Sergius I

ON ST. SERGIUS I, POPE AND CONFESSOR,

AT ROME,

In the year DCCI or DCCII.

CHRONOLOGICO-HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.

Sergius I Pope confessor at Rome (S.)

BY J. P.

§ I. The Saint's memory in the sacred Calendars, his veneration, proper Office and Lessons, a Eulogy, the Acts written by various authors.

[ ] The memory of this holy Pontiff is inscribed in certain of the older sacred Calendars, but in nearly all the more recent. The Saint's name in the Roman Martyrology and in the Appendix of Ado; The Roman Martyrology on the IX day of September announces him thus: At Rome, of S. Sergius Pope and confessor; to which the most eminent Baronius in the Notes with which he illustrated the said Martyrology subjoins: Concerning whom Bede, Ado and the more recent writers. But in no Calendars which go under the name of Bede have I been able to find our Saint, except in those published in the year 1264 by Christopher Plantin; but that these were wrongly ascribed to that venerable man is known to the learned. He reports however certain deeds of the Saint in the book On the Six Ages in the Ecclesiastical History of the English nation, book 5, chap. 7, as also Ado in his Chronicle at the year 686; for whether he was also inserted from the beginning in his genuine Martyrology is greatly doubtful. Certainly Rosweyde, having made a comparison with older manuscript codices, judged that what he had read about the Saint in some copies of Ado should be cut away from the body and rejected into an Appendix, where the following are found: V of the Ides of September. Of Sergius the Pope, who sat thirteen years at Rome. He found a portion of wondrous size of the saving wood of the Lord's Cross in the sacristy of blessed Peter. He ordained that at the time of the breaking of the Lord's Body the Agnus Dei should be chanted by the clergy and the people, and appointed that on the days of the Lord's Annunciation, of the Dormition and of the Nativity of the holy Mother of God Mary, and of saint Simeon, which in Greek is called Hypapante, Litanies should go forth from saint Hadrian's, and the people should assemble at saint Mary's. But of these last deeds of the Saint we shall treat more fully below.

[2] Our Saint is besides announced by Notker at the same day in almost the same words as in the Appendix of Ado: in the Martyrology of Notker and in various Additions to Usuard. he is likewise announced in several Supplements to Usuard; but not in all in the same manner and on the same day. The Vatican codex num. 5949 records him on this day thus: At Rome, the birthday of S. Sergius the Pope, who presided over the Church thirteen years. The register of the Charterhouse of Utrecht: Of Sergius Pope and confessor. The Brussels codex: At Rome, of saint Sergius the Pope, who ordained that in the Office of the Mass, during the communion, the Agnus Dei should be sung three times. But Grevenus has thus: At Rome, the deposition of blessed Sergius Pope and confessor, who, a Syrian by nation, ruled the Church of God laudably for thirteen years, and he adds some of the things which we have just given from the Appendix of Ado, which is done more fully in the Victorine codex and in Molanus' editions. At the VIII day of this month the codices of Utrecht, of Alberg, the Danish, of Hagenau and the Lübeck-Cologne one make mention of S. Sergius, which, as may be seen in our Sollerius, do not differ so greatly among themselves in the manner of announcing. The reason why the former thought the Saint's memory should be kept at the IX, and the latter at the VIII of September, seems to me likely to be this: namely that they used different codices of Anastasius

the Librarian on the Lives of the Pontiffs: for one has He (S. Sergius) was buried on the VI of the Ides, another on the V of the Ides of September. We have followed the Roman Martyrology with most of the more recent martyrologists, whom it would be long to recount here all: mention however will be made of some in the course of the work, where the matter shall require it.

[3] What we have thus far reported from the sacred Calendars does not permit us to doubt of our Pontiff's sanctity and of the antiquity of his veneration. [He is venerated at Palermo with a greater double rite on the V of the Ides of September.] And so it will suffice to subjoin to them some things from which it may be gathered what memory and veneration of him is had today, and in what places chiefly. Palermo, a most famous city of Sicily, and greatly ennobled by the multitude of Saints of every state and sex which it has brought forth to the world and to heaven, deservedly places among its patrons and citizens S. Sergius I the Pope, and yearly recalls his festival on the V of the Ides of September with a greater double rite. The Office had been wont to be recited from the Common of a Pontiff Confessor: but in the year 1716 a proper Office of our Saint, before approved at Rome for the Lateran and Vatican basilicas, was granted to the diocese of Palermo also, to be recited on the same day by all the clergy, both secular and Regular. The Lessons of the second Nocturn are composed from the Saint's chief Acts, as they stand in Anastasius, and in other writers generally who have transmitted to the memory of posterity the illustrious deeds of the holy Pontiffs. These very Lessons I have judged should be transcribed here, that the studious reader may have some previous knowledge of the series of the Saint's deeds, and especially of those which will afterward come to be discussed.

[4] Lect. IV. Sergius, an Antiochene by birth, his father Tiberius, The Lessons of the Office born at Palermo in Sicily, when Conon had departed this life in the year of Christ six hundred and eighty-seven, being raised up with God's assent and by the favor of the votes of all, extinguished at its very rise the most foul schism which the avarice of the emperor's exarch and the ambition of the archdeacon Paschal had stirred up. Coming to Rome while Adeodatus was Pontiff, he was enrolled by him in the clergy of the Roman Church, and, being ordained by Leo the second of this name Presbyter of the title of saint Susanna, he discharged his office energetically.

[5] proper Lect. V. The canons afterward falsely attributed by the Greeks to the sixth Synod he was unwilling to admit, though the emperor pressed and threatened dreadful things; but he steadfastly rejected them as spurious, not without peril of his life. A great portion of the Lord's Cross, found by him by God's revealing, he placed in the Constantinian basilica to be adored by the people. Likewise the body of saint Leo, laid in an obscure corner, he removed thence by God's will, and set it forth in a more adorned place to be venerated by all. Finally he adorned the Vatican basilica with countless gifts, assuredly excellent monuments of his love toward the Prince of the Apostles.

[6] drawn from the Acts. Lect. VI. Kilian and his companions, afterward crowned with martyrdom, he sent into Germany, Willibrord and Swibert with their companions into Frisia and the other surrounding regions: in which they converted a very great number of pagans to the faith of Christ. Coadvallus king of the Britons, coming to Rome, he received and washed with holy Baptism. For the people of Ravenna he ordained Damian, for those of León Ubertus, for the Britons Berectualdus, as bishops. He appointed that to the sacred Liturgy the pious verse Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis should be added. Finally, full of merits, after he had sat thirteen years and eight months, he rested in a holy end, and was buried in the Vatican.

[7] Likewise with a double rite on the same day at Rome in the Lateran basilica, At Rome too the yearly memory of our holy Pontiff is celebrated, and the same Office with the Lessons already given is recited with a double rite in the Lateran and Vatican basilicas; but not in both on the same day: for in the Proper of the Saints of the cathedral church of the Lateran the Saint's Office is appointed on the IX day of this month; but in the Proper of the Vatican church on the XI. To this basilica of the Prince of the Apostles the most eminent Prospero Lambertini looked — first Pontiff of Ancona, then of Bologna, but now of the universal Church, Benedict XIV — when he asserted that S. Sergius is venerated at Rome on the XI day of September, in the most illustrious Work which he wrote On the Beatification of the Servants of God and the canonization of the Blessed; that was first printed at Bologna in the year 1737, but now in the year 1748, enriched by a second revision by its most learned and most reverend author, has been reprinted at Padua; and a copy of it the most holy Father had transmitted to us, an illustrious monument of his munificence and benevolence toward us, and a most welcome not only ornament of our museum, but also a most useful instrument.

[8] and in the Vatican on the III of the Ides of September. It is a pleasure to insert into this Commentary from the aforesaid Work what pertains to the present matter. In book 3, chap. 32, some supreme Pontiffs are recounted whose name is written in the Roman Martyrology, and who are venerated with an Ecclesiastical Office in the basilicas of the City; and among these our Saint is recorded with the following eulogy: On the XI day of September saint Sergius I Pope and confessor is venerated. Unconquered was the spirit of this Pontiff; since, in no way broken by the entreaties of the emperor Justinian, he rejected the canons of the Quinisext Synod: for the emperor pressed with such vehemence for their confirmation that he sent to Rome Zacharias his protospatharius, to carry off the refusing Pontiff to Constantinople; but he, struck with fear (for the soldiers were unwilling to carry out the wicked orders of the prince), cast himself at the Pontiff's feet and begged pardon: and while this same supreme Pontiff was sitting at Rome an end was put to the schism of the church of Aquileia concerning the three chapters. And these things prove the Saint's particular veneration more manifestly than that it should be necessary to add anything further.

[9] The Acts of S. Sergius a good many writers have illustrated; The Saint's Acts illustrated by various writers. but it is superfluous to recount them here; for since they are all more recent than Anastasius the Librarian, or rather than the author whom he here transcribed, they have drawn most things from him, and those things which are more obscure — and of this kind there are not a few and very intricate ones, especially those pertaining to chronological reckonings — each has set forth at his own will and often at his own pleasure. We shall try to elucidate in the following paragraphs those things which stand in Anastasius about the holy Pontiff's country, father, and deeds before and after taking up the Pontificate; but what is wanting in the praised author we shall supply from others.

§ II. The Saint's country, education, priesthood, and election to the Pontificate.

[ ] He was born That Palermo in Sicily fell to S. Sergius as his country, I have suggested above at num. 3, being led namely by the authority of Anastasius, who expressly asserts it in these words: Sergius, by nation a Syrian of the region of Antioch, sprung of his father Tiberius at Palermo in Sicily. The very same in the same words Abbo abbot of Fleury testifies in the Lives of the holy Pontiffs; and this author, who flourished in the X century, Onofrio Panvinio follows in his Catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs, and not a few other more recent writers. But Augustin Oldoini wrongly reckons among these, in his addition to the Life of our Saint written by Alfonso Chacón, Peter de Natalibus and Baronius; for Peter de Natalibus does not even mention the city of Palermo. Take the words with which he begins the Saint's Acts: Sergius the Pope, of the city of Antioch, of his father Tiberius, succeeded Conon the Pontiff in the Bishopric of Rome. These indeed are rather opposed to the aforesaid writers than consonant with them.

[11] More manifestly opposed to them is Baronius in the Annals at the year of Christ 687, at Palermo in Sicily, where he writes thus of the Saint's country: Sergius, a Syrian by nation, sprung at Antioch of his father Tiberius, lived at Palermo in Sicily. The most eminent annalist says indeed that these things are found in Anastasius; but anything of the kind I have been able to find in no codices, in no writers who have gathered the variant readings of Anastasius or of the Liber Pontificalis, such as Giuseppe Bianchini and Giovanni Vignoli; in all he is asserted to have been born at Palermo. There are others too to whom the city of Palermo has not seemed our holy Pontiff's country, and among them indeed S. Antoninus, part 2 of the Histories, title 13, chapter 1, §6, has thus: Now this Sergius was by nation a Syrian, sprung at Antioch of his father Tiberius, but brought up from childhood at Rome. But Chacón in the Work adduced above, Ferrari in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, François Pagi in the Breviarium of the deeds of the Roman Pontiffs, and some other moderns write that Sergius was an Antiochene by country, brought up at Palermo. But since that matter is merely historical, and in the codices of Anastasius he is constantly said to have been born at Palermo in Sicily, and since besides others Abbo of Fleury, an author notable for antiquity and credit, agrees with them, I have thought that their opinion should rather be adhered to, and that it must be said that S. Antoninus, Peter de Natalibus and Baronius used a corrupt codex or catalogue, from whom the other writers cited for the second opinion drew their own account.

[12] his father Tiberius, probably an Antiochene merchant. That the name of S. Sergius' father was Tiberius is established well enough from what has been said before; but of what condition he was, or on what occasion he came to Palermo and there begot offspring, can be drawn for certain from no ancient monuments. Antonino Mongitore in Palermo sanctified, or the Book on the Lives of the Saints and Blessed citizens of Palermo, pag. 148, not improbably judges, after Chacón, that he was by condition a merchant, and subjoins some things pertaining to our Saint's education in childhood, doubtless from conjecture, for none of these is found handed down to memory in the older writers. Take them turned from the Italian into Latin: In the seventh century of Christ, when a certain Antiochene merchant from Syria, Tiberius by name, had put in at the city (of Palermo), being detained by the most abundant gain which he received from trade, he fixed his dwelling at Palermo: but afterward in the said royal city of Sicily he was the happy parent of our holy Sergius. He, from infancy given to letters and to the pursuit of piety, excelled no less in learning than in the excellence of the Christian virtues. He applied his ingenious disposition also to music, in which likewise he was eminent.

[13] While Pope Adeodatus was sitting, he comes to Rome, and by Leo II The year of the Saint's birth none of the writers whom I have seen determines. Anastasius and Abbo of Fleury, when they have briefly indicated his country, his father, and the time at which he was Pontiff, thus proceed: Coming to Rome under the Pontiff Adeodatus of holy memory, he was numbered among the clergy of the Roman Church. Some chronologers attach the beginning of Adeodatus' Pontificate to the year 669, others to the year 672, and most of the more recent writers follow these; but its end some to the year 676, others to 677; but since Anastasius has not noted in what year of his own age and of Adeodatus' Pontificate S. Sergius came to Rome, nothing can be drawn thence for his birth. Yet the following words of the just-praised author bring a little light to this matter: And because he was studious and capable in the office of chant, he was delivered for instruction to the chief [\] of the singers, and, having been made an acolyte, ascending through the grades, he was ordained presbyter by the Pontiff Leo of holy memory in the title of saint Susanna, which is called* ad duas domos. Leo the second, who is here meant, did not hold the Pontificate before the year of Christ 682, as all the learned acknowledge, nor after the year 684. Therefore our Saint was consecrated

a priest, and, as the words suggest, at the same time created a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, in the year 682 or in one of the two following. Now the Priestly order was ordinarily conferred in the VII century upon those who were thirty years old, especially if they had been before numbered among the Roman clergy and brought up there, unless perhaps for reasonable causes it were deferred, or, under the pressure of a scarcity of priests or of some other necessity, were anticipated — which no one records to have happened here; and therefore by some kind of conjecture the year of S. Sergius' birth might be set down as of Christ 652 or 653.

[14] [ordained presbyter between the years 682 and 684, perhaps in the 30th year of his age.] From these things, and from the words of Anastasius cited in the first place, it may be gathered that the Saint came to the City when he had reached about the twentieth or twenty-first year of his age; but in that opinion S. Antoninus must be said to have taken the age of childhood in the broadest way, when he says above that Sergius was brought up at Rome from childhood. Unless one should wish so to interpret the words of Anastasius that Sergius was indeed numbered among the Roman clergy while Adeodatus was sitting, but before his times was brought up as a boy at Rome. Besides what has been said thus far, I have read nothing at all in the writers about his deeds from the time of his birth until he was initiated a presbyter; and the rest up to the Pontificate Anastasius likewise embraces in a few words: He in the time of his presbyterate energetically celebrated the solemnities of Masses through the various cemeteries. Whence we learn that even in this VII century the custom of celebrating the Divine mysteries in the cemeteries still flourished, which of old were wont to be frequently visited by the faithful on account of the bodies of the holy Apostles and martyrs buried there; their names and number and structure Baronius gives in the Annals at the year of Christ 226. But of the care of the churches of the City and of the cemeteries formerly committed to the Roman presbyters, Onofrio Panvinio among others discourses at length in his book on the bishoprics, titles and deaconries of the Cardinals, whom let the curious reader consult: we proceed with Anastasius to our Saint's Pontificate.

