Maternus

ON ST. MATERNUS, BISHOP OF COLOGNE,

In the fourth century

COMMENTARY.

Maternus, bishop and conf. at Cologne. (S.)

J. P.

§ I. The grave controversy concerning the time of the mission of St. Maternus into Germany and the Gauls, to the examination of which some things are prefixed.

Celebrated is, and has been for many centuries throughout Germany, On the Saint's occasion the controversy is set forth the Gauls, and our Belgium, the memory of St. Maternus, and it is cherished before the rest with a peculiar veneration, as I shall set forth more fully below, by three most illustrious dioceses, that of Trier, that of Cologne, and that of Liège; inasmuch as the first of them acknowledges him with SS. Eucharius and Valerius as its apostle, and as the third prelate after them; while the two latter refer to him the beginnings of the Christian faith and the foundations of the episcopal see. But his name has been rendered far more celebrated throughout the said regions by the question, long begun and vehemently agitated among the learned, concerning the origin of very many churches in these parts, and among them of the churches already named; some referring it to the first century of Christ, others to the third.

[2] Jacques Longueval, a priest of the Society of Jesus, about to handle that matter in the preliminary Dissertation to his History of the Gallican church, concerning the origin of very many churches speaks generally, in French, almost in this manner: The question is agitated whether the Christian religion was founded in the Gauls by the disciples of the Apostles from the very first century of the Christian era, or whether the epoch of its founding must be deferred to the middle of the third century. Neither opinion lacks authority, and each has defenders worthy of veneration. One party of these, in asserting the antiquity of the Gallican church, has thought it its own duty to fight strongly for the glory of its country; the other party, in denying that antiquity, has thought that it would contend only for the defense of truth; nor has it believed without reason that so illustrious a church has no need whatever of feigned titles of nobility. But indeed the fervor of contention, which almost always insinuates itself into disputes of this kind, has driven the patrons of both opinions to extremes equally to be blamed: for the former have come to this, that they have defended popular traditions in vast number and instruments utterly disapproved; the latter, that they have not always acquiesced in testimonies most worthy of credit. Thus he.

[3] The same author, choosing a middle way between either extreme, so unfolds the matter in that Dissertation of his The reasons for which the mission of certain Saints that he ought to seem neither to have granted too much to credulity nor too much to severity: he asserts first that the Christian faith was founded in the Gauls by the disciples of the Apostles in the first century of the Christian era, but presently confesses that this same faith made exceedingly small progress there in the first and second century; and, when he has recited examples and testimonies for the proof of both assertions, he concludes at length that those things are very uncertain which are related separately of churches of the Gauls founded in the first century. This conclusion, moreover, he confirms by general reasons, drawn first from this, that if whatever things are current about the founders of churches in the Gauls in the first century are true — of whom he proposes a very long catalogue — it follows that at that time the Christian religion flourished nowhere in the world so much as in the Gauls; secondly, that very many Acts and other instruments, on which those traditions rest, were composed only after the ninth century, and are sprinkled with fables or are supposititious; thirdly, that the catalogues of bishops in most of the churches enumerated by him are such that the beginnings of the episcopates cannot be set before about the middle of the third century, unless most protracted vacancies at the same season be admitted in almost all the churches. Rare are the churches, he says, besides those of Trier, Cologne and Metz, in which bishops are found in sufficient number to continue the succession from the times of the Apostles. But neither are the catalogues of the bishops of those churches (of Trier, etc.) and of the others endowed with all the authority necessary to render us secure.

