Remigius of Lyon

ON ST. REMIGIUS OF LYON, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, IN GAUL,

IN THE YEAR 875.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Remigius, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

Zacharias, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

Helias, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

Martin, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

Amolo, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

Gebuinus, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

BY R. D. B.

§ I. The bounds of the bishopric of Lyon in the ninth century. The cult, biographers, name, age, and episcopate of St. Remigius at Lyon.

Just as the pagus of Lyon, so also the bishopric of Lyon was subject to frequent changes of boundaries: [Over the church of Lyon, whose bounds in the ninth century are described, there presided] for which reason its delineation, as being a most difficult work, has been undertaken by the learned only with circumspection. Among these has stood out the distinguished man Auguste Bernard Cartulaire de Savigny et Ainay, Introduction, p. L., who, having spent the most diligent effort in describing the pagus of Lyon, found that in the ninth century at the rivers

Saône and Rhone on the left it took in the ager of Saxiacum (Cessieux), the ager of Candeacum (Chandieu), the ager of Strabiacum (Tramoye in Bresse), the ager of Ianiacum (Genay), the ager of Balgiacum (Bage), the ager of Romanacum (Romenay): then on the right of the Saône, the ager of Rodanum (Roanne), the ager of Solobrum (Solore, now Saint-Laurent-sous-Rochefort), the ager of Forum (Feurs), the ager of Iarum (Gier), the ager of Goffiacum (Goiffieu), the ager of Bebronna (Brevenne), the ager of Vallisneriacum (Vaugneray), the ager of Mons Aureacus (Mont d'Or), the ager of Ansa (Anse), and the ager of Tarnantum (Ternand). Since these agri borrowed their names either from a principal town or from a river running through, the reader will easily understand what approximately were the bounds of the pagus, and hence of the bishopric, of Lyon when St. Remigius, who in the ninth century occupied the chair of St. Irenaeus, was caring for religion in those parts.

[2] St. Remigius, inscribed in the martyrologies at this day. The cult of this most blessed man is beyond doubt, and his birthday is the 28th day of October. For on this day he departed from this life, and at the same day his name is inscribed in the Gallican Martyrology of du Saussay, in that of Paris of Cardinal de Noailles, in that of Auxerre of Charles de Caylus, and in the Universal one of Chastelain. But it is less certain at what time the blessed man's cult began. Yet no one will deny that it is most ancient among the people of Lyon: for when this church in the year 1287 had ordered the body of St. Justus and of other saints, among whom St. Remigius, resting in the church of St. Justus, to be raised from their ancient tombs for their honor and veneration and transferred into prepared reliquaries, those to whom this charge was committed found the body of blessed Remigius, confessor and archbishop of Lyon, and raised it Acta Sanctorum, vol. V of June, p. 345 ff.. From which it is clear that at least from the year 1287 St. Remigius was honored with public cult. And yet until the year 1692, in which year Charles de Neufville, archbishop of Lyon, inserted his office in the Breviary of Lyon, the priests of this church did not in any way honor the memory of St. Remigius in the liturgical office. Then, however, the 26th day of October was assigned for keeping his feast, and the following lesson was introduced into the Breviary, which Rev. Fr. E. M. Bonnay, a member of our Society in France, copied out with his own hand and sent to me.

[3] Lesson on him inserted in the Breviary of Lyon of the year 1692. Remigius, a most learned man, first supreme chaplain of the sacred palace of the Emperor Lothar, son of Louis the Pious; then successor of St. Amolo in the metropolitan and primatial see of the Gauls at Lyon: whose dignity he greatly increased in this age by the splendor of his piety and learning. For in his century he was most venerable in the Gallican hierarchy, as is established by the very clear testimony of Lothar. Hence the same emperor strove to adorn his see with many gifts. At the Councils of Valence III, Langres, Toul at the suburb of Savonnières, Soissons III, Chalon in the church of St. Lawrence across the Saône, and in other sacred assemblies, he presided with all honor and dignity; the bishops of various provinces, and even metropolitans, sitting beside him. He strongly vindicated the Catholic faith, by treatises published in the name of his church of Lyon on free will and divine predestination against the errors that sprang up in this century. He also wrote a great many things; among which are numbered the celebrated commentaries on the epistles of St. Paul. He preserved an untainted love for the Apostolic See. He procured the extension of the privileges of the abbey of the Île Barbe. He is reported to have separated the church of St. Justus from the church of St. Irenaeus, so that thereafter they were no longer one body, but enjoyed a double head. Renowned for his merits he fell asleep; he was buried in the basilica of St. Justus his predecessor. His sacred remains were found 400 years and more after his death in a marble tomb with an honorific inscription, lying almost in the middle among the venerable bodies of seventeen blessed men of Lyon, then discovered in the same authentic underground space; which afterward was translated with religious devotion to the cathedral church sacred to St. John the Baptist, and was there kept with fitting veneration until the most savage rage of the Calvinists against the sacred remains of the people of Lyon. This lesson, slightly changed, is even now recited by the clergy of Lyon, but on the 29th day of October. Ferrari, however General Catalogue of Saints etc., p. 202., commemorates the feast of St. Remigius on the 16th day of May: which error he committed because (as Baillet judges Vies des saints, vol. VII, p. 420.) in place of the 17th before the kalends of January he read the 17th before the kalends of June.

[4] There were several saints of the same name. But this is a single error; yet many more others have been committed by martyrologists and other writers, most of them arising from this, that since the people of Reims Acta SS. vol. I of Oct., p. 59., Rouen Ibid., vol. II of Jan., p. 235., Trent Ibid., vol. I of Oct., p. 36., Lincoln Mabillon, Acta SS. Ord. S. Bened., cent. VI, part II, p. 768., Gap Acta SS. vol. I of Feb., p. 360., Strasbourg Hunckler, Histoire des saints d'Alsace, p. 103., Bourges Labbe, Bibliotheca Mss., vol. II, p. 29., and Lucerne Acta SS., Supplement to vol. VI of Oct., p. 4 f. have had their own St. Remigius or Remedius (for just as diurnus and giorno are the same word, so Remedius and Remigius are one and the same name, as our predecessor Suysken has shown Ibid., vol. I of Oct., p. 60 f.), it has sometimes happened that one was taken for another: but these errors may be neglected, since the Acts of most of them have been illustrated by excellent commentaries; so that it is now easy to avoid this kind of confusion. Yet it will not be useless to recall to memory that two archbishops named Remigius held the helm of the church of Lyon, one of whom is the saint whose deeds are here narrated: the other, by no means reckoned among the saints, and hardly known, except that he set his name to two charters by which Herivaeus, bishop of Autun, gave assurance that he had enlarged the goods of this church in the years 921 and 922 [Duchesne, Histoire généalogique de la maison de Vergy, proofs, p. 28; Dom Plancher, Histoire de Bourgogne, vol. I, proofs, p. XVI f.].

[5] [Several more recent writers, especially Étienne Verney, collected the deeds of St. Remigius.] St. Remigius seems to have found no biographer among his contemporaries. But in the seventeenth century some investigators of the affairs of Lyon busied themselves diligently in inquiring into his acts, namely Severt Chronologia successionis hierarchicæ Lugdunensis archiepiscopatus, p. 180., Jean de la Mure Histoire ecclésiastique du diocèse de Lyon, p. 126 ff., Théophile Raynaud Hagiologium Lugdunense, Lyon 1662, p. 78 f., and especially Étienne Verney. The last of these, a man notable for piety and a beneficiary of the church of St. Paul, who died in the year 1651 [Pernetti, Recherches pour servir à l'histoire de Lyon, ou les Lyonnais dignes de mémoire, vol. I, p. 278.], had this singular praise, that he was the first to prepare historical lessons on St. Remigius. For he, experiencing daily, like the other clergy of Lyon, how complicated and hence difficult was the use of the breviaries and missals of the church of Lyon … and also that not all its prelates were commemorated, and that of the great ones among them scarcely a great feast was kept, while many others who did not pertain to this church were feasted with equal or even greater cult, had persuaded himself that it would not be unwelcome to the clergy of Lyon if their breviary were ordered in some degree on the form of the Tridentine. This plan, then, he says in the proem, occurred to me, that if on account of the shortage of books which presses us, according to the brief and clear method lately prescribed by the learned and pious Dom Jean de Chastres Ibid., vol. II, p. 95., canon of the church of Nicetana, either new Lyonese breviaries should be struck off on the model of the Tridentine ones; or else, the Roman ones being retained as to the form and manner of reciting the office, Lyonese tables should be added with the histories of the saints: the one and the other may be found stored here for the public convenience (for in the case of the missals there will be no difficulty, or a slight one, the same order being kept): but if not, and if the old ones please (which do not displease me either) the clergy of Lyon will here at least have the Lives of those saints whom our tables report, but of whom the lost (alas!) ancient martyrologies and the writings of the fathers in sermonaries, homiliaries, passionaries, legendaries, and other such books, to be purchased with gold, are silent. Thus far Étienne Verney. For this reason he himself, not without diligence, wrote out a good many Lives of saints, especially of Lyon: which elucubration Chaumont, canon of St. Justus, judged excellent. Among these occurs the Life of St. Remigius, which we shall give below from the never-printed manuscript codex of Étienne himself, now kept in our museum.

[6] [He entered on the episcopate in the year 852 and was supreme chaplain of Charles, king of Provence.] It would now have to be inquired in what place, of what stock and parents, in what year St. Remigius was born: but on these points the ancients are found to have left us nothing. The Maurist writers of Gallia Christiana have been of the opinion that he was a Gaul by origin Gallia Christiana, vol. IV, p. 61., since the name Remigius had long been customarily used by the Gallo-Romans. This argument, however, is not altogether certain, since Jordanes, recalling from Dio the deeds of Telephus, king of the Goths, subjoins: Lest anyone say that this name is altogether foreign to the Gothic tongue: there is no one who does not know that it is observed by usage that nations embrace many names, as the Romans those of the Macedonians, the Greeks those of the Romans, the Sarmatians those of the Germans, and the Goths for the most part borrow those of the Huns [De rebus Geticis, ch. IX, in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. I, p. 196.]. Nor has it come down to our times what St. Remigius did before his episcopate, or with what men he kept company. We know, however, that at least from the year 852 he took up the government of the church of Lyon: for the Emperor Lothar, in a diploma which has been published many times, informs all that at the prompting of the venerable bishop Remigius, most devoted to his Highness, he confers on the church of Lyon the cenoby which is publicly called Savigny. This diploma is closed with these words: Sign of Lothar, most serene Augustus. Hirdmundus the notary verified it in place of Hildun. Given on the 2nd before the ides of September, in the year, Christ being propitious, of the lord Emperor Lothar in Italy 33, and in Francia 12 (elsewhere 13), indiction XV, or the 10th day of September of the year 852. Done at the estate of Gherniacum, in God's name, happily. Amen De la Mure, Histoire ecclésiastique de Lyon, p. 370 f.. Moreover it is certain that St. Remigius discharged the office of supreme chaplain or archchaplain of the sacred palace of Charles, king of Provence (who reigned from the year 855 to 863): for in three diplomas by King Charles of his sacred

palace he was named supreme chaplain Bouquet, Recueil des Historiens des Gaules, vol. VIII, p. 397 ff.. What the offices of the supreme chaplain in the sacred palace of the kings of the Franks were we have explained in the present volume (p. 654), in the Historical Commentary on St. Angelramnus.

§ II. In the eighth and ninth centuries the Frankish churches were despoiled of their goods by the kings of the Franks. Restitution made by Lothar to the church of Lyon, with a bestowal of new goods.

The Emperor Lothar held many goods of the church of Lyon: How great were the losses suffered by the Gallican church in the eighth and ninth centuries can be conjectured rather than defined; but it is established by many testimonies that this calamity spread very widely. Witness first of all is Pope Hadrian I, from Tilpin archbishop of Reims Sirmond, Councils of Gaul, vol. II, p. 74.; witnesses are the Emperor Lothar himself, Charles king of Provence, Lothar king of Lotharingia, and Charles the Bald, as may be seen in the diplomas which we shall recite below; witnesses also are several councils held in Gaul in the ninth century, for example Soissons II, in the year 853, can. IX Ibid., vol. III, p. 79.; Valence III, in the year 855, can. X Ibid., p. 102.; the synod gathered in the year 858 at Quierzy, in its letter to Louis, king of Germany Ibid., p. 122.; finally, to omit others, the synod assembled in the year 859 at Savonnières, can. XIII Ibid., p. 155.. I am not unaware that, where the authors of these usurpations are in question, different people take different paths; but, although most writers blame Charles Martel especially for this crime, there are not lacking men truly skilled in Frankish affairs who deny that he ever enriched himself or other laymen with ecclesiastical goods [Le Cointe, Eccles. Annals, at the year 741, vol. V, p. 48 f.; Baluze, Capitularies of the Kings of the Franks, vol. II, col. 1137; Raepsaet, Œuvres complètes, vol. I, p. 287 ff.; Beugnot, Mémoire sur la spoliation des biens du clergé attribuée à Charles Martel, in Mémoires de l'Institut de France, vol. XIX, p. 361.]. It is not our task to dwell longer on this matter: for it suffices to have indicated that other churches besides that of Lyon were subject to calamitous usurpations, and that the Emperor Lothar Recueil des Historiens des Gaules, vol. VIII, col. 390., Charles the Bald [Council of Meaux of the year 845, can. 17, in Sirmond, Councils of Gaul, vol. II, p. 36.], and other sons and grandsons of Louis the Pious were not free of this offense.

[8] [but at the request of St. Remigius he restored the estates of Aulania and Morgas,] Since affairs then stood in this manner, St. Remigius considered it part of his office to labor for the recovery of the goods of his church; in which matter he engaged so happily that he deserves to be called the restorer of the temporal state of the church of Lyon. Certainly the most obscure recesses of theological questions were not foreign to his mind (as will be seen in its place); but he was no less skilled in economic affairs; so that he was both a supreme theologian and a supreme administrator. In order of time we shall explain the chief matters, reporting the principal words of the diplomas. St. Remigius, then, at whose exhortation the Emperor Lothar had not a little enlarged the resources of the church of Lyon, approached him and his brother Charles the Bald and his sons also, that what had been fraudulently or unjustly taken from the same church might be restored in full. Accordingly the Emperor Lothar ordered the estate of Aulania in the county of Lyon Bernard, Cartulaire de Savigny, vol. II, p. 1079., and the estate of Morgas in the county of Scudingis Valois, Notitia Galliarum, under Scutingi, p. 508., and other possessions taken from the church of Lyon to be restored. Because, he says, our most beloved uncle Drogo, venerable archbishop (of Metz) and chaplain of our palace, and Bertha, our most loving daughter, and Hilduin, venerable abbot and archnotary of our court, approaching our clemency, have entreated for the restoration of the properties of the holy church of Lyon, which for certain causes, not only of necessity, but also of the dissensions that had arisen between us and the bishop of that see, it happened to be taken away on certain days, that for the benefit of our reward they should be restored to the same church, namely in the county of Lyon the estate called Aulania, and in the county of Scudingis another estate called Morgas, with their appurtenances that are held in whatever pagi and various places, that is, in Assenacum, Villaris, Luperciacum, Vercellae, Vercellio, Curnas, Saciana; and the estate called At Saint Mary's; and likewise Luperciacum and Cociacum with their appurtenances, which Adalard possesses by way of benefice. In these places thus described, as much as is known to be of the right of the church of blessed Stephen and of our own, and as Bertmund or his father Ebrard are seen to have held this in benefice, we give back to the same see by our authority and confirm: and also those that Gunduin is not unknown to have held in the pagus Portensis, with all their integrity, we restore in like manner. Likewise also the estate called Calissis, with all things that pertain to it, situated in the pagus of Lyon, we deliver and restore to it. To whose petitions, both on account of the merit of their devotion and of the most devoted service of Remigius, to whom we hold the care and government of the same church committed, most willingly assenting, we have been at pains to call back the said properties thither in all their integrity at the present time, and have confirmed them by imperial corroboration Bouquet, vol. VIII, p. 390..

[9] [the estates of Lentis and Giana and the chapel of St. Stephen; likewise the estate of Lucennacum and the churches of St. Gervase and St. Desiderius;] About the same time the same aforesaid Emperor Lothar, at the prayers of Abbot Hilduin, archnotary of his court, or primicerius of the notaries, and on account of the most devoted service of Remigius, poured back among the goods of his church in the county of Lyon the estate of Lentis with all that looks to it, and in the estate of Ambariacum the chapel in honor of St. Stephen and St. Symphorian and St. Martin, with all its appendages situated in various places, and the estate of Giana, also in the same county, with all that pertains to it Ibid., p. 391.. Add that about the same time Lothar, restoring other goods to the church of Lyon, said: Because Gerard, illustrious count and marquis, most faithful to us, approaching our clemency, has entreated for the restoration of the properties of the holy church of Lyon, that those which were known to have been taken or withdrawn from the same church through the insolence and greed of certain persons should for the benefit of our reward be restored to the same church; namely in the county of Vienne the estate of Lucennacum, with all its appendages, and also the churches of St. Gervase and St. Desiderius, with all that pertains to them, situated in the county of Lyon. To whose very reasonable prayers, both on account of the merit of his devotion and of the most devoted service of Remigius, to whom we hold the care and government of the same church committed, most willingly assenting, we have been at pains to call back the said properties thither in all their integrity at the present time, and have confirmed them by imperial corroboration Ibid., p. 389..

[10] he also gave the monastery of Nantua The same Emperor Lothar, in order to please St. Remigius, gave in perpetuity to the church of Lyon the monastery of Nantua, in the present diocese of Belley. Receive part of the diploma: It has been brought to the ears of our serenity, at the prompting of this most venerable bishop Remigius, most devoted to our Highness, how the holy church of Lyon was at one time most rich, and most flourishing widely in property, and most distinguished in religion, its bishops applying their zeal especially to this, that it should not only be fruitful … in sons, but also be rendered most wealthy in resources and worldly power for the repressing of the pride of the world; but, causes having run their course in diverse order, it has come about that the properties which, heaped up for its glory, had flowed into it from all sides, were divided and dispersed and diminished in many ways. This matter so moved the heart of our piety that, in thanks to the giver of every good, we strive to repair it to its first state… We confer therefore on the sacred and first church of the Gauls … the little monastery with all that pertains to it, built in honor of our Lord Jesus Christ under the invocation of the most blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, situated in the regions of the Jura, which is publicly called Nantuadis from the waters emerging nearby. This donation, proceeding most liberally from our piety, we will should so remain to the most reverend mother church of Lyon in unbroken time for its solace and honor, that the inhabitants of the said little place, in life, doctrine, and the supply of things necessary, through the ordering and disposition (of providence through) the bowels of maternal piety and of its holy bishop, the privilege being safe … (wanting) to them lately before, may be made better and more useful from then on, nor lament that any detriment has come to them from such subjection or donation Ibid., p. 388.… Indeed shortly afterward the same Emperor Lothar, at the petition of Remigius … granted this also by the privilege of his authority, that in controversies and cases at law the said cenobitic properties should be under that law under which they had stood before they were conferred on the said church: and he subjoins (whence it is also established that the domains of the monastery of Nantua were made not precarial holdings, but so many true properties of the church of Lyon): Namely that in all suits and answers, and in the business of various complaints, it should answer by the same law, in the same manner, and in the same tenor … as it was accustomed at the time when it lay under the lordship of our proprietorship Ibid., p. 391..

