that penury of liturgical books which we suffer: for unless a ritual book were found whose ceremonies agreed accurately with the rites expressed by the Ambrosiaster, I do not see how anything certain could be pronounced either about the writer of these books or about the time at which he lived. By way of crowning touch, however, I shall add that Roberto Sala, a Cistercian, in his edition of the Works of Cardinal Bona, suspects that the author of the books On the Sacraments was St. Maximus of Turin [Literary History of Italy, vol. IV, p. 76. Compare Le Brun, Explanation of the Mass, vol. III, p. 210.]: but Sala brings forward nothing beyond a bare conjecture by which to add any strength to his supposition. Nor did the new edition of the Works of St. Maximus, prepared at Rome in the year 1784, bring me any light.

§ IV. St. Ambrose, discovered by a heavenly sign, sets out for Rome and dies on the return.

To St. Ambrose as he withdrew We saw in § II that St. Ambrose of Cahors so left the episcopal dignity that he would not afterwards resume it. The malice of the people to be ruled is a canonical cause of resigning a bishopric. Although the Saint wished the place of his solitude to be secret, there is no doubt, however, that his will to lay down the pontifical burden became known to the people of Cahors, whence they could duly proceed to the election of his successor. For that another bishop was substituted while St. Ambrose was living becomes manifest from the Life, no. 9, in which it is read that, the key having been found in the fish, St. Ambrose said to his disciple: Go into the city to the bishop: there was therefore another bishop substituted for St. Ambrose. And that this too is not discordant with the ancient discipline of the Church, St. Gregory the Great is witness to us, in whose Life, written by John the Deacon Acts of the Saints, 12 March, p. 194, no. 39., it is read: To Bishops voluntarily renouncing their sees Gregory by no means denied successors, and them

judged that they ought afterwards to be sufficiently maintained from the revenues of the Church they had left. Mention of voluntary cession is made also by St. Augustine, book II Against Cresconius, chap. XI Vol. IX of the Works, col. 415., when he says: Nor are we bishops for our own sake, but for the sake of those to whom we minister the word and sacrament of the Lord; and therefore, as the necessity of governing them without scandal shall require, so we ought either to be or not to be what we are not for our own sake but for others. Finally, some men endowed with holy humility, on account of certain stumbling-blocks in themselves by which they were piously and religiously moved, laid down the office of the episcopate not only without fault but even with praise. To these reasons is added that Waifar, while St. Ambrose held the see, occupied Aquitaine, about whom Einhard writes these things concerning the deeds of King Pippin In Dom Bouquet, vol. V, p. 199.: Waifar, duke of Aquitaine, since he would not restore to the rulers of those venerable places the properties which were in his power and belonged to the Churches established under the hand of King Pippin, and scorned to hear the king himself admonishing him about these things through his envoys, by his contumacy roused him to undertake war against him. For the king, having gathered forces from every side, entered Aquitaine and announced that he would exact the properties of the churches by war. And that devastations of the Churches of this kind formerly offered a cause for resigning a bishopric, St. Ado in his Chronicle has already been our witness Pertz, Monuments of Germany, vol. II, p. 319.. It is no wonder, therefore, that St. Ambrose too, for a similar cause, similarly left the episcopal chair to another. On the whole present subject, moreover, Louis Thomassin may usefully be consulted in the work On Ecclesiastical Discipline, part II, book II, chap. LII, where he sets out very many examples of bishops of Gaul who left their sees at about these times.

[30] Guillaume de la Croix Series of the Bishops of Cahors, p. 43. places Aymatus as the successor of St. Ambrose, another bishop is substituted, whose episcopate he proves from the diploma of the consecration of the altar of the monastery of Aniane, in the diocese of Maguelonne, which is said to have been celebrated in the tenth year of King Charlemagne by Pope Leo III, in the presence of three hundred and sixty-six bishops: among these bishops there is found Aymatus, bishop of Caorsum, that is, of Cahors. But that monument, by which alone the episcopate of Aymatus is propped up, is deservedly hissed off the stage by the learned. For the fourteenth year of King Charles concurs with the year of Christ 781 or the following, at which time certainly not Leo III but Hadrian I held the Roman see: wherefore the said Guillaume puts for the fourteenth year of Charles the thirty-fourth, the first arithmetical figure, he says, being a little changed, or rather restored. But not even by this reckoning would he reach the year of Christ 804, in which Pope Leo came into the Gauls, unless he bound the beginning of King Charles to the year of Christ 769: but Guillaume strikes upon a rock; for Charles had succeeded his father Pippin in the preceding year. But, passing over these chronological tangles, it is established from elsewhere that Pope Leo, when he was staying in the Gauls, did not enter Aquitaine: for the Annals of Metz In Dom Bouquet, vol. V, p. 352. have the following: In the middle of November it was announced to him (Charlemagne, in the year 804) that Pope Leo wished to celebrate the Lord's Nativity with him, wherever it should please him. Which the king gladly accepted; and at once, having sent his son Charles to Saint-Maurice, he ordered him to receive him honourably. He himself set out to meet him at the city of Reims, in the basilica of Bl. Remigius, bishop and Confessor: and having received him there and brought him as far as Quierzy, he celebrated the Lord's Nativity with him there. Setting out thence together, they came to the city of Soissons, in which, having left the Pope, he came to the monastery of Chelles to speak with his sister Gisla, who in those days was sick: and having enjoyed her converse, he made Pope Leo, whom he had left at St. Medard's, come to meet him at the estate of Quierzy. Then he brought him to Aachen, and, having honoured him with great gifts, when he wished to go through Bavaria, he had him conducted by his men as far as Ravenna… He remained with him (the Emperor) eight days, and, as has been said, returned to Rome. From this narrative it appears that the document of Aniane is fabulous, and accordingly that the episcopate of Aymatus, of which Guillaume de la Croix treats, rests on no testimony Compare Le Cointe, Annals of the Franks, year 805, § XI, vol. VII, p. 35..

