ON ST. EVARISTUS, POPE AND MARTYR,
IN THE YEAR 108.
HISTORICAL COLLECTION.
Evaristus, pope and martyr. (S.)
BY J. V. H.
§ single. The memory of the saint rather infrequent in the ecclesiastical calendars; it is inquired whether he succeeded St. Anacletus or St. Clement; whether Cletus is to be distinguished from Anacletus; the time and length of his pontificate; the distribution of the titles of the City; his various decrees; his spurious Relics.
Very scanty are the things antiquity has preserved for us concerning the deeds of St. Evaristus, pope and Martyr. St. Evaristus, omitted in the more ancient Calendars, In the first place the Hieronymian Martyrology seems to be silent about him: for the Roman Martyr Evaristus who is recorded at the 23rd day of December is, to my mind, another than our pontiff. On that day indeed there is the following announcement: At Rome the birthday of the saints Egenus, Eleutherius, Urban, Cornelius, Trajan, Evaristus, Metellus, Victor, Titian, Cletus, Sirianus, Bassilinus, Nicetus, Flavian, Felix, Pullius, Ancletus, Sopater, Saturninus, Eufrosinus, Castula and 700 others. No one will easily persuade himself that St. Evaristus, Pope and Martyr, lies hidden in the midst of this crowd of Martyrs. Indeed Florentini himself, in his Commentary on this place, says that certain codices omit the name of Evaristus, that others assign another arena, and finally that Rabanus had already warned that the codices at this place are mutilated and dislocated. Wherefore Du Sollier, in his Usuard at the 23rd day of December, pronounces without circumlocution that this Evaristus is another than our Pope and Martyr. Moreover the Hieronymian calendars, if you consult the edition of Florentini, do not record Linus, Hyginus, Telesphorus, Pius, Soter, although no one doubts of their sanctity and cult.
[2] is commemorated in the more recent ones. The first Martyrologist, then, whom we know to have inscribed the name of the pontiff St. Evaristus in his calendar is Ado at the 27th day of October, in these words: At Rome, of Evaristus, Pope, who sat in the episcopate nine years and, crowned with martyrdom under Trajan, was buried on the Vatican. But there is added in many codices: He divided the titles in the City among the presbyters: and he ordained seven deacons, to guard the bishop as he preached. Usuard wholly passed over the name of St. Evaristus; but most of his Auctaria have made up for this silence. That of Hagenau, the fullest of all, has at the 26th day of October: At Rome the birthday of St. Evaristus, Pope and Martyr, who was the fourth after blessed Peter to rule the Roman Church, for ten years and seven months. He was by nation a Greek, of a Jewish father named Judas, from the city of Bethlehem. He divided the titles in the City of Rome among the cardinal presbyters and deacons. He decreed that marriage should be publicly pledged before those present and afterwards blessed by a priest. He was crowned with martyrdom under the persecution of the emperor Trajan and was buried beside St. Peter. Finally the present Roman Martyrology embraces the praises of the Saint in these words: At Rome, of St. Evaristus, Pope and Martyr, who empurpled the Church of God with his blood under the emperor Hadrian.
[3] St. Anacletus, The statements of the Martyrologies recited so far show sufficiently that there are various questions to be examined concerning St. Evaristus. In the first place we see that he is frequently called the fourth pontiff after St. Peter: which is true to the extent that either Cletus or Anacletus is struck out of the Catalogue of pontiffs. On this reckoning we have after St. Peter, first Linus, second Clement, third Cletus or Anacletus, fourth Evaristus, whom Pope Alexander succeeded. But if Cletus and Anacletus are distinct pontiffs, then St. Evaristus occupies the fifth place. For it is certain that these, if they were two, preceded Evaristus, since all the catalogues place Alexander and the later pontiffs next without any controversy. This is not the place to inquire more laboriously into this distinction or confusion of Cletus and Anacletus. Our predecessors judged that they were to be distinguished both at the 26th day of April, where they treated of St. Cletus Acta SS., vol. III of April, p. 409., and at the 13th of July, where they treated of St. Anacletus Ibid., vol. III of July, p. 479.. Jean-Baptiste du Sollier, the writer of the latter Commentary, although he defends the distinction between Cletus and Anacletus, yet admits that such is the force of the contrary argument that the question hangs altogether uncertain. And surely St. Irenaeus, writing about the middle of the 2nd century under Pope Soter, and so separated from Anacletus by fifty years, could scarcely have been ignorant of the succession of the Roman Pontiffs: and he unfolds this succession in book III Against Heresies, chapter 3 Migne, Patrol. Gr., vol. VI, col. 850 and following., in such a way that after St. Peter the first to occupy the see is Linus, the second Anacletus, the third Clement, the fourth Evaristus. There are indeed other ancients who place Clement before Anacletus: but this question can be examined at the 23rd day of November, when St. Clement will be treated more fully. St. Evaristus, then, was fourth or fifth from St. Peter, according as Cletus and Anacletus are either distinguished or confused.