[11] and that of Savigny, On the same footing, in the same year, and with the same formula Lothar at the petition of St. Remigius gave as a gift to the church of Lyon the cenoby with all that pertains to it, built in honor of the Lord Jesus Christ under the invocation of the most blessed Martin, bishop and confessor, which is publicly called Savigny Ibid., p. 389; Bernard, Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Savigny, p. 547.. It must be noted, however, that this diploma, which offended not a little the exemption of the monks of Savigny, was held by them as spurious, since the autograph had been suppressed; but this opinion, since the monastery of Savigny was subject to the archbishops of Lyon from the remotest times, seems hardly to be admitted Bernard, Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Savigny, notice, p. LXXVIII f..

[12] without violating justice toward these monasteries But did not St. Remigius, who dared to lend a hand to the enrichment of his church with the goods of monasteries, violate divine and human laws? By no means; since both those monasteries were held among the royal ones, as is gathered from the Gallia Christiana of the Maurists. Now there were two kinds of royal monasteries: for some were built on royal fiscal lands and endowed by the kings themselves; others had been founded by men distinguished for piety, who, lest anyone should do them harm with impunity, had committed them to the guardianship of kings. And the condition of these royal monasteries was not unlike the condition of the churches annexed to estates; which, as has been excellently shown by Jean

Joseph Raepsaet Œuvres complètes, vol. I, p. 311 ff., were so far numbered among things of private right that he who bought estates from another acquired by the same deeds the churches with their tithes. Further, the condition of the royal monasteries, which was almost the same in East and West, has been excellently described by Baluze in his notes on the works of Lupus of Ferrières [Epist. XII, Works of Lupus of Ferrières, in Migne, Patrol., vol. CXIX, col. 456 ff.], where after narrating how the monasteries of the kingdom of the Franks were either granted liberty or recovered it, he confirms his teaching with many examples. With Baluze agree du Cange Glossary, under Monasterium., the authors of the Historical and Canonical Examination Ch. 8, p. 200 ff., and many others, whom we have cited in the historical commentary on St. Angelramnus, p. 659 of the present volume.

[13] The monastery of Nantua, however, was afterward restored to itself. But when the monasteries of Nantua and Savigny had been granted to the archbishops of Lyon, that their table might be increased, so that the revenues lay in their hands with the burden of supporting the abbot and the lawful number of monks or of assigning them certain goods; this change of things (which was also often introduced elsewhere thereafter with the greatest ruin) was so destructive to the monastery of Nantua through the rapacity of the ministers of the church of Lyon that, although the archbishops of Lyon in that age were outstanding in holiness, the abbot and monks of the cenoby, wailing, set forth to St. Aurelian, the successor of St. Remigius, as he visited the monastery in the year 891, what and how great were the miseries of the calamities that troubled and afflicted that place. These things being seen, the holy prelate, having annulled the depredations of the wicked, gave back what estates he could that had been taken from the monastery, and first of all Nantoacum with its serfs and slaves: and lest in future the monks should again be despoiled of these goods, he added to the deeds of donation the usual anathema against usurpers Mabillon, Benedictine Annals, vol. III, Appendix, p. 641..

§ III. Restitutions and new donations made to the church of Lyon by Charles, king of Provence. The foundation of the monastery of Saxiacum.

[Charles, king of Provence, at the request of St. Remigius, restores the urban estate, the castle of Tornon,] The Emperor Lothar having died, Charles his son was hailed king of Provence by his father's will, and had the seat of his kingdom at Lyon. And Charles showed himself no less liberal than his father toward St. Remigius, whom he had chosen as supreme chaplain of his court. And first of all he commanded that the urban estate, which the church of Lyon had formerly possessed under immunity and royal guardianship, be restored to St. Remigius and his successors with its ancient privileges and free of the fisc Bouquet, vol. VIII, p. 396.. Likewise Charles, having learned from St. Remigius that his father Lothar (though there existed no instrument on this matter, as it seems) had given the castle of Tornon * to the church of St. Stephen, issued (it is not known in what year) a diploma from which these words have been excerpted: Because the venerable archbishop Remigius, also supreme chaplain of our sacred palace … has made known to us concerning a certain castle or estate of Tornon, which is situated in the pagus of Lyon by the river Rhone, that our father of pious memory restored it to the church of blessed Stephen, venerably situated at Lyon, namely for the love of God, and in order to secure the same martyr as his intercessor … and he has petitioned our clement highness that we too should order the said work of piety, which our father so holily and devoutly completed, to remain firm in perpetuity by a precept of our serenity. To whose petitions … we have given assent, and attesting by our precept the holy deed of our father of august memory, we also have ordered it to be done on this matter Ibid., p. 399..

[15] the estates of Liviae, Coloniacae, and Fischibanum: Nor did the matter succeed less for St. Remigius when he sought from the aforesaid King Charles the restitution to the church of Lyon of the estates of Livia, Coloniacum, and Fischibanum with their adjacencies. For we wish it to be made known, wrote Charles, that Remigius, most reverend archbishop of the church of Lyon and supreme chaplain of our sacred palace, has come with entreaty to our clemency, that we should restore by the privilege of our authority, for the happy attainment of the beatitude of eternal life, to the same church the estates of St. Stephen of the church of the people of Lyon, namely Livia, Colonicae, and Fischibanum with all their adjacencies, to which church they are known to have been given of old, and from which they are proved to have been unjustly taken these many years, and should decree that they serve there forever. Which petition, as reasonable and pious, most clemently favoring, we have ordered the letters of our highness to be made Ibid., p. 399 f..

[16] likewise certain privileges to the monastery of Barbe; St. Remigius also applied his effort that the monastery of the Île Barbe near Lyon, which from the remotest times had deserved exceedingly well of the church of Lyon, might recover the immunity and privileges once granted it by Charlemagne, and enjoy them in perpetuity. Nor did the holy bishop sing to deaf ears; for King Charles gave back to the monks, provided that every year they paid a pound of silver to the treasurers of their own bishop (of Lyon), their former liberty, and even immunity from rent and repayment Bouquet, vol. VIII, p. 400..

[17] and he gives many goods to the church of Lyon. Moreover, Charles did not hold it enough to restore the goods that had been taken from churches and monasteries, but also several colonicae vestitae [Guérard, Polyptique d'Irminon, vol. I, ch. VI, p. 238; du Cange, Glossary, under Colonicas and Vestitus.] or colonial estates with their fruits, metaritiae Ibid., under Metaritia. or metariae, that is rustic estates, vercariae Ibid., under Vercaria. or places suitable for feeding sheep or wethers, and absae or unworked and pasture lands, situated in the county of Belley, which he possessed by his own and hereditary right, he gave as a gift in perpetuity to the church of Lyon in the year 861 on account of the most devoted service of St. Remigius. We desire it to be known to all, says Charles in the diploma of concession, that Remigius, reverend bishop of the church of Lyon and supreme chaplain of our palace, approaching our mildness with bowed head, has very earnestly requested that for the supply of whatever need of his we should grant him certain properties of our proprietorship by hereditary right. To whose prayers, as being courteous, giving assent, … we gratefully grant to the same bishop those that are situated in the county of Belley, in various places indeed, whose names are these: in Coronae-villa one colonica vestita, one and another apsa with a vercaria; in like manner in Aurelianum one vercaria; in Rostonnacum one metaritia; in Mutianum one colonica vestita, one and another absa with a vercaria without rent; in Blodennacum two metaritiae; in Curtis one metaritia; in Cussanum one metaritia; in Lutiacum a vercaria, one absa; in Andernum a vercaria, one absa. All these things, then… we most willingly bestow on the aforesaid bishop on account of his most devoted service, and from our right we deliver them into his power Bouquet, vol. VIII, p. 398..

[18] St. Aurelian subjects the monastery of Saxiacum to St. Remigius, In the year 859 St. Aurelian, who succeeded St. Remigius in the see of Lyon, while he was still presiding as abbot over the monastery of Ainay, founded the cenoby of Saxiacum * from his own and his parents' resources, and devoutly offered it with its estates to God the Savior of all, and offered it in Christ's stead to Remigius, the venerable and most religious archbishop, on this condition, that the same venerable archbishop should complete the monastery already begun in honor of God and of St. Benedict and of the blessed martyrs Florentinus and Hilary, and that it should be completed by him, and that he himself should be its pious father and provider. Of the institution of this monastery Samuel Guichenon Histoire de Bresse et de Bugey, Proofs, p. 225 ff. published a very ancient summary, and Mabillon Acta SS. Ordinis S. Benedicti, cent. IV, part II, p. 498. the diploma. Further, St. Remigius ratified the donation of Aurelian; and he also greatly enriched and enlarged the monastery of Saxiacum from his own lands: and this is reported in these words by the writer who reduced the acts of donation and other such things to a compendium.

[19] who increases its goods. Consequently, he says, the aforesaid Remigius, by divine will bishop of the holy church of Lyon, with pious and faithful devotion, desiring that the monastery and dwelling of the servants of God, begun and for the greatest part founded in honor of our Lord Jesus Christ and for the veneration of the most blessed Benedict, as above, both in the said place of Saxiacum and in the ager above recorded and at length declared and designated, and desiring the testament to be fulfilled, the properties, resources, and possessions which the aforesaid Abbot Aurelian transferred into the right of the said Bishop Remigius by testamentary and donative right, and whatever he appeared to have in the said properties, and in the hamlets of Neriacum, Vexiacum, Anguiliacum, with the church of St. Thecla, Monthullium, Lollii, Agabrium, Balasiacum or Liorgus, Cameracum or also Milliacum, and Villicium Crepti, Marcaniacum, and Cationecum; in the pagus of Belley, Castagniacum and Domassianum; and in the pagus of Vienne, Casdum; in the pagus of Die, Carpobolum… Villia, with the church of St. Marcellus, also in the pagus of Maurienne *, all in various places,… with a cheerful mind and ready will he devoutly offered to God the almighty Savior and to Brother Badilo, who ought to preside and be of profit in the place of abbot, and to the other brethren who there under the rule of the pious father Benedict were intent on the services of God; so that also the same abbot and brethren should fully complete the aforesaid monastery according to the mind of the said testament of the aforesaid Abbot Aurelian, following his testamentary will, by the force of his testamentary will, and by insertion in his testament, that from that day neither of himself, nor of his parents, nor to the fasces of royal greatness, nor to the yoke of any earthly power, should the aforesaid servants of God gathered there be subject, but whomever the aforesaid monks wished, from among themselves, they should have at their own decision as abbot, shepherd, and their ruler, according to the pleasure of God and the rule of St. Benedict, free in all things to elect without the disturbance of any power; and against the hostility of the worst and wicked men he commanded that according to their wish and decision, whomever they wished to have as tutor and defender, without anyone's opposition, granting them free faculty of electing, with the other like clauses and words contained and set down in the testament of Abbot Aurelian. Then he adds in what manner Charles, king of Provence, granted to the monks, and decreed therein that the possessions which the aforesaid Abbot Aurelian for the firmness of the matter offered to St. Remigius the archbishop, and the same venerable archbishop to almighty God and the most blessed Benedict… or which he willed to be increased in the same place from the gifts of the faithful by the divine piety, should never be subject to the yoke of any earthly power, but that the said Abbot Aurelian or his monks and their successors in coming generations should be held to the service of God alone…: and when St. Remigius had appointed Badilo first abbot of the monastery of Saxiacum, ten bishops gathered in assembly, at the request of King Charles, this renunciation and the very

donation of Aurelian and the acceptance of St. Remigius ratified [Mabillon, Acta SS. Ordinis S. Benedicti, cent. IV, part II, p. 500; Guichenon, Hist. de Bresse et de Bugey, Proofs, p. 225 ff.].

* Tournus.

* Ceissieu

* Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne

§ IV. Restitutions and donations of Lothar, king of Lotharingia, to the church of Lyon.

King Lothar restores to the church of Lyon When Charles, king of Provence, had laid down his life in the year 863, leaving no posterity, his brothers the Emperor Louis and Lothar, king of Lotharingia, divided his kingdom between them, against the opposition of their uncle Charles the Bald: and although it is uncertain what domains came to either brother by hereditary right, yet no one denies that Lyon and the pagus of Lyon, after the death of Charles, obeyed Lothar, king of Lotharingia, until at length he too died a miserable death at Piacenza in the year 869. Now Lothar, who was foul with the worst morals, at times laid an unjust hand on the goods of the church of Lyon, and had conferred on a layman as a benefice, that is, with the right reserved to himself of revoking it at his nod, the estates of Caduliacum in the county of Salmorenc, and Livia in the pagus of Vienne, which had before been restored by the royal authority of his brother Charles. Yet Lothar, having heard the exhortations of St. Remigius, did not hesitate to acknowledge his fault and to pour back both estates to the church of Lyon. The instrument of this satisfaction indeed survives: but in what year that diploma or the others of which we are about to speak were issued, the chronologists do not dare to determine. Receive, reader, excerpts of this diploma.

[21] the estates of Caduliacum, Livia, Wherefore, these are Lothar's words, let the diligence of all the faithful of the holy church of God and of our own, both present and future, know that for the profit of its advantage, and also on account of the most devoted service of Remigius, most reverend archbishop of the church of Lyon, we have restored by the precept of our authority to the church of St. Stephen of Lyon these estates, namely Caduliacum in the county of Salmorenc and Livia in the pagus of Vienne, which formerly Charles of good memory, the glorious king, our brother, had restored to the aforesaid church according to reason and by royal authority, but which we afterward for a certain necessity had conferred as a benefice, which, recognizing as having been altogether not rightly done, we have decreed these letters of our authority to be made, by which we restore the said estates to the aforesaid house of God, so that in our times and in future times they may remain without anyone's withdrawal in the power of the bishops of the same church, so that by God's bounty the prelates and clergy of the same house of God may be zealous to pour out assiduous prayers more attentively to the Lord for the soul of our father and mother, and of our brother Charles the glorious king, and also for our own Bouquet, vol. VIII, p. 409..

[22] Turno and Curtenacum, taken partly by himself, partly by his faithful men; Then, when he had learned, on the report of St. Remigius, that the estates of Turno and Curtenacum, before given back to the church of Lyon by his father and his brother Charles, had again in the course of the years been taken away by the incursion of seculars, he gave a precept of this kind: Let it be known to all the faithful of our kingdom and those established under our right and power, that the venerable Remigius, archbishop of the church of Lyon, has come to the clemency of our greatness and has indicated to us that the Emperor Lothar of august memory, for the remedy of his soul and of that of his wife Ermengard of holy memory, and of their most noble offspring, promised many things, and where it was opportune conferred them on the church of Lyon, just as the same archbishop had been established by his gift and favor, and therefore approached the more confidently, and in a manner more familiarly, our mildness, that mindful of the benevolence and generosity of our pious father, certain things of that church, though in some course of years taken away by the incursion of seculars, he entreated that, for the love of our pious father and mother, and of ourselves and of our brother Charles, the estates which our same brother, namely Turno and Curtenacum, restored to St. Stephen the protomartyr in the church of Lyon by the precept of his authority, we should reconsign under the most firm corroboration of our precept, and should grant that they remain perpetually to the same church. Which we, both for the honor of the memory of our father, and of our mother of holy remembrance, and also for the soul of our brother Charles, and for the forgiveness of our evil deeds, and for the most faithful obedience of the said archbishop himself, have willingly granted, and have given assent to his prayers, indeed by our gift have most willingly strengthened to blessed Stephen and to the sacred see of the church of Lyon Turno and Curtenacum with the churches, hamlets, and properties and slaves, which by the authority of our father and our brother Charles were restored to the same church, and by our perpetual confirmation we will that they remain there to be of profit to the servants of God Ibid., p. 410..

[23] among whom Witgarius: Lastly it remains to speak of the domain, situated in the kingdom of Lotharingia, which Lothar, before he ruled the city of Lyon, ordered to be restored to St. Remigius. For the holy archbishop, having ascertained that a certain Witgarius had received a very great many properties of the church of Lyon by an illicit and in every way unreasonable exchange, sought and obtained from Lothar that he should compel him to make restitution. He, summoned by the king once, twice, three times in vain for this cause, was forced to restore the manses and the estate which he had taken away Ibid., p. 411.. It is certain that the diploma of this matter was issued before the year 863, in which Charles, king of Provence, ceased to live: for there he is spoken of as then living.

[24] and he compels them to make like restitution. Moreover Lothar commanded that all the possessions of the church of Lyon unjustly occupied by others, even if it should be shown from written books that this had been their condition for many years, be restored to their lawful owner reclaiming them. Let then the unanimous assent of our whole kingdom know, Lothar declared, that Remigius, venerable archbishop of the church of Lyon, and Gerard, illustrious count, approaching our mildness, have humbly suggested that whatever properties of their bishopric and county, which are declared to be of one condition and cause (whence old witnesses and sure indications), the wickedness of certain men once usurped, and greedy iniquity converted into the domain of their right and of their sons. Hearing therefore such addresses of our faithful men, and willingly favoring their prayers, we have ordered these letters of our precept to be made, by which we signify in every way, and enjoin by the privilege of our authority, that no one fortify himself by the courses of years and the rolls of days, where the sure indications of truthful witnesses are brought forward: but, the business of this matter being diligently investigated, and oaths being shown by suitable witnesses for the confirmation of the case, let him be free and diligent to take back what is established to have belonged before to the sanctuary of the Lord, so that no one may be able to retain by hereditary right, even if left to him by his parents, what plainly appears to have been conferred before on the sanctuary of Christ; since the institution of our authority overturns every craftiness of that cavil Bouquet, vol. VIII, p. 410..

§ V. Restitutions of Charles the Bald. Whether in the ninth century the church of Lyon was as rich as at first sight appears.

Charles the Bald to the church of Lyon When Lothar, returning from Rome to Gaul, after a feigned conversion to God, had departed from the living at Piacenza in the year 869, his whole kingdom was taken over by his uncle Charles the Bald. But in the following year, ceding one part to Louis the German, the other uncle of Lothar, he kept the rest, in which Lyon lay, for himself. Further, although the church of Lyon, by the care of St. Remigius, had recovered a good many possessions which laymen had before unjustly occupied, nevertheless it complained that many others also had been fraudulently taken from it. Accordingly, again at the prayers of St. Remigius, Charles the Bald, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, commanded in an uncertain year that the estate of Pisiniacum with its appendages in the county of Troyes, and the hamlet of Lupiniacum and Esnaicum lying in the county of Chalon *, be given back to the church of Lyon.

[26] the estates of Pisiacum Because, he says, at the entreaty and salutary admonition of Remigius, dear and much beloved, venerable archbishop of the church of Lyon, it has pleased our Highness to restore certain properties situated in the county of Troyes, that is, the estate of Pisiniacum with all its appendages, and in the county of Chalon Villaris with the hamlet of Lupiniacum and the hamlet of Esnaicum,… and with all the properties and slaves pertaining to the aforesaid estates, to the aforesaid mother church of Lyon, dedicated in honor of the most blessed Stephen, to whose right they are known once to have belonged, for the absolution of our sins, and by restoring them to delegate and confirm them to be held perpetually and canonically ordered. Whence we have ordered this precept of our Highness to be made and given to the said holy mother church, by which we fully restore the aforesaid estates with the churches, houses, …, and full integrity to the said holy mother church, and by restoring confirm them; so that the aforesaid Remigius, reverend archbishop of the same church, may fully receive the same properties … so that he and his successors with all the clergy committed to him may implore the mercy of God with continual prayers for us, our wife and offspring, and the state of our whole kingdom Ibid., p. 623..

