Boniface I

ON ST. BONIFACE I, POPE AND CONFESSOR,

IN THE YEAR CDXXII.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Boniface I, pope, at Rome. (S.)

BY J. V. H.

§ I. The Saint, elected pontiff during a contest with Eulalius, with the favour of the emperor Honorius peacefully occupies the apostolic see.

The Roman Martyrology has on today's date: "At Rome, of St. Boniface, Pope and Confessor." The praises of St. Boniface in the sacred Fasti: The Hieronymian Martyrology of Fiorentini, omitting his birthday, celebrates his ordination at the 4th before the Kalends of January (the 29th of December): "At Rome," it says, "of the Ordination of Felix and of bishop Boniface." Commenting on which words Fiorentini says that he does not indeed object if anyone affirms that the day of the deposition of Felix I, Pope and Martyr, is noted here Compare Acta SS., vol. VIII of May, p. 236.: "But," he says, "it is more clearly established that it is Boniface, the first Roman Pontiff of this name, who in the schism of Eulalius was elected and ordained on this very day, as is most evidently established from the letter of Symmachus, prefect of the City, to Honorius Augustus, given on the same day, the 4th before the Kalends of January, which Baronius set forth from a Vatican codex at the year 418, § LXXV. He was the last of the Pontiffs whose name is reviewed in the Hieronymian fasti." The name of St. Boniface was omitted in their Martyrologies by Ado and Usuard. But the Additions to Usuard cite him. In that of Brussels indeed, at the 4th before the Kalends of January, there is written: "At Rome, the ordination of SS. Felix and Boniface"; the Vatican one, on the day before the Nones of September: "At Rome, on the Via Salaria, the deposition of St. Boniface, bishop"; at the same day the Rosweyde one has: "At Rome, of bishop Boniface, who made the temple Pantheon a church of Christ"; in which words Boniface the First is confused with the Fourth of this name, who flourished at the beginning of the seventh century, and who dedicated the Pantheon temple in honour of the Blessed Mother of God and the holy Martyrs. Finally a great many Additions, which may be seen in Du Sollier, review the name of our Saint at the 8th day of October, in nearly this tenor: "At Rome, on the Via Salaria, of Blessed Boniface I, Pope: he established that a slave should not be made a cleric, nor one liable to the curia or to any matter."

[2] His briefer Life We have a briefer Life of St. Boniface in the Liber pontificalis of Anastasius the librarian, which we set forth here Migne, Patrol., vol. CXXVIII, col. 186.: "Boniface, a Roman by nation, son of the presbyter Jocundus, sat three years, four months, thirteen days. He was ordained during a contest with Eulalius, on one day, and there was dissension in the clergy for seven months and fifteen days. Eulalius indeed was ordained in the Constantinian basilica, Boniface, however, in the basilica of Julia. At the same time, hearing this, Placidia Augusta with her son Valentinian Augustus, as they were sitting at Ravenna, reported it to Honorius Augustus, sitting at Milan. At the same time both the Augusti, sending their authority, commanded that both should go out of the city. When they had gone out under compulsion, Boniface lived in the cemetery of St. Felicity the Martyr on the Via Salaria. Eulalius, however, in the city of Antium, at St. Hermes. But when the next day of Easter came, Eulalius presumed, because he had been ordained in the Constantinian basilica, and he entered the City and baptized and celebrated Easter in the Constantinian basilica. Boniface, however, as the custom was, celebrated the Easter baptism in the basilica of St. Agnes the Martyr. On hearing this, both Augusti sent and cast out Eulalius, and, sending their authority, recalled Boniface into the City and established him as bishop. Eulalius, however, they sent out into Campania. After three years and eight months Boniface died. The clergy and people asked for Eulalius to be recalled, to which however Eulalius did not consent, to return to Rome. He too died in the same place of Campania a year after the death of Boniface. This Boniface established that no woman or nun should touch the consecrated palls, or wash them, or place incense in the church, but only a minister; and that a slave should not be made a cleric, nor one liable to the curia or to any matter.

[3] from Anastasius and Flodoard: "He made an oratory in the cemetery of St. Felicity, beside her body, and adorned the tomb of St. Felicity the martyr and of St. Silvanus, where he also placed these things: a silver paten, weighing twenty pounds, a silver cup, weighing X pounds, a silver flagon, weighing XIII pounds; two smaller silver chalices, weighing IV pounds. Three silver crowns, weighing XV pounds. He held one ordination in the month of December, of XIII presbyters, III deacons, and XXXVI bishops for various places. He too was buried in the cemetery of St. Felicity the martyr, on the Via Salaria, on the 8th before the Kalends of November; and the episcopate ceased for IX days." What ought to be noted on this text we shall touch on in the course of this Commentary: for which reason we have not set down the variant readings, especially around the numerals: I shall mark one difference of numbers in the text itself; namely, at the beginning it is written that St. Boniface sat three years, four months, thirteen days, and a little further on that he died after three years and eight months. These and similar things we shall call back to the balance. Besides the Life of Anastasius, we know of no other ancient one: for which reason, at the end of the Commentary, we shall give the Legend of St. Boniface as it stands at the 27th day of October in the Lateran Proper. A book of the miracles of Pope St. Boniface is indeed reviewed by Bede in his Collectanea Ibid., vol. XCIV, col. 557.: but this work seems so far lost, nor is it at all established to which of the Pontiffs bearing the name of Boniface the miracles are to be ascribed. Finally, before we relate the deeds themselves, it will be worth the trouble to bring forward a very few verses of Flodoard on the triumphs of Christ through Italy, book X, chapter 4 Migne, Patrol., vol. CXXXV, col. 766.:

Boniface, after (Zosimus), ascending amid discordant strife,

Then, while with gentle spirit he withdraws

And does not insolently claim the heights,

Is received and strengthened, his rival driven out:

He strives that the see be not henceforth sought by ambition;

He decrees that no woman touch the sacred things of the altar

Nor reach for the decrees reserved to lofty ministers:

And that no cleric be consecrated who is bound by legal tie.

Here he adorns the pledges of blessed Felicity

In the temple where his own burden rested.

[4] Elected in a contest with Eulalius, But now let us examine the deeds performed by St. Boniface. And first of all there occurs the question of the year and day on which St. Boniface was elected and ordained. It is certain to me that the Saint was elected on the XXVIIIth and ordained on the following day, the XXIXth of December, or the 4th before the Kalends of January, of the common year 418. As regards the year of the election, this is undoubtedly 418, Prosper saying in his Chronicle Ibid., vol. LI, col. 592.: "Honorius XII and Theodosius VIII being consuls," that is in the year of Christ 418, "… Boniface administers the episcopate of the Roman Church for III years, eight months, VI days." Indeed one may not move the election of St. Boniface away from this year, since on the one hand there is extant a letter of Zosimus, the predecessor of Boniface, signed on the 16th before the Kalends of December under the same consuls Ibid., vol. XX, col. 686.; and on the other Boniface himself writes to the bishops of Gaul on the Ides of June, the most distinguished man Monaxius being consul, that is in the year 419 Ibid., col. 758.. The election was therefore held between the 14th before the Kalends of December 418 and the Ides of June 419. But the day itself we know from the letter of Symmachus, prefect of the City, to Honorius Augustus, given on the 4th before the Kalends of January, that is the XXIXth of December, in which he writes Baronius, Annals, at 418, § LXXIX. that on the second day after his entry Zosimus departed this life; that he at once admonished the people that all things should be finished by a quiet deliberation of the clerics, and that popular disorder should not mix itself in the arranging of matters … "But," he says, "when the holy man Eulalius (the competitor of Boniface) had been led by the people and by the clerics from the funeral of the former bishop to the Lateran church, he stayed there for two days with a very great multitude and with several priests, that the customary day might be waited for, on which he could be solemnly ordained. While matters here stood thus, suddenly a number of presbyters with Boniface of the same order, the people having been gathered at the church of Theodora, began to wish to ordain him." Symmachus indeed opposed this plan, but, he says, "they resisted with such great pertinacity that they did not in the least hesitate to do whatever had been threatened. For they held that the presbyter Boniface was to be ordained in the church of Marcellus, and with him they proceeded to the basilica of St. Peter." The customary day for the ordination of bishops was, as also today, the Sunday, which fell on the 4th before the Kalends of January of the year 418, marked with the dominical letter F. On that day therefore St. Boniface was ordained; but elected on the day before, since in the interval of time from when they began to wish to ordain him, that is elected him, to when they truly ordained him in the church of Marcellus, there intervened the deliberation of the prefect with the clergy, the partisan of Boniface, which easily took up a whole day. The year and day of the election of St. Boniface are also confirmed from the day of the death of Zosimus, who died on the XXVIth of December 418, and from the more correct Liber Pontificalis, where the see is said to have been vacant for II days. Some read that the episcopate ceased for XI days; the Roman numeral II, namely, for the Arabic 11

taking Pagi, critique of Baronius, at the year 418, § LXXII..