[4] who is to be distinguished from St. Cletus, he succeeds, Eusebius writes in his Chronicle Ibid., vol. XIX, col. 552.: Of the Roman
Church Evaristus received the episcopate fourth, for nine years: but in his Ecclesiastical History, book IV, chapter 1 Acta SS., vol. I of April, p. XX.: At the same time (that is, about the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan), when Evaristus had completed eight years in the pontificate, Alexander received the episcopate at Rome, holding the fifth place of succession from Peter and Paul. Hence we see that Eusebius, as one not consistent with himself, is not on all sides a safe guide in assigning the years of the pontiffs. The Catalogue edited by our Henschen at the threshold of volume I of the Acta of April and ending with Pope Liberius in the year 352 attributes to St. Evaristus thirteen years, seven months and 2 days Ibid., vol. XX, col. 304.; while another catalogue, running down to Pope Felix IV, who sat in the year 427, limits the Saint's pontificate within nine years, ten months and two days, although it says that he was in office from the consulate of Valens and Verus or Vetus down to Gallus and Bradua Ibid., l. c., that is, according to the consular calendars, from the year of Christ 96 to 108. But since St. Evaristus sat beyond thirteen years, the beginning of the pontificate can be placed back in the preceding year, that is, 95 of Christ, in which St. Anacletus ceased to live, having died, that is, in the consulate of Domitian for the seventeenth time and Flavius Clemens. On this reckoning we have a pontificate of thirteen years and some months. The Catalogues, of which many are reported by the Benedictines of Solesmes, are altogether various, most indeed assigning to the pontificate of St. Evaristus nine years, but others ten or thirteen and fourteen Orig. de l'Egl. Rom., pièces just., p. 111 and following.: so much so that scarcely any light may be drawn from their authority.
[5] the time of the pontificate Anastasius the Librarian assigns to St. Evaristus thirteen years, six months and two days, namely from the consulate of Valens and Vetus down to the consuls Gallus and Bradua Migne, Patrol., vol. CXXVII, col. 1135.. Our Jan Stilting, at the 22nd day of September in the Collection on St. Linus Acta SS., vol. VI of September, p. 539., dealing with the various years assigned to the pontificates, has rightly observed and written that we can be less certain of the days and months which are added to the years than of the years, since these become known from the consuls. For copyists do not substitute some consuls for others as easily as they corrupt the numbers of years, months and days. And indeed this argument is altogether valid in our case, since, as we noted above, the Catalogue which attributes only nine years to the pontificate nevertheless at the same time indicates that St. Evaristus ruled the Roman Church from the consulate of Vetus down to Bradua, that is, from the year of Christ 96 to 108, or through thirteen years and some months and days.
[6] is shown from the consular Calendars; All the more ancient Catalogues agree, on the testimony of Francesco Bianchini Migne, Patrol., vol. CXXVII, col. 286., in assigning the same consuls to the period of each of the pontiffs: but Binius in his Notes on Anastasius, having altered the chronology of the pontiffs, accommodated the names of the consuls to the years indicated by himself. Thus he fixed the beginning of the pontificate of our Evaristus under Piso and Hasta, in the year of Christ 111, and its end under the consuls Aviola and Pansa, in the year 122. Let us say nothing of the consulate of Hasta, which according to the consular Calendars belongs to the year of Christ 57 or 175, and so can in no way square with the times of St. Evaristus: let that be an error which could steal upon Binius, ignorant of the more accurate consular calendars. But Binius, weaving his chronology apart from the Calendars, departed from Linus down to Pope Alexander from the most ancient Catalogues of Liberius and Felix, and was forced to interchange the consulates at his pleasure. But that it may be clear what the difference is between the ancient Catalogues and Binius, we set out both consular chronologies in a double column.