[15] But after seven years, when Conon of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, had died, [After the death of Pope Conon Sergius is substituted, two having been elected in schism] as is wont to happen, the Roman people of the city was divided into two parts, and one part indeed elected Theodore the archpresbyter; but the other part Paschal the archdeacon. And Theodore the archpresbyter with the people who favored him, coming first, held the inner part of the patriarchate (the Lateran palace); but Paschal occupied the outer part, from the oratory of saint Sylvester, and the basilica of the house of Julia, which looks over the field. And when the one would not yield place to the other, but both persisted savagely, that one might overcome the other, counsel being taken, the chief men of the judges and of the army of the Roman soldiery, and the greatest part of the seditious clergy, and especially a multitude of priests and of citizens, went on to the sacred palace; and long deliberating what ought to be done, or in what way the contention of the two disputing elected men might be lulled, by God's assent they betook themselves in agreement to the person of the aforenamed Sergius, then a venerable presbyter; and taking him from the midst of the people, they brought him into the oratory of blessed Cæsarius the martyr of Christ, which is within the above-written sacrosanct palace, and thence they led him with acclamations of praise into the Lateran episcopal residence. Thus Anastasius; from whom it is gathered that the basilica of the house of Julia and the oratory of B. Cæsarius, mentioned in the text, were contained within the circuit of the old patriarchate or Lateran palace; Onofrio Panvinio confirms this in his Work on the seven churches of the City: There were, he says, in this palace little shrines or chapels, and some basilicas, as of Pope Vigilius, the Julia, of Pope Zacharias; likewise the oratories of S. Cæsarius the martyr, of S. Sebastian, otherwise the basilica of Pope Theodore etc. Of the Oratory of S. Sylvester the same author speaks thus: The oratory of S. Sylvester is in the Lateran portico before the old patriarchate.

[16] [Paschal and Theodore; the latter of his own accord acquiesces, although some authors] The schism which arose in the Church before Sergius' election had, as Anastasius testifies in the Life of Conon the Pontiff, its foundations laid by the wicked contrivance of Paschal the archdeacon, while Conon himself was still living; for since he had left a great quantity of gold to be distributed to the clergy and to the monasteries, and its distribution pertained to the archdeacon, Paschal, while Conon was sick, wrote secretly to John the exarch of Ravenna, and promised him the aforesaid quantity of gold if he would bring it about that he himself should be elected Pontiff; and that promise indeed of the ambitious man created no small trouble for our Saint when he was already Pontiff. Whether Theodore, the other elected man, also fostered the schism, I should not dare to assert; I should believe that the greater part of the people and especially of the clergy inclined to his election on account of Paschal's wicked life and manners. Besides, it was greatly in the clergy's interest that Paschal should not be elected, lest namely they should be deprived of the gold bequeathed by Conon. It is indeed established that Theodore yielded of his own accord to Sergius the Pontiff. Hear Anastasius subjoining the following to the words given above: And although the doors of the patriarchate were fortified and closed on the inside; yet the party which had elected the aforesaid venerable man (Sergius) the presbyter, because it was also the stronger, prevailed and entered. And when he had entered, Theodore the archpresbyter, one of the two elected, at once acquiesced and humbled himself, and entering greeted and kissed the most holy elected Sergius.

[17] from an epitaph, which is by error ascribed to Sergius I, The said Theodore seems to have been the same as he whom, after the death of Pope John V, the Roman army had wished to preside over the universal Church, the Roman clergy resisting and contending for Peter the archpresbyter, whom they desired to be raised to the Pontificate. In a like manner too that dispute was settled. For, Peter and Theodore being abandoned, all, after many disputations on both sides, agreed in the election of a third, who was Conon, our Saint's immediate predecessor; so that neither Peter the archpresbyter, nor Theodore, who afterward succeeded him in the archpresbyterate, nor Paschal the archdeacon was ever held a legitimate Pontiff, as some wrongly suspect about Theodore from an epitaph which, copied by Pietro Mallio from the monuments of the Vatican basilica, Baronius reports at the year 701, framed in these verses:

> Whoever thou art that approachest the dread thresholds of the blessed Pope, > behold the pious Sergius and the watches of Peter. > He by paternal right, being elected, held the summit of the Apostolic > see, when Theodore died. > The father is driven from the City, John seizes the sacred things, > and he, a wolf, scatters the Romulean flocks. > He was an exile from his country for seven revolving years, > afterward by many prayers of the people he returns to the City. > He is received, he is consecrated Pope; his see recovered > he rejoices: the Pastor loves all his flocks at once. > He subdued the invaders with the sickle of the Saints, > of the Roman Church, and with the judgments of the fathers.

[18] [wrongly will have it that he presided legitimately over the Church for some time:] From that epitaph, I say, they wrongly suspect that Theodore was in the schism with Paschal held a legitimate Pontiff, and that at length our Saint was substituted for him when dead, who a short time after was driven from the City by a certain John, an invader of the Apostolic see, and after an exile of seven years was recalled and restored to his see. For besides that in no catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs is the name of Theodore noted between the names of Conon and Sergius — which would certainly have been done if he had occupied the see as legitimate Pontiff — not the least mention of all these things is made in Anastasius, in Abbo or in other ancient writers; nay, they manifestly contradict them, when they write that Theodore yielded of his own accord to Sergius, and treat of this Pontiff's remaining deeds. John, the sixth of that name, did indeed hold the Pontificate, but after Sergius' death, nor did he invade the chair of S. Peter, but was legitimately elected to it, as all acknowledge.

[19] More rightly did our Papebroch judge of that Epitaph, others rightly attribute the said epitaph to Sergius III. whom most of the more recent writers have followed, when in his Conatus chronico-historicus he ascribed it to Sergius III, who held the Apostolic See at the beginning of the X century: for he, when Pope Theodore II had died, being elected Pontiff, was after a few days driven from the City, and John IX substituted for him. We have these things from Flodoard in his metrical Fragment on the Roman Pontiffs, where, having related the death of Theodore, he thus proceeds:

> John then succeeds, who shone ninth in the order, > by whom the elected Sergius is driven from his native City.

Observe that, as here, so also in the epitaph Sergius is said to have been driven from his native city, namely Rome, which can by no means be applied to Sergius I, being certainly a Palermitan, but excellently to Sergius III, a Roman of the counts of Tusculum. Consonant with the said epitaph too are the things which the praised poet sings of Sergius III's return to the City in these verses:

> Thence Sergius returns, who long since chosen to the citadel > of the summit, had borne repulse by a snatching exile: > in which, a fugitive, he lay hid for seven revolving years. > Hence returning by the prayers of the people, he is consecrated to the honor > long before assigned him, whereby he comes forth as the third > Prelate of the name.

More about Sergius III have Papebroch, Antoine Pagi and others, whom let the curious reader consult; I return to Paschal, the other elected in the schism.

[20] Not so peacefully did Paschal suffer himself to be frustrated of his hope; Paschal resists and stirs up great troubles for the Pontiff he struggled first as much as he could; then, compelled by force, he submitted himself in appearance, but did not cease by hidden contrivances to create troubles for the Pontiff and losses for the Church, as I suggested above; until at length he bore the penalty of his impious ambition and of his crimes. It is a pleasure to hear Anastasius again here: But Paschal, he says, the hardness of his heart in no way permitted to do this, until, compelled and confounded, willing or unwilling, he entered and greeted his Lord and the elected one. Which Paschal also did not cease to send his messengers secretly to Ravenna, and, money or other divers gifts being promised, to persuade John the patrician and exarch, surnamed Platyn, with his judges, no one knowing it, to come to Rome. Who came so secretly that neither standards nor banners with the soldiery of the Roman army met him according to custom in a suitable place, except from near the city of Rome. Who, when he had come and had found that all had agreed upon the person of the most holy Sergius, could not indeed favor him (Paschal); yet that same exarch inflicted upon the Church of blessed Peter the apostle, through the wretchedness (that is, the wickedness) of that same Paschal, a payment and a loss, which had been promised to the aforesaid exarch by that same Paschal, that is, a hundred pounds of gold demanded from the part of the Church, while the most holy elected Sergius protested that he had neither promised to give it, nor was the possibility of giving it at hand; and, that he might move the minds of those who saw it to compunction, he caused the flagons and crowns which of old hung before the sacred altar and the confession of blessed Peter the apostle to be taken down and delivered in pledge.

[21] by the exarch of Ravenna; but he is at length punished for his crimes. But not even in this was the hardness of that same exarch bent, until he received the hundred pounds of gold, as has been said. And although, as has been said before, the most wretched Paschal for that reason fastened expense

and loss upon the Church of Christ; yet, with Christ favoring, Sergius the presbyter and elected one was ordained Pontiff in the See of blessed Peter the apostle. But the aforesaid Paschal not long after was deprived also of the office of archdeacon, on account of certain incantations, and of the groves which he worshipped, or of the lots which he handled with other diviners, by the intervening judgment of God and of blessed Peter the prince of the apostles, and, being thrust into a monastery, died after five years impenitent through the hardness of his heart. Whence you may gather that Paschal had come to such a pitch of crimes that, unfaithful not only to men but to God himself, he impiously worshipped groves after the manner of the Gentiles, and was addicted to idolatry and more probably to magic also. For the rest, about what has been said thus far nearly all writers today agree; but about the time at which these things happened, and especially about the year in which our Saint was ordained Pontiff, so great is the dispute that no one would easily settle it with all difficulties whatever removed. This will be plain from the following §.

\ al. priori*

§ III. It is uncertain whether S. Sergius was ordained Pontiff in the year 687 or 688; the opinions of Baronius, Pagi and Papebroch are reported.

[ ] [The origin of the difficulty from a chronological error in the Liber Pontificalis.] The opinions concerning the present difficulty are reduced in some fashion to three. The first is that of Cardinal Baronius, which our Labbe with others at first followed, then abandoned; the second that of Antoine and François Pagi, the third that of Papebroch. But before I bring each into the midst, and show in few words in what they differ, the matter must be taken up somewhat higher, as depending on the beginning and end of certain preceding Pontiffs, namely of Agatho, Leo II, Benedict II, John V and Conon. And so the hinge of this matter turns chiefly upon the year in which, after the death of Agatho, Leo II entered upon the Pontificate and laid it down with his life. Anastasius the Librarian concludes the Life of Agatho with these words: He was buried at blessed Peter the apostle's on the IV of the Ides of January, and the Bishopric was vacant one year, seven months, five days: but he thus begins the Life of Leo the second: Leo, a Sicilian by nation, of his father Paul, sat ten months, seventeen days. The burial of Agatho the authors praised above attach with unanimous consent to the year 682; but both the Pagis, Papebroch, and their followers assert without hesitation that in the remaining words of Anastasius an error lurks, and try to correct it, as we shall see, though in different ways.

[23] That error lay hidden from Baronius; Baronius, who did not detect that error, laid it down thus: he says that Agatho died in the year 682, and after an interpontificate of one year, seven months and five days he attributes to Leo II, created or ordained on the fifteenth day of the month of August of the year 683, as he had found in Anastasius, 10 months and some days of Pontificate, up to the end of the month of June of the year 684. To Leo, when dead, after an interpontificate of one month and twenty-two days, he substitutes in the same year Benedict II, whom, after he had sat from the XX of August to the VIII of May, that is, a little more than eight months, and the See had been vacant two months and fifteen days, John V followed in the year 685, who sat one year and XI days. And the see was vacant two months and eighteen days, and there succeeded in the month of October in the year 686 Conon, who after a Pontificate of eleven months and twenty-three days, and after an interpontificate of two months and thirteen days, had as successor in the month of December of the year 687 Sergius I, of whom we here treat. But that this chronology is mistaken in many things the more recent writers acknowledge; take one example or two, and learn at the same time the error which was treated of in the preceding number.

[24] First, that long interpontificate from Agatho to Leo the second, which Baronius adduces and hence in many things from Anastasius, Anastasius himself contradicts in the Life of the said Leo, writing in this manner: By the command of this kindly Pontiff a church was built near the Golden Veil in honor of blessed Sebastian, and also in honor of the martyr George. In his times, on the sixteenth day of the month of April, in the eleventh Indiction, the moon underwent an eclipse. After the Lord's Supper it labored almost the whole night with a bloody face, and only after cockcrow did it begin gradually to grow clear and to return to its own aspect. But the said eclipse, as Calvisius testifies in his chronological Work, and as other chronologers and astronomers generally hand down, happened in the year of Christ 683; for then, the eleventh Indiction running, the Lord's Supper coincided with the XVI day of April; on this day therefore S. Leo was governing the Church, and so the see could not have been vacant until the following month of August. Nay, that it was not vacant until the beginning of the year 683 Papebroch and Labbe show from the Divalis sent by the emperor Constantine Pogonatus to the said Leo, according to Papebroch in the month of December, according to Labbe in the month of April in the year 682; the said Divalis is extant in Labbe in Greek and Latin at the end of session XVIII of the sixth œcumenical Council under this title: A copy of the Divine sacred letter of the most pious and Christ-loving emperor to Leo the most holy and most blessed Pope of elder Rome.

[25] Secondly, against Baronius' chronology, in which the Apostolic See is said to have been vacant from Leo to Benedict II only one month and twenty-three days, his chronology is mistaken. and the same Benedict to have occupied it only 8 months and some days, Anastasius himself again fights, in all whose codices it is expressly written that the See was vacant XI months, 22 days, and that Benedict sat 10 months, 12 days. Wherefore both the Pagis and others think that the most eminent Cardinal, since he cited Anastasius here, used a corrupt codex of him. A third argument I shall give after reporting the opinion of both the Pagis, to which likewise it is opposed. Thus far it is sufficiently plain that the Church after the death of Agatho was not so long without a Pontiff as is read by error in Anastasius; and, if what Labbe and Papebroch with Baronius assert against both the Pagis be true — whose reasons I shall presently bring forward — namely that Leo the second lived and presided over the Church until the end of May or June of the year 684, it necessarily follows that Sergius I was raised to the Apostolic See nearly a whole year later than Baronius would have it, who took away so much time from the interpontificate between Leo and Benedict, and from the latter's Pontificate. But that postponement as regards Sergius' Pontificate displeases both the Pagis, to whose opinion I proceed.

[26] The opinion of Pagi, who corrects Anastasius, Antoine Pagi, his uncle, François Pagi follows nearly everywhere; wherefore I wish him to be understood hereafter as often as I shall name Pagi, unless I expressly state the name of the latter. He therefore in the Critica on Baronius speaks thus at the year of Christ 683: That is not true which is read in the published copies of Anastasius, that after the death of Pope Agatho the See was vacant one year and seven months; otherwise that eclipse would have happened during the interpontificate, and not while Leo was sitting, against the express testimony of Anastasius himself, who therefore must be emended out of himself. Thus then he tried to emend the Anastasian error. To Agatho, buried on the IV of the Ides of January in the year 682, Leo II was substituted after 7 months, and was consecrated on the XVII day of August of the same year. He sat 10 months, 17 days, up to the III day of July of the year 683. The See was vacant XI months, 22 days, and there succeeded Benedict II, ordained on the XXVI of June 684, and after a Pontificate of 10 months and XI days he yielded to fate on the VII day of May in the year 685. The See was vacant 2 months, 15 days, and John V was consecrated Pontiff on the XXIII day of July of the said year 685. John presided one year, ten days, and died and was buried on the 2nd day of August in the year 686. The See was again vacant 2 months, 18 days, and on the XXI day of October of the same year Conon ascended the Chair, which he held XI months, dying and being buried on the XXI day of September 687. Him at length, after an interpontificate of 2 months and 23 or 24 days, Sergius I followed as Pontiff, consecrated on the XV day of December of the year 687. So Pagi.

