ON ST. JUSTUS OF LYONS, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, IN THE DESERT OF EGYPT,
IN THE DESERT OF EGYPT,
About the year CCCXC.
PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.
Justus, bishop of Lyons, conf., in the desert of Egypt. (S.)
BY J. S.
§ I. The most ancient cult of St. Justus: his memory announced on various days in the Martyrologies, and for what reasons.
[ ] By a distinguished fame of holiness
St. Justus, bishop of Lyons, flourished
in Gaul and in Egypt
toward the end of the fourth century, [The feast of St. Justus was celebrated with a solemn rite from the middle of the fifth century,] and he began to be venerated
not long after his
death; certainly about
the middle of the fifth century his feast was already celebrated
with great solemnity. A fit testimony of so ancient a veneration
we have from Sidonius, bk. 5,
letter 17, to Eriphius, in which he writes the following:
We had come together at the tomb of saint Justus; but
infirmity was a hindrance to you, so that you were not then present. There had been
a procession before dawn, an anniversary solemnity,
an immense people of both sexes, whom the most capacious
basilica could not contain, nor the crypt,
girded though it was with spreading porticoes. The observance of the vigils being ended,
which the monks and the psalm-singing clerics had celebrated together
with alternating sweetness, each of us
withdrew in different directions, yet not far; since
we were to be at hand at the third hour, when
the divine office was to be performed with the priests. Truly, from the press
of the place and of the crowds, and from the numerous lights brought in,
exceedingly breathless, etc. At what season of the year this feast
was celebrated the words presently subjoined suggest:
At the same time the night, still nearest to summer, had scorched us shut in
with silent heat; though now with the first chill
of an autumn dawn it was cooling. The beginning
of autumn, which he designates by this phrase, points to the
XIV day of October (on which we shall prove below that the Saint more probably died),
since no other feast of St. Justus
falls at the beginning of autumn. Moreover these things before the episcopate
Sidonius wrote, and probably as a young man,
about the middle of the fifth century; so that we may
judge that the feast began to be celebrated shortly after
the translation of the body from Egypt into Gaul,
of which we shall treat.
[2] That in the same century the Saint was renowned for miracles
we understand from another monument, by which also the celebration
of the feast is confirmed. and in the same century the Saint became renowned for miracles. In the year 499 there was instituted
at Lyons a disputation or conference of Catholic
bishops with the Arians in the presence of Gundobad,
king of the Burgundians. This Conference was published
in Labbe, vol. 4 of the Councils, from col.
1318, and in it this is read to our purpose:
The lord Stephen (bishop of Lyons)
wrote to many bishops, and invited
them to the feast of St. Justus, which was at hand:
at which, because of the frequency of miracles, there was
a very great concourse of peoples. Then, the disputation held before the king
having been reported, in which the Arians had been defeated,
this is subjoined: All the bishops therefore
departed: and, because the day had not yet
declined, they went together with the other Catholics
to the basilica of the lord Justus, confessing the Lord,
because he is good, and praising him
who had given them such a victory over their enemies. We see
here that the church which was otherwise called
that of the Maccabees was already then named of St. Justus,
which name it retained until its overthrow. How great
a confidence in St. Justus the Catholics had
is gathered from the words of St. Avitus of Vienne,
who, the Arians being again defeated in a second disputation,
addressed the king in their presence thus: If our reasons
cannot convince them, I do not
doubt that God will confirm our faith by a miracle;
let your sublimity command that both they
and we go to the tomb of Justus, the man of God,
and question him concerning our faith, and likewise
Boniface (the Arian bishop) concerning his,
and the Lord will pronounce by the mouth of his Servant in whom
he is well pleased. The Arians indeed refused,
and therefore this was not done. Nevertheless the writer attributes the happy
outcome of the disputation to the intercession of St. Justus
in these words: From that day very many Arians came
to penitence, and after some days were baptized:
and the Lord magnified our faith
through the intercession of the lord Justus in the sight
of all.
[3] From these things, which so clearly show the most ancient veneration
of the Saint, [His memory is announced on various days in the Calendars, chiefly on the 2nd of September,] we can by no means wonder
that his memory is read commonly inscribed in the most ancient
Martyrologies. But we do wonder
at the variety of days, since he never seems to have been
venerated on as many different days as his name
is found inserted in the sacred Calendars. First, on
the 2nd of September the Saint is announced in most of them;
but writers are not agreed whether that is the day
of the Saint's death. The Hieronymian ones in Florentini
have thus on that day: At Lyons in Gaul, the deposition
of St. Justus the bishop, and the dedication of his
basilica. With these agree the Corbie one in the notes, the Hieronymian one
in d'Achery, vol. 2 of the reprinted Spicilegium,
and the Murbach one in Martène, vol. 3
of the Anecdota, col. [ ]. The codex of the Queen of Sweden
only has: At Lyons in Gaul, the deposition of saint
Justus, bishop and confessor. Nor does that dedication of the church
please Florentini, of which he says in his notes:
But what is here added concerning the dedication of the church
smacks of a copyist's addition; but I do not
see for what cause. Other more abridged Hieronymian ones
record St. Justus on the same day in these
or similar words: At Lyons, of Justus the bishop;
some also are altogether silent about him.
[4] Rabanus on the same day wove an elogium for the Saint
of this kind: on which the Saint's death seems to be announced in Rabanus, At Lyons in Gaul, the deposition of Justus, bishop
and confessor. When after the diaconate he was ordained
prelate, he ruled for many years with such purity, modesty, piety,
and patience, with such care
toward the poor, with such observance of the divine commandments,
that he surpassed even those magnificent and excellent
priests of the Lord in every grace
of the virtues; but (since) he presided over the church of the Lord's people
with so vast a glory among his flock,
the envy of the raging devil blazed up even to his expulsion.
When therefore a sedition of the people was persecuting him,
after many tribulations he set out on a pilgrimage;
and with only a boy accompanying him
he came into Egypt, and there among the anchorites
he led a most strict life, and lived nobly.
Whom saint Antiochus, a priest of Lyons,
stirred by pious duty, purposed in mind to go even to visit
his bishop: and saint Justus the bishop
foretold to those who were with him that he too would come
to him. But after some days the Saint of God, departing
from this world, deserved that his bones should be translated
by divine prompting to his own see,
and there honorably buried.
This elogium is taken from the Acts; but
the violent expulsion from the episcopal see is altogether contrary
to the Acts.
[5] On the same day also Notker celebrates our Saint
with a brief and accurate elogium thus: Notker, Usuard, Florus: The birth
of saint Justus, bishop of Lyons: who,
secretly leaving his bishopric, migrated to Egypt,
with a certain lector accompanying him, whose name
was Viator. There therefore for some years,
joined with the monks, he ended his life in holy
conversation. His body was brought by religious citizens
to Lyons with the bones of saint Viator his minister,
into the basilica of the seven brothers,
the Maccabees. With these Wandelbert seems to agree,
since he announces the Saint on the same day,
briefly, however, and without asserting that it is the day of his death.
But Usuard with Rabanus and Notker seems to announce his death
in these words: At Lyons
in Gaul, the birthday of saint Justus, bishop and confessor,
who, withdrawing into the desert, when for some years
he had led a life next to the angels, and a worthy
end was at hand to such great labors, deserved to ascend
the kingdom of heaven with blessed gain. His holy
little body, with the bones of blessed Viator his minister,
was afterwards brought back to Lyons. In the same
day of death Florus too seems to conspire,
in our work before vol. 2 of March, where he has
such an elogium: At Lyons, the deposition of St. Justus, bishop
and confessor: who, on account of a certain fugitive
of that same church, given back at the request of a chief man of the city,
and put to death,
ascribing that man's punishment to himself,
abandoned the flock committed to him,
which he had ruled for many years with great purity, modesty,
and patience, and gave himself to the desert,
cleaving to the Lord and to his worshipers, namely
to saint Macarius and saint Paphnutius,
whose life and death he shared. So many witnesses
would seem to deserve belief, did not others stand in the way,
whose authority is by no means to be despised; and
did not the mind of the foregoing prove less clear
than at first sight it will seem to some.
[6] but Ado, with others, distinguishing three feasts, Truly Ado in the clearest words determines another day of death,
when at the 2nd of September he writes
the following: The birthday of saint Justus, bishop
of Lyons, a man of wonderful holiness and of a prophetic spirit.
He, secretly leaving his bishopric,
having boarded a ship, with only one boy accompanying him,
who held the office of lector in the church, named Viator,
came into Egypt. Where for some years,
associated with holy monks who looked only to heaven,
he lived incomparable in humility and holiness of life.