[4] is fixed in the third century, whether they can be applied This disposition of the matter is sufficiently correct, and, as most apt for reconciling the texts of ancient writers seemingly contrary to one another, it has from time to time been employed by our Elders, as may be seen in tom. V of June at the day XXX, in Papebroch's Animadversions on the Dissertation of Jean de Cordes, and in the Letter of Pierre de Marca opposed to it on this matter, printed in the same place. It is apt indeed, but chiefly then when either inquiry is made in general into the epoch of the Gospel preached among the Gauls, or into the beginnings of some one church separately, to the overturning of whose tradition those general reasons may easily be applied; as the praised Longueval applied them to the church of Limoges, which some contended had been founded in the first century by St. Martial. Nay, as of our own writers Henschen applied them, in tom. III of April at the day XXX, to St. Eutropius of Saintes; Solier, in tom. 2 of August at the day V, to St. Memmius of Châlons; Stilting, in tom. 1 of September at the day 1, to SS. Sixtus of Reims and Sinicius of Soissons; Limpen, in the same volume at the day III, to St. Mansuetus, bishop of Toul; all of whom they advised were to be brought back from the first century to the third or fourth; and that the same is to be established of other first bishops of these parts generally, Solier intimates in more than one place in his Observations on the Martyrology of Usuard.

[5] But, since according to Longueval's disposition the foundations of the Christian faith were laid in the Gauls at least by some in the first century, to St. Maternus; many say so, others deny it. The considerations of both parties the question returns whether among those SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus are to be acknowledged; or whether, on the contrary, the aforesaid reasons can be so applied to these, as to those just enumerated and to others, that their mission is likewise to be deferred to the third century. That they can be applied not a few more recent writers assert; others deny it: among the former Longueval himself is to be numbered. He indeed, after he had absolutely maintained the mission of SS. Crescens and Trophimus into the Gauls by the Apostles, and had rejected, against it, that of St. Martial and of one or another of the prelates to the third century (whether rightly in either case or not, I do not examine), speaks somewhat timidly of certain others, and at length concludes generally thus: It would be superfluous and harsh to run through the several other bishops who are handed down as having founded churches in the Gauls in the first century. The Lives of very many beget nothing but uncertainty and contradictions, to convict which always costs dear: for we fear lest we should wound men of a more tender disposition, whose love toward the Saints is greater than their understanding. Thus he in the Dissertation written in French. Nevertheless, in tom. 1 of the History, page 85, he indicates plainly enough that he opposes the tradition concerning SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus having been sent into the Gauls by St. Peter. Whence you may at the same time gather that the catalogues of bishops praised above toward the end of num. 3 were of no great price with him.

[6] Denis de Sainte-Marthe, in tom. 3 of the Gallia Christiana most recently published, beginning the series of the bishops of Liège from St. Maternus, elsewhere related in passing, here to be discussed more fully: set forth the chief arguments which have been brought forward on either side for and against his mission in the first century, protesting meanwhile that this was not done by him that he might bring prejudice upon any opinion, but that he might inform his readers of the difficulties. Willingly indeed would I have remitted our readers to the lucubration of the praised author, escaping in that way a discussion certainly laborious and perhaps odious to those who will have our Saint's apostolate in the first century to be so certain that they intimate that even to doubt of it is impiety. But indeed, since the same author has touched upon the points of this controversy only nakedly and briefly, and since besides, after the publication of the Work itself, new dissertations have come to light from the patrons of the parties, I have believed that it would not be beside the purpose if I weighed their reasons and considerations somewhat more fully. There is added that our predecessors have in some measure impelled me to this very thing, since several times in the Work they indicated that at this day that most weighty question would be discussed.

[7] Now I have proposed to myself this method: first, that I may not run out further than is fair, the method to be observed in that disquisition; I shall abstain, so far as the matter shall permit, from the general controversy concerning the beginnings of the Christian religion brought into the Gauls, and I shall employ the testimonies of the Fathers and of ancient writers only in so far as they shall seem precisely apt for bringing out the beginnings of the churches of Trier, Cologne and Tongres or Liège. Secondly, that I may avoid confusion, I shall set first the arguments of those who contend for the first century, and I shall call these the patrons of the first opinion: then I shall subjoin what is objected by the opposite party, or the patrons of the second opinion. Thirdly, lest I myself be deservedly said to have been prepossessed by partisanship, I shall take care to omit nothing, to neglect nothing, which is believed to favor either opinion; nay, although I cannot preserve the order of the several disputants, since not all of them have themselves preserved the same, I shall nevertheless, where it can be done, so set forth the arguments that they may seem to speak rather than I, not dissembling meanwhile if anything has been brought forward by them less aptly, or proved less rightly