[27] is examined, And so from the long interpontificate of 19 months after the death of Agatho Pagi cuts away a whole year, and attaches it to the Pontificate of the said Agatho, as one who according to his reckonings presided over the Church from the year 678 to 682, that is, for 3 whole years and six months; although Pagi himself confesses that in most of the Anastasian codices only two years, six months are assigned to Agatho. Whether he rightly corrects Anastasius as regards Agatho's Pontificate, I do not care to inquire, lest a great part of the Pontifical chronology should come to be treated afresh; it suffices for the present matter to have learned at what time he places the beginning of Leo II, and at length, Baronius being corrected in the Pontificate of Benedict II, when he would have Sergius I consecrated. It is a wonder how greatly the praised author generally applauds himself upon this chronology of his, by which he judges that every difficulty has at last been overcome by him. Nevertheless not a few things occur which render it very uncertain.

[28] and various First, in Pagi's chronology the death of Leo II is attached to the year 683; yet Sigebert writes that he presided over the Roman Church in the year 684, and Hermann Contractus reports that he died only in this same year; but Baronius, Labbe, Séverin Binius, and Augustin Oldoini, although they disagree in other things, here unanimously agree, holding that Leo II was surviving at the time of the XIV Council of Toledo, celebrated in the said year 684, and they affirm that this is manifestly proved from canon 2 of the said council, in which there is mention of Pope Leo as still living, none of Benedict. It may be seen how Pagi tries to extricate himself from this difficulty at the year 684, num. 12. Take meanwhile another argument, which presses him no less, and which also fights against Baronius and others, who would have death come to John V the Pontiff in the month of August of the year 686.

[29] There is extant in Labbe, tom. 6 of the councils, a Divine command addressed by the emperor Justinian to Pope John, difficulties, from which it is gathered that the said Pontiff prolonged his life longer than Pagi would have it. The Divine command has this beginning: In the name of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, the emperor Cæsar Flavius Justinian, faithful in Christ, peaceful, pious, perpetual Augustus, to John the most holy and most blessed man, archbishop of the ancient kindly city of Rome, and universal Pope. But this is the conclusion: May the Godhead preserve thee through many years, most holy and most blessed Father. Given on the thirteenth of the Kalends of March, at Constantinople in the imperial house, in the second year of the most pious and perpetual Augustus the emperor Justinian, and in the second year after his consulship, in the fifteenth indiction. All which things, as Pagi too confesses, denote the year 687; nor does he deny that the command was addressed to John the Pontiff, and delivered to his successor Pope Conon;

but he says that from this it is only gathered that the death of John V and the promotion of Conon to the Chair of Peter were so long unknown at Constantinople: namely from the 2nd day of August of the year 686 to the XVII of February 687.

[30] The weakness of this answer François Pagi acknowledges, with which they labor, though otherwise wont to adhere to his uncle's opinions, and he strives by a wholly opposite way to emerge from that difficulty. Take his words: I have a strong suspicion that this Divine command was addressed to Conon, not to John. This at any rate Anastasius suggests, who writes in his account of Conon: "He received the Divine command of the lord Justinian the prince, by which he signifies that he had found the Acts of the holy sixth Synod, and had them with him, which the lord Constantine of pious memory, his father, with God's help, had made." Nor is there room to say that that Divine letter was addressed to John, and after his death received by Conon; for besides that this is nowhere found written, it is invincibly refuted from the subscription of that same Divine letter; "for it is said to have been given on the thirteenth of the Kalends of March, at Constantinople in the imperial house, in the second year of the most pious and perpetual Augustus the emperor Justinian, and in the second year after his consulship, in the fifteenth Indiction." Which marks agree certainly with the month of February of the year six hundred and eighty-seven, in which Conon was sitting, and John had died about seven months before, which could not have been hidden from the emperor. But lest anyone, taking up his last words, should argue thus: The marks agree certainly with the year DCLXXXVII, nor, if John had died about seven months before, could this have been hidden from the emperor; it is therefore an indication that John survived longer than Pagi would have it, since in that year a Divine command was inscribed to him by the emperor — lest, I say, anyone should so argue, he presently repeats what he had hinted before: I judge therefore, he says, that in the aforesaid Divine letter the name of John was thrust in by the copyists, and that consequently the name of Conon must be restored. An expeditious indeed and most easy method for loosing, or rather for cutting, any knots whatever.

[31] The studious reader observes, unless I am mistaken, how greatly both the Pagis labor are set forth. to place the death both of Leo II and of John V about a whole year earlier than it seems it should be placed from the arguments objected; namely lest they be compelled to defer the accession of Sergius the first to the Chair of Peter to the year 688. There are other things too which may deservedly displease in their reckonings; and among these indeed, that they here generally confound the day of the burial of the Pontiffs, assigned by Anastasius, with the day of death. Thus Antoine Pagi at the year 684, num. 1, says that Leo II died on the III day of July, on which day also he asserts that he is reported to have died by Ordericus, book 2 of the Ecclesiastical History; although Ordericus, like Anastasius too, speaks only of the burial in these words: Then on the V of the Nones of July he was buried at blessed Peter the apostle's. The same Pagi at the year 686, num. 2, treating of John V, says: In the present (year) he departed from among men on the second day of August, and on the same was buried. Again at the year 687, num. 1, he says that Pope Conon passed from life on the XXI day of September, on which in Anastasius he is said to have been buried. Which things appear to me in no way likely. For who would believe that supreme Pontiffs were buried on the very day on which they departed from among men, especially if there existed no reason for hastening the burial so much, such as is nowhere reported to have existed here?

[32] Papebroch's chronology Papebroch in his Conatus chronico-historicus distinguishes the election of the Roman Pontiffs from their ordination, and the death from the burial, adding that the more solemn burial was often deferred long after the death, and he thinks that this very one is generally noted in Anastasius. The reasons why it so seemed to him he alleges both in various places and in the Preface to the said Conatus, num. 13, to which we refer the curious reader, that we may hasten to his opinion in the present controversy. The often-mentioned error Papebroch judges to have arisen from this, that in Anastasius the times of the interpontificate from Agatho to Leo II, and of the latter's Pontificate, were transposed; so that he says that the one year, seven months and five days which are there attributed to the interpontificate must be ascribed to Leo's Pontificate, but that the ten months and seventeen days which are assigned to Leo's Pontificate he would have to be the space of the interpontificate. This change of the times being made, he attaches the beginning of Leo to the year 682, but the end to 684, and escapes the difficulty with which Baronius labors about the eclipse, of which we treated at num. 24, and that with which Pagi labors from the XIV Council of Toledo, reported at num. 28. But since in this way, the times of the following Pontiffs and interpontificates being kept as they are assigned in Anastasius, everything must be placed nearly a whole year later than it was placed by Baronius and Pagi, he escapes also the third difficulty with which both labor from the Divine command of the emperor Justinian, as regards the death of John V. His remaining arrangement, lest I do what has been done, let the curious reader see in him in the Work cited from the year 682 to 688.

[33] suffers difficulties too: Pagi objects the chief one Nor is Papebroch's opinion without its own difficulty, and that arises from this, that Papebroch thinks our holy Pontiff's consecration was made not before November of the year 688. For there is extant in the venerable Bede an Epitaph, from which Sergius seems to have presided over the universal Church a year earlier. For the clearer understanding of the matter, and for the greater commendation of our Saint, it is a pleasure to transcribe whatever Bede has bearing on this. But in the third year of the reign of Aldfrid, Ceadwalla king of the West Saxons, when he had ruled his nation most vigorously for two years, having left his rule for the Lord's sake and for the perpetual kingdom, came to Rome, desiring to obtain for himself this of singular glory, that at the thresholds of the blessed Apostles he might be washed in the font of Baptism, in which alone he had learned that entrance to the heavenly life lay open to the human race. At the same time also hoping that, soon after being baptized, being loosed from the flesh, he might pass now cleansed to eternal joys. Both which, as he had purposed in his mind, were accomplished with the Lord's help. For arriving there, while Sergius held the Pontificate, he was baptized on the holy day of the Paschal Sabbath in the year from the Lord's Incarnation six hundred and eighty-nine, and while still placed in white robes, being seized with sickness, on the twelfth day of the Kalends of May he was loosed from the flesh, and was joined to the fellowship of the blessed in heaven. On whom also at the time of his baptism the said Pope had imposed the name of Peter, that he might bear also the most holy name of the most blessed prince of the Apostles (to whose most sacred body, led by pious love, he had come through long intervals of places): who was also buried in his church, and by the Pontiff's command an Epitaph was written on his monument, both that the memory of his devotion might remain fixed through the ages, and that it might kindle those reading or hearing by the example of the deed to zeal for religion. It is written therefore in this manner:

> Rank, wealth, offspring, powerful kingdoms, triumphs, from an epitaph, > spoils, nobles, walls, camps, homes: > Both what his fathers' valor and what he himself had gathered, > Ceadwalla mighty in arms left for the love of God. > That the king as a guest might behold Peter and the see of Peter, > from whose fount, being nourished, he might take pure waters: > And might catch with radiant draught the light-giving beam, > from which the life-giving brightness everywhere flows. > And eagerly receiving the rewards of a life renewed, > his barbaric fury, and thence his name, > Being converted he converted, rejoicing; and Sergius the prelate > bade him be called Peter, as being himself the father > Of him reborn at the font, whom the grace of Christ, cleansing him, > straightway bore away and carried into the citadel of heaven. > Wondrous the faith of the king, greatest the clemency of Christ, > whose counsel no one can approach. > For coming safe from the farthest bound of the Briton's world > through various nations, through straits and through ways, > He saw the Romulean city, and beheld the venerable temple > of Peter, bearing mystic gifts. > Shining white among the sheep of Christ he shall go as their companion, > for in body he holds a tomb, in mind the things above. > Thou wouldst rather believe that he had exchanged the ensigns of scepters, > whom thou seest to have deserved the kingdom of Christ.

[35] Here is laid Ceadwalla, who is also Peter, king of the Saxons, on the twelfth day of the Kalends of May, which is extant in the venerable Bede. in the second Indiction, who lived more or less thirty years, in the reign of the lord Justinian the most pious augustus, in the fourth year of his consulship, while the apostolic man the lord Pope Sergius held the pontificate, in his second year. Thus Bede, book 5, chap. 7 of the Ecclesiastical History of the English nation. From which it is clear — the words are Antoine Pagi's — that Papebroch in the Conatus chronico-historicus wrongly coupled the ordination of Pope Sergius with the XXII day of November of the preceding year of Christ, for thus Ceadwalla would have been laid to rest not in the second but in the first year of this Pontiff. Wherefore even from this epitaph alone our Pontifical chronology from Leo II to the death of Sergius, and of his two successors, is rendered certain. I shall confess indeed that this difficulty is such that in a less intricate chronology it would be fitted to call the mind away from Papebroch's opinion; but in this place it does not appear to me so great that Pagi's opinion is thereby rendered certain. For just as Pagi would not admit that from this epitaph Baronius' chronology from Leo II to Sergius is rendered certain — although he too attaches the beginning of this Pontiff to the year 687 — because namely by this the difficulty drawn against him from the eclipse reported at num. 24 is not removed; so neither by the same epitaph is the difficulty removed which Baronius, Labbe and others cited at num. 28 bring forward against Pagi's opinion from the XIV Council of Toledo. Nay, granting the truth that from this epitaph Papebroch's chronology is manifestly overthrown, as Pagi contends, this author's reckonings would still not be rendered certain to me, both on account of what was said at num. 29 about John V, and especially because against all likelihood they confound the death of three Pontiffs with the burial.

[36] There are set forth For the rest, to Papebroch, who had certainly read this epitaph in Baronius and others, that very thing did not seem so greatly to oppose his opinion that he should on that account be compelled to change anything in his reckonings; and this he afterward indicated in tom. 5 of the month of June, pag. 374, in the chronological Synopsis prefixed to the Acts of S. Leo II; where, having summarily reported what he had given in his Conatus, he subjoined the following: Thus far however I persist in this chronology: because I have not yet seen anything effective to the contrary: for by it I seem to myself to have escaped all the difficulties which seemed inexplicable to Labbe. Which he would not have written, unless he had judged that what is noted in the epitaph about Sergius' second year could be understood in a convenient sense; or had suspected that some error lay hidden in the epitaph itself, especially because in the opinions of others so many difficulties met him. And indeed there have not been lacking, on Baronius' testimony, whose words I shall presently give, those who charged the said epitaph with error, whether rightly or wrongly I do not dispute.

[37] various ways, Hear Baronius at the year of Christ 689, where, after he has given the epitaph from Bede, he thus proceeds: But as regards the recited epitaph written in prose

some have thought that an error crept in, either because Bede received it thus corrupted, or because he who afterward copied from him, indulging more than enough the affection of his own countrymen, changed the words, so that him whom he knew to be king of the Britons he made king of the Saxons, and altered that very thing in the text of Bede. For far be it to suspect this even lightly of so venerable a priest, that out of love for his own nation he should have detracted from another's, snatching what was not his own and attributing to his own what he knew to belong to another. Assuredly indeed, that what is read in the epitaph, King of the Saxons, ought to be read King of the Britons, very many historians who have pursued the affairs of the Britons testify. But most recently the most learned Sander etc. Now if Sander and very many other historians have not thought it a sacrilege to assert that in one place the epitaph is corrupted, what forbids us in a matter so intricate at least to suspect that in another place too it was corrupted, and that either by the carelessness of copyists or on some other occasion there was put, for in the first year of Sergius, in the second year of Sergius?

[38] in a like case not unusual to Pagi himself, Nor is that method of cutting knots unknown to either Pagi, or unusual; for how often do they not charge the carelessness of copyists, and affirm that one word must be substituted for another, in order to weaken or elude authorities contrary to their own opinion? I adduced above at num. 30 an example from François Pagi. Take one also from Antoine. Error easily creeps into numbers and months, as Baronius elsewhere confesses, and is clear from a thousand examples, he says at the year 683, num. 4; then at num. 5, trying to solve the difficulty objected by Baronius from the Divine letter of the emperor Constantine sent to Leo II, as is there noted, on the thirteenth of the month of December, he pronounces thus: Wherefore … in place of the month of December another month must be substituted, that the copyist's error may be corrected. And so, if you suppose that here in Ceadwalla's epitaph there happened what, by Pagi's own confession, is clear to have happened in a thousand examples, what will become of his presumed certainty drawn from the epitaph alone, as he says? Besides, granted that no error crept into the epitaph, not yet will so great a certainty be drawn from it for Pagi. For the author of the epitaph could have used chronical years, and so have noted the year of Christ 689 as the second of Sergius the Pontiff, because, since that Pontiff, as Papebroch will have it, was consecrated in the month of November of the year 688, this was really the first year in which he held the Pontificate, but the year 689 was the second in which he held the Pontificate — no account being taken, that is, of the time or space during which he sat, but of the years of Christ in which he sat.

[39] Nor will an exposition of this kind seem very unusual to one who considers by which it may to some extent be dissolved. that Fredegar the Scholastic, who flourished about that time, used the same manner of reckoning years, and therefore from time to time anticipates S. Gregory of Tours by one year in noting the years of kings, as our Henschen long ago observed in the preliminary Exegesis to tom. III of April. In that manner of speaking therefore our Saint would rightly have been said, in the month of April of the year 689, when Ceadwalla was laid to rest, to have been sitting in the Pontificate in his second year. There is added that again Pagi himself uses this rule of noting the years; for he notes the years about which the question here is thus: Year of Christ 687, of Sergius the Pope 1. Year of Christ 688, of Sergius the Pope 2. Year of Christ 689, of Sergius the Pope 3, although according to him Sergius was consecrated only on the XV day of December of the said year 687. If you say that this was done by Pagi because according to his reckonings the beginning of the second year of Sergius' Pontificate fell in the year of Christ 688, however near its end; the same can be answered by the patrons of Papebroch's opinion, and it can be said that the year 689 was for that reason noted by the author of the epitaph as Sergius' second, because its beginning fell in it. There is objected besides another difficulty to Papebroch.