And so, the course of his time being finished,
himself also being made perfect in virtues,
he departed to the Lord to receive the crown of justice laid up for him,
on the day before the Ides of October. His body
was brought back by religious citizens to Lyons with the bones
of blessed Viator his minister, and laid with fitting
honor in the basilica of the blessed seven brothers,
the Maccabees, most glorious martyrs,
on the fourth of the Nones of September. The same
Ado at the XIV of October has thus: On the same day, the passing
of saint Justus in the desert: who, when for some years
he had led an angelic life in the desert, and a worthy
end was at hand, promising the kingdom of heaven
to such great labors; and when, at those last moments of his holy
soul's departure, Viator stood by weeping and stricken in mind,
saying: To whom, Lord, do you leave me?
he is said to have answered, that he should not be troubled
as though deprived of consolation, because he himself would shortly
follow him thither also. Which prophecy
and revelation is known to have been quickly fulfilled
by the swift passing of that most holy young
minister of his, who alone by ardor of faith had followed him
as he fled the bishopric and desired to lie hidden.
The same author also announces St.
Justus on the IV day of August in these words: At
Lyons, the coming of the body of St. Justus from
the desert, etc.
[7] [places his death on the 14th of October, the Coming of the body on the 4th of August, and its Deposition in the church on the 2nd of September:] Ado therefore distinguishes three feasts of St. Justus,
and thinks that the Saint's death befell on the XIV of October,
that the body came to Lyons on the IV of August,
and that it was laid in the church dedicated to him on the 2nd of September,
on which the Saint is chiefly celebrated. Hence
I readily believe that the church was dedicated on the same day,
as the Hieronymian ones cited above have it. With Ado
the Martyrology of Auxerre nearly agrees,
published in Martène, vol. 6 of the Collectio amplissima,
where at col. 719, at the 2nd of September, this is read:
At Lyons, the birthday of St. Justus, bishop and confessor,
who departed to the Lord in the desert
on the day before the Ides of October, and his sacred body and
that of B. Viator his minister were brought back to Lyons,
and laid with fitting honor on the IV of the Nones of September.
This day might be understood of the coming to Lyons,
did not the day of the coming and that of the deposition in the church
be most clearly distinguished by Ado, to whose
mind this Martyrology seems to be expounded.
For various Hieronymian ones also mark the Coming
of the body on the IV day of August. The text
given by Florentini has thus on that day: At Lyons
in Gaul, the coming of the body of saint Justus the bishop from
the desert. With this the Corbie codex and the twin one of the Queen of Sweden
wholly agree; and the same is suggested by
the most ancient Antwerp one in these words: The translation
of St. Justus the bishop. Nay, Notker too on the same
day wrote: At Lyons in Gaul, the coming
of the body of saint Justus the bishop from the desert. Nevertheless
these things do not agree with the others which he notes
on the XIV of October, and which we shall refute as less probable.
[8] Moreover Ado's opinion of a threefold feast of St.
Justus seems to me for various reasons to be preferred
to the opinions of others, this opinion of Ado, to the less clear statements of others both because Ado of Vienne
could examine the matter more exactly than any
of the others, and because he really seems to have used
greater diligence; for he sets forth the three feasts clearly
and neatly, and leaves no doubt about his own opinion.
But the others neither used such diligence
nor explained their mind so clearly.
First, Usuard announces the Saint on one day only,
nor does he clearly declare that he died on that day.
That is a sign that he was less exactly instructed about the several
feasts, and therefore announced only the chief
feast without express mention of the day of death;
probably
because he saw that the Saint's death was recorded on different days
by the older writers. The same must be said of Florus,
since he too records only one feast.
No less ambiguous is Rabanus's opinion, as
also Notker's: for even though the former by the word
Deposition, and the latter by the word Birth, seems
to fix the Saint's death on the 2nd of September, and
both commemorate on the XIV of October the translation of the body,
yet the same men also announce the Saint
on the XIV of July in such words that they seem to have believed
that it was the day of his death. Take the words of Rabanus
at the said day: At Lyons in Gaul, the birthday
of Justus, bishop and confessor. Notker indeed
marks the death on that day less clearly; but since he records
the translation on the XIV of October, and the Coming of the body
on the IV of August, and here has: At Lyons
in Gaul, of saint Justus, bishop and confessor, what
ought we to understand but the death, especially since
Notker frequently follows Rabanus, from whom
he seems to have drawn the assigning of the aforesaid day to St. Justus.
[9] Another reason occurs why the opinion of the aforesaid
should seem less clear. is to be preferred, All of them, except
Notker, announce the Saint at Lyons. But St. Justus
did not die at Lyons, but in the desert of Egypt.
If they had meant to record the day of his death, why did they not at the same time
record the place also? Why do they assign a place
in which the Saint did not die? For no
other cause, I think, than that they did not mean
to designate the day of death, but expressed the day
on which he was chiefly celebrated at Lyons. But, someone will say,
Usuard says, The birthday of St. Justus.
He therefore designates the day of death, which by martyrologists
is understood by birthday. I answer that by
birthday the day of death is generally designated; but
not always. For both Ado and the Martyrology
of Auxerre call the feast customarily celebrated on the 2nd of September
the birthday of St. Justus; and yet they do not understand
the day of death, since in the same place they affirm
that the Saint died on the day before the Ides of October. Usuard
followed Ado, and drew his two elogia into
one, and therefore seems to have designated nothing else by birthday
than what Ado had designated,
namely the Saint's feast. So sometimes there is spoken of
the birthday of relics for a translation, the birthday
of the chalice for the Lord's Supper, the birthday of a temple for
a dedication, and other feasts also are named
birthdays, as may be seen in
Du Cange's Glossary at the word natalis.
[10] various reasons persuade us: Moreover, just as birthday does not necessarily imply
the day of death, so also deposition, which word
Rabanus and Florus use, can be understood of the deposition
of the body in the church, in which the Saint after
the translation was laid. And that the body was laid
in the church of the Maccabees on the 2nd day of September
Ado testifies: and that the church was dedicated on the same day,
the Hieronymian ones cited have it. These may have been
the reasons for which the chief feast is customarily celebrated
on that same 2nd day of September. The same
befell in the case of St. Serapia, of whom on the following day
the Roman Martyrology, from Ado and others, has thus:
And she suffered on the fourth of the Kalends of August, and was buried by
blessed Sabina in her own monument beside the plot of Vindicianus;
but the memory of her martyrdom is held more famous on this
day, when the sarcophagus of both was there
set up and adorned, and the place of prayer
fittingly dedicated. For the same cause I persuade myself,
with Ado, that the feast of St. Justus is celebrated on the 2nd of September;
with whom likewise
I believe that the Saint died on the XIV of October; and that his body
came to Lyons on the IV of August; for it does not seem
that Ado would have distinguished these things so accurately
unless he had thoroughly understood the matter. Others have written
otherwise of these feasts. To their
opinion I shall gladly subscribe, if anyone brings forward better
reasons than have hitherto been brought forward by
Théophile Raynaud and others.
[11] certainly on the 14th of October the passing over into Egypt was not celebrated. That indeed I do not think even probable which
Raynaud adopted from Saussay in the Hagiologium
Lugdunense, p. 71, and which he sets forth in these words:
But the feast which was celebrated on the day before
the Ides of October, and was called the PASSING of St. Justus,
was the feast of his passing over into Egypt, and of his withdrawal
from the bishopric. Saussay had gone before at the XIV
of October in this manner: On the same day is commemorated at Lyons
the withdrawal into Egypt of saint Justus, bishop and confessor
of that first see. Thus indeed do they
admirably expound the words of Ado, The passing
of St. Justus in the desert; by which he announces
the Saint's death. But a little better is Raynaud's other reason,
which alone he ought to have alleged, when
he adds: Or, as the appendix to Ado has it
(with Rabanus, Notker, and certain Hieronymian
transcripts), on that day was the feast of some
translation. That this is altogether improbable I should not dare
to assert, on account of the authors cited. But if
the translation of the body had been celebrated on the XIV of October,
the Saint's death would really have to be fixed on the 2nd of September.
But Ado's opinion appears to me more probable,
because it suggests a fit cause for the three feasts.
But others do not explain what
that translation of the XIV of October is; whether it is the same as
the Coming of the body, which is recorded on the IV of August,
or distinct from it.
[12] The feast of his ordination is unknown to all the ancients, Besides the three feasts of the Saint mentioned,
Saussay announces two others as well, the one
on the XIV of July, the other on the V of August. Of the former he has thus:
At Lyons, the ordination of saint Justus, bishop and
most glorious confessor, whose happy passing
is marked in the sacred records of the Church on the second day
of September. Whence Saussay took it that the Saint's ordination
was celebrated on that day is wholly
hidden from me; but I strongly suspect that it is a mere conjecture,
resting on no other foundation than
that he saw St. Justus celebrated on that day in various
Martyrologies. Certainly in various Hieronymian transcripts
on the XIV of July it is read thus: At Lyons in Gaul,
the birthday of St. Justus the bishop. In several is added,
and confessor. The same too Rabanus has, and
Notker with a longer elogium clearly designates the same
Justus of whom we treat, but not without some
error, since he has thus: At Lyons in Gaul, of St.