I shall note one thing, that the consulates attributed to Cletus are to be assigned to Clement, or that Clement is to be placed before Cletus. This inquiry seems to us to be deferred to the 23rd day of November, when the Acts of St. Clement will have to be treated.
[7] yet he seems to have been ordained vicar bishop while St. Anacletus was living. Francesco Bianchini in his chronological Notes on Anastasius the Librarian Migne, Patrol., vol. CXXVII, col. 1142. judges that St. Evaristus was ordained bishop during the lifetime of his predecessor, whether that was Anacletus or Clement, in the year of Christ 95 on the 25th day of March: otherwise the thirteen years with seven months and two days are difficult to find. But that his ordination is referred to the consulate of Valens and Vetus comes, says Bianchini, from this, that Anacletus, who precedes him in the Catalogue, is said to have ceased under the consulate of Domitian for the seventeenth time and Clemens, that is, in the year of Christ 95: but then indeed the ordination of St. Evaristus, performed on the 25th of March, preceded the death of St. Anacletus, who died on the 13th of July, by three months and nineteen days. Wherefore it will have to be said that St. Evaristus, while St. Anacletus was living, was vicar bishop at Rome, without however the right of succession, which the Roman Church always studiously avoided. And the institution of vicars of this kind was frequent enough at Rome at the beginning of the Church. For, on the testimony of St. Epiphanius, Heresy XXVII, chapter 6 Ibid. Gr., vol. XLI, col. 374., while the Apostles were still living, namely Peter and Paul, other bishops could be appointed in their stead; because those same men undertook journeys for the sake of preaching the gospel to other cities and regions, and Rome could not be without a bishop: for indeed Paul reached Spain, and Peter very often traversed Pontus and Bithynia. And it could well have happened that Clement, having first been appointed, since he shrank from it (if indeed it so fell out, which I should say by way of opinion rather than of assertion), afterwards, Linus and Cletus having died, who held the episcopate one after the other in the space of 12 years after the slaying of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which falls in the 12th year of Nero, was then at last compelled to take up the pontificate. A like reason, further, could have existed for Evaristus to be appointed bishop in his stead while Anacletus was either acting elsewhere or detained in prison. Although, therefore, St. Evaristus was made bishop on the 25th day of March of the common year 95, yet he did not attain the supreme pontificate before the death of St. Anacletus: and from the consulate of Gallus and Bradua we know that he died in the year of Christ 108, which we indicated at the head of this Commentary.
[8] The time of the pontificate. I know well enough that the chronographers do not agree on these years of St. Evaristus. Cardinal Baronius in his Annals places the beginning of the pontificate in the year of Christ 112 and its end in the year 121, so that St. Evaristus sat altogether nine years and some months. This opinion is embraced also by Giovanni Lorenzo Berti in his historical Dissertations: yet he would have two years shaved off, so that the pontificate began in the year 110 and ended in the year 119 Berti, Dissert. hist., vol. II, p. 76.. The Benedictine chronologists L'art de vérifier les dates. determine that he occupied the Roman chair from the year 100 to 109, and so also for nine years. Various reasons can be brought forward for a difference of this kind. In the first place they attribute to St. Linus a pontificate of eleven or twelve years, beginning from the martyrdom of St. Peter the apostle, although it lasted only two years, namely, St. Linus succeeded St. Peter, martyred about the year of Christ 66, down to the consulate of Capito and Rufus, that is, to the year 67 Cf. Acta SS., vol. VI of September, p. 539.. Next, they vary in the number of the years of the following pontiffs, because the signs of numbers are easily vitiated by the drowsiness of copyists. But when we compute by the years of consulates, there is scarcely any danger of error; for two names must be given, and so if there is a slip of the pen in one, it will be corrected in the other. Finally the consular chronology is coeval with the pontiffs of whom it is written. There is therefore no reason why we should depart from it. I shall add one thing: that the consulate of Gallus and Bradua is referred by Cardinal Baronius to the year of Christ 110, but he himself recognized and corrected his error, as Giovanni Lorenzo Berti explains at length, namely that the consular chronology must be cut short by two years Dissert. hist., vol. I, p. 130..