[40] There is extant in Jean Mabillon, tom. 3 of the Analecta, pag. 431, an old and mutilated epitaph, Another difficulty already examined by Papebroch himself. in which the body of S. Leo the Great is said to have been translated by S. Sergius the Pope in the I Indiction, by which the praised Mabillon thinks the year of Christ 703 is designated; but Sergius did not reach that year. Antoine Pagi in the Critica at the year 461, num. 7, doubts whether by it the year of Christ 688 is designated, or 703; for, he says, While Sergius I was sitting, the first Indiction obtained twice, namely in the year DCLXXXVIII and in the year DCCIII: but afterward the learned man observed that he had blundered; since indeed he had attached Sergius' death to the year 701, nor can it be understood how the first Indiction obtained twice while Sergius was sitting, who presided over the Church not more than 13 years and about 9 months. Wherefore, when the praised critic comes to the year 688, he affirms that the said translation must be attached to this year, and that thence Papebroch's opinion is overthrown. Papebroch examined the difficulty, and seemed to himself to have dissolved it in his Conatus, pag. 65, num. XI and XII, treating of S. Leo the Great. Whether he really dissolved it, let the curious reader examine, and let him himself judge which of the opinions already reported appears more likely; to me at any rate the matter is so intricate that it does not please me to choose any, much less to call it certain, as Pagi does — whose confidence, to speak candidly, in pronouncing and in censuring the opinions of others impelled me to discuss both his own and Papebroch's difficulties at greater length; however much I foresaw that nothing certain could be determined. I am of the same mind as regards the year of our Saint's death, which some attach to the year 701, others to 702, as will be seen below.

§ IV. He approves the canons of the XV Council of Toledo; he baptizes king Ceadwalla; he ordains various bishops; his Letters to the kings and clergy of Britain.

[ ] He confirms the XV Council of Toledo, Anastasius, having related what we gave in §2, goes on to describe the remaining deeds of S. Sergius; but he neither records everything, nor everywhere keeps the order of events and of times: both, as I gave notice above, and as far as it has been possible to draw from other writers, I shall try here to supply. There occurs in the first place the XV Council of Toledo, celebrated on the V of the Ides of May in the year of Christ 688, whose canons Baronius among others writes were approved by Sergius I, and he praises Rodrigo archbishop of Toledo in the History of Spain. If credit were to be given to the Chronicle which was falsely attributed to Liutprand, and elucidated with Notes by Tamayo, Higuera and de Prado, our Saint approved these canons and celebrated them with great praise in the year 689, at which year it is thus read in the Chronicle: In this year the lord Julian archbishop of Toledo, Primate of the Spains (who presided over that council) sent the council, decrees and verses to Pope Sergius and to the emperor, and received letters from both. The acts of the said council are extant in Labbe; but the verses Higuera recites: however those fictitious verses, like the said Chronicle, are of no credit, nor did they find any with our predecessors at the VIII day of March in the preliminary Commentary to the Acts of S. Julian, pag. 784; wherefore I have not thought it worth the trouble to transcribe them hither.

[42] He baptizes an English king, To the same year 689 belong the things which we reported in the preceding § from the venerable Bede about the English king Ceadwalla, baptized by our Saint at Rome and dying there a little after, of which there is no mention in Anastasius. But they are certain enough from elsewhere: for besides that the authority of Bede, whom in his usual manner Paul the Deacon follows, On the Deeds of the Lombards, book 6, chap. 15, does not permit us to doubt of them, they are confirmed also both by many others, and by the author of the Life of S. Wulmar in Mabillon, Benedictine Century 3, as also by another biographer of the same Saint in our work at the XX day of July, where king Ceadwalla is said to have come while still a catechumen in the year 688 to S. Wulmar the abbot, and thence to have gone on to Rome, and there, having received Baptism, to have departed from among men. Whence I do not sufficiently perceive why Saussay in the Gallican Martyrology at the XX day of July writes thus: Ceadwalla, still a catechumen, having heard of Wulmar's sanctity and of the admirable zeal which he continually spent upon the salvation of souls, came to him from Britain to receive the instructions of salvation, and, being excellently taught by him, and sent to Rome to receive the grace of Baptism under the auspices of the Apostles, when he had returned to his kingdom, bore himself with such piety through the rest of the course of his life that he splendidly satisfied Wulmar's divine instructions by acts of living faith. By which last words he calls into doubt, against the testimonies of so many writers, all that has thus far been set forth about Ceadwalla's death in the city of Rome, and about the epitaph inscribed on his burial place by S. Sergius' command. Further, of Ceadwalla, whom some distinguish with the title of Saint, there was treatment among us in the Prætermissi at the XX day of April.

[43] Girolamo Fabri in the Monuments of ancient Ravenna likewise refers to this year that he ordains Damian archbishop of Ravenna. which Anastasius has at the end of the Acts of S. Sergius: He ordained Damian archbishop of the holy church of Ravenna. Fabri's words I render from the Italian into Latin: Blessed Damian, not in the year six hundred and eighty-five, but three years later, namely at the beginning of the year six hundred and eighty-nine, when Theodore had died, was worthy to be created archbishop by that same supreme Pontiff Sergius the first, who in the last months of the preceding year had been raised to the supreme Pontificate. By these things he rightly corrects the anachronism with which Ughelli's Italia sacra labors, tom. 2, col. 342, where it is thus read: Damian, a Dalmatian, was chosen archbishop of the men of Ravenna by Sergius the Pontiff in the year DCLXXXV, and consecrated by him in the month of March. But neither does Fabri's own reckoning appear exact enough; for Damian sat only 16 years, 2 months, 16 days, as the praised author himself writes, and with him Agnellus in the Liber Pontificalis of Ravenna, Rubeus in the History of that same city, Ughelli and others; yet Fabri attaches the said prelate's death to the month of March of the year 706, from which if you go back to the beginning of the year 689, you will count 17 years. It is necessary therefore that Damian was either consecrated about one year later, or died one year earlier. This prelate too our predecessors reported among the Prætermissi at the XIII day of March.

[44] To Damian Anastasius subjoins Clement or Willibrord, He did not ordain S. Berhtwald archbishop of Canterbury; Berhtwald, whom he calls Berechyaldus and others otherwise, and 97 bishops, all ordained by our Saint. Of S. Willibrord and the others I shall treat below; now of S. Berhtwald; since most writers would have him elected in the year 692 and consecrated in the next following year. Let us hear Anastasius therefore: He, he says, ordained Berechyaldus archbishop of Britain. But I think he wrote so because he had heard that Berhtwald's election was approved by Sergius, and that he was commended by this Pontiff to the kings of England. For the Venerable Bede, to whom, as a contemporary writer,

and most versed in the English affairs of that time, I should more willingly adhere, expressly asserts that Berhtwald was consecrated by Godwin the bishop, metropolitan of the Gauls. In book 5 of the Ecclesiastical History of the English nation, chap. 9, he has thus: And Berhtwald succeeded Theodore in the bishopric, who was abbot in a certain monastery situated near the Northern mouth of the river Genlade, which is called Reculver. A man himself too imbued with the knowledge of the Scriptures, and highly instructed in ecclesiastical and at the same time monastic disciplines; though by no means to be compared with his predecessor. Who was indeed elected to the bishopric in the year of the Lord's Incarnation six hundred and ninety-two, on the first day of the month of July, while Wihtred and Suaebhard were reigning in Kent: but he was ordained in the following year, on the third day of the Kalends of July, a Sunday, by Godwin metropolitan bishop of the Gauls, and sat in his see on the day before the Kalends of September, a Sunday. With Bede most English writers agree, except some who differ much from him, as I shall say below.

[45] yet he probably gave him the pallium at Rome, I should believe however that S. Berhtwald, after he had been elected and consecrated, went on to the City, and there, his faith being set forth and the pallium received from Pope Sergius, returned to his archbishopric of Canterbury. Indeed that it was of old sanctioned by law that metropolitans should hasten to Rome for that end is established from book 7 of the letters of Peter Damian; for in letter 4 the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church write thus to the Empress Agnes: For you have asked that a pallium be sent to the lord of Mainz, which is without doubt proved contrary to the sanctions of the holy Fathers. For the pontiffs themselves by the usage of ancient tradition ought to hasten to the thresholds of the Apostles; and to receive this sign of the completing of their dignity, without which they cannot be metropolitans. After some things interposed they proceed in this manner: For indeed the blessed Pope Damasus also decreed this, that whichever of the metropolitans should defer beyond three months after his ordination to set forth his faith to the Roman Pontiff and to demand the pallium, should lack the dignity committed to him. Wherefore let the lord of Mainz himself, your elect, not delay to come to the thresholds of the Apostles etc. Gregory VII in book 1 of the letters, letter 24, speaks in the same manner: The authority of our predecessors decreed that the pallium is not to be granted save to one personally present. More upon this matter may be seen in Thomassin, On the Old and New Discipline of the Church, tom. 1, book 2, chap. 53 and following. Likewise Pierre Coustant disputes upon the same, tom. 1 of the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, col. 620 and following.

[46] he appoints him primate of all England, Nay, what we have already said about Berhtwald's Roman journey is manifestly drawn out from the Letters of our Saint, which in William of Malmesbury, book 1 On the deeds of the Pontiffs of the English, are annexed to the letter of Lanfranc archbishop of Dover or Canterbury sent about the year 1072 to Pope Alexander II, from which and from the letters of other Pontiffs the said Lanfranc proves his church's primacy over the rest of all England. It will not be beside the purpose to have brought forward the praised letters of the Saint; for in them there shines out both his apostolic zeal and his pastoral solicitude and piety. The former is addressed to Ethelred king of the Mercians, Aldfrid of the Northumbrians, and Aldwulf of the East Angles, in this manner: Sergius the bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Ethelred, Aldfrid, Aldwulf, kings of the English. The gift of spiritual grace, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, kindles the hearts of the faithful, and by repairing renews them, and strengthens them with the constancy of wondrous virtue, and establishes them to deserve perpetually the suffrages of heavenly gifts and benefits, and none the less to guard beforehand against the ruins of falling things. Using which gift of God's mercy the holy Fathers, shining like certain light-bearing luminaries of the heavenly stars throughout the circuit of the whole world, gloriously after the happy joys of the present life deserved to be enrolled among the number of the elect.

[47] and by letters to the kings Further, you, a holy nation, a chosen race, a people of acquisition, sons of light, a royal stock, the offspring of faith and the increase of virtues, rejoice in the Lord and exult, because the excellent and first of the Apostles, Peter, the most firm rock of faith, not unmindful of your zeal, while he rejoices at the sense of your mind and conscience, also remembers and acknowledges your names. For we trust that he will also open the entrance of the heavenly kingdom to those upon whom he has conferred so great a favor of dignity among the nations over which, with God's auspices, you have pre-eminence. And do you therefore, most Christian and most beloved sons, receive with eager breast and devout mind Berhtwald, the prelate conferred upon you by his authority, prelate of the see of Kent and first pontiff of all Britain, knowing that he shall receive a Prophet's reward who receives him as a prophet; and if perchance anyone should leap forth in pride to spurn him — which God forbid — he will spurn not him, but him by whom he was sent. Who, according to the Lord's word, shall be condemned without any support. Far therefore and long be such unspeakable rashness from you, lest the ancient enemy find in you the dread face of disobedience, whom the holy Church of God has deigned to join in the bosom of the sons of adoption. We desire therefore that our Lord Jesus Christ with his accustomed mercy may make you unspeakably to be exalted with the honor of ministry and of royal eminence, and to be preserved in the examination of the judgment to come.

[48] To the other letter this inscription is prefixed: To his most beloved brethren, all the bishops appointed throughout Britain, Sergius; and to the bishops of Britain and it has thus: As to us, to whom the supreme condescension of mercy has granted the care of the pastoral office of blessed Peter the prince of the Apostles and its governance, the reverend presence of an unknown brother has brought a twofold gift of joy, so also the known welfare of the college of your most religious prelacy. For to the author of all good things, the Lord our God, we have rendered immense thanks, having found the devout constancy of unanimity among the faithful brethren in the bosom of holy mother Church, and the fervent love among themselves, and the fellowship of charity. For thus by keen diligence they are known to please God, offering him pure libations, when, keeping in the ark of their breast the splendor of the true light, they delude their mind with no allurements, strike the hearts of the brethren with no goads, encourage their neighbors with no harmful minds: but, as ministers of God, show themselves a mirror to their subjects by the uprightness of life and manners. Hence they will find the Lord prospering them in adversities, and the snares of the enemy will not be able to steal anything from them by harming. For where the Lord's help is at hand, all adversity of malignant spirits is put to flight.

[49] Since it is so, rejoicing with fatherly words in the unanimous religiousness of your brotherly love, we make known to you confirmed that the present most beloved brother Berhtwald, prelate of the province of Canterbury, who has been substituted in the see of Theodore the former archbishop of reverend memory, according to the rite of ancient custom which [\] from the time of our predecessor the lord Gregory Roman Pontiff of holy and reverend memory until now his church has held, has obtained from us, nay from blessed Peter the prince of the Apostles, the primacy of all the churches of Britain, and has been sent thither with the sacred use of the pallium and of the venerable dalmatic. Which, dearest brethren, he has not unfittingly obtained and deserved, since by no means with pride or with the swelling of boasting, but with a mind bowed down and a humble heart, he, being worthy, obtained so great a gift. Wherefore we exhort, brethren, your fellowship dedicated to God, and admonish you with wholesome counsel, that for the love of God and the hope of the future recompense you should render to that same brother, the archbishop of your region, the due honor of ministry as if to us, and that you should know how effectually to obey him as the prelate bearing the primacy, not unaware of what the Vessel of election suggests: Obey your superiors; and again: He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And therefore, brethren, we admonish you and all the grades of the orders, commanding by this Apostolic authority that there be no one who shall presume to go against these things which were long ago established by this Apostolic See, in present or in future times. But let the powers granted to the aforementioned church always be preserved unimpaired forever. And since we trust with undoubting mind that you, with the divine Clemency assenting, will perform these things which we have determined to enjoin, we entreat the unspeakable power of our holy Savior for the religious purpose of your brotherhood, that he may grant you, ever mighty in pious religion, to rejoice with perpetual gladness, and, rejoicing together with brotherly affections, to be joined by the merits of the Saints in eternal blessedness. May God keep you safe, most beloved brethren.*

[50] he sent him home. From what has been said thus far I conjecture that Berhtwald, soon after his consecration, made at Lyon on the XXIX day of June, went on to Rome, and, since, on the testimony of the venerable Bede, he occupied the see of Canterbury on the day before the Kalends of September, that the recited letters were written by our Saint about the month of August of the year 693; unless one should wish that Berhtwald undertook the Roman journey in the year 692, in which he was elected, and on his return was consecrated by Godwin archbishop of Lyon: but I do not see why S. Sergius himself would not have ordained him, before he sent him adorned with the pallium into England. Further, that the letter recited in the first place was not inscribed also to Wihtred and Suaebhard, who, on Bede's testimony, were reigning at that time in Kent, I judge to have come about because our holy Pontiff did not doubt that they of themselves would sufficiently advance the authority of the archbishop of their kingdom, and his primacy over the other sees. Perhaps too he sent separate letters to them, which have not come to the knowledge of writers. Finally there come here to be corrected Gervase the monk in the Lives of the archbishops of Canterbury, and Ralph de Diceto in the History of the same archbishops, where they write that Berhtwald received the pallium from Pope Vitalian: for that Pontiff had departed from among men 20 years before Theodore, Berhtwald's predecessor.