Justus, bishop and confessor, who, having died in anchoretic
conversation through the fervor of divine contemplation,
and having been gloriously translated to his own city,
left distinguished monuments of his genius on the Song
of Songs. What he says of his writings on
the Song pertains to St. Justus, bishop of Urgel
in Spain, of whom we have treated at the XXVIII
of May. Very many other Martyrologies of a more recent age
mark St. Justus at Lyons on this day; but of his ordination
they are silent. This feast of his ordination,
therefore, does not seem to have been celebrated; nor did
Raynaud record it. Saussay wished, I suppose,
on each of the days on which he found St. Justus
in the Martyrologies, to announce different feasts —
rightly indeed, if he found them in fit monuments; but very badly, if he invented them.
[13] This is certain, that St. Justus is not so announced
in the Martyrologies [nor was that or any other feast of the Saint celebrated on the 14th of July; nor is another Justus known there:] as though that were the day
of his ordination; but as though he had died on that day, and indeed in various ones
with a companion Amicus or Amatus or Amantius.
Various things about these our Sollerius has already noted in vol.
III of July, in the passed-over entries at the XIV day, where he shows
that that Justus, now alone, now
with Amicus, Amatus, Amantius, by which names
the same man seems to be designated, passed from the supplements
of the Hieronymian ones into Rabanus and Notker,
and thence into the supplements of Bede and Usuard: In so great
a concord of the Martyrologies, he then adds,
which more recent writers with Peter de Natalibus have increased,
who could doubt that both Saints
belong to this day? Meanwhile at Lyons for
this day Raynaud found neither Justus nor Amicus,
and he confesses indeed that the latter is not known
to him, however much Saussay and Castellanus report him.
If I may here indicate my conjecture,
I shall not fear to suspect that that Amicus,
joined with St. Justus, is Viator himself,
his most faithful companion or friend, who from
his Lord is not to be separated. Raynaud believes that Justus
to be other than the one of whom we treat, and
consequently Amicus other than Viator; but of
neither did he find anything, as has already been said. The matter
indeed seems to me ambiguous, nor should I dare to determine anything
with certainty. Nevertheless Sollerius's conjecture pleases me more.
Nor is it therefore necessary that some feast of St.
Justus was formerly on the XIV of July. For the announcement
of St. Justus could easily have crept in by error
into some one Hieronymian, and thence into
others. Occasion for the error could have been given by another St.
Justus, a confessor of the third century, who on the same day is venerated
in the diocese of Bourges, and is unknown to the ancient Martyrologies.
The compiler of a Martyrology could have noted for the one of Bourges
the Justus of Lyons, as being better known.
Whatever the case, neither Raynaud nor Severt noted
any feast of St. Justus on that day.
[14] The other feast, which Saussay would have added
to the three aforesaid, the dedication of the church, reported by Saussay at the [ of August, was probably made on the 2nd of September.] is thus set forth by him
at the V day of August: At Lyons, the dedication of the church
of saint Justus, in which his most sacred bones were laid
with religious observance. I ask again, what author
he has for this assertion of his; and I find
none. Peter de Natalibus, bk. 7, ch. 26,
says that the Saint's body was laid up on the Nones of August
in the church of his name; but he does not say that the church was then
dedicated. But that the dedication and the deposition
of the body befell rather on the 2nd of September we have already said.
For which cause that feast too seems to lack
a foundation, nor was it known to Raynaud. These things
concerning the Saint's ancient feasts I have wished to discuss more diligently
on account of the greatly varying opinions of modern
writers about them. The author of our Ms. Florarium
followed Ado exactly; for he announces the Saint's death
on the XIV of October, the coming
of the body on the IV of August, and the deposition of the same
body and the chief feast on the 2nd of September
in these words, with which I put an end to this discussion:
At Lyons in Gaul, the birthday of saint Justus, bishop
and confessor, a man of wonderful holiness and of a prophetic
spirit. He, secretly leaving his own bishopric,
having boarded a ship, with only one boy accompanying him,
who held the office of lector in the church,
named Viator, came to Egypt,
where for some years, associated with holy monks
who looked upon his zeal, he lived in holiness and
humility not in a middling degree. And so, the course
of his time being finished, himself also being made perfect in virtues,
he departed to the Lord to receive the crown of justice
laid up for him, on the day before the Ides
of October. His body was brought back by religious citizens
to Lyons with the bones of blessed Viator his minister,
and laid with fitting honor in the basilica of the holy
seven Maccabee martyrs
on the IV of the Nones of September.
§ II. What and of what sort are the Saint's Acts: whether their
author is Constantius the priest. The diverse copies of these Acts, some of which
are interpolated. Two sets of Acts to be published.
[ ] [Tillemont praises the Life of St. Justus too much, and suspects it to be by Constantius the priest,] The Acts of St. Justus exist both in print and in manuscript
in various codices. Tillemont,
vol. 8 of the Monuments, in the article on St. Justus, p. 546, passed such
a judgment on them: His Life seems to have been written
a good while after his death; whence perhaps it happened
that it contains more general eulogies than
particular facts: but its style, grave,
holy, and full of majesty and elegance, gives cause
for judging that it is the work of Constantius, the famous
priest of Lyons, who wrote the Life of St.
Germanus of Auxerre toward the end of the fifth century, or
of some other who was at least of the same
age. Thus Tillemont concerning the Surian Acts,
who here seems, after his manner, too kindly. Certainly, since
he assigns Surius in the margin, who says, We have here and there
moderately polished the style, he passes judgment on the style of the ancient writer
from a polished style, and from the style altered by Surius
he divines that the author was Constantius,
or another of the same age. Baillet in
his Critical Table at the 2nd day of September praises the same
writer of this Life, but believes him
anonymous, who seems to have lived in the sixth century, or at any rate
not later. The writers of the Literary History of France,
vol. 2, in the article on Constantius the priest, p. 547, attribute this Life to Constantius
more confidently which others affirm more confidently and try to prove, but in vain: than Tillemont himself had done,
and allege certain reasons.
[16] The first reason is a style grave, holy,
full of majesty and piety. The second they express thus:
The few facts which are contained in that little Work
suggest that its author was well enough instructed
concerning the history of this church (of Lyons).
They add a third reason in these words:
Constantius declares that he wrote this
Life on account of many solicitations, in almost the same
manner in which we have already seen the Life
of St. Germanus of Auxerre written by him. Fourthly, at last,
they affirm that this Life is far better written
than was commonly written in the sixth century of the Church.
But these reasons neither seem to me true in every part,
nor sufficient to settle the question
proposed, even if they were otherwise
most true. For first, what is said of the gravity
and elegance of the style I do not find even in Surius,
and it appears far less in the Mss. than
in Surius, who notably polished the style; nor
does that elegance prove anything, since many other
writers flourished in Gaul who used greater elegance
and majesty in their writings.
What is subjoined, that that writer was well instructed
concerning the affairs of the church of Lyons, nowhere indeed
appears: for he reports nothing that pertains to that
church, except that its patron is St. Justus,
and that Antiochus afterwards presided over it as prelate. But,
even if he had been most fully instructed about the church of Lyons,
how can it thence be inferred that he was
Constantius? What is said in the third place about the solicitations
by which he was impelled to write the Life,
just as he says that he was solicited to write
the Life of St. Germanus, is so dissimilar that it rather exhibits
different authors than the same: for
in this Life he says briefly: We are compelled
to set forth briefly the Life of blessed Justus, bishop of Lyons,
out of admiration (in another Ms. by adjuration,
in another about to admire). But Constantius in the Life of St.
Germanus prefaces much concerning his own lesser
capacity for writing and the difficulty of the subject.
Nor again would this similarity, if it were true, prove
anything; since all commonly, or at any rate
many, were wont to preface similar things in that time.
The fourth, finally, is no truer, since various men
flourished in the sixth century who wrote more elegantly
and more correctly than this Life is composed.
[16] As these reasons can in no way persuade
that the Life of St. Justus was written by Constantius
the priest; for various reasons persuade so the comparison of this Life with the Life of St.
Germanus leaves me no doubt that
each has a different author. The Life of St. Germanus
is gravely and historically written with the circumstances
of persons, places, and particular deeds,
from the Saint's birth to his death.
But this Life contains almost nothing except
certain general eulogies, and so few particular facts
that almost all of them could have been drawn from the Martyrologies,
and written in the same manner in the tenth century.
Nothing of the Saint's birth, nothing of the bishop
his predecessor, nothing of the day of his death, nothing of
the translation of his body, save in general terms, nothing of the place
of his burial, of his miracles, of his cult. Nowhere,
finally, is any time assigned in which the Saint
flourished, nor any in which the writer himself lived. These things
the adversaries will confess: but they affirm that it happened so
because Constantius wrote long after St. Justus's death.
But Constantius did not flourish a whole century after St. Justus:
for already in the year 473 he was of a quite advanced
age, as the said writers of the Literary History have it of him,
vol. 2, p. 545.
But our Saint did not die until the end of the fourth
century; how then could a learned and diligent man
write so meagerly of St. Justus in that very church
of Lyons, where doubtless not a few monuments concerning
the bishops of Lyons, and especially concerning a Saint
so famous, could be found?