[31] whose name is not known: Unknown, therefore, must be said to be the bishop of Cahors who succeeded St. Ambrose when he withdrew into solitude: unless it was Angarius, also called Agarnus or Awarnus. He certainly was already sitting in the second year of the reign of Louis, son of Charlemagne, in Aquitaine, that is, in the year of Christ 783, as can be seen in Mabillon's Annals, book XXV, § XXXIX Vol. II of the Benedictine Annals, p. 249.. This is established from the diploma of Angarius, given in the year 773, the second of the Lord Louis, king of the Franks: John Mabillon rightly notes in the place cited that for 772 the year 783 is to be read, which rightly concurs with the second year of the reign of Louis the Pious in Aquitaine, inasmuch as he was anointed king of Aquitaine at Rome by Pope Hadrian in the year 781, as the Annals of Metz have it In Dom Bouquet, vol. V, p. 343.. Angarius, therefore, already bishop of Cahors in the year 783, lived at least up to the 19th year of the ninth century, as is established from a parchment of the abbey of Figeac concerning the exchange of the little cell of Jonante between Bishop Angarius and Pippin, king of Aquitaine; of which diploma this is the subscription: Given on the fourth day before the Kalends of June, in the 6th year of the empire of Louis and the 7th of our reign Guillaume de la Croix, Series of the Bishops of Cahors, p. 43.. Since there is no one among the learned who denies the authority of this charter, one difficulty only remains, namely how the 6th year of the Emperor Louis the Pious concurs with the 7th year of the reign of Pippin his son in Aquitaine: for Pippin seems to have begun his reign after the Kalends of November of the year of Christ 814, as Mansi proves in a note on Pagi's Critique at the year 838, § I: but from elsewhere we have that the beginning of the empire of Louis the Pious is reckoned from the Kalends of May at least of the same year. Therefore in the month of May Louis preceded Pippin by one year: wherefore Le Cointe Annals of the Franks, year 820, § XXVII, vol. VII, p. 533. deservedly suspects that the chronological notes were interchanged, and that the years are to be read, the seventh of Louis, the sixth of King Pippin; in which case Angarius would have to be said to have occupied the see of Cahors in the common year 820. If, however, anyone should prefer to read the fifth year of Pippin, there is nothing to prevent it. And let it be enough to have said this about the successor of St. Ambrose, without, however, our being able to assert whether there was any bishop in between our Saint and Angarius.

[32] The Saint sets out for Rome, St. Ambrose, having resigned the bishopric, whether secretly, as the shorter manuscript Life extracted from the lectionary of Cahors insinuates Manuscript of the Royal Library of Brussels, no. 8014, fol. 22., or, which is more probable in view of his providence for his Church, the clergy having been forewarned so that it could elect another bishop in his place, set out for Rome to visit the thresholds of the Holy Apostles. The author of the shorter Life, cited a little above, says that our Saint, invited by the clergy and people to take up the pastoral office again, alleged that a former vow must first be discharged by him, namely of visiting the thresholds of the Holy Apostles, and that he died on the return to his homeland. Of a vow of this kind the Life to be published below has nothing: in it it is simply said that St. Ambrose, having refused the bishopric which was offered him, went away to Rome: the manuscript of the queen of Sweden Annotation to the Life nevertheless adds that he answered the bishop his successor: You, dearest brother, shall sit in your place. But I shall go to Rome in the name of my Lord Jesus Christ; and if it shall please my Lord, I shall come back here: but if not, do you possess all things: do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry, be sober. The Saint therefore, freed from his voluntary prison, seems to have gone away to Rome not only for the sake of prayer but also for consultation: namely whether the pastoral burden was to be undertaken by him again, or another solitude was to be sought for himself. If credence can be given both to the Sanctoral of Cahors, in Guillaume de la Croix Series of the Bishops of Cahors, p. 36., and to the shorter Life of the Lectionary of Cahors, the Saint set out for Rome with the intention of afterwards returning to Cahors: the Sanctoral has: But I shall go to Rome and visit the thresholds of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and if God permits me to return here, whatever He wills I am ready to fulfil. The Lectionary has it more clearly Lectionary of Moissac, manuscript under no. 8014, Royal Library of Brussels.: He went on to the Apostolic thresholds at Rome, then to the Basilica of Bl. Martin of Tours, but on the return to his homeland he died. From these it appears that the Saint actually wished to return to Cahors, so that, on the counsel of the Roman Pontiff, he might either take up again the government of his people or spend the remaining time of his life in solitude in prayer and penance.

[33] and dies on the return It was customary for all Christians, but especially for priests, bishops, and those too who were held by the desire of a holier life, to visit the sacred thresholds of the Apostles, both that they might be helped by the patronage of the Saints and also that they might be directed by the counsels of the Roman Pontiff. Antiquity supplies us with many examples. It is uncertain, further, how much time our St. Ambrose spent on his Roman pilgrimage: since, however, he does not seem to have wished to remain at Rome, and on the return visited the sepulchre of St. Martin at Tours, nothing compels us to attribute more than two years to this pilgrimage: if therefore we knew for certain about what time the Saint left his solitude of Cahors, it would not be very difficult to fix the time of his death more certainly. Nothing, however, prevents us, until we can follow surer things, from fixing the Saint's withdrawal about the year of Christ 765, when Waifar was raging most against the Churches of Aquitaine: for since the Saint does not object persecutions of this kind as a reason against returning to his see, it can rightly be inferred that his coming out of the cave happened after the death of Waifar, that is, after the year of Christ 768: from which, going back through the three years of solitude, we come to the year 765. St. Ambrose, having set out for Rome to visit the thresholds of the Holy Apostles, seems to have wished afterwards to return to Cahors. For he so refused to accept the episcopal mitre offered him as nevertheless to wish to consult the Apostolic See: which the Sanctoral of Cahors manifestly hints at, in Guillaume de la Croix Series of the Bishops of Cahors, p. 36.. When the bishop substituted for him had said: Lord and good pastor, I, though unworthy, have been substituted in your place: wherefore I ask you, return to your house, and take the see, rule your people, and be in the place prepared for you as long as you live: but I shall set out elsewhere; then Ambrose said to him: Let God meanwhile rule His church and people

