ON ST. JOHN III OF COMO, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, IN ITALY,
AFTER THE YEAR 650.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
The family and age of St. John. The church of Como is involved in the Aquileian schism.
John III, bishop and confessor, at Como in Italy (S.)
V. D. B.
Como, an episcopal city of the Lombard-Venetian kingdom, [St. John III, venerated at Como on the 20th day of October from the middle of the 17th century,] counts its first twenty-two bishops among the Saints, although formerly it did not honour twelve of them with an ecclesiastical office; about which matter our Limpens inquired somewhat in the Collection on St. Victorinus at the 5th day of September Vol. II of September, p. 541.. But about the middle of the 17th century, Lazzaro Carafino being bishop, ecclesiastical offices began to be celebrated for these twelve too [Ibid., in the place cited; compare Tatti, Annali sacri della città di Como, vol. I, p. 571, note f.]. In this latter class, whose feasts are more recent, comes St. John III Tatti, vol. I, p. 701.. In the Martyrology of Como of Luigi Tatti, in the Italian Hagiology of Ferrari and in the Milanese Martyrology of Pietro Paolo Bosca, his memory is recalled at the present day, on which they will have it that he died. Here is how Bosca celebrates his praises: At Novum Comum, of St. John, a citizen of Milan, who governed the church of Novum Comum with great praise of sanctity. It will help to attach to these the encomium which is met with in Ughelli Italia sacra, vol. V, col. 262., so that at a single glance the reader may grasp what is disputed about him: St. John III is substituted for John: he was of Como, of the most noble family of Castiglione, although Antonio Beffa Negrini makes him a Milanese in the book of the elogies of the house of Castiglione; who, after he had administered the church of Como piously and holily until the year 668, rested in the Lord on the 20th day of the month of October, and was entombed in the cathedral. Thus he.
[2] he is reported to have been of the Castiglione family; The people of Como and of Milan, namely, dispute among themselves about the country of St. John, whom both contend was their countryman. Both establish that St. John was sprung from the Castiglione family Tatti, vol. I, p. 697.; whence the Milanese conclude that he is their citizen, since the Castiglione family lived at Milan; but the people of Como intervene and show that the house of Castiglione in the middle age was spread through all Insubria, and indeed through Italy and Gaul; nay they designate by name men of this most noble family belonging to the 13th century and living at Como Ibid., p. 698.. But this dispute is plainly futile, since before all it should have been established that St. John was sprung from the house of Castiglione; but no ancient testimonies at all are brought forward on this matter. In very truth Francesco Abbondio Castiglione, from the year 1562 bishop of Bobbio and then cardinal [Ciacconius and Oldoinus, Vitae Romanorum Pontificum et Cardinalium, vol. III, col. 1560], believed it, and wrote in the Catalogue of the illustrious men of his house Tatti, vol. I, p. 698.: John of Castiglione, bishop of Novum Comum, in the year DCXXXV. But these things were thrust upon the most noble family by I know not what men, with whom it was formerly customary to invent many things to make families more illustrious, while by this path they rather often exposed them to ridicule. And that the Castiglione family was attached to St. John III at pleasure, we have as witness the most wise Luigi Tatti Ibid., in the place cited, who also rightly observes that in that age family names were not in use. Wherefore I scarcely understand how the learned man Cesare Cantù Storia della città e diocesi di Como, vol. I, p. 144. gave St. John III the surname Castiglione.
[3] his episcopate, of which various writers have written various things, In determining the time of St. John's episcopate various writers have gone off into various opinions. As we saw a little above, cardinal Castiglione referred his episcopate, or rather his death, to the year 635; which account many received. Ughelli Italia sacra, vol. V, col. 262 extends his episcopate from the year 644 to 668; Tatti Vol. I, p. 699. assigns for its beginning the year 660; of the end he remains in doubt. Giovanni Rusca Acta SS., vol. I of October, p. 355. ties the death of the predecessor, St. John II, and accordingly the beginning of the episcopate of St. John III, to the year 714, putting it half a century after the others; finally the praised historian of Como Cesare Cantù Work cited above, vol. I, p. 144., though very much in doubt Ibid., p. 147., encloses the episcopate of St. John III between the year 660 and 663 or 668. But which of these assertions comes nearer to the truth? For my part, as Jacques Bue Vol. I of October, p. 353. referred St. John II to the 7th century, so I too shall not take care to assign certain years, but shall rather try to establish the extreme limits of time. And that this may be done, the series of the bishops of Como from St. Agrippinus to Deodatus must be kept before the eyes, as it is furnished us by Benedetto Giovio [Historia Novocomensis, book II, in Burmann's Thesaurus Antiquitatum et Historiarum Italiae, vol. IV, part II, col. 102 and following], Ughelli Italia sacra, vol. V, col. 261 and following, Luigi Tatti Vol. I, p. 571 and following and Cesare Cantù Storia di Como, vol. I, p. 142 and following. In order, then, come St. Agrippinus, St. Rubianus, St. Adalbert, St. Martinianus, St. Victorinus, St. John II, St. John III, St. Octavianus, St. Benedict, St. Flavian, Deusdedit or Deodatus. Further, that the ordination of St. Agrippinus took place after the year 606 or 607, in which John, formerly abbot, ascended, or rather usurped, the see of Aquileia Compare De Rubeis, Monumenta Ecclesiae Aquilejensis, col. 289 and following, is clear if only from the fact that he was ordained by this John, a most bitter enemy of the fifth general council, or the second of Constantinople. Of which thing we have as witness the sepulchral stone of Agrippinus himself, on which Baldassarre Oltrocchi [Ecclesiae Mediolanensis Historia Ligustica Langobardica, book III, chapter IV, p. 482 and following], Cesare Cantù Storia di Como, vol. I, p. 145 and following and others have commented much.