[27] Cagiacum, Scopella, Likewise by another diploma also Charles the Bald restored to the church of Lyon the estate of Cagiacum, situated in the pagus of Autun, and Scopella, in the pagus of Chalon. Here are the words of this diploma: Since Remigius, venerable archbishop of the church of Lyon, coming to the excellence of our sublimity, has reported the detriments inflicted by various disturbances on the church committed to us, and that certain properties have been granted by kings to the invasion of the wicked. To which man's true report Oddo, illustrious count and strenuous executor of our fidelity, for love of not hiding the truth, bearing witness, has entreated that certain properties lying within his own and others' honors, which were known to belong to the holy mother church, we should give back for the love of God and at his entreaty, by the power of our greatness, and in giving them back should confirm them by the inviolable precept of our munificence, that is, in the pagus of Autun Cangiacum, and in the pagus of Chalon Scopella. To whose prayers we yielded the more willingly, the more we foresaw that it would profit us. Whence we have ordered this precept of our Highness to be given also to the said bishop, by which, commanding, we decree, and decreeing, confirm, that the aforesaid estates with all their integrity, like the other estates of that church, be subject and subordinate both to Remigius and to his successors to be chosen by God Ibid., p. 622 f.…

[28] and he restores Mons Aureus; And another estate, namely Mons Aureus, situated also in the pagus of Chalon, he willed to be restored to the same church of Lyon, in order to satisfy the wishes of St. Remigius; and he made this known in these words: Since Remigius, venerable archbishop of the church of Lyon, dear to us,… has disclosed to us … how from his aforenamed church, namely … of St. Stephen, formerly through the carelessness of his predecessors a certain estate, by name Mons Aureus, situated in the pagus of Chalon, which also at present Lambert, a ministerial beloved of us, has obtained by benefice right, was unjustly taken away: and thus he has humbly entreated that, by the precept of our authority, we should restore and give back the same estate to the aforesaid church of St. Stephen, and in giving it back should restore it. To whose prayers, for the love of the heavenly homeland,

and to his well-deserving service giving assent, we have ordered this precept of our authority to be made and given to him and his successors, by which we command and order that the same estate, with all its appendages, the same church and its ruler, namely present and future, should hold and possess in perpetuity, like the other properties of the same church's ownership, by its own right and in ecclesiastical custom: in this manner, namely, and tenor, that Lambert, our faithful man, paying in the days of his life to the aforesaid church of St. Stephen every year for his investiture the ninth and the tenth from it, may hold it in the meantime by right of benefice and usufruct, until either we exchange with him, or, if he should die, the oft-mentioned ruler of the church of St. Stephen shall at once receive the same estate of Mons Aureus to possess it eternally, without the contradiction of any reclaiming or the delay of any postponement. On this condition also, that on the anniversary of our lord and father, the most excellent Emperor Louis, and of our glorious lady mother the Empress Judith, and of our very lovable wife Irmintrude, on the 4th (elsewhere 3rd) before the nones of October, and on the day of our birth, the ides of June, and of our anointing likewise, and on the day of the birth of Richildis, our sweetest wife and Augusta, and at least also on that of our marriage, the 4th before the ides of October, the present and future ruler shall lovingly show the brethren of the same church a refection pleasing to them for this present gift or for the other benefits which we have conferred on the same church; so that on the aforesaid days they may celebrate the divine office more devoutly, entreating the clemency of God for the salvation of those of ours aforesaid: but after our departure, let the rulers of the same church take care to show agreeably on the days of our depositions the same refections which they have shown the brethren on the day of our anointing and marriage Bouquet, vol. VIII, p. 622..

[29] and he manumits Anselm. Nor can it be doubted that Charles the Bald, since he was very benevolent toward bishops, conferred many other benefits on churches and other pious places in order to please St. Remigius, or that a good many historical monuments which gave assurance of his will have perished through the harshness of the times. There has however come down to us a diploma by which at the entreaty of St. Remigius he manumitted the serf Anselm, the rites of the Salic law being observed Ibid., p. 624..

[30] The church of Lyon in the ninth century was not rich. Whoever has lightly touched the polyptych of the church of Lyon, or the account of its estates, manses, and other possessions, will perhaps persuade himself that it was very rich. But one of my colleagues, meeting a like difficulty in the Acts of St. Ursula, where he treats of the monastery at Cologne sacred to this holy virgin, relying on these monuments and old titles brought forward by du Cange du Cange, Glossary, under Mansus; Carpentier, Supplement, under Mansus., Guérard [Guérard, Cartulaire de Saint-Père à Chartres, vol. I, proleg. no. 22; Essai sur le système des divisions territoriales de la Gaule, p. 186 ff.], Lacomblet Lacomblet, Urkundenbuch für die Geschichte des Niederrheins, vol. I, p. 111., Leber [Leber, Mémoire sur l'appréciation de la fortune privée au moyen âge, in Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l'académie royale des inscriptions et belles-lettres, first series, vol. I, p. 230 ff.], and others, wrote: In very truth, besides churches, some courts and other lands, they had received from the Emperor Conrad and Archbishop Hermann forty-four manses, each of which must be reckoned to have taken in at the least twelve bunnaria or jugera, in all 673 hectares, or rather (since in the tenth century one may assign to each manse twenty bunnaria or twenty-five and a half hectares) 1122 hectares. But since there was then the greatest difficulty in administering these, the demesne goods were everywhere weighed down with great burdens, and the prices of leases or rents were slight, so that by far the lesser part of the revenues came into the hands of the possessors,… since, I say, from so great an abundance of manses the nuns of Cologne had no great profit, they were pressed by such penury that for want of stipend they wandered about and carried out the divine office remissly. But if this seems strange, let us cast our eyes on a diploma one century later. Hermann II, archbishop of Cologne, in the year 1043 gave to the monastery of St. Severinus certain properties of his own: "That is, he says, 4 manses, lying in the estate called Ohtenethinc, paying one pound; and in Saxony, in the estate called Berenberg, 6 manses, which I bought from the knight Frederick, son of Cobbo, for ninety pounds, again paying one pound; moreover with the common counsel of my faithful men, both lay and clerical, I have taken care to add from the property of the church one manse, lying in the estate called Kestenich, paying half a pound or a cartload of wine." From which place it is clear that the interest on ninety pounds was scarcely one pound, and that the revenue of eleven manses was two and a half pounds. Now each pound weighed 87 francs, and two and a half 217.50 francs; and if you estimate the 44 manses at the same value, these would give annually 10 pounds or 870 francs. But in the tenth century the power of money was about eight times greater than it is now, so that with the weight with which one sack of wheat is now bought, you would then have bought eight, and thus with the revenues of forty-four manses or 880 hectares of arable land the nuns of Cologne could do no more than we can now do with an annual rent of 6960 francs: which money would almost have to be spent on the repairs of a public church and on the solemn performance of the divine offices. These arguments the author wonderfully confirms from canon 122 of the Council of Aachen of the year 816 Acta SS. vol. IX of Oct., p. 217 f.. Assuredly the condition of things was then no different in the diocese of Lyon.

* Le Chalonnais.

§ VI. Disputes on predestination renewed. The Councils of Mainz II, Quierzy I, Valence III, and Langres I and II. What part St. Remigius had in these matters.

Gottschalk, renewing predestinationism, How industrious St. Remigius was in recovering the goods of the church we have seen so far. But he was not one who, wholly taken up with the management of temporal affairs, had a dull mind for difficult theological questions or shunned their examination. He had heard from the apostle that his first part was placed in these, saying: "Guard the deposit." Nor did he neglect the disciplinary laws, for he knew that in them consists the strength of the church and the rampart of ecclesiastical unity. In his times there arose very grave affairs, many synods and other ecclesiastical assemblies were gathered, and writings were put forward no less arduous than various. Of all of these, both because he was strong in alacrity of mind, and because he occupied the first chair of the Gauls and was supreme chaplain of the king of Provence and then of the king of the Franks, he was the greatest part, though not always equally happy in all things. But I have no intention whatever of going through all the rough places of the questions. Our predecessors avoided, and we too shall avoid, writing a history of Christian dogmas: which belongs altogether to another kind of books. We shall touch, then, only on the heads of theological matters, content for the most part to review what was done. Now among the dogmatic positions that were disputed in the age of St. Remigius, the chief place was occupied by the doctrine of predestination; on which it is almost safer to be silent (though one may not be altogether silent) than to discourse. Already in the lifetime of St. Augustine some, wrongly interpreting the words of this most holy writer on this Christian dogma, had some of them fallen into error, others had turned them to reproach; so that he himself was compelled to show that neither does predestination harm free will, nor does free will stand in the way of predestination. But the error of the predestinarians sprouted again more than once afterward; and it was renewed in the ninth century by Gottschalk. He was a German or Alemannian by origin, and is recorded to have been brought up from tender years in the monastery of Reichenau among the Alemanni. Transferred thence as a youth to the monastery of Orbais in the district of Soissons, since he seemed by talent most suited to theological studies, at the prompting of Abbot Bavo he gave vigorous effort to them, and day and night handled the writings of the holy Fathers and especially of St. Augustine, as Sirmond Complete Works, vol. I, p. 1292., Mabillon Acta SS. Ordinis S. Benedicti, cent. IV, part II, pref. no. 139., Cardinal Noris [Historiæ Gothescalcanæ synopsis, in Ziegelbauer, Historia Litter. Ordinis S. Bened., vol. III, p. 105.], Dumesnil [Doctrina et disciplina ecclesiæ, vol. III, book XXXVII, at the year 847, p. 714 ff.], and others report.

[31] he is condemned in the Council of Mainz and at Quierzy; Meanwhile he traveled through Italy, either for pilgrimage or for announcing Christian doctrine. From which journey he was already returning to the monastery in the year 848, when, received as a guest by Count Eberard, a faithful man of the Emperor Lothar, he seemed there to teach publicly and privately many things not quite correct about predestination. Hearing these things, Rabanus, the distinguished archbishop of Mainz, wrote to Eberard: As for the rest, since it is established as noised abroad in these parts that a certain smatterer, by name Gottschalk, is staying with you, who dogmatizes that the predestination of God so constrains every man that, even if one wishes to be saved, and for this strives by right faith and good works that he may come to eternal life by God's grace, he labors in vain and to no purpose if he is not predestined to life: as if God by his predestination compelled man to perish, he who is the author of our salvation, not of perdition. And already from this source this sect has led many to despair of themselves, so that they say: "What need have I to labor for my salvation and eternal life? for if I do good and am not predestined to life, it profits me nothing: but if I do evil, it harms me nothing: since the predestination of God makes me reach eternal life Rabanus Maurus, Complete Works, vol. VI, col. 1554, Migne edition.." Then Rabanus shows clearly from the books of St. Augustine how vehemently such ravings conflict with Catholic doctrine. Nor was Gottschalk allowed to stay longer in Eberard's house; who, having traveled through many provinces of Germany, at length came to Mainz. But Rabanus did not rest until he had first crushed this monster in his diocese. At once therefore (in the year 848) he assembled a synod, by which Gottschalk, offering a booklet of his error, says Hincmar of Reims, having been condemned, was sent back with synodal letters to the metropolis of Reims Ibid., col. 84.. Matters standing thus, Hincmar and Prudentius of Troyes to John Scotus, otherwise Eriugena, that the positions of Gottschalk learned

by a work they should refute were the instigators The Church of Lyon, On the Three Letters, ch. CXXI, col. 1054.. But Scotus's attempt succeeded less prosperously, and he himself, neglecting the authority of the Holy Scriptures and the holy Fathers and indulging his own thoughts too much, fell into errors not few and horrendous; the chief of which Florus, deacon of the church of Lyon In Migne, Patrology, vol. CXIX, col. 102., together with Prudentius of Troyes Labbe, Collection of Councils, vol. VIII, col. 56 ff., undertook to refute. But the controversy grew hotter by the day, and not a few went over to the opinion of Gottschalk. To remedy this evil, Hincmar, with many other bishops, decreed in two synods of Quierzy of the years 849 and 853 that the dogmas of Gottschalk, as ill according with Catholic doctrine, should be rejected Hincmar, op. cit., col. 84..

[32] but to these were opposed the canons of the Third Council of Valence, This chastisement displeased not a little many bishops of the Gauls, especially those to whom Hincmar was not acceptable, or who used another manner of speaking in unfolding the dogma of predestination. Moreover, although Gottschalk, as a bold and imprudent man, was hardly welcome to any of the bishops, the same was not so of his doctrine. For the Gallic bishops with unanimous voice rejected the doctrine of Gottschalk as it had been expounded by Rabanus; but not a few were of opinion that it was twisted into a perverse sense by Rabanus, Hincmar, and others: and this opinion was followed, besides St. Remigius, by Wenilo of Sens, Ebbo of Grenoble, Prudentius of Troyes, and very many others: to whom there have joined themselves in more recent times Cardinal Noris Histor. Gothescalciana, in Ziegelbauer, vol. III, p. 105., Roncaglia and Mansi [Hist. eccles. of Noël Alexandre with the observations and notes of Roncaglia and Mansi, vol. VI, p. 376 ff., Venice edition, 1778.]. Hence it came about that in the Council of Valence of the year 855, which, with St. Remigius of Lyon, Agilmar of Vienne, and Rotland of Arles presiding, had been assembled to examine the case of the bishop of this city, the Fathers published several canons by which they struck at the principal errors of Scotus and Gottschalk; at the same time diminishing the force of the decrees of Quierzy of the year 853. That this may be seen by the reader, it will be enough to compare with each other canon I of Quierzy and II of Valence, II of Quierzy and III of Valence, III of Quierzy and IV and V of Valence, and finally IV of Quierzy and VI of Valence.

[33] which are to be attributed to Ebbo of Grenoble rather than to St. Remigius. Besides these dogmatic canons the Fathers of Valence published seventeen other disciplinary ones, by which provision was made that bishops and priests should discharge their office, and that laymen should abstain from perjury, duels, and the taking away of the goods of the church. Who was the author of all these is much disputed: some have said St. Remigius, others Ebbo of Grenoble. But since the ancient writers have left us few and not very clear things on this matter, the dispute is obscure. Those who propose St. Remigius rely especially on this, that he was the first to subscribe the Acts of the council, holding the first seat among the metropolitans. Those who declare that Ebbo was the author of the canons contend that he is not obscurely indicated by Hincmar in his first letter to King Charles the Bald. Hincmar's words are these: And therefore we disbelieve that those chapters were composed by him, because, the names of the other fellow priests being passed over, the name of Ebbo alone is there expressed with the archbishops, boastfully, as it seems to some. And that he himself collaborated most of all in this, it is as if the sense were set directly opposite, as though even along with the archbishops he were greater than the others and more learned in judgment Flodoard, Hist. eccl. Remensis, book III, col. 185, Migne edition.. When Hincmar wrote these words, he had before his eyes the preface of the Acts of the Third Council of Valence; where, the other bishops being passed over, Ebbo alone is reported to have collaborated most of all in framing the canons, with the three archbishops presiding Sirmond, Councils of Gaul, vol. III, p. 96..

[34] These, however, were approved almost entirely in the synod of Langres, Matters were thus arranged when the bishops of the kingdoms of Neustria, Lotharingia, and Provence (in the year 859) were assembled for a council at Savonnières, an estate which was four miles distant from Toul of the Leuci. Thither St. Remigius betook himself with Agilmar of Vienne, Ebbo of Grenoble, and other bishops of the kingdom of Charles, king of Provence. But on the way, not yet having left the bounds of the province of Lyon, they held a council among themselves in the suburb of Langres, in the monastery of the Holy Triplets Speusippus, Eleusippus, and Meleusippus, on the 13th day before the kalends of June of the year 859, that is, a few days before the synod at Savonnières began, and framed sixteen canons. The first six of these were only a renewal of the first six canons of Valence; yet so that from canon IV the words blaming the Fathers of Quierzy were deleted, and that the words, though not the sense, of the end were changed. Then it was decreed that request be made to the kings that councils of bishops should be held through each province at least once each year, and that in their palaces too a general assembly of bishops should be held once within two years. Moreover it was enjoined that those who were to be ordained bishops or priests should be ordained according to the ecclesiastical order and the institution of the holy Fathers, and that congregations of canons, monks, and nuns should be visited according to the canonical institution by their own bishops, and all things there duly ordered: and also that schools of the Holy Scriptures and of human letters too should be established everywhere: likewise that churches should be repaired and restored. It was also recommended to bishops and kings that each congregation of those devoted to God be permitted to have prelates of its own profession: and that from things consecrated to God at least the ninths and tenths should be faithfully paid to the churches to which they were by right owed by those who were retaining them: after this that hospitals, freed from all use and caprice of human rashness, should be restored to the uses for which they were established, and that justice for the wretched be carried out without respect of persons: finally that abductors and adulterers, or the rapacious, should be restrained Labbe, vol. VIII, col. 673 ff., 690 ff..

[35] celebrated with St. Remigius presiding; That St. Remigius presided over the Council of Langres no one will rightly deny. For he alone of the bishops gathered there was a metropolitan: then he is named first in the inscription of the synodal decrees, and to the donation made by Jonas of Autun to his church all the other fathers subscribed after him Ibid., loc. cit.. Add that in the kingdom of Charles, king of Provence, whose supreme chaplain he was, he held the first place everywhere by right. Finally he himself offered the canons of Langres to Charles the Bald two days after he had read them in the council at Savonnières Works of Hincmar, letter to King Charles, vol. I, col. 63 and 66, Migne edition.. And these are the things from which it is abundantly established for us that St. Remigius presided as president over the Fathers of Langres. Nor is this Council of Langres to be confused with another, which was held in the same city, in the same monastery, and in the same year, but on the kalends of May, and which is known to us only from the diploma of donation made by Jonas, bishop of Autun Gallia Christiana, vol. IV, col. 364., to his church. To this there came five bishops, one chorbishop, and one abbot from the kingdom of Provence; over whom also St. Remigius presided Labbe, vol. VIII, col. 674..