your (his?) people. But I shall go to Rome and visit the thresholds of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and if God permits me to return here, whatever He wills I am ready to fulfil: but if not, do you govern all these things rightly. The manuscript Lectionary of Cahors under no. 8014 of the Royal Library of Brussels says: He went on to the Apostolic thresholds at Rome, then to the basilica of blessed Martin of Tours; but on the return to his homeland he died on the sixteenth of the month of October at Arbotum, a town of Bourges. We have already insinuated above at no. 31 that the said Lectionary in some things does not agree with other writers who have treated of St. Ambrose, and so does not deserve full credence: hence therefore it cannot be certainly concluded that the Saint was actually on the return to his city when he died. But there are other things which urge it: first of all his very words brought forward above, in which he clearly professes that he will return: then that he is said by all the biographers to have died on the way.

[34] in the year, as it seems, 770, Whence what Adrien Baillet has in the Life of St. Ambrose cannot be approved, whose words I render into Latin: From there (Tours) he withdrew into the district of Bourges, and built himself a cell in the village of Serisium, above the river Arnon, about four leagues distant from Bourges. Similar things also are found in the lessons of the Breviary of Bourges of the year 1783, most kindly communicated to us by the Rev. Mr. Figier, canon and secretary of the archbishopric of Bourges. With which agree the Proper of the Saints of Cahors, published by Henri de Briqueville Gallia Christiana, vol. I, col. 154., the Authors of the History of the Gallican Church History of the Gallican Church, vol. VI, p. 105., and Butler at the 16th of October. There are certainly many authorities which would urge the matter if they rested on a fit foundation: but the more ancient monuments have nothing about a stay of St. Ambrose in the district of Bourges, except perhaps the Breviary of Bourges which Philippe Labbe calls most ancient in the Library of Manuscripts Vol. II, p. 346.: for it says: But after some time, returning from Rome, and making a stay in the district of Bourges in the village of Arnotum, purged through many tribulations, he gave back his glorious spirit to God: although this stay can be explained of the last illness which compelled him to tarry in the aforesaid district. Next, this Breviary is inferior in antiquity to the Life to be published below, which sufficiently insinuates, in my judgment, that the Saint wished to make no stay in the village of Serisium: He went away to Rome, and returned toward the city of Bourges: and when he had come to the village of Ernotrum, it happened that he fell asleep in the Lord. Since no other document equally ancient comes forward, and the authors praised above follow closely enough the footsteps of this more ancient Life, it seems it must be concluded that the residence at Bourges is conjecture rather than history: which the Breviary of Cahors, published by order of Bishop Bertrand Du Guesclin about the middle of the eighteenth century, proves aptly enough: for whereas the Proper of Cahors of Henri de Briqueville de la Luzerne had said in the Lessons of St. Ambrose: Afterwards he betook himself to the Bituriges, and fixed his dwelling in a district then obscure, and there finished his glorious life: the Breviary of Cahors, mention of the dwelling at Bourges being omitted, has: At length he died among the Bituriges at Serisium, at the river Arnon. Nor indeed undeservedly: for if after the death of Waifar St. Ambrose came out of his cave at Cahors, which I said in the preceding number to be probable, it is not perceived how the Saint could have fixed a dwelling among the Bituriges, whom all say died about the year of Christ 770; for the two years which lie between the death of Waifar and this time are scarcely sufficient for duly performing the pilgrimage to Rome and to Tours: finally, as I said above, the Saint does not seem to have had it in mind so to leave his homeland as never to return: he doubted only this, whether he would at some time resume the mitre he had laid down. Certainly everyone will agree with me that the words of the Breviary of Bourges of the year 1783, that the Saint lived for a long time unknown in the village of Sericiacum near Bourges, have no historical weight.

[35] in the village of Arnotrum, We have already said that all the more recent writers fix the death-year of St. Ambrose about 770: an opinion, however, which no one of the ancients supports: whence here they proceed by conjecture: I would readily agree to the conjecture, provided they would embrace the opinion confirmed in some fashion in the preceding number, without following which I do not see by what monuments they could prove their view. On the contrary, our opinion being admitted, the Saint's chronology proceeds rightly, and everyone will easily perceive that the time of the death of St. Ambrose can scarcely be distant from the year of Christ 770. The place of the Saint's death is more accurately designated in the ancient Life: when he had come to the village of Ernotrum, it happened that he fell asleep in the Lord. Now Ernotrum, also called Ernodurum or the village of Arnotum, is a village four leagues distant toward the south-west from the city of Bourges, and is today called after St. Ambrose, Saint-Ambroix-sur-Arnon, in the district of Charost (Canton of Charost: Department of Cher); to this village there led a road formerly paved by the Romans, which sufficiently shows the ancient celebrity of the place. Near Ernotrum lies the little village of Sericiacum (Seris), today Marats, in which properly St. Ambrose died. He was not, however, as the Rev. Mr. Figier, canon of Bourges, writes to me on the 22nd day of November 1840, buried at Sericiacum, but at Ernotrum in the church, where, miracles shining forth, there was a great concourse of people: without our having on that account to admit the words of the Sanctoral of Cahors, where it says: Not many days after, the inhabitants of that place built a temple in his honour, which exists up to this day. We know indeed that Ernotrum borrowed its name from St. Ambrose, but whether the Saint, buried in an open field, afterwards obtained a temple, the more ancient writers are silent; indeed, rather than that the inhabitants of the place built a sacred building in honour of the Saint, it is far more probable that they deposited the sacred body in a temple already built. For the rest, the cited Sanctoral manifestly confuses the burial at Ernotrum with that at Bourges; since right after the words just brought forward it adds: And there is there a monastery which is called the abbey of St. Ambrose. Which is true of the city of Bourges, by no means of the village of Ernotrum. Alban Butler has the same error, although Adrien Baillet aptly distinguished the two places.