[4] [on account of the ordination of St. Agrippinus, made between 607 and 613, and the age of Deodatus, flourishing in the year 721, he is to be referred to after 650;] In this monument, after many praises of St. Agrippinus, the following is read Ibid., p. 484.:
For this man, whom so many proofs adorn, The honour of the first nobility adorns as well. Aquileia destined him as leader in these shores, That unconquered he might wage the great battles of God. For these the supreme patriarch John was made head, Who first holds the see in the aforesaid city. Who can praise the clergy and people of Como, Who sought so great a ruler for themselves? These all venerate the four kindly synods, And have set aside the evil fifth council. These waged war on their account for many years, But their faith always remained unconquered.
It is possible also to fix the ordination of St. Agrippinus somewhat more accurately. For St. Columbanus, in his most celebrated letter to Pope Boniface IV Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum, vol. XII, p. 28 and following, records that he was moved by Agripp… to write in defence of the Italians who attacked the condemnation of the Three Chapters. By which letter St. Agrippinus of Como is manifestly indicated Compare C. Cantù, vol. I, p. 151., who in the inscription set out above is praised as much as possible for his deeds against the fifth council. And since this letter is more probably referred to the year 613 Compare Oltrocchi, p. 463, note (*), p. 481 and elsewhere., hence the beginnings of the episcopate of St. Agrippinus are to be concluded to fall between the years 607 and 613. Similarly it is possible to investigate the age of Deodatus. For in the year 721 he received a donation from Liutprand, and on the 2nd day of April of the year 724 he translated the relics of SS. Protus and Hyacinthus Tatti, vol. I, pp. 736 and 741; Coleti in Ughelli, vol. V, col. 263, note 1.. Wherefore a space of a little more than a hundred years, which ran from about the year 607 to 724, is to be distributed among eleven bishops; and since St. John III comes seventh in order among them, his episcopate seems to be placed after the middle of the 7th century.
[5] The church of Como was most certainly involved in the Aquileian schism. But in inquiring into the age of St. John we have struck another rock, much more dangerous: namely, we have brought this bishop of Como, no differently from at least ten others of his predecessors and successors venerated as Saints by the church of Como, into suspicion of having shared in the Aquileian schism. Let us take the matter up a little further back, but briefly. That after the second council of Constantinople, where the Three Chapters had been condemned, the bishops of the West were commonly stirred up against the Easterners, because they believed an injury had been done to the council of Chalcedon, is well enough known. In Italy the bishops of Aquileia, Ravenna and Milan, with the other Ligurians, Venetians and Istrians, did not hesitate to rend the holy church; while others, to whom too the Constantinopolitan sentence was less approved, did not proceed so far; and so the schism was consummated in the synod of Aquileia about the year 557 De Rubeis, col. 219.. Meanwhile, by the work of Pelagius I, the metropolitans of Ravenna and of Milan were brought back into the way of charity;
whom it is probable that the church of Como followed at that time: for the name of the bishop of Como is subscribed neither to the schismatic synod held at that time De Rubeis, col. 253., nor to the synod celebrated in the cause of Severus of Aquileia about the year 587 Ibid., col. 258., nor to the petition of the schismatics offered to the emperor Maurice in the year 591 Ibid., col. 273.. Nevertheless not long after the church of Como is found involved in the schism, as is well enough established from the letter of St. Gregory the Great to Constantius, bishop of Milan, in which is read Book IX, epistle LIII, indiction II.: We have learned that the clerics of the church of Como, whom with priestly zeal you admonished to return to the unity of the church, answered that such affection was not bestowed on them by us that they should prevail, charity persuading, to return to it; and since they were complaining of a certain villa of theirs retained by the Roman church, the most holy pontiff then proceeds so far in kindness as to say that he is ready to grant it to them (if they return to unity), even if no right in it belonged to them. So St. Gregory in the second indiction, that is, in the year 599. What did the historians of Como formerly say to this? That the church of Como had been falsely accused before St. Gregory; or, if there had been any sin, it was corrected by the letter of St. Gregory Tatti, vol. I, p. 644 and following; or that this stain was branded on the clerics, not on the bishop, because at that time the see was perhaps vacant Oltrocchi, p. 476 and following. But that all these answers, which could formerly be brought forward in excuse, are vain, and that the church of Como persevered for some time in the schism, has been made manifest by the monument of St. Agrippinus. Whence, so that the glory of sanctity may be preserved for St. John III, it must be shown either that that schism ceased before his time, or at least that it could have been harmless.