[5] To whom Symmachus, prefect of the city, A deadly schism had therefore arisen in the Roman Church, some favouring Boniface, others Eulalius. The party of Eulalius was defended by the prefect Symmachus, as the fragment of the letter just brought forward sufficiently shows. For he said that the holy man Eulalius was led by the people and by the clerics to the Lateran church to be solemnly ordained, as if namely he had been legitimately elected by the clergy and people; whereas Boniface was taken up tumultuously by a number of presbyters and by a gathered people. "And since," says Symmachus in the same letter, "it belongs to your piety to report judgment on this matter, I at once believed, with fitting solicitude, that your majesty was to be consulted, that what your piety decrees on this matter it may clearly set forth by the precept of your divinity." It belonged, you see, to the imperial office, when the legitimately elected Roman Pontiff was established, to expel him who had afterwards intruded himself, and so to take thought for the peace, unity and tranquillity of the City and for ecclesiastical discipline. Nor was the emperor Honorius wanting to his office, as he falsely reckoned it. Holding the report of Symmachus as true, at once, on the 3rd before the Nones (the 3rd of the month) of January 419, he gave letters from Ravenna to Symmachus, in which, praising his zeal for peace, he holds the election of Eulalius to be legitimate and ratified, as being one, he says Baronius, at the year 419, § II., "on whom a fit lawful number of those ordaining, the solemnity of the time, and the quality of the place have rightly conferred the venerable height of the name. But since it is established that all these things were lacking to Boniface, we have perceived that our sentence was superfluously awaited, since those very men who had presumed seem by the prayers they have applied to have condemned their own deed. And so by absolute command we decree that, the extraordinary presumption being removed, Boniface be at once forbidden the City and kept away … if he resists more pertinaciously, we command that he be expelled against his will." Finally he orders that the authors of the plebeian sedition with their allies be held and suitably punished.

[6] Letters having been given to Honorius Augustus, These letters having been brought to Rome, Symmachus straightway takes care that Boniface, staying in the basilica of St. Paul outside the city, be summoned, in order to intimate to him the commands of the prince. But the prefect's servant, sent for this purpose, was beaten and cast out by the partisans of Boniface. Symmachus, fearing a tumult of the people, ordered the gates of the City to be guarded most carefully, lest Boniface should introduce himself into it. These things Symmachus himself relates in order to Honorius, saying [Ibid., § V, on the sixth before the Ides of January, that is the VIIIth day of the month.]: "When at that time the sacred authority had been brought to me, at which the solemnity of the holy day (of the Epiphany) was to be celebrated. At once, as was fitting, having sent the primiscrinius, I admonished Boniface to come to me, to acknowledge what had been commanded, and to abstain from the procession which he had learned was forbidden him: who, despising the summons, went forth, and gave up the man I had sent to be beaten by the people. When this was announced, having held a deliberation with the vicar, the tribune Serenianus, I sent to St. Paul's, where he had assembled, both sacred copies as a precaution, lest the multitude let loose should attempt anything against the public injury on account of the precepts, and I likewise dispatched a part of the office staff. But he, suffering neither to be done, when he wished to return to the City together with the people, at once there ran to meet him at the gates both the attendants and the apparitors, to forbid him, as had been decreed, to enter your City. But he believed that they too were to be despised, and, having violently entered, he was repulsed from a certain part of the City by many running to meet him, nor was he permitted to accomplish what he was planning. When the crowd accompanying him saw this, it was dispersed without any tumult … But as regards the party of Eulalius, the bishop, a venerable man, who on that day with almost the whole multitude was celebrating the solemnities at the basilica of the holy Apostle Peter, where the precepts of your piety were first published, there was the joy of the entire city." Whatever disturbances, therefore, either existed or were feared in the City were ascribed to Boniface: while with Eulalius all was holy, legitimate, joyful.

[7] which are recited, When therefore the matter had come to the point that the ordination of Eulalius seemed about to be confirmed, the presbyters of the Roman Church who had consented to the ordination of Boniface believed it their part to approach the emperor with a suppliant petition, so that he could judge whose cause and ordination was the stronger. We set forth the entire letter, which in every way refutes whatever falsehood had up to now been reported to the emperor Baronius, at the year 419, § VIII. Compare Migne, Patr., vol. XX, col. 750.: "We petition your clemency, most pious and most clement emperors, Honorius and Theodosius, ever Augusti. After the departure of St. Zosimus, Pope of the catholic Church of the City of Rome (as custom required, and as the very discipline of religion dictated), many of us priests assembled together, that we might treat by common judgment of appointing a successor. But since the archdeacon Eulalius, nearly all the entrances having been blocked, and the funeral of the high priest having been impiously despised, had occupied the Lateran church with deacons and very few presbyters and a multitude of the disorderly people; on the next day we hastened to the same church where it had first been decreed by all, a conference of all having been held; and there, counsel having been shared with the Christian people, we chose him whom God had commanded. For we took up the venerable man Boniface, an old presbyter, most learned in the law and proved in good morals, and, what adorned him the more, unwilling, by the acclamation of the whole people and the consent of the better men, consecrated according to the order of divine institution. For with about seventy presbyters subscribing, and nine bishops of different provinces standing by, it is established that the blessing was celebrated at the fitting time: and first all the things that the solemnity required were celebrated.

[8] He favoured him vigorously; "But since the aforesaid Eulalius, who had before been summoned through three of our fellow priests by the authority of many, not rashly to assume anything for himself without the knowledge of the greater clergy, having got round a very few presbyters, ill-treating and consigning to various custody those who had come with letters to prevent it, producing also, with others, the bishop of Ostia, who it is established was fetched when near death (for the sickness of the old man testifies that he was dragged unwilling), had rushed through ambition into a place not due to him, the order of religion being left unguarded. He began to defend his deed indecently by men unacquainted with discipline and ignorant of religion; reckoning that he could confound the divine sentence by human disturbances. And since it is established that your clemency has been deceived by a lying report, so as to ratify I know not what to the injury of the divine will (for divine is whatever the choice of so many confirms), we petition your piety to order that the former decrees be removed; and that Eulalius, who has crept into another's place, should be brought to the court of your perennity together with his supporters. For we profess that the holy Pope Boniface will be present with our priests: for, the several title churches being left, all the presbyters will be present to declare their will, that is, the judgment of God. Let your clemency also order that all be present whom the cause binds; and also that those unwilling be cast out of the city who will not allow themselves to be brought. You will find, when the interior inquiry begins to be carried on, what is repugnant to all divine laws, and can also displease human ones. Having obtained which, may we give to your eternal empire very great and abundant thanks." From what has so far been said and from what follows, it becomes manifest that in ecclesiastical elections the chief part was that of the clergy, the ratification being left to the people Ibid., § XII..

