Veranus

ON ST. VERANUS, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR,

AT VENCE IN GAUL

In the fifth century.

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.

Veranus, bishop and conf., at Vence in Gaul (St.)

BY J. P.

§ I. The memory of the Saint in the Calendars: the antiquity of his cultus; the churches consecrated to him, a monastery built and distinguished by his name.

Various holy bishops in Gaul occur in the sacred Calendars under the name of Veranus, Various bishops of the same name in the Martyrologies. whom you may find called by writers Veranius and Verannius, and even Uranius. Cardinal Baronius, in the Notes of the Roman Martyrology at the XIX day of October, observes that Veranus, who is there commemorated in the text — in the territory of Orleans, the laying to rest of St. Veranus the bishop — is to be numbered among the prelates of Chalon; and on that occasion he reckons the rest in this way. There was a bishop of Lyons of the same name, of whom below at the third of the Ides of November. There was besides another St. Veranus, bishop of Vence, from being a monk of Lérins, a disciple of St. Hilary, bishop of Arles: he is set down as having rested in the Lord on the fourth of the Ides of September. There was moreover another St. Veranus, bishop of Cavaillon, who is religiously venerated as patron of that church. Veranus of Cavaillon is found subscribed at the second Council of Mâcon, which was celebrated in the year of the Lord 588. The same name and the same dignity of so many holy men has bred a certain confusion among authors both ancient and more recent, who in their elogia have ascribed to one Veranus what seemed to be attributed to another. The greatest difficulty is with St. Veranus of Lyons and our own of Vence; since they are reported not only to have been distinguished by the same name and dignity, but also to have flourished at the same time: and hence some would have it that there was one and the same Veranus who is called both of Lyons and of Vence; others maintain that they were distinct; and others again think otherwise. The patrons of each opinion and their reasons I shall give below, after I have related what I have found about St. Veranus of Vence in the Martyrologies, and about his cultus in ancient and more recent writers.

[2] There is no memory of our Saint in the ancient classic Martyrologies, that is, those of St. Jerome, Bede, Usuard and the others (unless he is to be confounded with St. Veranus of Lyons, [Our Saint is not mentioned today in the ancient classic Martyrologies; he is in many more recent ones.] who is announced in most of them at the XI day of November). Nor even at the IX or X day of September is he recorded in the Roman Martyrology, although Baronius, cited in the preceding number, calls him a Saint and marks that he rested in the Lord on the IV of the Ides of September; so that Tillemont, tom. 15 of the Monuments of Ecclesiastical History, deservedly suggests that he wonders why the Most Eminent did not grant him a place in the Martyrology. Let us hear, therefore, the more recent martyrologists. Castellanus in the universal Martyrology at the IX day of September announces him thus: At Vence, of St. Veranus the bishop, son of St. Eucherius of Lyons. But Ferrari in the Catalogue of the Saints whose name is not inserted in the Roman has it thus at the X day of September: At Vence in Gaul, of St. Veranus the bishop. Likewise the Paris Martyrology at that day: At Vence in Provence, of St. Veranus, from being a monk of Lérins bishop of this city, who was the son of St. Eucherius. Saussay in the Gallican Martyrology composed a longer elogium of the Saint, which I likewise subjoin here.

[3] The elogium from Saussay and from the old Martyrology of the church of Vence, At Vintium of the Nerusii in the Phocensian province, the laying to rest of St. Veranus, bishop and confessor, who was the first light and pillar of the see of Vence. He, the son of St. Eucherius and brother of Salonius, from being a monk of Lérins, where he sought the abundant merchandise of religion and knowledge, being made Prelate for his merits, shone with such praise of holiness and pastoral vigilance and virtue that he went before the stars of his age as with the splendour of the sun: so much so that he was called by Salvian the master of the churches, together with his brother Salonius, the partner of the same glory, and was held in great admiration and veneration by Sidonius Apollinaris, the oracle of his age, as a vigorous husbandman of the Ecclesiastical vine and an excellent maker of it fruitful. Who at length, an abundant harvest of labours having been gathered, went forward to the enjoyment of eternal rest. Buried in the church of Vence in a marble sarcophagus, he shone with many powers of signs. So Saussay. Jean Savaron, in his Commentary on letter 15 of book 7 of Sidonius Apollinaris, recites from the Martyrology of the church of Vence the following announcement: In Gaul, in the city of Vence, the laying to rest of blessed Veranus, bishop of Vence, who was a monk of the island of Lérins, a disciple of blessed Hilary, abbot of the said island and afterwards bishop of Arles; which blessed Veranus was buried in the same church of Vence, in a marble sarcophagus fixed in the wall, who was renowned for many powers and miracles, and, sprung of a noble stock, rested in peace on the IV of the Ides of September. The same things Vincent Barralis transcribed from the author just cited in his Chronology of the Saints of the monastery of the island of Lérins, part 1, p. 363; and the same, but a little altered, Denis de Sainte-Marthe brings forward in the Gallia Christiana lately reprinted, tom. 3, col. 1214, who moreover calls the said Martyrology ancient.

[4] From what has been said thus far there is gathered in some measure the antiquity of St. Veranus' cultus, consecrated under his patronage. An account of the city. and it is confirmed from the old Records of the monastery of Lérins, in which his name, as the authors just cited testify, is inscribed with the title of Saint in this way: St. Veranus, bishop of Vence. But it appears more manifestly, first, from this, that the cathedral church of Vence itself is consecrated under the patronage of St. Veranus. This the said Sainte-Marthe testifies at col. [ ] and 1213, in the description of the city and diocese of Vence prefixed to the catalogue of its bishops, which on this occasion I partly transfer hither, because I judge the knowledge of it altogether useful for a clearer understanding of what will have to be examined afterwards: Vincium, he says, Vencia — the city of the Vensienses, of the Vensiensians, of the Vincisienses and of the Vecisienses — a city now small but formerly larger, is situated three leagues from Antibes to the North, two from the river Var to the West, three distant from Grasse. It was of old endowed with the title of a county, as is established from charters drawn up in favour of the basilica of the Blessed Mary the Gilded about

the year 1030. It enjoys a most beautiful prospect and a pleasant soil, most fruitful in golden and Assyrian apples and other most delightful fruits. The cathedral church is consecrated to God under the title of St. Mary the Virgin and the patronage of SS. Veranus and Lambert. In it, besides the bishop (suffragan of the archbishop of Embrun), there are a provost, an archdeacon, etc. In it are religiously preserved the bodies of SS. Veranus and Lambert. The diocese is separated from that of Nice by the river Var; from that of Grasse by the stream Loup; from that of Glandèves by the river Estéron; from that of Fréjus by the territory of Caille. The rest does not belong here.

[5] There shines out, secondly, the ancient and particular veneration of the faithful toward our Saint from this, At the end of the 8th century, not far from Vence that as the eighth century was drawing to its close, or the ninth beginning, a church or oratory was raised to him near the castle of Cagnes, not far from the city of Vence. The Denis de Sainte-Marthe just cited, at col. [ ], treating of the Abbey of St. Veranus, of which we too shall treat presently, hands down thus on the authority of Vincent Barralis: Charlemagne was reported to have built the church of the Blessed Mary which they called the Gilded, dedicated also to St. John the Baptist and to Veranus the confessor. Whoever rightly considers the sense of these words will understand a single church, and that dedicated both to the Virgin Mother and to SS. John the Baptist and Veranus; and a like sense the words of Barralis himself seem to bear. But from other things which the same Barralis brings forward in the same place it is manifestly drawn out that the said writer is not so to be understood, and that the church of St. Mary the Gilded was different from the church, or perhaps oratory, of the other Saints.

[6] a church or oratory, It is worth bringing forward from Barralis himself what pertains to the present matter, omitting, however, or drawing into an abridgement, lest I be too long, those things which seemed to me less necessary for the understanding of them. He premises, then, in what manner at the beginning of the eleventh century Durantus, abbot of St. Eusebius, a monastery of Apt, was elected bishop of Vence, and set out on the journey with a companion, a monk of the same monastery whose name was Pontius, being about to go to Vence; then he continues thus: Who, coming and crossing the river named Loup, found the church of blessed Mary the Mother of God, which the great king Charles had once built and enriched with great gifts, and which antiquity itself surnamed the Gilded. Thus far nothing about SS. Veranus and John the Baptist. But he then relates that the place where the said church was founded pleased the said Pontius, and was chosen by him for building a monastery of monks, and at length goes on again thus: Pontius therefore, cutting away a huge forest of timber, found the oratory of St. Peter beside the church of St. Mary, and of blessed John the Baptist and of blessed Veranus the confessor.

[7] more probably distinct from the church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, The last words, as I have already suggested, are a little obscure, so that from them taken by themselves it cannot be certainly determined whether one and the same church was consecrated to the Virgin Mother of God and to SS. John the Baptist and Veranus; or whether, as the oratory of St. Peter was distinct from it, so also the churches or oratories of the other Saints were different from it. Now take the testimonies by which it may be made manifest that the former sense is by no means to be admitted. The said Barralis, after relating the construction of the aforesaid monastery, recounts the donations and immunities granted by various persons both to that monastery and to the churches, and professes that he drew all these from ancient cartularies. At p. 363 he has it thus: In the year of the Lord one thousand and twelve, on the sixth day before the Ides of August, the noble Peter with his wife Ermengard … gave to the Lord God, to blessed Mary who is called the Gilded, and to blessed Veranus — churches which had been built by the most pious emperor Charles — … a vineyard which lies beside the river of Cagnes, etc. At p. 364, in the very instrument of another donation, made in the year 1030, which he produces entire, these words are read: We the aforesaid Leotgerius and my wife Odila, and our sons, namely Raimbald, the lord Peter the bishop, and also Rostagnus the younger, to the aforesaid churches of holy Mary the Mother of God, of St. John the Baptist, of St. Peter the Apostle, and of St. Veranus the confessor, to Pontius the abbot and to the monks serving God there … yield our goods, etc.

