ON ST. NATALIS, CONFESSOR, AT ROME,
PROBABLY BETWEEN THE YEARS 202 AND 218.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Natalis, confessor at Rome (S.)
BY R. D. B.
§ Sole. The cult of St. Natalis. His fall and penance. On the name of confessor. Who wrote the history of St. Natalis.
At first some doubt arose with us, whether Natalis (or Natalius) should be given a place among the Passed Over, or among those of whom separate treatment is given on this day. For the indications of ecclesiastical cult are more recent and less ample than we should wish. Natalis Yet since these, however slight, seem certain, and the man's history is thoroughly worthy to be reported among the Acts of martyrs and confessors, we are unwilling to leave it among the omitted. Now that Natalis was held a saint a hundred years before the decrees of Urban VIII plainly appears in the Catalogue of Saints of Peter de Natalibus, and in the Salisbury Martyrology, as adapted for the English monastery of Syon.
[2] by Peter de Natalibus and in the Salisbury martyrology And first, of the Catalogue of Peter, Thaddeus Donnola, in his Brief Treatment on the Place of the Martyrdom of St. Felix, bishop of Spello, first published at Venice in the year 1620, says that he saw a large and ancient copy of that Catalogue, bound in cypress boards and violet leather, carefully written in the hand of Vaxilinus Zordanus, a Venetian presbyter, parish priest of the church of St. Raphael, in the year 1408. Peter himself, as he testifies of himself at the end of that codex, began to write the Catalogue of Saints in the year of the Lord 1369, on the feast of St. Barnabas, while still parish priest of the Holy Apostles of Venice, of the diocese of Castello: but he brought the work to completion in the year 1372, on May 26, having by then been created bishop of Equilium of the province of Grado [Acta SS., vol. I of February, p. XIII. Cf. Tiraboschi, Storia della letteratura italiana, vol. V, bk. II, p. 143]. The book was first printed at Vicenza in the year 1493, and many times afterwards [Cf. Apost. Zeno, Dissertazioni Vossiane, vol. II, p. 31 and following, Venice 1753]. The Martyrology of the Church of Salisbury, just mentioned, is none other than Usuard's, enlarged with some additions; whose beginning is this: Here begins the martyrology according to the use of the Church of Salisbury, and as it is read at Syon, with additions. Which surely indicates that these sacred calendars were used both in the Church of Salisbury and in the convent of Syon of the Order of St. Birgitta in Middlesex. Richard Whitford, a member of the same monastery, turned it from the Latin tongue into English, and had it printed in type at London in the year 1526 [Bale, Illustrious Writers of Britain, vol. I, p. 709. Watt, Bibliotheca Britannica, vol. II, col. 964. G. Aungier, The history of Syon monastery, p. 87 and 535].
[3] is numbered among the saints; Now Peter de Natalibus in the Catalogue of Saints writes this Bk. IX, chap. 127: Of St. Natalis, confessor. Natalis the confessor was famous at Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus. Who, while he was strong in holy works, deceived by Asclepius and Theodotus the collectors, who were both disciples of a certain apostate leatherworker, thrown out of the communion of the church, consented to be named bishop of that heresy, having accepted as salary one hundred and fifty coins of monthly payment. But, warned often by the Lord to come to his senses, while he refused for love of base gain, one night in his sleep he was scourged with dreadful blows by angels. In the morning, finding the bruises and scars of the wounds on his shoulders, as if he had suffered bodily while awake, in terror he went to Pope Zephyrinus and told the vision. Whom, penitent, the pope kindly received, and, as he renounced the dignity, imposed satisfaction. And Natalis, changing his life for the better, ended it more laudably, and in the time of the same pontiff, after a short while, rested in peace on the day before the Kalends of November. Exactly the same things occur in the three copies of the Catalogue which we have before our eyes, namely the Vicenza one of the year 1493, the Lyon one of the year 1514 and another Lyon one of the year 1534. But in the copy of the Salisbury Martyrology which we preserve in our museum: At Rome, the festival of St. Natalis the confessor, who, greedy of honors and money, fell away from the true faith, and was made bishop of certain heretics. But afterwards by a revelation he was converted to God and reconciled, and repudiated his errors and vain honors, and did austere penance, and was famous for great holiness and many miracles.