[36] The body of St. Ambrose is translated to Bourges, When the body of St. Ambrose had lain for some time at Ernotrum, it was translated to Bourges, at the latest in the tenth century, as is sufficiently established from the diploma of Geoffrey, viscount of Bourges, of which we have already treated above at no. 2: for when in the year 1012 Geoffrey restores to the monastery of St. Peter and St. Ambrose whatever it had lost, already at that time the body of the holy bishop rested in the said church, and that monastery bore the name of our Ambrose: both of which show that already before Geoffrey's donation the translation of the Relics had been celebrated, and that, his cult having spread among the people of Bourges, the new name of St. Ambrose had been given to the monastery. But these things are not wont to happen within a brief twelve years. Whence the time of the translation is deservedly referred back by the authors at least to the tenth century. Indeed it is very probable that the Relics of the holy bishop were brought into Bourges already in the ninth century: for it is known that in that century, on account of fear of the Normans, who were dreadfully devastating the Gauls, monks leaving their monasteries took refuge with the Relics of the Saints in all the most fortified cities. Certainly many ancient monuments show us that the Normans were grievous to Aquitaine, and so to the district of Bourges. In the Annals of St. Vaast under the year 889 In Dom Bouquet, vol. VIII, p. 88. we read that the Danes or Normans, after their manner, devastated with fire and sword Burgundy, Neustria and part of Aquitaine, no one resisting; the same Annals proclaim a similar calamity under the year 898 Ibid., p. 92.: under the 23rd year of the tenth century the Chronicle of Flodoard relates Ibid., p. 179. that the Normans plundered Aquitaine and Auvergne; whence also King Rudolf, in the 30th year of the same century, says the cited Flodoard Ibid., p. 186., almost destroyed in one battle the Northmen who were infesting Aquitaine with plunderings: and that this infestation in Aquitaine persisted through the space of seven years is testified to us by a historical Fragment first published by Du Chesne Ibid., p. 298.. We could bring forward many other monuments which would show that the Normans were ruinous to the district of Bourges; whence it becomes probable that the body of St. Ambrose was translated within the city of Bourges as the ninth century was drawing to its end or the tenth beginning: which is also somewhat confirmed by this, that, if the translation had happened not so much from flight as from piety, some trace at least of a solemnity would have remained surviving.

[37] into the temple of St. Peter, The body of St. Ambrose, translated from Ernotrum to Bourges, was laid in St. Peter's. That this temple already existed before the Saint's death is proved from the burial of Siginus, who died about the middle of the eighth century, as we said above at no. 2. As the piety of the faithful toward St. Ambrose grew, the church borrowed its name from him; which church, with the cloister joined to it, Philippe Labbe describes from the archives thus Library of Manuscripts, vol. II, p. 57.: There is a certain place near the walls of the city of Bourges, situated on the northern side, called Brisiacus, which was anciently built in great honour, and consecrated in honour of Bl. Peter, prince of the Apostles, and of St. Ambrose the bishop, and honourably adorned with a very great company of canons: but, the persecution of the infidels bursting in, it was almost brought to nothing. But although they destroyed the dwellings, they did not take away the holiness. For after a course of many years had passed, Geoffrey, viscount of the city of Bourges, with the counsel and help of all the nobles of the duchy of Bourges, magnificently rebuilt it in the year from the incarnation of the Lord one thousand and twelve, and restored the estates and other honours of St. Peter and St. Ambrose which he was unjustly holding, by the command of King Robert and of the lord Dagbert, archbishop of Bourges (see above no. 3)… Their devotion (of the secular canons) gradually cooling, … since they were no longer devoted to the offices of the altar: but … were through their madness a disgrace to the clerical order, they having been expelled, the reverend Father in Christ and Lord, the Lord Pierre de La Châtre, archbishop of Bourges, a man most richly heaped with all the endowments of true wisdom, brought in there canons regular, men certainly distinguished for integrity of morals and (so to speak) better than probity itself, in the year of the Lord's incarnation 1151, as the same Bishop recorded in these words: "The care of the pastoral office admonishes us always to cherish and love the good of holy religion, and in the churches committed to us by God, in the time of our priesthood, by God's authority, to propagate it for the better. For that reason I, Pierre, by the grace of God archbishop of the Church of Bourges, wishing to ordain in the city of Bourges some refuge for saving souls, where many may be able both to correct their morals and to show God worthy fruits of penance, have taken care to bring the church of St. Ambrose of Brisiacus out of much enormity to the norm and rule of the canonical order, and in it the order of canons regular according to the rule

of St. Augustine we have established to be held from now on. What, therefore, has been salutarily done by us in view of pious devotion is nevertheless to be followed up with religious solicitude. Accordingly, by the authority of the Church of Bourges and our own, we decree that the canonical order according to the rule of Bl. Augustine be perpetually held and observed in the aforesaid church of St. Ambrose of Brisiacus, and we earnestly and devoutly beseech our successors, and on behalf of almighty God and of Blessed Stephen the Protomartyr admonish them, that they always cherish the often-mentioned church and the institute of this religion and labour to promote it for the better, etc." Which, lest the work should grow out of all measure, we have cut short. Thus far Philippe Labbe.