I should think: yet I shall disapprove no considerations or monuments of either opinion without adding the reasons, or assigning the places in our Work in which they have been disapproved, lest there fall upon me the saying which a historian of our time, an ardent defender of a tradition in his own judgment most ancient, hurls against his adversaries in these words: It ought to seem altogether a wonder that there is found even today a crowd of writers who without doubt — because they copy one another — relegate the foundation of the Christian religion in the Gauls to the third century and number among fables the true missions of St. Peter or of his disciples.

[8] an account of the chief disputants. Fourthly and finally, when the several points have been duly weighed, I shall indicate which of the opinions is preferable, and according to it I shall endeavor to arrange the remaining deeds of St. Maternus. It would be long to enumerate all the patrons of either opinion: nevertheless, for the greater convenience of readers, I shall give the chief ones, to be named here and there in the course of the work. The first opinion is held by Brower in his Annals, Buchier in the Belgium Romanum, Gelenius in the Work on the greatness of Cologne, Fisen in the History of Liège, Laguille in the History of Alsace, Bertholet in the History of Luxembourg, and others, to whom I add — although he dissents in many things — the excellent Hartzheim, doctor of Cologne, in the learned lucubration which I have in manuscript, directed to the most illustrious von Hontheim, presently to be praised. To the other opinion adhere Launoy in his Dissertation on the passage of Sulpicius Severus, Tillemont in his Monuments of Ecclesiastical History, Calmet in the History of Lorraine, our Solier in the Observations on Usuard, and several others together with the most illustrious Johann von Hontheim, most intimate counsellor and suffragan of the most eminent elector and archbishop of Trier; of which man, a Trevirian by country, I have made very great use in this disquisition, by his learned dissertation prefixed to the Historia diplomatica Trevirensis, printed in the year 1750.

§ II. Arguments for the first century drawn from congruous verisimilitude and from the general assertions of the Fathers; and the responses to them.

Reasons drawn from divine providence and from the The asserters of the first opinion commonly open the disputation with general arguments for the antiquity of the churches of Gaul and Germany, and thence conclude also their own antiquity. It is not probable, they say, that the Apostles, whose sound went out into all the earth, who penetrated to the Scythians, Ethiopians, Indians, and to the furthest bounds of other barbarians, should have neglected the Gauls or the inhabitants of other regions so near to Italy, and to whom the very convenience of the places led and invited them. Neither can it be believed that this was permitted by the divine providence, which willed the Gospel to be spread through the whole world, nor that it was done by St. Peter the apostle, on whom the care of the West peculiarly lay. The truth of this reasoning they establish by the positive testimonies of ancient writers and Fathers, chiefly of Justin, Tertullian, and Irenæus bishop of Lyons; of whom the first, having suffered martyrdom about the year 166 or 167, writes that already then in his own time the worship of Christ had penetrated to every race of mortals, by whatever name they were called; the second, who flourished at the beginning of the third century, expressly affirms that in his own age the diverse nations of the Gauls had believed in Christ; the third, who obtained the palm of martyrdom about the beginning of the same century, speaks thus: Although in the world the speeches are dissimilar, yet the power of the tradition is one and the same: and neither do these churches which have been founded in the Germanies believe otherwise or hand down otherwise; nor those which are among the Iberians, nor those which are among the Celts, nor those which are in the East, nor those which are in Egypt; nor those which are in Libya, nor those which are established in the midst of the world.