[4] likewise in the more recent martyrologies. Maurolycus imitated Peter de Natalibus, in whose Martyrology, published in the years 1568, 1576 and 1577, we read at October 31: At Rome, of blessed Natalius the confessor in the time of Pope Zephyrinus. Likewise Galesinius in the Martyrology of the Holy Roman Church of the year 1578, at the same day: At Rome, of St. Natalis, confessor, when Zepherinus was pontiff. These two Works were used for some time in some churches. The holiness of Natalis was also praised by Walasser in the Ecclesiastical Calendar, first published in the year 1562, then in the years 1573, 1583, 1599, which commonly goes about under the name of Bl. Peter Canisius Kirchenkalender, p. 325, ed. of 1583; by Philip Ferrari both in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy of the year 1613, and in the Catalogue of Saints who are not in the Roman Martyrology, of the year 1625; by the editor of the Italian Hagiology, which was printed at Bassano in the year 1773; and by Martin Weissbacher in the German Legend of the Saints printed in the year 1737 Legend der heiligen Petriner, vol. II, p. 273. Perhaps someone might not ineptly conjecture that the St. Natalis of whom we speak here is none other than the holy martyr of the same name, whose bones were given in the year 1652 by the marchioness Christiana Duglioli Angelelli to Honoratus Montecalvi of Bologna, abbot
general of the Lateran Congregation, and in that same year laid in the church of St. John on the Mount, with the approval of Antonio Ridolfi, vicar general of the archbishop of Bologna. That holy martyr, probably found in the Roman cemeteries, is venerated by the Bolognese every year on October 29 A. Masini, Bologna perlustrata, vol. I, p. 501, Bologna 1666.
[5] His defection from the Church Of St. Natalis no contemporary document survives, except a very brief writing, which Eusebius mentions in his Ecclesiastical History, and after him Theodoret in the Compendium of Heretical Fables, and Nicephorus Callistus. It pleases us to have Eusebius as guide, since he alone reports the anonymous author's narrative word for word. Moreover that same man, he says, who composed the aforesaid book, namely the Little Labyrinth [Theodoret, Compendium of Heretical Fables, bk. II, chap. 5, in Migne, Greek Patrology, vol. LXXXIII, col. 392], concerning the author (Artemon) of that heresy (that Christ is nothing but a mere man), adds also another event that took place in the times of Zephyrinus, in these words: I will recall to the memory of many of our brethren, he says, a deed done in our age (or, as others translate, done among us, since in the exemplar is read ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν). Which, indeed, if it had been committed at Sodom, might, as I judge, have moved the inhabitants themselves to repentance. There was a certain man named Natalius (Νατάλιος), a CONFESSOR (ὁμολογητής), who lived not so long ago, but in our age. He happened to be led astray by Asclepiodotus and by another, a certain Theodotus the banker. Now both of these were disciples of that Theodotus the leatherworker, who first, on account of this doctrine (namely that Christ is a mere man) or rather madness, was removed from the communion of the Church by Victor, as I have said, then bishop. These persuaded Natalius, for a salary received, to be created bishop of that heresy, on the condition, namely, that he should receive from them a monthly one hundred and fifty denarii.
[6] and penance Having thus joined their party, he was often rebuked by the Lord in his sleep. For our most merciful God and Lord Jesus Christ did not wish him who had been a witness of his sufferings to perish outside the Church. But since Natalius disregarded visions of this kind, baited as he was with the honor of the first seat among them and the desire of base gain (which is ruin to many mortals), at length he was scourged and most heavily beaten by holy angels through a whole night; so much so that rising at first dawn he put on sackcloth, and sprinkled with ash, he at once threw himself with tears at the feet of Zephyrinus the bishop, groveling at the footprints not only of the clergy but also of the laity; and by his weeping he moved and shook the very Church of the merciful Christ, itself also merciful; and having used many prayers, and having shown also the weals of the blows which he had borne for the confession of Christ, he was at length with difficulty admitted to communion Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., bk. V, chap. 32, p. 415, Laemmer ed..
[7] are narrated by a contemporary author, Theodoret and others. But in this translation, which is that of Valesius, certain things must be noted. The very beginning of the narrative some translate thus: There was a certain man named Natalis, who not so long ago, but in our age, became a confessor Coustant, Epistles of the Roman Pontiffs, col. 109. That he was named bishop (κληθῆναι), not created (κλὴρωθῆναι), we read in some codices; rightly indeed, since there was no bishop among the heretics who could ordain Natalis, and so the empty name of bishop without the reality was bestowed on him Ibid.. On account of his crime he was rebuked by Christ the Lord in his sleep, say Rufinus and Valesius; but rather in visions (δι᾽ ὁραμάτων), that we may follow Eusebius closely. For although Natalis is said to have been beaten by night by angels, nevertheless whether he was rebuked dreaming or awake, there is nothing by which it may be distinguished Cf. Routh, Reliquiae sacrae, vol. II, p. 25. The author adds that the Lord wished to save τὸν μάρτυρα τῶν ἰδίων παθῶν, which Rufinus expresses thus: his martyr, who had been a witness to him in many sufferings Ibid.. Finally what Valesius wrote after Rufinus at the end of the narrative: having shown also the weals of the blows which he had borne FOR THE CONFESSION OF CHRIST, is less in accord with the Greek text; where only this occurs: δείξαντά τε τοὺς μώλωπας ὧν εἰλήφει πληγῶν. Theodoret does not depart much from the narrative of Eusebius [Compendium of Heretical Fables, in Migne, Greek Patrology, vol. LXXXIII, col. 392]. He adds, however, that Natalis, one of the renowned confessors, was solicited by the heretics, on account of his notable confession (διὰ τὸ τῆς ὁμολογίας ἐπίσημον), to preside over their association; that he accordingly received one hundred and fifty denarii each day; and that he was rebuked by Christ, who said that he had contended not for these heretics but for the evangelical decrees. After he was beaten by night, in the morning he betook himself in haste to the church; where Zephyrinus, pitying him as he wept and implored, stretched out his hand to him for penance. We read the same things in Nicephorus Callistus Eccles. Hist., vol. I, bk. IV, chap. 21, p. 318, Paris 1630.