[9] To the Roman Presbyters the titles Besides the Ordinations which St. Evaristus held in the month of December, in which he ordained six presbyters, two deacons, and five bishops for various places (though others read 17 presbyters, 15 bishops), the more ancient writers report nothing else than that he divided the titles in the City of Rome among the presbyters, and appointed seven deacons, to guard the bishop as he preached, on account of the style of truth. These titles are places sacred to God, the care of which St. Evaristus committed to his presbyters. The word Titulus, however, has various meanings among writers both sacred and profane. In sacred Scripture it is taken for a monument, indeed even for an altar: So Genesis XXVIII, 18: Jacob arising in the morning, took the stone which he had laid under his head, and set it up for a TITLE, pouring oil upon the top of it; which stone he afterwards set up as an altar, as is read at Genesis XXXV, 7. In memory of the covenant entered into with Laban his father-in-law, Genesis XXXI, 45, Jacob took a stone and set it up for a TITLE, and the place was called the witnessing heap and the mound of testimony. The same word signifies also some inscription; so John XIX, 20: And Pilate wrote a TITLE also: and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was: Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews. This TITLE therefore many of the Jews read. In Roman Law, moreover, this word is taken for the very ground of possession, for example law 24, Code, On the vindication of property (III, 32): For those possessing with no just title preceding, the reason of law forbids them to seek ownership. Sometimes also it was called a title on estates, when the names of the owners were written on the front: hence false inscription was prohibited in law 1, Code, Of those who, of the more powerful (II, 15): We have observed that very many, in despair of their unjust causes, oppose to those by whom they are called to law the titles of the powerful and the privileges of the most illustrious dignity; various penalties are then inflicted on those abusing another's title or name.
[10] the origin and meaning of which is explained This custom St. Augustine points to in Enarration II on Psalm XXI, number 31 Migne, Patrol., vol. XXXVI, col. 181.: Do not some, he says, do this in their own house? Lest some powerful man should seize his house, he places there the titles of a powerful man, lying titles. He himself wishes to be the possessor, and he wishes the front of his house to be fortified by another's title; so that when the title has been read, a man, terrified by the power of the name, may abstain from seizure… And see, brethren, when some powerful man finds his titles, does he not rightly claim the property for himself, and say: He would not put up my titles, unless the property were mine. He has put up my titles, the property is mine. And in this sense I should believe that sacred places at Rome came by the name of Title, in so far as they designated a place deputed to sacred ministry. Baronius at
the year 112, § VI, thinks that the title was the banner of the cross, while others prefer that the title was rather the altar itself, or the column supporting the altar. This latter opinion is defended by Giovanni Lorenzo Berti, of the order of St. Augustine, in a special Dissertation on the Titles distributed by St. Evaristus, which Francesco Antonio Zaccaria has reproduced in his Collection of Dissertations on Ecclesiastical History Raccolta di Dissert., vol. VI, p. 1.. In the first place, he says, altars were everywhere in the private houses of the pagans, so that no suspicion of Christianity was created if some altar was found in a Christian's house; and on the other hand, that an altar is called a title is clear from the sacred scripture cited above, Genesis XXVIII, 18. Next, it would have been dangerous, while persecution raged, to set up in any place the sign of the cross, most familiar to the pagans; unless perhaps either the image of a fish or the word ἰχθυς had been given as a title; by such a mark, certainly, the property of the Church could be distinguished.
[11] he distributed. Both opinions, further, can be reconciled to the extent that there were different titles at different times. In the first three centuries the display of the holy Cross was dangerous, but, Christianity having been established, it became customary for this sign to be used publicly and everywhere. Thus in law 25 of the Theodosian Code, On Pagans (XVI, 10), the temples of the pagans are said to be expiated by the placing of the sign of the venerable Christian Religion. Titles of this kind, further, already existed before St. Evaristus, who is said only to have divided them among the presbyters. Such seems to have been the domestic church of Prisca and Aquila, the helpers of Paul, as his epistle to the Romans has it, XVI, 3: such also the houses in which the faithful gathered at Jerusalem: for, as the Acts of the Apostles has it, II, 41 and following, after about three thousand souls had been added on that day by the preaching of St. Peter, the neophytes sold their possessions and goods and broke bread from house to house, that is, as many interpret it in Cornelius a Lapide at this place, they participated in the sacrifice of the Mass: Something similar is read at Acts V, 42: And every day they ceased not, in the temple and from house to house, teaching and preaching Christ Jesus. And hence perhaps must be derived the reason why titles are attributed only to the cardinal presbyters, while on the contrary the cardinal deacons, the word Title being omitted, are simply named from some church. Thus it is written: N. cardinal presbyter of the title of St. Cecilia and N. cardinal deacon of St. Mary in Via Lata. Rightly, then, does Gaetano Moroni reprehend those writers, especially notaries, who attach some title to the cardinal deacons, since their churches are simply called diaconies Cf. Dizionn. di Erudiz. Eccles., vol. LXXV, p. 207. Under Tituli Cardinal.. The origins of the various titles are explained by Florentini in his Hieronymian Martyrology at the beginning of the month of August Page 697..
