Viventius

ON ST. VIVENTIUS, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR,

AT REIMS IN GAUL

Toward the end of the fourth century.

SYLLOGE

Viventius, bishop and confessor at Reims in Gaul (S.)

BY J. S.

§ I. The cult of St. Viventius, his age, deeds, and the translation of his body.

[ ] The church of Reims today reckons among its holy prelates St. Viventius, The Saint's memory in the sacred Calendars, not indeed inserted in the more ancient Calendars, yet honored with an ancient cult. Those who augmented the codices of Usuard with several Saints seem to have been the first to announce St. Viventius, as I learn from the Auctaria in Sollerius at this day. For there the Hérin codex, written in the eleventh century, has it thus: On the same day, of blessed Viveentius (we must read Viventius) archbishop of the Remi. And the Reims codex of SS. Timothy and Apollinaris celebrates the same on the following day in these words: At Reims, the birthday of St. Viventius, bishop and confessor. Greven and Molanus again announced the same Saint under the corrupted name of Vincentius at the VII of September. Nor was he unknown to the author of the manuscript Florarium of the Saints, in which at this very day I find such an elogium: Likewise of St. Vivencius, archbishop of the Remi and confessor. This wise man, and strong in virtue, converted many nations to the Lord by his life and preaching: and at length through many good works he gained the heavenly things. Most of the moderns have followed these, of whom I shall name those who have asserted something singular about his age or the place of his cult. The name of St. Viventius is not yet read as inscribed in the Roman Martyrology; but the antiquity of his cult has partly already appeared from what has been said, and will partly appear from what is to be said.

[2] For Flodoard, a writer of the tenth century, in book 1, chapter 5, of the History of Reims, has the following about St. Viventius, and the antiquity of his cult proved from the translation of his body: the successor of St. Donatian in the see of Reims: Whom (Donatian) blessed Viventius follows, as illustrious in the lofty merits of his life as in the bright order of the pontifical summit. Whose sacred limbs also, being translated by our lord prelate Ebbo over the river Meuse, a church being built at Braux and a company of clerical servants appointed, are laid up to be kept with due honor. Where also he is proclaimed to have shone forth formerly with many marks of distinction; restoring walking to the lame and sight also to the blind. Whom Severus succeeded. From these things we have it that St. Viventius was venerated from the ninth century not far advanced. Certainly before the year 835, in which archbishop Ebbo, on account of the conspiracy against the emperor Louis, withdrew from his bishopric. Moreover we deservedly suspect that the cult was not then first begun; even though we have no arguments for a more ancient veneration. About the assigned place of the translation there agrees the Breviary of Reims, printed in the sixteenth century, in which the Saint's feast is prescribed to be celebrated with the rite of a lesser double. The lessons from that Breviary I shall recite below, because no Life of St. Viventius is known to exist. But first some things must be said about the place where the body is now kept, and certain other matters examined.

[3] the village of Braux on the Meuse, whither the body was formerly translated. Saussay in the Gallican Martyrology, Colvener in his Annotations on the History of Flodoard, and Marlot in the Metropolis of Reims constantly affirm that the body of St. Viventius was given to the clergy of Braux on the Meuse, and add no word by which it is indicated that it was afterwards carried elsewhere. In their footsteps followed Castellanus in the Universal Martyrology, where he announces St. Viventius thus: At Reims, of St. Viventius the bishop: who is venerated at Braux on the Meuse, where his body is in the collegiate church. The place of Braquæ, in French Braux, is marked on the maps of the territory of Rethel, where it is placed as a village on the left bank of the Meuse below the town of Charleville . Now, notwithstanding so great a consent of writers by which the sacred body of St. Viventius is attributed to the people of Braux, in a manuscript Catalogue of the Saints of Reims I find these things written about Viventius: St. Viventius, archbishop of Reims, is venerated with public religion, especially at Mouzon (it is a town of the territory of Rethel on the Meuse near the borders of the duchy of Luxembourg) where his body is had. The feast is celebrated on the VII day of the month of September. These things instil a doubt about the place in which the body is now kept: nor are suitable monuments at hand by which I might remove that doubt. For this cause I would not affirm for certain whether a second translation of the body took place, by which it came to the people of Mouzon; nor divine whether some part of this sacred treasure is preserved in each place. But I do not find the report of the body kept at Mouzon confirmed from any other quarter, and it becomes the more suspect because Marlot in tome 2 of the Metropolis of Reims*, book 1, chapter 6, enumerates some relics preserved at Mouzon, and adds no word about the body or relics of St. Viventius.