[38] destroyed about the end of the preceding century. The abbey established by Pierre de La Châtre under the canonical Order was ruled first by regular abbots, of whom the first was Godfrey, whom the authors of the Gallia Christiana Vol. II, col. 181. relate to have governed from the year 1150 to 1163 at least. In the lapse of time this abbey was reduced to commendam, as can be seen in the place cited. In the sixteenth century, the Calvinists disturbing Gaul, the lieutenant of the prince of Condé, Gabriel Montgomery, entered Bourges by the gate of St. Ambrose on the sixth day before the Kalends of June of the year 1562, and, after the manner of the sectaries, overturned the altars, broke the sacred images, burned the Relics of the Saints De Thou, Universal History, book XXX, vol. III, p. 190.. Among the other churches destroyed by the fury of the Calvinists are to be numbered the monastery and temple of St. Ambrose; indeed his sacred body, already thrown out of its bier, was in all probability about to be given to the flames when, snatched from the hands of the impious by the industry of the Catholics La Croix, Series of the Bishops of Cahors, p. 34., it was placed in a new casket. Afterwards, in the year 1571, Louis de la Mer de Matha, an Auvergnat, commendatory abbot, restored the ruined buildings from the foundations; to which then new splendour was added when in the year 1634, under Jacques Maugis, commendatory abbot, the monastery was united to the Gallican congregation of canons regular Gallia Christiana, vol. II, col. 182.. The abbey seems thereafter to have continued tranquil until, toward the end of the preceding century, things sacred as well as profane were thrown into disorder in the Gauls: the abbey of St. Ambrose also experienced the common calamity and passed into the treasury of the republic. The buildings having been sold off, the church nevertheless remained until the 28th year of this century, when it too was levelled to the ground, except the apse, which could serve Catholic worship even today if the owner of the estate were willing to restore it, of which thing indeed no hope is said to shine. As regards the Relics of the Saint, they perished, like most others, in the whirlwind, and no trace of them has been able to be found up to this day. Before this time part at least of the Relics was enclosed in a silver bust, which was carried about in processions.

[39] The chapel built near Cahors is profaned. The cult of St. Ambrose was brought into the bishopric of Cahors later, as it seems: for no more ancient monument of it occurs than the charter issued by Raymond III [Not II, as La Croix will have it, p. 158: compare Gallia Christiana, vol. I, col. 137.], called Panchelli, by which he wills that a chapel be erected in honour of St. Ambrose his patron, which word designates a somewhat older devotion. Here are his words, from Guillaume de la Croix Series of the Bishops of Cahors, p. 171.: To all, etc., Raymond, by the grace of God bishop of Cahors. Know that we, with the venerable chapter of Cahors, wishing and intending to avoid, as far as we can and are bound, the losses and dangers of the Church of Cahors, in head and members, and to procure virtue according to our strength, will, ordain and decree that half of the fruits of the churches vacant and to be vacant in our city and diocese of Cahors, of that year in which they shall be vacant hereafter, the rectors and chaplains or perpetual vicars of the same churches resigning or dying, shall go to this: and let them be collected by certain canons, to be chosen by us and our aforesaid chapter every year, so that they be bound to render to us and to the said chapter a certain and lawful account of receipts and expenses. So that first and before all things, to the honour of God and of Blessed Ambrose, our patron and formerly bishop of Cahors, there be built from the aforesaid fruits and goods a fitting and seemly oratory in the place, or cave, or grotto, in which, near the old bridge of Cahors beside the river Lot, the said Saint is said to have led a strait life for a long time and to have performed voluntary penance, as very many miracles, declared there and elsewhere on account of his merits by the bestowal of divine grace, undoubtedly testify… In faith whereof we the aforesaid bishop have caused these letters to be fortified with our seal together with the seal of the said Chapter. And we the Chapter of Cahors append our common seal, together with the seal of the said Lord Bishop, to these presents. Given at Cahors on the Thursday before the feast of the Chair of St. Peter, in the year of the Lord 1308. The Roman Church now celebrates a twofold feast of the Chair of St. Peter: namely on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of February and the eighth day before the Kalends of March, on account of the Roman see and that of Antioch: it would therefore be difficult to assign a certain day to the cited diploma unless it were first established which festival is here indicated. Each chair is indeed celebrated in the most ancient martyrologies, as our Du Sollier showed in his Usuard; but the former feast, of the 18th of January, had become obsolete among many, as is clear from the ancient Sacramentary of St. Gregory the Great, the Gothic Missal, etc., while the other was always retained by all the Churches. Which is confirmed also by this, that the council of Copriniacum (Cognac), held in the diocese of Bordeaux about the year 1255 Labbe, vol. XI, part I of the Councils, col. 749., places among the holidays the Chair of St. Peter, but after the Conversion of St. Paul, and therefore in the month of February. Since therefore Raymond of Cahors says simply that the diploma was given on the Thursday before the feast of the Chair of St. Peter, I have no doubt that the Chair of St. Peter of the month of February is meant: and since in the leap year 1308 the dominical letter for this month was F, it follows that the Thursday before the feast of the Chair was the 15th of February. Pope Paul IV, by a bull given on the eighth day before the Ides of January of the year 1558, restored the feast of the Roman Chair on the 18th of January, which had become antiquated in many churches [The bull exists in the Acts of the Saints, 18 January, p. 182. Bolland says it was given on the Ides of January, whereas the Roman Bullarium writes the eighth day before the Ides of January, vol. I, p. 833 (Luxembourg edition of the year 1727). Compare Bianchini's Anastasius, vol. IV, p. 150 and following.]. To return to St. Ambrose, his chapel, built by Raymond, still exists, although in later times it was restored in part or wholly. Toward the end of the preceding century, this chapel and the adjoining territory, assigned to the public treasury and sold, still stands nevertheless, though profaned, and there is some hope that it will at some time be restored to the cult of St. Ambrose, as the Rev. Mr. Layrac, secretary of the most illustrious Lord Bishop of Cahors, writes in a letter to me.

LIFE OF ST. AMBROSE, BISHOP, BY AN ANONYMOUS AUTHOR.

From the manuscript of André du Chesne, collated in passing with the manuscript of Nicolas Belfort: more accurately with the manuscript of the queen of Sweden in quarto, no. 1270.

Ambrose, bishop and Confessor, at Cahors. (S.)

BHL Number: 0369

BY AN ANONYMOUS AUTHOR.