[6] since before it was not under the metropolis of Aquileia, That we may be able to investigate something about the time at which the people of Como sent their farewell to the Aquileian schism, it must before all be asked to which metropolis they belonged. Ughelli thinks Italia sacra, vol. V, col. 256. that they were from the beginning under the bishop of Aquileia, first because it is credible that St. Hermagoras, disciple of St. Mark and bishop of Aquileia, preached the faith among the people of Como; but this is mere opinion, resting on no ancient documents; second, because a certain tradition exists that from the first the bishop of Como was suffragan to that of Aquileia, and in antiquity cast his vote in his election, and was present at the provincial councils of that patriarchate; but how very little credence traditions of this kind deserve, since they take their origin from the sayings of moderns and are supported by no testimony of antiquity, escapes no one; third, because in the Lateran council under Alexander III, in the year 1179, Anselm of Como subscribes among the suffragans of Aquileia; but it does not follow from this that in the preceding centuries too the people of Como were within the bounds of the patriarchate of Aquileia; fourth, because formerly in the diocese of Como appeal was made to the patriarch of Aquileia: it is a certain fact that this was done, nor does anyone deny that the people of Como had long since been subject to the prelate of Aquileia, but ancient appeals are wanting, since it is a question of the ancient state of affairs; fifth, finally, because until the year 1598 the patriarchal rite of chanting was in use among the people of Como; but why do they not establish how ancient this chant was and in what age it was introduced among the people of Como?
[7] but under that of Milan, Further, the true opinion seems to be that Como was originally of the province of Milan; that at the time of the schism it defected to the metropolitan of Aquileia, and was subject to him from then on, until Benedict XIV in the years 1751 and 1752 abolished the see of Aquileia and substituted for it that of Gorizia, and Joseph II, nominating Giuseppe Bertieri bishop of Como, asked of Pius VI in the year 1789 that it be subject to the archbishop of Milan C. Cantù, vol. II, p. 368.. For that at the beginning it was of the jurisdiction of Milan, De Rubeis deduces Col. 179. from epistle IV of St. Ambrose, given in the year 380 to St. Felix of Como, in which at number 6 is read: The ordination which you received by the imposition of my hands will not be reproached. For St. Felix feared to be present at the synod of Lodi because he had been ordained by St. Ambrose alone (not by three bishops, on account of the fewness of labourers, Arianism raging). That Felix seems to be the same who subscribed the synodal letter of the council of Milan on the heresy of Jovinian Ibid., col. 181.. Similarly, at the synod of Milan which Eusebius celebrated in the year 452 for receiving the dogmatic letter of St. Leo the Great to Flavian, Abundantius of Como subscribed for himself and for Asinio of Chur Ibid., col. 182.. Moreover, as we saw at number 5, Constantius, prelate of Milan, was exerting his authority in the year 599 to bring the church of Como back to peace. To which is added that Como lies almost next to Milan and is wonderfully distant from Aquileia; and that in the fourth century, when the division of the ecclesiastical provinces seems to some to have been made, Como as well as Milan was contained in Liguria. In very truth against all these things exceptions, or rather divinations, have been proposed Compare Cantù, vol. I, p. 152 and following; but although it could perhaps be granted that these arguments taken singly are not of sufficient force, yet everyone sees that their weight is very great if they are weighed together: and so it will be all over with investigating the ancient bounds of metropolises if we judge that the matter is not settled by so many signs concurring into one.