[9] Boniface at length won his cause, "Prudently indeed," says Baronius Ibid., at the year 254, § XLIV., "because the Roman presbyters saw that the prefect Symmachus was zealous for Eulalius, and that Boniface himself had been driven by him from the City, they ask that the cause itself be brought to the emperor himself, because otherwise it would not be possible to claim into liberty Boniface, oppressed by the favour of the powerful; hoping that by the emperor's order, as afterwards happened, chosen bishops would take cognizance of the cause of the election." Honorius Augustus therefore wrote back to Symmachus under date of the 18th before the Kalends of February (the XVth of January), that on account of the allegation of the presbyters it was fitting, ambiguity being set aside, to try at close range the faithful order of events; and that what party the order of proceedings passed over convicts, and what party it, when observed, helps, should be proved before many judging in person. He therefore orders that both Boniface and Eulalius should not delay to hasten their presence to the city of Ravenna by the 6th before the Ides of February (the VIIIth of the month): all being equally admonished who stand as authors of the one or the other ordination, as witnesses of the matter. The emperor himself will convoke a fit number of priests from the different provinces, that the discussion of very many may resolve the matter brought into doubt. "Since, however, all things are reserved intact for the future judgment, it behoves no one to flatter himself concerning things done." And so the acts of Symmachus in favour of Eulalius are declared void. The prefect replied that he had carried out the command of the emperor on the 7th before the Kalends of February Ibid., at the year 419, § IX.. Among the bishops convoked to Ravenna, Honorius would not have those sit who were known to have taken part in the ordination of either, lest they should seem not so much about to bring forth a new sentence as about to uphold a past deed.

[10] Especially because, Eulalius violating the decrees of the emperor, Then the convoked bishops themselves disputed on the validity of the one or the other election, and a lengthy controversy seemed about to arise: for which reason Honorius decreed that the business should be deferred to the Kalends of May, and on account of the imminent days of holy Easter (namely the 3rd before the Kalends of April) he ordered both, namely Boniface and Eulalius, to depart from the City, and Achilleus, bishop of Spoleto, to celebrate the sacred mysteries at Rome. On this matter there are extant four letters of the same Honorius, given on the Ides of March (the XVth of the month) to the prefect Symmachus, to Achilleus of Spoleto, to the senate and to the Roman people, in which he exhorts all to keep the peace Baronius, at the year 419, § XV and following.. While these things were being done, Honorius, foreseeing that the entangled controversy would be difficult to settle, invites many more bishops, even those far distant, to the city of Spoleto by the day of the Ides of June (the XIIIth of June). There are still extant the letters sent to the African bishops Ibid., § XXI.: the bishops of Gaul had received similar letters Compare ibid., § XXXVI.: of so great importance it was, you see, for the whole world to know who sat at Rome as true and legitimate pontiff!

[11] He himself, until the bishops should settle the controversy, But the rashness of Eulalius was the cause that the controversy was settled before the Synod of Spoleto. How this happened is declared by the report of Symmachus, which he wrote on the 10th before the Kalends of April (the XXIIIrd of March) Ibid., § XXV.. "Whatever things," he says, "happen suddenly, with nobody expecting them, can neither be referred to the fault of the judge, and they disturb a people ignorant of reason by unlooked-for novelty. For the religious man Eulalius entered the City on the fifteenth before the Kalends of April, without my knowledge, at the midday hours; who I believed had brought some precept with him. But on the same day, about evening, the bishop of Spoleto, having sent a letter, believed that I should be admonished that he had been ordered to celebrate the sacred rites flowing to him in the City on the holy day of Easter. Of which precept I had before been utterly ignorant. (Honorius had informed Symmachus of a precept of this kind, as we have shown a little above, but Symmachus was a partisan of Eulalius.) Since the arrival of holy Eulalius had first become known to me, I at once believed that the orders of the most invincible prince were to be obeyed. But when holy Achilleus had entered the City on the forbidden day, a commotion of the peoples arose: so that on the one side a multitude, armed with steel and weapons, assembled at the forum in military attire. And

when, the leading men having been called together, I had come forward, in order that, a deliberation having been held for the quiet of the City, I might restrain the people by addressing them, they came at first to the assembly, then, while the presence of holy Achilleus was awaited, that he might publish what had been ordered, he could not come because the multitude resisted. And when both I and the worshipful vicar, the people pressing on us, had entered the forum of Vespasian, that we might urge quiet on either party of the multitude, suddenly armed slaves with weapons and stones, and some even with steel, attacked the people of the party of Eulalius, who had come together unarmed, to learn what the precept concerning the bishop of Spoleto might be; and those who had come prepared against the unprepared so wounded them that they believed that I too and the worshipful vicar must be attacked, while in their seditious fury they admit utterly no reason.

[12] Keeping away from the City, "Had not divinity been present to deliver us, and had we not, going out by a more secret part, escaped the blows of the stones and the onset of the conspiring multitude, we could by no means have got away. Of these it is established that the greater part were slaves, of whom a number have been recognized and are held to be heard. Whence what was my part I have hastened to suggest to your excellency; so that, the things that have been done being known, your greatness may decree a certain end. Since holy Eulalius had thus entered, and on the third day the bishop of Spoleto had followed, and since no precepts of your virtues had come, given to me, for me to follow, a disturbance of the whole people has arisen, raging against itself and to the peril of the judges. And by a speedy reply before the venerable day of Easter may you order what ought to be done: the peoples threatening that they will fight each other, while each thinks that it is to be excluded from the Lateran basilica." From these words it is sufficiently manifest that Symmachus wished to roll the chief blame for the sedition onto the party of Boniface; both because he excuses Eulalius as being ignorant of the imperial precept, and because he testifies that the party of Eulalius were quiet, unarmed, unprepared. It is certainly strange that the emperor's precept, sent on the XVth of March, should have been hidden from Symmachus on the 10th before the Kalends of April (the XXIIIrd of March), and that then the adversaries of Eulalius should have come armed, whose head was Boniface; who kept away from Rome, intending to celebrate holy Easter in the church of St. Agnes outside the walls beside the Via Nomentana. Nothing, then, was inciting his partisans to attack the unarmed with arms. But it was in the interest of Symmachus that his client Eulalius should be exhibited to the emperor as unjustly oppressed. He knew, of course, that the violence offered would be ruinous.

[13] The true pastor However that may be, two days after the report was sent, that is on the 8th before the Kalends of April (the XXVth of March), Symmachus received from Ravenna the following rescript of Honorius Ibid., § XXX.: "Since, for healing the error of the first disturbance, our clemency, desirous of restoring peace, had found this kind of counsel, that until an absolute sentence should proceed on the confirmation of the priesthood of the City, each of those on whose account the tumult had formerly swelled, separated from dwelling in the most sacred City, should hang in expectation of the future judgment, and the space within which each should be confined being clearly expressed; we cannot with equal mind ignore that an almost public war has been declared on the precepts of our clemency, by which they should be trampled upon: that Eulalius has stood forth as the head of stirring it, who has overstepped the orders, not enduring to be absent a little while according to the order of the precepts, Symmachus, dearest kinsman. Whence let your sublimity know that we have decreed this, that both the wholesome former order of the precept and the moderate arrangement of the synod ought to be guarded: which we judge cannot otherwise be done unless Eulalius is urged in every way, that he, departing from the City with all speed, may not by his presence furnish incitements to an insolent people, nor be a cause of death to the innocent. Of whom it ought not to be doubted that, if he persists in this obstinacy of presumption, not only has judgment been pronounced on his position, but one is also to be pronounced on the peril of his life: for a fault now merits no pardon which, when forewarned, is not guarded against: and he will have no excuse in that he may assert that he is kept back by the people against his will. But if any from among the number of the clerics judges that he should communicate with Eulalius while the judgment is pending, let him know that he is to be condemned by a like sentence: and that the laymen who, after the communion has been interdicted by our clemency, think that Eulalius should be sought out, those of more honourable station shall undergo the penalty of proscription, and slaves of death … and let the leading men of the regions know that, unless they tame and bridle the spirit of the unruly populace, they will be seized and subjected to the extreme penalty."