[36] nor are they contrary to those of Quierzy At first sight, then, many things seem to have been done in these against the opinion of the Fathers of Quierzy. But if matters are examined more deeply, Petavius has excellently shown that canons I, II, III, and IV of Quierzy are in no way contrary to the canons of Langres, approved (as they say) by Nicholas I [Epistle IX to Egilo of Sens, works, vol. II, col. 70; Annals of Saint-Bertin, in Dom Bouquet, vol. VII, p. 75.]: who however rightly notes that St. Remigius and his followers suffered something human when they called the canons of Quierzy erroneous. Indeed there have not been lacking those who contended that in this business they departed from the doctrine of the church, in that (denying, as is had in canon IV of Quierzy, that there has been or will be no one for whom Christ the Lord did not suffer, though not all are redeemed by the mystery of his passion) they said in canon IV of Valence that those are in error who define that Christ's blood was poured out even for those impious who from the beginning of the world until the passion of the Lord died in their impiety and were punished with eternal damnation. Loosing this knot Petavius says: But, as is gathered from what we have said so far on the opinion of Augustine and on the interpretation of his disciples and of the favorers of his doctrine, these things agree excellently with each other, that both God by an antecedent will, though not an absolute one, wills all to be saved: and that for all, so far as in him lies, that is, for the benefit and redemption of all, Christ spent the merits of his death and torment: but that by an absolute decree he destined some to salvation, delivered from the corruption of the mass by a gratuitous benefit: the others, by their own fault and the demerit of an evil will, who indeed could have used those things, he adjudged to everlasting punishments Petavius, De Theologicis dogmatibus, De Incarnatione, book XIII, ch. 9.. With Petavius agrees, though using another argument, Noël Alexandre, saying: This one thing the Fathers of the Synod of Valence meant, that Christ did not die for those who from the beginning of the world until the passion of the Lord died in their impiety and were punished with eternal damnation, that is, to snatch them from hell, as he did the fathers from limbo Hist. eccles., vol. VI, cent. IX, diss. V, § II, p. 374.. And from these things it is sufficiently established that the church of Lyon thought orthodoxly on predestination. Nor would he err less who said that the church of Lyon favored the errors of Gottschalk regarding free will; for it so shrank from them that it could not bring its mind to believe that Gottschalk had ever championed such unspeakable dogmas: It is added, it says, in that letter, that that wretched monk said that after the first man fell by free will, none of us can use free will for doing good, but only for doing evil; which is certainly not only wonderful and unheard of, but so far as it seems to us even incredible, that a man brought up and educated among the faithful and by the faithful, and not a little practiced in the writings of the ecclesiastical fathers, could say or think this, that after the fall of the first man no one even of the faithful can use free will for doing good, but only for doing evil: as if there were no free will in us except for evil; but for good the grace of God alone worked in us without free will. For if he had said generally: "No man," and had added: "Without

the grace of God," and had thus subjoined: "Can use free will well," it would be a Catholic sense and an altogether Catholic assertion. But since he is charged with having said that none of us, that is, of the faithful, can use free will except only for doing evil, what else is asserted by such a saying and such presumption of novelty, except that the will of the human mind, which before sin was free for loving, desiring, and enjoying the true good, was so vitiated and perished when the first man sinned, that thereafter free will remained in man only for evil, but for doing or having good there is no free will of man, but only the good of divine grace. Which kind of error we do not remember having known or heard either among heretics or among any Catholic: so that even of him this seems to us, as we have already said, incredible Book on the Three Letters, ch. XXI, in Migne, Patrol., vol. CXXII, col. 1022..

§ VII. The First Council of Toul at Savonnières. New dispute on predestination. The cases of Wenilo of Sens and of the bishops of Armorica.

In the council at Savonnières the controversy on predestination, In the month of June of the year 859 Charles the Bald, king of France, and his nephews Lothar and Charles, kings of Lotharingia and Provence, with eight archbishops and thirty-two bishops of their domains, assembled at the estate of Savonnières [Annals of Saint-Bertin, at the year 859, in Bouquet, vol. VII, p. 75; Labbe, vol. VIII, col. 675 ff.]. In this synod, over which St. Remigius of Lyon presided (as will be shown below), we read that the fathers, examining as their office required the doctrines on predestination which were then being spread through Gaul, went off into diverse opinions. St. Remigius proposed the canons of Langres for approval there; but some of the bishops who followed the party of Hincmar stirred up commotions; which commotions were modestly composed by the same venerable archbishop Remigius of the people of Lyon, says Hincmar: he concluding with venerable address that, if the sense of any of us was moved to dissent in anything from the said chapters put forward, each of us should take care to bring the books of Catholic doctors to the next synod, and as we should in common find better according to Catholic and apostolic doctrine, we should all hold unanimously for the future Hincmar, On Predestination, letter to the king, col. 66..

[39] as many other matters also were being discussed: But with one voice the same fathers were the instigators that concord should be restored between the brothers Louis of Germany and Charles of France, kings: that bishops should help one another by mutual counsel and aid and should frequent synods: that both Charles and Lothar should always be united with each other for the good of the church and the kingdom: that Tortold should no longer be permitted to occupy the episcopal see of Bayeux and Ascarius that of Langres, in disregard of the sacred canons. Then the examination of whether Atto, bishop of Verdun, had been created according to the rule of the sacred canons was postponed to a future synod. Moreover they begged Rodulf, archbishop of Bourges, by the cross and blood of Christ, that the privilege of the monastery of St. Benedict on the Loire, which they had confirmed with the assent of the king (Charles the Bald), and which the same Rodulf had subscribed, who irregularly retained the aforesaid abbey, they should be zealous to keep ratified and unshaken. It was also decreed that for the bishops present at the council, during their life and after their death, prayers and sacrifices of the Mass should be offered to God. Lastly, besides some other matters of lesser weight which have not come down to us, the cases were dealt with of Wenilo, archbishop of Sens, and of the Breton bishops Labbe, vol. VIII, col. 675 ff..

[40] the complaints of Charles the Bald concerning Wenilo are also heard For Charles the Bald, offering a libel of accusations, complained much and not undeservedly of Wenilo; who, when Louis, king of Germany, in the year 858, in order to bring Neustria into his power, had carried war within the bounds of his brother Charles the Bald, alone among all the bishops of the kingdom of Charles, to whom he had promised fidelity by oath, had followed the party of Louis. And he was the more to be reprehended in that he had sworn with his own hand to Charles and his brothers, like the other bishops who were present there, the division of France lately made among the sons of Louis the Pious: Wenilo had also confirmed by oath peace and mutual aid between Charles and the aforesaid Louis: add that the same man, to the applause of clergy and people, had anointed Charles as king Labbe, vol. VIII, col. 679 f.. Wherefore, that sentence might be pronounced against Wenilo, Charles brought the case to the council, and chose as judges to end this complaint Remigius and Wenilo of the people of Rouen, and Herard of the people of Tours, and Rodulf of the people of Bourges, bishops, the rest to approve their judgment by their consent. But St. Remigius and the other archbishops and bishops of the First Council of Toul, lest anything be done in so great a business contrary to the sacred canons, gave letters to Wenilo, commanding him that from the time he received these letters, after thirty days, wherever he should be summoned, he should appear so canonically prepared that, a time and place for defense being received, if he trusted his conscience, the truth assisting, he might dissolve the charges by proof: but if he should fail in his defense, he should receive the sentences established by his elders Labbe, vol. VIII, col. 682 f.. Moreover Herard of Tours, having received a commission from the fathers of Toul, through Robert, bishop of Le Mans, his procurator, earnestly pressed him to take care to acquire the royal favor acceptable to himself, as befitted him and his whole flock, by making satisfaction and humbly entreating the clemency of his good grace Ibid., col. 694 f.. Assenting to these counsels Wenilo is reconciled to King Charles without a hearing of the bishops Annals of Saint-Bertin, at the year 859..

[41] and the bishops of Armorica are declared subject to the metropolitan of Tours: Nor did the wretched state of Armorica escape St. Remigius and the other fathers of the First Council of Toul. For there Salomon, having slain King Erispoë, son of the brother of Nomenoë, had occupied the supreme power against the faith given to Charles the Bald: and had decreed that the churches of Armorica were subject not to the archbishop of Tours, but to the bishop of Dol, after the institution of Nomenoë [Morice, Mémoires pour servir de preuves à l'histoire de Bretagne, vol. I, p. 288.], although by the decree of Pope Honorius the Armoricans belonged to the metropolis of Tours [Notitia provinciarum et civitatum Galliæ, in Guérard, Essai sur le système des divisions territoriales de la Gaule, p. 15.], and it had been forbidden by the fathers of the Council of Tours of the year 568 (at which many bishops of Armorica had been present) that anyone should presume to ordain a Briton or a Roman as bishop in Armorica without the will or letters of the metropolitan or of the comprovincials Labbe, vol. V, col. 654.. This last decree was put forward partly against the custom of the Britons and Scots or Irish of ordaining bishops without title, partly against the detractors of the see of Tours. This quarrel consisted in this, that the Britons, who had come to Armorica not singly but in troops with their bishops, and were greater in number than the former inhabitants, contended that the authority of their bishops and their institutions took precedence; on the contrary, the archbishop of Tours and other Gallic bishops, that their power had remained entire and had suffered nothing from the coming of foreigners: so that it was almost a question which of the two was the stronger jurisdiction, personal or territorial. This dispute, after the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons against the British bishops and after the conversion of the Bulgars against the Byzantine bishops, the Roman see had settled in different ways. Further, since Armorica lay within the domain of Charles the Bald, and so by the discipline of that time the Council of Toul, as being national, was strong in jurisdiction over it, St. Remigius, together with the other archbishops and bishops assembled in synod, giving a synodal letter to the bishops Fastcarius or Festinianus of Dol, Wernarius of Rennes, Garurbrius, whom some call of Saint-Brieuc, and Felix of Quimper or Cornouaille, recalled to memory what reverence they owed to Herard, archbishop of Tours, threatening them, unless they came to their senses, with canonical sentence: then St. Remigius and his companions asked the bishops of Armorica to exhort Salomon to follow better counsels Labbe, vol. VII, col. 693 f.. But the matter did not succeed for the fathers of Toul, nor could the popes themselves put an end to the dispute except after a long time.

[42] all of which was done with St. Remigius presiding. And these were the principal heads of the First Council of Toul. It remains for us to show that St. Remigius of Lyon presided over the First Synod of Toul. This indeed, though it is said in open words by no contemporary author known to me, is yet abundantly gathered from the Acts of the council itself and from the words of Hincmar. For in the Acts of the council the second letter to Wenilo has this inscription: To the beloved and venerable Wenilo, metropolitan of Sens, Remigius, metropolitan bishop of the people of Lyon, Gunthar, metropolitan bishop of the people of Cologne, Hincmar, metropolitan bishop of the people of Reims, etc., etc. Ibid., col. 681.. The other, to the Breton bishops: The universal Synod from Gaul and Germany in the suburb of Toul, the estate of Savonnières, Remigius of the people of Lyon, Wenilo of the people of Rouen, Herard of the people of Tours, Rodolf of the people of Bourges, etc., etc. Ibid., col. 685.. Moreover in the letter to Wenilo is read: He (King Charles) chose as judges to end this complaint me, Remigius, and Wenilo of the people of Rouen, and Herard of the people of Tours, and Rodulf of the people of Bourges, bishops, the rest to approve our judgment by their consent Ibid., col. 682.. To this point also the words of Hincmar contribute not a little; who, writing to Charles how many bishops had hissed off the chapters of Langres in the council at Savonnières with whispers and hisses, adds: Whence certain of ours, inflamed with zeal for the Christian faith, wished to suggest something to the synod: but our commotions were modestly composed by the same venerable archbishop Remigius of the people of Lyon: he concluding with venerable address that, if the sense of any of us from the said chapters put forward etc. Add that St. Remigius, as supreme chaplain of the sacred palace of Charles, king of Provence, held the first place in all national assemblies of bishops. All these things, if perhaps not separately, certainly taken altogether, plainly indicate that St. Remigius of Lyon presided over the First Council of Toul at Savonnières [Hincmar, On the Predestination of God and Free Will, later dissertation, ch. 1, in Migne, Patrology, vol. CXXV, col. 66.].

§ VIII. The Second Council of Toul at Tusey. The end of the dispute on predestination. St. Remigius did not champion wicked doctrines.

Although some canons of Tusey are doubtful, The council which St. Remigius had appointed to be held in the synod at Savonnières was assembled at an estate of the territory of Toul, by name Tusey, on the 23rd day of November in the year 860. To this came a good many archbishops and bishops of fourteen provinces, namely those of Lyon, Rouen, Tours, Sens, Vienne, Arles, Besançon, Mainz, Cologne, Trier, Reims, Bourges, Bordeaux, and Narbonne Labbe, vol. VIII, col. 702 and 707., and against the invaders of sacred things, and also against virgins or widows consecrated to God who had been defiled, and their corrupters,

or also against perjurers, false witnesses, and other evildoers, they decreed canonical penalties. Then the fathers of the council ordered not a few clerics and monks who, when the Northmen were turning everything upside down, had fallen away from their state, to return to their former condition. These ordinances were subscribed, besides St. Remigius of Lyon, by eleven archbishops and forty-five bishops [Works of Hincmar of Laon, Letter VIII to Hincmar of Reims, in Migne, Patrology, vol. CXXIV, col. 1040.]. Yet Hincmar of Reims attempts to show by arguments not to be despised that these canons were concocted by Hincmar of Laon, who greatly extols them Labbe, vol. VIII, col. 1573 f..

[44] [it is certain, however, that there, besides many other matters, the dispute on predestination was ended.] But it is beyond doubt that the fathers of Tusey, before they returned to their churches, not only renewed the ancient privileges of the monastery of St. Martin of Tours, whose public deeds had been lost through the iniquity of the times [De la Lande, Supplement to the Councils of Gaul, p. 164 f.; Labbe, vol. VIII, col. 705 f.], but also gave a synodal letter, written out by Hincmar of Reims, to all the faithful of God and sons of holy church to whom this notice of the divine constitution might come: in the first part of which they teach that all things in heaven and on earth were created by God, and that every man, made to the image of God, enjoys free will, and that Christ shed his blood for him, lest anyone be excluded from eternal salvation: and in the second part it is set before the eyes of all how great a sin is the unjust occupation of the goods of the church or of the poor Ibid., col. 707.. And it is evident that the council at Tusey was most useful to the Gallican church: for there the bishops who with Hincmar of Reims had subscribed the chapters of Quierzy, as well as those who with St. Remigius of Lyon and Ebbo of Grenoble had subscribed the chapters of Valence or Langres, came to one and the same opinion, and afterward there was no dispute on predestination. But perhaps someone will ask how men truly outstanding in learning and virtue carried on a dispute of this kind among themselves with such acrimony, for many years, and sometimes with loss of charity. Mabillon also fell into a similar business, disputing whether Paschasius Radbertus Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Benedicti, cent. IV, pref. no. 55., Amalarius Ibid., no. 70., Heribald of Auxerre Ibid., no. 72., Rabanus Maurus Ibid., no. 77., and others had really spoken in a less than Catholic way; who, although they had deserved excellently of the Catholic cause, nevertheless because of their writings on the Eucharist, as if they had admitted errors concerning this Most Holy Sacrament, suffered many and great vexations. Receive, reader, the explanation of Mabillon [Pref. to cent. IV, no. 51; compare Analecta Pontificia, Dissertation entitled: Hincmar et le Concile de Valence dans l'affaire de Godescale, year 1863, col. 541.], which is also ours: It often happens, he says, in the literary field, that when a new and unaccustomed question has arisen, the minds of scholars are agitated and split into various factions, not so much distinguished by variety of knowledge as by the difference of words, which supply matter for dispute to the more fervent. This may be observed in the business of religion, where even new and unheard-of words themselves are suspect, and deservedly, which are accustomed to generate contentions in the church.

§ IX. Works wrongly attributed to St. Remigius of Lyon.

[The books against Scotus and the Commentaries on St. Paul are not St. Remigius's.] Now that we have spoken of the deeds of St. Remigius in the predestinarian cause, it seems we should come to an examination of the works of which he is reported to have been the author, and which for the most part pertain to this business. In the first place come books which were indeed formerly ascribed to St. Remigius, but are now everywhere denied him. There have been some, then, who ascribed to St. Remigius the Book against the Erroneous Definitions of John Scotus Eriugena. But this position hardly pleases anyone now: both because the manuscript codices of Corbie Ceillier, Hist. des auteurs ecclés., vol. IX, p. 241. and of the Carthusians Works of St. Avitus, Notes of Sirmond, in Migne, vol. LIX, col. 299 f. bear the name of Florus, deacon of Lyon, and because Matthew of Westminster said: There wrote against him (John Scotus) a certain Florus, … who also condemned his works as liable to corrupt Works of Florus, in Migne, Patrol., vol. CXIX, col. 101.. I do not know whether these things are confirmed by the fact that the manuscript codices more approved by the editors of the Bibliotheca Maxima Benedictine Annals, vol. III, p. 23., by Rivet Hist. littéraire de France, vol. V, p. 229, Ceillier Hist. des auteurs etc., vol. IX, p. 239., the Cologne editors [Commentaries on the Gospels, Commentary on John, ch. XII, no. 32, Mainz edition, 1624.], and others, begin with these words: There have come to us, that is, to the church of Lyon, the writings of a certain vain-speaking and garrulous man etc. Book against John Scotus, Works of Florus, col. 102 f.. Assuredly no one was more apt to write in the name of the church of Lyon than Florus. Wherefore that conjecture is the less empty in that he very often drew and plied his pen either in others' names or in defense of others. Yet nothing can be defined, since those words: That is, to the church of Lyon, seem to have been first inserted by the editors alone or by I know not what copyists of their own choice. And indeed this interjected phrase is harsh and, although it is also inserted in other books of which we shall presently speak, must be called unusual rather than simple and ready to hand. But this is certain, that the book against Eriugena was never written by St. Remigius. With no less error Ussher and Maldonado Commentaries on the Gospels, Commentary on John, ch. XII, no. 32. attributed to the same St. Remigius of Lyon the commentaries on the epistles of St. Paul. Of these too the genuine author has long been known. It was indeed a certain Remigius, but a monk of Auxerre, not a bishop of Lyon. For although many manuscript codices reviewed by Montfaucon [Bibliotheca Mss., vol. I, pp. 218, 228, and 443; vol. II, p. 744; Diarium Italicum, p. 372.] indicate, without addition of homeland, a Remigius of some sort, yet two, namely that of Monte Cassino and that of Saint-Germain, have that he was a monk of Auxerre Bibl. Mss., vol. I, p. 217; vol. II, p. 1187..