[8] [on the occasion of the schism it passed under Aquileia; to which it remained subject thereafter,] We said next that the prelates of Como became suffragans of the patriarch of Aquileia and remained so thereafter, from the time at which they involved themselves in the schism and received St. Agrippinus from the patriarch of Aquileia. First, this change of the bounds of provinces brought in through the schism ought to seem strange to no one. For there was bitter war between the schismatics and the catholics; and as the latter had taken three dioceses away from the metropolitan of Aquileia [Compare the Petition to the emperor Maurice in De Rubeis, cols. 276, 189 and following], so neither are the former to be believed to have kept their hands off what belonged to others, if any occasion of increasing their party was present. For the rest, in the time of Arianism the same manner of acting had been observed on both sides. That, however, after the schism had been consummated by the people of Como through the ordination of St. Agrippinus, they remained under the metropolitan of Aquileia seems to be established if only from the fact that no further traces of Milanese jurisdiction appear. And indeed from part V, chapter VIII of the Decretum of Ivo, De Rubeis recites Ibid., col. 450. a letter of Stephen V, written some time after the year 885 Compare C. Cantù, vol. I, p. 218 and following, by which Walbert, patriarch of Aquileia, is again admonished not to neglect any longer, by the privilege or metropolitan right of his see, to consecrate Liutward for the church of Como; than which letter nothing more luminous can be found for establishing the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Aquileia. I forbear to speak at greater length of Albericus of Como being numbered among the bishops of the Venetian province subject to the metropolis of Aquileia in the Roman synod of the year 1027 De Rubeis, col. 513., and of Liuterus of Como subscribing among the same at the synod of Pavia of the year 1064 Ibid., col. 452..
[9] although it seemed otherwise to Sassi: Nevertheless these things do not altogether please Giuseppe Antonio Sassi, who contends that after the Aquileian schism the people of Como returned under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Milan, to whom they were still subject in the year 874, when, namely, Helibertus, the immediate predecessor of Liutward, held the see of Como. To demonstrate this, he alleges the Judicatum of Anspert, prelate of Milan, in the cause of Helibertus and the monks of St. Ambrose of Milan, asserting that this lawsuit was settled by Anspert by his own metropolitan right, sentence having been pronounced Mediolanensium Antistitum historia, p. 306.. But, to omit that Sassi's conclusion most openly conflicts with the above-praised letter of Pope Stephen to Walbert of Aquileia, Sassi strays by the whole heaven from the truth of the matter when he establishes that Anspert proceeded by his own metropolitan right. For that Judicatum, published by Muratori Antiquitates Italiae, vol. V, col. 987., has this beginning: While in the name of God, in the city of Milan, in the bishop's house of the holy church of Milan, there were sitting in judgment the venerable lord Anspert, archbishop of the same holy church of Milan, and count Boso, Envoys of the lord Emperor, together with Albericus, count of that city, etc. Anspert, therefore, was sitting in this judgment not as archbishop but as Missus dominicus; whence nothing is to be concluded about the bounds of the ecclesiastical province of Milan. Nor does the subscription of Helibertus of Como cause trouble, which occurs among the bishops of the province of Milan in the synod of Pavia celebrated in the year 876, in which the election of the emperor Charles the Bald was confirmed; for the synod was assembled from the nobles of the Italian kingdom, and Adelard of Verona too is read as having subscribed De Rubeis, col. 452; whose see, although formerly subject to the prelate of Milan Maffei, Verona Illustrata, vol. I, p. 541 and following, was nevertheless from the time of the schism, nay perhaps from the age of St. Leo the Great Ibid., p. 543., of the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Aquileia. Giovanni Villa, in a most learned little work on the metropolis and metropolitan of Milan Fasti della Metropoli di Milano, p. 94., which he published in the year 1830, proposes another system, namely that after the Aquileian schism the bishops of Como were suffragans now of Aquileia, now of Milan, so that the right was uncertain and the dominion varied according to the variety of the times. To establish this, he reports on the one side what we too have reported about the authority of the patriarch of Aquileia over the people of Como; and on the other side the Judicatum of Anspert (which we have shown to bear little on the matter), and finally the Constitution of Frederick I of the year 1159 on the pacts of the convention and the conditions of the peace made with the Milanese. Article I of this convention has Goldast, Constitutiones imperiales, vol. I, p. 269.: They (the Milanese) will not prevent the cities of Como and Lodi from being raised up to the honour of the empire … and will not further intrude themselves, so that those cities may be free, as the Milanese are free of them: except with respect to the ecclesiastical right which they have towards the archbishop and church of Milan. It may be granted that the Milanese in the 12th century extended their ecclesiastical as well as their civil authority over the people of Como; but since this lasted a short time, in so great a series of years it seems scarcely to be counted.