[17] that this Life was not written by Constantius, but later: Then Constantius in the preface to the Life
of St. Germanus complains that he writes too late;
So many courses of times, he says, have now
flowed away that knowledge, obscured by silence, is scarcely
gathered; and yet he found and
narrated very many things there, with places, times, and persons attached.
But this writer of the Life of St. Justus nowhere complains of
that matter; yet he speaks magnificently, as if he had
all things thoroughly understood, and meanwhile relates almost none
of the Saint's deeds in detail. It is not credible, therefore,
that this Life is Constantius's; nor should I believe it
composed in the fifth century, certainly not in the form in which it was published by Surius
and exists in the Mss. agreeing with his edition.
Moreover our anonymous author so filled his little Work
with sentences of sacred Scripture and moral doctrine
that it may seem rather a sermon delivered to the people
than a history of a life. Hence it is uncertain to me
whether this Life was composed in the fifth century, the sixth, the seventh, or later.
[18] various copies of the Acts agree with the Surian ones as to substance; The Ms. copies of this Life are various
and sprinkled with some faults, some with more,
others with fewer; but the printed ones are neater, though
less genuine. Besides, certain Ms. copies
differ much from the printed ones and from other
Mss.: but other transcripts rightly agree with
the edition of Surius at the 2nd of September, and with the edition
of Vincent Barrali in the Chronologia Lirinensis, p.
316; which was given from Surius, provided we except only
the corrections of style made by Surius. This polishing
of the diction is notable enough, and occurs in almost every
phrase, not indeed so as to change the writer's sense,
yet so that not a few things are emended,
and certain inept things omitted. Three
such transcripts we have, of which the first
our Chifflet formerly sent hither from the Passionary
of St. Justus of Lyons and from an old Ms. of St. Claude,
and it was collated with the Acciacum Ms.
The second was taken from the Utrecht Ms. of St.
Salvator; the third from the Ms. of Rouge-Cloître. Those
transcripts agree with one another, except in the faults
with which each labors. For this cause I shall follow one of
them in the edition in such a way that I shall correct the faults from the others,
as far as I can, or from the printed editions,
and shall at the same time indicate where anything occurs in the others
which is worth noting.
[19] others differing from these, which seem interpolated, The copies which I have said to differ from the others
do not differ in all things, even if we look only at
the words, but rather for the most part so agree,
even in words, that the author of the one doubtless saw
the other's little Work and partly copied it.
But in these the whole preface is omitted, which
indeed can be absent without loss to any fact; other things too
are omitted, pertaining rather to moral discourse
than to the Saint's history.
On the other hand, in these copies some things are read
which are absent from the printed editions and the aforesaid Mss.
These are certain things concerning the Saint dwelling in the Egyptian
desert, which the writer asserts that he learned from
a ninety-year-old priest who had lived familiarly with
the Saint in the desert. Of these Acts
we have one copy in a Ms. codex
marked P. Ms. 20, fol. 178. This codex is very
ancient, but written more negligently than is right, since
it has not a few most manifest faults. Another
copy, agreeing with the preceding, was sent
from a Ms. of St. Maximin of Trier, likewise filled
with many faults. These copies have
something from which I should believe them interpolated, or unskillfully
patched together out of two: for where they speak
of Viator, they have thus: Besides that Viator
whom we mentioned above, etc., although in that same place Viator
is never before named or mentioned.
It is clear that this was taken from those things which have already
been published, where the same is rightly said, because Viator had been
named in the preface.
[20] The same Acts again, but more compressed and
neater, exist in the codex 33 of the Queen of Sweden, and finally others briefer and better than the preceding.
as I gather from a comparison of these with those. These,
although the copy itself is not to my hand,
I can from the diverse readings accurately noted communicate
to the reader, and shall indeed communicate,
since I judge that they will please more than all the other copies,
because they contain most of the facts, and
lack useless digressions. Of these it may deservedly
be said what Tillemont and his followers too liberally
asserted of the Surian ones. Their writer
was nearly contemporary with St. Justus, and must necessarily
have lived in the fifth century, since he says at n. 4: But I
myself saw a certain holy priest, now nearly
ninety years of age, by whose relation
these things became known to me: for,
as follows, that priest had lived with St. Justus in the desert.
Nor indeed can I judge that these things
were added by some impostor, that thus greater credit
might be won for the Acts: for in exactly the same style
are written those things which are read in these Acts
and which are absent from the Surian ones, in which all the rest
is reported. Nay rather I judge that these Acts were written first,
and that the Surian ones were composed from these by
someone who added almost nothing but certain rather
frigid pieces of reasoning, by which he strives to prove
that St. Justus fulfilled a martyrdom, that his holiness
was beforehand signified by his very name,
that he was in certain respects like Elijah, and other smaller matters.
Hence I shall deservedly say that the longer Acts are not
distinct from the briefer, but interpolated, while the briefer
are pure. In the facts the interpolator does not differ
from the author of the Life, except in the departure alone, which
he places after a certain synod, of which the other says nothing,
and more rightly indeed, in my judgment. For these reasons
I do not doubt that the studious reader will with me prefer
the briefer Life, which I shall publish in the first place,
to the longer, which I shall subjoin, lest anything
should seem passed over concerning St. Justus. Now I shall set about
discussing the Saint's deeds in order, that some chronological arrangement
of his deeds may be had, and that not a few things
passed over in the Acts may be supplied.
§ III. What certain modern writers have written concerning the Saint's
birth and boyhood seems fabulous: he may have been born under Paschasius of Vienne
and been a deacon under Claudius; but not a monk of Lérins:
the rest of his deeds discussed, his epitaph, his relics.
[ ] The marvels which have been written concerning the Saint's birth and boyhood, The authors of the reprinted Gallia Christiana, vol. 4, col.
15, report and reject the opinion of certain men concerning the birth of St.
Justus, in these words: Wonderful things
they are, but altogether uncertain, which Severt and de la Mure
report concerning St. Justus's birth. Severt calls him
the son of the most illustrious count of Anjou.
De la Mure asserts that he sprang from the noble family of the Tournons
in Dauphiné, and was born in the castle
of Anton near Vienne, which is commonly called
d'Anjou; and certainly that illustrious family claims him
for itself as its own ornament, and its elders
take his name upon themselves. Both add
that, when the provost or prefect of Anjou
had accused his mother of adultery, he himself, scarcely yet
born, pleaded the cause of the innocent woman with an articulate and manly voice:
that he pointed with his finger to the lord of Anjou, who was present,
and said most truly that he was his own father,
and that afterwards he kept silence after the usual manner of little children.
Finally Severt affirms that, at the instant
in which he was washed in the sacred water, a dove of snowy color
came and settled upon him.
[22] [lack a fit foundation: he seems to have been born at Vienne or in the province of Vienne] If you ask whence they have these things: From tradition,
they say, and from an old tablet in the church dedicated
under his name, in which these verses are contained.
The wife of the count of Anjou is kept in ward until
her delivery, made guilty by the provost's charge.
The infant, no infant, is born with a speaking mouth,
that he may free his mother from her suspicion.
By the name of baptism he is called Justus, a dove coming,
and names the count to be his father, etc.
But all these testimonies are too recent
to win belief. Except for what is said of his native land;
as will be clear from what follows. Of the Saint's native land
nothing is said, except that he was born in Dauphiné,
and that indeed is very likely, since
he is said to have been reared under St. Paschasius, bishop of Vienne,
as we shall see. Hence, I say, it is likely
that he was born at Vienne or in the province of Vienne.
Further, from the age of St. Paschasius, whom our Predecessors
in vol. III of February, p. 290, determine to have died
about the year 313, we can conjecture
that the Saint was given to the world about the beginning of the fourth
century, which rightly agrees with the Acts to be published below,
in which he is called an old man when
he left the bishopric not long after the year 381.
[23] [in the time of St. Paschasius of Vienne, who died about 313; made deacon under Claudius,] That St. Justus was reared under St. Paschasius
and was a deacon under Claudius, bishops of Vienne,
Ado testifies in the Chronicle at the year
379 in these words: Now it is established that this venerable
bishop Justus was reared under Paschasius, bishop of Vienne,
was a deacon of Claudius, bishop of that same city,
and was afterwards translated to govern the holy church
of Lyons. But
Tillemont, vol. 8, p. 798, that is, note 1
on Justus, accuses Ado of contradiction, thus
arguing: Ado contradicts himself, asserting in one
place that St. Justus was instructed by Paschasius, bishop
of Vienne, and made deacon by Claudius his
successor, and in another place saying that this Claudius
was present at the great council of Arles in the year
CCCXIV; whereas St. Justus, who lived for several years
after the year CCCLXXXI, would not have been of an age fit
for the diaconate in the year CCCXIV: and elsewhere we have observed
how little attention need be paid to all
that is read in Ado's Chronicle concerning the bishops
of Vienne. Thus Tillemont, whose
reasoning is no less ridiculous than his accusation
is bitter. Hermant in the Life of St. Ambrose,
bk. 3, ch. 1, p. 33, also contends that Justus
could not have been made deacon by Claudius, if the latter was
present at the council of Arles; and the same Baillet
has in his article on St. Justus. But there is here no contradiction
in Ado's words, but a gross hallucination
in the reasoning of Tillemont and the others. For what,
I ask, is this consequence: Claudius in the year CCCXIV
was at the council of Arles; therefore, if he made St. Justus
a deacon, it was done in the year CCCXIV,
in which Justus was not of such an age that he could be
a deacon? Where has Tillemont shown, or
tried to show, that Claudius did not live after the council of Arles,
and that Justus was not afterwards
made deacon by him?