[8] built to St. Veranus, Finally, to many other things which may be seen in him, the same author subjoins at p. 365: Not content with these donations, the same truly noble and pious Lambert and Amicus, brothers german, and also Raimbald and Rostagnus, likewise brothers, and their wives, princes and nobles of that region … gave to the lord abbot Pontius, to the monks and to his successors … that very place with the churches built in it; namely the church of holy Mary the Mother of God, which was called by the ancients the Gilded, built in the time of the most pious king Charles, and also * the church of St. John the Baptist, and of St. Peter the apostle and of St. Veranus the confessor and of other Saints, which are consecrated to their honours, with vineyards, meadows, fields, tithes, waters, etc. These things assuredly show more evidently that besides the church of the Blessed Virgin Mary another place, sacred to St. Veranus and to other Saints, existed there, than that any prudent doubt can be left to anyone; but it cannot be determined with equal certainty whether this place was a single church consecrated to SS. Veranus, Peter the apostle and John the Baptist — which exposition the later text favours — or whether there were several oratories or chapels there, each built for each Saint.

[9] The public cultus of our Saint therefore flourished in the times of Charlemagne, and doubtless before also; and in the 2nd century a monastery, and that it flourished in the following centuries, and most of all in the eleventh, is established from this, that the often-named Pontius dedicated the monastery raised by himself both to the Virgin Mother of God and to St. Veranus, and willed that it should be called the Monastery of St. Veranus; nay, from the instrument presently to be recited it is drawn out how anxious he was that in future it should not be deprived of that famous name — namely when in the year 1050 he united the said monastery, or rather subjected it by donation, to the monastery of Lérins, in which, as will appear in the fourth paragraph, St. Veranus had been a monk from his youth, and from which he had once been elected to the see of Vence. I append the entire instrument of the transfer or donation, copied from Barralis.

[10] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I, Pontius, abbot of the monastery of St. Veranus, with the counsel of all my monks and with the counsel of the lord Durantus, bishop of Vence, which a little later to the abbey of Lérins and of all his canons, and with the counsel of Raimbald and Lambert and Amicus, give to God and to holy Mary His Mother, and to holy Honoratus of the monastery of Lérins, and to Aldebert the abbot of that place, and to all the monks both present and future who there assiduously serve God as soldiers, the monastery of St. Veranus, in which I am set as abbot, which is situated in the district of Vence, with all its appurtenances; and I hand over and firmly grant it to the aforesaid monastery of Lérins for the renowned religion of that place, that henceforth they may have it and possess it for ever without any disturbance or contradiction. And this donation I make to the most religious monastery of Lérins, lest that place of St. Veranus after my death should be able to lose the dignity of its former name, which it has had until now from the time of Charlemagne, king of the Franks, who built it and enriched it with his gifts; but let its former dignity remain in it, with Christ's help and with the aid of the monastery of Lérins. The lord Durantus, bishop of the holy see of Vence, willed it and confirmed it with his own hand. Aldebert, bishop of Antibes, confirmed. Andrew, bishop of Nice, confirmed. Raimbald, Lambert, Amicus, princes, confirmed. Brocardus confirmed. Aycardus confirmed. Leotgerius and Raimbald of St. Laurence confirmed. Lambert confirmed. But if anyone on any occasion should wish to infringe this donation, and should attempt to take it away from the monastery of Lérins, we subject him by the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul and by our own to perpetual excommunication (unless he shall have come to his senses from this wickedness). And this charter was made in the year one thousand and fifty from the incarnate Word of God, in the second Indiction.

[11] From this form of donation a doubt might arise was given together with the churches. whether what we have handed down above from Vincent Barralis is true — that the monastery of St. Veranus owes its beginnings to Pontius, the monk and afterwards abbot; since he wrote in this manner: Lest that place of St. Veranus after my death should be able to lose the dignity of its former name, which it has had until now from the time of Charlemagne, king of the Franks, who built it. But this speech is not only of the dwelling of the monks, of which Pontius had been the author, but there are comprised in it also the churches formerly raised and enriched by Charlemagne, which, because according to what was said before they were given by gift to Pontius and his fellow monks, thenceforth began to be designated by the single name of the Monastery or place of St. Veranus. And thence that monastery is rightly said, according to its more important parts, namely the churches, to have been built by the emperor Charlemagne.

* "not"

§ II. The Saint's relics and more recent cultus; he is wrongly reckoned by some among the Saints of the Order of St. Benedict.

[ ] The Saint's head, which is preserved with the rest of his body at Vence, The often-cited Vincent Barralis has it thus concerning the sacred remains of our Bishop, in the cited book, p. 362: His venerable relics are honourably preserved in the cathedral church of Vence in Narbonese Provence; where his sacred head or skull is kept, laid up in a statue raised from the middle of the breast, made of silver and gilded, with this inscription: "This is the head of blessed Veranus the bishop, made by master Laurence de Pardis the goldsmith, in the year of the Lord 1495, on the X day of October." And, as report has it, it was wrought by order of the most reverend lord Raphael Hispanus, bishop of Vence. With these things agree what we gave above from Denis de Sainte-Marthe, where the bodies of SS. Veranus and Lambert are said to be religiously preserved in the cathedral of Vence. There agree also what we recited from the ancient Martyrology of Vence, namely that the body of our Saint was laid up there in a marble sarcophagus fixed in the wall. But in precisely what year the said sarcophagus was inspected, and his sacred head thence, separated from the rest of the body, was taken out, none of the writers whom I have seen relates.

[13] enclosed in a silver casket at the end of the 15th century. Nevertheless, since, as the said Sainte-Marthe testifies in the series of the prelates of Vence, col. 1226, at the order of the most illustrious bishop Hispanus the tomb of the divine Lambert was opened in the year 1468, and his head enclosed in a silver casket, the other members being left in the tomb, it is an altogether probable conjecture that about the same time, or perhaps a little after, the same was done concerning the sacred remains of St. Veranus, and that already then a beginning was made of preparing a casket likewise of silver; which nevertheless was completed only some years later, as is clear from the inscription of it cited. Certainly if the report is true by which the said statue or silver casket is thought

to have been wrought by order of the most illustrious Hispanus, either it must be said that the goldsmith did not set to work upon it at once, or that he spent much time in fashioning it; since the said prelate died on the 2nd day of October in the year 1491, a full four years, that is, before the noted date of the completed statue. But these things are of very small moment; nor does it much conduce to showing the Saint's cultus to assign definitely the year in which such things happened; that they happened is established, and this suffices. And so I finish in a few words what remains to be noted about his present-day cultus.

[14] Vincent Barralis subjoins the following to the words cited at num. 12: His festival is held there, according to some, on the IXth day, Further, the clergy and people of the aforesaid city of Vence every year solemnly celebrate the anniversary feasts of his (St. Veranus') celebrity, on the fourth of the Ides of September, with the greatest applause and devotion. The same day, which was the day of the Saint's death, the martyrologists alleged above have also noted; save only Castellanus, who fixed his memory on the preceding day. Of the same opinion as Castellanus was Baillet, tom. 3 of the Lives of the Saints, asserting that this is declared by Antoine Godeau, bishop of Vence, in tom. 2 of the Ecclesiastical History, century 5, chap. 35. Certainly the testimony of a man conspicuous for learning and probity, who occupied the see of Vence down to the year 1672 and therefore must have known this matter above the rest, was abundantly sufficient for the said writers to depart from the assertion of others who place the feast on the tenth day; and this very reason doubtless moved our predecessors, when noting a few things about St. Veranus among the Prætermissi of the XIII day of July, to refer the reader to the ninth day of this month; nay, I too had been persuaded of it, and had already determined that this Commentary should be inserted at the said day.

[15] But when I noticed that both by Tillemont and by the authors of the Literary History of France, tom. 2, p. 478, according to others more probably on the X day of September. the day is assigned as uncertain, namely the IX or the X, I began to doubt somewhat and to investigate the matter more carefully, until at length there fell into my hands a twofold copy of a little book, in the manner of a directory, containing the order of the proper feasts of which the Office is said in the chief cities of Provence; and in both I found the X day designated for the festival of St. Veranus. The words of at least one copy I transfer hither the more willingly because by them what was cited from Vincent Barralis about the splendour of the said celebration is wonderfully confirmed. It was printed at Aix for the year 1676, and among the propers of the month of September it prescribes the following: X. At Vence. Thursday. Of Veranus, bishop and confessor. Double of the first class with an octave. At Vespers, a commemoration only of St. Nicholas of Tolentino, of whom tomorrow. With these agree the things prescribed in the other Directory, but not of the same year. Whence I suspect that an error crept into the said Work of the most illustrious Godeau, which Castellanus and Baillet unwittingly adopted; especially since the Directory whose words I have cited was published only three years after the death of the said prelate, and agrees as to the day with all the writers except those just alleged.

[16] Besides the said festival of our Saint, Saussay records another on the XII day of October in these words: His other festivals, from Saussay At Vintium of the Nerusii, under the metropolis of Embrun, the Ordination of St. Veranus, bishop and confessor, illustrious for the merits of his faith and virtues: whose blessed passing the church of Vence, over which he presided, venerates on the fourth of the Ides of September. But of this festival there is no mention either in Barralis or anywhere else. Was it perhaps that the casket or silver statue, which, as we have seen, was completed on the X of October of the year 1495, was on the next day but one, the XII, first exposed with the sacred head for veneration with some more solemn rite, and that this was observed yearly? But if the said author meant this, an Elevation of the relics should have been recorded, and not an Ordination of St. Veranus. Much more difficult is it for me to perceive what Gabriel Bucelinus meant when in the Benedictine Menology at the XIII day of July he reckoned our holy Bishop among the Saints of his own Order under this announcement: In Italy, of St. Veranus, bishop of Vence, a man most illustrious for the admirable holiness of his life; of whom others treat on the X of September, others on the XI, others on the XIII of November, and we in its own place.