[10] [hence and from other arguments it follows that the people of Como were attached to the schism,] Be that as it may, it follows from what has been said thus far that the people of Como embraced the party of the prelate of Aquileia to the very end; for if they had returned to the peace of the church before the schism was finished, they would have subjected themselves anew to the authority of their former metropolitan of Milan; but since this did not happen, an argument arises from this that they followed the patriarch of Aquileia to the end of the schism; to whom they then (many things, namely, having to be tolerated for peace) remained subject Compare Oltrocchi, p. 486 and following. The
schism being settled, the bounds of the provinces were not moved; and indeed the church and province of Grado, which had arisen from some parts of the diocese and province of Aquileia that had embraced catholic unity, was preserved intact De Rubeis, col. 313 and following. For the rest, to use the words of Oltrocchi P. 487., after the patriarch John (of Aquileia) and Agrippinus (of Como), until the end of the 7th century the prelate of Como is nowhere read to have subscribed to any catholic synod. For if we consult the Roman synod of Agatho, celebrated under Constantine Pogonatus in the year DCLXXX in the cause of the Monothelites, the bishop of Como is read neither among the 25 bishops in the province of Milan, nor in the province of New Aquileia or Grado, nor elsewhere. There is likewise deep silence about him in the synodical letter of St. Mansuetus to Constantine Pogonatus, Augustus of the East, dictated at Milan in the same year under Berthari and Cunibert, kings of the Lombards, as Labbe observed. Thus Oltrocchi.
[11] until it ceased, not under Honorius I, But at what time, finally, the Aquileian schism ceased must now be determined. Several judge that an end was made of it in the time of Honorius I, namely in the year 627, seventy years after the pseudo-synod of Aquileia celebrated in the year 557 De Rubeis, col. 299 and following. And in very truth you have in Gruter Inscriptiones, vol. II, p. 1183. the following epigram in praise of Honorius:
Istria bears witness, possessed by hostile arms Seven times and ten times through a pestiferous schism. That it might be fulfilled by the voice of Jeremiah singing, The vengeance on the captives was so numerous. But the good prelate, leader of the people, Honorius, by pious arms Restored to the churches the members torn away.
That "seven times and ten times" is written for seven times ten, that is, seventy years, is plain from the allusion to the Babylonian captivity. You have something not unlike in Aringhi Roma subterranea, book II, chapter VIII, vol. I, p. 164, Paris edition 1659.:
And as the shepherd, shrewd in mind, strong in divine song, Knew how to lead his sheep to life: For Istria, long wearied under savage schism, Returns, at your admonition, to the statutes of the fathers.
[12] in whose time some bishops were reconciled, But those who judged that at that time all Istria, which was held with Venetia for one province [Paul the Deacon, On the deeds of the Lombards, book II, chapter XIV, in Muratori, Scriptores rerum Italicarum, vol. I, col. 431.], returned to catholic peace, did not notice that the writers of these poems use synecdoche, that is, write the whole for the part. Here is what the matter was. The schismatics had invaded the see of Grado, which we indicated above had arisen from the catholic part of the diocese of Aquileia. Honorius, therefore, gave a letter to the bishops established throughout Venetia and Istria, and by his authority appointed his subdeacon Primogenius bishop of Grado and presented him with the pallium, ordering that all should acknowledge him as their metropolitan Compare De Rubeis, col. 297.. Not only the catholics obeyed, but some too of the schismatics, yet not all. On which matter, to use again the words of Oltrocchi P. 612 and following, it is pleasing here to observe the names of those prelates from the Aquileian patriarchate whom I see to have subscribed to the Roman synod of Agatho. They are, namely, those of Agatho, bishop of Grado, in agreement with the Roman church; of Cyriacus of the church of Pola; of Aurelian of Parenzo; of Ursinus of Ceneda; of Andrew of Vejentana; of Gaudentius of Trieste; of Benenatus of Oderzo; of Ursinianus of Paduana (or Pucinana); finally of Paul of Patavina (in Greek, of Altinum). But where, continues Oltrocchi, are the patriarch of old Aquileia, where the bishops of Verona, where of Mantua, where of Como? Why do the names of those of Concordia, Caorle, Belluno, Emona, Vicenza, Feltre, Justinopolis lie hidden? unless because their churches, still sordid in the schism, did not yet adhere to the Roman see and to unity.