[46] Likewise the book On the Three Letters is not his. Less clear is the controversy that has arisen among the learned as to whether St. Remigius was the author of three other works. Of which the first has the title: Book on the Three Letters; the second: Booklet on Holding Immovably to the Truth of Scripture and Faithfully Following the Authority of the Holy Orthodox Fathers; the third, finally: Resolution of a Certain Question on the General Damnation of All through Adam and the Special Deliverance of the Elect from the Same through Christ. Ussher indeed, Mabillon Benedictine Annals, vol. III, p. 36., Rivet Histoire littéraire de France, vol. V, p. 451 ff., Ceillier Histoire des auteurs ecclésiastiques, vol. IX, p. 238 ff., and others Compare Migne, Patrol., vol. CXXV, col. 985. affirm that the first two works are to be ascribed to St. Remigius. For speaking of the first work, they say that in the opening of the book on the three letters is read: Letters of certain venerable men, namely of three bishops, were brought to "our Church, that is, of Lyon"; of which the first two seem simply and sincerely to have disclosed and set forth what seemed to them concerning a certain profound and intricate question, which now for some years has been turned over among many with much and various disputation or even contention, "namely on the truth of the divine foreknowledge and predestination;" and they are known to beg and demand more attentively that it be truly and faithfully answered them what our aforesaid church, by the inspiration and help of God, thinks on the same matter Book on the Three Letters, Preface, col. 985 f., Migne edition.. Indeed since one of the three letters was sent to Bl. Amolo, a very keen champion of Hincmar of Reims and predecessor of St. Remigius, shortly before his death, and the response was very injurious to Hincmar, not a few have judged that it was written after the death of Bl. Amolo, and consequently that St. Remigius had a great part in it. This kind of argument was rejected by Rivet and others when Florus was in question; and it likewise did not please Longueval Histoire de l'Eglise Gallicane, vol. VIII, p. 212, Paris edition, 1826., Cellot Historia Gotheschalci, book III, ch. 16, p. 204., and others. For no writer older than the sixteenth century hints that St. Remigius was the author of the response to the three letters: Hincmar on the contrary, although he held it undoubted that St. Remigius had adhered to the canons of Valence and had offered them to King Charles, nevertheless denied this little writing to the archbishop of Lyon and his comprovincials. We for certain, he said, let your holy fraternity know in truth, do not say this for our special injury, because we most certainly know and believe that it was by no means written by our brethren, namely Remigius, the venerable archbishop, and the fellow priests of the province of Lyon, all of whom among us knew us from our very youthful years, and learned familiarly as intimates our slender knowledge and way of life, and … how we were … taken up to the supreme priesthood, as they could not be ignorant of matters of the household: how we conduct ourselves in government and life and manner of living and knowledge and doctrine, we neither wish nor are able to hide from them. In whom as in spiritual men we have the greatest confidence concerning you, whose religious life, Catholic doctrine, and canonical ordination we are not ignorant of… But who the composer of these chapters may be, to whom we are compelled to answer, will betray himself… The worker of works of darkness hates the light, and comes not to the light, lest his works be reproved. And again: Without the name of an author, whoever he was, a certain madman … reprehends and condemns chapters excerpted from us On Predestination, Dissertation, ch. XXV, col. 385 ff., Migne edition.. That this opinion was deeply impressed on the mind of Hincmar is clear from the fact that he, who was exceedingly bitter against his adversaries, yet had an exchange of letters with St. Remigius, and committed matters of the greatest moment to his care. Hear Flodoard: He wrote … to Archbishop Remigius concerning the properties of St. Remigius lying in the Cisalpine province, committing which to him, he asks that he take them under his guardianship; likewise on the synodal constitution (ms. custom) on account of the invaders of ecclesiastical properties and other matters; likewise on the case of

the aforesaid King Lothar, and on the aforesaid properties he directed some writings to him; likewise to the same Remigius and the other bishops, who were ordered by the authority of the lord Pope Nicholas to come to the synod at Soissons (in the year 863), on the case of Wulfad and his colleagues History of the Church of Reims, col. 202, Migne edition.: of which case we shall speak below. Assuredly there occurs again there the singular phrase: To our church, that is, of Lyon; but because the editors did not find it in the manuscript codices, they have wished it printed in other type: which assuredly had not yet been inserted in the times of Hincmar, for otherwise he would not have been ignorant of the origin of those books [Compare Montagne, Tractatus de Gratia, ch. X, in Migne, Cursus theol., vol. X, col. 192.]. Then the same Hincmar in the Book on Predestination, which he wrote at the close of the year 859 and dedicated to Charles the Bald, affirmed that one and the same man wrote both the canons of Valence and the response to the three letters. But also in the aforesaid synod, he said, to the chapters which you gave us we found subjoined in the little quires of one of our fellow priests seven rules, rules not in truth but in name: because they are not rules of faith, as we find written there, but little nets stretched out to infidelity for the simple: which, by the consonance of words and sense, are believed to be of the same author as the chapters given by your Highness to our humility. Whose beginning is: "In the first place it must be set down etc. Later Dissertation on Predestination, ch. XXXI, col. 297.." Now we have seen (no. 54) that the author of the canons of Valence was Ebbo of Grenoble; whose metropolitan was not the archbishop of Lyon, but of Vienne.

[47] The Booklet on Holding the Truth Mabillon, Rivet, Ceillier, and others next ascribe to St. Remigius the second work, that is, the Booklet on Holding the Truth, because in chapter II of this book occur the following words: We say these things for this reason, that there has come to us, that is, to "the church of Lyon", a certain little paper, by the zeal of faithful and good men who devoutly and praiseworthily have solicitude for their own and others' salvation, brought to our notice, and very attentively commended to us that we should sedulously answer it Booklet on Holding Immovably to the Truth of Scripture etc., col. 1083.; then because it is certain that this treatise was written after the Response to the Three Letters; for in chapter XII is read: Since then these two opinions on this matter had been proposed and expounded in the aforesaid (in the part which is wanting) booklet (on the three letters), it was very usefully subjoined and said: "In whichever way anyone acquiesces, it is not heretical, unless it become heretical by contention Ibid., col. 1116.." This work at any rate was written in the episcopate of St. Remigius, that is, after the Council of Quierzy of the year 853 and before that of Valence of the year 855: for in it the canons of the former synod are refuted, and the canons passed against them in the latter are passed over in silence. Yet we judge that this work too must be denied to St. Remigius: for besides the argument by which we have shown that St. Remigius had no part in writing the Book on the Three Letters: there is the further fact that Hincmar asserts that he received this very booklet from the bookchest of Lothar of good memory without the name of an author Letter to Charles the Bald, Works of Hincmar, col. 51.: whence it seems to be deduced that the booklet on holding the truth was composed in the kingdom of Lothar, of which Lyon was not a part, and consequently that it is to be attributed neither to the church of Lyon nor to St. Remigius.

[48] and the Book on the Resolution etc. Finally, why the work on the resolution of a certain question on the general damnation through Adam etc. is attributed by Rivet Hist. littér. de France, vol. V, p. 454. and Ceillier Hist. génér. des auteurs ecclés., vol. IX, p. 238. to St. Remigius I do not see: for through its whole course not a word occurs of the church of Lyon or of St. Remigius: nor does any ancient writer report that this was written by him. We return to the deeds of St. Remigius.

§ X. The business of Ebbo of Reims; the efforts of St. Remigius in the restoration of the deposed priests. The Third Council of Soissons.

Ebbo of Reims is cast down from his see once and again In the year 866 the Third Synod of Soissons was held: in which St. Remigius had no small part. Very grave affairs were dealt with there, whose beginnings had already, as it were, grown old. In the year 817, that is, Louis the Pious, his kingdom having been divided among three sons, had appointed Pepin king of Aquitaine, Louis of Bavaria, Lothar of Italy: the last he had also made partner of the empire, as being the elder. But when afterward he had entered into a second marriage with Judith, and had begotten of her a son named Charles, he delivered to him the Alemannian land and Rhaetia and some part of Burgundy, in the presence of his sons Lothar and his namesake Louis [Thegan, Life of the Emperor Louis, ch. XXXV, in Migne, Patrol., vol. CVI, col. 418.]: which new partition was the origin and beginning of incredible calamities. For the three brothers Lothar, Louis, and Pepin took it so ill that their brother Charles too had been created king, that they did not shrink from the plan of thrusting their father from the imperial throne. That so wicked a crime might be dignified with the appearance of justice, a good many bishops and magnates of Gaul, drawn over to the party of Lothar by the secret arts of Ebbo, archbishop of Reims, decreed in the assembly of Compiègne that from the Emperor Louis, because he had negligently handled the ministry committed to him, and had done and compelled to be done or permitted to be done many things which displeased God and men, and had provoked God in many wicked counsels, and had scandalized holy church, and lastly had drawn all the people subject to him into general destruction, the imperial power be taken away Sirmond, Councils of Gaul, vol. II, p. 561.. This sentence being passed, Louis was banished to the monastery of St. Medard at Soissons to do penance in perpetuity Ibid., loc. cit.. These things happened in the year 833. But in the following year Louis enjoyed a more favorable fortune; and with the approval of the clergy, magnates, people, and the kings Louis and Pepin themselves, he again put on the imperial crown in the abbey of Saint-Denis near Paris Ibid., p. 566.. Moreover the bishops, lest Ebbo should go off with his crimes unavenged, casting him down from the see of Reims in the Council at Thionville in the year 835, decreed that he should withdraw from the pontifical ministry, and should render the Lord propitious to him by serving him in other offices of prayers and vigils. Meanwhile, namely in the year 840, the Emperor Louis having died, Lothar came from Italy into Francia: and Ebbo, who had suffered such great outrages on his account, met him at the city of Worms, and Lothar after some days, by imperial edict, with the approval of the bishops of the province and others, restored to him the see and diocese of Reims (for which no bishop had been consecrated after his deposition). From that time until the year 844, in which he was again thrust out, Ebbo promoted some to the priesthood.

[50] [and those whom as archbishop he ordained priests the second time are deprived of their grade.] But his successor Hincmar wished these struck from the roll of the clergy of Reims, as having been co-opted among the priests in contempt of the laws of the church. But lest he should seem to adhere too much to his own decisions, he assembled in the year 853 the Second Council of Soissons; where it was decreed that whatever the same Ebbo had done in ecclesiastical ordinations after his condemnation, according to the tradition of the apostolic see, as is read in the deeds of the pontiffs, except sacred baptism, which is performed in the name of the Holy Trinity, should be held void and empty: and that those ordained by him, in whatever part of the earth they might wander or had wandered as fugitives, … should be held deprived of ecclesiastical grades in perpetuity Ibid., vol. III, p. 85..

[51] [Pope Nicholas I takes care to have these restored, especially through St. Remigius.] But when Wulfad and the other deposed priests had appealed to the Roman pontiff from the sentence passed, once and again, Pope Nicholas wrote to Hincmar of Reims: We exhort your fraternity to be zealous to call Wulfad and his colleagues to you with a clement spirit and tranquil magnanimity, and, all animosity being laid aside from the foundations, to treat with them in brotherly fashion of their restoration, and to strive to bring it to a merciful completion. For we have judged it more praiseworthy, and have believed it more acceptable before God, if, your conscience being questioned with regard to the Divinity, you alone should admit their restoration without any opposition, than if, at first resisting, but justice being disclosed, you should afterward embrace this with many. But now if a clean conscience does not permit you to be bent to this, we command our brethren Remigius of Lyon, Ado of Vienne, Wenilo of Rouen, together with the other archbishops and bishops of the Gauls and of Neustria, to whom there is yet the possibility, to convene for this very purpose with your Beatitude and your suffragans at the city of Soissons of your diocese. Then lower down: Further, know that we have commanded our brother and fellow bishop Remigius, bishop of Lyon, first to approach you and hand our letters to your Dilection: and so at last, if you fear to consent to the restoration of the aforesaid by the venture of your sole authority, he should take care to send our letters, delivered to him, to those to whom they are addressed by us, for the convoking of the council already designated by our decreed sentence. And the same Pope Nicholas wrote not otherwise of St. Remigius to Herard, bishop of Tours Sirmond, Councils of Gaul, vol. III, p. 281 f.. But Hincmar judged that it was not for him, without a hearing of the bishops, to reinstate clerics who had been prohibited in perpetuity from exercising the priesthood by the fathers of the Second Council of Soissons; which sentence the Council of Bourges and the Roman pontiff Benedict had approved. For this reason Nicholas assembled the Third Council of Soissons; at which there were present seven archbishops, among them St. Remigius of Lyon, and twenty-eight bishops. Receive, reader, their judgment, which, without annulling the sentence passed in the year 866, is redolent of indulgence toward the accused: The former statutes remaining, say the fathers of Soissons, which were established according to authority through the severity of justice, it is lawful for us, through the same supereminent authorities that bestow mercy, to change harsher sentences, a correction being made by a more excellent way, namely charity. And as we have consulted the apostolic see on the former statutes: so also on this definition of ours we await the response of the same mother of all churches Ibid., col. 292.. Soon St. Remigius was entangled in a much graver business.

§ XI. The divorce of Lothar, king of Lotharingia. Gunthar of Cologne and Theutgaud of Trier. The Councils of Verberie, Attigny, and Douzy, in which St. Remigius takes part.

Lothar, who had put away his wife Theutberga, Lothar, son of the Emperor Lothar, and after his father's death king of Lotharingia, had taken Theutberga as his wife; but, weary of her, he left nothing undone to dissolve the marriage lawfully entered into with her and to contract nuptials with Waldrada Works of Hincmar, vol. I, col. 630 f., Migne edition.. This

case, as was fitting, the bishops called to their tribunal, and in the Councils of Aachen of the years 860 and 862 pronounced the marriage of Lothar with Theutberga invalid Ibid., col. 636 ff.. Hence it came about that the king, Theutberga being rejected, took Waldrada to wife. But Theutberga appealed concerning the injury inflicted on her to Pope Nicholas I, who committed the case to be examined by the bishops of the kingdom of Lotharingia, to be gathered in council at Metz before apostolic legates Chronicle of Marianus Scotus, in Bouquet, vol. VII, p. 242.. But the apostolic legates, having received great gifts, heedless of the mandates of the Roman pontiff, together with the bishops declared the marriage of Lothar with Theutberga void, and the union of the king with Waldrada harmless Labbe, vol. VIII, col. 764 ff.: and that Nicholas might the more easily confirm this judgment with his vote, they deputed to him Gunthar of Cologne and Theutgaud of Trier, archbishops beyond measure favorable to Lothar [In Bouquet, vol. VIII, Annals of Saint-Bertin, p. 81 f.; Annals of Fulda, ibid., p. 170 f.]. But Nicholas, to whom even before the arrival of Gunthar and Theutgaud in the City the whole business was clear, rejected the proceedings of Metz in a council gathered at the Lateran, and deprived Gunthar with Theutgaud of the communion of the church: moreover he compelled Lothar to receive Theutberga as his wife Ibid., loc. cit.. And this in the year 863.

[53] [he promises with an oath, St. Remigius being present, that he will take her back.] But in the year 865 Nicholas sent into Gaul the legate Arsenius, to call Lothar to a better way of life. The king seemed to obey the legate's admonitions; who, in the presence of eleven archbishops and bishops, among whom was St. Remigius, gave back Theutberga to Lothar in marriage. The king, lest anyone should raise a doubt about the sincerity of his mind, issued this oath through twelve men: I, such a one, swearing promise by these four holy Gospels of Christ, which I touch with my hands, and these relics of the saints, that my lord King Lothar henceforth and thereafter will receive Theutberga his wife as his lawful matron, and will so hold her in all things, as it becomes a king to have a queen as wife Annals of Saint-Bertin at the year 865, p. 90.. But Lothar, as is known to all, did not stand by his promises, and strove to draw Hadrian, the successor of Nicholas I, to his party, even by employing the reception of the Eucharist, and at length met a most wretched death at Piacenza on the 7th before the ides of August of the year 869 [Annals of Saint-Bertin, p. 104 f.; Chronicle of Liège, in Labbe, Bibliotheca Mss., vol. I, p. 336; Chronicle of Metz of St. Vincent, ibid., p. 345; Chronicle of Lobbes, in Martène, Anec., vol. III, col. 1414.]. About which time Theutgaud departed from the living Life of St. Glodesindis, in Labbe, Bibl. Mss., vol. I, p. 736.. Gunthar, however, who together with Lothar had been admitted by Pope Hadrian to lay communion, passed from this earth about the year 870 Chronicle of Liège, p. 336.; without either the church of Cologne or that of Trier having been entrusted to them again, although St. Remigius sent letters on behalf of the deposed bishops to his friend Ado, bishop of Vienne, vicar of the Roman church in the Gauls, and to Pope Nicholas… But though this was labored at by many in diverse ways, both from fear of the king and from love of them, the pope could in no way be persuaded that they should be restored Chronicle of Verdun, in Bouquet, vol. VII, p. 247..

[54] Hincmar of Laon offends Charles the Bald. About the same time another dispute arose, in which St. Remigius of Lyon also was to some extent involved. For the younger Hincmar, born in the district of Boulogne of parents not rich, but noble, had been brought up and instructed in all good arts by his maternal uncle Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, when as a little boy he was bereft of his mother Council of Douzy I, in Labbe, Collection of Councils, vol. VIII, col. 1639.. Nor could the archbishop of Reims, whatever he did, recall him to better ways, arrogant, restless, contumacious, and vainglorious as he was by nature Council of Douzy I, in Labbe, Collection of Councils, vol. VIII, col. 1639.. Meanwhile the younger Hincmar, Pardulus, bishop of Laon, having departed from the living, was co-opted as bishop of that church. His beginnings were very happy: for he was wonderfully welcome to the people and to the king, and he rendered most useful service to his uncle in many councils; when the son of a certain Luido complained to Charles the Bald that, after he had conferred on him a benefice formerly possessed by his father, a gift having first been received, he had afterward deprived him of it without restoring the gift Delalande, Supplement to the Councils of Gaul, p. 186.. Would you call it avarice or perfidy? Hearing this, the king appointed a day for the bishop. But he, reckoning that it was forbidden by the sacred canons to present himself before a secular judge either in person or through another, refused Labbe, Collection of Councils, vol. VIII, col. 1760 ff.. Charles the Bald, taking this ill, despoiled the church of Laon of all its goods; and, had not the elder Hincmar and many other bishops strenuously applied their efforts in the assembly at Pîtres, he would have refused either to restore the estates taken away or to receive the bishop of Laon again into his friendship Annals of Saint-Bertin at the year 869, in Bouquet, vol. VIII, p. 102..

[55] [The matter being settled, he again offends the king and others and is sent into custody by the fathers of Verberie.] The matter being settled, the younger Hincmar gave to the king as a gift the estate of Pauliacum, which was to be ceded in fief to Count Norman Labbe, Councils, vol. VIII, col. 1569, 1623, and 1660.. And this was the origin of a new quarrel. For Hincmar, repenting of this donation, accused Norman, from whom he was vainly seeking back the estate of Pauliacum, together with the king, of taking away the goods of the church, before Hadrian II, the Roman pontiff, without consulting his uncle and the other bishops Ibid., places cited.: and Hadrian II, deceived by these false statements, ordered the elder Hincmar to expel Norman from the bosom of the church Ibid., col. 914.. The archbishop of Reims put off pronouncing this sentence, believing that, if the Roman pontiff had been duly informed of the business, he would never have given such harsh orders to be carried out. Nor did Hincmar of Laon return to a better way of life; rather, he attacked the estate of Pauliacum with an armed band, and from the plundered house cast out the wife of the noble count, languishing from a recent childbirth Ibid., col. 1680.: acting no more mildly against Amalbert of Reims Ibid., loc. cit.. Moreover the same bishop, summoned also through other bishops to come to the king, refused to fulfill his order; he sent to Laon a troop made up of very many counts of his kingdom, to bring the bishop himself to him by force. But the same bishop sat down beside the altar with his clerics, and through the efforts of certain bishops it was brought about that those who had been sent did not drag him out of the church: but they returned to Charles without him, and he caused all the free men of the same bishop to take oaths to him. Charles, greatly moved, appointed a synod of all the bishops of his kingdom for the 8th before the kalends of May of the second indiction (24 April 869) at Verberie, to which he ordered the same Bishop Hincmar to be called. To this there came eight archbishops, among them St. Remigius of Lyon, and twenty-one bishops Annals of Saint-Bertin at the year 869, p. 102; Labbe, vol. VIII, col. 1528.. The younger Hincmar too, after many evasions, betook himself to the palace of Verberie, and there went to judgment before the fathers. But when he was being rebuked for his insolences, fearing the regular judgment or the king's chastisement, he sought leave to go to Rome Hincmar of Reims, Works, vol. II, col. 506.. This not being obtained, he was sent into custody by the king at Silviacum in the pagus of Laon. Then the younger Hincmar (as he had already declared before the Council of Verberie that he would do if he were thrust into prison), through Clarentius and Teutland, priest and deacon of Laon, prohibited anyone throughout the whole diocese of Laon from discharging any priestly function: which prohibition, since it was against the sacred canons, Hincmar of Reims, using his metropolitan right, at the prayers of the clergy of Laon ordered to cease after five days Ibid., col. 1559 ff.; 1791 ff.; 1807 f..