[14] proved himself. With hardened mind Eulalius withstood the precepts of the emperor, and, as Symmachus says Baronius, at the year 409, § XXXII., "believed with rash daring that the Lateran basilica was to be invaded." At last Eulalius, driven in flight from the same church, was expelled from the City; and apparitors having been attached to him, he was directed to the place where he had been ordered to reside. On hearing this the emperor Honorius, reckoning that an assembly of bishops was superfluous, since Eulalius had condemned himself by his own rashness, wrote back to Symmachus Ibid., § XXXIII.: "Since it had been defined before that whoever should enter the City to incite the people should know that he was specially condemned. Eulalius therefore, who attempted this, forgetful of himself, proved from the present deed what sort of beginning he seemed to have had. Since therefore it is established that this man, after so many offences, has rightly been driven from the City, to which, it seemed, the judgment of our clemency and of the bishops had decreed that he ought not to approach, let your sublimity know, Symmachus, dearest and most loving kinsman, that we have decreed that Boniface, the venerable man, the bishop, to whose moderation we have rightly judged our authority is to be joined, ought to enter the City: that under his government the religious reverence for the law may be fulfilled with the accustomed moderation. Given on the 3rd before the Nones of April: received on the 6th before the Ides of April" (the III and VI of April). Two days intervening, that is on the Xth day of April, Boniface entered the City, the whole people running to meet him, and so great, as Symmachus reports Ibid., § XXIV., "was the fervour and joy of the whole city, that all testified with fitting rejoicing both that religion had been restored and that the security of quiet had been furnished." Eulalius, relegated to Campania, is said to have obtained the Church of Nepi, which lies about midway between Rome and Viterbo, in which he ended his life a year after the death of St. Boniface.

§ II. The Saint, by a law brought in, repels the ambitious from the pontificate; admits the appeals of the Africans; subjects Maximus, bishop of Valence, to the judgment of the bishops; defends the rights of the Apostolic See against Atticus of Constantinople; decrees that the rights of bishops be observed; and holily dies.

St. Boniface, having attained the apostolic see, first of all St. Boniface, having peacefully attained the pontificate, strove to cut off the ambition of those who might at some time try to usurp the Roman see through contention. Wherefore, having sent legates to Honorius Augustus, he wrote that, the freedom of election being preserved, the emperor should establish that no one should ever be ordained bishop of Rome through ambition. This letter Gratian inserted in his Decree, distinction XCVII, chapter I, and the other collectors of canons. Baronius relates the letter at the year 419 Ann. 419, § XXXVIII., as if given a few months after the expulsion of Eulalius; more probably, however, it belongs to the year 420, as Pierre Coustant shows in the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs. Most of the more recent learned men therefore put off that embassy to the following year, that is 420. Their chief reason is that in his very letter St. Boniface complains that he is still held back by bodily infirmity, which the emperor in his response calls a long indisposition. But this infirmity must be said to have happened not immediately after he entered on the pontificate, that is in the year 419, but rather in the following year 420; otherwise in the letter given to the bishops of Gaul on the Ides of June, Monaxius being consul, that is in the year 419, he would have mentioned the same infirmity of which the letter to Honorius of the Kalends of July makes mention: whence they deduce that the letter to Honorius belongs to the following year 420. For my part I do not think the argument very binding: since in the letter to the Gallican bishops there was no reason for treating of his health; for the judgment on Maximus of Valence was being committed to the bishops. But writing to Honorius, in order that ambition in the election of the Pontiff might be removed, it was necessary, or at least opportune, to set out the uncertain condition of his health, since there was an interpontificate likely perhaps to follow shortly on the death of Boniface. Coustant, therefore, in his Notes to the letters of the Roman Pontiffs, has not shown so certainly that the letter and embassy belong to the year of Christ 420 Migne, Patrol., vol. XX, col. 765., as Mansi would have it in his animadversions on the Annals of Baronius At the year 420, § XXXVIII.. Moreover, inasmuch as it touches the election of St. Boniface, we have judged that the letter should be placed before his remaining deeds.

[16] He takes care that the way be closed to the ambitious It is therefore as follows Baronius, at the year 420, § XXXVIII. Migne, Patrol., vol. XX, col. 766.: "Bishop Boniface to the emperor Honorius. The care of my Church, to which our God assigned my priesthood while you govern human affairs, constrains me, though I am still held back by bodily indisposition, urged and agitated by all the priests and clerics and by the disturbances of the Christian people, not to be wanting to her causes in the ears of the most Christian prince. For if anything should turn out otherwise than is fitting, not you who settle all things with fair moderation, but we, keeping silent through our sloth, will seem to have admitted what could overturn the quiet of the city and the peace of the Church. For since you, the worshipper of the divine religion, preside by the Lord's favour over human affairs, it will be our fault if, under your glory, which is certain always to have favoured divine things with a more ready mind, that is not guarded by firm and stable law which through the series of so many years prevailed even under those princes whom no care of our religion constrained, that is, the heathen, and if under the rule of your clemency illicit things are by no means to be dreaded. For the very Church appeals to your devotion, most Christian emperor, venerable indeed in my speech, but in her own affection, whom Christ our God, the faithful ruler and governor of your empire, keeps as a virgin espoused to himself alone and untouched, II Cor., XI, 2. that you should not allow any waves of treacherous storms to be dashed against her, nor her quiet face to be disturbed by the swelling of an unaccustomed tempest, most glorious and most tranquil emperor Augustus. The Church herself, then, who, espoused to one, is yet your mother, appeals to your piety by this embassy, which she has committed to her priests, and she recounts things past and present. While you rule religiously, she says, the people is now safe, as faithful to God as to you, a Christian prince. For behold, amid the very mysteries, amid her prayers, which she pays out for the happiness of your empire, with holy Peter as witness, before whom and concerning whose see the matter is carried on, she cries out with voices solicitous for the observance of religion: prayer is mingled with solicitous petition, that discord, the tempter inciting it, may not, having once torn away those things, draw them in various directions from their accustomed worship. She would say more, most Christian prince, were she not secure of her causes before you, and had she not, in the overthrow of idols and in the correction of heretics, conquered by your faith, the divine worship ever flourishing together with the empire. She has as a refuge the mind of your clemency joined with the veneration of her religion; since whatever may benefit her you may do and confer on my brethren and fellow priests, most approved men, sent as legates to you by me and by all who make up this Church. To whom, we pray, the cause of the sacred

religion pursuing, you may in the city of your clemency, in that spirit in which you assent to requests, take thought for the perpetual state of the universal Church. Given on the Kalends of July."