[24] Truly, even if Claudius had certainly been present
at the council of Arles, [which could have happened about 336 or a little later: and is wrongly denied by some:] which I do not discuss, he could
have survived after the council for twenty, thirty,
or even more years. And in fact Ado in the Chronicle
refers St. Nectarius, Claudius's successor, to
the reign of Constantius and his brothers, after the year
337, as Tillemont himself acknowledges in note 3
on St. Irenæus. Claudius therefore lived, in Ado's view,
at least until the year 337 or later.
And so, if we believe that St. Justus was born about the year
306, and consecrated deacon about 336,
all Ado's statements will rightly hang together, all will be
also consonant with the Acts of St. Paschasius already assigned,
and with the Acts of St. Claudius given in our
Work, vol. 1 of June, p. 2; and thus St. Justus would have been
nearly seventy-six years old when as an old man
he abandoned the bishopric. And so neither here, nor
in vol. 3, p. 625, note 3 on St. Irenæus, where he says nearly
the same things of these matters, does Tillemont convict
Ado of error, but he has rendered his words less faithfully,
when he says that he is said to have been instructed by Paschasius,
whereas Ado only says that he was reared under Paschasius,
and this may be understood of a boy or an infant, so that
he seems to mean nothing else than that he was born in the time
of Paschasius's episcopate. What Tillemont adds,
that he has shown (note 3 on St. Irenæus) how
little one ought to trust Ado's statements about the bishops
of Vienne, does not bear upon this. Frequently indeed
he there carps at Ado; but not always with equal
success, nor does he point out so many errors that the rest
ought on that account to lack authority.
[25] Vincent Barrali in the Chronologia Lirinensis,
p. 320, notes the following about St. Justus: he could not have been a monk of Lérins: That
this most blessed archbishop of Lyons, Justus,
at some time led the monastic or eremitic life
in that most sacred arena of the island of Lérins,
under the very beginnings of our most holy father Honoratus,
even though it is not clearly established from the sequence
of the aforesaid Acts, yet the Lérins records
of divers ancient manuscript codices,
with the addition of modern printings,
constantly proclaim that same saint Justus both a monk
of Lérins and archbishop of Lyons.
He adds certain other things of the same kind,
and in the Life of St. Agricolus, bishop of Avignon,
to be published at this day, the same is said. Nevertheless,
since St. Honoratus did not inaugurate the monastic life in
the island of Lérins until the fourth century was verging
to its end, St. Justus could not have been a monk there
either before the diaconate or after receiving the diaconate,
as will be made plain from what is to be said,
and as Tillemont rightly observed. The Life of St.
Agricolus is not of such authority as should here
detain us.
[26] But in what year our Saint was promoted from being deacon
of Vienne to the bishopric of Lyons
cannot be exactly determined. [he was made bishop, as it appears, not long after the middle of the fourth century: he is present in the year 374 at the council of Valence,] In the catalogues
of the prelates of Lyons he is commonly placed after
Verissimus, who was present at the council of Sardica in the year
347. Hence it does not seem doubtful that he was
made bishop between the year 347 and 374, in which
he was present at the council of Valence; nor does any other
note of time occur by which we might assign the beginning of his episcopate
more nearly. Nevertheless, since he is said in the Acts to have governed
the bishopric for many years, there may be a suspicion
that he was raised to the episcopal chair not long after
the middle of the fourth century. Whatever
be the case about the beginning of his episcopate, it does not seem to be doubted
that he is the same Justus who in the year 374
was present at the council of Valence, to which he subscribed in this
manner: I, Justus, bishop, wish you, brethren,
to be well in the Lord. His name also
occurs in a twin letter written by the Fathers of that council,
as may be seen in Labbe, vol.
2 of the Councils, cols. 904 and 906.
[27] and in the year 381 at that of Aquileia, as legate of the Gauls: In the year 381 was held the synod of Aquileia,
in which the Arian bishops Palladius and Secundianus
were condemned. At this likewise St.
Justus was present as legate of the Gauls. And being asked
his opinion by St. Ambrose, he set it forth among the first:
for thus have the Acts of the council, published among
the Works of St. Ambrose, vol. 2 of the edition of the year 1690,
col. 790: Ambrose the bishop said: What also
does my lord Justus say? Justus the bishop,
legate of the Gauls, said: Whoever does not confess the Son of God
coeternal with the Father, let him be held
anathema. All the bishops said, Anathema.
Then again at col. 801 he among the first condemns Palladius
in these words: Justus the bishop said:
Palladius, who was unwilling to condemn the blasphemies of Arius,
but rather seems to confess them, I judge
can no longer be called a priest, nor be reckoned among
the bishops. The names of the bishops
who were present at the said council are recounted at col.
805, and among them St. Justus in this manner: Justus,
bishop of Lyons, another legate of the Gauls.
In the editions of Labbe and Hardouin the words of Lyons are not added.
But since to most of the bishops the place
is also there added, it can scarcely be doubted
that the words bishop of Lyons dropped out there,
and that it is rightly read added in St. Ambrose.
He is called another legate because two legates of the Gauls
had already been reckoned. In no way, therefore,
does it seem to be doubted that this Justus was both legate
of the Gauls and bishop of Lyons.
[28] [the Saint does not seem to have gone off into the desert immediately after that council;] But another doubt occurs here
to be discussed. The more prolix Acts at n. 5 have it
that the Saint, returning from a certain synod of Italy, did not
come to Lyons, but remained about Tournon,
that he might bid farewell to certain friends, and thence
departed secretly into Egypt. Tillemont,
who had not seen the other Acts, judges that he really departed at once
after the council of Aquileia, and indeed
suspects that he communicated to St. Ambrose and the other
Fathers of the said council
his purpose of abandoning the bishopric. Yet
the briefer Acts do not agree with these: for
they report the Saint's departure at n. 2 in such a way that between
the occasion of departing and the departure itself they leave nothing
in the middle. From the mind of these Acts, therefore,
it must necessarily be said that the council of Aquileia
preceded, and that that tumult which persuaded the Saint
to exile followed afterwards. Truly,
if we weigh the matter itself, it appears more likely
that the holy Bishop, who ascribed an unjust execution
to his own indulgence, presently abandoned the episcopal office,
as though he were unworthy of it, than
that he went off to a council in order in the meantime to go on exercising
the episcopal office there, and then
to relinquish it. If he wished to relinquish the bishopric
that he might do penance, as it is established that he did,
I do not sufficiently perceive why he should have deferred that purpose,
and gone on discharging episcopal duties
until the end of the council of Aquileia. No
more can I persuade myself that St. Ambrose
and the other Fathers of the council of Aquileia advised
the holy Bishop to abandon his bishopric:
which rather they would have dissuaded for many reasons.
I suspect, therefore, that that tumult at Lyons,
on occasion of which St. Justus went off to the desert, happened
not long after the council of Aquileia, and thence
that the writer of the more prolix Life fell into error.
Hence the studious reader will gather that the time at which
the Saint sought the desert is not certainly
established.
[29] Among the letters of St. Ambrose there are two
inscribed to Justus, nor does the twin letter of St. Ambrose seem to have been written to him: which in the edition of the year 1690 are
the seventh and the eighth. Tillemont judges, whom
not a few others have followed, that these letters were
sent to St. Justus of Lyons. The beginning of the former
favors this conjecture, since Justus is called by Ambrose
brother, and therefore seems to have been
a bishop: Beautifully do you admonish me, Brother, that we should turn
the talk of letters and the conversation of the absent to the interpretation
of the heavenly oracle, asking
me what that didrachm signifies,
half of which the Hebrew is commanded to offer for
the redemption of his soul. For what is so companionable
as to weave together talk about divine things?
The same beginning suggests that Justus's piety
and zeal for progress in the sacred Scriptures,
and also suggests a certain familiarity with St.