\ quam*

§ V. He rejects the Trullan synod, and resists the emperor Justinian with unconquered spirit.

[ ] About the same time in which, as we have already seen and shall further see, The Quinisext Synod S. Sergius with so great praise was governing the flock of Christ, and was taking care that prelates should be set over the churches throughout the Christian world who should be pre-eminent in holiness of life and integrity of manners, should confirm and instruct the faithful by their learning and prudence, and should by their apostolic zeal propagate the Catholic faith among barbarous nations, there offered itself an occasion by which his chief virtues, and most of all his Christian fortitude worthy of the Vicar of Christ, should be made plain to the City and to the world. And that occasion the Trullan synod, or rather pseudo-synod, brought forth, so called from the trullus, the round hall of the palace of Constantinople, in which it was celebrated. It is also generally called the Quinisext, to the Greeks Πενθέκτη, because, as Theodore Balsamon, the schismatic defender of this synod, pretends, it was assembled for this end, that those things might be filled up which were lacking to the two preceding synods, the fifth and the sixth. But not undeservedly is it called erratic by the venerable Bede in his book on the six ages, by Paul the Deacon, book 6 On the Deeds of the Lombards, and by others, as being sprinkled with various errors. Its 102 canons are extant in Greek and Latin in tom. 6 of the Councils after the sixth synod of Constantinople.

[52] That that pseudo-synod was convoked by the command of the emperor Justinian the younger, convoked at Constantinople by Justinian the younger surnamed Rhinotmetus, Anastasius writes and generally all the other writers: but among these there is not so much agreement about the time at which it was held. There are those who fix it to the year of Christ 686, there are those who fix it to the year 707;

but neither rightly: since indeed Anastasius, with whom the venerable Bede a contemporary author, Paul the Deacon and others agree, expressly asserts that it was celebrated in the times of Pope Sergius I, who neither sat in the year 636, nor reached the year 707. The true epoch of the conventicle the most eminent Baronius assigned at the year of Christ 692, in which he showed that its canons were enacted, refuted the opinions of his opponents with irrefragable reasoning, and finally demonstrated whence their error flowed. Baronius was followed by Labbe and Papebroch; likewise Binius in his Notes on the said conventicle, Pierre de Marca in the Concordia, book 5, chap. 18, Christian Lupus in the Dissertation annexed to his Notes and Scholia on the Trullan Canons, and, by Petavius' own confession — who nevertheless contends for the year 707 — most others. Let the curious reader consult the learned lucubrations of the praised writers, and he will without doubt go with us into Baronius' opinion. I proceed to those things which more nearly touch our Saint.

[53] The venerable Bede in his book on the six ages declares the whole matter in these few words: the Pontiff's legates are read to have subscribed. He (Justinian), because the Pontiff of the Roman Church Sergius of blessed memory had been unwilling to favor and to subscribe to his erratic synod which he had held at Constantinople, sending Zacharias his protospatharius, ordered him to be carried off to Constantinople; but the soldiery of the city of Ravenna and of the neighboring parts forestalled the wicked orders of the prince, and drove that same Zacharias from the city of Rome with insults and injuries. The same things Anastasius expresses more fully, whose words I likewise transfer hither: but here and there I shall interrupt the thread of the narrative, and shall insert certain things serving for its elucidation. He begins in this manner: In his (S. Sergius') times therefore the emperor Justinian ordered a council to be held in the royal city, at which also the Legates of the Apostolic See had assembled, and, being deceived, had subscribed. Authors labor to explain this legation of the Apostolic See.

[54] Binius thinks that by legates are here meant These legates were not of the strict name; not those who by solemn delegation were wont to be sent from the Apostolic See to œcumenical synods, but the Greek bishops who were appointed in the East to hear those who needed the help of the Roman Pontiff, and who were therefore called the Pontiff's Vicars. De Marca praised above, and with him certain others, judge that the Roman Pontiff's apocrisiaries or responsals are to be understood, who resided at Constantinople with the emperor, and managed the business of the faith and of discipline. But no jurisdiction was granted them by the Pontiff, unless for some particular causes it were committed to them by special rescript, as Thomassin teaches, tom. 1 On the Old and New Discipline of the Church, book 2, chap. 108: and therefore, although they had been present at the council and, being deceived, had subscribed to the canons, their subscriptions, lacking a new delegation of the Pontiff, would have brought no authority to the council.

[55] But what of it? says Baronius. Even if those same Greek bishops, vicars of the Roman Pontiff (the same is to be said of the apocrisiaries) had had a special mandate for this: nay moreover, even if they had been chosen and sent from his side and from the Roman clergy, and had been present at the synod, and had even subscribed: [nor, if they had been such, would their subscription have helped the Greeks at all.] not even so would the Greeks have anything which they could show to be firm, valid and approved. For unless the things which are done in synods by legates be confirmed by the Roman Pontiff, and strengthened by his subscription, they are convicted of being of no strength. And indeed, whatever Balsamon the Greek impostor may yelp — who for his manifest falsehoods and frauds is beaten by Baronius as he deserves — the Trullan prelates sufficiently acknowledged that they had done nothing unless the Pontiff himself should approve the canons and subscribe to them, and for that very reason they left a blank sheet before the other Patriarchs, that he might fill it with his subscription, as is plain from these words at the head of the subscriptions: The place of the most holy Pope of Rome. Therefore the emperor Justinian, partly of his own accord, partly, as is likely, by the contrivances of certain Greek bishops, stirred up such great disturbances at Rome; since neither by prayers nor by threats could he induce the unconquered spirit of the holy Pontiff to approve the pseudo-synod.

[54] But he (Sergius) himself was being compelled, Anastasius continues, Being asked to subscribe to it, Sergius, to subscribe, but by no means did he acquiesce. For the reason that certain chapters had been annexed in it outside the Ecclesiastical rite. Which, being as it were synodally defined and written out in six volumes by the three Patriarchs, that is of Alexandria, of Constantinople and of Antioch, or by the rest of the consuls [\] who had at that time assembled there, had been subscribed and confirmed by the imperial hand, and he sent them, placed in a lucullus, which is called scebrum carnale, to this Roman city to be confirmed, or to be subscribed in the higher place by Sergius the Pontiff, as by the head of all priests. Those words which is called scebrum carnale are corrupt. Giovanni Vignoli in the Liber Pontificalis, published with Notes at Rome in the year 1724, reads: In a little casket which is called scevochartalis. Then in the Notes, Scevochartalis, he says, is a Græco-Latin word from σκεῦος, a case or box, and chartalis, by which namely letters and other writings committed to paper were wont to be sent hither and thither shut up and carried.*

[57] Which most blessed Pontiff, the words are Anastasius', rejects its canons, and, bravely resisting the emperor, as has been said, utterly did not acquiesce to that same Justinian Augustus, nor did he suffer those volumes to be received, or to be laid open for reading [\]. Further he rejected them as invalid and cast them away, choosing rather to die than to consent to the errors of novelties. Which emperor, sending Sergius the magistrianus (one of the ministers of the master of the offices of the palace) to Rome in contempt of the aforenamed Pontiff, carried off with him to the royal city John the God-beloved bishop of Porto, or Boniface the counsellor of the Apostolic See.* Without doubt the emperor suspected that by the counsels of these men S. Sergius' spirit was confirmed and his constancy strengthened; and therefore he ordered either one of them, as Anastasius' text seems to suggest, or rather both, to be brought to Constantinople, not so much that he might seek from them the reason of the deed, as that he might try whether the Pontiff, deprived of their presence and help, would not be more easily bent to assent to his pleasure. Then probably solicitations and prayers were renewed, and threats and terrors added; but when not even so did the emperor see himself profiting anything with a Man who had already before determined to meet death rather than to consent to errors, he thought that he must be compelled to it by force, and appointed his protospatharius, the chief of the spatharii or guards of his body, to go to Rome, who should drag the Pontiff himself to Constantinople.

[58] But God was at hand for the Saint and for his Church, and broke the emperor's impious attempts. he is ordered to be carried off to Constantinople: Hear Anastasius: Then he sent Zacharias, his savage protospatharius, with an order, that he should likewise carry the aforesaid Pontiff off to the royal city. But by God's mercy going before, and by the favor of blessed Peter the apostle and Prince of the Apostles, and preserving his Church unmutilated, the heart of the soldiery of Ravenna was stirred up, and of the duchy of Pentapolis also, and of the parts round about, not to permit the Pontiff of the Apostolic See to go up to the royal city. And when a multitude of the soldiery assembled from every quarter, Zacharias the spatharius, terrified and trembling lest he should be killed by the throng of the soldiery, asked the Pontiff that the gates of the city should be shut and held (that is, he begged the Pontiff to order the gates of the City to be shut and guarded, lest so great a force of soldiers should enter); but he himself fled trembling into the Pontiff's bedchamber, tearfully entreating that the Pontiff would have mercy on him, and would not permit anyone to attack his life.

[59] But the army of Ravenna, entering through the gate of blessed Peter the Apostle (now it is called the Angelic gate) with arms and a throng, came to the Lateran episcopal residence, but the soldiers of Ravenna free him, and the protospatharius sent by Justinian burning to see the Pontiff, whom, as rumor spread, they had heard [\] had been carried off by night and put on board a ship. And while the doors of the patriarchate, both the lower and the upper, were closed, they threatened [\] to cast them to the ground unless they were opened more swiftly. Through the excessive straitness of fear and despair of life Zacharias the spatharius, going in under the Pontiff's bed, hid himself, so that he lost his mind and his senses. Whom the most blessed Pope comforted, telling him by no means to fear. But that same most blessed Pontiff, going forth outside the basilica of the lord Pope Theodore, the doors being opened, into the seat [\] which is commonly called sub Apostolis (concerning this place, as also concerning the basilica already mentioned, Onofrio Panvinio disputes in his book on the seven churches of the City, where he treats of the oratory of S. Laurence, which is called Sancta Sanctorum) received honorably the whole body of the soldiery and of the people who were assembling for him, and, a fitting and gentle answer being given, soothed their hearts.*

[60] Although they, led by zeal for love and reverence both of the Church of God drive out of the City. and of the most holy Pontiff, did not withdraw from the guard of the patriarchate until they had driven [\] the aforenamed spatharius from the city with injuries and insults. For he too who had sent him was at that very time, by the Lord's recompense, deprived of his kingdom. And thus the Church of God with her Prelate was preserved undisturbed, with Christ's favor. In what manner Justinian was cast down from his rule, and how ignominiously, his nose being cut off, he was driven into exile by Leontius the prefect, who had obtained the rule, you will find narrated at more length in Theophanes, Zonaras, Cedrenus and other Greeks. S. Nicephorus in the Historical Breviary* says that Justinian was carried off to the city of Cherson, in the tenth completed year of his rule; and he had succeeded his father Constantine Pogonatus, as authors generally hand down, in the year 685; rightly therefore Marianus Scotus and Hermann Contractus in their Chronicles write that these things happened in the year of Christ 695; and consequently that emperor's persecution against Sergius lasted to that very year, as is manifestly gathered from Anastasius' words.

\ al. præsulibus*

\ al. lectioni*

\ inaudierant*

\ read minabantur*

\ al. sedens in sede*

\ al. depellerent*

§ VI. He consecrates S. Willibrord archbishop; he is prodigiously delivered from a grave calumny.

[ ] The faculty of preaching the Gospel Peace having been obtained for the Church, the holy Pontiff turned his cares again to extending the faith of Christ, and to choosing worthy heralds of the Gospel. Among these he ordained S. Willibrord archbishop, and set him over Frisia. Hear Bede, to whom, when he departed from life, Willibrord was still surviving: The same Pope Sergius, he says in his book on the six ages, ordained the venerable man Willibrord, surnamed Clement, bishop of the nation of the Frisians, among whom to this day as a pilgrim for the sake of the eternal country (for he is from Britain, of the English nation) he daily works countless losses for the devil, and increases for the Christian faith. The same writer narrates the same somewhat more at length, expresses the year distinctly, and distinguishes two pilgrimages of S. Willibrord to S. Sergius, in book 5 of the History of the English nation, chap. 12, which thus begins: In the first times of their coming (of Willibrord and his companions) into Frisia, as soon as Willibrord learned that leave had been given him by the prince (Pippin the Mayor of the palace) to preach there, he hastened to come to Rome, over whose Apostolic See Pope Sergius then presided, that with his leave and blessing he might enter upon the desired work of evangelizing the nations: at the same time also the relics of the blessed

Apostles and martyrs of Christ, hoping to receive them from him.

[62] Then, a few things being interposed, he adds: he grants to S. Willibrord and his companions, But after those who had come had taught in Frisia for some years, Pippin, with the consent of all favoring it, sent the venerable man Willibrord to Rome, whose Pontificate Sergius still held, asking that he might be ordained archbishop for that same nation of the Frisians. Which was fulfilled just as he had asked in the year from the Lord's Incarnation six hundred and ninety-six. And he was ordained in the church of the holy martyr Cæcilia, on her birthday, the name of Clement being imposed on him by the said Pope, and was presently sent back to the see of his bishopric. Alcuin, to others Albinus Flaccus, about the end of the VIII century wrote the Life of S. Willibrord in prose and in verse, and, writing nearly the same things as Bede, enlarged them with certain circumstances which commend our Pontiff's sanctity not a little; wherefore I have thought that those things too should be transcribed hither which chiefly pertain to our purpose: He (Pippin), he says, was considering with prudent counsel to send him (Willibrord) to Rome, that he might be ordained by the lord Apostolic Sergius, a most holy man, to the honor of the high priesthood at that time: … at first (Willibrord) refused … at length … being compelled he consented … and so with an honorable embassy and gifts worthy of the Apostolic he was sent to Rome.

[63] But four days before he arrived there, the most blessed Apostolic was admonished in sleep by an angelic answer and that afterward, admonished by an angel, he consecrated the same Willibrord that he should receive him with the highest honor, and that he would be the enlightener of many souls, and chosen by God, and that he had come for this, that he might receive from him the honor of the high priesthood, and that nothing was to be denied him, whatever he should ask. Being made certain by which admonition, the Apostolic received him with joy and with the highest honor, and when he recognized in him the fervor of faith, the devotion of religion, the fulness of wisdom, on a suitable day, the people assembling, the venerable priests being called into fellowship of the ministry, publicly in the church of the most blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, he ordained him archbishop with great dignity after the Apostolic manner, and when he had been ordained imposed on him the name Clement, and clothed him with his own priestly vestments, and confirmed him with the holy pallium of dignity, as with the ephod of Aaron, and with the garment of glory, and whatever he wished and asked, either in the patronage of the Saints or in ecclesiastical things, he delivered to him with all alacrity of mind, and, confirmed with a blessing and enriched with gifts, sent him back again with saving precepts to the work of the Gospel.