[12] He appointed deacons as witnesses of bishops: St. Evaristus assigned their part also to the deacons of the Roman Church, when he appointed seven deacons, to guard the bishop as he preached, on account of the style of truth. That in individual Churches there were seven deacons with the bishop we have from the very institution of this ministry in the Acts of the Apostles VI, 3. But it was resolved, says Francesco Bianchini in his historical Notes on Anastasius Migne, Patrol., vol. CXXVII, col. 1145., to double them in this primary Church of the New Covenant, when it was increased with new additions, and those very great, both the Cardinal presbyters and Roman titles, the twenty-five which had been before being enlarged to fifty; and the Cardinal deacons, their number of seven being increased to twice seven, which constitutes the sacred college of the Roman Church together with the six Suburbicarian bishops. But what the biographer adds, that the seven deacons were guards of the bishop as he preached on account of the style of truth, admits of varied interpretation. Hauteserre says that this was decreed so that the bishop might have guards against those lying in wait for him, and witnesses of the truth preached against detractors. Bianchini says: besides the reasons for the decree set forth by Hauteserre, the context seems to indicate this one, that the seven deacons, that is, as many as were then numbered in the Church, were obliged to be present with the bishop as he preached: and indeed “on account of the style of truth (I interpret” to be learned in the ministry of preaching), in which ministry, namely, it was more than once fitting that deacons also should be exercised by virtue of their office. He then adduces from the Acts of the Apostles the examples of the deacons preaching, SS. Stephen, Acts VI, 9 and 10, and Philip, VIII, 5.
[13] the epistle to the bishops There are various canons in Gratian attributed to St. Evaristus, which for the most part have been extracted from two epistles circulated under his name. The first epistle, directed to the African bishops, is said to have been given on the 9th before the Kalends of April, Valens and Vetus, most illustrious men, being consuls, that is, on the 24th day of March of the common year 96. In the first place some suspicion is raised by the title of most illustrious men attached to the names of the consuls, since, as Petiscus judges in his Lexicon of Roman Antiquities under Clarissimus, the consuls first began to use such a designation under the Antonines, when the second century was already inclining to its middle. Next, what is more serious, the exordium of Evaristus has been taken almost word for word from the epistle of Innocent I to Exuperius of Toulouse. Behold each text: the first is of Evaristus, the second column contains the exordium of Innocent.
When you consulted us, dearest brethren, as to what seemed good to us concerning those things which were contained in your writings, or what teachable reason might persuade, or what remained handed down to us or kept by the Blessed Apostles; desiring, as you reported, to be instructed by our teachings, we write back these things. Since indeed your love, following the rule of the prudent, has preferred to refer to the see, as to the head, what it ought to keep concerning doubtful matters, rather than to presume by usurpation Labbe, vol. I, Conc., col. 533..
When you consulted me, dearest brother, as to what I thought concerning each proposed case, according to the capacity of my understanding I have answered what seemed good, what is to be followed, as either teachable reason might persuade, or the authority of reading might show, or the kept series of the times might demonstrate. And indeed your love, following the practice of the prudent, has preferred to refer to the apostolic see what it ought to keep concerning doubtful matters, rather than by presumed usurpation to maintain what seemed good to itself in each case Ibid., vol. II, col. 1254.