[17] Every approach to the supreme pontificate: Honorius Augustus received the embassy kindly, and granted what Pontiff Boniface asked, that if two bishops should again be ordained at Rome, both should be driven from the city. Coustant, editor of the pontifical letters, rightly remarks that the law of Honorius was indeed fit for deterring the ambitious, but that the enemies of peace could also abuse it to exclude good men. "Indeed," he continues, "had it been in force earlier, Rome would not count Boniface himself and Damasus among its Pontiffs. But the iniquity of the times sometimes demands certain things which, when it is removed, are taken away" Migne, Patrol., vol. XX, col. 768.. The constitution of Honorius Gratian brought into his Decree, distinction XCVII, chapter II. Here are the words: "Victor Honorius, illustrious triumpher, ever Augustus, to the holy and venerable Boniface, Pope of the eternal City. We have received the writings of Your Beatitude with the congratulation due to reverence, on reviewing which we gave the greatest thanks to almighty God, because we learned that your sanctity has, after a long indisposition, been restored to the desired health. And therefore, as the venerable men return, we mark our joy by the attestation of the sacred letters, and we ask that your apostolate deign to spend its zeal and prayer in daily orations for our welfare and empire. But know that this has well pleased our piety, that your sanctity is solicitous concerning the disturbance of the Churches or of the people. Which, lest it should in any way be able to happen, our clemency has believed sufficient provision to have been made. Finally, Your Beatitude proclaiming it, we wish this to come to the knowledge of all the clerics, that if perchance anything, which we do not wish, should befall your religious person by human lot, all should know that they must cease from ambition. But if perchance two Distinct. LXXIX, ch. 8. should be ordained against right by the rashness of contenders, neither of them shall be priest at all; but he alone shall remain in the apostolic see whom, by a new ordination, divine judgment and the consent of all shall choose from the number of the clerics. Wherefore this is to be observed, that all guard a tranquil mind and peaceful spirits according to the admonition of our serenity, nor try to attempt anything by seditious conspiracies; since it is certain that its zeal will profit none of the parties." Thus far we have set forth the election itself of St. Boniface and the things that followed it. Now we shall unfold the deeds performed by him, so far as we know them, from the testimonies of others and especially from his own writings.

[18] Appeals of the Africans to the Apostolic See Already under Pope St. Zosimus a controversy had arisen with the African bishops concerning the right of appeals to the apostolic see, which St. Boniface had to deal with at the very beginning of his pontificate. For the African fathers in the II Council of Milevis of the year 416, canon XXII, had decreed [Labbe, vol. II of the councils, col. 1542. Compare ibid., col. 1591, and Mansi, suppl. conc., vol. I, col. 302.] that "presbyters, deacons or the other lower clerics, in the causes that they have, if they complain of the judgments of their bishops, the neighbouring bishops are to hear them; and, being called in by them with the consent of their bishops, they are to finish whatever is between them. But if they think that they should make appeal from them, let them appeal only to African councils or to the primates of their provinces. But whoever thinks that appeal should be made overseas, let him be received into communion by no one within Africa." The penalty of excommunication was therefore threatened against those who, standing below the grade of the episcopate, appealed overseas, that is to the Roman see. This canon notwithstanding, however, Apiarius, presbyter of the Church of Sicca in the Consular province, cast down from his grade by his bishop Urban and deprived of communion, had taken refuge with the apostolic see. Pope Zosimus received him kindly, and restored him to ecclesiastical communion. The African bishops, after resisting for a while, complied with Zosimus Migne, Patrol., vol. XX, col. 752.: wherefore Aurelius Valentinus, of the first see of the province of Numidia, and the others who were present, CCXVII in number from the whole council of Africa, wrote to Pope Boniface, St. Zosimus having already ended his life, of the things that had been done, with charity indeed preserved, yet not without some small labour of altercation. "Therefore the presbyter Apiarius, concerning whose ordination and excommunication no light scandal had arisen, not only for the Church of Sicca but also for that of all Africa, asking pardon for all his errors, was restored to communion. Yet that the peace of the Church might be provided for, it was stipulated that, retaining the honour of his grade and having received a letter, he might exercise the office of presbyter wherever else he wished and could."

[19] A canon of Nicaea cited in place of a Sardican one Since, however, the African bishops did not know the canons concerning appeals cited by Zosimus as of Nicaea, they asked that an inquiry into the statutes of the Nicene council be permitted: namely, because they could not be found in any Greek codex, they desire that they be brought from the eastern Churches, where it is said that the same decrees can be found authentic. They asked finally that the Pontiff himself should write to the chief bishops, of Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople. The African prelates did not know that the canons alleged by Zosimus and Boniface, drawn from the council of Sardica, were commonly cited by the Romans as of Nicaea. And hence not a few non-catholics have taken the handle for traducing the Roman Pontiffs as forgers, who for the sake of amplifying their own jurisdiction deliberately passed off Sardican canons as Nicene. Certainly the primacy of the Roman Pontiffs did not need this prop, confirmed as it was by a manifold kind of arguments, nor was the authority of the Sardican canons less than that of the Nicene. A very great number of African bishops had been present with Gratus of Carthage at the Synod of Sardica. Wherefore, since there was no reason for imposture on the part of Zosimus and Boniface, another cause is to be sought why the Sardican canons were cited under the title of the Nicene council. And, not to seek it from far off, it will suffice to note that more than once, in the following centuries as well, it happened that the canons of one council were cited under the title of another; and this learned men show from the collections of canons [Compare Ballerini, De Antiq. collect. canonum, Part II, ch. I, §3. Migne, Patrol., vol. LVI, col. 70.]. And in this case with which we are dealing, in which Zosimus and Boniface cited the Council of Nicaea in place of the Sardican, they remark that the old codex of canons of the Roman Church was the cause; in which, since the Nicene canons were inscribed first, and the others then followed with no title or any distinction, it was very easy to employ those too which followed the Nicene as Nicene. Wrongly, therefore, do the non-catholics, on account of this kind of confusion, brand with the mark of falsehood those most holy men, SS. Zosimus and Boniface. Those who wish to see more on Appeals to the Roman see, let them go to the Ballerini in the place cited, and to Francesco Zaccaria in the Antifebronius, vol. III, book III.

[20] He decrees are to be admitted: Moreover, although there was between Boniface and the Africans some labour of altercation, as the fathers of Carthage express it, nevertheless charity remained preserved; which is confirmed also by the letter of Boniface himself, given on the 4th before the Kalends of May, Monaxius, the most distinguished man, being consul, that is in the year 419, to the bishop Faustinus and the presbyters Philip and Asellus, in which Christ is said to have called back into one what was divided and to have stitched together what was torn Ibid., vol. XX, col. 742.. How great, moreover, was the opinion among the African prelates of the doctrine and sanctity of our Boniface is testified by St. Augustine in his books against the two letters of the Pelagians, which he dedicated to him; for he says Ibid., vol. XLIV, col. 550: "I knew you indeed, by the proclamation of most celebrated report, and I had received by most frequent and most truthful messengers how greatly you were filled with the grace of God, most blessed and venerable Pope Boniface. But after my brother Alypius saw you also in bodily presence, and having been received by you most kindly and most sincerely, mingled mutual conversations as love dictated; and living with you, though for a short time, joined to you by great affection, poured himself and me together into your soul, and carried you back to me in his own; so much the greater has my knowledge of your sanctity become, as the friendship has become more certain. For you do not disdain, you who are not high-minded, although you preside more highly, to be a friend of the humble, and to repay the love spent on you … Whence also, having received through that brother through whom I came to know you more familiarly, I have dared with greater confidence to write something to your beatitude on those matters which at this time stir the episcopal care, if there be any in us, to vigilance for the Lord's flock with a fresher goad … These things therefore, which in this disputation I reply to those two letters of theirs, I have determined to address above all to your sanctity, not so much to be learned as to be examined, and, where perhaps anything should displease, to be corrected … But I give thanks for your most sincere goodwill toward us, because you would not have that letter of the enemies of the grace of God concealed from me, in which you found my name calumniously and evidently expressed." Certainly St. Augustine would not have written in such words to a man whom he had suspected of being a forger, as the non-catholics would have it.