St. Ambrose, bishop of Cahors, Therefore ^a St. Ambrose, when he was bishop in the city which is called Caturcae, was always intent all days and nights on vigils and prayers, for he trusted not in the riches of the world nor in the treasure of the church, but in the mercy of the Lord; because he was full of the grace of God: he did not love the world, nor the things that are in the world; the means and property of the church and the private wealth which he had he gave away to the poor, he covered the naked, he fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, redeemed captives, prepared for himself treasure in heaven. All the senators in the city spoke wicked words against him: Whence has this adversary of ours come to destroy the treasures of the church? For what shall we do against him ^b?

[2] when he saw that his effort was useless, And when the Saint of God Ambrose saw all of them raging against him, turning in prayer to the Lord, he said: O Lord my God, who didst bless Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, bless my soul and all that is within me in thy holy name, and lead me out of this city and from this wicked people which is opposed to me and blasphemes the works which I do in thy name. When he had said these things, full of the grace of God, he shut himself up in a little cell which was next to the church ^c. And bending his knees in prayer he said: Lord Jesus Christ, who knewest Adam before he was and gavest him knowledge, that he might recognize the way of truth, grant to me also thy servant hoping in thee that I may overcome the enemy, the devil, who has entered into the heart of man, to whom the works which I do in thy name are contrary ^d. And after these things he remained there many days, and the Lord began to do miracles there through him ^e; and many sick came to him and he healed them; the blind received sight, the deaf hearing, the dumb spoke, and the possessed were cured ; he healed limbs for the infirm , having his mind always intent on the Lord .

[3] he withdrew into solitude; After these things God showed many miracles there through him, and the enemy began to dwell about him in order to overturn him into sin, and he could not ; unless he should enter into a certain woman who was most noble in the city, that he might sin with her and lose the treasure which he had prepared in heaven. And she went out by night from her house and came to the little cell where St. Ambrose was shut up, and said ^f: Lord, open the door to me; my soul desires to see your body. St. Ambrose answered: Woe to thee, devil, evil seducer, ancient serpent, [where hast thou prepared thyself? And he knew that it was a temptation of the devil, and said:] Thou shalt not destroy those who hope in the Lord, because the power of God to defend is greater than thine, enemy, to attack. And it was about the middle hour of the night, when, according to his wonted custom, he was singing with prophetic voice and saying : Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy great mercy, and according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my iniquity: and again he said: At midnight I rose to give praise to thee for the judgments of thy justice. And he , raising himself up, said : Bend your knees in prayer and I will do likewise for you ^g.

[4] where, gravely tempted, And the woman, bending her knees in prayer *, said: O Lord my God, grant refreshment in

my soul . And St. Ambrose prayed within the church, saying: God of angels, God of archangels, redeemer of souls, drive out the enemy, the devil, from the heart of the woman, and make her rest in peace in thy name; do not ^h permit the devil to lord it over her heart, but make her honour thy name: who livest and reignest for all ages of ages, amen. And as the woman raised herself up, at once the enemy went out of her heart through the prayers of the aforesaid bishop, and she was at rest from that very hour; for it was like a snake, and had the measure of about one cubit. And the woman, who had before been tempted by the devil, said to St. Ambrose: My father, I desire nothing but prayer to God ⁱ, because the enemy who was in me has gone out of me through your prayers. I give thanks to my God, who has put the devil to flight from my heart *; pardon me, and pray for my soul.

[5] he brought the temptress back to a good life. Then St. Ambrose wept in prayer and said: I give thanks to thee , almighty Father, eternal God, who hast overcome the devil and hast not permitted the man whom thou didst create to perish, and savest those who hope in thee. All the senators and the multitude of the people came , and wondered at the miracle which God had done through him, and said to one another: Truly God is with him. Woe to us sinners [^k who have opposed his works! And we do not see the many miracles which God has done through him;] we are ready for iniquity and for malice. Some rejoiced, others blasphemed. But he, filled with the Holy Spirit, had no anger against them, but hoped more fully in God *: and they hung up that serpent as a testimony. And many glorified God ^l.

[6] Hence in a cave And after many days St. Ambrose ^m went out of the little cell, as he was shut up, by night, no one knowing except one of his disciples, whom he had as faithful, who was archdeacon under the treasury of the church, who was called Agripinus; he said to him: Do not disclose this, my son, where I am going. That disciple said: What do you wish, lord? St. Ambrose said: Son, I know that my sins are multiplied upon me; therefore I am going and entering into the cave of the fortress at the nearby bridge, which is over the river Olt ⁿ, and I gird myself with iron which I have ready, and I tell you this sign: the key with which I lock that chain I throw into the deep, and when indeed God shall will, and it shall have been found, tell the people where I am: but if you do not see it, do not declare it. And going away he said: O God, save me in thy name, and judge me in thy strength.

[7] he hid himself near Cahors, And again, when he had come to the place foreordained, he wept in prayer with hands outspread, and said: Lord, holy Father almighty, eternal God, king of heaven of the heavens, who madest all things, who didst found the earth and measure the heaven with thy palm, who didst mark out the sea that it should not pass its bounds, bid my name be written in thy book, where thou hast written thy Saints and faithful ones who have loved thy name. And I, a sinner, trust in thy mercy; therefore I go back into the place prepared for thy name's sake; and if thou wilt, Lord, I shall come out hence; but if not, here * I shall give back my spirit, because my soul desires to see the glory of thy kingdom.

[8] known to Agrippinus alone: And when he had said these things, he took hold of the chain and girded himself ^o, bound tight from the loins up to the crown with the hair of his head, and drew out the key with which he had locked the chain, and threw it into the deep, and said: In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: and he entered into the cave of the stone fortress [p], which was planted over above , and lifting his eyes to heaven, and his hands at the same time, he prayed as a suppliant to the Lord and said: Let there be peace, Lord, in thy strength, and abundance in thy towers. And he said to his faithful one : Son, keep my commands, if you wish to see the glory of God. And the disciple [q] vehemently arranged the planting over him, and nothing appeared, and he said to St. Ambrose: Father, about light, what will you do at night? And St. Ambrose said: Son, by night and by day God is light. Again he asked him: Lord, about the food which is to be ministered to you? And he said to him: Son, up to now I took food after sunset, but henceforth on the third day bring me an oblation [r], and water, as God commands. And he remained there three years, watching and praying day and night: and every night in that cave there shone as it were tapers, like burning lamps: and by day the light of the world shone round about. That faithful disciple ministered to him as he had commanded him. So the senators and all the people of the city cried out and said: Where is our bishop and pastor Ambrose? Woe to us sinners, because on account of iniquity he has gone out of this city, and we do not know where he has walked. Therefore on account of our malice he has left all things. So indeed they put another bishop in his place, because they did not think to see him any more.