[64] From these things it may be seen how greatly our Saint esteemed apostolic men, archbishop. and how greatly he himself was esteemed by God, who deigned to address him by an angel. Further, Bede and Alcuin differ in this, that the latter writes that S. Willibrord was consecrated in the church of S. Peter the Apostle, the former in that of S. Cæcilia the martyr; which is the more correct is uncertain. Nevertheless, since Bede adds that the said consecration was made on S. Cæcilia's birthday, I should prefer to believe that S. Sergius, on account of the solemnity of the day, wished to perform it in the church of the said holy martyr; just as he doubtless imposed on S. Willibrord the name of Clement rather than of another Saint, because on the next day the solemnity of S. Clement the Pontiff was to be celebrated. More about SS. Willibrord, Cæcilia and Clement will come to be said in the month of November at the days VII, XXII and XXIII; as also about SS. Lambert and Hubert, bishops of Maastricht, at the days XVII of September and III of November, of whom one thing here occurs likewise to be noted in few words.

[65] Molanus in the Indiculus of the Saints of Belgium, Baronius at the year 699, and certain other moderns judge He is likewise said to have consecrated S. Hubert bishop; that S. Hubert too was consecrated bishop by our Saint, an angelic admonition going before. They did not draw this, so far as I can ascertain, from any author older than Nicholas a canon of Liège, who in the XII century gathered the deeds of S. Lambert the bishop, afterward committed to the press by Jean Chapeauville, a canon of the same church, in tom. 1 On the Deeds of the pontiffs of Tongeren, Maastricht and Liège. Now the praised Nicholas has in chap. 17 what, contracted into a summary, I here subjoin: Sergius of blessed memory, wearied with vigils and prayers, had fallen asleep at the very hour at which S. Lambert suffered martyrdom: when an angel stood by him, made known to him Lambert's death, delivered to him his pastoral staff, and commanded that he should consecrate Hubert, who would come to the City on that very day, as Lambert's successor. The Pontiff, awaking, found the staff, and, recognizing Hubert by the signs received from the angel, ordained him.

[66] this however is denied by most, But this story finds no credit today with most critics; it is attacked and reckoned among fables by Mabillon, Benedictine cent. 3, part 1, at the Life of S. Lambert written by Godescalc; by Baillet in the Acts of S. Hubert at the III day of November; and at length by Le Cointe in the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Franks at the year 708, where they show that S. Lambert underwent martyrdom only in that year, and that thence it manifestly follows that Hubert could not have been ordained bishop by S. Sergius after S. Lambert's martyrdom had been revealed to him, and substituted as Lambert's successor; since indeed S. Sergius had departed from among men long before the said year 708, namely, as will be plain below, in the year 701 or 702. Another invention from the same Nicholas' Work the praised Le Cointe brings to light in the place cited, and presently adds: Reiner (he flourished either at the same time as Nicholas or a little after him), although he had both of Nicholas' fables … at hand, … was indeed delighted with the former, … but abstained from the latter, and by his silence signified that what is circulated about Hubert's pilgrimage to the thresholds of the Apostles seemed to him false.

[67] and it seems to conflict with true chronology. And indeed, if it be sufficiently established that S. Lambert died only in the year 708, or, as Pagi will have it, 707 — which we shall examine elsewhere — Nicholas' narrative retains no likelihood. However it be, it becomes at the least suspect to me from the constant silence of all authors older than Nicholas. For what would have impelled Godescalc the canon and Stephen bishop of Liège — of whom the former before the year 750, the latter about 903 transmitted the Acts of S. Lambert to posterity — what would have impelled the anonymous biographer, a disciple or intimate of S. Hubert, as Le Cointe hands down after Surius, what would have impelled other ancient writers, to wrap in silence a prodigy so illustrious, so apt for commending divine providence, and for increasing the splendor and glory both of SS. Lambert and Hubert, and also of S. Sergius? But I have said that Nicholas' history is rendered suspect to me, and not (if indeed the chronological reckoning can in any way be saved) absolutely false on account of the silence of writers alone, as some moderns, on account of the silence of one or another author of this kind, wholly deny all credit to another prodigy which is said to have been divinely wrought for the attesting of our Saint's innocence.

[68] To another prodigy, Cardinal Baronius, Pagi and others refer the said prodigy to the year of Christ 699; but the author from whom they have it assigns no determined year; wherefore I have judged that the order of time would not be much inverted if I presently subjoined it to what precedes. The author then is an anonymous monk of Malmesbury, who wrote the Acts of S. Aldhelm, bishop of Sherborne, published by us in the second place at the XXV day of May. In chapter 2 he premises the following: But him (Aldhelm), persisting in so great perseverance of good work, the Pontiff of the Apostolic See, a man of great sanctity, Sergius, had summoned (to Rome). Then, certain things being interposed which do not belong here, he adds: After this, while the holy man was staying long with the aforesaid Pope, at the prompting of the divine Spirit he was asked by him to baptize a certain boy; concerning whose father there was doubt enough among the people without any cause of evidence: because, as is the custom of nearly all nations, the rumor-bearing common folk supposed that the Apostolic had begotten him. For the ignorant people falsely held this opinion of so great a Prelate, since by the merit of his life he is declared an apostolic man in his registers and in other places of writing. To whose Father's wishes S. Aldhelm complying, when the boy, being, as is reported, of no more than nine days' age, had been catechized in the church after the manner of the faithful, he commanded him before the crowds standing by to declare whether his father was he who was commonly said to be so. Straightway the infant, although exceedingly small, the obstructions of his tongue being removed contrary to nature, did what that most holy abbot had commanded. For, speech being divinely given him, and sufficiently intelligible, he showed to all that he had not been begotten by the act of him whom the vain people in this matter reported. Thus the praised monk, an author of the XI century verging to its end.

[69] Likewise an anonymous writer of a compendious Life of S. Aldhelm in Surius records this prodigy; by which the Saint is read to have been freed from a huge calumny, where the last things are expressed in this manner: He (S. Aldhelm) orders a boy, having no more than nine days, to be brought forth, and commands him in the power and name of Jesus Christ to declare whether Sergius the Pontiff had bound himself by that crime. The infant answered in most perfect speech that the Pontiff was by no means implicated in that crime, that he had no commerce with the female sex. The same story Capgrave adopted in the Legend, Harpsfield in the English History, Oldoini in the Additions to Chacón, and many moderns. But on the contrary Baillet in the Life of our Saint judges it so certainly false that he affirms it not even worthy of mention, adding that that fable is an offspring brought forth in the brain of a certain English monk, wishing to do honor to the memory of S. Aldhelm.

[70] But the learned critic sets forth no reason why he rises up so vehemently against the praised monk. all credit is undeservedly denied by some. Certainly, in the first place, the reckoning of time does not stand against the truth of the history: for S. Aldhelm was, as Henschen proves in his Notes to his Acts, abbot of the monastery of Malmesbury from the year 675, and in the year 705, on Bede's testimony, was raised to the see of Sherborne: nor, in the second place, does either the greatness of the miracle, or anything else, stand in the way. It is indeed true that the author of the Life of Sergius in Anastasius did not mention it; but he passed over other things too which are nevertheless admitted by Baillet. William of Malmesbury too does not mention it in the Life of S. Aldhelm printed by us in the first place; but he is somewhat more recent than the anonymous biographer, nor, as Henschen thinks, did he see his writings: and therefore it would be no wonder if a matter which had happened four centuries before had not come to William's knowledge; especially since besides the praised anonymous writer no author can be assigned who before William arranged the Acts of S. Aldhelm in order. I pass over what Mabillon observes, that from William himself at least S. Aldhelm's journey to the City can be gathered. And so that defect of testimonies older than the XI century is indeed fitted to bring it about that with Baronius and Pagi at the year 699, and with Mabillon in the Benedictine Century 3, I should somewhat doubt of the certainty of the fact; but it is far from making me think that no credit is therefore to be given it.

§ VII. A particle of the Most Holy Cross is found by the Saint; the schism of Aquileia is extinguished; a Letter which is attributed to him.

[ ] Sergius finds a great particle of the Most Holy Cross I return to the year of Christ 696, in which, on Hermann Contractus' testimony, Pope Sergius, by the Lord's revealing, found a casket with a portion of the Lord's Cross. The venerable Bede in his book on the six ages, and Ado of Vienne in his Chronicle, having related the consecration of S. Willibrord at Rome, accomplished in the said year, presently annex this finding of the Holy Cross at the beginning of Leo or Leontius the emperor, which agrees well with the year which Hermann assigns; since Leontius entered upon the empire about the end of the year 695. Of the same finding the old Roman Martyrology, published by our Rosweyde, makes mention at the XIV day of September in this manner: The Exaltation of the holy Cross, brought back from the Persians to Jerusalem by the emperor Heraclius: when also at Rome the saving wood of the Cross, found by Pope Sergius, is venerated by all the people. The praised Bede expresses it thus: Pope Sergius in the sacristy of blessed Peter the apostle found, by the Lord's revealing, a silver casket which had lain very long in a most obscure corner, and in it a cross adorned with divers and precious stones; from which, four plates [\] being drawn back, in which gems were enclosed, he beheld a portion of wondrous size of the saving wood of the Lord's Cross laid up within, which from that time every year, in the basilica of the Savior which is called the Constantinian, on the day of its exaltation is kissed and adored by all the people. The same things Anastasius narrates in nearly the same words, and from him Abbo, Ado and the rest; somewhat more fully Maffeo Vegio, chap. 4 of book 1 of the History of the Vatican basilica*, which we gave in volume VI of the month of June, part two.

[72] concerning which, from Angelo Rocca Angelo Rocca bishop of Tagaste, while at the beginning of the preceding century he held the prefecture of the Apostolic sacristy, published in print a Commentary on this particle of the most holy Cross, divided into four chapters; from which I have judged that it would not be beside the purpose to have inserted certain things in our Commentary which serve for the elucidation of Bede's words. First, he asserts that the said portion of the Most Holy Cross is even today still preserved in the said sacristy; whence it is plain that it was indeed, as Bede suggests, translated from the sacristy of the basilica of S. Peter to the basilica of S. Salvator, and there exposed year by year to the adoration of the faithful, yet was afterward restored to the former basilica in which it had been found by S. Sergius. And this, if Panvinio notes rightly, happened probably about the year 1528 or 1529.

[73] and Onofrio Panvinio For that author in his book on the Seven churches of the City, toward the end of the basilica of S. Salvator, where he treats of the Oratory of S. Laurence, which is now called Sancta Sanctorum, writes in this manner: But in this oratory there were very many most precious and most certain relics, of which many still exist there, many have been taken from their place. Among the rest there was at one time there a part of the wood of the most holy Cross, of which Bede thus makes mention: he here subjoins the words given by us above from the book on the six ages, and presently proceeds: This portion of the most holy Wood, taken away in the sack of the City under Clement VII (in the year of Christ 1527) by certain soldiers who plundered the silver casket, the Pontiff recovered prodigiously and not without divine help; and, enclosing it in a cross of gold and crystal, ordered it to be kept in the Vatican palace, where the pontifical sacristy is. Secondly, the praised Rocca says that the said particle of the Most Holy Cross was for this reason called by the venerable Bede a portion of wondrous size, and by the Librarian an unspeakable portion, because in its quantity it surpasses all which are preserved both elsewhere in divers places and at Rome in other basilicas; its figure he prefixed to his Commentary, but he says that its thickness or depth approaches the breadth of the index or the finger next to the thumb.

[74] Thirdly and finally, although the same author thinks it not certainly established certain things are recorded. when, whence, by whom and under what Pontiff the often-named particle of the Most Holy Cross was brought to Rome, yet he conjectures that it was sent thither by Juvenal bishop of Jerusalem to S. Leo the Pope, the first of that name, who from the year 440 to 461 presided over the universal Church. His conjecture the praised Rocca establishes, first from the Letter of S. Leo to the said Juvenal, at whose end these words are read: A particle of the Lord's Cross with the blessed gifts of your love I have reverently received. Secondly from the marks and characters cut into the most sacred Wood itself, which, as also the images likewise cut into it, he sets forth and delineates at length, as the curious reader may see in him. We hasten to other matters.

[75] There follows now what the author of the Life in Anastasius hands down about the schism of the church of Aquileia The schism of the church of Aquileia extinguished by the work and labor of S. Sergius, whose cause and origin I briefly premise. In the year of Christ 553, while Justinian I was reigning and Vigilius holding the Pontificate, the fifth œcumenical synod was celebrated at Constantinople, and in it an anathema was pronounced against the books of Theodore bishop of Mopsuestia on account of the Nestorian heresy contained in them; against certain writings of Theodoret bishop of Cyrus, because these too favored Nestorius, opposed the synod of Ephesus, and pulled down the anathematisms of Cyril of Alexandria; and against the Letter of Ibas bishop of Edessa to Maris the Persian, in which the said bishop of Mopsuestia was praised, Cyril was accused, and the synod of Ephesus was charged with a hasty sentence passed against Nestorius without examination. But since by this condemnation of the Three Chapters, as they are generally wont to be called, several bishops thought that the authority of the synod of Chalcedon, held in the preceding century under Leo I, had been derogated from — because in it Ibas and Theodoret had been received into the communion of the Church, restored to their sees, and admitted to a seat among the other fathers — a dreadful schism broke out through the Christian world, and it came about that several bishops in Africa, Spain, Italy and other regions did not receive the fifth synod, not observing that the said Ibas and Theodoret had indeed been admitted in the council of Chalcedon, but not before their errors had been laid aside, testimonies of true penitence given, and a sincere profession of the orthodox faith made; but that their doctrine had by no means been approved. More upon that matter see in Baronius at the year 553, in Cabassut in the History of the Councils, pag. 263 and following, and in others.

[76] For the rest, the churches which for that cause had cut themselves off from Catholic union the prudent solicitude of Vigilius' successors, the Pontiffs, gradually brought back; by the work and labor of S. Sergius but that of Aquileia, adhering more obstinately to the schism, S. Gregory the Pope, the first, and Honorius labored above the rest to recall to unity, and by their zeal the heat of the schismatics indeed cooled, but nevertheless it was not wholly extinguished: that divine providence had reserved to be accomplished by our Saint. Now Anastasius must be heard: In his (S. Sergius') times the archbishop of the church of Aquileia, and the synod which was assembled under him, who, as being in error, distrusted to receive the holy fifth universal council, being instructed by the admonitions and teachings of that same most blessed Pope, were converted, and they received the venerable council with satisfaction: and those who before were held under the fault of error, being enlightened by the teaching of the Apostolic See, agreeing in peace with the truth, were sent back to their own homes.

[77] is utterly extinguished. The venerable Bede in his book on the Six ages, and Paul the Deacon, who flourished not long after him in Italy, book 6, chap. 14 On the Deeds of the Lombards, agree with Anastasius: The synod held at Aquileia, they say, through unskilfulness of faith distrusted to receive the fifth universal council, until, being instructed by the saving admonitions of the blessed Pope Sergius, it too consented to assent with the other churches of Christ. It is drawn out besides from the praised writers that the said synod was assembled at the beginning of Tiberius Augustus, surnamed Apsimarus, who seized the empire in the year 698; whence I judge that what is here recorded about our Saint must be attached either to this very year or to the next following. And these things said suffice for our purpose about the schism of the church of Aquileia; but if anyone desire to be fully instructed about it, let him go to the Work of Fr. Bernardo de Rubeis, published at Strasbourg in the XL year of this century, in which he illustrates the monuments of the said church with a learned Commentary, and treats the beginnings, progress and end of the schism in a Historico-chronological dissertation from chapter 21 to 37.