[4] The episcopate and death of St. Viventius No Acts of St. Viventius are known except the elogium which I find in the Breviary of Reims, and which I shall recite below. In it hardly any deeds are reported: but about his age it is only said that St. Viventius succeeded St. Donatian, which we have from Flodoard also. But neither is the age of St. Donatian sufficiently explored, nor even the age of Severus, who is generally held to be the successor of St. Viventius. Nevertheless the series of the prelates of Reims — of whom, after Imbetausius, who was present at the first council of Arles in the year 314, three or four sat before Viventius in the see of Reims — somewhat implies that he was bishop as the fourth century was growing old and verging to its end: and this would be still more certain if the Acts of St. Maternianus, given at the XXX of April, were altogether of approved credit. But whatever be the case with those Acts, the prelates who followed, of whom the second is St. Nicasius, again hint that Viventius did not survive beyond the fourth century, or at least not long. For which cause Viventius seems to have administered his episcopate toward the end of the fourth century, and to have been translated to a better life while that century was not yet ended.

[5] If St. Maternianus survived long after the middle of the fourth century, must be fixed toward the end of the fourth century; as our Papebroch in the Commentary on his Life, given on the XXX day of April, numbers 6, 7, and 8, endeavors to show, fixing his death about the year 370, or not long before 380; since St. Donatian succeeded Maternianus, we shall presently have to look to about the year 390. Wherefore, if the chronological order there given be accurate, Castellanus seems to place the death of St. Viventius too early, about the year CCCLXXX. But I gladly confess that Papebroch's chronological order rests on an uncertain foundation, namely on the supposition that Dyscholius, who is read as subscribed to the corrupted or supposititious Acts of the council of Cologne of the year 346, must be numbered among the bishops of Reims. But if he be struck out, as some contend he must be, the death of St. Maternianus may be placed earlier, and according to his Acts could not more probably be fixed than between the year 360 and 370, since toward the end of the Life he is said to have visited St. Hilary. But even so the death of St. Viventius will rightly be placed toward the end of the fourth century, yet with a great latitude, which can be extended even to the year assigned by Castellanus.

[6] For which cause the author of the Parisian Martyrology seems to have strayed far from the true chronological order, although this depends on the death of Nicasius. who preferred to fix the death of St. Viventius about the year CDXXX. I confess that the matter must be decided from the time at which St. Nicasius, the second bishop after Viventius, was killed. Baronius and several others, according to the ancient tradition of the people of Reims, believe that death was inflicted upon St. Nicasius by the Vandals about the year CDVII, which the author of the Parisian Martyrology himself adopted at the XIII of December, so that he contradicts himself, or gratuitously inverts the order of the bishops of Reims. But Tillemont in tome 6 of the Emperors, note 4 on Attila, and Pagi at the year 407, number 15, have contended that the martyrdom of Nicasius must rather be fixed in the year 451, in which Attila king of the Huns laid waste the Gauls. It pleases me to weigh their arguments, because on this very day Attila will have to be treated of in St. Memorius the martyr, and St. Nicasius in St. Albinus bishop of Châlons, so that this dissertation may at once conduce to illustrating those Lives. Meanwhile I give notice that I follow the opinion of those who have written that St. Nicasius was killed by the Vandals about the year 407; and for that cause fix the death of St. Viventius toward the end of the fourth century: and I subjoin here the lessons of the Office praised before as the Saint's elogium.

[7] Lesson I. Blessed Viventius, from the beginning of his earliest age given over to the bond of the Christian religion, The Saint, piously brought up, becomes bishop after St. Donatian, did not lie subject to youthful enticements: but the Boy of good disposition busied himself to advance by the steps of sacred virtues and good morals: that from virtue among virtues he might contemplate the God of Gods in Sion.