Ambrose. Nevertheless I do not
persuade myself that the said letter was written to St. Justus:
for the end seems rather to stand in the way of that
conjecture than the beginning to favor it. Take the words
with which Ambrose concluded his letter: And
do you therefore be, after the likeness of God, one and the same:
not today sober, tomorrow drunken; today
peaceable, tomorrow quarrelsome; today thrifty,
tomorrow incontinent; for each man is changed
by a variety of manners, and becomes another: in whom is not
recognized what he was, and he begins to be what he was not,
degenerate from himself. For it is a grievous thing to be changed for the worse:
but be, like the image on a drachma, unchangeable,
keeping the same appearance every day…
Farewell, and if you judge that that didrachm entrusted to me
was not unfruitfully so entrusted, do not hesitate to entrust
again whatever you have. By these words he seems indeed to carp at
the inconstancy of Justus, whoever he
was; and, though Ambrose was by no means wont to dissemble,
I should by no means believe that he wrote this
to a holy and aged Bishop, especially
since he himself was much younger. And that
that Justus is once called brother does not necessarily
imply his episcopate. For the same Ambrose
thus begins letter 80 to Bellicius, You have heard,
brother. And yet he was not a bishop, as
is clear from many things. And so I suspect that neither this nor the following
pertains to Justus of Lyons.
[30] I have said that the Saint probably withdrew into
the desert not long after the council of Aquileia, [his death is to be fixed before or about 390, but the year is uncertain, as is that of the translation:] that is,
the year 381. The Acts have it that he lived in the desert
for some years. Hence we can conjecture that he died
before or about the year 390; but we cannot know it
for certain, since we have no note of time
that is sufficiently certain. Equally unknown
is the year of the translation of his body from Egypt, since
no one assigns any note of time. Ado in
the Chronicle at the year 379 records only this concerning his episcopate, death,
and translation: But Justus too,
bishop of Lyons, a man of wonderful holiness,
who afterwards, having left the see of his bishopric,
hiding among the most holy anchorite fathers with wonderful humility,
dies in Egypt: whose bones the men of Lyons, anxious with pious
love, bring back to their own city:
the bones also of Viator, his most holy fellow-minister.
It is likely that the translation befell
a few years after the Saint's death, and before
the end of the fourth century.
[31] Raynaud in the place indicated before recites the Saint's
Epitaph, the Saint's epitaph, which is a compendium of his life: premising this: In an old codex of epitaphs
lately published by Duchesne,
there is this Epitaph of the holy Man,
which I have thought fit not to omit.
Here, under the worthy name of the ancient father Justus,
In hope of everlasting life the pledges rest:
Limbs blessed enough, which ever given to Christ
Through varied labors fastened themselves upon the cross,
That better they be caught in a swift cloud into the air,
When the Judge himself, coming from heaven, shall shine.
He was at first a distinguished levite at Vienne.
Then, a Prelate conspicuous in doctrine and in deed,
He fed the Lord's flock in the city of Lyons.
Afterward, aflame with love of the anchoretic life,
Thirsting he sought the far deserts of Egypt.
There, joined to holy elders in a covenant of piety,
When with his last look he had closed a wondrous life,
Called back by his people's love to his native city
With pious Viator, he is entombed at Christ's altar;
That those whom living he nourished with unsleeping piety
He may cherish with unceasing prayers, his sons, through the ages.
[32] [his body preserved in the church of St. Justus until it was overthrown by the Calvinists] The Acts testify that the Saint was buried
in the church of the seven Maccabees. This afterwards,
as a collegiate church, bore the name of St. Justus, and gave
a place of burial to many other Saints. In the year 1287 the Saint's tomb
was opened and the relics visited,
as is read in an instrument of that same year,
which we gave in vol. V of June, p. 345, in the treatise on St. Irenæus.
The body of St. Justus remained in the same church
until in the year 1562 it was utterly overthrown, and the relics
scattered by the impious fury of the Calvinists
who had occupied Lyons. We have a collection
of the Acts which were written concerning these things under
Charles IX, printed at Lyons in the year 1662, in
which the Saint's plainly magnificent church
with all its ornaments is described, such as it had been before
the overthrow. In these, at p. 6, concerning the body of St. Justus
this is recorded in French: In this church also,
behind the high altar, was kept a casket in which
was the body of St. Justus, set upon four marble
columns, each of which had a thickness
of one foot and a height of ten feet.
This casket was of alabaster. And the church of St.
Justus was in the suburb of Lyons, and another was afterwards
built in the city itself.
[33] a few relics withdrawn from the fury of the heretics. Dominique de Colonia, of our Society, in
the Literary History of the city of Lyons, vol. 1, p.
135, would have it that some of the relics of St. Justus were withdrawn
from the sacrilegious hands of the heretics; for
he writes this: The silver statue formed down to the breast,
which is still seen in the new church,
is a monument of the piety of one of the canons,
named Clement de Belle-Croix. In it
is enclosed a part of the Saint's head, which was with difficulty withdrawn
from the fury of the heretics, who burned and scattered
the rest of the body. Baillet in
his article on St. Justus asserts that certain relics of St. Justus of Lyons
are shown at Paris in the church of St. John of
Grève. Gelenius too in his Colonia, p. 547,
among the relics of the church of St. Maximin of Cologne
reckons some of St. Justus the bishop, but does not add
that it is the one of Lyons. Whether several other
pledges of this Saint are still shown in other places is not
clear to me. That the Saint shone with miracles has been said
in general at n. 2; but I find none anywhere written down
individually. But St. Gregory
of Tours in the Lives of the Fathers, ch. 8, narrates that St.
Nicetius appeared with SS. Justus and Eucherius
to a certain priest, and severely rebuked him
for blasphemous words.
THE LIFE
by an anonymous author,
From the codex 33 of the Queen of Sweden.
Justus, bishop of Lyons, conf., in the desert of Egypt. (S.)
BHL Number: 4599
By an Anonymous author.
The Saint's diaconate and episcopate excellently administered: the occasion, Justus, then, was first a deacon of Vienne a,
and afterwards was consecrated bishop of the church of Lyons:
which he ruled for many years with such purity, modesty,
piety, and patience, with such care
toward the poor, with such observance of the divine commandments,
that he surpassed even those magnificent and
excellent priests of the Lord in every
grace of the virtues. Therefore, when he was presiding over the church of the Lord
with so vast an increase of his own glory and of his people's,
the envy of the raging devil blazed up
even to his expulsion. For on a certain day in that same
city a certain man, through a sudden madness of mind,
having gone out into the public street, had stabbed with iron those who unwittingly met him,
and, a tumult having been stirred up at the atrocity of the deed,
was being pressed on this side and that by a hostile
multitude; defending himself with the same weapon
which he had used in his crime,
having somewhat recovered his senses, he fled to the church,
and, the doors of the sacred building being barred,
for a long time the reverence of the place kept off the fury of the maddened
people. But when the growing sedition now even
threatened fire to the divine house, the aforesaid
Bishop, compelled by necessity, having received from a certain chief man
the pledge of oaths that no peril should be threatened to this man,
and that he was to be received only into custody
until satisfaction should be made to the people, dismissed the guilty man from the enclosure
of the church. And the multitude, which in a tumult weighs nothing,
having received him, dragged him with his feet bound
and inflicted upon him the last punishment of death.
[2] But then that Man of God, memorable for his holiness,
ascribed to himself the crime committed b, moved by which he departs into the desert, though it was
not his own; so severe an avenger of what he thought
his own fault, so ready a concealer of another's. For indeed,
when the deceit of the enemy who assailed him made the people's hand
a minister of his own crime, blessed Justus turned that whole offense
upon himself: for that Justus
who had been great in the priesthood, was made
greater in exile. And so he resolved to abandon the priestly office,
and to seek foreign parts where he might lie hidden.
For no one [c] (so unexpectedly did he tear himself away)
went as a companion even of his journey, except
Viator, a boy of excellent character, who then held
the office of Lector in the church. He alone followed in the footsteps of the most blessed
Old Man, who desired to lie hidden;
and when he had already taken his place between Arles [d] and Marseilles
upon the seashore, and was ready to board a ship, coming upon him,
not without astonishment, he presented himself
to him: and being received * as a solace of his pilgrimage, seeking the desert, he sailed to Egypt.
[3] There then Justus, by merit and by name,
when first he came thither, where he hides his dignity, until he is recognized by someone: being already set among the Saints,
for a long time concealed who he was, that with his name
and honor suppressed he might be able to exercise the highest * humility,
showing himself inferior now not only to clerics but also to monks
and laymen. But
when he had long lain hidden thus covered,
it happened at some time that in a great assembly of monks
and holy men he was recognized by a certain brother there,
who had then suddenly come as a pilgrim from these
parts: and he fell down at his knees.
All being amazed, and asking
what this was, he answered that it was the holy bishop Justus *.
Which being done, all, marveling
at a Man of such humility, and blaming the past presumption
of their ignorance, in that they had unknowingly set themselves before
lack of respect toward him. He was, however,
admonished, not now without reverence for himself, by those
Saints eminent in virtue, that he ought not
to seek his own reward with the sin of others,
nor to seek gain from his own abasement at the loss of
the rest who were present. Whence not undeservedly
it was long ago said by the prophetic spirit:
Who understands his offenses e?
[4] his holy life in the desert, and his continual prayers: But I myself saw a certain holy priest,
now nearly ninety years of age,
by whose relation these things became known to me:
for in his discourse there was, as it were, the trustworthiness of a sacred history.