[56] His case is examined by the fathers of the Council of Attigny, In the following year at the palace of Attigny, at the king's request, St. Remigius of Lyon, Hincmar of Reims, and four other archbishops, together with twenty-two bishops, again held a synod; and in it, after business of another kind had been finished, Hincmar of Laon, being present, was accused by King Charles of rebellion, by the archbishop of Reims of contumacy, by Count Norman of violence unjustly inflicted, by the clergy of Laon of imprudent interdict, and by others of other crimes: but appealing again to the Roman Pontiff he stubbornly refused to present himself longer before the fathers Ibid., col. 1841 f.. There are said by Baronius At the year 870, no. 33. and Binius to have taken part in this synod St. Remigius of Lyon, Ardovicus of Besançon, and Bertulf of Trier, archbishops, presidents, together with the bishops subject to them and others of the province of Reims. There satisfaction was made in some degree by Hincmar of Laon both to the king and to his uncle, but not to Norman and others.

[57] who are treated rather harshly by Baronius, This synod assembled at Attigny Baronius and Binius call a robber synod, because, as Binius says, when Hincmar of Laon, as he had been commanded by the pontiff, was girded for the journey to go to Rome, he was captured and despoiled by his enemies and brought into this pseudo-synod. But the words are too harsh: for St. Remigius and the other fathers of Attigny in no way denied that Hincmar of Laon had the right of appeal, but held it as undoubted that by the canons it was not permitted to any bishop to appeal to the apostolic see before sentence had been passed by the bishops of the province as judges Labbe, Collection of Councils, vol. VIII, col. 1615 and 1656.; then the elder Hincmar in the Council of Douzy of the year 871 affirmed that neither he nor the other bishops remembered that his nephew had appealed to Rome for any cause whatever: and the bishop of Laon himself, putting forward the reason why he was unwilling to await the sentence of the Fathers of Attigny, said: You know that I have been twice summoned by the universal pope of the holy Roman church, our father also and master Hadrian. And you yourselves in the quires given me by you in the palace of Attigny, before the archbishops and bishops who were present, rebuked me because, so many times summoned, I refused to come to the same see: of an appeal made by himself to the Roman Pontiff at that time he nowhere makes mention Labbe, Collection of Councils, vol. VIII, col. 1570, 1615, 1656., or anything of the kind from the letter, by Hadrian II after the synod of Attigny

given to the younger Hincmar and read at the Synod of Douzy of the year 871, can be gathered Labbe, vol. cit., col. 1634 f.. Add that in the Synod of Douzy the metropolitan of Reims said: Never or nowhere have I forbidden him to go to the apostolic see. Moreover I even reprehended him, as he himself also wrote, for not having carried out the order of the lord pope Ibid., col. 1571 and 1844.. Which the younger Hincmar confirmed, who however afterward wrongly contended, as Hincmar of Reims reports, that the archbishops St. Remigius of Lyon and Harduicus of Besançon were given to him as judges Ibid., col. 1571 and 1844..

[58] and of Douzy, where he is deposed; But since by the Council of Attigny no end had yet been put to the dispute of the bishop of Laon, the bishops took up the same matter a third time in the aforesaid Synod of Douzy. Coming to it after a threefold admonition received from the king and the archbishop of Reims, the younger Hincmar heard read out to him two libels of his crimes, one of the king, the other of his uncle Ibid., col. 1549 ff. and 1636.. But since he had no opportunity of clearing himself, appealing to the Roman pontiff, he constantly refused to recognize the fathers of the council as judges Ibid., 1640.. At length the fathers, who had in vain exhorted the younger Hincmar to acknowledge his faults, passed this sentence: I judge Hincmar, until now bishop of the church of Laon, … deprived of episcopal honor and dignity, and I decree him stripped of every priestly office: the privilege of right being reserved in all things to our lord and father Hadrian, pope of the apostolic and first see: as the sacred canons of Sardica have decreed, and the pontiffs of the same apostolic see Innocent, Boniface, and Leo have promulgated from the same sacred canons Ibid., col. 1652..

[59] St. Remigius approving. This judgment St. Remigius approved in these words: Remigius, bishop of Lyon, I have reread, consented, and subscribed: the other seven archbishops and thirteen bishops, on the contrary, set their names with the addition: Judging, I have subscribed. Now if it is asked why St. Remigius did not use the same formula as the other fathers, we shall reply with Cellot Ibid., col. 1723. and Longueval Histoire de l'Eglise Gallicane, vol. VIII, p. 78. that he was absent from that session of the synod at which judgment was passed on the younger Hincmar: the more so as he himself did not disclose his way of thinking on pronouncing judgment, as the other fathers did. To the archbishops and bishops, one chorbishop and sixteen priests or archdeacons, eight of them in the name of their bishop, adhered with the single word: I have subscribed; and this sentence, first rescinded by Hadrian II, then tolerated Labbe, vol. VIII, col. 933, 935, and 957., Pope John VIII approved with his vote in a letter to Hincmar of Reims in the year 876 In Migne, Patr., vol. CXXVI, col. 662.. No less grave was the following business.

§ XII. Sentence passed against Carloman, son of Charles the Bald, and his henchmen. The Councils of Chalon of the years 873 and 875.

Carloman pays the penalty for treason against his father Charles the Bald. Carloman, son of Charles the Bald, on whom, against his will, Hildegar, bishop of Meaux, had conferred the order of the diaconate at the prayers of the king, who was present [Annals of Metz at the year 870, in Bouquet, vol. VII, p. 198; Letter of Hincmar to St. Remigius, in Delalande, Supplement to the Councils of Gaul, p. 204.], and whom his father, that he might shine with greater splendor, had enriched with the monasteries of Centula or St. Riquier Chronicle of Centula, ch. 19, at the year 876, in Bouquet, vol. VII, p. 245., of Lobbes [Deeds of the Abbots of Lobbes, ch. XIV, in Duchesne, Hist. Franc. scriptt., vol. III, p. 735.], of St. Medard Annals of Saint-Bertin at the year 866, in Bouquet, vol. VII, p. 95., of Elnone [Diplomas of Charles the Bald for the monastery of Elnone, ibid., vol. VIII, p. 603.], and of Réome [Rouvier, Reomaus or History of the monastery of St. John of Réome, Catalogue of Abbots, p. 438.], weary of the clerical life, having gathered a band of armed men, began to lay waste the churches of God, to plunder everything, and to perpetrate unheard-of evils Annals of Metz at the year 870.. But at length he was captured, and, deprived of his abbeys by St. Remigius of Lyon and the other fathers of the Council of Attigny, was consigned to custody in the city of Senlis Labbe, Collection of Councils, vol. VIII, col. 1537.. But Pope Hadrian II asked and obtained from King Charles that Carloman, who had appealed to the Roman pontiff from the judgment passed against him, should be given back to liberty; but the young prince, wrongly using this, again taking up arms against his father, exercised in Belgium, according to the working of Satan, such cruelty and devastation as could not be believed except by those who saw and endured that depopulation Annals of Saint-Bertin at the year 870.; indeed, approaching Hadrian through legates, he drew him so far to his party that he, in a very harsh letter, earnestly begged King Charles to raise Carloman to his former honors and dignities. What more? He also most severely forbade the nobles and bishops to restrain the rebel either by arms or by excommunication before he himself, being informed, had made a decision Labbe, Collection of Councils, vol. VIII, col. 929 f.. King Charles judged that these orders were not to be obeyed, and sent an army against his son. Nor was the opinion any other of the elder Hincmar and of the other bishops, who in the year 875, in the Synod of the bishops of the province of Reims at Compiègne, separated the favorers of Carloman from the bosom of the church, yet so as to leave Carloman himself untouched, out of reverence for his royal birth and the will of the Roman pontiff. To this judgment all the bishops, and first of all St. Remigius of Lyon and his suffragans, are reported to have adhered [Labbe, Collection of Councils, vol. VIII, col. 1578 and 1582; De Lalande, Supplement to the Councils of Gaul, p. 204.]. Carloman, however, a traitor to his father and the church once, twice, and thrice, was first reduced to the lay order by the bishops of the provinces of Sens and Reims and thrust into prison: then, again rebellious and condemned to death by the nobles, he was deprived of his eyes; but shortly afterward death put an end to his evils Annals of Saint-Bertin at the year 873, p. 116 f.; Annals of Metz, loc. cit..

[61] St. Remigius presides over the Council of Chalon of the year 873; In the year 873 the Council of Chalon was held; at which there took part, with St. Remigius of Lyon presiding, Ado, archbishop of Vienne, and Lindo of Autun, Girbold of Chalon, Bernard of Mâcon, bishops, Leubonius, chorbishop of Lyon, and also many canons, archdeacons, abbots, and monks. Of its Acts nothing survives except the charter by which the church of St. Lawrence of Chalon is restored to the canons of St. Marcellus of this city. For when the fathers were discussing among themselves matters pertaining to the church, there presented himself before them a certain priest by name Leuterius, provost and advocate of the canons of St. Marcellus the martyr, who, standing in the midst of the synod, showed the fathers by the privileges of the same place that the very church in which they were holding the synod had been bestowed by the kings, the builders of the said place, and with the consent of the bishops of the city of Chalon, and that it was held to be lost unjustly and through carelessness and negligence. Hearing this, the fathers sought the opinion on this matter of Girbold, bishop of Chalon, who was present. He, being a man after God's heart, and desiring nothing but justice and the divine glory, replied without hesitation: If the church of St. Lawrence was given by our predecessors to the canons of St. Marcellus, that the supernal thresholds might lie open to us, we should have had to give these very gifts to it on our part. Then Girbold offered St. Remigius charters by which he declared it to be clear that the church of St. Lawrence belonged not to the canons of St. Marcellus, but to his church by proper right: for the rest he asked this one thing, that what it was fitting to do be decided by the fathers. Nor was the request of the canons of St. Marcellus any other. But when it was established for the fathers, after the dispute had been duly weighed, that the deeds of the church of Chalon were either not genuine or proved nothing against the privileges, and that the rights of the canons of St. Marcellus were plain, the archbishops, the bishops, Girbold himself, and others standing by judged with unanimous voice that the church of St. Lawrence was to be given back to them in perpetuity. This diploma was published by Perry Histoire de la ville de Châlons sur Saône, Proofs, p. 31 f., and from him by Labbe, Hardouin, the writers of the new Gallia Christiana, and others.

[62] likewise over the Council of Chalon of the year 875. Finally St. Remigius, a short time before he departed from the living, with Isaac of Langres, Girbold of Chalon, bishops, and Fulcuald, acting in place of Lambert, bishop of Mâcon, met at Chalon in the church of St. Marcellus, where, after the episcopal ordination conferred on Adalgar of Autun, by synodal letters, at the request of Charles the Bald, the monastery of Tournus … in the county of Chalon, on the river Saône, with all its appendages, and in the pagus of Mâcon the cell of St. Romanus, with all its appendages: in the county of Auvergne, the cell of St. Pourçain, with all its appendages, … or those which he himself in other places, that is, Asinariae, which is in the pagus of Saintes, with all its integrity; and in the territory of Poitiers the cell of St. Prudentius, with all its integrity; and in the pagus of Le Mans Bussiolum, with all its integrity; and in the pagus Valagius *, the cell called Godet… This decree was subscribed not only by Saints Remigius, Isaac, and Girbold, bishops, but by many others also, even absent ones; indeed by some others also who only afterward were called to the episcopate. For often in former times diplomas were carried around, to be confirmed by bishops who had not been present at their making. And thus far — this by no means escapes me — I have woven a chronology of the principal assemblies over which St. Remigius presided, or at which at least he took part, rather than narrated his Life. What else should I do? Nothing has been handed down of the most blessed prelate that is connected and coheres together, but only scattered and diverse matters, among which no bond appears. It remained then to report these almost in the manner of chroniclers; taking care, however, to explain the business sufficiently that even less learned readers may be able to understand how great were most of the quarrels to the settling of which St. Remigius lent his effort.

* Le Vely

§ XIII. The death, burial, translation, and relics of St. Remigius.

St. Remigius died on the 28th day of October of the year 875 That St. Remigius passed to heaven in the year 875 is easily proved, since he himself in the year 875 presided over the Council of Chalon Labbe, vol. IX, col. 275., and his successor Aurelian in the month of February of the year 876 subscribed the Acts of the Council of Ponthion first after the apostolic legates and Hincmar of Reims Ibid., col. 289.. In very truth it does not escape me that Aurelian the Acts of the Council of Chalon

of the year 875 set his name: but this must be kept before our eyes, that only four bishops took part in this synod, and that others, as is said in plain words in the very acts of the council, being absent, adhered afterward. But beware of saying that the most blessed archbishop died in the month of January of the year 876. This opinion would conflict with the perpetual tradition of the church of Lyon, set down in its necrology and breviaries. For in the necrology is read: On the 5th before the kalends of November died Remigius, bishop of the church of Lyon [Pertz, Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, vol. VII, p. 213.]. According to this very old testimony, then, the birthday of St. Remigius has been fixed in the breviaries of the same church, published in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, at the 28th day of October. With these agree du Saussay in the Gallican Martyrology At the 16th of December., Baillet in the Lives of the Saints, and not a few others. Nor does the assertion of Jean Marie de la Mure, who reports (without demonstrating it) that St. Remigius breathed his last on the 29th day of October, differ much from these. But since some read in the obituary cited by Severt Chronol. archiep. Lugdun., p. 184. that Remigius, archbishop of Lyon, died on the 17th before the kalends of January, judging that only one Remigius of Lyon had existed, they held the opinion that on this day a second memorial of St. Remigius is made, and that it is not established whether he departed from the living on the 28th day of October or the 16th of December. But this argument of theirs collapses, since, as it is undoubted that two bishops named Remigius governed the church of Lyon, it is probable that one died on the 16th day of December, the other on the 28th of October.

[64] [and he is buried in the church of St. Justus; where his relics were raised in the year 1287] The people of Lyon buried their deceased archbishop in the church of the monastery of St. Justus, choosing this place in order to satisfy his wishes: which the Maurist monks seem to have dug out from the manuscripts of that church Gallia Christiana, vol. IV, col. 214.. Yet the people of Lyon seem to have been rather negligent of the memory of their holy archbishop; which memory seems gradually to have been blotted out among them by oblivion, until in the year 1287 his remains, together with the remains of twelve other saints, namely Constantine the martyr, Peregrinus the priest, Eusebius the confessor, and also the holy bishops of Lyon Viator, Alpinus, Antiochus, Elpidius, Patiens, Lupicinus, Arigius, and Stephen, were raised by William, bishop of Vienne, at the request of the church of Lyon, and again honorably bestowed in caskets. The historical monuments of this elevation, collected by our Chifflet, our predecessor Daniel Papebroch published at the end of the Life of St. Irenaeus in the Acta Sanctorum Acta SS. vol. V of June, p. 346 f..

[65] [and then translated into the church of St. John the Baptist on the 27th day of April, in an unknown year.] What were the fortunes of the remains of St. Remigius thereafter, the learned have investigated in vain. It is certain indeed that they were afterward translated to the cathedral church of St. John the Baptist, and rested there until in the year 1562 it was destroyed by the Huguenots, as is reported by Severt and Étienne Verney and as is read in the Breviary of Lyon of the year 1692. In what year they arrived in the cathedral church is not known. The day seems to be the 27th of April, since in the Calendar and Proper of the collegiate church of St. Justus of Lyon, which the same Étienne Verney has left, there occurs on this day: The Finding of the body of St. Remigius, confessor, bishop of Lyon. Yet du Saussay affirms that the translation to the cathedral church was made on the 16th day of December: to which sense also Étienne Verney inclines. For he, having related the finding of the year 1285, goes on thus: But this raising or finding was done on the fourth before the calends of September (as those raising him say) four hundred years and more after his passing: unless perhaps this finding be understood of the translation of his raised body, so that thus to the new cathedral church, sacred to St. John the Baptist. But this too seems to have been done on another day, which the book of obits itself, as for a certain decease (though there were not two bishops of Lyon of his name), places at the seventeenth before the calends of January, indeed in an uncertain year. On which day the weightiest authors put this translation, yet noted by no one under the name of a finding. But the conjecture of these men seems to collapse, since its foundation, namely that not two but only one Remigius sat at Lyon, is altogether vain.

[66] Now nothing survives except a pall given to St. Remigius. We have said that the Huguenots in the year 1562 turned all holy things upside down, and raged with such fury against the remains of St. Remigius that absolutely nothing of them survives. One very ancient pledge of St. Remigius, however, is in the possession of the people of Lyon, namely a most beautiful altar pall, which the archives of the church of St. Stephen of Lyon attest that the Countess Bertha gave as a gift to St. Remigius, as Jean de la Mure affirms Hist. eccles. de Lyon, p. 292 f., and as is evidently gathered from the pall itself, as we shall see below. It is established also from Bl. Lupus of Ferrières Letter 122 of Lupus of Ferrières, in Migne, Patrol., vol. CXIX, col. 594. and from Flodoard History of the Church of Reims, book III, ch. XXVII, col. 254. that Bertha's husband was Gerard; which spouses Mabillon celebrates with the most beautiful encomia for their munificence Benedictine Annals, vol. III, p. 133.. The monuments of St. Stephen's add that Bertha conferred her gift on St. Remigius under Charles, son of the Emperor Lothar, king of Provence, and so after the year 855. That gift indeed the people of Lyon have at all times held in the greatest esteem: but when the church of St. Stephen was overthrown by the disturbers at the close of the eighteenth century, its outstanding pall passed to the church of St. Irenaeus; where it is kept most religiously even today. Jean de la Mure gives us a sufficiently accurate description of this pall Hist. eccles. de Lyon, p. 292 f.: in the middle, he says, is depicted a lamb with the two letters α and ω, with these two verses added around:

Lamb of God, who took away the dread crimes of the world, Do you, in pity, absolve all our guilt.

Then on the right part of the circle:

Here the living bread and heavenly food is prepared;

On the left:

And that sacred blood which ran from the flesh of Christ.

Along the length:

May Bertha receive an everlasting crown for the deed, By whose care this pall gleams with gold.

At the upper extremities:

May Remigius the bishop live to Christ through the ages, Stripped of vices, and cleansed of the rot of faults, Made a living and holy victim to God in his body.

At the extremities to the right:

To whom may God almighty, as often as he shall consecrate these libations, Grant pardon, and a part in so great a gift.

At the lower extremities:

And may he associate him with his saints after the funeral of death. Whoever desires to drink of this banquet and holy blood, Let him first inspect himself, and turn over the secrets of his heart.

At the extremities to the left:

And whatever he shall see that is foul and stained, Let him wash away, offended, and let him loose all angers too.

SUMMARY OF THE LIFE OF ST. REMIGIUS, BISHOP OF LYON

From the Proper Offices of the saints for the use of the Church of Lyon, proposed by Étienne Verney.

Remigius, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

Zacharias, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

Helias, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

Martin, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

Amolo, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

Gebuinus, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

FROM MANUSCRIPTS.