Lesson II. The people of Reims, at length bereft of the rule of blessed Donatian, their most holy archprelate — because the fame of his goodness and the grace of his kindness had sounded in the ears of all — unanimously demand, choose, and acclaim Viventius as a worthy prelate for themselves.

[8] Lesson III. But how he bore himself toward his own, and with how modest [ ] address he reproved them in season and out of season (as the Apostle to Timothy), is not to be recounted: because as a solicitous Shepherd he watched with continual scrutiny over the flock committed to him, and the episcopate being rightly administered, he dies piously: lest the cunning of the crafty enemy should force any to stray from the path of sacred rectitude.

Lesson IV. In such exercise indeed did Viventius, the recruit of Christ, take delight in the episcopate of Reims: until the rewarder of all good men, the course of his life being finished, took his spirit to himself with an angelic escort. And so at his passing Christ intimated by not a few acts with how great love he had loved him, and with what prize he was rewarding him in the heavenly places: restoring their steps to the lame, bringing light to the blind, relieving the infirm from the divers ravages of diseases.

[9] he is buried in the church of St. Agricola, Lesson V. But the citizens, bereft of their Prelate, so great a father and patron, shepherd and master, lamented with the greatest possible groaning. But on account of the marks of the virtues which the heavenly Father administered, many comforts and consolations were caught at. Who at length, with the greatest reverence of clergy and people, embracing those most sacred limbs, buried them with worthy obsequies in the crypt of the basilica of the blessed Agricola and Vitalis.

[10] and thence, shining with miracles, is translated to the village of Braux: Lesson VI. But the space of many years having thereafter passed, the divine goodness would not have that great pearl hidden secretly in the field: but presented it to the eyes of his faithful, and drawing it forth from the earthly mass, and adorning it with the powers of miracles. And at that time in which Ebbo the archbishop occupied the see of Reims, he held also, near the river Meuse, namely in the villa of Braux, a church founded in the honor and patronage of blessed Peter, already enriched with many estates and with head-servants.

Lesson VII. For the exalting and enlarging of the magnificence of which church he transported thither those bones of blessed Viventius, the most illustrious confessor: and placed there so great a Guest and so great a Helper of the church: where on that very day the Divine power showed the prodigies of many virtues, driving away the miseries of the blind, the lame, the dumb, the withered, and of the other divers diseases.

[11] a college of canons erected there: sight restored there to a blind man. Lesson VIII. But the lord Hincmar,

archbishop of the same see, hearing in his time that that place was most greatly distinguished by the patronage and merits of blessed Peter and St. Viventius, established there prebends of serving clerics, namely persons of honorable canons prompt in the service of God. In whose times therefore, and in those of their successors, Christ declared many and praiseworthy miracles by the merits and prayers of that Confessor.

Lesson IX. For they used to recite to us and testified with much assertion that they had seen a certain blind man in the parts of that province, who for the space of many years had been deprived of bodily light; nor without a guide could he set his steps with certainty, crying out before the altar of blessed Viventius, after diligent prayers, that he saw, and that his eyes had been enlightened by the merits of blessed Viventius: and now without the help of any guide he approached the sacred altar, and devoted himself with his offering, giving himself to blessed Peter and blessed Viventius. Thus far the lessons of the ancient Office of Reims.

* Braux

* Charleville

* Mouzon

§ II. For confirming the chronological order given, the controversy about the time of the martyrdom of St. Nicasius is treated; and it is shown that the Vandals by whom he was killed were more probably pagans at that time.

[ ] Reasons are given which persuade that St. Nicasius Why I have determined to treat here the controversy proposed at number 5, whether St. Nicasius was killed about the year 407 by the Vandals, or about 451 by the Huns serving under Attila, I have already implied in that place. Wherefore I briefly recount the reasons which persuade that that slaughter must be attributed to the Vandals. First, all the Lives of St. Nicasius which we have in manuscript in three codices, and of which we also have divers copies from other codices, refer the martyrdom of St. Nicasius to the incursion of the Vandals, as it is also read in the Life published by Surius, which is different from most of ours, and worse than they, since it wrongly joins St. Lupus of Troyes and St. Servatius of Tongres with St. Nicasius; which is not done in our codices. Secondly, Flodoard in the History of Reims, book 1, chapter 6, places Nicasius under the Vandal persecution in the Gauls, as does Hincmar also, bishop of Reims in the ninth century, in Marlot. Thirdly, St. Jerome in the Epistle to Ageruchia, relating this irruption of the Vandals with other nations into the Gauls, reckons among other cities stormed by those barbarians that of Reims, in these words: The most powerful city of the Remi, etc.