[78] Sergius' Letter to abbot Ceolfrid William of Malmesbury, book 1 On the Deeds of the kings of the English, chap. 3, recites a Letter addressed by our Saint to Ceolfrid, abbot of the monastery of Jarrow in England, by which he exhorts him to send the venerable Bede to Rome. It is framed in these words. Sergius the bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Ceolfrid the religious abbot, greeting. With what words and in what ways can we utter the clemency of our God and his unspeakable providence, and pay worthy thanksgivings for his immense benefits toward us, who brings those placed in darkness and the shadow of death to the light of knowledge? (here some things seem to be wanting) Meanwhile know that we have received willingly and with cheerful mind the grace of the blessing which your devout religion sent us by the present bearer, just as it was sent by him. Favoring therefore with the closest devotion the timely and worthy petitions of your embraceable solicitude, we exhort the goodness of your religiousness beloved by God, that, since, certain heads of ecclesiastical causes having arisen which cannot be more fully made known without examination, we have need of men imbued with the art of letters for conference; as befits a helper devoted to God of holy mother the universal Church, you should not cease to accommodate obedient devotion to this our exhortation: but without any delay do not tarry to direct the religious servant of God Bede, presbyter of your venerable monastery, to the thresholds of the princes of the Apostles, my lords Peter and Paul, your lovers and protectors, to the sight of our mediocrity: whom, God favoring your prayers, do not distrust to return prosperously to you, the desired solemnity of the aforesaid heads being accomplished with God's help. For it will be, as we trust, profitable also for all committed to you, whatever shall have shone forth as imparted to the general Church through his excellence.

[79] Various are the opinions of the learned about that Letter: is admitted by some, by others thought fictitious, Baronius at the year 701 shows himself in no way to doubt that it is genuine and truly written by S. Sergius; nay he says that Bede's modesty is thence commended, who, although he often made mention of the same Pope Sergius, never records that he was summoned by him in letters, leaving pressed in silence what might seem able to pertain to his own praise. On the contrary Henschen at the XXVII day of May in the preliminary Commentary to the Acts of S. Bede the presbyter, num. 8, judges the whole Letter fictitious; because namely in the Life gathered by Turgot Prior of Durham he is said to have been born in the year 677, and because Bede the venerable himself in the Epilogue to the Epitome of his History speaks thus of himself: In the nineteenth year of my life I received the diaconate, in the thirtieth the grade of the presbyterate, both by the ministry of the most reverend bishop John, at the bidding of abbot Ceolfrid. According to which reckonings

it cannot be understood how S. Sergius could have ordered Bede the presbyter to be sent to him, since he received the order of the presbyterate only in the year 706, five years indeed after the holy Pontiff's departure from this life, which Henschen attaches to the year 701.

[80] A somewhat milder judgment about the recited Letter Mabillon delivered in Benedictine Century 3, part one, in the historical Eulogy suspect to others which he wove concerning the deeds of the venerable Bede; where he pronounces thus: There is also somewhat of suspicion in the aforesaid Letter: both because Bede was scarcely ordained presbyter before the death of Pope Sergius, who died in the year DCCI, and because he began to give himself to the writing of books from the time of the presbyterate received, by which it came about that his fame was spread abroad to foreigners. Which opinion, that you may see it more fully, you must know that the praised author thinks the year of Bede's birth, noted by the biographer cited above, erroneous, and would have Bede born in the year 673, but ordained presbyter in the year 702. And that indeed he contends is proved from the venerable writer himself by this reasoning: In the year of the Lord's Incarnation DCCXXXI, as Bede himself notes, he completed the History of the English nation, and completed also its Epitome or Recapitulation, which he did not carry beyond the said year; as is plain in an excellent manuscript codex which Mabillon testifies he has with him, and in another copy from a very ancient codex of the library of S. Maximin of Trier, published at Paris in the year 1681 by Fr. François Chifflet, a presbyter of our Society; in which, after these words: In the year DCCXXXI Berhtwald the archbishop died. In the same year Tatwine was consecrated ninth archbishop of the church of Canterbury, Æthelbald king of the Mercians being in the fifteenth year of his rule, there presently follows the Epilogue cited in the preceding number.

[81] But that Epilogue is closed with this formula: is held; From the time of the presbyterate received up to the fifty-ninth year of my age I have taken care briefly to note these things upon holy Scripture for my own need and that of my brethren from the Works of the venerable fathers, or even to add somewhat after the form of their sense and interpretation. And then is subjoined a Catalogue of the Works which he wrote. Therefore Bede was counting the 59th year of his age in the year of Christ 731: Which if, says Mabillon, from the year DCCXXXI you count back fifty-nine years of age, you will understand that Bede's birth must be set down in the year DCLXXIII. And below he says consequently: He obtained the grade of the presbyterate in the year DCCII. Mabillon's opinion is not displeasing indeed; nay it appears to me likely in every way in this, that he demonstrates that Bede's birth happened earlier; especially because in the other opinion, in which with Turgot it is fixed to the year 677, up to the month of May of the year 735 — which is set down as the year of his death by Mabillon, Henschen, Pagi and others — 59 years of his age can scarcely, or not even scarcely, be found; and if they be found in any way, he must be said to have written the Epilogue a little before his death.

[82] namely because it conflicts with their chronology: But equally according to Mabillon's and Henschen's reckonings the often-mentioned Letter will appear fictitious: since indeed according to both S. Sergius died in the year 701, and the Letter was not written before Bede had been ordained presbyter, which Mabillon thinks was done in the year 702, Henschen in the year 706. Pagi at the year 731 agrees with Mabillon about the birth and death of the venerable Bede, as also elsewhere about the year of our Saint's death, as will be seen below; but of the Letter he thinks thus at the year 701, that he judges it was indeed truly addressed to Ceolfrid, not by S. Sergius, but by some Pontiff his successor; which is not approved by me, since the name of Sergius is expressly stated at the beginning of the Letter, nor was there another Pontiff of that name until the year 844. But if Pagi should wish that the Letter was falsified, I shall as easily imagine that from some idle caution of someone the following words were added to Bede's name: presbyter of your venerable monastery, namely that he might be distinguished from two other monks of the same name, not far removed in time from Bede of Jarrow; and thus I shall elude every difficulty drawn from his presbyterate.

[83] it is shown consonant with Papebroch's reckonings; The said difficulty can be dissolved, in my judgment at least, in a way not too remote from likelihood; if namely we attach Bede's birth to the year 673 with Mabillon, and S. Sergius' death to the year 702 with Papebroch. For if we suppose that Bede was born in one of the two first months of the year 673, and was ordained priest in the third month of the year 702, he had certainly then completed the 29th year of his age, and wrote most truly that he had received the grade of the presbyterate in his 30th year, upon which he had already entered a month or two before. But from this third month up to the XIV day of August of the same year, the day of our Saint's death according to Papebroch's mind, sufficient time intervened for the Pontiff to have learned Bede's priesthood from the bearer who is said in the Letter to have been sent to Rome by abbot Ceolfrid, and to have summoned him to himself by letters. And thence it is also easily gathered why Ceolfrid judged that Bede should not be sent, because namely not long after the letters were given the Pontiff's death followed.

[84] nor is it to be rejected on account of the other argument adduced by them. It remains now to unravel another difficulty which the opponents of the aforesaid Letter object. Bede, they say, began to give himself to the writing of books only from the time of the presbyterate received, by which it came about that his fame was spread abroad to foreigners. The first Bede himself testified; the second, in what way will they prove? For what forbids that the fame of the learning of a man who from the seventh year of his age to the thirtieth had given his labor to studies in a monastery should have penetrated to foreigners, although he had not yet composed books? Or where in the Letter is it hinted that his fame did not reach the City except through books written by him? The Pontiff says that he has need of men imbued with the art of letters; he asks for Bede; but such was Bede, and the Pontiff could know that he was such from the bearer mentioned above, from whom without doubt Bede's erudition in every kind of knowledge was not hidden. These things being so arranged, I for my part see nothing which deservedly renders that Letter suspect, much less fictitious; nothing which persuades us to suspect the credit of William of Malmesbury, a writer of no small authority in English matters, who transmitted it to posterity as truly written by S. Sergius. But, as I gave notice, only on the supposition that Papebroch's opinion about our Pontiff's death, whose reasons we shall give below, is to be preferred to those of others. Meanwhile it is worth noting beforehand that, since chiefly for this reason the Letter appeared either doubtful or fictitious to the authors cited, that they could not reconcile it with the year of our Saint's death, thence some weight accrues to Papebroch's chronology, because in it the time of the Letter's writing and its Author's death are most probably reconciled.

\* plates, from the Greek word Πέταλον

§ VIII. He restores and adorns the churches of the City: he institutes pious rites.

[ ] The basilica of S. Peter Besides the deeds of S. Sergius assigned in the preceding paragraphs, not a few others remain most worthy of record, which we are compelled to describe without observing the order of times, because it was not possible to draw it out either from the Liber Pontificalis or from the writings of the ancients. Most of these are illustrious monuments of his pious munificence toward the Roman churches and of his particular solicitude in promoting by new institutions the worship of God and of the Saints. Take them now one by one in the order in which they are given in Anastasius: He (S. Sergius) made a golden image of blessed Peter the Apostle, which is in the women's part. He treats of the Vatican basilica, and of that part of it in which it was then the custom for women, separated from the men, to pray. He made a larger golden censer [\] with columns and a cover, which he hung before that same image, in which incense and an odor of sweetness is sent up more richly to almighty God on feast days, while the solemnities of Masses are being celebrated.* Thus the codex published by Vignoli, whom I here follow; somewhat otherwise it is read in other codices, as may be seen also in Bianchini's edition, which for what follows I shall not note, unless there be a difference worthy of note.

[86] He also placed in the apse of the above-written basilica, over the seat, he enriches with various adornment. a silver appallarea (a covering in the form of a snail-shell) weighing CXX pounds. He also made in the above-written basilica VI silver lamps, weighing CLXX pounds, which are over the beams at the entrance of the confession. He also made round about the altar of the above-written basilica VIII tetravela (veils formed into a square), four white and four scarlet. The roof [\] too and the chapels [\] which are round about that same basilica, which through long times had been broken up by drippings and rubbish, he more carefully renewed and repaired. The mosaic too, which in part had been broken down on the front of the courtyard of that same basilica, he renewed. Likewise also the mirrors of that same church, both those which are over the seat and those which are over the larger silver royal doors [\], he renewed.*

[87] He laid the body of blessed Leo, a most approved father and Pontiff, He translates the body of S. Leo the Pope to a worthier place, which had been placed in the hidden lower parts of the sacristy of the aforesaid basilica, in the named basilica in a public place, a tomb having been more carefully made, as had been revealed to him, and adorned that place. We said at num. 40 that it is uncertain in what year of his Pontificate S. Sergius translated the body of S. Leo; if however something may be granted to conjectures, I am not far from believing that this was done about the year 696 or 697. For since this sacred body was found in the secretarium, that is, as Vignoli notes, in the sacristy of blessed Peter the Apostle, in which at that time burial had been given to several supreme Pontiffs, and since our Saint found in that same sacristy a particle of the Most Holy Cross in the year of Christ 696, as I related above, it is altogether likely that about the same time he diligently searched through this sacred place, and, having found the body of S. Leo, translated it thence. He also made (Anastasius continues) a larger golden paten having white gems round about, and in the middle a cross with hyacinths and emeralds, weighing XX pounds. Thus far of the Vatican basilica, which in volume VI of June, part 2, pag. 85, our Janning described at length; where also the curious reader will find the explanation of apsis, pharus, and other words here more obscure in the texts. Hence the author of the Liber Pontificalis passes to other churches of the City, adorned by our Saint's munificence.

[88] [He adorns S. Paul's and the other basilicas of the City and restores what had fallen in them.] He more carefully renewed and repaired all the roofs and chapels round about the basilica of blessed Paul the apostle, which through long times had been worn out by age. Likewise also he caused beams to be brought from Calabria, and renewed those which he found in that same basilica very old. The images too of the Apostles, very old, which were over the doors of that same basilica, he changed. He also made an ambo

[\] and a ciborium (that is, a covering or canopy set over the altar, as Vignoli and Du Cange interpret it) in the basilica of the saints Cosmas and Damian, where he also offered many gifts. But the dome [\] of that same church he covered and fortified with molten sheets [\] of lead. The ciborium too of S. Susanna, which before had been of wood, he made of marble: and he gave there divers treasures of gold and silver, and immovable properties. The basilica also of S. Euphemia, which for many times had been unroofed, he covered and renewed. And also the basilica of S. Aurea at Ostia, which likewise had been unroofed and broken down, he covered and renewed by his own zeal. The oratory too of saint Andrew the apostle, which is on the Lavican Way, he rebuilt from the ground. In the basilica also of saint Laurence the martyr, which is called the Title of Lucina, he made IV silver arches. He made also coverings and vessels of gold and silver, several, throughout divers churches, for the use and adornment of the churches of Christ. Baronius, having reported the same things at the year 701, after a few words thus proceeds: But besides these, I remember to have read in the ancient monuments of the deaconry of saint Mary in the Broad Way that that church was dedicated by that same Pontiff — a notable place indeed, which they report was of old the lodging of Paul the apostle and of other Saints. But Mongitore in Palermo sanctified* adds also the church of S. Martin, which he asserts was built by our Saint, and made famous and venerable by several relics of Saints; let the credit rest with the author, for he alleges neither testimonies of writers nor any monuments.

[89] The author in Anastasius passes from the Roman basilicas thus restored and adorned by our Saint's piety He orders the Agnus Dei, qui tollis etc. to be chanted in the Mass; to his holy constitutions, both for the universal Church and for the City only. He appointed that at the time of the breaking of the Lord's Body the Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis should be chanted by the clergy and the people. Some writers, among whom Jean Durant, book 2 On the Rites of the Church, chap. 53, would have this constitution wrongly ascribed to S. Sergius, and made either in the Council of Nicæa or even before it. But to them Cardinal Bona learnedly answered, Rerum Liturgicarum, book 2, chap. 16, whose words, because they beautifully elucidate the present matter, I here deliver: Among the Greeks the mention of the Lamb of God in the sacred solemnities is more ancient, but not by way of prayer. James in his Liturgy: Behold the Lamb of God, the Son of the Father, who taketh away the sins of the world. And in the Liturgy of Chrysostom the priest, about to divide the holy Bread, said: The Lamb of God, the Son of the Father, is broken and divided. But some, deceived by this commemoration of the Lamb in the Greek Synaxis, and drawing it to the prayer of the Latins, have written that it began before Sergius, and have judged it more ancient than the Council of Nicæa, or at any rate coeval with it. And Sergius indeed appointed that Miserere nobis should be said three times; but afterward, many adversities pressing upon the Church, as Innocent (the third) says, book VI on the Mysteries of the Mass, chap. VI, or for the taking away of a schism, as others write, it was decreed that at the third time should be said, Dona nobis pacem: which rite has been received everywhere, except in the Lateran basilica, in which the ancient form of saying Miserere nobis three times is still kept. Thus Cardinal Bona.

[90] Further, scarcely any doubt is left me that the cause, or rather the occasion, of this holy constitution was the Trullan pseudo-synod, for which institution the Trullan synod was probably the occasion. on account of which our Saint suffered very much, and over which at length he triumphed, as we saw above, an undaunted defender of the Catholic Church. For since in canon 82 of that same pseudo-synod it had been enacted that the Son of God should not thereafter be represented under the form of a Lamb, surely the holy Pontiff, in order to confound that rash censure and to confirm the ancient custom of the Church, wished the most merciful Son of God to be invoked three times under the name of the Lamb in the most holy sacrifice of the Mass. Our Saint also proved himself an excellent worshipper of the Virgin Mother, and worthy that Antonius de Balinghem, a priest of our Society, should inscribe his name in the Marian Calendar at the IX day of September, as one who not only, on Baronius' testimony above, dedicated a church to Mary in the Broad Way, but also, on the testimony of the author of the Liber Pontificalis, wished her chief festivals to be made illustrious at Rome every year with a certain new splendor.