[21] Maximus, bishop of Valence in Gaul, of many crimes There had been pending since the time of the Pontiffs Innocent and Zosimus a suit which the clerics of the Church of Valence in Gaul had taken up against their bishop Maximus. Already before the month of June 419 the clerics came to St. Boniface, and presented to him a petition against their bishop, in which they set forth his various crimes: especially, however, they accused him of being entangled in the heresy of the Manichaeans, and in proof of the crime charged they brought forward synodal acts: also, by his fury and insane rashness he had been subjected to inquiry at the tribunals of secular judges too, and, the acts proved being brought into the open, they charged that he had been condemned for homicide; yet that meanwhile he was still claiming for himself the name of the episcopate in his hiding places, to the infamy of his own city. Finally Maximus, often summoned to the tribunal of the provincial bishops, had constantly evaded judgment. And so St. Boniface directed apostolic letters, in which the recited accusations were indicated, to Patroclus of Arles, Remigius, Hilary of Narbonne, Severus, Valerius, Julian, Castorius of Apt, Leontius of Fréjus, Constantine, John, Montanus, Maurinus, Mauritius and the other bishops established through the Gauls and the seven provinces. The sees of these bishops are as yet unknown, except for those whose sees we have subjoined to the name Longueval, Hist. de l'Egl. Gall., vol. II, p. 100. Edit. Paris 1825..

[22] Accused, he compels to stand trial: These therefore St. Boniface, having set out the crimes charged against Maximus, orders to pass sentence. "Therefore," he says Migne, Patrol., vol. XX, col. 757., "dearest brethren, because he would not present himself to be heard here, lest perhaps, convicted by the clerics accusing him, he might at long last, presented to the episcopal judgment, be struck by the worthy sentence of a fitting pronouncement … We have nevertheless given a delay, and have decreed that your judgment ought to be within the province and that a synod be gathered before the day of the Kalends of November: so that, if he is willing to be present, he may in person, if he has confidence, answer to the charges: but if he neglects to be present, he may not gain a delay of the sentence from his absence. For it is manifest that he confesses to the crime who, a judgment having been granted and so many times delegated, the occasion of clearing himself

does not use. For it makes no difference whether all that has been said is proved in a present examination, since the very absence, so many times contrived, is also established as standing for a confession. And we are directing letters through all the provinces, lest he should allege ignorance as an excuse for himself, so that he may be compelled to come to the province and to present himself there at the appointed judgment. But whatever your charity may consider should be decreed in this cause, when it has been reported to us, must, as is fitting, be confirmed by our authority. Given under the date of the Ides of June, the most distinguished man Monaxius being consul": that is the XIIIth of June of the year 419. It is not known what further was the outcome of the business of Valence: for between Maximus and his successor St. Apollinaris there is a gap in the Catalogue of the bishops of Valence Gall. Christ. Antiq., vol. III, p. [ ].

[23] The ambition of Atticus of Constantinople, Another business was caused for St. Boniface by the ambition of the bishops of Constantinople. For the I Council of Constantinople, gathered in the year 381 from the Oriental bishops, in which Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch and Cyril of Jerusalem presided, had decreed in canon III, according to the interpretation of Gentian Hervet Labbe, vol. II of the Councils, col. 948., that the bishop of Constantinople should have the first parts of honour after the bishop of Rome, because it is the New Rome. We know also that this same canon was not only renewed at the Council of Chalcedon but extended, inasmuch as canon XXVIII Labbe, vol. IV of the Councils, col. 769. speaks in a vague manner of the privileges of the Church of Constantinople. The bishops of this Church, therefore, not content with bare honours, strove also to expand the bounds of their jurisdiction. Hence was born the law of Theodosius the Younger, given on the day before the Ides of July, Eustathius and Agricola being consuls, that is on the XIVth of July of the common year 421, and inserted in the Theodosian Code, law 45 on bishops (XVI, 2), which ordained: "All innovation ceasing, we command that the ancient usage and the former ecclesiastical canons, which have held until now, be observed through all the provinces of Illyricum. Then, if anything of doubt should emerge, it should be reserved, not without the knowledge of the most reverend man, the bishop of the holy law of the City of Constantinople (which rejoices in the prerogative of Old Rome), to the assembly of priests and to a holy judgment." This law, inasmuch as it transferred the Illyrian provinces from the Roman see to that of Constantinople, St. Boniface rejected, and in a letter written to the bishops established through Thessaly he says Ibid., col. 1706.: "I hear that certain of the bishops, despising apostolic right, are attempting something new against the precepts properly of Christ, as they strive to separate themselves from the communion of the apostolic see and, to speak more truly, from its power; seeking the help of those whom the sanction of the ecclesiastical rules did not grant to be of greater power. For the precepts of the elders are read, and we find to whom they gave any right over the Churches. Now he is a violator of ecclesiastical discipline, whoever creeps in upon its laws, when nothing is owed to him; claiming for himself those things which seem to be denied him by the fathers … Let the upstart presumption cease: let no one dare to hope for what is not lawful: let no one strive to violate the things that were done by the fathers and guarded through so much of time: let whoever recognizes himself a bishop obey our order. Let no one presume to ordain bishops through Illyricum without the knowledge of our fellow bishop Rufus. Given on the 5th before the Ides of March, Honorius XIII, Theodosius X, Augusti, being consuls" (the XIth of March 422).

[24] Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, is believed by Baronius, at the year 421, § III, Claiming for himself jurisdiction over Illyricum, to have been the instigator of the Theodosian law. The sanctity of the man has been vindicated against Tillemont by our writers in the Dissertation on the Patriarchs of Constantinople Acta SS., vol. I of August, page *33.: but the opinion of a parity between Old and New Rome had settled deep in the minds of the bishops of that city: so that, while they were trying to acquire by usage provinces of the Eastern empire, they thought they were defending their right. Thus at the 23rd day of October we have seen St. Ignatius, in other respects a most holy man, pertinaciously and almost under the very thunderbolt defending what he thought his jurisdiction over the Churches of Bulgaria. And hence frequent controversies arose, which opened the gate to the lay power to mix itself too much in ecclesiastical matters. St. Boniface, to protect the right of his see, had recourse to Honorius Augustus, that the jurisdiction of the Roman apostolic see might be kept safe and sound. This indeed Honorius openly signifies, writing to his nephew Theodosius the Younger. "In all causes indeed," he says Labbe, vol. IV of the Councils, col. 1709., "in which our help is demanded, we cannot deny our intercession before the ears of your clemency; but we necessarily owe greater care and zeal to those in which the desires of the holy apostolic see are contained." He asks, therefore, that Theodosius, "having reviewed," he says, "the addresses of our piety, mindful of the Christianity which heavenly mercy has poured into our breasts, all those things being removed which are said to be obtained through Illyricum by the surreptitious devices of various bishops, may command that the ancient order be guarded; lest under Christian princes the Church should lose what it did not lose under other emperors." In these letters, both of Boniface and of Honorius, the ambition of Atticus of Constantinople is touched on only obliquely.

[25] Letters having been given to the emperors, To this petition Theodosius lent his ears, and among other things he wrote back to Honorius Ibid., col. 1710.: "Every surreptitious device of the supplicant bishops through Illyricum being removed, we have decreed that what the ancient apostolic discipline and the old canons declare be observed. On which matter, according to the form of the oracle of your perennity, we have extended writings to the illustrious men, the praetorian prefects of our Illyricum, that, the surreptitious devices of the bishops ceasing, they may specially cause the ancient order to be guarded; lest the venerable Church should lose the most sacred privileges of the City, established by the ancients, which has consecrated to us the perpetual empire of its name." Nevertheless the earlier Theodosian law, favouring the prelates of Constantinople, so prevailed that it was inserted in the Theodosian Code, compiled about the year 438, while the other, abrogating the earlier one, was omitted. The cause of Perigenes, bishop of Corinth, which is now to be explained, gave origin to the controversy set forth.