[13] Fourthly, the chronological order of the prelates of Reims of the fifth century down to St. Remigius must be dislocated was killed by the Vandals about the year 407: if the slaying of St. Nicasius be referred to the times of Attila: for between him and St. Remigius four bishops are reckoned by Flodoard and others, whereas some will have only five years, others six or eight, others nearly ten years to have intervened between the irruption of Attila and St. Remigius. These arguments, to which others will be able to be added when St. Nicasius must be treated of, persuade me so much the more that the martyrdom of Nicasius must be fixed under the persecution of the Vandals, as the things which are opposed to them are the weaker, as we shall now see more at large.

[14] First they object that by Flodoard, Hincmar, and the writer of the Life of St. Nicasius the Vandals are confused with the Huns, the first objection of Tillemont and Pagi because they make St. Lupus of Troyes, St. Anianus of Orléans, and St. Servatius of Tongres contemporaries of St. Nicasius. Tillemont uses that observation only to answer the argument which is drawn from those writers for our opinion. But Pagi, at the year 407, number 18, uses the authority of Flodoard as an argument of great weight, and says that Flodoard could not more manifestly indicate that St. Nicasius suffered under Attila in the year 451 than by making him coeval with the aforesaid Saints. But I answer that Pagi indeed here, after his manner, uses great confidence, but less criticism. For since Flodoard asserts that the persecution of the Vandals, in which St. Nicasius was crowned, is mentioned by St. Jerome, who died long before the year 451, and recites his words from the Epistle to Ageruchia, he most clearly designates that very incursion of the Vandals of the year 407, of which Pagi himself confesses that St. Jerome is treating. Nor was he ignorant of it: for he observes that Baronius uses that argument. Yet, he says, this error ought to have been corrected, and not what Flodoard rightly wrote to be rejected as false. But here again I miss Pagi's criticism: for if two things be said by a writer, one or the other of which is necessarily false, it must be considered which is more likely from other sources, and which error could the more easily have crept upon that writer: but that Pagi did not attend to these things can easily be shown.

[15] is weighed and shown to be inept, For about the city of Reims being occupied by the Vandals it is certainly established from St. Jerome: but there is no ancient author who asserts that Reims was stormed by Attila. How true this is, gather from Tillemont, tome 6 of the Emperors, article 14, where with I know not what liberty he writes these things in French: We find in the Acts of St. Nicasius that the Huns came to the city of the Remi, that they besieged and stormed it, and there killed St. Nicasius the bishop and his sister St. Eutropia. For these things Surius at the XIV of December is cited. And yet not even the name of the Huns is found in Surius, but everything is attributed to the Vandals; as is done in all the manuscript Lives. Of those Acts Tillemont then speaks thus: Their Acts are ancient and not bad, except that they confuse the time of the Vandals with the time of the Huns and of St. Anianus: from which it is shown that they are not authentic. And so, that Tillemont might assign some author who should say that Reims was occupied by Attila, he had to have recourse to Acts less authentic, to change them by substituting Huns for Vandals, and at last to commend those same Acts for antiquity beyond their desert: for the Acts were certainly not written before the tenth century, since they make mention of archbishop Fulk, who was killed in the year 900. Pagi too could adduce no writer who should say that Reims was taken by Attila — not Gregory of Tours, although he writes not a few things about Attila and his devastation; not Idatius, who also speaks of the Hunnish devastation; not, in short, any other except Flodoard, whom he strives to drag over to his side even against his will. And yet the city of Reims was so famous that it would have had to be named before the rest if it had suffered anything singular from Attila; just as St. Jerome did not pass it over in silence when it had fallen into the hands of the Vandals.