[13] but in the time of St. Sergius, as witness Bede, So far, then, is it from being the case that all the bishops of Istria returned to ecclesiastical unity through the work of Honorius! The abolition of the schism, then, must be credited to the zeal of Pope St. Sergius. For Bede, a contemporary author, writes [On the Reckoning of Times, and on the six ages of the world, Works, Giles' edition, vol. VI, p. 329.]: The synod held at Aquileia (in the year 557), through want of skill in the faith, hesitated to receive the fifth universal council, until, instructed by the salutary admonitions of blessed Pope Sergius, it too consented to assent to it with the other churches of Christ: which Anastasius the Librarian Bianchini's edition, vol. IV, p. 183. and Paul the Deacon Book VI, chapter XIV, in Muratori, Scriptores rerum Italicarum, vol. I, p. 404. copied almost word for word. Some most excellent writers have tormented these words in wonderful fashion. Some denied credence to Bede, others said that all the Aquileians had once emerged from the schism, that a part had then relapsed and in the time of St. Sergius was again freed from it, others that Sergius was written by the copyists in place of Pelagius; others that a synod was held at Aquileia in the time of Sergius, others only in the year 557, when the schism was first consummated; others finally commented other things on this passage. But all these things now collapse, and the whole history of this peace that was entered into becomes known, since there was discovered by Oltrocchi in two codices a contemporary Rhythm in praise of Cunibert, king of the Lombards In Oltrocchi, pp. 536, 579, 612 and following, and through it the epitaph of Thomas, minister of the church of Pavia, long since published by Gruter Inscriptiones, vol. II, appendix, p. 1189., was understood.
[14] [and by a certain rhythm; from which are discovered the assembly of the bishops at Aquileia,] What pertains to our matter we shall pluck from each monument and put together with the statements of Bede. A schism having arisen already from ancient time,… the Aquileians dissenting, … that the faith might be united in all Hesperia, king Cunincpert commands them to be summoned. These things from the Rhythm; but Oltrocchi with full right judges P. 648. that Cunibert was stirred up by Pope Sergius, whom probably Benedict, archbishop of Milan, had moved to it. Further, this plan having been entered upon, Thomas of Pavia seems to have been sent to Aquileia, to summon the schismatic bishops to Pavia in the name of Cunibert. To which journey, no differently than to the Roman journey undertaken a little after, belong these last verses of Thomas's epitaph:
While Aquileia, long blinded by an old error, Refused the right faith spread from heaven, Treading unwearied the rough ways and the snowy paths of the mountains, You, prudent, glued together those who were split.
Then Peter, patriarch of Aquileia, convoked a council of his adherents, as an old chronicle of Aquileia witnesses in these words De Rubeis, appendix, p. 9.: In his time a universal synod is celebrated at Aquileia. Gentle counsels were taken there; the Aquileians, therefore, came to the council of Pavia, what was done in which the Rhythm expresses thus: To the city where the king resides, called Ticinum from the river which flows by, bearing its proper name Papia, the orthodox, having entered the royal hall, together began to contend against the depraved, reading the books sanctioned by the Fathers, and the salutary admonitions of Sergius, of which Bede speaks, uncovering the heresy of Paul and Pyrrhus, of Theodore, of Ibas and likewise of Theodoret. Whence it is manifest that in this synod of Pavia not only the Three Chapters, which were the origin of the Aquileian schism, but also Monothelitism was treated.
[15] [and also the synods of Pavia and of Rome, in which the schismatics returned to the peace of the church:] But the schismatics, continues the author of the Rhythm, recognizing that they were now defeated through that reading, forthwith ask of the king that the catholics should swear that they had rightly received the fifth synod; and they promise that they will afterwards consent and will swear that it must be believed to have been received. For exulting (rejoicing), having entered the church, they affirm concord by oath; and, united in the bond of charity, in concord they share the eucharist. None, whether of the catholics or of the schismatics, could at so great a joy restrain himself from weeping and tears: so great a compunction filled all; they would see Christ there as if openly. The pious king Cunincpert bids (orders) both parties to choose and direct envoys to the holy see, where, Christ being bishop, power was given to bind and loose to Peter the fisherman, the key-bearer of heaven; where resides the pious Pope Sergius, who ordered his bishops to be present (behold a Roman council, of which no other memory exists), and joyfully received Thomas, minister of Christ, together with Theodald, most skilled in the laws; (these were the envoys of the council of Pavia;) the Aquileians too were present together. To the Pope, sitting, before the faces of all, a schedule, or synodal letter, is given, containing what had passed, that is, the acts of Pavia; which the excellent man Damian, pontiff of Pavia, sent, dictated in pious utterance. Pope Sergius promised the king that his misdeeds were taken away by God; he recalls that saying of the prophet, where he says: He who converts a sinner from error has freed his soul from death. Deservedly and justly the apostolic shepherd ordered to be burned, worthy as they were, the codices of the depraved sect which the aforesaid authors had written, so that the minds of the depraved who were of the schism might no longer be able.