[14] Further, the rescript of St. Evaristus contains a reply to a threefold inquiry of the Africans, is taken away from St. Evaristus: which is found in Gratian under three canons, which we shall enumerate in the order in which they were inserted in the Decree. The first, on deacons, is canon 11, distinction XCIII; and it runs: Deacons, who are as it were the eyes of the bishop, ought to be seven in each city, according to the ordinances of the Apostles, who should guard the bishop as he preaches, lest either the bishop himself be in any way molested by those lying in wait for him, or be harmed by his own, or the divine words be polluted or despised by detraction or by insidious attack, but that truth may breathe with spiritual fervour, and peace, preached with the lips, may accord with the will of the mind. Not rashly, after many others, does Sebastiano Berardi take this canon away from Evaristus Gratiani, Canones, vol. I, p. 41.. He rightly shows that the latter words of the canon were taken to the letter from the epistle of Pope Innocent I to Victricius of Rouen, who says in chapter 14 Migne, Patrol., vol. XX, col. 481.: This rule, if it has been observed with full vigilance … peace preached with the lips will accord with the will of the soul. So too, that deacons are the eyes of the bishop is already read in the same distinction, canon 6, in the epistle of pseudo-Clement. I approve less of the fact that the said Berardi accuses the decretal of Evaristus of falsity on the ground that it orders seven deacons to stand by each bishop; which, he says, does not square with Sozomen, Eccles. Hist., book VII, chapter 19 Ibid., Gr., vol. LXVII, col. 1475., who testifies that in various Churches the number of deacons was by no means defined. That in some Churches, especially Eastern ones, some ecclesiastical law was not in use does not seem to me an argument that that law was not published. I should say the same of another argument of the same writer, namely that deacons were not ordained after the manner of sentinels and were never, furnished with arms like soldiers, on watch to guard the bishop or the church. Certainly sentinels, though unarmed, are useful for guarding the bishop, and it is the duty of deacons to defend their bishop, although this is not read in the apostolic institution.
[15] [likewise the nuptial rite, though conformable to the customs of that age, is not to be attributed to St. Evaristus:] The second inquiry, from which canon 1, cause XXX, question 5 grew, deals with the marriages of Christians, which are to be contracted with the consent of parents and relatives and with the blessing of a priest. Further, that a sacred rite should be employed in concluding marriages agrees on all sides with the customs of the first Christians. Certainly St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, a contemporary of St. Evaristus, teaches in the epistle to Polycarp, chapter 5 Ibid., vol. V, col. 723., that it is fitting for bridegrooms and brides to contract marriage with the judgment of the bishop, that the marriage may be according to the Lord, not according to desire. Tertullian explains these things more clearly in book II, chapter 9, To his Wife Ibid. Lat., vol. I, col. 1302.. Whence, he says, shall we suffice to tell the happiness of that marriage which the Church joins, and the oblation confirms, and the blessing seals, the Angels announce, the Father holds ratified? For not even on earth do sons rightly and lawfully marry without the consent of their fathers. On this side, then, there is nothing in the decretal of St. Evaristus that does not on all sides agree with the customs of the first centuries. But there is something else that designates more recent times, omitted indeed in the Decree, but recorded in the epistle to the African bishops Labbe, vol. I, Conc., col. 534., namely that spouses joined according to the ecclesiastical rite both please the Lord and beget children not spurious, but legitimate and able to inherit. And yet in the first centuries of the Christian era the regulation of inheritances, which are merely civil matters, by no means belonged or could belong to the Church, especially then, when all the rites of the Christian religion were held to be superstitious, indeed execrable. In the third inquiry, finally, it is asked whether the Father alone is to be called God, or the Son also: a question that belongs rather to the fourth century, in which the Arians most bitterly disputed about the divinity of the Word: and in fact the whole reply, ascribed to Evaristus, has been copied word for word from Vigilius of Thapsus, a writer of the fifth century, in the work against Varimadus, book I, chapter 66 Migne, Patrol., vol. LXII, col. 394.: from which it is clear that the epistle was pieced together from fragments of a later age.
[16] the other epistle also, to the bishops of Egypt The second epistle, ascribed to St. Evaristus, to the bishops of Egypt, is read as given on the Kalends of November, Gallus and Bradua, most illustrious men, being consuls, that is, in the year of Christ 108. If indeed the Saint was buried on the 26th day of October, it is clear enough that the epistle was not given on the seventh day after his death. Next, the exordium of the epistle of Evaristus has been taken from the epistle of St. Leo I to Dioscorus of Alexandria.
EXORDIUM OF EVARISTUS.
That we, brethren, feel as one
and act as one is fitting, so that, as we read, one heart and one soul may be proved to be in us Labbe, vol. I, Conc., col. 536..