[St. Remigius, archbishop of Lyon and archchaplain, defends in his way the concord of free will with grace, and presides over many councils, a vindicator of ecclesiastical liberty and discipline;] Remigius, successor of Amulus, ruled the church of Lyon, a metropolitan bishop in the time of the Emperor Lothar, son of Louis the Pious; of whose royal chapel too he was head and master, and also of the following, the Emperor Louis, Charles of Burgundy, and Lothar, king of Austrasia, his sons ^a. He is named by the emperor himself most venerable ^b in a rescript given to him in favor of his church; a man moreover most learned and pious, he afforded the church in his time many lights of both graces, and he declared and defended the concord of free will with grace, and the true series of predestination, against the novel errors of those times, both with the learned lucubrations published in the name of his church, which were dug up again by the bishop of Meaux ^c in the year one thousand five hundred and seventy, or about then, says Paradin, and with the orthodox definitions published in the Third Synod of Valence, over which he presided. Moreover, loving the beauty of religion, and an upholder of sacred discipline, he was the instigator that there should be published in the same place the necessary sanctions for the protection of ecclesiastical dignity and liberty. With like zeal he provided for the same discipline in the Council of Toul at Savonnières, over which also he presided, as also over that of Langres, Soissons III, and Chalon across the Saône, and the others.

[2] [after a holy life, having died piously, he is buried in the church of St. Justus, then in that of St. John the Baptist.] Nor did he apply himself to discharging the pastoral office by laws and writings only, but also by morals and examples and assiduous prayers: until, the honor of the apostolic see being kept unimpaired, and the offspring of the mystic flock being multiplied, the good shepherd was called to the rich reward of faithful stewardship, on the fifth before the calends of November, or also on the seventeenth before the calends of January, in the year of the Lord eight hundred and sixty-nine ^d. He had his tomb first in the church of St. Justus, with seventeen most holy predecessors. Whence after four hundred years, while by archiepiscopal order the bodies of the saints handed down there were being investigated, his marble sarcophagus, marked with an inscription honorable to his holiness, was raised and placed in the renovated cathedral church of St. John, on this very day, or also at the seventeenth before the calends of January ^e.

[3] He either organizes or receives many monasteries or colleges. There was founded by this saint, at least in part, the monastery of Saxiacum in the territory of Lyon, in the year eight hundred and sixty-eight ^f, in which he had made secular the canons of the church of St. Justus, or had placed a congregation of servants of God (these are the words of the charter itself) beside the most blessed martyr Irenaeus and his companions, and beside the most holy bishops and confessors of Christ, Justus and others, who were resting in the front of that basilica ^g. Which congregation, with devout veneration, those holy places having been brought nearly to ruin by the negligence of certain persons, and whose properties remained in the domain and power of others, should serve perpetually, they remain assiduously there to the praise of almighty God. Under this bishop also, or rather in regard of his merits ^h, the Emperor Lothar, of whom above, gave to the church of Lyon the cenoby built in honor of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the invocation of St. Martin, confessor and bishop, called Savigny. King Charles of Burgundy also, named above, at the entreaty of the same venerable archbishop, striking with his own hand a denarius from the hand of a serf of his right, by name Anselius ⁱ, made him free according to the Salic law, with all that he had or had acquired, from every yoke of servitude.

ANNOTATIONS.

APPENDIX

Of Saints Zacharias, Helius, Martin, Amolo, and Gebuinus, bishops of Lyon.

Remigius, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

Zacharias, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

Helias, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

Martin, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

Amolo, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

Gebuinus, bishop of Lyon in Gaul. (S.)

BY R. D. B.

Our predecessors, though they spent no slothful effort in illustrating the deeds of the holy bishops of Lyon, yet passed over Saints Zacharias, Helius, Martin, Amolo, and Gebuinus, likewise bishops of Lyon, chiefly for lack of historical documents. Although we too have no abundance, yet, lest a brief commemoration of them be wanting from our Acts, it has seemed good, the present occasion offering, to collect the principal things that have become known of them. May the reader be willing to receive this labor, such as it is, with indulgence.

ST. ZACHARIAS

[St. Zacharias seems to have been bishop of Lyon at the beginning of the third century.] St. Zacharias, whom we bring forward in the first place, is reckoned by du Saussay Martyrologium Gallicanum, p. 393., de la Mure Histoire ecclésiast. du diocèse de Lyon, p. 20., Severt Chronologia Lugdunensis archiepiscopatus, p. 20., and others Raynaud, Hagiologium Lugdunense, p. 87. among the holy bishops of the church of Lyon: and if credence is to be given to Ado Martyrology of Ado, 28th of June, p. 382, Giorgi edition., St. Irenaeus had him as his successor. His name occurs also in the public supplications that were made at Lyon in the fifteenth century, namely in the second Litanies of Advent and Lent, and also in the Litanies for any tribulation whatever Breviary of Lyon of the year 1498.. But our Papebroch vehemently doubted the episcopate of St. Zacharias Acta SS. June, vol. V, p. 340., because no mention is made of him among the ancients, except in the Acts of St. Benignus of Dijon, and in a certain old homily of the church of Lyon, and that sprinkled with fables, or in Ado, who reports that St. Irenaeus was buried by Zacharias in the crypt of the basilica of Blessed John the Baptist under the altar, although this basilica was not built until the time of Constantine the Great; which is about a whole century after the contest of St. Irenaeus. But is not the opinion of Papebroch too severe? For although what is narrated of St. Zacharias is apocryphal, yet the perpetual tradition of the church of Lyon, which numbers him among its holy bishops, does not lack authority. If he began to hold the reins of the church of Lyon immediately after the happy death of St. Irenaeus, the beginning of his episcopate will have to be referred to the year 202 or 207 Ibid., p. 336; Notice sur les reliques des saints de l'église de Lyon, p. 32.. But these rest on a hypothesis not firm enough.

ST. HELIUS

[The tomb of St. Helius, who succeeded St. Zacharias, was visited by St. Gregory of Tours.] After St. Zacharias in the ancient catalogues of the bishops of Lyon is inscribed St. Helius. But since the year in which St. Zacharias departed from the living is not known, and no historical monument is at our disposal, it is difficult to say in what year St. Helius began his episcopate. Yet it is certain, since St. Cyprian Coustant, Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, p. 211. treated of his successor Faustinus in a letter to Pope St. Stephen about the year 255, that St. Helius presided over the church of Lyon about the middle of the third century. And indeed it must be noted here that Théophile Raynaud Hagiologium Lugdunense, p. 62., who judged that St. Helius and Faustinus were one and the same man, by name Helius Faustinus, was not very happy: for the very ancient catalogue of the bishops of Lyon of the monastery of the Île Barbe shows this series: Pothinus, etc., Irenaeus, etc., Zacharias, etc., Helias or Aelius, bishop, Faustinus, Verus, bishops Gallia Christiana nova, vol. IV, col. 13.. With which agree Robert Gallia Christiana, p. 78., the brothers de Sainte-Marthe Gallia Christiana nova, vol. I, p. 292., the writers of the new Gallia Christiana Vol. IV, col. 13., de la Mure Hist. ecclés. de Lyon, p. 20., Severt Chronol. archiep. Lugdun., p. 20., and others Poullin de Lumina, Histoire de l'Eglise de Lyon, p. 46.. All of whom agree also in this, that with unanimous voice they name Helius a saint: which appellation St. Gregory of Tours also gives him, narrating how he poured out prayers at the crypt of St. Helius, and what he either heard or saw there. When on a certain occasion, he says, I was going around the holy places of the town of Lyon, the man who was going before us invited us to prayer at the crypt of Blessed Helius, saying that a great priest rests in this place. And when, prayer being made, I was admiring the tomb of the saint, and thinking silently of asking something about his merits, I see written on the door how a violator of the tomb despoiled the lifeless corpse. Inquiring the reason, whether these things were true which I saw painted on the door, the man told me such things as these: "St. Helius in the time of the pagans was bishop in this city; who, having died, was buried by the faithful. But the following night a certain pagan came, rolled away the stone that covered the sarcophagus, and raised the saint's body against himself and tried to despoil it: but he, stretching out his arms, strongly embraced the man, bound to himself, and until morning, with the people looking on, held the wretch in his arms as if tied with thongs. The judge of the place therefore ordered the violator of the tomb to be dragged away and condemned by sentence to the lawful penalty; but he was not released by the saint. Then the judge, understanding the will of the dead man, having made a promise of life, he is released, and thus is restored unharmed." O truly holy vengeance mingled with piety! He kept hold of the man that he might convict him; but did not permit him, whom he had already rendered amended, to be delivered to punishment [Works of St. Gregory of Tours, Book on the Glory of the Confessors, ch. 62, col. 873, Migne edition.]. On account of this miracle Paradin and others think that the feast of wonders, which was kept every year at Lyon down to the year 1312, was instituted: but it is the opinion of Severt Chronol. Lugdun. arch., p. 20., Théophile Raynaud Hagiol. Lugdun., p. 87., and others that it drew its origin from the revealed relics of the holy martyrs of Ainay.

ST. MARTIN

St. Martin at the end of the fifth century was archbishop of Lyon. St. Martin first followed the monastic life under the discipline of St. Martin of Tours. And passing thence to the monastery of the Île Barbe, situated in the middle of the river Saône, he was created abbot of the monks. For Le Laboureur, author of the work Les Mazures de l'Isle-Barbe-lez-Lyon, read in an old catalogue of the abbots of Barbe: Martin, bishop, disciple of Blessed Martin of Tours Gallia Christiana nova, vol. IV, col. 17.. And hence it also follows that St. Martin, who in the most ancient lists of the bishops of Lyon [Robert, Gallia Christiana, col. 78; the de Sainte-Marthes, Gallia Christiana, vol. I, p. 293; de la Mure, Hist. ecclés. de Lyon, p. 30 f.; Severt, Chron. Lugd. arch., p. 36.] is reckoned after St. Alpinus or Albinus Acta SS. vol. V of Sept., p. 44., and had as his successor St. Antiochus Ibid., vol. VII of Oct., p. 17., presided over the church of Lyon at the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century. Théophile Raynaud Hagiol. Lugd., p. 74., du Saussay Martyrologium Gallicanum, p. 1227., the de Sainte-Marthes Gallia Christ., vol. I, p. 81., and many other writers on the affairs of Lyon De la Mure, Hist. ecclés. de Lyon, p. 20. rightly honor him with the title of saint, since he has been inscribed in the sacred books of this church for many centuries, namely in the second Litanies of Advent and Lent, and also in the Litanies for any necessity whatever, inserted in the Breviary of Lyon of the year 1498.

BL. AMULO

Bl. Amulo wrote many very learned works; St. Agobard, bishop of Lyon, having died on the 6th day of June of the year 840, there succeeded on the 16th of January of the following year his deacon Amulo [Excerpts from the Chronicle of St. Benignus, in Labbe, Bibliotheca Mss., vol. I, p. 293; Chronicle of Ado, in Bouquet, vol. VII, p. 55; Chronique de S. Denis, ibid., p. 128.], also Amulus, Hamulus, Emulons. Most abstain from naming him with the title of blessed; yet that title belongs to him, since a cult had its beginning. For, on the witness of Severt Chronologia Lugdunensis Archiepiscopatus, p. 179., Sirmond Complete Works, vol. II, col. 1136., de la Mure Histoire ecclésiastique de Lyon, p. 125., and others [Gallia Christiana nova, vol. IV, col. 60; Rivet, Histoire littér. de la France, vol. V, p. 105.], he is called a saint in the Homiliary and Martyrology of the basilica of St. Irenaeus at Lyon: likewise in the office of St. Remigius of the Breviary of Lyon of the year 1692. Trithemius greatly extols the knowledge of Amulo, especially in the Hebrew language De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, in Fabricius, Bibl. ecclesiast., vol. II, p. 73.. How highly his skill was esteemed was attested by his contemporaries Pope John VIII Labbe, Collection of Councils, vol. IX, col. 107.,

Lupus of Ferrières Complete Works, epist. LXXX, in Migne, Patrol., vol. CXIX, col. 541. and Wenilo of Sens Ibid., epist. LXXXI, col. 541., as also by Flodoard Hist. of Reims, book III, ch. 21, in Migne, Patrol., vol. CXXXV, col. 200.. He also wrote many works; of which some survive: namely two letters, one, first published by Nicolas Camuzat, to Theobald, bishop of Langres, given in the year 844. Theobald, that is, had asked him by letter what counsel he should take, when uncertain relics of saints had been brought by two unknown monks into the basilica of St. Benignus at Dijon, and not a few prodigies, yet of doubtful faith, were being worked there. St. Amulo replied that relics of this kind should by no means be buried within the church, but outside in the atrium, or certainly under the wall or around it, secretly, in a suitable and clean place, with few aware of it: that, since they were said to be holy, some reverence might be paid to them; and, since it was wholly unknown what they were, they might in no way be an occasion of error and superstition to unlearned peoples Works of Amulo, in Migne, vol. CXVI, col. 77 f.. The other letter is a reply to the letters, either genuine [Sirmond, Complete Works, vol. II, col. 1136; Ceillier, Histoire des Auteurs sacrés etc., vol. XVIII, p. 706.] or supposititious Rivet, Hist. litt. de la France, vol. V, p. 107., of Gottschalk: and it was first brought to light by Sirmond Complete Works, vol. II, col. 1139 ff.. In it, in the judgment of Petavius [Petavius, Opus de Theologicis dogmatibus, vol. V, book XIII, ch. 9, p. 180, Antwerp edition.], he eloquently and learnedly refutes many errors on Predestination: from which, however, Rivet contends that Gottschalk shrank Rivet, Hist. litt., vol. V, p. 107., whom he vehemently exhorts to revere the opinion of the bishops. Moreover, in a separate work he collected the opinions of Blessed Augustine on predestination and the grace of God, and on the free will of man, and showed in clear speech that they are to be understood in a Catholic sense. Amulo wrote also a booklet against the Jews, that they should not be permitted to range beyond the limits prescribed by the church and civil government, to the ruin of the people. These four works, though there has sometimes been doubt of their genuineness, have been adjudged to Bl. Amulo by the unanimous vote of more recent scholars. There is also another book, namely a Reply to the question of a certain person on the divine foreknowledge or predestination and on free will, which Sirmond Complete Works, vol. II, col. 1135, 1136, and 1153., many scholars denying it [Rivet, Hist. litt., vol. V, p. 105; Ceillier, Hist. des Auteurs sacrés, vol. XVIII, p. 706.], declared to have been written by Bl. Amulo. All these books have been published by Sirmond, Mauguin, Baluze, by the compilers of the Magna Bibliotheca Patrum, and lately by the venerable man Migne.

[2] [he increased the goods of his church, and in the year 846 took part in the Council of Épernay.] Amulo also applied his efforts with Lothar I that what no small part had been taken away from the properties of the church of Blessed Stephen … and reduced into the domain of secular men, should be restored; for through this those who continually served in the divine worship there suffered frequent need. By order of the emperor, then, there were given back in the year 846 in the county of Lyon the estates of Aulanius and Morgas: and when afterward on account of dissensions these estates had again been unjustly occupied, he recovered them, together with other goods, for the same church of St. Stephen Bouquet, vol. VIII, pp. 383 and 390.. But also his authority, says Hugh of Flavigny Chronicle of Verdun, in Labbe, Bibliotheca Mss., vol. I, p. 118., the love of Charles (the Bald) for him had much weight with the holy Pope Leo (IV), as he himself testifies in a letter sent to him. Add that Charles the Bald willed the chaplain of his palace to be consecrated bishop of the church of Chalon by Bl. Amulo Works of Lupus of Ferrières, epist. LXXXI, col. 543.. Then with his suffragans Bl. Amulo took part in the council which was held in the year 846 at Épernay; which estate, situated on the river Marne, was already from the times of St. Remigius a possession of the church of Reims. Thither also came, each with his suffragans, Wenilo of Sens, Ursmar of Tours, Hincmar of Reims, and Guntbold of Rouen: in which council they renewed many canons, especially of the Council of Meaux of the year 845 [Baluze, Capitularies of the Kings of the Franks, vol. II, col. 29 f., Paris edition, 1677.]. Finally he died on the day before the kalends of April (or 2 April) Severt, Chronol. Lugd. archiep., p. 180., probably in the year 852, as was shown above in the Preliminary Commentary, no. 6, to the Life of St. Remigius of Lyon.

BL. GEBUINUS

§ Sole. The cult, episcopate, death, burial, translation, miracles of St. Gebuinus, and a summary of his Life.

St. Gebuinus, who is venerated at Lyon, When Henschen was illustrating the Acts of the Saints of the 19th day of May, and historical monuments were not at his disposal by whose help he might show the cult of St. Gebuinus to be lawful, he assigned him a place among the passed-over Acta SS. vol. II of April, p. 521; ibid., vol. IV of May, p. 295.. But we, more fortunate than our predecessor, have at hand many historical instruments by which the cult of St. Gebuinus is established: namely the Breviary of Lyon published in the year 1844 by order of Cardinal de Bonald, archbishop of Lyon, and many orders of the Divine office of the same church, in which the feast of St. Gebuinus is prescribed to be celebrated with the rite of lesser double at the 18th day of April. Add that both in the Breviaries and Missals of the seventeenth century, as Jean de la Mure reports, and in the manuscript Breviary which Étienne Verney composed for the individual churches of Lyon before the middle of the eighteenth century, the same occurs. Moreover in Molanus's supplement to Usuard of the year 1573 at the 18th day of April is read: Of St. Jubinus, bishop and confessor, whose body rests at Lyon on the Rhone: indeed also in the collegiate church of St. Peter at Mâcon, which he had enriched with many estates, he was honored with a special cult [De la Mure, Hist. ecclésiast. de Lyon, p. 152; Severt, Chronologia Lugdun. archiep., p. 215.]. Like things are reported by Chastelain in the Universal Martyrology, du Saussay in the Gallican Martyrology, and Simon de Peyronnet in the Catalogue of Saints; yet so that the latter two indicate the day of his death at the 18th day of June. Finally St. Gebuinus is invoked in the Litanies of the Breviary of the year 1498. And this on the cult of St. Gebuinus.

[2] and the beginnings of whose cult are uncertain, The deeds of St. Gebuinus before his episcopate, like those of many other holy bishops of that age whose Life was not written by contemporaries, are not known to us. Jacques Vignier, however, in the Chronicle of Langres At the year 1068, p. 91., and after him Mabillon Benedictine Annals, vol. V, p. 14. and the authors of Gallia Christiana have said that St. Gebuinus was the son of Hugh III, count of Dijon; but the error is manifest, since Vignier and consequently his followers took for our St. Gibuinus the Gibuinus created bishop of Châlons in the year 946. Nor from the name of St. Gebuinus (which puts on various forms, namely Gibuinus, Geboinus, or also Jubinus, and which consists of two words placed side by side, geba gift and win friend Schilter, Glossarium vetus, under Geba, Win.) can it be certainly determined whether he was a Frank by origin or a Gallo-Roman: for the ancient custom of taking names proper to one's own nation had by the eleventh century, unless perhaps among the nobler families, become obsolete nearly everywhere throughout Gaul. Some have suspected that St. Gebuinus, when he was younger, embraced the monastic life in the monastery of Savigny or of Ainay, because, having been made archbishop of Lyon, he gave as a gift to the former monastery the church of St. Mary of Io, and to the latter the church of St. Ciricus of Sivriacum Bernard, Cartulaire de Savigny et d'Ainay, vol. I, p. 431; vol. II, p. 701.. This argument is very weak, since most holy bishops of every age were very benevolent toward monasteries, and applied their efforts that the religious life should be taken up by many.