[10] Besides those three Fathers they cite other ancient authors, especially of Justin, of Tertullian whom therefore I forbear to mention, because, if the matter cannot be settled by those, I judge that little help will be brought by these toward establishing the antiquity of the churches of Trier, Cologne and Liège. And so, since it is established by those three witnesses beyond all exception that the worship of Christ in the second century penetrated to every race of mortals; that the diverse nations of the Gauls believed in him; that churches were founded in the Germanies — they say that the Treviri cannot be excluded, for whom stand a most ancient tradition, the annals of the fatherland, many writers, and the catalogue of bishops, of each of which the discussion will return below. It is worth while to add to these the observation of the excellent Hartzheim, in his manuscript Dissertation, upon the text of St. Irenæus, conceived in these words: He (Irenæus) affirms churches, not one, but very many; not in the first only or the second Germany, but in the Germanies. When he names the Germanies in the plural number, he necessarily understands both the cis-Rhenane, the first or upper and the second or lower, after the Roman usage of that century, in which we read of no prelate, no church, in Germany beyond the Rhine, that is, the barbarian.

[11] After these things he interposes some remarks in which he notes that the word Germanies was understood in the same manner by Buchier in book 17, chapter 14, of the Belgium Romanum, and from the general assertions of Irenæus, taken where he discourses of the letter of Pope Leo I to all the bishops of the Germanies and the Gauls; and he thus proceeds: He (Irenæus) does not say that the churches were born today or the day before yesterday, but that they exist founded. In them, he says, the same Symbol of the Apostles is already taught, preached, and handed down, which Irenæus as a boy had heard in the East. He who in the second century writes these things against the heretics as open and to be denied by none concerning churches already founded in the Germanies, says at the least that those churches were born in the Germanies at the close of the first or the beginning of the second. We therefore, the men of Cologne, inhabitants of the second Germany, have of the Christian religion preached and received among us at the close of the first century of the Christian era, and thereafter of churches founded, an author nearly contemporary, and he a most weighty writer, a doctor of the Church, arguing and demonstrating the Catholicity of the Church of Christ, from the faith of the churches already founded in the Germanies, against heretics born yesterday and circumscribed in some corner of the world; and finally, one older by two centuries than Sulpicius Severus and Gregory of Tours. Certainly therefore they err who have written that the faith of Christ was preached or received in the Germanies or the Gauls only in the middle of the third century. Thus far the praised author, to whom and to others what is answered by the opposite party must be heard before we proceed further.

[12] And so most of the asserters of the second opinion do not gainsay the general reasons of their adversaries, by the reasons and testimonies of ancient writers which we set before the texts of the Fathers; and, although by the powers of human wisdom we cannot attain why the divine providence permitted that the Christian religion should be carried more quickly to some nations, later (as the adversaries themselves believe about certain Germans) to others, they readily concede that it was carried from the beginnings of the Church to the Gauls; but they will have it to have been carried in that manner which is related in the Letter written about the year 570 by seven bishops of Gaul to Radegund and reported by Gregory of Tours in book 9 of the History of the Franks, chapter 39, in these words: And so, when at the very rising of the Catholic religion the beginnings of the venerable faith had begun to draw breath within the borders of Gaul, and the ineffable mysteries of the Lord's Trinity had then come as yet to the knowledge of few — lest this land should acquire anything less than what in the circle of the world it obtained from the preaching of the Apostles, God, at the counsel of his mercy, deigned to direct the Blessed Martin from a foreign stock to the enlightenment of the fatherland.

[13] and of others The Fathers objected and others various men expound in various ways; I pass over those who would have by the diverse nations of the Gauls the diverse inhabitants of Cisalpine Gaul understood no less than of the Transalpine. For St. Irenæus certainly spoke of the Transalpine. Wherefore let us hear others. Papebroch, in tom. V of June, page 546, says: Irenæus and Tertullian may be said to mean nothing else than that everywhere among the nations enumerated by them some seeds of the Gospel had been sown, which then, when they themselves were writing, were still in the blade, germinating as best they might amid persecutions. The most illustrious von Hontheim, in his Dissertation, page X, having recited for his opinion the testimonies of the letter just praised, and of Sulpicius Severus and Gregory of Tours, proceeds in this manner: With these there do not conflict certain general assertions of councils and of papal letters, of Eusebius, of Tertullian, nay even of Irenæus, concerning heralds of the divine word sent by blessed Peter and by other disciples of Christ into the Gauls and the neighboring regions, or, if you prefer, concerning even a few churches founded in them in the first, or at least the second, century; for from these (in so far as they speak of Gaul), when compared with Sulpicius, with the Letter of the seven bishops of Gaul, with the bishop of Tours, and with others, it will never be made out that so abundant fruits of the Evangelical preaching sprouted there already in the second, much less in the first, century, that there should then have been very many bishoprics in it.