[8] Some think him to be the friend of Minucius. Now who that Natalis was has hitherto been investigated in vain. In the dialogue of Minucius Felix a certain Caecilius is introduced, not rarely also called Natalis, a good, upright and sincere man, who, at first most devoted to the errors of the Gentiles, yet soon overcome in the disputation, embraces the Christian religion with a glad heart. He lived for a long time at Rome and in the very house of Minucius, with whom he was on familiar terms. On account of the agreement of name, time and places Valesius conjectured Notes on the Eccles. Hist. of Eusebius, bk. V, chap. 28 that he was our Natalis, recorded by Eusebius; a light conjecture at any rate, and one which only a few authors accept [Le Nourry, Dissertation on Minucius Felix, in Migne, Latin Patrology, vol. III, col. 383 and following].
[9] He is called confessor by Eusebius, This is to be held for certain (as Eusebius expressly records) that St. Natalis was a confessor, ὁμολογητήν. Confessors, says Benedict XIV On Beatification, bk. I, chap. 2, no. 6 and following, were formerly those called who, having confessed Christ openly and before tyrants or the enemies of the faith, subjected to any kind of torment or penalty, survived and met a tranquil death. On the contrary those were crowned martyrs who died either in torments or a little after torments by the violence of those torments. Which distinction is clearly expressed in the Passion of the Martyrs of Lyon, in which it is written of Christians who had suffered many tortures, yet not death: So greatly did they strive to emulate and imitate Christ, … that although they had been raised to so great a pinnacle of glory, and had undergone martyrdom not once or twice but often, and had been brought back again from the beasts to prison …, nevertheless they neither proclaimed themselves martyrs, nor allowed themselves to be so called by us. Then who the martyrs are they themselves set forth: These are now martyrs, whom Christ has willed to be taken up in the confession itself, sealing their confession by death as by a ring; but we are mean and lowly confessors (ὁμόλογοι μέτριοι καὶ ταπεινοί: although very many codices have: ὁμόλογον Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., bk. V, chap. 3, p. 353 and following, Laemmer ed., and some: ὁμολογουμένως, so that it should be rendered: but we are beyond doubt mean and lowly). On this subject Benedict XIV, Aloysius Cassitto Acts of St. Maximus of Cumae, p. 128 and following and the distinguished John Baptist de Rossi have written more Bullettino di archeol. cristiana, year 1874, p. 101 and following. It is established, moreover, that even in the first centuries of the Church the name of Confessor was not always used so strictly; but it was sometimes applied also to those who had met death for the defense of the faith. And conversely those were often called martyrs who had borne the most atrocious torments for the faith, although they survived and rested in peace Benedict XIV, On Beatification, bk. I, chap. 2, no. 7. With this title St. Cyprian honors those who, held in custody for the sake of the Christian religion, died there Epist. XXXVII, in Migne, Latin Patrology, vol. IV, col. 328, and to the eulogy of St. Eusebius, the Roman pontiff, who had died an exile in Sicily, Pope St. Damasus did not hesitate to add this: Bishop Damasus made this for Eusebius, bishop and martyr [De Rossi, Roma sotterranea, vol. II, p. 210. Cf. Ansaldus, On Martyrs without Blood, p. 30 and following].