WORDS OF LEO THE GREAT.
For that we feel as one and act as one is fitting, so that, as we read, one heart and one soul may be proved to be in us also Ibid., vol. III, col. 1374..
From this epistle, further, has been taken canon 11, cause VII, question 1, by which the translations of bishops are prohibited and are represented as adulteries, as if a bishop, having repudiated his former spouse or Church and been joined to another richer or larger, were breaking his first faith: indeed Pseudo-Evaristus goes so far as to allege the text of Matthew V, 28, by which a man is held guilty of adultery in so far as whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. Certainly about the beginning of the second century there could be no ambition for a bishop to transfer himself to another Church: for the wealthier the city, the more frequent was the occasion of undergoing martyrdom.
[17] seems to have been taken from Herard of Tours. The same epistle then proceeds to condemn those who defame and tear to pieces bishops; as is read in canon 1, cause III, question 2. And certainly a decree of this kind in no way departs from the customs of that age: for St. Paul admonishes his disciple Timothy, 1 Tim., v. 10: Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses. There are indeed interpreters who say that the word presbyter is a name of age and not of order, as may be seen in Cornelius a Lapide at this text. But most rightly judge that it deals with a presbyter lawfully ordained, since a little before, namely at verse 17, the Apostle said: Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour; especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. From the very beginning of the Church, then, there were some who both thought ill of priests and accused them calumniously. Almost the same things are prescribed in canons 1 and 17, cause II, question 7, attributed to St. Evaristus. Finally canon 4, cause XXVI, question 6, by which it is ordained that presbyters, at the order of the bishop, should reconcile penitents for secret sins and absolve and communicate the sick, which are the very words of chapter LIX of Herard, bishop of Tours in the ninth century, who drew canons of this kind from the Capitularies Migne, Patrol., vol. CXXI, col. 768.. Sebastiano Berardi suspects that Burchard of Worms, from whom Gratian borrowed the canon, wrote Evaristus for Herard, and then, because the French were at that time especially hateful to the Germans, the origin of the canon being concealed, attributed it to the Roman Pontiff Gratiani, can. vol. I, d. 45..
[18] Place of burial and Relics. We have nothing else, that we know of, to say concerning St. Evaristus or his deeds. One thing remains, namely what was the lot of his body after death. Anastasius the Librarian teaches us that the holy Pontiff was buried beside the body of blessed Peter on the Vatican Migne, Patrol., vol. CXXVII, col. 1138., and the Ordinary of the Vatican basilica has it that the body of the Pontiff rests in it Mazzolari, Diario sagr. at the 26th day of October.. Our Oldoini reports in his History of the Roman Pontiffs Vol. I, col. 99. that the body of St. Evaristus is preserved at Naples in the basilica of St. Mary Major with the greatest veneration; and of this he adduces as witnesses the sacred historians of that city: but, he says, I judge that the Neapolitans have only a part of his body, since in the Vatican basilica at Rome, in which the ashes of this Martyr were first laid, the faithful venerate them down to these times; nor have I ever been able to find any writers who have made mention of this translation, and those who themselves relate this indicate neither the time, nor under whose leadership or by whose authority it was done. And in fact Francesco de Magistris, who in the year 1678 wrote a proper volume of larger format on the state of the Church of Naples, while describing all the sacred buildings of the royal city, in dealing with St. Mary Major says Page 279. Cf. Beyerlinck, Theatr., vol. VI, p. 303. Under Reliquiæ.: In that church among others the sacred Relics written below are preserved and venerated, namely: Five Thorns of the Lord's crown: fragments of the Holy Cross and a part of the veil of the Mother of God. But if the body of St. Evaristus had been preserved either whole or for the greatest part in the said church, without doubt he would have recorded it, as he has done for other Neapolitan churches. Let there be, then, in the church of St. Mary Major, which is or was of the Clerks Minor, some part of the ashes of St. Evaristus, provided that neither the whole body nor the chief bones are held to be there: there seems no need to resist this. I should say the same of the Relics of the same Saint who, at Rome, in the church of St. Anne of the Ropemakers (S. Anna de' Funari), in which, on the testimony of Ottavio Panciroli Tesori nascosti di Roma. Indice delle Reliquie., certain remains of the holy Pontiff are said to be preserved.