[17] and Bucelinus. He wrongly inserted For, first, as we noted also in the Prætermissi at the XIII day of July, he wrongly numbers Vence among the cities of Italy; unless perhaps he meant his words to be so understood that the memory of St. Veranus, bishop of Vence, is kept in a certain city or place of Italy different from Vence; but truly that place was known to none of those who have written about our Saint. Secondly, nowhere in the world is the Saint venerated in the month of July, whose XIII day Bucelinus seems to assert is the place for commemorating him; for so indeed I interpret those words, and we in its own place, since, however much diligence I have used, I have found nothing about St. Veranus in him in other places. Thirdly, by what reasoning at last does he mingle St. Veranus with the Saints of the Benedictine Order? For, as will be established from the following section, the Saint, born into the world at the beginning of the fifth century, was either no longer alive, or certainly heavy with age, in the year 480, which with Bucelinus himself and others we have fixed as the year of St. Benedict's birth, tom. 3 of March at the XXI day, p. 276, where we elucidated his Acts.

[18] wrongly inserted Nor can it be said that St. Veranus was inserted among the Saints of the Benedictine Order because he professed the monastic life in the monastery of Lérins, where afterwards the Rule of St. Benedict was received. For SS. Honoratus and Hilary, both prelates of Arles, and not a few other men illustrious in the Church for holiness, were likewise monks there, and yet the said author does not mention them. Besides, this seems openly to contradict the aim which he had set before himself in composing the Menology of his Order, and which he indicates to his reader in the Letter prefixed to the Work, where he thus begins: We recount a very few out of the innumerable whom that admirable Benedict, blessed in fact and in name, the most holy father and patriarch, brought forth for God and for heaven. By which words he clearly signifies that he does not indeed recount all the Saints and Blessed who had St. Benedict for their father; but that those whom he does recount were brought forth for God and heaven by his holy patriarch — which fits St. Veranus no more than SS. Honoratus, Hilary and the rest.

[19] St. Veranus, doubtless not knowing, Finally, it cannot be said either that he understood a Veranus other than ours, and that a later one; or that he mentions ours here on account of relics which are preserved and venerated in some monastery of his Order. Not the first, because he points to ours both by the see of Vence assigned, which names only one Veranus among its prelates, and by the addition of the X day of September, on which he asserts he is announced by others. Nor the second either: for not only does this again contradict the aim of a Menology of the Saints of the Order of St. Benedict, but no mention of relics of this kind is made in the Sacrarium of the Saints which the said author appended to his Menology. Whence in whatever way at last I examine the matter, I certainly find no title on account of which our holy Prelate should deservedly occupy a place in the said Menology.

[20] as some others also did not, in what century he lived. It remains, therefore, that we believe the Saint's age to have been unknown to its author. He had doubtless read that St. Veranus was raised from the monastery of Lérins to the see of Vence, and, being little anxious to trace out in what century this happened, thought him later than St. Benedict. For the same cause our Saint must be said to have obtained a place among the Benedictine saints in Dorganius' Calendar and in Wion's monastic Martyrology, in both at the XI day of November; and this the said Wion himself sufficiently plainly suggests, when after the following announcement — At Vence in Provence, the birthday of St. Veranus, bishop and confessor, who, taken from the monastery of Lérins to govern that see, was renowned for holiness and miracles — he presently subjoins: The Records of Lérins treat of the same man on this day. Another Veranus also is celebrated, bishop of Lyons, but different from this one of ours. At what time this one of ours lived I cannot explain, since the aforesaid Records are silent about it.

§ III. The Saint's illustrious parents, his country, his age.

[ ] Born of his father St. Eucherius The Acts of our Saint, as Vincent Barralis rightly laments, it has not been granted to find either in printed or in manuscript codices. No traces of a written Life are extant in other writers; it must be, therefore, that either it perished through the injustice of the times, or perhaps was never put together in order and committed to writing. Wherefore we are compelled, according to our custom, to set out the course of his life, drawn out and gathered in the best way possible from ancient authors and monuments. Let us begin, then, from his parents. These he had illustrious in birth and in worldly pre-eminence, more illustrious in holiness of life: his father St. Eucherius, who is everywhere believed to have been of the senatorial order, and who, having renounced the vanity of the world, withdrew into solitude, and afterwards was raised to the mitre of the archbishopric of Lyons. I pass over the almost innumerable encomia with which this man was celebrated by most holy authors; for at the XVI day of November, on which his memory is kept, there will be a fitter place for heaping them together and for elucidating his other deeds. Yet it will be useful to have brought forward here one brief testimony of St. Hilary of Arles, a writer not only contemporary but also most closely joined to Eucherius in friendship, that the nobility which we have maintained may be established, and that it may evidently appear how highly his holiness was esteemed while he was still living. The said prelate of Arles speaks thus in the Life of St. Honoratus his predecessor: Splendid to the world, more splendid to Christ, the rival of his (St. Honoratus') virtue, blessed Eucherius, etc.

[22] Of the mother of St. Veranus, surnamed Galla, the knowledge is not so widespread as of his father: and his mother Galla, most illustrious yet that she too was born of a most noble house her marriage with St. Eucherius bids us believe; and that she was a matron most adorned with piety and with the merits of virtues is no obscure token, in that she not only approved her husband's pious purpose of forsaking the world, but even herself imitated his example. This is manifestly drawn out from the letter of St. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, addressed to both spouses after the said withdrawal from the world. The letter itself, in which the new manner of life both of Eucherius and of Galla is greatly praised, the curious reader may see in our Chifflet, in the Paulinus illustrated, p. 61. It will suffice here to have reported only its inscription, which runs thus: To the holy and deservedly to be proclaimed and venerated and most beloved children Eucherius and Galla, Paulinus the bishop. Further, there belongs again to the said XVI day of November that famous controversy which has long exercised the wits of the learned: namely, whether only one Eucherius is to be admitted, or two; each of whom, distinguished in birth, had a wife surnamed Galla, each, with her assenting and accompanying him, betook himself to solitude, and each finally to the see of Lyons

was summoned, and there flourished in holiness and learning — the one, who is called the elder, in the fifth century; the other, whom they call the younger, in the sixth.

[23] [spouses of the 4th and 5th centuries; not by a spiritual generation only, as Savaron thinks,] For which opinion is the truer in no way concerns our Saint, since by the consent of all writers he could not have had for parents Eucherius the younger and his wife Galla, if indeed they ever existed in the nature of things. Meanwhile the Gallia Christiana lately reprinted, tom. 4, col. 20, may be consulted, where the arguments adduced by the champions of each opinion are set out. Besides, almost all writers admit — even those who maintain two Eucherii — that to Eucherius the elder (by which word we distinguish him from the Younger, perhaps a fiction) there were born of his wife Galla two male children, Salonius, of whom below, and our Veranus. And this truth seems to me supported by testimonies so firm that it is a wonder that Jean Savaron could have doubted it, in his notes on letter 15 of Sidonius Apollinaris, p. 469. And so, for the sake of this writer, I bring forward into the midst certain of the said testimonies, being about to subjoin afterwards the reasons on account of which he preferred to say that Veranus and Salonius were the spiritual children of Eucherius and Galla rather than their natural children.

[24] but by a natural one, as is proved from St. Paulinus and Gennadius, First, that Eucherius was bound in marriage with Galla and begot children is established from the said letter of St. Paulinus to them, which is concluded with this formula: May the Lord bless you out of Sion with that blessing with which the man is blessed who fears the Lord (spouses and parents for ever), together with your offspring blessed with you before God, of your most noble holiness. May you see the good things of Jerusalem, and may you deserve to dwell together in the house of the Lord unto length of days; holy children, deservedly venerable, beloved with an inmost charity and always to be desired. They were parents, therefore, and their blessed offspring were living when Paulinus wrote this. But since he neither enumerates nor names that offspring, it remains uncertain whether Veranus and Salonius were comprised under it. Knowledge of it must therefore be drawn from elsewhere. Hear Gennadius, likewise a contemporary writer, in the Work which he composed On Illustrious Men, chap. 63. Eucherius, he says, also expounded, for the persons of his sons Veranus and Salonius (in some copies it is read Uranus and Salonus), afterwards bishops, all the obscure chapters of the holy Scriptures.

[25] from St. Eucherius himself, Hear Eucherius himself in the Letter prefixed to the book On spiritual Formulas, published in print together with the book itself by Vincent Barralis in part 2 of the Chronicle of Lérins. That letter has this beginning: Eucherius to his son Veranus, greeting in Christ. I judged that Formulas of spiritual understanding should be composed and sent to you out of a zeal of fatherly solicitude toward you: by which precepts (Chifflet rightly reads "having received which") a docile mind might easily direct itself to the understanding of all the divine writings. I pass over other texts in which Eucherius calls Veranus and Salonius his dearest sons in the little books directed to them; let the curious reader see them, if he please, in Chifflet, Barralis and others who treat of Eucherius. But lest anyone should think that the texts so cited are to be interpreted as though Eucherius by that appellation meant only spiritual sons to be designated — in which sense St. Paulinus is certainly to be understood when he called Eucherius and Galla his dearest sons, and other bishops when they write to those who are not bishops — Gennadius above all forbids it, whom to interpret so, in my judgment, when nothing else stands in the way, would not be the part of a prudent critic. He forbids it, next, as Chifflet observes in his Paulinus: Salvian, a man furnished with human and divine learning (it is the testimony of Gennadius) and, that I may speak without envy, the master of the holy bishops Salonius and Veranus — he, I say, forbids it in his letter to Eucherius, which I here transcribe entire, not only because through it he signifies that his disciples were truly begotten by Eucherius, but because it will be useful for proving what will have to be discussed below about our Saint.