[16] since Flodoard could easily have erred in the age of foreign Saints, But now let us consider whether Flodoard could not more easily have erred in the age of SS. Anianus, Lupus, and Servatius than in the time of the martyrdom of St. Nicasius. Pagi himself notes at number 19 that Flodoard was more versed in the history of his own church of Reims than in universal history. Now the martyrdom of St. Nicasius, and the circumstances of time and persons of that martyrdom, pertain to the history of Reims; but to that history the age of SS. Anianus, Lupus, and Servatius does not pertain. Flodoard therefore could more easily err in the age of those Saints than in the circumstances of the martyrdom of St. Nicasius, especially since Anianus and Lupus were not far removed from the time of the Vandal persecution. Nay, it cannot even be proved for certain that there was an error about St. Anianus: for he could have been bishop already before the Vandal irruption, even if he survived until the Hunnish one, since only forty-four years lie between the two, and no other bishop of Orléans is known to have sat during all that time. For which cause it cannot be said for certain that in the manuscript Lives, which refer St. Anianus with Nicasius to the persecution of the Vandals, Servatius and Lupus being omitted, there is any confusion.

[17] Nay, neither can Flodoard be said to have confused the devastations of the Vandals and of the Huns, and in that he really erred; but he did not confuse the Huns with the Vandals. but only to have erred in the age of Servatius and Lupus, and perhaps also of Nicasius. Certainly the words which Pagi alleges from Flodoard, chapter 8, to prove this confusion are more against him than they profit him. For, being about to report the martyrdom of St. Oriculus, he begins thus: Under the same persecution of the Vandals or of the Huns. And these words I so understand that Flodoard doubts whether Oriculus suffered under the Vandals, under whom he had asserted without hesitation that Nicasius suffered, or afterwards under the Huns. And so he shows that both devastations were known to him, and by no means held for one. And that this is Flodoard's mind I gather from his manner of writing. For in treating of Nicasius, five times he expresses in plain words the Vandals or the Vandal persecution, without any mention of the Huns; but in writing of Oriculus, he presently says of the Vandals or the Huns; namely because he did not doubt that Nicasius was killed under the Vandals; but he did doubt about the time of Oriculus's crowning. For if he had believed the persecution of both nations to be one, why, I beseech, so late, and only once in Oriculus, did he make mention of the Huns? Why did he adduce the words of St. Jerome, who indeed names many nations with the Vandals, yet not the Huns, if he judged that the persecution of the Vandals and of the Huns was one at the same time? For which cause I do not judge that the Vandals were confused with the Huns by Flodoard and the writers of the Lives; but I gladly admit that Flodoard erred in the age of certain Saints who belonged to other churches.

[18] They object secondly, Tillemont and Pagi, that the Vandals in the Acts and by Flodoard are called pagans, Their second objection, that the Vandals were Arians, is frivolous, and they say that this agrees with the Huns, not with the Vandals, whom they contend to have been Arians. This reason is frivolous: for it can scarcely be doubted that in that mixed rabble of barbarians the greater part was pagan when they burst into Gaul. If there were any Arians among them — such as certainly the Vandals were not long after — they were then no milder toward Christians than the pagans themselves, and therefore all could be called by the one name of pagans: nor yet do Flodoard or the writer of the Acts assert that absolutely all were pagans. Further, what I have said, that the Vandals were afterwards Arians, is certain; but I do not yet see that they were such when they entered Gaul, although this is asserted by the praised writers with wondrous confidence, as if it were most certain. Assuredly St. Isidore in the History of the Vandals at the era 467 has it thus: Gaiseric succeeds his brother Gunderic in the kingdom for forty years. Who, being made an apostate from a Catholic, is reported to have been the first to pass over into the Arian perfidy. Nearly the same has Idatius in his Chronicle, the word first being omitted, however. Take the words: Who, as the report of some has it, being made an apostate from the Catholic faith, is said to have passed over into the Arian perfidy. These things deserved some attention from writers: for although St. Isidore is not contemporary with the Vandals, at least he was most learned, and not so far removed from their times as to be neglected on this head. And yet Baronius, Pagi, Tillemont, Ruinart, and others assert without hesitation that the Vandals were

Arians when they burst into Gaul, and do not declare from what time they had embraced the Arian heresy.