[16] these things were done perhaps in the year 698. In what year these things were done is difficult to define. Bede ties them to the times of Tiberius Apsimar, who reigned from the year 698 to 705 Art de vérifier les dates, vol. I, p. 419.. From the Rhythm we know that they belong to the times of Cunibert, who died at Pavia in the year 700 [Compare Muratori on Paul the Deacon, book VI, chapter XVII, annotation 73, Scriptores, vol. I, p. 496.], and at the same time to the age of Pope St. Sergius, who, according to Bianchini, the writers on establishing chronology Art de vérifier les dates, vol. I, p. 255. and most moderns, died on the 8th day of September of the year 701, Papebroch Propylaeum Maji, p. *111 and following however deferring his funeral to the following year. The calculation of Sigebert of Gembloux In Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae, vol. VI, p. 328., marking the reconciliation of the Aquileians at the year 698, pleased De Rubeis Col. 312., Muratori Annali d'Italia, vol. IV, p. 194. and Oltrocchi Page 659.. There is nothing that conflicts. From what we have discussed thus far it is sufficiently manifest that the Aquileian schism persevered until the end of the 7th century, and accordingly that it is probable that the prelates of Como were infected with that stain up to this time: which for the rest is the opinion of Oltrocchi Pp. 486 and 613., nor does the more recent historian of Como himself, Cesare Cantù Vol. I, p. 151., seem to depart from it, erring however when he writes that Deodatus was already present at the catholic council of Milan of the year 680.
[17] from what has been said, St. John III probably lived in the schism; If these things are so, the reader will now ask whether bishop St. John III is to be retained among the Saints or not. But that it is not ours to pronounce on deleting or retaining the names of Saints in the sacred calendars everyone understands. Since, therefore, the people of Como venerate him up to now; and since the apostolic see has not hindered the cult of St. Agrippinus himself, although it is most certainly established from his sepulchral stone that he in the schism
died; far be it from us to strike out of the sacred diptychs the memory of St. John III, of whom perhaps it is not equally manifest that he died in the schism. Besides, formal schism is one thing, merely material schism another; that the latter does not hinder salvation and sanctity is witnessed by the Saints who died in the Western, or Avignon, schism. Now if anyone considerately weighs the origin and causes of the Aquileian schism, it is not so difficult to understand that most holy men could have been so carried away by their zeal as to believe in good faith that this way had to be entered upon by them.
[18] whom, however, many things can excuse from formal schism, For first it is certain that the condemnation of the Three Chapters was suggested to the emperor Justinian by Theodore, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, defender of Origen and an acephalus, so that the synod of Chalcedon, as though retracted and purged, might be received by the acephali through all things and in all things; second, that after the publication of Justinian's book and edict the acephali, or monophysites, triumphed; third, that Pope Vigilius for some time resisted this condemnation and the council of Constantinople itself, nor assented except with the reverence of the synod of Chalcedon kept safe, by which exception he baffled the frauds of the acephali; fourth, that at the beginning almost the whole West shrank from the synod of Constantinople and the condemnation of the three chapters, not because they approved these, but because the condemnation seemed to them a heretical snare; and indeed when Pelagius I succeeded Vigilius, a third bishop was not found in Italy by whom he might be consecrated; fifth, that among those who did not receive this condemnation two parties were afterwards made: of whom some judged that the faith had not indeed been betrayed in the fifth synod, but that matters had been conducted imprudently there, and accordingly that there was no just cause for avoiding communion with the defenders of this council: and it is now admitted that these were by no means counted among the schismatics by the supreme pontiffs, although they turned away from the fifth synod: but others, not indeed, as Facundus of Hermiane testifies of himself, withdrew from the communion of the contradictors, that is, of those condemning the Chapters, for the condemnation of Theodore, nor did they judge that so great a cause: but because, in the person of Theodore, they had tried to approve the Nestorian letter of Ibas and from the letter to disapprove the synod of Chalcedon. For they did not notice that Ibas and Theodoret were admitted in the synod of Chalcedon only after they had laid aside their errors; and besides, the triumph of the acephali after the fifth synod (vain indeed, but exceedingly noisy) had deeply impressed upon their mind that a wound had been inflicted on the council of Chalcedon, and accordingly on the sincere faith, through the reprobation of the three Chapters, and therefore that they must abstain from the communion of those who had held these things ratified.