[26] The letter stands thus in the often-cited Chifflet, p. 65: and from Salvian. To his lord and dear Eucherius the bishop, Salvian. I have read the books which you sent — brief in style, rich in doctrine, easy in the reading, perfect in instruction, equal to your mind and piety. Nor do I wonder that you composed a work so useful and beautiful chiefly for the instruction of your holy and blessed pledges: for since you had built in them an excellent temple of God, you have adorned it, as with the highest peak of your building, with the doctrine of a new learning; and that their holy natures might be made illustrious alike by learning and by life, those whom you had formed by a mortal instruction you have adorned by a spiritual instruction. It remains that the Lord our God, by whose gift those most admirable young men are such as they are, may make them equal to your books; that is, that whatever those books contain in mystery, each of the two may have in understanding: and, since by divine dispensation and judgment they have now begun to be teachers of the Church also, may the most kindly loving-kindness of God grant this, that their doctrine may be the fruit of the churches and yours, and that by a most excellent progress they may adorn both him from whom they were begotten and those whom they themselves shall have begotten by their instruction; and to me, if not among all things, at least after all things, may the merciful God grant this, that those who were once my disciples may now be daily my intercessors. Farewell, my lord and my dear one. Truly he must needs be blind in the midst of light who does not here detect a generation other than spiritual. For, to pass over other points, why does Salvian call them the pledges of Eucherius rather than his own, since he also professes himself their instructor and master? Why, when he has said, may they adorn both him from whom they were begotten, does he not go on absolutely by saying, and those whom they themselves shall have begotten? Why does he carefully add by their instruction, unless to restrict the signification of the word "beget" to spiritual generation, and to distinguish this from the carnal? I shall not touch upon the other opposition contained in this clause: Those whom you had formed by a mortal instruction you have adorned by a spiritual instruction; for Barralis and Baluze, who illustrated with Notes the Works of Salvian committed to the press, read for the word "mortal" the word "moral," in which sense the opposition would not be so great.

[27] For the rest, the reason on account of which the said Savaron thought all these things must be taken of a spiritual rather than a carnal generation Savaron was deceived by a text of Ado I set before the reader to be gathered from his own words: in the place cited above he pronounces thus concerning Veranus and Salonius: Eucherius and Salvian (it might have been added, and Gennadius also) seem to indicate that they were the sons of Eucherius of Lyons. But since Ado of Trier (rather, of Vienne) mentions only Consortia and Tullia as the children of his wife Galla, on the XVI of the Kalends of December, I should rather have called them spiritual sons. As though forsooth the silence of a writer some four centuries later were a sufficient foundation for doubting of a matter which contemporary authors, and the very man about whom the doubt is raised, so openly signify. Besides, Savaron certainly did not see the History which all the more recent writers hold to be ancient indeed, but which many hold to be interpolated, and to which this title is prefixed: The Conversion of St. Eucherius the bishop and of Galla his wife: and the Life of his two daughters Tullia and Consortia, Virgins. Chifflet produced it from several manuscript codices, as he testifies, of which the most ancient, that of St. Oyend of the Jura, seems to have been copied nearly nine hundred years ago. The same Henschen gave from Chifflet at the XXII day of June, on which St. Consortia is commemorated by the Roman Martyrology and others; and there in the preliminary Commentary he observes at num. 8 that Ado used that History in his Martyrology at the XVI day of November. The same seemed true also to Chifflet; the same most others admit; nay, to use Tillemont's words, it is evident, as anyone will confess who has thought it worth the labour to compare Ado's text with the aforesaid History.

[28] having followed interpolated or corrupted Acts. This, I say, Savaron did not see; otherwise he would doubtless have noticed that Eucherius the elder neither was nor could have been the father of St. Consortia. For he bade farewell to the world about the beginning of the fifth century and died about the middle of the same century; but she was still a marriageable virgin in the year 561; for in the aforesaid History Hecca the royal procurator is said, upon the death of Clothar I, to have sought her in marriage from Sigebert, the successor of Clothar in the kingdom; at which time, if she had had Eucherius the elder for her father, Consortia would easily have reached the 150th year of her age. And from this the champions of two Eucherii judge that their opinion about Eucherius the younger, the father of Consortia, is established. But others, acknowledging only one Eucherius of Lyons, say either that there was an error in the Acts of St. Consortia which Ado followed, and that for Ætherius the father of that virgin Eucherius was substituted; or that, if there was no error in the name, that Eucherius was not the prelate of Lyons but of Riez. These matters the reader will find discussed at greater length in Father de Colonia, a priest of our Society, in the Literary History of Lyons, century 5, chap. 8; in Tillemont in the Notes to the Historical Monuments, tom. 15, p. 851 and following; in Henschen and Chifflet at the places cited. It suffices for our purpose to have shown that the father of Consortia neither was nor could have been Eucherius the elder; whence the whole foundation of Savaron's doubt collapses. For Ado rightly, when he was treating of Consortia and Tullia and their parents, kept silence about Veranus and Salonius, with whom they had no connection.

[29] He was probably born into the world in Provence That St. Veranus was born in Gaul is sufficiently established from what is handed down about his father Eucherius; but what city or place fell to him as his native land it has not been possible for us to draw out either from the deeds of Eucherius or from elsewhere. If what de Colonia observes is true, he was probably born into the world in Provence; for he says it is clearly gathered from Cassian's Preface to the seven other Conferences dedicated to SS. Honoratus and Eucherius, that Eucherius passed his life, until he withdrew himself from the world, in that part of Narbonese Gaul which is today called Provence. On account of the same lack of ancient testimonies the year of St. Veranus' birth cannot be determined. Nevertheless, since his brother Salonius, who is everywhere believed to be the elder son of Eucherius, counted only the tenth year of his age when he was committed to the care and discipline of St. Honoratus in the monastery of Lérins, without doubt the birth of both brothers must be attached to the end of the fourth century, or to the fifth not long begun. For St. Honoratus founded the monastery of Lérins about those times, and presided over it as abbot until the year 426. Add that long before that year, in which St. Honoratus was taken up to the archbishopric of Arles, St. Eucherius had embraced his new manner of life: as is proved from the words of Cassian just cited, which I here append.

[30] Since the virtue of your perfection, by which

like certain great luminaries, about the beginning of the 5th century. you shine in this world with admirable brightness, so that many of the Saints who are instructed by your example can scarcely rival it, nevertheless you, O holy brothers Honoratus and Eucherius, are so kindled with the praise of those sublime men (he designates the Egyptian ascetics) from whom we received the first institutes of the anchoretic life, that one of you indeed, presiding over a huge monastery of brethren, teaches his own congregation by the daily sight of your holy manner of life, etc. St. Eucherius, therefore, was not merely a monk, or a novice anchorite, but a veteran and an instructor of others, when Cassian dedicated his Conferences to him and to St. Honoratus — certainly before the year 426, in which Honoratus ceased to preside over the monastery of Lérins; and since the same Eucherius turned his mind to the monastic life only after the birth of his sons Veranus and Salonius, these had certainly advanced not a little in youthful age by the said year 426; and this is confirmed indeed from this, that Salonius was already a bishop in the year 441, as is plain from the first Council of Orange, to which he is read subscribed thus: I, Salonius the bishop, have subscribed.

§ IV. The Saint's education in the monastery of Lérins; three opinions about his episcopal see are set out, of which the third is discussed and refuted.

[ ] Educated by learned and holy men It is unknown to us in what manner and in what place our Saint passed his earliest years; whether he was left to his mother's keeping on account of the tenderness of his age when his father Eucherius renounced the world, or was presently, along with his brother Salonius, committed from his tender years to the discipline of the monks of Lérins. Nothing on this matter has been handed down in writing by the ancient writers, just as nothing on many other things pertaining to the course of his life, as I noted above. But since Veranus probably was not much younger than his brother Salonius, and since it cannot prudently be doubted that St. Eucherius provided with equal care for the education of both his sons, it becomes to me altogether likely that St. Veranus was imbued by the same masters with learning and piety, nay with the rudiments of the monastic life, by whom Salonius was. That Salvian was their master is established from Gennadius and from Salvian himself, cited at num. 25 and 26; and the ancient Martyrology of Vence reported at num. 3 openly calls Veranus the disciple of blessed Hilary. Learn the rest from the letter of Eucherius himself prefixed to the book On the Questions of the New and Old Testament to his son Salonius. This is a fragment of it: It is fitting that your ability be rewarded by every care of mine — you who, scarcely ten years old, entered the desert and among those hands of the Saints were not only instructed but also nourished under father Honoratus, him, I say, first the master of the islands and afterwards of the churches also; while there the teaching of the most blessed Hilary, then a recruit of the island but now the supreme pontiff (of the church of Arles), formed you through all the disciplines of spiritual things; and to this the holy men Salvian and Vincent afterwards perfected you, men pre-eminent alike in eloquence and in knowledge.

[32] and having professed the monastic life in the monastery of Lérins, Certainly that our Saint lived for some time in the monastery of Lérins and there professed the monastic life is made manifest from what we brought forward at num. 3 and 4 from the Martyrology of Vence just mentioned, and from the ancient Records of the said monastery. Further, of the island of Lérins, which today takes its name from St. Honoratus, and of the monastery founded on it, we have made mention both often elsewhere in our Work and lately also in volume 6 of the month of August, p. 66, in the Notes to the Acts of St. Cæsarius, archbishop of Arles. Whoever desires a fuller knowledge of both places, let him go to the often-cited Barralis, in the description prefixed to the Chronicle of Lérins; to Jean-Baptiste Guesnay in the Cassian illustrated, p. 131; and to Joseph Antelmi, On the Beginnings of the church of Fréjus, p. 175 and following. In these he will find many things beautifully set out, especially about the beginnings of the monastery of Lérins, about the men who flourished in it, illustrious for learning and holiness, and about the praises with which it was celebrated by ancient writers.