[3] from archdeacon of Langres he was made archbishop of Lyon. It is more certain, then, that St. Gebuinus was archdeacon of Langres. For we read in book II of the Chronicle of Verdun, written by Hugh of Flavigny, that on the 10th day of September of the year 1076 he came to the Council of Autun, assembled by Hugh, bishop of Die, at that time legate of the apostolic see in Gaul, with Rainard, bishop of Langres, whose archdeacon he was; and that there he was created archbishop of the people of Lyon. On the fifth day, or 14 September, since the see of Lyon was vacant of a bishop, Humbert the simoniac having been expelled and made a monk in the regions of the Jura, there was chosen from the side of the lord of Langres Gebuinus the archdeacon, a man graced with probity of morals, to be set over the church of Lyon. To this the assent of the whole council acclaimed, this too the expression of good will of the clergy and laity of the church of Lyon who were present sought. Snatched therefore from the altar to which he had fled, he is carefully guarded, that on the Sunday he might be blessed in the solemn manner. The bishop of Langres grieved over this, and the clergy of Langres who were present; because they seemed to have lost a man very necessary in ecclesiastical and secular affairs, on whom they very much relied. But the harmonious sentence of the council prevailed, since thus it was predetermined and pleasing in the eyes of the Lord. On the next day Rainard complained before the fathers of the council of the loss inflicted on the church committed to him, that they had as it were plucked out his eye, from whom they had taken his archdeacon, in whom was all his hope, in whom his refreshment, in whose charity was his comfort: then as a remedy for so great a calamity he asked that they put William in place of the deceased abbot of Dijon. When the fathers had assented to these wishes, on one day, that is, on Sunday the 15th before the kalends of October, or 17 September, there were consecrated at Autun, with the highest exultation and rejoicing of all, the lord Gebuinus as archbishop of Lyon by the legate of the Roman see himself, and the aforesaid elect as abbot of Dijon by the aforesaid bishop of Langres Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae, vol. VIII, p. 415 f..

[4] St. Gregory VII conferred on him the pallium and the dignity of primate. Shortly afterward Hugh, legate of the Roman church, to whom the merits of St. Gebuinus were entirely clear, requested the pallium for him from St. Gregory VII in these words: We earnestly entreat that through the lord bishop of Valence you send us the pallium to confirm the ordination of the most religious archbishop of the church of Lyon, against the barking heretics, and those who glory carnally in the king's indignation against the ordination of God. For he himself, setting aside all inconveniences and dangers of want and of the journey, would most devoutly present himself to the sight of your Holiness, if the church committed to him, so long languishing and destitute of the comfort of a shepherd,

could in any way bear his absence without great detriment Ep. VII to St. Gregory VII, in Migne, vol. CIIL, col. 744.. The Roman pontiff assented: indeed in the year 1079, following in the footsteps of his predecessors and satisfying the wishes of St. Gebuinus, he appointed him primate over the ecclesiastical provinces of Lyon, Rouen, Sens, and Tours Letters of St. Gregory VII, book VI, epist. 34, 35, 36, col. 538, 539, and 540.: with which dignity the bishops of Lyon had been adorned by the Roman pontiffs for many centuries past, as has been proved against Noël Alexandre [Ecclesiastical History, vol. VI, cent. XI and XII, ch. VI, p. 126, Venice edition, 1778.] by Théophile Raynaud Hagiologium Lugdun., in the proem., Pierre de Marca Dissertatio de primatu, p. 230 f., p. 345., and especially the writers of the new Gallia Christiana. Further, only the archbishop of Tours, as is clear from the letters of St. Gebuinus, acquiesced at once in the decree of St. Gregory VII: on the other hand the archbishops of Sens and Rouen, though Urban II, the fathers of the Council of Clermont, and St. Ivo of Chartres strove to break their obstinacy, refused until death to recognize the primacy of the church of Lyon, as a new thing. But their successors recognized the authority of the church of Lyon: which the bishops of the Council of Paris of the year 1811, at the proposal of Cardinal Fesch, archbishop of Lyon, pronounced by no means extinguished even after the concordat of the year 1801 [Noël Alexandre, loc. cit.; Pagi, Critice, at the year 1079, no. VIII; Gallia Christiana nova, vol. IV, col. 92; De Smet, Coup d'œil sur l'histoire ecclésiastique du dix-neuvième siècle, p. 219.], more curious perhaps of opportuneness than of a new right.

[5] After many distinguished deeds De la Mure Hist. eccles. de Lyon, p. 152. and Severt Chronologia archiep. Lugdunensis, p. 215. report, after Paradin, that the church of Beaujeu was consecrated by St. Gebuinus, Hugh the legate being present, at the request of the lords of Beaujeu, who had built it at their own expense in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the year 1079. In the following year St. Gebuinus prompted the count of Arles, with the consent of St. Gregory VII, to expel Bermund, abbot of the monastery of Montmajour (a man of such great disgrace and such great impurity that the count of Arles was ashamed to tell it to any honorable man, who moreover had simoniacally received the abbey from the archbishop of Arles, afterward struck with anathema by St. Gregory VII), and to put William in his place Mabillon, Benedictine Annals, vol. V, p. 154.. In the same year also St. Gebuinus, with Hugh the legate presiding, held a council at Lyon with many other bishops of the Gauls to hear the case of the simoniacal bishops Manasses of Reims and Frotgerius of Chalon Gallia Christ. nova, vol. IV, col. 887.: where Manasses was deposed by synodal judgment, both because he refused to clear himself, and because he evaded the hearing of Autun, of Poitiers, and of Lyon itself Chronicle of Verdun, book II, p. 206.: and shortly afterward Walter, a man notable in every way, whom St. Gebuinus had strongly commended, to the applause of all good men was elected bishop of Chalon, the simoniac Frotgerius having been cast down. On which matter St. Gebuinus had spent the greater effort in that St. Gregory VII, treating of assembling a council, had written to Hugh of Die: We admonish you also that the sorrow and calamity of the church of Langres penetrate the bowels of your piety, and that together with our brother the archbishop of Lyon you provide by what means you can for its so great dangers, principally accomplishing this, that you give a just sentence against the dean, who with the worst purposes has seized nearly all the offices of that church, and that those offices be administered thenceforth purely by religious men. In this letter St. Gregory VII also makes mention of the contention that arose between St. Gebuinus and St. Hugh of Cluny, saying: As for the discord which you have signified between the archbishop of Lyon and the abbot of Cluny, let your Dilection know that we are little burdened Ibid., p. 205.. Nor does this discord seem to have been new; for Cardinal Peter of Albano, legate of St. Gregory VII in the parts of Burgundy, already on the 8th before the ides of February, or 22 February, of the year 1078, indiction II, had pronounced a sentence by which he confirmed the monastery of Cluny within its bounds, and forbade the lords of Brancion, Berzé, Buxeria, Seduno, Sagiacum, and Oscella to do anything to the harm of the church of Cluny, and notified Landric, bishop of Mâcon, and Gebuinus, archbishop of Lyon, that he would excommunicate them on the part of the lord pope, unless they abstained from the vexations which they were inflicting on the monks of Cluny [Bibliotheca Cluniacensis, col. 511; Guichenon, Bibliotheca Sebusiana, cent. II, p. 436.]. To this sentence St. Gebuinus had at once complied. About the same time the same most holy man is reported to have established canons regular of St. Rufus in the church of Blessed Mary [De la Mure, p. 153; Helyot, Dictionnaire des Ordres religieux, vol. III, col. 408.].

[6] St. Gebuinus died on the 18th of April of the year 1082 And these are the principal deeds of St. Gebuinus that it has been possible to collect. On the 18th day of April his death is noted in two martyrologies of the church of Lyon, and in a third of the cathedral church of Mâcon Severt, Chronologia Lugdun. archiep., p. 215., and also in the necrology of St. Benignus of Dijon Gallia Christiana nova, vol. IV, col. 90., but also in another martyrology of the church of Lyon he is said to have departed from the living on the first day of May Severt, Chronol. Lugdun. arch., p. 215.. But the 18th day of April seems to be preferred, since the commoner tradition of the church of Lyon indicates this day. And if credence is to be given to Hugh of Flavigny, the familiar of Hugh of Die, he died in the year 1082. For these are the words of Hugh of Flavigny: Archbishop Gibuinus of Lyon having died about that time, when the election by certain persons was divided, the lord Hugh, bishop of Die, by the election of clergy and people, by the authority and command of the Roman pontiff, was promoted archbishop of Lyon, in the year of the incarnation of the Lord 1082 Chronicle of Verdun, book II, p. 460.. Jean de la Mure Hist. ecclés. de l'Eglise de Lyon, p. 153. and others, however, have held the opinion that St. Gebuinus prolonged his life until the year 1083, both because it is read in the Chronicle of St. Peter the Living of Sens: In the year 1082, on the 14th before the kalends of November, died Walter, bishop of Meaux; and in the following week Hugh, bishop of Die, legate of the Roman church, assembled a council in the same city, and ordained as bishop in the same city Robert, abbot of the church of Rebais D'Achery, Spicilegium, vol. II, p. 477., and because Severt, treating of Hugh the legate, who most certainly died on the nones of October [Necrology of the church of Lyon, in Pertz, Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere Geschichtskunde, vol. VII, p. 213.], or the 7th day of October of the year 1106 [Gallia Christiana nova, vol. IV, col. 108; Mabillon, Benedictine Annals, vol. V, p. 464 f.], records that he came upon these words of a very ancient manuscript of the church of Lyon: Hugh ruled this … church of Lyon for 23 years, eight months, seven days. But he who keeps before his eyes that Hugh of Flavigny, with other Lotharingians, begins the year from the 25th of March, or rather from Easter Pertz, Proem to the Chronicle of Verdun, p. 283., then that the see of Lyon was vacant for some time, as is certain from a letter of Gregory VII given on the 9th before the kalends of November of the year 1082, will easily understand that Hugh of Flavigny, Clarus, and the author of the manuscript book of which Severt speaks are in no way at variance with one another, since the 1st day of March of the year 1083 must in the reckoning of Hugh of Flavigny be referred to the year 1082. But if anyone, on account of some diplomas at whose writing St. Gebuinus was present, declares that he passed from the earth after the year 1083 or even 1086, let him know that these diplomas, being of uncertain year, in no way weaken our opinion Bernard, Cartulaire de Savigny et d'Ainay, vol. I, pp. 436 and 439..

[7] and he was buried in the basilica of St. Irenaeus. After his happy departure from this life St. Gebuinus was given burial in the basilica of St. Irenaeus. So the ancient Martyrology of the church of Lyon, cited by Severt Severt, p. 215.. After an interval of time there were built over his tomb a chapel and altar by the Christian people, called in the vernacular Pautel et sepulture de saint Jubin (the altar and burial place of St. Gebuinus); which, when the bodies of St. Pothinus and of other saints resting in the basilica of St. Irenaeus were being laid waste by the Calvinists with fire and sword, were preserved intact by divine aid [Ibid., loc. cit.; Notice sur les reliques de l'Eglise de Lyon, by D. M., p. 17; Durand, Notice sur S. Jubin, p. 25.]. For a contemporary author narrates that one of the Calvinists, while they were trampling the holy bodies underfoot, sacrilegiously danced upon the altar in which the body of St. Gebuinus was stored, and being suddenly stricken with paralysis fell to the ground, and could not rise until he had first asked health from St. Gebuinus, and had promised God the profession of the Catholic religion together with a correction of his morals Notice sur les reliques, etc., p. 17 f.; Durand, Notice sur S. Jubin, p. 25.. Again, when impious men in the year 1793 turned all sacred things in the basilica of St. Irenaeus upside down, the tomb of St. Gebuinus remained free of all injury Ibid., p. 17; Durand, Notice sur S. Jubin, p. 222..

[8] [In the year 1824 his tomb was opened, and two years later the elevation of the relics took place.] But when in the year 1824, the bishop's mandate being added, the sacred tomb was opened, they found the head of St. Gebuinus, the bones of the arms, legs, and other greater members, as also the ashes of the body, together with remains of his garments Ibid., p. 223.. After two years, namely on the 25th day of April of the year 1826, the tomb was opened a second time, and besides the sacred pledges mentioned above they found a coral, which had to some extent the form of a cross, and a ring of the purest gold with a three-faced sapphire. Of the bones of St. Gebuinus one was granted to the primatial church, and some fragments to the parish church: the rest were placed in a new oaken casket, covered around with yellow silk cloth, of square form, four feet long, nine inches high, and likewise ten inches wide Ibid., p. 227.. On the 9th day of May, Jean Paul du Pins, archbishop of Amasia and apostolic administrator of the church of Lyon, bearing on his breast the cross of St. Gebuinus and on his finger the ring (which cross and ring had been found in the tomb of St. Gebuinus himself, and shall be in future for the use of the bishops of Lyon), and together with him his vicars general, likewise the canons of the primatial church, and a good many other clergy of Lyon, with great solemnity

carried the casket of St. Gebuinus through the streets of the town, with this inscription:

The body of St. Gebuinus, Archbishop of Lyon, Recognized by Mgr. du Pins, Archbishop of Amasia and Apostolic Administrator of the Church of Lyon, in the year of grace one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six, the month of May, the ninth day Ibid., p. 228..

This procession being finished, they deposited the remains of St. Gebuinus under the new marble altar of St. Gebuinus. Then, that the memory of the saint might be cherished more from day to day, there was written on the front of the altar: The body and tomb of St. Gebuinus Ibid., p. 229 ff.; Notice sur les reliques etc., p. 38..

[9] Now as of old St. Gebuinus is the patron of the infirm. From the remotest times men crippled in their limbs, or infirm, or suffering from gout, have fled for refuge to St. Gebuinus: and that infirm persons and especially the arthritic were not rarely healed at the tomb of St. Gebuinus is gathered both from Severt Severt, p. 216., Jean de la Mure De la Mure, p. 153., and Étienne Verney, and from a prayer which was recited for a long time in honor of St. Gebuinus. Further, as Guérin and Nivon, canons of the basilica of St. Irenaeus, report, many other miracles being omitted, in the year 1641 on the feast of St. Gebuinus three men crippled in all their limbs, after prayers made to him, were suddenly cured, and as a sign of perpetual gratitude hung up their staffs in the chapel itself. At the same time a virgin advanced in age, living in a parish four leagues distant from Lyon, likewise crippled in her limbs, having ordered herself carried to the tomb of St. Gebuinus, which she knew to be renowned for miracles, there after nine days spent in prayer recovered complete health, and went home on foot. The origin of this recourse to St. Gebuinus seems to be that the saint himself, while he lived among men, is reported to have suffered greatly from gout. Nor has that old piety perished; and indeed in the days containing the translation of the year 1826 many sick persons, having invoked St. Gebuinus, recovered from their diseases. Among them Adelaide Merle. She for five years had suffered from an aneurism, dropsy, and a swelling through the whole body, which the physicians said were incurable. But on the 9th day of May of the year 1826 she ordered herself carried to the church of St. Irenaeus, where she took part, either standing or sitting, in the translation of the remains of St. Gebuinus from the sixth hour of the morning to the first of the afternoon. The solemnity being finished, she returned home on foot: then, after, all the physicians' remedies being set aside, she had come on foot and fasting for nine continuous days to the most holy sacrifice of the Mass in honor of St. Gebuinus, she recovered complete health Durand, pp. 31 and 234 f..

[10] as by the miracles On the 14th day of June of the same year, Véronique Lacroix, of Lyon, aged twenty-three years, was so afflicted with an inflammation of the stomach, pain of the nerves, and violent fever that, dying, she was fortified with the sacraments of the dying. Since then her condition was so grave, she was conveyed to the tomb of St. Gebuinus; where, sitting on a seat, she was suddenly freed of all her pains.

[11] in the year 1826 Marie Giraud of Vienne for thirteen months had trembled without intermission in all her limbs, and had burned with a violent heat in her breast. After she had vainly applied all the physicians' remedies, she was carried to the tomb of St. Gebuinus on the 13th day of June of the year 1826: where after a twelfth part of an hour she was made entirely well Ibid., p. 32 f., 238 f..

[12] worked Gabrielle Bruyas, nun and portress of the monastery of Our Lady of Charity at Lyon, for eleven years had been languishing with dropsy of the heart and many other infirmities, so that she could in no way move herself, and for a long time had sat in a chair day and night, without being able to rest or take food. Nor did any hope of recovering health, as the physicians declared, shine upon her, when on the 28th with great confidence, during the sacrifice of the Mass at which she was present, she asked strength of body from St. Gebuinus. The sacrifice of the Mass being finished, health was so perfectly restored to her that not even a trace of the disease remained Ibid., p. 35 f., 258 f..

[13] in the curing Catherine Roux, of Lyon, for twelve years had been tortured with internal rheumatism in the right arm, which wasted day by day in leanness and weakness. But since she could by no means soothe her pains, she came on the 10th day of July of the year 1826 to the tomb of St. Gebuinus, with the intention of asking there for nine days the healing of her arm. On the next day, in the oratory of the same saint, she was suddenly freed of all pain, and flesh grew on the arm itself, and its strength returned Ibid., p. 37 f., 263 ff..

[14] of the sick, Jeanne Marie Brasier, wife of Joseph Aquetant, of the parish of Loyasse, for eleven years had suffered incredible pains from childbirth, and could neither walk nor stand, so that from the first days of the month of March of the year 1826, although the physicians had applied all remedies for expelling the disease, she could not move herself from her bed. On the 23rd day of June, in order to satisfy the sick woman's wishes, they carried her lying on a bier to the tomb of St. Gebuinus; but during the sacrifice of the Mass, with no one's help, at the elevation of the Sacred Host she bent her knees, and for communion she took her place at the eucharistic table. From which day she was altogether healed Ibid., p. 256..

[15] it is manifest. Marie Thérèse Voiturier had for twenty-three years had her breast occupied by a cancer: from which every year innumerable worms came forth. Since the physicians of the hospitals of Lyon and Feurs could bring hardly any relief to such great pains, she committed herself to the protection of St. Gebuinus and in his honor on the 24th day of July of the year 1826 began a novena of prayers. On the 29th of the same month, wishing to apply medicines to the wound, she found the scar filled up Ibid., p. 264..

[16] The chief praises of St. Gebuinus. We close at last with these things, adding a summary of the Life of St. Gebuinus which Étienne Verney once composed for the lessons of the second Nocturn for the use of the clergy of Lyon, but which was never employed by them. Receive this little writing: Gebuinus or, as the old writings have it, Giboinus, otherwise Guibuinus, but now Jubinus, ruled the church of the people of Lyon in the time of St. Gregory, seventh pope of this name, from whom he received the long-since conferred patriarchate and primacy over the provinces of Lyon and Rouen, Sens and Tours, in the year one thousand and seventy-nine ^a. Whence is noted the wonderful humility and modesty of this prelate; who though he was such a patriarch, yet called himself only a priest of the church of Lyon in his letters ^b. Nor was his contempt less for riches, which he solicitously spent on religious works: namely on the restoration and also the beauty of sacred buildings; which, even those built by himself, he propped up with revenues and rights conferred (of this kind is St. Peter's of Mâcon), so lavish toward the needy that he brought want upon himself: meanwhile relaxing nothing of his zeal for vindicating and spreading the morals of the clergy, ecclesiastical honors, divine worship, and the salvation of the people. In these exercises he flew away at last to the laurel prepared for him on the sixteenth before the kalends of May or of July, buried in the church of St. Irenaeus his predecessor; where he soon shone with divine signs, and especially with the curing of the gouty. Which was doubtless the cause of the building of the chapel and altar over his tomb: to which even now those suffering from gout, and many other infirm persons, flock to implore his aid, bearing back benefit together with praise from the saint's tomb, emptied in the last century by the fighters against saints ^c.

ANNOTATIONS.