[9] until, by a heavenly sign And in the third year the key which the man of God St. Ambrose had thrown into the water, a fish swallowed it [s]: and fishermen caught that fish and carried it into the kitchen [t], and found the key in its mouth, and showed it to all the people. And all, seeing it, said to one another: What is such a sign in this fish? And the disciple of St. Ambrose came, to whom he had entrusted this, and recognized it . Then indeed, full of joy, he announced to him, saying: Lord, the key which you had thrown into the deep has now been found in a fish. And St. Ambrose, filled with the Holy Spirit for joy, wept in prayer and said: O Lord our Lord, how admirable is thy name in all the earth! For so, Lord, thou hearest all who hope in thee, and dost not forsake those who love thy name. Lord, deliver my soul, and rescue me from this place, and lead me out where thou wilt. And he said to his disciple: Son, God has not forgotten His servant, * He has remembered my lowliness: therefore go into the city to the bishop, and say to him: That key which has been found in the fish, whence is it? and say before all where I am, and let them bring with them three tapers not burning, and come to me; and if they shall have been lighted [u] by the power of my God, I shall come out from here.

[10] discovered, he is brought back into the city; Then the disciple [x] went to the bishop and told him all the things which St. Ambrose had commanded him. And they, rejoicing, went out of the city with crosses, psalms, hymns, singing canticles, and, chanting, came to the place where St. Ambrose was, and brought three tapers in their hands, according to what he had commanded them, and as they lay prostrate in prayer the tapers which they held in their hands were at once from that very hour lighted. Then all of them glorified God. For so that cave where St. Ambrose was had been shattered like glass [y], and full of joy they received him into their embrace, and drew him out of the iron bonds in which he had been shut up; and his face was pale, and his flesh had forsaken his limbs: and he had nothing else in himself but a soul and a sanctified spirit, and his hair had grown down to his loins, and his beard to his breast; and he was like a layman [z], because the razor in those three years had not gone up upon his head, and that chain with which he was girded broke itself and came apart. And all of them, on account of such great wonders, glorified God.

[11] and returning from Rome he dies in the district of Bourges. Then St. Ambrose looked up to heaven and prayed, saying: Lord Jesus Christ, king of hosts, who madest all things, and without thee nothing was made, I give thee thanks that thou hast heard me and hast deigned to deliver thy servant: Lord, lead me where thou wilt. And all of them said: Pardon us, because we did not know where you were. He answered them: May the Lord pardon you. And that bishop who after him was bishop in the holy place prostrates himself at his feet and said to him: Go in peace wherever you will. And the bishop and the rest of the senators, and all the people of the city, after they had escorted him, returned into the city. St. Ambrose, full of the desire of Christ, went away to Rome, and returned toward the city of Bourges: and when he had come to the village of Ernotrum [aa], it happened that he fell asleep in the Lord. Where his body rests in peace, where through him the Lord has deigned to show many miracles. But his disciple, Agripinus by name, followed him wherever he walked, and taught all the things that are written, our Lord Jesus Christ helping, to whom is honour and glory for ages of ages. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

should lead her to the hill where the man of God was by night, that she might sin with him, and he might lose the treasure which he had in heaven. Therefore she, coming right up to him, said, etc.

p. That this cave was consecrated under the invocation of St. Ambrose by Raymond III in the year 1307 we said in the Preliminary Commentary, no. 39. Castellanus, in manuscript notes to the Life of St. Ambrose kept under no. 8912 of the royal Burgundian library, says that a chapel was built above the cave, which holds only one man, and is adorned with paintings and gilded ornaments: and it is distant from the river Lot about sixty paces.

q. The reading of the manuscript of the queen of Sweden is different: He built a great structure over him to hide him, and he did not appear… By day and by night God is light. And again he asked him: Lord, what shall be ministered to you of food… Up to now I shall take daily … but on the third day … there the great priest Ambrose in that cave three years, and through all the nights in that cave there was the light of a taper or lamp: and by day the light of the world shone round about him. And that faithful disciple did not cease to minister … to him. And it came to pass after some time that the senators of the city and all the people began vehemently to lament and to cry themselves guilty, saying: Where … our wickedness … has the good pastor walked. Therefore on account of our malice which we did against him he has left all things: and so they put … in his place, because they did not hope to see him any more.

r. Oblata in present usage is taken for the bread offered for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or for an unconsecrated host, although Du Cange in his Glossary under Oblata shows that it is sometimes used to signify also the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Here, however, it is taken for a very thin bread made of flour and water, baked at the fire in iron presses, which was given to the monks, as is established from the customs of Evesham in England: Also, as is said there [Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. I, p. 149, edition 1759, and vol. II, p. 25, edition 1829.], on every Sunday in Lent half a praebendarium (a certain measure) of wheat from the granary for wafers for supper, and half likewise on the Lord's Supper for the same.

s. The more ancient Acts do not name the fish which swallowed the key; popular tradition, however, holds that it was a pike (un brochet), and they establish it by three reasons; of which the first is that the pike is gluttonous; the second, that they will have it that there is now no longer that kind of fish in the Lot on account of the curse of St. Ambrose, although in general that river does not abound in fish; the third finally is the testimony of a certain Proper of the Church of Cahors, in which is read: They substituted another bishop; whose cook, when he was gutting a pike to be set on his lord's table, found in its intestine, etc. So Claude Chastelain in the manuscript notes praised above.