[33] [he pursued virtue and the knowledge of the sacred Scriptures with his brother Salonius, afterwards a bishop.] Likewise the deeds of St. Veranus lie hidden from us for so long as he dwelt in the sacred desert. It is right to believe that he, spurred on by the examples and instructions of other holy men dwelling there, and also by his own disposition inclined to good, diligently applied himself to acquiring most perfectly Christian piety and the religious virtues; but that he was also most studious of the sacred Scriptures and greatly intent upon an intimate knowledge of them, manifest tokens are the little book of his father Eucherius to him, alleged above, On the Formulas of spiritual understanding, and the two little works or Commentaries on the Proverbs of Solomon and on Ecclesiastes, which are extant in volume 1 of the Library of the Fathers published at Paris in the year 1589, p. 535 and following, under these titles: A mystical explanation of the Proverbs of Solomon by the divine Salonius, bishop of Vienne in Gaul. The speakers, Veranius and Salonius. A second Dialogue of the divine Salonius, most learned bishop of Vienne in Gaul, to his brother Veranius, in which Ecclesiastes is mystically expounded. The speakers, Veranius and Salonius. In these Commentaries Veranius sets out difficulties and Salonius resolves them: hence some writers have believed that Salonius was the elder, and that the Commentaries were composed by him alone; yet there are not lacking those who think they ought to be attributed to the study of both brothers while dwelling in the desert; to whose opinion I should for my part gladly adhere, conceived, that is, in this sense, that Salonius at a fitting time reduced to order and committed to writing the chief things which he had discussed in spiritual conversations with his brother Veranus.

[34] That Salonius, in the titles of the little works just recited, and also in the writings of certain other authors, is wrongly noted as bishop of Vienne is today the common mind of the learned. [Various opinions about the episcopal see of Salonius: three about that of St. Veranus;] Some assert that he was of Genoa, a few that he was of Lyons, and very many, more probably, that he was of Geneva. But this is not the place to examine it at greater length; the discourse about that prelate will recur on the XXVIII day of September, on which his name is inscribed in certain Calendars. See in the meantime, besides the authors cited here and there in this Commentary, our Sollier in his observation on the Martyrology of Usuard at the said day. I shall not, however, be able to avoid touching here from time to time also on the alleged episcopate of Salonius at Lyons on occasion of St. Veranus, whom the few champions of that opinion make his successor in the same see. The chief opinions in the controversy concerning St. Veranus, who is announced at Lyons by the martyrologists on the XI day of November, and the Veranus who is announced at Vence on the X day of September, are three, as I suggested at the outset, and I now set out each of them.

[35] The first lays down thus: Veranus the son of Eucherius was taken from being a monk of Lérins to the see of Vence, the first and second are set out. in which city he ended his life and was buried; and consequently he never presided as bishop over the church of Lyons: nay, the said church had not only not this Veranus as archbishop, but no other of the same name either; wherefore St. Veranus who is venerated at Lyons seems to be no other than the Veranus son of Eucherius, prelate of Vence. This opinion is supported by the aforesaid Jean Savaron, p. 469; by de Colonia, p. 233; by Tillemont, tom. 15 of the Monuments, pp. 135 and 849; likewise by Dupin in the New Library of authors, tom. 3, p. 222, and others. The second opinion maintains two Veranuses, bishops and Saints at the same time: the one, namely the son of Eucherius, at Vence; the other at Lyons; and that this latter is designated by the martyrologists on the XI day of November, and the former on the X of September. This opinion our Théophile Raynaud defends above the rest in his Little Index of the Saints of Lyons, with whom the brothers de Sainte-Marthe have agreed, when they advised that Veranus of Vence must not be confounded with him of Lyons, tom. 3, p. 1149. The most recent editors of the Gallia Christiana profess indeed, tom. 4, col. 25, that it is not for them to settle so great disputes; but they sufficiently make plain that they incline to the former opinion, both by the manner in which they set out the arguments of the parties, and by this, that they assign to St. Eucherius the 19th place among the bishops of Lyons, and the 20th to St. Patiens, and none to Veranus or Salonius. For two Veranuses our Bolland at first stood, tom. 1 of February, p. 360, where, treating of St. Lupicinus, bishop of Lyons, he says that Veranus and Salonius were deservedly struck by Savaron from the series of the prelates of that see; but nevertheless he thought that at Lyons some Veranus must be admitted, distinct from him of Vence, who sat there, not indeed at the same time at which ours sat at Vence, but at the beginning of the sixth century or the end of the preceding, namely immediately before St. Viventiolus.

[36] So the said author judged, relying on the authority of the Acts of St. Avitus, prelate of Vienne, Bolland favours the former rather than the latter. which we gave in the said volume 1 of February, and which run thus at p. 668: He (Avitus) gave to the people of Lyons as bishop the venerable Veranus, abbot of monks. He also designated as their bishop St. Viventiolus, chosen from the flock of the presbyters of God. The death of St. Viventiolus we fixed, in vol. III of July at the XII day, about the year 520; that of St. Avitus, at the place cited, about the year 525. So, I say, Bolland judged at first; but in tom. 1 of February at the XIII day, p. 672, writing about St. Stephen, likewise archbishop of Lyons, he seemed to think otherwise, when, having reported the words just given from the Life of St. Avitus, he subjoined the following: I do not know whether Stephen ought not rather to be read than Veranus. His reason is that no Catalogues of the bishops of Lyons exhibit another Veranus besides the successor of Eucherius; but that Veranus and Salonius, the successors of Eucherius, were deservedly struck out thence by Savaron he affirmed above; and consequently he thought that a place among those of Lyons should be assigned to no Veranus, and so came nearer to the patrons of the first opinion than to those of the second.

[37] The third is set out. The arguments of Severtius for it The third opinion contends that Veranus and Salonius, the sons of Eucherius, succeeded their father in the see of Lyons in the order of their age. This Jacques Severt strives to defend with all his might in the second edition of his Historical Chronology, num. XXII and XXIII; and treating first of Salonius, he speaks thus: Champier and Sarrazin in their several tables assign to Lyons * that same Salonius, whom they make to have followed immediately upon the divine Eucherius. For they drew out such tables and series of theirs from an ancient Homiliary of the church of St. Irenaeus, scarcely liable to error. He likewise cites Demochares, book On the Divine sacrifice of the Mass, chap. 27, where there is a twofold Catalogue of the archbishops of Lyons: the former is taken from Champier, the latter from Sarrazin. In the former, after the first nineteen bishops, the rest are enumerated thus: XX St. Eucherius. XXI Saloinus. XXII St. Desiderius. XXIII St. Veranus. XXIV Patiens. XXV Africanus. XXVI St. Rusticus. XXVII St. Stephen. XXVIII Lupicinus. XXIX St. Viventiolus, etc. But in the second Catalogue this order is kept: XX St. Eucherius. XXI Salonius. XXII St. Veranius.

XXIII Peter. XXIV St. Lupicinus. XXV St. Rusticus. XXVI St. Stephen. XXVII Viventius, etc. To St. Desiderius, to whom the twenty-second place is assigned in Champier's Catalogue, only the forty-first is granted in Sarrazin's Tables, and to Africanus none at all.

[38] from ancient catalogues, You may well wonder, studious reader, that the two Tables or Catalogues which, on Severt's testimony, Champier and Sarrazin drew from an ancient Homiliary … scarcely liable to error, differ so greatly from one another both here and elsewhere, as will be plain to anyone consulting Demochares; and hence you may easily conceive why Savaron, cited above, judged that credit must be withdrawn from them, or why they seemed corrupt to Bolland and to others. Certainly that not all the bishops contained in those Catalogues were bishops of Lyons will be made manifest from St. Desiderius, whom I shall show below never to have occupied that see, where the arguments of the second opinion will have to be discussed; for it is not necessary to do so in this place. For, even if we grant for the moment that no one is contained in those Tables who did not hold the see of Lyons, and that St. Eucherius really had a successor named Salonius and he a successor named Veranus, there are many things which prevent us from believing that these were the same men whom we proved above to be the sons of Eucherius; as will easily appear from the solution of certain arguments which Severt brings forward in treating of St. Veranus, num. 23, §2.

[39] and from other monuments He adduces first the Breviary of Lyons, which appoints the office of St. Veranus for the III of the Ides of the month of November; then the Martyrologies of Bede, Ado and Usuard, all of whom, he says, mark him on the same day as the first pastor of Lyons. These will again be examined below, where the second opinion must be treated; for from them likewise it could only be drawn out that some Veranus sat at Lyons, not determinately that Veranus whom Severt judged to be the son of Eucherius. Thirdly, he brings forward the words of Gennadius recited by us above: He (Eucherius) expounded, for the persons of his sons Salonius and Veranius, afterwards bishops, etc.; and presently he subjoins: Where certainly the PHRASE "AFTERWARDS BISHOPS," taken absolutely and without any place of spiritual prefecture being noted, points with the finger to the fact that those same sons were in turn bishops of Lyons. Hence he further concludes, against Savaron and Barralis, that that Veranus either did not preside over the Church of Vence, or at most was taken thence to the see of Lyons by a canonical translation. Whether the first inference is legitimately deduced from the text of Gennadius I leave to the reader to determine. Both parts of the second conclusion are rendered evidently false by the ancient Martyrology of Vence cited at num. 3, whose words for the sake of greater clarity I here repeat: In Gaul, in the city of Vence, the laying to rest of blessed Veranus, bishop of Vence, who was a monk of Lérins, a disciple of blessed Hilary, abbot of the said island and afterwards bishop of Arles; which blessed Veranus was buried in the same church of Vence in a marble sarcophagus fixed in the wall, who was renowned for many powers and miracles, and, sprung of a noble stock, rested in peace on the IV of the Ides of September.