[14] and testimonies Further, Sulpicius Severus, on whom the patrons of the second opinion here chiefly rest, has this in book 2 of the sacred History: Under Aurelius, the son of Antoninus, the fifth persecution was carried on, and then for the first time martyrdoms were seen within the Gauls, the religion of God having been received later beyond the Alps. To Sulpicius they join the author of the Life of St. Saturninus in Ruinart's Sincere and Select Acts of the Martyrs, who writes as follows: After the sound of the Gospels went out gradually and by degrees into all the earth, and with equal progress (Bosquet, in book 1 of the Histories of the Gallican church, contends that on the faith of the manuscripts it should be read with slow progress: but it matters little in which way it is read, since the same signification remains, as is clear from the context) the preaching of the apostles flashed forth in our regions, while rare churches arose in some cities by the devotion of a few Christians, but nonetheless in all places the temples smoked frequently with the foul reeks of the wretched error of the gentiles: fifty years ago, as is retained in the public Acts, that is, in the consulship of Decius and Gratus (about the year of Christ 250), as is held by faithful remembrance, the city of Toulouse had first begun to have the holy Saturninus as the first and highest priest of Christ. That author, if that character L has been rightly noted, must have written, as we have elsewhere observed, about the year of Christ 300. But that he is certainly ancient is established from Gregory of Tours, inasmuch as in book 1 of the History, chapter 28, he transcribed from him the last words of the same: In the consulship of Decius and Gratus, etc.

[15] But what of the argument of the excellent Hartzheim? The most illustrious von Hontheim replies thus are these expounded, that the general name of the Germanies does not pertain only to those two cis-Rhenane provinces, but that in general the places which were inhabited by the Germans, divided as they were into diverse nations in several states — which nevertheless all for the most part used the same institutions and customs — were called the Germanies, as Hertius expressly teaches in the Notitia veteris Germaniæ, part 1, chapter 1, §5, and as is proved by innumerable examples in Tacitus, several passages of whom he recounts: and that it does not seem probable that St. Irenæus in the passage objected, in his enumeration of diverse peoples, took his beginning from the cis-Rhenane Germanies, thence made a leap to Spain, and from there wished to return to another part of Gaul, namely that which the Celts inhabited: that it is therefore easy to establish that St. Irenæus's discourse was about those nations of the Germans which look toward Dacia and Sarmatia, and which Tertullian more expressly pointed out, writing in his book against the Jews that there already believed in Christ all the bounds of the Spains, the diverse

nations of the Gauls; and the places of the Britons inaccessible to the Romans already subjected to Christ, likewise those of the Sarmatians, the Dacians and the Germans. For the most illustrious man says that he is persuaded of this concerning Tertullian from the studied conjunction of those three nations, the Sarmatians, the Dacians and the Germans, whose situation he proves to have been conterminous by adducing the testimonies of various topographers. Nay, he affirms that the religion of Christ was founded in that eastern coast of Germany, conterminous with the Sarmatians and the Dacians and denoted by Tertullian, in the second century, and that this is proved from elsewhere also and by conclusive arguments; and finally he remits the reader to Hansiz, Germania sacra, tom. 1, chapters 1 and 2, who explains the same passage of Tertullian and applies it to those parts.