[26] He beats back, and vindicates the rights of the Roman Church: Perigenes had been ordained bishop of Patras in Achaia: but the people of Patras had refused to admit him when ordained. Then, promoted by a synod of Achaia or Hellas to the see of Corinth, as St. Boniface says in a letter to Rufus, bishop of Thessalonica, vicar of the apostolic see. "Whom," he says Migne, Patrol., vol. XX, col. 780., "the Corinthians desired not so much to receive as to retain as priest for their city, as a holy man and strong in the quality of an excellent way of life." In which words he indicates that Perigenes was a foster son of the Church of the Corinthians. This the Pontiff manifests even more openly in another letter: "By as much as," he says Ibid., col. 763., "he was brought low when no one received him ordained, by so much is he now raised higher, when he is demanded by his own, who had been rejected by strangers. For it is the evident and manifest judgment of God, who willed him to wait for that time, who should merit to preside over this Church, in which he is asserted to have been born and reborn." Nevertheless St. Boniface will not hold the election of Perigenes as ratified before he has received the letters of Rufus his vicar; which having reached Rome, he declared that the election of Perigenes was valid, and that no one might contradict the one elected, whom, he says Migne, Patrol., vol. XX, col. 780., "our sentence has placed in the see of the aforesaid (Corinthian) Church." Accordingly he ordains: "Let no one wishing to remain in our communion again bring into discussion the name of our brother and fellow priest Perigenes, whose priesthood the Apostle Peter has once already confirmed at the prompting of the Holy Spirit, namely as it is established that nothing at all was objected to him while he was being appointed by us, through the space of the time in which the see was vacant." Meanwhile Atticus of Constantinople, by the law of Theodosius alleged above, was striving to subjugate Eastern Illyricum to his see: and he was thinking of reopening the cause of Perigenes, who, contrary to canon XVI of the Council of Antioch of the year 341 Labbe, vol. II of the councils, col. 567., had been translated from Patras to Corinth. St. Boniface strove against the usurpation, and retained Perigenes in his see of Corinth. But he himself by degrees inclined to the party of Constantinople: which Xystus III sets out in grave words, writing to the Synod to be gathered at Thessalonica: "Let the bishop of Corinth know," he says Migne, Patrol., vol. L, col. 611., "that the licence of free power is by no means to be granted him, if he wishes to rebound against this Church (of Thessalonica), which he knows to have profited him: whom it is necessary for us too to withstand, if he wishes to attempt anything: who are mindful of past things that were furnished to him by us, and who always withstand illicit usurpations" Migne, Patrol., vol. XX, col. 665..

[27] He represses the audacity of Patroclus, bishop of Arles: St. Boniface took pains to settle another controversy concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Patroclus, bishop of Arles, had ordained a bishop of the city of the Lutevenses (Lodève), under the metropolis of Narbonne, which ordination Pope Boniface disapproved. On behalf of the right of Patroclus there seemed to stand the decree of St. Zosimus, who, Honorius XI and Constantius II being consuls, that is in the year of Christ 417, had ordained that, for reverence of St. Trophimus, the metropolitan of Arles should have power of ordaining bishops in the province of Vienne and in both of the Narbonne provinces Ibid., col. 772.. Certain Gallican bishops did not easily obey the decree, thinking probably that it had been obtained surreptitiously. Indeed Patroclus did not find our Boniface so propitious. For when Hilary, bishop of Narbonne, had complained to the Pontiff that Patroclus had ordained another in the place of the deceased bishop of Lodève, in a province not his own, the metropolitan being passed over, against the rules of the fathers, St. Boniface wrote back to Hilary that he should set out for Lodève, use the right and judgment of metropolitan, and, all things having been accomplished, report to the apostolic see what he had decreed. The letter was given on the 5th before the Ides of February, Honorius XIII and Theodosius X, the Augusti, being consuls Ibid., col. 772., that is in the year of Christ 422. St. Boniface thus rescinds what St. Zosimus had decreed, and declares that the ordination for the First Narbonensis pertains not to the bishop of Arles but to the bishop of Narbonne, as metropolitan. The following Pontiffs, and by name St. Leo I, letter XI, number 7, confirmed the sentence of St. Boniface Ibid., vol. LIV, col. 632.. Part of this letter Gratian brought into his decree, canon 10, cause III, question 9.

[28] A letter to the cenobites of Cagliari is denied to St. Boniface Gratian also attributes to St. Boniface a letter to all the cenobites of the church of Cagliari, canon 2, cause I, question 2, which on various grounds Carlo Berardi, in his Canons of Gratian corrected, denies to our Saint Ibid., vol. II, p. 241.. A valid reason certainly is that this fragment of a letter is not found elsewhere, and that the writer professes himself anxious, inept and as it were not equal to paying. But it seems less to be approved that the cited Berardi says that at that time the name of church could not be used for the name of monastery Ibid., p. 242.. For we know that forty years before, already in the church of Vercelli, the same men were clerics and monks by the work of St. Eusebius: which institution could easily have been spread to neighbouring Sardinia, and thus to the Church of Cagliari. But if the cenobites to whom the letter is directed were at the same time also clerics, it is no wonder that the word

church should be used for monastery. We do not say these things, however, so that the letter may be attributed to St. Boniface: for there are very grave considerations for denying it to him, but only that we may refute the opinion of Berardi; who, while assigning more recent origins to the monastic institute, seems to urge that there is nothing but what is human in the more perfect life such as monks profess. St. Thomas, 22, question C, article 3 ad 4, cites this canon, and, as Berardi judges, the Roman correctors abstained from correction out of reverence for him Ibid., p. 241.. This conjecture, however, is not probable to us: for the Roman correctors did not leave immune from censure other canons cited by St. Thomas: thus, to bring forward one example, the holy Doctor, 22, question CLIX, article 2, recites canon 17, cause XXII, question I, attributed to Pope Eutychian, which the correctors however rightly ascribe to Theodulf of Orléans Compare ibid., p. 128.. I shall say nothing of the cause of Antony, bishop of Fussala, who by fraud deceived St. Boniface, to whom he had appealed, since it has been treated at large in the Commentary on St. Augustine, § XXIX Acta SS., vol. VI of August, p. 342..

[29] He orders the Angelic Hymn to be recited on Maundy Thursday. St. Boniface also established that on the fifth feria in the Lord's Supper the Angelic Hymn, Gloria in excelsis, should be sung in the solemnities of Masses, as a sign, it seems, of public joy on account of the sinners received to reconciliation on that day. That Hymn was sung almost solely by bishops: for the Sacramentary of St. Gregory the Great has: "Gloria in excelsis Deo is said if a bishop is present, only on Sunday or on feast days. By presbyters, however, it is by no means said, except only at Easter" Migne, Patrol., vol. LXXVIII, col. 25.. This discipline seems to have prevailed down to the middle of the 11th century, when the recitation of the Angelic Hymn was permitted to presbyters too, perhaps by St. Gregory VII, who had undertaken the revision of the liturgical books Zaccaria, Biblioth. Rit., vol. II, part II, p. LXIV.. It was also accustomed, on the witness of Gregory of Tours De Glor. Mart., ch. 63., to be sung in thanksgiving at events ordained by a special benefit of God Zaccaria, Biblioth. Rit., vol. II, part II, p. LXV.. Today, as we know well enough, in like circumstances there is sung the hymn commonly called Ambrosian, the Te Deum. And so much for the deeds of St. Boniface which have become known to us.

[30] The day and year of his death: In what year and on what day St. Boniface died, the ancients disagree. Prosper of Aquitaine in his chronicle refers the election of St. Celestine his successor, and thus also the death of our St. Boniface, to the consulship of Marinianus and Asclepiodotus, that is to the year of Christ 423 D. Bouquet, Rec. des Hist. de Fr., vol. I, p. 629.. Which opinion a great many learned men have followed. But the opinion attaching the death of our Saint to the year 422 seems more likely to us. For, as we related above at num. 4, St. Boniface began his pontificate on the 4th before the Kalends of January (the XXIXth of December) of the year 418 and ruled the church for three years and some months; whence it is concluded that the year of the Saint's death is to be joined with the year 422, which we marked at the threshold of this commentary. Many ancient catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs survive, of which the Benedictine monks of Solesmes collected not a few, all of which, twenty-one in number, if you except one, and that a more recent one Origines de l'Egl. Rom. Pièces justific., p. LXXXIV., agree on three years and some months of pontificate. The Liber Pontificalis also assigns three years Ibid., p. 235.: so that a solid three years, increased by only three days, would bring the time of his death down to the year 422. But as great as is the agreement in the years, so great is the disagreement in the months and days. Most, however, add eight months to the three years, by which reckoning we arrive at the XXIXth of August: to which if seven days are added we reach the IVth day of September, on which in the Hieronymian Martyrology, as the most recent of all the Pontiffs Papebroch, Conatus chronolog. RR. Pont. Propylaeum of May, p. 62 *., it is noted: "On the Via Salaria, the deposition of bishop Boniface." From all these things it is clear that our Saint occupied the Roman see three years, eight months and seven days.