[40] Assuredly all the circumstances — first, of the monastery of Lérins, from which he is said to have been called to the bishopric of Vence, situated not far thence; the arguments formed are discussed, secondly, of St. Hilary, with whom he certainly lived in the said monastery and whom, like his brother Salonius, he had as master; thirdly, the nobility of his stock — so depict the Veranus son of Eucherius of whom Gennadius speaks, that no one of the writers, so far as I know, who has seen those words would have understood them of another Veranus, or, in my judgment, could rightly have understood them so. And I likewise cannot doubt that Severt read them in Savaron and Barralis, whom he cites; but what cause shall I say there was why he neither touched upon them nor attempted to break their force? Did he perhaps not perceive it? For my part I should rather suspect this than believe that he did perceive their force, but, since nothing occurred to him fit for weakening so great an authority, judged it safer not to move that stone, lest so many arguments sought together from every side should collapse of their own accord; since in the same place Veranus is said to have died at Vence and to have been buried in his own church, and consequently never to have been translated thence to the see of Lyons. There is added that translations of bishops of this kind from one see to another were not customary in the first centuries of the Church, and that not even one example of them is to be found in Gaul in those times, as Tillemont and the most recent editors of the Gallia Christiana think, except in the case of bishops driven from their own see.

[41] Severt seems, however, to wish to produce an example of this kind in SS. Sacerdos and Nicetius, bishops of the sixth century. and are rejected as inept. For after he has asserted that St. Veranus, son of Eucherius, either never sat at Vence or passed thence to Lyons, he continues thus: Whence Salonius succeeded his father as he laid it down, and afterwards Verannius his brother as he conferred it, by that same rite by which St. Nicetius, likewise of Lyons, had going before him St. Sacerdos his uncle resigning it. But if Severt meant this, there is assuredly much difference. St. Nicetius did not occupy another see, nor was he a bishop, when he was substituted for his uncle. Hear St. Gregory of Tours in the Life of St. Nicetius published by us in vol. 1 of the month of May at the 2nd day, p. 96: When Sacerdos, prelate of Lyons, was sick in the city of Paris … the king (Childebert) wished to go as far as his bed and visit the sick man. To him as he came the bishop said: … I beg that … you would willingly grant one petition. And he said: Ask, for you will obtain what you wish. I ask, he said, that Nicetius the presbyter, my nephew, be substituted as bishop for the church of Lyons, etc. That Salonius and Veranus occupied another see before the one could be substituted for his father and the other for his brother Severt himself affirms at the year 454, num. 22, §3. When, he says, Eucherius was writing letters to his sons the bishops, they truly bore pontifical office elsewhere; but there is no inconvenience in supposing that in the course of time and in the following years Salonius, by the canonical right of translation, flew from another see to Lyons for a second spiritual marriage, his father having died. Therefore St. Nicetius did not have to migrate from one see to another, and that a richer and nobler one, in order to be substituted for his uncle; but Salonius and Veranus would have had to migrate, if they had been raised to the mitre of Lyons. Further, concerning the translations or migrations of bishops from lesser sees to greater, Thomassin discusses at length in his Ancient and New Discipline of the Church, vol. 2, book 2, chap. 60 and following; whom if the studious reader consults, he will see that these were not so easily done in the fifth century as Severt supposes. The remaining arguments of this author are either of no moment, or, like most of those already related, apt to effect this one thing only: that the opinion of those is not improbable who judge that a Veranus, distinct from our Saint the son of Eucherius, must be numbered among the bishops of Lyons — of whom now.

* perhaps "from Lyons"

§ V. The arguments of the second opinion are examined, and against them are set the reasons on account of which the first opinion is judged more probable.

[ ] Most defend the second opinion confusedly and obscurely; The second opinion, which distinguishes St. Veranus of Vence from him of Lyons, seemed at first sight to have more patrons; but when their reasons are more attentively examined, most of them themselves confound those whom they teach must be distinguished. Thus the brothers de Sainte-Marthe, in vol. 3 of the Gallia Christiana, reckoning St. Veranus in the fourth place among the bishops of Vence, hand down that he was the son of Eucherius and a disciple of St. Hilary and Salvian, and that, buried at Vence, he is venerated on the X of September; and at length they subjoin: He is not to be confounded with Veranus of Lyons. But when in the first volume they treat of Veranus of Lyons they have it thus: Of him also Gennadius wrote, chap. LXIII, On Illustrious Men. Which has been shown above to belong to Veranus the son of Eucherius alone. In almost the same way Claude Robert proceeded in the Gallia Christiana. Likewise the most eminent Baronius, who in the Notes of the Roman Martyrology at the XIX day of October writes thus: There was a bishop of Lyons of the same name, of whom below at the third of the Ides of November. There was besides another St. Veranus, bishop of Vence, from being a monk of Lérins, a disciple of St. Hilary bishop of Arles: he is set down as having rested in the Lord on the fourth of the Ides of September. Then in the Notes at the XI day of November he likewise has this concerning Veranus of Lyons: We think that this is that Veranus whom Gennadius mentions, On Illustrious Men, chaps. LXIII and LXVII. But the Veranus whom Gennadius mentions is no other than Veranus the monk of Lérins, the disciple of St. Hilary: therefore neither is he of Lyons other than he of Vence.

[43] Théophile Raynaud, cited at num. 35, proceeds in this obscure and difficult matter more distinctly and cautiously; Théophile Raynaud clearly and distinctly, from the Martyrologies, he ascribes to his own Veranus of Lyons none of the things which the champions of the first opinion contend must be attributed to Veranus of Vence alone. He confesses therefore that St. Veranus, the son of Eucherius, the disciple of Hilary and Salvian, of whom Gennadius writes in the places cited, and to whom St. Hilary the Pontiff addressed the letter to be recorded below, sat at Vence; but he judges that another Veranus, different from him, presided at the same time over the church of Lyons. Nor, in order to maintain this opinion, does he adduce the ancient Homiliary of the church of St. Irenaeus, or the Catalogues of Champier and Sarrazin in Demochares, or the Breviary of Lyons, which he could certainly have consulted as well as Severt, and doubtless did consult; and therefore he would have brought them forward with better right than Severt himself, if he had judged that anything certain could be drawn from them. He relies therefore on the Martyrologies alone — the Roman, Bede's, Usuard's and Ado's — to which he does not even add certain ancient Hieronymian ones, although these announce St. Veranus at Lyons on the XI day of November; perhaps because he judged that that announcement had been added afterwards to the said Hieronymian Martyrologies. So Luc d'Achery certainly judged, since in the most ancient Martyrology which is distinguished by the name of St. Jerome he expressed that announcement in a different type, as may be seen in vol. 2 of the Spicilegium of the new edition, p. 21. Florentinius did the very same in his older Hieronymian Martyrology, in whose Notes he moreover subjoins: I should not doubt that it is among the things added to the older Martyrology.

[44] Let us hear, then, first the Martyrologies alleged by Raynaud, which record a bishop Veranus at Lyons. and then what the asserters of the first opinion reply to them. Ado and Usuard at the aforesaid XI day of November have it thus: At Lyons, of St. Veranus the bishop, whose life was illustrious for the merits of his faith and virtues. The same the present-day Roman Martyrology has in just as many words. Bede's Martyrology I here pass over, since in its purer text and in the additions of Florus, published by Henschen and Papebroch before vol. 2 of March, St. Veranus is not found. Raynaud and others who cite Bede probably mean the Martyrology published under the prefixed name of Bede by Christopher Plantin; but that this was wrongly fathered on Bede is today the mind of all the learned. To the Martyrologies cited the said Raynaud appends an answer to the argument of Savaron, who strikes St. Veranus from the roll of the prelates of Lyons because he is manifestly handed down to have sat at Vence at that same time and to have died there — which inference he rightly holds to be plainly void

Raynaud contends, since it is a very frequent thing that two bishops of the same name should sit at the same time in different places. This writer's assertion, as is plain, is not without its weight. It remains to be seen how the champions of the first opinion strive to weaken it.

[45] First, on account of the reasons and testimonies related by us and admitted by Raynaud against Severt, they say that it is altogether unlike the truth that Veranus and Salonius his sons were the successors of Eucherius. Secondly, they believe it not sufficiently likely A reason against his episcopate there that Veranus and Salonius, distinct from his sons, were substituted next after Eucherius; which nevertheless would necessarily have to be admitted on Raynaud's view, since not only in the Tables of Champier and Sarrazin, but also in three ancient Catalogues published by our Chifflet in part 1 of the Paulinus illustrated, p. 82, the name of Salonius is found as well as that of Veranus, in this order: XIX Eucherius; XX Salonius; XXI Veranius. Wherefore they hold that the Veranus and Salonius noted in these catalogues, and likewise the Veranus in the Martyrologies at the XI day of November, were truly the sons of Eucherius, against Raynaud, but were nevertheless never archbishops of Lyons, against Severt.

[46] brought forward by the asserters of the first opinion, They untie the knot thus: So great, they say, was the veneration of the church of Lyons toward its bishop Eucherius, and so great its love, that, as though adopting them among its own, it willed both his sons, illustrious for virtues and merits, to be inserted in its diptychs, just as the names of St. Cyril of Mopsuestia, and of SS. Ambrose, Martin and Augustine, are read inscribed in the diptychs of Arles. By those diptychs the authors of the catalogues were probably led into error, when they granted to both Brothers a place among the prelates of the same church; and the martyrologists likewise, when they announced at Lyons St. Veranus, whom they knew to be venerated there as a Saint, while perhaps they did not know that he had been bishop of Vence. Perhaps also, Tillemont adds, a church was consecrated to this Saint on the XI day of November in the fifth or sixth century, and therefore his festival was noted on that day. These are conjectures only, but, as I suggested above, to me altogether probable; especially because, as Raynaud himself confesses, whatever is handed down about St. Veranus by ancient writers belongs to him of Vence alone, and nothing about the other bishop of Lyons of the same name was committed to writing besides the bare name in the Tables cited, and what is recorded in the Martyrologies.