[16] Which of them have more rightly attained the mind of those Fathers, [so that from them nothing determinate can be established for the Saint's mission in the first century.] I do not inquire at length. This, however, is sufficiently certain to me, that Cologne was reckoned among the churches of the Gauls even by the ancients. St. Athanasius, in his letter to those leading the solitary life, calls it the metropolis of upper Gaul. Optatus of Milevis, Constantine the Great and St. Augustine, where they write about Maternus, bishop of Cologne in the fourth century, everywhere call him a Gallic bishop, nowhere a German. We shall give the words at §9. But, even setting these aside, when I consider the matter more attentively, little or nothing pertains to our purpose whether the Fathers alleged had regard to the cis-Rhenane Germans or to those eastern Germans bordering on the Dacians and Sarmatians: nay, I should scarcely have judged it worth while to have set forth their assertions, much less their interpretations, in this place, were I not to perceive that greater force is placed in them by the defenders of the first opinion. Let us therefore grant for the moment that St. Justin, when he wrote about the middle of the second century, in saying that the worship of Christ had penetrated to every race of mortals did not wish the cis-Rhenane Germans, the Treviri and their neighbors, to be excluded — however much it might suffice for the truth of that assertion if the said worship had penetrated some one province of the Germanies and the Gauls. Let us also grant that Tertullian and Irenæus were speaking of the same; from this it will be made out that there were worshippers of Christ in those parts while those Fathers were writing: what then?

[17] But, you say, Irenæus expressly says that churches were then founded in the Germanies. He does say it: let us grant therefore likewise that in one place or another of lower and upper Germany, toward the end of the second century, a congregation of Christians was established: nothing determinate can yet be established. it does not yet follow, first, that that congregation consisted of a great number of Christians; for before the coming of St. Saturninus to Toulouse rare churches arose in the cities by the devotion of a few Christians, as the biographer praised at num. 14 has it. Secondly, it does not follow that those churches had then their own bishops. Much less finally does it follow that St. Maternus presided over the church of Cologne at the beginning of the second century, and St. Eucharius over that of Trier not long after the middle of the first. For not even the people of Lyons, whom St. Irenæus certainly comprehends when he writes that churches were founded among the Celtic peoples of Gaul, acknowledge a bishop before St. Pothinus, the predecessor of Irenæus and a martyr about the year 177 — however much nearer they are to Italy than the men of Trier and of Cologne. Accordingly those general assertions of the Fathers, however far interpreted in favor of the first opinion, do not appear to me sufficient for establishing the mission of our Saints in the first century, unless the particular reasons and documents of the churches of Trier, Cologne and Liège are found more solid than those of others, whose first bishops the learned have placed later on account of the authorities of Sulpicius Severus, Gregory of Tours, the Acts of St. Saturninus, and the Letter of the seven bishops to Radegund — with which who would deny that the assertions of the Fathers can easily be reconciled, even though the first bishops of many churches be deferred as late as the third century?

§ III. Arguments sought from tradition, in the judgment of the patrons of the first opinion most ancient, and resting on the Acts of SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus and on the Deeds or History of the Treviri; the age of these is inquired into, and they are found neither earlier than the ninth century nor apt for confirming the tradition.

[Tradition is objected, confirmed by many monuments and especially by the Deeds of the Treviri] Most of the patrons of the first opinion — as is customary generally with all who strive to vindicate the antiquity of their churches when called into doubt — appeal to tradition and to the possession of several centuries. The Treviri have at all times gloried that Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus were sent by Peter, says Buchier in the Belgium Romanum, book 6, chapter 3, num. 10. An ancient and constant tradition (the words are Laguille's, in book 4 of the History of Alsace, rendered into Latin from the French), joined with monuments which seem to merit full credit, teaches that SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus were sent as legates by St. Peter into Alsace and the adjacent provinces. But since it is established by innumerable examples that traditions in like matter, after a possession of several centuries, have straightway collapsed when brought to the Lydian stone of true criticism, as being propped up by no continuation of suitable witnesses and by no indubitable or sufficiently ancient monuments, and as consigned to writing only by writers most remote from the times of the deeds, and then first eagerly adopted by the fickle populace or by others more than fairly enamoured of their own antiquity — men remarkable for learning, when more than one reason for doubting the solidity of this particular tradition occurred, have judged it lawful for them to look more deeply into its foundations; to search out whence it is proved that the Treviri with the rest gloried at all times in that mission; and to examine of what nature are the monuments so greatly esteemed; which we too shall here pursue with them, taking our beginning from the History of the Treviri and from the Acts of the Saints of whom we treat.