[19] Further, the words of St. Isidore just given render me the more doubtful, the less I find any passage of the Vandals from idolatry to the Arian sect. [nor is it proved: for they were indeed Arians before the middle of the fifth century,] I see indeed that Procopius in book 1 of the Vandal War, chapter 1, and other writers of the sixth and seventh centuries, write of the Vandals as of Arians. Nay, I shall gladly join to the others Salvian of Marseilles, who about the middle of the fifth century wrote his work On the Government of God: for Tillemont uses that writer, tome 5 of the History of the emperors, in Honorius, article 24, to show that the Vandals were Arians when they entered Gaul: but I do not perceive that this can be proved from Salvian. Salvian says indeed in book 7, page 160, that the Vandals were instructed by bad teachers, and so implies that they were already Arians when he was writing. Moreover in book 4, page 86, he divides the barbarians into pagans and heretics: and among the pagans he reckons the Saxons, Franks, Gepids, Chuni or Huns, Alans, etc.; but among the heretics in book 5 he numbers the Vandals and Goths; so that no doubt remains that the Vandals were Arians when Salvian was writing, about the middle of the fifth century. But we know that well enough from elsewhere, nor is the question whether they were Arians about the middle of the fifth century, since they were certainly such under king Gaiseric, who began to reign about the year 428. But I do not sufficiently understand by what consequence Tillemont could infer that they were the same Arians in the year 406 or 407: nor do I find any argument by which I can prove it.

[20] but in the year 407 they were more probably pagans. On the contrary, various reasons offer themselves which the rather compel me to judge that the Vandals, no less than the Alans, were pagans up to the time of their irruption into the Gauls. For first, since they dwelt in the Northern parts of Germany, as the more probable opinion has it, I do not sufficiently understand from whom they should have received the light of the faith, or the Arian heresy, before this their first migration into the Roman empire. Secondly, Orosius, a contemporary writer, in book 7 of the Histories which he wrote at St. Augustine's urging, chapter 38, affirms that the count Stilicho, sprung from the Vandals, was the author of this barbarian irruption, that by that occasion he might raise his son Eucherius to the empire. With Orosius agree also Marcellinus, Prosper Tiro, and St. Jerome, as Tillemont acknowledges in Honorius, article 24. Hence Stilicho was slain (by order of the emperor Honorius), says Orosius. Eucherius also was slain, who, in order to win for himself the favor of the pagans, threatened that he would inaugurate the beginnings of his reign with the restoration of the temples and the overthrow of the churches. But now, who would believe that Eucherius was so mad as to think that he would please the Vandals, Alans, Sueves, and other barbarians by restoring the temples of the idols, if they had been Arians? Wherefore I am altogether persuaded that the Vandals were not yet Arians, especially since both St. Jerome and Orosius speak of them no otherwise than of pagan barbarians, where nevertheless Orosius in book 7, chapter 33, is not silent about how the Goths became Arians, and would probably have said the same of the Vandals if they had been such: for he was not even willing to be silent, in chapter 41, that some were converted from among the Huns, Sueves, Vandals, and Burgundians. All these things considered, I cannot wonder that the Vandals and their allies are called pagans by Flodoard and in the Acts of St. Nicasius; but I wonder the more that they are called Arians by Tillemont, especially since he himself in article 24 asserts that Stilicho by their aid destined the empire for his son Eucherius, whom he confesses in article 29 to have been a pagan.

[21] I have begun to treat this controversy about the religion of the Vandals quite beyond my intention, because I wished to examine with myself Tillemont's third objection is plainly ridiculous: on what foundation the objection of Tillemont and Pagi rested. Let the studious reader take this digression, not altogether necessary but perhaps not useless, with an even mind. Tillemont's third objection could likewise lead to a longer dissertation: but I fear that I have already discoursed too much upon it. Wherefore I shall briefly say what I judge to be sufficient. Tillemont observes in note 4 on Attila that St. Nicasius, according to the Acts, built a church to the most holy Mother of God Mary. And he acknowledges that this deed, done about the year 450, is not improbable: but he affirms that it is not found in writers of approved credit that any church was erected to the most holy Virgin before the year 431 except the cathedral of Ephesus. I answer that very many can be assigned from monuments better than the Life of St. Nicasius; but that this objection of Tillemont is so ridiculous that it does not deserve a serious answer. For who of sound mind would say that it is not as probable that a church to the honor of the Queen of all the Saints was built about the year 400 as about 450, since it is established about churches dedicated far earlier to the name of other Saints?