[47] [and another reason from the Martyrologies, in which St. Desiderius is likewise recorded at Lyons,] Add that Raynaud has no very solid foundation for the episcopate of Lyons from the Martyrologies alleged; for when to words of this kind — At Lyons, of St. Veranus the bishop — nothing is added, a cultus in that determinate place is indeed manifestly signified; but the episcopal see is not always defined, especially when there is just cause for doubting. Whence Castellanus in his universal Martyrology, at the often-mentioned XI day of November, using the same words, added a little mark to the word "bishop," and added in the margin the following words: Of Vence, from the IX day of September. And do not think this is asserted gratuitously, and that no examples are at hand in the ancient Martyrologies. Take one the more apt for our purpose because it belongs to the same see of Lyons. The venerable Bede in the purer Martyrology published by us before vol. 2 of March announces thus St. Desiderius, of whom mention was made above: On the same day (the III of the Ides of February), from Lyons, of Desiderius the bishop. Bede is followed by Wandelbert: "Hence on the third day Desiderius crowns the walls of Lyons." Usuard likewise at the same day: At Lyons, the birthday of St. Desiderius, bishop and confessor. The Gellone Martyrology in d'Achery, cited above, p. 27, and the Augsburg one in our own work after vol. VII of June: At Lyons, of Desiderius the bishop. Finally the Martyrology of the queen of Sweden in the same place: From Lyons, of Desiderius the bishop. I pass over the Franco-Gallic Hagiology and other Martyrologies which agree with those already recited. Similarly in the present-day Roman Martyrology such is the announcement at the III day of February: At Lyons, of the holy Lupicinus and Felix, likewise bishops.

[48] You have here, studious reader, announcements plainly like those on which Raynaud relies for the archiepiscopate of St. Veranus; [whom, although other things too persuade it, he rightly denies to have been bishop there,] and yet from these he has not dared to deduce the same for SS. Desiderius and Felix; he acknowledges each as a bishop, but says that the see of the latter is uncertain and that of the former is Vienne; and he adds that those were deceived by the Usuardine Martyrology who attributed St. Desiderius to the bishops of Lyons. Whence at least it follows — the one thing I was aiming at — that from words of this kind in the Martyrologies it cannot always be drawn that the holy bishops presided over that diocese in which they are announced, as the said author seems to suppose, bringing forward nothing besides them for his opinion. But, you say, it is established from elsewhere that St. Desiderius held the bishopric of Vienne, not of Lyons. I confess it; but what forbids inventing two Desiderii, rather than two Veranuses? Certainly at the XI day of February in the Calendars already cited no mention of Vienne is made; in the Usuardine the said day is written as St. Desiderius' birthday, and the same Saint is distinguished with the title of confessor only; he is placed by Champier in his Catalogue among the archbishops of Lyons before St. Patiens, who, on Raynaud's testimony, sat about the year 470; nay, the body of St. Desiderius was believed still to be preserved at Lyons in the fourteenth century, as will presently appear. On the other hand St. Desiderius, prelate of Vienne, was a martyr, killed in the territory of Lyons in the year 608, on the XXIII day of the month of May, on which he is announced in very many Martyrologies, and by us his Acts have been given from a contemporary author; and finally the body of this holy martyr was carried away to Vienne about ten years after his passion. These things assuredly are apt to supply material to one desiring to maintain that St. Desiderius was in the fifth century a bishop and confessor at Lyons, distinct from the Desiderius of the seventh century, prelate of Vienne and martyr. It might be added, to elude the difficulties raised against them, that they were wrongly confounded by certain writers, who applied to the later Desiderius, who suffered in the diocese of Lyons, whatever they had received about either of them, whether from writings or from tradition.

[49] Yet no one today, so far as I know, admits Desiderius among the archbishops of Lyons; as does Severt himself, whence it is shown that this was formerly done by some through error we said in the preliminary Commentary to his Acts at the cited day of May; the same Raynaud asserts, and, what you may wonder at, Severt himself; with whom the Tables of Champier, of so great authority for Salonius and St. Veranus, carry no credit for St. Desiderius. Desiderius, he says at num. 38, §4, he (Champier) foolishly judges to have been of Lyons. Then, having brought forward certain things which he himself calls demonstrations, he goes on in this manner: In all these things alleged it rightly follows, both that the more recent Rubrics of the present-day Breviary of Lyons have laid down these words through an error of the printer, or of men not paying attention in this century: "On the birthday of Desiderius, bishop of Lyons and confessor"; and that at his collects there is ordered to be said "and Pontiff." As if the passage meant to conceive in mind that Desiderius belonged to the eminence of Lyons. But nothing less. Whence you may perceive how little consistent the said writer was, embracing the authority of documents when they support his own opinion, and neglecting it when they oppose it. It will be worth the labour to subjoin a like example from the same writer in the same matter, from which the reader may at the same time learn what I noted above about the body of St. Desiderius.

[50] [that the very same documents he approves when they favour him he rejects when they oppose him.] He produces at num. 23, §6 a diploma published in the year 1337 by Guillaume de Sure, archbishop of Lyons, and calls it the seventh and last demonstration for our Saint's archiepiscopate. There are first enumerated in it the bodies and relics of the Saints of the church of St. Nicetius, in these words: The relics of the most glorious princes of the Christian faith, the blessed XLVIII Martyrs, and also the bodies of the confessors Barbarinus, Viventiolus, Genesius, Aurelianus, Rusticus, Cicarius, Desiderius, Veranus and Nicetius, rest in the said church with gleaming miracles, and the relics of other blessed Martyrs, Confessors, etc., are reverently kept there, etc. Then indulgences are granted to all who are truly penitent and have confessed … who shall have come to the church of the aforesaid holy Nicetius for the sake of devotion on the festivals … of the blessed … XLVIII Martyrs, and of the most glorious confessors Barbarinus, Sacerd., Viventiolus, Genesius, Orelianus, Rust., Cicar., Dosiderius (doubtless Desiderius), Veranus and Nicetius, formerly holy Prelates of the first church of Lyons, etc. Presently Severt says: Behold the marks of the amplest breadth of indulgences … and likewise St. Veranus is here openly called prelate of Lyons. But, I ask, do not the last words of the diploma fit SS. Desiderius and Barbarinus just as openly as St. Veranus? Why then do they contain the force of a demonstration for the latter's archiepiscopate of Lyons, and not likewise for theirs? For St. Desiderius, as we have already seen, is everywhere struck by Severt and others from the series of the bishops of Lyons; and St. Barbarinus is read to have been inserted in it neither by Severt nor by anyone else.

[51] [What is handed down in Severt about the bodies of Desiderius of Vienne and our Veranus,] Further, what is said about the body of St. Desiderius in the diploma cited certainly cannot be understood of the bishop and martyr of Vienne, since his whole body was translated to Vienne many centuries before the decree was published, as is established from the Acts of the translation written by Ado and printed by us in vol. V of the month of May, p. 254. Nor does it seem possible to say that by his body only some particle or relics are designated; for the express distinction between the relics of the holy Martyrs and the bodies of the holy Confessors stands in the way of this interpretation. What then of the body of St. Veranus, which is likewise asserted to be preserved there? Hear Severt at the cited number, §5: The aforesaid church (of St. Nicetius) renders yearly to the Divine Majesty a double Ecclesiastical Office for him (St. Veranus) — not on the day on which the Martyrologies celebrate his birthday, because the universal Church is by then already occupied with the Offices due to the divine Martin the confessor, but St. Verannius is seen to be venerated there on the next day immediately following. And this is so carried on by usage in token that the relics of him and of his father (Eucherius) and brother (Salonius) are believed, by an ancient tradition, to be laid up with the body of the divine Photinus in that sacred and principal dwelling; although the bishop of Tiberias, sent (in the margin the year 1308 is noted) to examine the most sacred relics there, did not find those four more ancient bodies buried in that place, but did indeed find nine others of somewhat later time, which take their beginning from the archbishops SS. Rusticus, Viventiolus, Sacerdos and others, from the mention made of them there.

[52] It is truly no wonder that at least the ancient body of St. Veranus was not found there, since the ancient tradition alleged by Severt is manifestly erroneous; and about his archiepiscopate, carry no credit. The first opinion is chosen. for that St. Veranus, son of Eucherius and brother of Salonius, was buried at Vence has been proved above. The said diploma, therefore, resting doubtless on the same tradition, as regards the asserted existence of the body of St. Veranus in the church of Lyons,

and on like foundations for the archiepiscopate there of the same Saint, nay of SS. Barbarinus and Desiderius also, carries no credit with me, much less does it appear fit for framing demonstrations. I believe indeed that Raynaud with his followers thought the same before me, so that for that very reason he abstained from citing the said diploma, otherwise very fit for confirming his opinion. But these things have been discussed laboriously enough; it remains for me to set forth in a few words what my own opinion is. That the third opinion, namely Severt's, is to me altogether improbable I have already suggested. But in the second, which is that of our Raynaud, and which does not seem destitute of all weight, so many difficulties show themselves that I altogether prefer the first to it; and consequently whatever is recorded in the Martyrologies at the XI day of November, in the diptychs and monuments of Lyons, and elsewhere, about St. Veranus and his cultus, I judge to have been said of none other than the Veranus son of Eucherius, bishop of Vence; and I adopt the reasons recited at num. 46 from the champions of the first opinion. If, however, these should displease anyone, let him deign to supply us with more certain documents, since we shall not unwillingly change our judgment at the XXVIII day of this month, when the same question will return concerning Salonius, who, as I have noted, is inscribed not only in Demochares but also in Chifflet in three ancient Catalogues of the prelates of Lyons.

§ VI. He deals by letters with Pope Leo. Controversies that arose among certain bishops of Gaul are committed to him by Hilary, Leo's successor. The year of his death uncertain.