[91] [He institutes supplications and litanies on the chief festivals of the B. V. Mary.] And he appointed (the words are again those of the author just praised) that on the days of the Annunciation of the Lord, of the Dormition [\] and of the Nativity of the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary, and of saint Simeon, which the Greeks call Ypapanti, Litanies should go forth from saint Hadrian's, and the people should assemble at saint Mary's. Somewhat more fully these things are set forth by the author of the book which is entitled Ordo Romanus, and which was published among the writers of the eighth century in the Bibliotheca Patrum; likewise by Alcuin Flaccus in his book On the Divine Offices, chap. 7, whose words are these: In the Pontifical acts it is read that Pope Sergius commanded litanies to be held on the day of the Presentation of the Lord in the temple, for thus it is written: That on the days of the Annunciation of the Lord: the rest from Anastasius; then he proceeds: On that day therefore, as the dawn rises, all the clergy and the people proceed with litanies and antiphons to the church of S. Hadrian, awaiting the Pontiff. The Pontiff, entering the sacristy, clothes himself with black vestments, and the clergy likewise. After this all receive single candles from the Pontiff's hand* etc.

[92] He was not the author of the rite of proceeding with lighted torches Of the Nativity of the most blessed Virgin in this month at the VIII day; of the Annunciation in the month of March at the XXV day; of her Assumption into heaven in the month of August at the XV day, we have offered some foretaste; and of the same and of her other festivals, as we have several times suggested, we shall afterward treat more fully. Fr. Henschen wrote at length at the 2nd day of February about the Hypapante, that is the meeting of the Lord and the feast of the Purification of B. Mary, which the Librarian calls the feast of S. Simeon; and there throughout his whole historical Commentary he shows from the Greek and Latin fathers the antiquity both of the feast itself and of the custom of carrying lights on that day. Whence those have strayed who thought that it was indicated by the author of the Liber Pontificalis, by the words cited in the preceding number, that the rite on the feast of the Purification of proceeding with lighted torches took its beginnings in the Roman Church from S. Sergius' institution. For neither could the praised author truly have written that, nor is it in fact drawn out from his words.

[93] on the feast of the Purification. I should believe indeed that our Saint, either because he judged that the said day was celebrated with insufficient solemnity, or because he perceived that the fervor of the faithful in celebrating it had grown languid, appointed that it should be made illustrious with a certain new splendor, or at least that the old custom of celebrating it should be resumed. And to this end he prescribed Litanies and other prayers, and determined the place from which and to which the clergy and people should proceed with lighted torches. Then, out of his affection toward the most holy Mother, he probably wished the same rite of proceeding to be extended to her other festivals. Hear the venerable Bede, On the Reckoning of times, chap. 10, where he hints this very thing, however much he does not name the Pontiff: Numa dedicated the second month to Februus, that is to Pluto, who was believed to have power over lustrations: and it was necessary that in that month the city be lustrated: in which he appointed that sacrifices should be paid to the gods of the shades. But the Christian religion well changed this custom of lustration, since in the same month, on the day of S. Mary, the whole people with the priests and ministers, chanting hymns, proceeds devoutly through the churches and through suitable places of the City, and they carry in their hands burning candles given by the Pontiff, and, as the good custom increased, it has learned to do the same thing also in the other festivals of the same B. Mary and perpetual Virgin. Thus Bede; and nearly the same things also S. Ildephonsus in his first Sermon on the Purification of S. Mary, if however he be its author, but with the latter words omitted, as the good custom increased etc. Wherefore when Bede said that the faithful had learned to do the same in the other festivals of B. Mary, he looked, I think, to S. Sergius' constitution.

\* i.e. a thurible

\* the roof

\* chapels

\ al. regios arcus*

\* a pulpit

\* i.e. a vaulted summit

\* sheets

\* i.e. of the Assumption

§ IX. His ordinations, the year of his death, and the various opinions of writers concerning him.

[ ] He ordained many bishops and presbyters. To the words recited from Anastasius in the preceding paragraph are subjoined those which we treated in §7 about the extinguished schism of the church of Aquileia; but to these the following: He (S. Sergius) ordained Damian archbishop of the church of Ravenna. He ordained Berhtwald archbishop of Britain, and Clement (S. Willibrord) of the Frisians [\], and ninety-seven other bishops through divers provinces. And he held two ordinations at Rome in the month of March; presbyters XVII, deacons IV, bishops as above.* But most of these things have been discussed in their place. For the rest, the names of so many bishops whom the Saint ordained, besides the three already given, I have found expressed nowhere. Some hand down — from whom perhaps it passed into the Lessons of the Office which we described above — that S. Sergius sent S. Kilian the bishop, and his companions Coloman the presbyter and Totnan the deacon, into Germany, and S. Swibert with S. Willibrord into Frisia. But neither S. Kilian nor S. Swibert can be numbered among the bishops consecrated by S. Sergius; as may be seen in our Work at the 1st day of March, on which we elucidated the Acts of S. Swibert, and at the VIII of July, on which those of SS. Kilian and his companions.

[95] Nay, what is handed down about the mission of those Saints as received from our Saint Whether he sent SS. Kilian into Germany, and Swibert into Frisia. seems to be so expounded that you should understand either his confirmation only, or a mission intimated to them by a messenger or by letters. For it is established from the twofold Life of S. Kilian reprinted by us at the aforenamed day that that prelate came to Rome while Conon, the immediate predecessor of our Pontiff, was sitting, and, having obtained from him leave to preach and to teach, went on into Franconia, where a few years after, while our Saint was governing the universal Church, he was crowned with martyrdom together with his companions Coloman and Totnan. But Swibert indeed came down with S. Willibrord from Ireland into Frisia; but neither in Bede nor in the other ancient writers whom I have seen is he ever read to have journeyed to our Saint, either alone or with S. Willibrord. More about these Saints see at the days cited. For the rest, nothing whatever further occurs to be said about S. Sergius' deeds in his lifetime; wherefore, as the one thing that remains, I add to these what the Librarian notes about his death, and what is the opinion of writers about its day and year.

[96] And he was buried, says Anastasius,

in the basilica of blessed Peter the Apostle, It is uncertain on what day the Saint died, on the VI of the Ides of September, in the XV Indiction, under Tiberius augustus, and the bishopric was vacant one month, XX days. From which words nothing certain can be determined as to the day of death, since indeed the author, after his manner, records only the day of burial, and since besides not even that is found the same in all the codices, as we gave notice above in §1, num. 2. Hence it came about that writers have set down the day of death not all the same, but each as it better agreed with the chronological reckonings which each had conceived. Thus Baronius says the Saint died and was buried on the V of the Ides, or the IX day of September. Both the Pagis assert that he died on the VII, and was buried on the VIII day of September. Papebroch, that he died on the XIV of August, on the vigil of the Virgin's Assumption into heaven, but was buried, with a more solemn rite, as he understands it, on the VI of the Ides of September, on the very day on which the Nativity of that same most pure Virgin is celebrated in the Church. Baronius' opinion displeases me chiefly for this, that he confounds the death with the burial; but which of the two others is the truer, or rather comes nearer to the truth, is not clear.

[97] [it is likewise uncertain whether in the first or the second year of the VIII century.] Writers likewise disagree as to the year of death. Baronius in the Annals, and our Henschen who followed him in the preliminary Commentary to the Acts of the venerable Bede at the XXVII day of May, both the Pagis likewise, and finally all those who contend that S. Sergius was consecrated Pontiff in the year 687, attach his death to the year 701. But Papebroch, and those who have adopted his chronology as regards the said consecration, as also Ottavio Gaetani in the Lives of the Sicilian Saints, would have him die in the year 702. And indeed, since among all the patrons of both opinions there is agreement about the space of time, at least as to the years and months during which the Saint presided over the Church, and which I find thus noted in all copies of the Liber Pontificalis: He sat XIII years, VIII months; the days in most are XXIII, in others XXIV are added; since, I say, there is agreement about the space of time, it must be that those who say he was ordained in the year 687 should consequently assert that he died in the year 701, and conversely. But those who place the consecration one year later must also prolong his life by one. The difficulties, and those not slight, which occur in each of the opinions about the year of consecration we set forth in §3, but left the choice to the reader's judgment, and therefore we determine the same here as to the year of death, which for that reason we have expressed thus in the margin: In the year DCCI or DCCII.

[98] Papebroch's opinion from the noted XV Indiction. For although in the text of Anastasius adduced above S. Sergius is written to have been buried on the VIII day of September, in the XV Indiction, little or nothing thence, in my judgment, of greater certainty accrues to either opinion. For who can determine for certain which Indiction the author used, the Constantinopolitan or Greek, or the Constantinian or Cæsarean? The former takes its beginning from the Kalends of September, the latter from the VIII of the Kalends of October. But if he used the Constantinopolitan, according to this in the year 701 the XV Indiction began on the first day of September; therefore the eighth day of the same month concurring with the XV Indiction belonged to the said year 701, and the text of the Liber Pontificalis is opposed to Papebroch's chronology. If on the contrary the author used the Cæsarean Indiction, in the year 701 the XV Indiction began only on the XXIV day of September, and the eighth day of the said month still belonged to the XIV Indiction; therefore the VIII day of September concurring with the XV Indiction belonged to the year 702, in which year the Cæsarean Indiction was running until the XXIV day of September, and the text favors Papebroch, who says that his chronology is thereby confirmed, since the Latins change it (the year of the Indiction) on the XXIV of September, as the author of the Chronicle of Centula expressly teaches, tom. 4 of the Spicilegium of d'Achery, pag. 476, and Binius in his Notes to the Roman council under Julius; and it is established from the Letters of some Pontiffs, noting a little before or after the said day the ending or the new Indiction. Thus he in the Conatus.

[99] Pagi on the contrary, contending for the Greek Indiction, writes thus in the Critica at the year 701: The opinion of Antoine Pagi, Neither do the Latins at this time, apart from the English, nor ever does Anastasius begin the Indiction from the XXIV day of September, which is plain concerning Anastasius in his account of John V, where he reports that Constantine Pogonatus died at the beginning of the month of September in the XIV Indiction, namely in the year DCLXXXV, in which the XIV Indiction began, and that at the beginning of the month of September, as Anastasius says. So confidently again does the praised critic pronounce here, that it will be worth the trouble to have weighed each point. But first it must be confessed that the Constantinopolitan Indiction — although Latin writers, such as Alfonso Chacón in the Isagoge prefixed to the Lives of the Pontiffs, and Onofrio Panvinio in his Commentary on the second book of the Fasti, have mentioned only the Indiction which takes its beginning from the XXIV of September, and that which is called the Pontifical from the Kalends of January — it must, I say, be confessed that the Constantinopolitan Indiction was not rarely employed by the Italians, as our Sirmond shows, with examples adduced, in his Notes on the IV Council of Paris, and from him Chifflet in the Probationes to the History of Tréguier, Du Cange in the Glossary, and Mabillon, book 2 De Re diplomatica, chap. 24; so that, partly for this reason, partly for a reason to be indicated below, I do not in every part agree with Papebroch. I return to Pagi.

[100] He says that the Latins never at this time began the Indiction from the XXIV day, except the English. who does not seem consistent with himself about the use of the Indiction But among the Latins the Germans and the Gauls are to be reckoned as well as the English: let him therefore hear Sirmond in the place assigned: The Gauls, retaining, as report has it, the ancient and true origin of the Indictions, drew their beginning from the VIII day of the Kalends of October, and he produces a twofold example, one of the year 573, the other of the year 896. Let him hear Mabillon in the chapter cited, num. 3: But among the Germans the Indiction from the VIII of the Kalends of October has long since obtained, and obtains even now, and for that reason is called Cæsarean, by others Constantinian. Let him hear Du Cange in the Glossary: That the use of this (Constantinian Indiction) was familiar to the Gauls and the Britons is established. Of the Britons Bede testifies, book on the Reckoning of times, chap. 48. Of the Gauls, above the rest, Rabanus (he wrote about the year 820) in his book on the Computus, chap. 66: "But the Indictions begin from the VIII of the Kalends of October, and there they end." Other testimonies the praised Du Cange brings forward in the same place; after which he thus proceeds: In Germany likewise the same Indiction has always obtained, and again, testimonies being adduced, he subjoins: It obtained also in Italy; and he adduces an example of the year 1078.

[101] Let Pagi finally hear himself in the Critica at the year 576, among the Gauls and Germans. num. 4. For the Franks, Germans and English before the death of Charlemagne used the Constantinian Indiction, begun on the VIII of the Kalends of October, or on the XXIV day of September. Therefore not the English alone among the Latins, but also the Germans and the Gauls began the Indiction from the XXIV day of September at the time of which we treat, namely before the year 814, in which Charlemagne is written to have died. It now remains to examine the other part of his assertion, in which he says that the Cæsarean Indiction was never employed by Anastasius. It is plain, he says, concerning Anastasius in his account of John V etc. See num. 99. I confess that that text points to the Greek Indiction; but thence it is not yet plain to me that the Cæsarean was never used by Anastasius. For first it is not remote from likelihood that the death of the emperor Constantine was noted by the author of the Life of John V with the same marks with which he had either read it in Greek writers, or had learned it from letters sent from Constantinople to Rome.

[102] The Liber Pontificalis had various authors. Secondly Pagi did not observe that one was the author who composed the Life of John V, another he who composed that of S. Sergius, and that Anastasius transcribed them, as Papebroch observed. For neither was it hidden from the learned critic that not all the Lives of the Pontiffs contained in the Liber Pontificalis were written by Anastasius alone, but by several authors; nay, that the greater part of it had already been written before Anastasius beheld the light, since indeed mention of that same book is made in writers much older than he, and among them in Bede, who preceded him in age by a whole century. Further, that the Lives of John V and of S. Sergius did not come forth from the same author it will be easy to gather for one who compares the style of both and their plainly different marks. But whoever desires to know more upon this matter, let him go to Giovanni Ciampini in his Examination of the Liber Pontificalis, where he discourses at length on the diversity of its authors and style. It would therefore be no wonder if different authors used a different manner of reckoning the Indiction: especially since the kinds of Indictions, as Mabillon says De Re Diplomatica in the place cited, varied variously at the pleasure of the writers or notaries, both in Gaul and at Rome and elsewhere.

[103] The noted Indiction favors neither opinion. And this is the first reason why we have said that from the noted Indiction nothing certain can be drawn out for the opinion either of Pagi or of Papebroch. The other is that not even in all the codices is the same Indiction found; for although Baronius in the Annals, Bianchini, Vignoli and other editors of Anastasius, and with Pagi and Papebroch the more recent writers generally, employ the XV Indiction as truly Anastasian, nevertheless elsewhere the XIV Indiction too is read, nay, if Vignoli writes rightly in his variant readings, even the XIII. Which at least gives rise to uncertainty whether perhaps this or that is not the true Indiction. Supposing that it is, the argumentation of Papebroch and Pagi and others drawn from it falls absolutely, according to which the former will have to attach Sergius' death to the year 701 or 700, the latter to the year 700 or 699. It is clearly established, says Gaetano Cenni, who here follows Pagi, in his Notes on Anastasius, that those codices which have the XIV Indiction are faulty, both from the ages of the predecessors (of the Pontiffs) rightly established, and from the monument which Pagi refers as received from Bede, the epitaph of king Ceadwalla. But to me it is not clearly established which party more rightly establishes the ages of the Pontiffs, which better dissolves the difficulties. Therefore, since the Indiction depends on these, it remains itself uncertain, as its kind remains uncertain, and thus from the Indiction the praised authors have nothing certain.

\ Frisonum*