[10] which name was formerly rarely given to the dead. For the most part, however, those who had professed Christ before the enemies of the faith, short of death, were called confessors and indeed while they were living, as appears from innumerable examples [Cf. Kraus, Real-Encyklopädie der Christl. Alterthümer, p. 327 and following. Florentinius, The Older Martyrology of the Western Church, admonition IX, p. 42 and following]. Wherefore we cannot wonder enough at this, that this name was very rarely given to the dead. Out of twelve thousand Christian inscriptions which belong to the city of Rome and to the first six centuries, the word confessor is not read except in the metrical eulogies composed by St. Damasus; and in the titles of tombs it occurs only once, namely on the monument of Euticius. The distinguished de Rossi, inquiring into the causes of this infrequency, says that with the title of confessor, after death and especially in epitaphs, only those were adorned who met a death thoroughly worthy of a confessor; so that that title, given to a dead man, was as it were a public attestation of holiness. Since, moreover, the word martyr was not commonly cut on tombs except by concession of the bishop and only for acknowledged martyrs Cf. Benedict XIV, On Beatification, bk. I, chap. 2, no. 9, in the same way, as the most learned man conjectures De Rossi, Bullett., year 1874, p. 106, confessor could not be inscribed on the stones of tombs without ecclesiastical authority.
[11] He died probably between the years 202 and 218. However that may be, from the fact that St. Natalis is called a confessor by Eusebius, we infer only this, that he professed himself a Christian before the enemies of the faith, or, as Theodoret says, contended strenuously for the faith. But what he then suffered and at what time the historians do not define. Yet since they say that he returned to a good life while St. Zephyrinus presided over the Roman Church, that is, most probably between the years 200 and 218, Tillemont rightly and deservedly thinks [Mémoires pour l'hist. ecclés., vol. III, p. 70 and 123, ed. of 1701. Cf. Lipsius, Die Chronologie der Röm. Bischöfe, p. 174. Ad. de Ceuleneer, Essai sur la vie et le règne de Septime Sévère, p. 212 and following, in Mémoires couronnés par l'Acad. roy. de Belgique, vol. XLIII] that St. Natalis
was brought into judgment under the emperor Severus, and indeed after the edicts issued by him against the Christians in the year 202. For the event can less conveniently be referred to the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, who died in the year 180. Baronius thinks that the conversion itself took place in the year 207 Eccl. Annals, at the year 207, no. 1. What the life of the holy confessor was after his public detestation of his offense the historians do not report. Peter de Natalibus, perhaps using an ancient calendar, narrates that, his crime expiated, he rested in peace after a short while on the day before the Kalends of November, in the time of Pope St. Zephyrinus. But these things are not certain.
[12] Concerning the author of his history It remains that we should inquire into the author of the narrative on Natalis reported above. He himself says that he was contemporary with the servant of God: A deed done in our age, etc., but Eusebius omits his name and the title of the book, from whom we learn only that he was the writer of one of the books composed against the heresy of Artemon Hist. eccles., bk. V, chap. 32. Theodoret, treating the same subject, admits that the writer is unknown to him: Against the heresy of these men (Artemon, Theodotus the leatherworker and others), he says, the Little Labyrinth was written, which some think to be a work of Origen; but the style refutes those who say this. But whether he or another wrote it, such a narrative is found in it Compendium of Heretical Fables, bk. II, chap. 5, col. 391, Migne ed.. Then he reports the history of St. Natalis. But that the author of the Labyrinth (which several think to be the same book as the Little Labyrinth) was a certain Caius, Photius openly says: I have found it noted that this work (on the nature of the universe) is not by Josephus, but by a certain Caius, a presbyter living at Rome, whom they also make the author of the Labyrinth: of whom there is also a dialogue against a certain Proclus, a defender of the heresy of the Montanists. For since the work was left without a title, some report that it was inscribed to Josephus, others to Justin Martyr, some to Irenaeus: just as some have also attributed the Labyrinth to Origen. Otherwise, it is the work of Caius, the same indeed who composed the Labyrinth, since he himself at the end of the Labyrinth left it attested that he was the author of the book on the nature of the universe. But whether this is the book in question, or another, is not yet clear to me.
[13] there is controversy. They affirm that this Caius was a presbyter of the Roman Church, under the pontiffs Victor and Zephyrinus, and was also ordained bishop of the Gentiles, and that he also wrote another particular book against the heresy of Artemon, and against Proclus, a follower of Montanus, a careful disputation, in which he enumerates only thirteen Epistles of Bl. Paul, not admitting into the reckoning that which is to the Hebrews Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 48, col. 86, Migne ed.. Since the author of the Philosophoumena also affirms that a book on the essence of the universe was written by him Bk. X, in Migne, Greek Patrology, vol. XVI, part III, col. 3447, some have judged that he was the presbyter Caius, to whom, as we have seen, a book of the same subject and the Labyrinth are attributed by Photius; and they assert that the Labyrinth is none other than the tenth book of the Philosophoumena themselves. If anyone desires more on that controversy, let him go to our colleague's most learned dissertation on the author of the Philosophoumena [De Smedt, Select Dissertations on the First Age of Ecclesiastical History, diss. III, p. 83 and following, 95 and following]. For us in this place it is enough to have indicated that the history of St. Natalis was written by a contemporary.