[ ] He writes to Pope Leo about his letter against the Eutychians, According to the opinion just chosen by us, only one St. Veranus flourished as bishop in Gaul in the fifth century. For Veranus of Cavaillon and the other one whom Baronius — whether rightly enough I do not inquire — observes must be numbered among the bishops of Chalon-sur-Saône, as I related at num. 1, belong to the end of the sixth century. Of ours, therefore, must be understood whatever is found, besides what has been cited hitherto, about a St. Veranus in ancient monuments marked with the characteristics of the fifth century. There occurs first the letter which he together with Salonius and Ceretius addressed to Pope Leo about the year of Christ 451. It is extant in Sirmond, vol. 1 of the Councils of Gaul, p. 92, under this inscription: To the holy lord, most blessed Father and most worthy of the Apostolic See, Pope Leo: Ceretius, Salonius and Veranus; and to it our Saint is read subscribed in the third place under this formula: I, Veranus, a devotee of your Apostleship, salute your Beatitude, and ask that you pray for me. The occasion of the said letter was given by the letter of the same supreme Pontiff to St. Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, written first against the Eutychian heresy and afterwards communicated to other Eastern and Western bishops as an antidote against its poison. For this the said three prelates of Gaul give thanks to the Pontiff in their own letter; they send it back to him copied out, and ask that he re-read it, and, if he judge it must be corrected in anything, correct it and send it back corrected. Hence the candour of the Saint's faith and that of his fellow bishops wondrously shines forth, since, although they were most learned — the words are Cardinal Baronius' at the year 449, num. 44 — in transcribing that same encyclical letter they greatly feared lest even by one tittle their writings should differ from the faith set forth by the Roman Pontiff. For so great a reverence and observance toward the supreme Prelate flourished among them that they held it to be sacrilegious and impious, and altogether a falling away from the truth, to depart even by a thin line from his decrees. And that encyclical letter, celebrated with many proclamations of praise, the Most Eminent subjoins in the same place, whom let the curious reader consult.

[54] [and again on behalf of the right of the archbishopric of Embrun; this cause Hilary, Leo's successor,] Our Saint likewise wrote another letter to the said Pontiff about a certain matter pertaining to the rights of the metropolitan of the province of the Maritime Alps, as we are taught from letter 4 of Pope Hilary, in which he delegates to him and to the bishops Leontius and Victurus the controversy that had arisen between Ingenuus of Embrun and Auxanius, bishop of I know not what city. Hilary inscribes the said letter thus: To the most beloved brothers Leontius, Veranus and Victurus, bishops. Pope Hilary. He begins it thus: We are moved by the reasoning of justice, which, although it ought to be kept by all who are rightly minded, is especially not to be rashly neglected by the priests of the Lord, by whose instruction it is fitting that the rest be formed. Our brother and fellow bishop Ingenuus of Embrun, therefore, always supported by the honour of metropolitan of the province of the Maritime Alps, records that we, at the request of our brother and fellow bishop Auxanius, laid down certain things to his own prejudice, as the annexed documents declare, which would run counter to all the defences in this cause. Since indeed, the reports having been reviewed in our judgment which our brother and fellow bishop Veranus sent to my predecessor of holy memory together with the other priests of the province, etc.

[55] [commits to him by letters, from which Severt wrongly concludes his archiepiscopate of Lyons,] Although this is not the place to examine that controversy at greater length — on which Tillemont may be seen, in the Monuments of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 15, p. 820, and vol. 16, p. 43; the Gallia Christiana lately published, vol. 3, col. [ ]; and what is to be said after this Commentary in St. Hilary — yet it will be useful to have noted one thing against Severt, when he writes thus in the Work praised several times, num. 23, §3: That this Verannius attained to some great prelacy of Gaul, namely that of Lyons, his father Eucherius the great being then long since dead, the Pope himself (Hilary) urges by the letter sent by him to the bishops Veranus, Leontius and Victurus. Where certainly, because he makes Verannius precede the rest in the writing, it may be gathered that he therefore occupied at that time the pre-eminent bishopric in Gaul above the rest consequently named, many others being tacitly passed over. And a little below, having recited these words of the letter — Our fellow bishop Veranus sent to my predecessor of holy memory together with the other priests of the province, etc. — he appends: In which clause note, reader, that when the Pontiff calls Verannius his fellow bishop, he means to distinguish him by some special rank above his fellow provincials. Now, first, in Sirmond and Labbe in the edition of the councils the inscription given by us is expressly read: To the most beloved brothers Leontius, Veranus and Victurus, bishops, Pope Hilary; whence, if Severt's reasoning is worth anything, it would be permissible to infer the direct opposite, namely that Leontius preceded Veranus and Victurus in dignity — whom some contend to have been prelate of Arles, others of Fréjus. But it is of no use to employ that form of reasoning; since Victurus, to whom only the third place is here granted, in letter XI of the same Pontiff is preferred to all the rest in this order: To the most beloved brothers Victurus, Ingenuus, Ydacius, Eustasius, Fonteius, Viventius, Eulalius, Veranus, Faustus, Auxanius, Proculus, Ausonius, Paul, Memorialis, Cælestinus, Projectus, Eutropius, Avitianus, Ursus and Leontius, Hilary. Where you see that no order of dignity is observed by the Pontiff. Secondly, the other observation of his appears plainly futile; for the same Pontiff in his letter 8 likewise calls his brother and fellow bishop Faustus, bishop of Riez, a suffragan of the archbishopric of Aix.

[56] Thirdly and finally, from the clause recited it is rather drawn out that Veranus was bishop of Vence, and to two other bishops. since the cause is that of Ingenuus of Embrun, metropolitan of the province of the Maritime Alps, whose suffragan the Prelate of Vence was. For my part I conceive the matter thus from the whole context of the letter: While Leo was on the see, Ingenuus had suffered the rights of the metropolitan to be diminished; but Veranus, together with the other priests of the Province — that is, of the same Maritime Alps, as is the more natural sense of the words — his suffragan bishops, either of his own accord or by Leo's order, sent to Rome reports on that matter, upon the reading of which the right of the metropolitan church of Embrun was asserted, and the metropolitan himself, as will presently be seen, was rebuked by the Pontiff. After Leo's death Auxanius crept in upon Hilary his successor and obtained a decree contrary to Leo's decree. But Ingenuus, doubtless mindful of the past rebuke, then himself complained to Hilary of the things laid down to his prejudice; and he, the matter being examined again and the reports sent to his predecessor by Veranus being re-read, changed his sentence; wherefore he willed to use the ministry of the same Veranus, together with Leontius and Victurus, saying: We delegate to your charity the cognizance of the annexed complaint, that nothing may prevail against the venerable canons, nothing against the judgment of my predecessor of holy memory, whatever shall be established to have been obtained from us by stealth … Let therefore our brother and fellow bishop Ingenuus have the pontifical authority of his own province, of whose unlawful cession he was long ago blamed by the Apostolic See, etc.

[57] There is extant also another letter of St. Hilary the Pontiff, by which a business of no less moment is committed to our Saint. Another business is committed to him by Pope Hilary: St. Mamertus, archbishop of Vienne, whose Acts we gave on the XI day of May, led by what reasoning I do not know, had ordained a bishop outside his own boundaries. Pope Hilary took this ill, and, in letters addressed to Leontius of Arles about the year 463, willed the matter to be examined in a synod. In the next following year, having been informed of what had been done in the synod, he wrote to twenty bishops: first, that through Veranus the bishop (that title is prefixed to the letter in Labbe, vol. 4 of the Councils, col. 1045) Mamertus should be admonished to abstain in future from undue ordinations, at the peril of his order and his privileges. Secondly, that he who was consecrated by Mamertus for the people of Die should be confirmed at the discretion of Leontius, bishop of Arles, by whom he ought to have been consecrated. And in the letter itself the said Pontiff speaks thus: Whence, holding the name of our moderation, we have directed writings to Veranus our brother and fellow bishop, that he may confront the aforesaid man (Mamertus) by our delegation, so that he may learn what you have reported concerning him.

[58] [Hence it is drawn out how highly his prudence and integrity were esteemed at Rome.] From the letters alleged we easily draw out that our holy Bishop was adorned with most illustrious virtues — namely with purity of faith and, as we noted above with Baronius, with observance and veneration toward the supreme Pontiffs; with zeal for preserving the ecclesiastical rights and canons; with holiness of life, integrity of manners, prudence and dexterity in carrying through affairs — on account of which doubtless his esteem was so great with SS. Leo and Hilary that even in the most difficult matters they employed his service above all. Of the other deeds of our holy Bishop nothing whatever is read in the ancients; it is unknown to us also how long he ruled the church of Vence, or in what year he entered upon its government and laid it down with his life. That he was a bishop while his father Eucherius was still living, that is, before the year 450, about which this latter is believed to have died, is the opinion of the learned, from the following words of Salvian's letter 8 to Eucherius, given by us at num. 26: By divine dispensation and judgment Salonius and Veranus have now begun to be teachers of the Church also (Barralis and Baluze read "of the churches"), which are everywhere understood of the episcopate already entered upon. And according to this interpretation it may further be gathered that our Saint

sat at Vence from about the year 441, and perhaps even earlier. For since Salvian says the same of both brothers, namely that they had begun to be teachers of the churches, that is, bishops, it is a token that the one was not raised to that dignity long before the other. But Salonius subscribed as bishop to the first Council of Orange in the year 441; Veranus therefore may be believed to have presided over the people of Vence about the same time.

[59] It is uncertain how long he lived. Further, that our Saint lived down to the year 464 is established from the letter of Pope Hilary cited at num. 57. The authors of the Gallia Christiana lately published think that he was present at the Council of Arles which was gathered by Leontius the archbishop against the Predestinarian errors. Tillemont among others suspected the same, vol. 16 of the Monuments of Ecclesiastical History, p. 422. And indeed the presbyter Lucidus, among the bishops to whom after the said council he directed a little book of retractation of his errors and of profession of faith, names Verianus, by which it is not unlike the truth that our Saint was designated; and consequently, according to that opinion, he prolonged his life beyond the year 475, to which the said council is assigned by most. See vol. 4 of the Councils, col. [ ] and following.