[31] The place of burial Francesco Fiorentini remarks on some things at the elogium which we have just cited, taken from the Hieronymian Martyrology. For the Hieronymian announcement is word for word as follows: "On the day before the Nones of September, on the Via Salaria, the deposition of bishop Boniface at St. Felicity the birthday of SS. Magnus, Castus, Saturninus. In Gaul, in the city of the Cavallonenses," etc... "I was in two minds," he says, "whether the words 'At St. Felicity' should be referred to the Pontiff Boniface, or to the following Martyrs, Magnus, Castus and Saturninus. The former was urged by the fact that some of the writers of the pontifical history that we have adduced relate that Boniface was buried 'on the Via Salaria beside the body of St. Felicity,' and Damasus or Anastasius teaches that in the time of the schism he lived in the cemetery of St. Felicity on the Via Salaria, and that there he afterwards made an Oratory and enriched with gifts the tomb of the holy Martyr Felicity and of St. Silvanus. But on the contrary I saw that it was unaccustomed in the older Martyrology for the place of a venerated Martyr to be put after, and I considered it not improbable that Magnus, Castus and Saturninus were buried in the cemetery of St. Felicity on the Via Salaria." Thus Fiorentini, who after the words "of bishop Boniface" puts a stop and then sets: "At St. Felicity the birthday of SS. Magnus," etc.

[32] Let no one think these things said as if Fiorentini wished to deny that the place of the deposition of St. Boniface was at St. Felicity; on the Via Salaria. for this the Liber Pontificalis testifies: "He was buried in the cemetery of St. Felicity on the Via Salutaria * on the 7th before the Kalends of November" Orig. de l'Egl. Rom., p. 235.. Ciaconius in the Lives of the Roman Pontiffs denies that the cemetery of St. Felicity is situated on the Via Salaria, but on the Via Appia Vol. I, col. 289.. But Bianchini in his Anastasius the Librarian refutes Ciaconius, saying Anastas., vol. III, d. 87.: "The illustrious author will grant me pardon if I undertake to vindicate the Librarian from certain documents, which demonstrate that the cemetery of St. Felicity was established on the Via Salaria … That the cemetery of St. Felicity is situated on the Via Salaria, and that the churches of St. Silvanus, martyr, and of St. Boniface, pope and confessor, were adjacent to it, the biographer not only teaches here but also warns in the Life of Pope St. Hadrian: 'The cemetery of St. Felicity on the Via Salaria, together with the churches of St. Silvanus, martyr, and of St. Boniface, Confessor and Pontiff, cohering on one site, he restored, of wondrous greatness'" Migne, Patrol., vol. CXXVII, col. 1194.. Bianchini adds further that a later translation of the same Saint to the cemetery of Callistus on the Via Appia is not contradictory, parts of the Relics having also been divided among various churches of the City, where they are kept and venerated. Of the cemetery of St. Felicity Bosio treats in his Roma Subterranea, book III, chapter 53.

* Salaria

LIFE OF ST. BONIFACE, POPE AND CONFESSOR.

From the Proper of the Lateran church at the 27th day of October.

Boniface I, pope, at Rome. (S.)

BY J. V. H.

With the pseudo-pontiff Eulalius eliminated, Boniface, a Roman, whose father was the presbyter Jocundus, after blessed Zosimus had been taken from human affairs, obtained the episcopate of the Roman Church. This aged presbyter, most learned in the law, and proved in good morals, unwilling and reluctant, by the acclamation of the whole people, and the consent of the chief men of the City, and by seventy presbyters and nine bishops of different provinces, the order of divine institution being observed, was consecrated in the basilica of Julius ^b; at which time the archdeacon Eulalius, having got round the deacons and very few of the clergy and a multitude of the disorderly people, rushing through ambition into a place not due to him, was ordained in our Constantinian basilica ^c. In that schism Boniface, the legitimate Pontiff, being vehemently pressed down, was compelled to leave the basilica of Blessed Peter, and together with his followers to withdraw to that of Blessed Paul ^d. The cause was soon brought to a council of bishops, and since the Fathers disagreed among themselves, the whole matter was reserved to a fuller synod, both Boniface and Eulalius being ordered meanwhile, by the agency of Honorius Augustus, to go out from the city. Wherefore the latter made for Antium ^e, the former for the basilica of St. Felicity ^f.

[2] But when Eulalius had intruded himself into the City, and had furnished the occasion of a public sedition, St. Boniface is elected pope Honorius, moved by this matter, wrote back that Eulalius was to be driven from the City and Boniface brought into it, which was confirmed by a crowded synod of bishops. And so Boniface, having returned, strove with solicitous care to restore all to mutual concord; and he took thought also for the future, lest after his death the Church should be torn apart by a graver rending ^g. He rejoiced moreover in the devotion of the most pious emperors, and against the enemies of the grace of God he used not only apostolic but also royal edicts; and although he himself was most learned, he nevertheless asked for the responses of the blessed bishop Augustine against the books of the Pelagians; to whom Augustine deferred so much that he directed his writings to him not so much to be learned as to be examined and corrected ^h.

[3] And he governs the Church holily. Patroclus, bishop of Arles, invading the rights of another's metropolis, he repressed, and, having given letters to Hilary, bishop of Narbonne, he ordered that by the right of metropolitan and the precept of the apostolic see he should go to the place that had been seized, and see to what should be done, and report all things to the apostolic see ⁱ. He established that no woman or nun should touch or wash the consecrated palls, and that no one should place incense in the church unless he were a minister ^k. He forbade one liable to the curia or to any matter, or a slave, to be made a cleric ^l. He made an oratory in the cemetery of St. Felicity the Martyr beside her body, whose tomb and likewise that of St. Silvanus the Martyr he adorned, offering many gifts ^m. Finally, most celebrated in fame and full of the grace of God, he attained the glory of the same, Honorius and Theodosius being princes, and he was buried in the cemetery of St. Felicity on the Via Salaria, on the eighth before the Kalends of December ⁿ. Once in the month of December he created thirteen presbyters, three deacons, and thirty-six bishops for various places. He held the pontificate five years less two months and three days ^o.

ANNOTATA.

the ordination was performed, writing to Honorius Augustus. Both churches still exist, namely that of St. Theodore (for I judge that Theodora has been written wrongly), on the Palatine Hill beside the Roman Forum or Forum Boarium; and that of St. Marcellus on the Via maior (il Corso). But Boniface II, as the same Anastasius says, was ordained in the Julian basilica, and indeed also during a contest, Dioscorus seeking the pontificate Migne, Patrol., vol. CXXVIII, col. 534.: whence the confusion was so much the easier, in that each Boniface was elected during a contest. The basilica of Julius does not exist today; but in the great Catalogue of the churches of the City, which Cardinal Angelo Mai published from Panvinio in his Spicilegium Romanum, the Julian basilica is mentioned Vol. IX, p. 411., and it was beside the great Constantinian basilica of the Most Holy Saviour Compare ibid., p. 184.. Further, that St. Boniface was not elected in the Julian basilica is also shown from the fact that St. Celestine I, his successor, is said by Anastasius to have dedicated the Julian basilica Migne, Patrol., vol. CXXVIII, col. 199..