[22] Fourthly Tillemont observes that some write the fourth from monuments unworthy of credit, as also the fifth; that St. Genevieve the virgin was consecrated while St. Nicasius was alive: and that others also assert that St. Albinus, bishop of Châlons, was ordained by Nicasius himself. Either fact, if it were true, would compel us to attach the martyrdom of St. Nicasius to the times of Attila rather than of the Vandals. But Tillemont himself confesses that these things are not read in monuments so ancient as ought to detain us. About St. Alpinus we shall refute this below at his Life. Let us therefore pass to Tillemont's last objection, which he opposes to our argument drawn from the series and chronological order of the bishops of Reims: for he confesses that four bishops can hardly be placed between St. Nicasius, if he was killed in the year 451, and St. Remigius, whom Pagi at the year 471, number 13, acknowledges to have been made bishop about the year 457 or 459. Thus he reasons in the main. In the testament of St. Remigius in Flodoard, book 1, chapter 18, page 89, there is read concerning the church of St. Agricola (now St. Nicasius's): Where also five confessors, the immediate predecessors of the lord Nicasius, … are buried. And this church is said to have been founded by Jovinus, a man illustrious and distinguished by many titles. But Tillemont disputes much against Marlot, to show that that church was not built by Jovinus save after the year 393; and thence infers that there were six bishops of Reims within fourteen years, if St. Nicasius was crowned in the year 407.

[23] for the testament is corrupted or supposititious: which otherwise The same writer discussed many of these things in tome 5 of the Emperors, note 25 on Valentinian I; but in both places he builds upon a foundation of straw, which is the less to be forgiven him inasmuch as with severer and often even unfair criticism he is wont to reject monuments far better than the testament of St. Remigius, of whose forgery or at least interpolation there can be no doubt. Nevertheless let us follow the man, though unlike himself; and let us show that the very testament of St. Remigius much damages the opinion which Tillemont maintains. According to that testament St. Sixtus, the first bishop of Reims, with three successors, rested in the church of St. Sixtus: but Nicasius with five predecessors in the church of St. Agricola: and thence the authors deduce that St. Nicasius was the tenth among the bishops of Reims. And of these the fourth is Betausius or Imbetausius, who in the year 314 was present at the first council of Arles. But his successor must have survived after the year 393, if we believe Tillemont's reasoning, and so without any necessity we must attribute eighty years or more to two bishops of whom almost nothing is known, in order to include four successors of St. Nicasius within six or eight years.

[24] does not profit his opinion, but opposes it. I know that these things could indeed have happened: I do not deny that the successor of Imbetausius could have sat so long after him that he was buried in a church founded after the year 393. But no one either will deny that it is far more likely that five or six bishops who are reckoned as intermediate between Imbetausius and Nicasius sat between the year 314 and 407, yet so that something out of this interval be left for Imbetausius and Nicasius; and that the four successors of Nicasius administered the see for about fifty years until the election of St. Remigius: for thus a sufficient space is left for all. But now Tillemont's structure, opposed to these things, springs so many leaks that it can be overthrown by an easy push, even if Remigius's testament be admitted. For it is nowhere said that Jovinus was the first builder of that church. There could have been a smaller church in the same place, in which various prelates had already been buried, and that one transformed into a more magnificent shape by the wealth of Jovinus. Secondly, the five predecessors of St. Nicasius are not said to have been buried from the beginning in the church of St. Agricola. Why then could not their bodies have been translated thither? For which cause, even if I held the whole metrical inscription which Flodoard recites in chapter 5 as the epitaph of Jovinus, together with Tillemont, all too lightly for authentic, and agreed with him about the time of the church built by Jovinus, his whole reasoning would prove nothing against the chronological order given.