[19] The History of the Treviri was published in print by d'Achery, tom. 12, [published by various men, and the Acts of SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus, which Bolland thought ancient,] page 196, of the Spicilegium of the first edition, but in the second tom. 2, page 208, from a manuscript codex of the abbey of St. Cornelius of Compiègne; by Leibniz among the Accessiones historicæ from three manuscripts which he names in his preface; and by Calmet at the end of tom. 1 of the History of Lorraine. But the Acts of the three Saints, which were compiled by the same author or authors, as will presently appear, by whom the History itself was, Bolland inserted in tom. 2 of January at the day XXIX, on which recurs the festive memory of St. Valerius, where he judged thus of the author: The deeds of Eucharius, Valerius, Maternus were written by Goldscher, a monk at Trier in the monastery of St. Matthias; … in what age he lived we have not found; that he is most ancient appears from this, that Heriger, abbot of Lobbes, who in the year 990 succeeded Folcuin and died on the XXXI of October in the year 1007, transcribes many things from him almost word for word in the Deeds of the bishops of Tongres, where he treats of Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus through XVI chapters.

[20] This conjecture of Bolland's Bertholet embraces, in part 2 of his Dissertation, page 305, Bertholet and Laguille hold them much more ancient. tome 1, and, extending it further, thinks that Goldscher (who, as he says, is not the first author of the Acts, since at the beginning he professes that he learned by a most certain relation of his Elders those things which he relates about the deeds of the holy Fathers of the city of Trier) gave them on the faith of writers who perhaps had preceded him by several centuries. Then, having recited from the same biographer's epilogue these words: These things concerning the deeds of the holy Fathers, searching more diligently among the ashes left after the destruction of the city of Trier, we found written here and there on little charters — he asks at length whether the authority and consequently the merit of the said Lucubration can be more solidly proved. Laguille, in the place cited above, proceeds further, and from the same words of the epilogue argues nearly thus: The deeds of the Saints narrated by Goldscher are from manuscripts snatched from the destruction of Trier; but the fourth and last destruction, on Brower's testimony, happened in the year 451; therefore those are earlier than it: which reasoning, if only it were just, would confirm the tradition not a little; since in the said Acts, as also in the History, Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus are expressly said to have been sent by Peter.

[21] Far be it that the adversaries should concede so great antiquity to these Acts: Their authors were not the age of the monk Goldscher, unknown to Bolland, they themselves bring out from Johannes Trithemius, who writes thus in tom. 1 of the Hirsau Chronicle, at the year 1012, page 154: In the aforenoted year, on the fifth day of the month of December, dies Theodore, monk and scholastic of the monastery of St. Matthias the apostle outside the walls of Trier: and a little below: After him Goldscher, a monk of the same monastery, was set over the school, … who wrote among the other Opuscula of his genius one book On the praises of St. Eucharius, first bishop of the Treviri, disciple of St. Peter the apostle. On the praises of St. Valerius, the second bishop, one book. On the praises of St. Maternus, third bishop of the Treviri, one book… To the History of the Treviri he added the deeds of his own time. Whence we gather that Goldscher flourished only in the eleventh century, and was not the first historiographer of the Treviri; and that this latter point may appear more manifestly, it is useful to set forth from the same Trithemius — who in his preface, enumerating the authors consulted by him, names Theodoric and Goldscher, monks of St. Matthias, in the Deeds of the Treviri — the writers on Trevirian affairs in the order in which they preceded Goldscher.