[19] especially since, as is clear from the letter of St. Columbanus, And so it came about that for almost a century and a half they held Pelagius and his successors as intruded into the Roman see, just as almost the whole West at the beginning had held Pelagius. We must beware, moreover, of judging them according to certain principles which are altogether clear and manifest to us, but which did not so shine forth in that age. On which matter it will help to have before our eyes the opinion of St. Columbanus on these things. For, exhorting Pope Boniface IV to assemble a synod by which the darkness of suspicion might be removed from the chair of St. Peter, he writes thus Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima of Lyon, vol. III, p. 30.: Therefore assemble a convention, that you may clear yourselves of what is objected against you: for it is no chariot sport that is objected against you. For the reception of heretics, as I hear, is imputed to you, which far be it to be believed to have been, to be or to be going to be true. For they say that Eutyches, Nestorius, Dioscorus, ancient heretics as we know, were received by Vigilius in a synod, I know not which, in the fifth. Behold the cause, as they say, of the whole scandal. If you too so receive them, as is said, or if Vigilius himself died so infected, why do you recite him against conscience? For all that is not of faith is sin. Now it is your fault if you have strayed from the true confidence and have made void the first faith: rightly do your juniors resist you, and rightly do they not communicate with you, until the memory of the lost is blotted out and handed over to oblivion. For if these things are certain rather than fabulous, by a reversal your sons have been turned into the head, and you into the tail: which it is a grief even to say; therefore those too will be your judges who have always kept the orthodox faith, whoever they may be, even if they seem to be your juniors. For they are orthodox and true catholics, who have never received or defended heretics or any suspected persons, but have remained in the zeal of the true faith. If therefore these are not such as to be elders in order, yet greater in fault, let them judge justly, asking pardon of one another in turn for so long a discord, and both defending no one against reason, neither you heretics, nor they suspected persons, whereby both may the more swiftly agree upon what is culpable.
[20] certain principles less to be approved were then in force. And further below: You are nearly heavenly, and Rome is the head of the churches of the world, saving the singular prerogative of the place of the Lord's resurrection. And therefore, as your honour is great on account of the dignity of the chair, so great care is necessary for you, that you do not lose your dignity through some perversity. For it will be with you as long as right reason remains. For he is the sure key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven who opens to the worthy through true knowledge, and shuts to the unworthy. Otherwise, if he does the contrary, he will be able neither to open nor to shut. Since, therefore, these things are true and are received without any contradiction by all who are truly wise, (although it is known to all and there is no one who does not know how our saviour conferred on St. Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven) and you on this account perhaps claim for yourselves, beyond the rest, something haughty, I know not what, of greater authority and of power in divine things, know that your power will be less with the Lord if you even think this in your hearts: because the unity of faith in the whole world has made a unity of power and prerogative, so that freedom is given to the truth everywhere by all, and access to error is likewise denied by all. Now according to these principles, which at that time had perhaps grown strong through the very dissensions, everyone sees that the Aquileians must have believed themselves to be in safety, since they had persuaded themselves that Pope Vigilius had in fact thought with the acephali, or at least communicated with them.
[21] Some chief authors on this schism. Further, it ought not to seem more wonderful that some churches persevered in good faith in this opinion for a century and a half than that almost the whole West thought the same for a short time; add that the minds of the schismatics had been inflamed, and the more so because the Roman pontiffs had implored against them the help of the secular arm from the Greek emperors, the promoters of the fifth synod: whence all things became more and more suspect to the Aquileians, who were accordingly less inclined to lend docile ears to the admonitions and explanations of the catholics. Whoever wishes more about the Aquileian schism, let him consult not only the Annals of Baronius and the Dissertation of Noris on the fifth synod, but also the monuments of the church of Aquileia of De Rubeis, the Annals of the church of Säben, or Brixen, of Giuseppe Resch, the Ligurian History of the church of Milan of Oltrocchi, the Disquisition of Roschmann on the bishopric of Säben of St. Cassian the Martyr and on the Acts of St. Ingenuinus, bishop of the same city, and the Vindication of the Roman Martyrology opposed to it, recalling on the 13th of August the memory of St. Cassian, Martyr of Forum Cornelii, and on the 5th of February of the holy bishops of Brixen Ingenuinus and Albuinus, and in our work at the 5th day of February the Commentary on St. Ingenuinus, and other things of that kind.
[22] Warnings about certain men reckoned among the Saints. To which we at length put an end, warning the reader of three things: first, that it was long ago wished by some that the sacred calendars of Como be corrected; but that these wishes, as for the most part happens, were empty, since others held that plan rash; although the same men, as the historian of Como shrewdly observes C. Cantù, vol. I, p. 151., with an easy mind struck the festivity of St. Gregory VII out of the liturgical books at the imperial commands. Second, that if all those who were involved in the Aquileian schism were to be struck out, the matter extends more widely than anyone might perhaps at first sight imagine. Third, finally, that even if these men, who enjoy ecclesiastical honours, had been not merely material but formal schismatics, this would do no harm to the sanctity of the catholic church, since it is a question here of the affairs of particular churches. But enough of these things.