t. Namely of the bishop, as the Sanctoral of Cahors expressly has: It happened meanwhile that a certain fish, which had swallowed the key thrown into the river, was caught by fishermen and brought into the kitchen of the bishop-elect.

u. The manuscript of Belfort runs thus: But if they shall not have been lighted, may I remain here until the day of my departure. The manuscript of the queen of Sweden comes near: But if they shall not have been lighted, may I remain here until the day of my passing.

x. Here the manuscript of the queen of Sweden wanders much throughout: And the disciple, full of joy, went to … which he had commanded… And the bishop, when he heard it, wept for joy, and going out, he and all the people singing, rejoicing, both with psalms and hymns and canticles … came as far as the place where the great, eminent pastor St. … was, what he had commanded. And Blessed Ambrose and all being prostrate in prayer, at once in that very hour the tapers which they held were lighted. Then all wept for joy and praised and blessed God, who does such things through His Saint Ambrose. And that bishop and all the people of the city prostrated themselves before him, asking to be blessed by him. And it came to pass, after he had blessed them and they had risen, that cave where St. Ambrose was was at once in that very hour shattered like glass, and they drew him out of the bonds where he had been shut up. And his face was pale … and his whole body was exceedingly wasted, and his hair reached down to his loins … girded, came apart around him and was broken: and all who were present for joy so great… Lead me wherever it pleases thee. And all the people coming asked, saying: Pardon us, good pastor, because we did not know where you were. And he who after him was bishop in his place prostrating himself at the feet of St. Ambrose, saying: For although I am unworthy and a sinner, Lord, I have been placed in your place. But since you are a servant of God and a sharer of the Saints, pardon me, I beseech, and have mercy on me, and sit again in your place, and I shall serve under your command. And St. Ambrose said to him: You, dearest brother, shall sit in your place: but I shall go to Rome in the name of my Lord Jesus Christ; and if it shall please my Lord, I shall come back here; but if not, do you possess all things: do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry, be sober. These things being thus done, he began thus to sing, saying: Show me thy ways, O Lord, and teach me thy paths. Lead me, O Lord, in thy way, let thy heart rejoice and fear thy name. And the people who followed him wept vehemently, and escorted him with tears, saying: For we have known, Lord, that you are holy and mighty; wherever it shall please you, may the Lord our God direct your ways in peace. And the bishop and all the people, etc. These speeches, however, seem to be interpolated, since they are not found in the more ancient Life.

y. The Sanctoral of Cahors has that, the candles having been lighted, some entered the place where Ambrose was; which indeed is more likely than that the cave was shattered like glass, inasmuch as it still exists today, as we have already indicated. The text therefore seems to be understood of the breaking of the door of the cave.

z. We have already remarked in the Preliminary Commentary, no. 5, that St. Ambrose was held as a layman for this reason, because he was bearded: whence too we have conjectured that the biography which we give here is ancient.

aa. Nor does the manuscript of the queen of Sweden agree more at the end, which has: And the bishop and all the people … their city, but St. Ambrose … to Rome, and returned under the city of Tours. And when he had come to the village of Ernotrum, it happened that he fell asleep in the Lord in the middle of the month of October; where … he rested in peace, … But his disciple, … who followed him wherever he walked, taught us all the things that are written about him. Afterwards, by the Lord's command, his body was translated near the city of Bourges, and was placed in the place which is called Bissiacus, our Lord Jesus Christ reigning, to whom is honour and glory, praise and dominion, for ages of ages.

Amen. As regards this part of the reading: and returned under the city of Tours. And when he had come to the village of Ernotrum, it happened that he fell asleep in the Lord, it is certain that it is better than our text, which has: And returned toward the city of Bourges. For we do not read that St. Ambrose had stayed at Bourges before, so that he could be said to have returned there. Which cannot be objected about the city of Tours, since he is said to have returned under the city of Tours, as though returning to Cahors by way of the city of Tours: and with these too agrees the Sanctoral of Cahors, which has: Who, returning thence (from Rome), went to the temple of St. Martin, bishop of Tours, and at length came to the village of Arnotium under the city of Bourges, and there … closed the last day of his life. But that our Saint did not wish to fix his dwelling in the territory of Bourges we have shown in the Preliminary Commentary, no. 33.

* omnibus [all] is absent in R. S.

* opes wealth is absent in R. S.

* contrarii sunt et blasphemant are opposed and blaspheme R. S.

* cum autem but when R. S.

* cellulam R. S.

* Flexisque genibus in oratione ait And having bent his knees in prayer he said R. S.

* et also is absent in R. S.

* mundabantur were cleansed R. S.

* inserts et [and] R. S.

* habebat he had R. S.

* quievit rested Belf.

* quippe indeed Belf.

* inserts vero [and] R. S.

* the words enclosed in brackets are absent in R. S.

* mediae noctis of midnight Belf.

* psallebat dicens he sang, saying

* in place of Ille [he], interea meanwhile R. S.

* inserts ad mulierem to the woman R. S.

* ubique in oratione everywhere in prayer R. S.

* animae meae to my soul R. S.

* in place of per omnia, in R. S.

* corpore body R. S.

* Sancte Pater Holy Father R. S.

* in place of hominem [man], facturam tuam thy handiwork R. S.

* autem omnes and all R. S.

* multitudo multitude is absent in R. S.

* Deo [God] R. S.

* coeli of heaven is lacking in R. S.

* jube nomen meum scribere bid … to write my name R. S.

* in locum ingredior I enter into the place R. S.

* regrediar I shall go back R. S.

* hinc here is lacking in R. S.

* plancatum planking Belf., everywhere

* adds diaconum deacon R. S.

* eam [it] is lacking in R. S.

* de civitate illa of that city R. S.

* magnum valde very great R. S.

* omnem [all] R. S.

* esset [was] R. S.

* hunc [him] R. S.

* autem [and] is lacking in R. S.

* jam [now] R. S.

* et [and] R. S.