He used to report that he had long stayed in those parts of the desert,
and had not only seen Justus of most blessed name,
but had also enjoyed his familiarity
with him; and that there appeared magnificent among those who
then in the desert shone like great luminaries
by revelations and virtues, holy
Macarius, Paphnutius f, and the rest, whose
fame of holiness flourished throughout the East. And so
our Justus, a sharer of their life, joining
nights to days in prayers and fastings, stood ever watchful
in the sight of the Lord, the defender of the people of Lyons. He was indeed absent
from their sight, but present to their profit by his prayers;
nor had he abandoned those to whom in any case
he referred himself by intercession. He had sought out
places convenient for weeping, that, giving himself to the Lord alone,
he might the more effectually obtain what he asked for his own people.
There therefore, like Moses of old,
stretching unwearied hands to heaven, he strove
in prayer against Amalek. In that remote watchtower,
sitting as on a lofty hill, he awaited
that perilous conflict with the ancient enemy.
Wisdom g, ever holding his hands intent upon prayer,
and thus against the devil's war ever supplied
the supports of the fight, victory by prayers.
[5] [he is visited by St. Antiochus, and being about to die foretells his death to St. Viator:] But at the same time in which he was staying in the desert,
saint Antiochus h, then a priest of Lyons,
stirred by pious duty, purposed in mind to go even to see
his Bishop, a man outstanding in strictness, and one who now *
not undeservedly, after an interval of time, was taken up to the same
summit of the pontificate. He therefore, when out of desire
for so great a Bishop he was crossing lands and seas, Justus
of venerable name is said so to have foretold his coming
that he did not even keep silence as to what places he would approach
on what days, saying: Our dear
Antiochus is staying today in such a place. Which is affirmed to have been so manifestly
proved that even on the very day
on which he came to him, he had foretold that he would come.
For the rest, when for some years in the desert he had led a life
nearest to the angels, and a worthy
end was at hand, promising the kingdom of heaven to such great labors;
and when, at those last moments of his holy departing soul,
Viator stood by weeping and stricken in mind,
saying: To whom, Lord, do you leave me? he is said
to have answered that he should not * be troubled, as though deprived
of consolation, because in a short time * he would follow him thither also.
Which prophecy and revelation is known to have been quickly fulfilled
by the passing of that most holy young man.
[6] the translation of his bones to Lyons. But in his glory I would not silently pass over that
favor of the people of Lyons, that in bringing back
his holy little body the care of the venerable citizens reached out
even into the Southern region:
and those revered bones of the holy Old Man they brought back
from remote parts of the earth with alacrity and religion,
and received them with tears and joy;
and they labored that he who was already in spirit
with them should be with them also in body.
ANNOTATA.
a. That nothing
hinders his having been a deacon under Claudius, bishop of Vienne,
though the latter was present at the council of Arles in the year 314, I have proved in the
Commentary, nn. 23 and 24, against Tillemont, Hermant, and
Baillet, who on this account accused St. Ado of Vienne of contradiction.
The Saint does not indeed seem to have sinned, because it was from fear of a grave evil, and
after due security had first been received, that he handed that man over; yet on account of the outcome
fatal to him he seems to have feared a fault where there was none, which is the mark of good minds.
c. The phrase
here being obscure, I judged that it should be helped by a parenthesis. It is found in one
Ms. of Lyons only; but it is altogether necessary that the sense may hang together.
d. Arles
and Marseilles are cities of Provence well enough known, the former on the Rhône,
the latter on the Mediterranean with a famous port, from which probably the Saint
sailed into Egypt.
the theologians speak, since ignorance excused them. But they were deservedly
confounded that they had not held a Man so worthy in another place than as
one who as an old man had left the secular life. These things are not read in the following Life,
as neither are those which follow.
of the same month. Tillemont recounted various Paphnutii in vol. 10, in the article on
Paphnutius. Famous among them and contemporary with our Saint is
Paphnutius surnamed Bubalus, whom Cassian praises in Conference 3,
ch. 1. He was abbot in Scetis, in which desert Macarius
the Egyptian also dwelt. It must therefore be said that St. Justus dwelt in the Scetic solitude, if he lived with the aforesaid Saints, as these Acts have it.
*. add thither
*. add duties, or something similar
*. in one Ms., Justinus
*. read non
*. otherwise, ne
*. in a short while, I think
THE MORE PROLIX LIFE
From a Ms. of St. Justus of Lyons,
collated with the Mss. of Acciacum, Utrecht, Rouge-Cloître, and with the edition of Surius.
Justus, bishop of Lyons, conf., in the desert of Egypt. (S.)
BHL Number: 4600
By an Anonymous author.
[The author tries to prove the Saint a martyr, even though he did not die for Christ;] We are compelled, out of admiration a,
briefly to set forth the Life of blessed Justus, bishop of Lyons:
who, once the priest of the city of Lyons,
is now a patron with Christ; whose unconquerable
faith in works I call to mind; his outstanding
rigor in diet; his long sojourn in solitude; and I affirm
without hesitation b
that he, though his passion was not fulfilled, fulfilled a martyrdom.
For not the shedding of blood alone completes martyrdom,
nor does that burning of flames alone give the palm of faith,
nor the deadly touch
of the executioners; by contempt of the body also,
and not by death alone, one comes to the crown; without injury
to the Saints who died in persecutions,
let it be permitted to say: to have afflicted the flesh, to have triumphed
over the world, to have conquered the devil, is a martyrdom
[c]. For that we may set these very things side by side in a comparison
of matters: the martyr conquered the tormentor's sudden
fire, most blessed Justus conquered the daily
flame of the body. The martyr has a brief conflict with
the persecutor; he had a long struggle against the vices
of the flesh. The one kept his patience in a heathen *
wrestling, the other in a diabolical assault.
The martyr suffers for Christ, because he desires
to suffer [d]; and he too wished to suffer. The one, denying
idols, confesses God; he, that he might the more brightly confess Christ *,
denied * himself to himself. Lastly
death completes the martyr's contest, while
it is inflicted; his contest was increased while
death is denied. The Apostle speaks from * this and says:
For the world is crucified to me, and I
to the world.
[2] he reasons about his name and that of Viator. And first, that we may say a few things about his name,
it is usual in the sacred Letters that the pronouncing of names
should already be an announcement of things to come.
Hence then our Justus also. From his very cradle his name
expressed the grace of his later life,
when by divine instinct, bearing beforehand the force of what was to be,
he received the appellation of a name from the testimony of merits.
Whence I judge also that this came about, that
that holy youth, a partaker as much of his journey as of his
virtue, being one day to be the companion
of his way, received the name of Viator [e].
[3] The holy administration of his episcopate: the occasion, Justus, then, was first a deacon of Vienne,
and afterwards was made bishop of the church of Lyons,
which he ruled for many years with such purity, modesty, piety,
and patience, with such care for the poor,
with such observance of the divine commandments,
that he surpassed even those magnificent and excellent
priests of the Lord in every grace of the virtues;
but when he presided over the Church of the Lord
with so vast an increase of his own glory and of his people's,
the envy of the raging devil blazed up
even to his expulsion. For on a certain day in that same
city a certain man, through a sudden madness of mind,
having gone out into the public street, had stabbed with iron
those who met him unaware f,
and, a tumult having been stirred up at the atrocity of the deed,
was being pressed on this side and that by a hostile multitude;
defending himself with the same weapon
which he had used in his crime,
having somewhat recovered his senses, he fled to the church;
and, the doors of the consecrated building being barred,
for a long time the reverence of the place kept off the fury of the maddened
people. But when the growing sedition
now even threatened fire to the divine house,
the aforesaid Bishop, compelled by necessity,
having received from a certain chief man the pledge of oaths *
that no peril should be threatened to this man;
that he was to be received into custody
only, until satisfaction should be made to the people,
dismissed the guilty man from the enclosure of the church: and the multitude,
which in a tumult weighs nothing, having received him,
dragged him with his feet bound and inflicted upon him the last punishment
of death.
[4] But then that Man of God, memorable for his holiness,
ascribed to himself the crime committed, which persuaded the Saint to withdraw from his bishopric: though it was
not his own; so severe an avenger of what he thought
his own fault, so ready a concealer of another's. For indeed,
when the deceit of the enemy who assailed him put the people's hand
as a minister to his own crime, blessed Justus turned that whole offense
upon himself, absolving all,
not pardoning himself. But what wonder if
the Just Man is his own accuser at the beginning of his speech,
or in the judgment of his own examination. How modest
is the confession of holiness and piety! Whereas
shamelessness is wont to turn its own offense upon another *,
he interprets a stranger's crime as though it were his own.
The unruly common people sinned, they sinned
at Satan's instigation; but what did Justus do?
To whom, since he trusted in the Lord, it was said:
Flee into the mountain like a sparrow. That ancient sinner
had indeed bent the bow of his wickedness,
that in secret he might by the art of his craft pierce the spotless man;
but because the Lord's hand helped him,
the enemy profited nothing against him; for
that Justus who had been great in the priesthood
was made greater in exile. And so he resolved to abandon
the priestly office, and to seek foreign parts where he might lie hidden.
[5] And returning from a certain synod of Italy g,
to which he had been summoned, [returning from the synod, he secretly sails to Egypt with Viator alone accompanying him:] — which scarcely anyone
can call to mind without tears — he did not come to Lyons,
lest, bound by the love of the whole people,
he should not have free opportunity of departing;
but staying about Tournon h, he waited to see whether any of his dear ones
would run out thither to bid him farewell:
where, crowds of weeping people running together,
fearing lest even there he should be held fast, overwhelmed by the multitude,
he departed secretly, alone, and suddenly. For no one
(so unexpectedly did he tear himself away) clung
as a companion even of his journey, except that Viator
whom we mentioned above, a boy of excellent character,
who then held the office of lector in the Church.
He alone followed in the footsteps of the most blessed Old Man,
who desired to lie hidden. And when he had already taken his place
between Arles and Marseilles upon the seashore,
and was ready to board a ship, coming upon him,
not without astonishment at him, he presented himself.
And the boy being received as a solace of his pilgrimage,
seeking the desert, he sailed to Egypt, having cast
all his thought upon the Lord, cleaving in mind
to him alone who is the hope of all the ends of the earth,
and far off upon the sea.
[6] Therefore, when he had set his mind on far-off Egypt,
being carried into the desert he conceals his dignity; from the face of the devil's wrath, as
another Elijah from the face of Queen Jezebel, he withdrew
into the deserts: there, the Egyptians supplying him nourishment,
I shall say plainly that he too, by the Lord's gift *,
took his food by the ministry of ravens. For as often
as sustenance is brought to the saints by the hands of sinners,
so often does the Lord feed his own, with ravens
bringing food: of whom the wicked not undeservedly
take that black color from the darkness of their offenses;
and indeed what does the avarice of sinners always cry
to those who ask, but tomorrow,
and tomorrow? Whence the divine oracles also say against a man of this sort:
Say not, Go and return;
tomorrow I will give, when you can do good at once.
It is therefore a marvel, both in sinners who feed the saints
and in ravens who serve them,
if their generosity puts itself forth today, whose avarice
knows nothing but to put off [i]. There therefore, Justus
by name and by merit, when first he came thither,
being already set among the Saints, he for a long time
concealed who he was; that with his name and honor suppressed
he might be able to practice the work of the highest humility,
showing himself inferior now not only to clerics but also to monks
and laymen.
[7] but he is at last recognized through a pilgrim: the Saint's continual prayer: But when he had long lain hidden thus covered,
it happened at some time that in a great assembly of monks
and holy men he was recognized by a certain
brother there, who had then suddenly come as a pilgrim
from these parts; and falling down at his
knees, all being amazed and asking
what this was, he answered that it was the holy bishop Justus.
Which being done, all, marveling
at a Man of such humility, and blaming the past presumption
of their ignorance, in that they had unknowingly
set themselves before a Pontiff, weighed out their old
lack of respect toward him with fresh honor [k]. And so
our Justus, a sharer of their life, joining
nights and days in prayer and fastings, stood ever watchful
in the sight of the Lord, the defender of the people of Lyons.
He was indeed absent from their sight,
but present by his prayers; nor had he abandoned those
to whom in any case he referred himself by intercession. He had sought out
places suited to weeping, that, giving himself to God alone,
he might the more effectually obtain what he asked for them.
[8] he is visited by St. Antiochus, whose coming he foretells: But at the same time in which he was staying in the desert,
saint Antiochus, then a priest of Lyons,
stirred by pious duty, purposed in mind to go abroad *
even to see his Bishop, a man outstanding in strictness *,
and one who not undeservedly,
after an interval of time, was taken up to the summit
of that same pontificate. He therefore, when out of desire
for so great a Bishop he was crossing lands and seas,
Justus of venerable name is said so to have foretold his coming
that he did not even keep silence as to what places
he would approach on what days, saying: Our dear
Antiochus is staying today in such a place. Which
is affirmed to have been so manifestly proved that even
on the very day on which he came to him, he had foretold
that he would come.
[9] the Saint's pious death, and the death foretold to Viator: For the rest, when for some years in the desert he had led
a life nearest to the angels, and a worthy
end was at hand, promising the kingdom of heaven to such great labors,
and when, at those last moments of his holy departing
soul, Viator stood by weeping and stricken in mind,
saying: To whom, Lord, do you leave me?
he is said to have answered that he should not be troubled, as though deprived
of consolation, because in a short time he himself would follow him thither also:
which prophecy and revelation
is known to have been fulfilled by the swift passing l
of that most holy young man.
[10] the translation of his body. But in his glory I would not silently pass over that
favor of the people of Lyons, that in bringing back
his holy little body the care of the venerable citizens reached out
even into the Southern region,
who, searching those solitudes almost inaccessible for their burning heats,
and running in devotion from the very setting of the sun
almost to the places neighboring its rising,
made almost the whole world a witness of their piety,
and as far as the flight of the most modest Priest had
withdrawn him, so far did the zeal of the faithful
stretch itself. They knew how to long for him because he had fled;
and they did not know how to reproach him because he had abandoned them:
for indeed he had not abandoned them out of contempt for the people,
but out of compunction for an offense. They proved themselves
not unworthy of so illustrious a Bishop, when they matched
the greatness of his grace with the glory of their dutifulness m:
in so great an example of an excellent Priest,
there was exhibited also a deed of a most faithful people,
which would seem no less wonderful [n]: those revered
bones of the holy Old Man they brought back from remote parts of the earth
with alacrity and religion, and received them with tears
and joy: and they labored
that he who was already with them in spirit should be with
them also in body; to the honor of our Lord
Jesus Christ, to whom is power and glory with
the Father and the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.
ANNOTATA.
I am indeed led to this, that I do not hesitate to affirm without hesitation that he, although he did not undergo martyrdom for
Christ, nevertheless fulfilled a martyrdom. Was it not from
a style thus changed that Tillemont so beautifully judged of the author's style?
Nevertheless the studious reader will find similar changes of style everywhere, who
shall wish to compare the edition of Surius with ours. But it is not worth while
to note those changes here, unless they are of greater moment.
c. These
words attribute the crown of martyrdom to absolutely all holy Confessors:
for all afflicted the flesh, and conquered the world and the devil. But
he properly is a martyr who met death for Christ, or suffered those things
which are apt to bring death. In this latter way St. John
the apostle is a martyr, because he was plunged into boiling oil.
d. That
is not necessary, nor always true. It suffices for martyrdom if a man would rather
suffer than escape death by sin. Indeed Christ himself in John 21 said to St.
Peter: Amen, amen, I say to you: when you were younger, you girded yourself and
walked where you would: but when you shall be old, you shall stretch forth your hands, and
another shall gird you and lead you WHERE YOU WOULD NOT. And this he said,
signifying by what death he should glorify God. Peter was led to death where he would not: yet he is by the best right a martyr.
e. All these things
are absent from the earlier Life, either because they were cut out as useless, or
(which I rather believe) because they are not the first writer's of the Life, but another's,
who judged that the first Life should be adorned, or rather burdened, with these and other things.
Life, so also is that going to a synod, which modern writers commonly
interpret as that of Aquileia. St. Justus really was at the synod of Aquileia, as
was said in the Commentary, n. 26; and therefore his withdrawal certainly
befell after the synod. But what is here said is not equally certain;
namely that that homicide by the madman, which has just been reported, befell
before the synod. Nay rather it appears more probable that all was done after
the synod; and that the Saint, who seems to have attributed a certain
irregularity to himself, at once abstained from the episcopal office when
he understood that the man whom he had handed over had been killed. See the Commentary, n. 27.
later: for we have no older monuments of this town, as
the learned Benedictines testify who lately published the History of Occitania,
vol. 3, p. 365. Nor does any martyrologist of the ninth century mention
the council, which is a sign that there was then nothing about it in the Acts. By
this observation what was just said about the Saint's departure is confirmed, namely that it was not
after an intervening synod, but immediately after the madman's homicide.
i. What
is read throughout this whole number thus far, just as it is absent from the preceding Life, so
seems to belong to the interpolator. Truly I do not see here that great elegance
and that great gravity and majesty which Tillemont says he found
in this Life, but rather the frigid and inept comparisons of a garrulous declaimer. Surius too saw this, who omitted part of these things.
k. Here
the other author asserts that he learned those deeds from an eyewitness of ninety years. But
the interpolator could not truly say that, nor even with any likelihood,
since he seems much younger; and therefore he omitted the whole of it.
n. In
this account of the translation, which is much briefer in the first Life,
the interpolator too can be recognized, as in all the things which have been added to the first Life.
*. Acciacum Ms.: brought in
*. otherwise, by nature
*. otherwise, Christ
*. otherwise, denied
*. Acc.: from
*. Acc.: so
*. Surius: of an oath
*. two Mss.: to press
*. otherwise, hands
*. in the Utrecht one, to go abroad
*. Acciacum: strictness