[22] earlier than the ninth century; In the first place, at the year 1012, in the place just cited, Theodore, Goldscher's predecessor, is said to have written additions to the Deeds of the Treviri down to his own times. At the year 980, page 122, Remigius, abbot of Mettlach, is read to have composed a Chant on the holy Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus, the first bishops of the Treviri, with a sweet and regular modulation. At the year 955, page 98, it is related that Adelbert, scholastic of the monastery of St. Matthias at Trier, added to the Deeds of the Treviri the acts of his own time. At the year 909, page 56, is noted the death of Eberhard, monk and scholastic in the same monastery, who among the other monuments of his genius added very many things to the History of the Treviri; he also wrote the Life of the holy Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus, the first pontiffs of Trier, both in meter and in prose, in a rather elegant style. At the year 885 finally, page 37, is likewise reported the death of Florbert, monk of St. Matthias, who wrote five books in elegiac verse on the destruction of Trier which the Northmen had lately brought upon the Moselle country. Compilers of Trevirian matters pertaining to our subject, or biographers of the three first prelates, more ancient than these I nowhere find assigned.

[23] of whom the first was probably Eberhard, monk of St. Matthias. Now from the words of Trithemius adduced I observe the following: first, what the most illustrious Hontheim also observed before me, that the Life of SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus, published by Bolland, is to be ascribed rather to Eberhard the monk than to Goldscher; because forsooth those things which Trithemius hands down about Eberhard, and those which we have reported above from the epilogue of the Life, better square with the said Life. Nor without doubt would Bolland himself have judged otherwise, if access had lain open to him to the Hirsau Chronicle, a great work, as Trithemius calls it in the preface to the Spanheim Chronicle, and divided into two volumes; inasmuch as it was first given to the public light in the ninetieth year of the century just past, and from it alone one may more certainly draw both the knowledge of Eberhard and of others, and the age both of these and of Goldscher,

He knew Goldscher indeed from Trithemius's Catalogue of illustrious men of Germany; but designated by no note of time, and him alone as the encomiast of SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus; so that it is no wonder that he attributed the Life to him, and, if he had regard to the destruction of Trier, believed him more ancient than he really was, and earlier than Heriger. Let Eberhard therefore be substituted for Goldscher, and what Bolland judged about Heriger, the historian of the waning tenth century, will seem very congruous with reason and with the time. I should not, however, wish to guarantee that the Life given by Bolland is so proper to Eberhard as to be the pure offspring of him and not interpolated by another; but I have observed these things chiefly because I cannot assent to Casimir Oudin, in tom. 2 of his Commentary on writers, col. [ ], who thinks that Goldscher took his materials from Heriger, than whom he was younger. For neither does it appear probable to me that Goldscher would have had recourse to that man's History, when in the literary storehouse of his own monastery he possessed the Lucubrations of Eberhard and of others on Trevirian matters and on the deeds of the first prelates — to which it was more probable that Heriger should have had recourse, or, if you please, Notker bishop of Liège, to whom equally with him the Deeds of the pontiffs of Tongres, Maastricht and Liège are attributed. Further, whether Goldscher's Work divided into three books exists anywhere today, is unknown to us.

[24] Secondly, I observe from the epoch assigned to Eberhard and the others on the faith of the Hirsau Chronicle Whence very much is withdrawn from their authority. that much perishes from the pretended antiquity of the said Life, held in such price by Bertholet and Laguille, whose reasoning, reported at num. 20, at the same time loses all its force; since it is not obscurely plain that mention is made in the epilogue of that destruction of Trier which happened not in the fifth century but in the ninth. Hear about this destruction Regino, a monk of the abbey of Prüm in the diocese of Trier, and a contemporary witness: The Northmen … seize Trier, the most noble city of the Gauls, on the Nones of April (of the year 882), the day of the most sacred Supper of the Lord, in which, refreshing their bodies wearied from the journey until the holy day of Easter, they demolished to the ground every covering of the city round about; then, burning up the city with flames, they direct their line of battle to Metz. Concerning the remaining cities he had premised this: In the same year (881) two kings of the Northmen, Godfrey and Sigfrid, … at the first onset laying waste the neighboring places, burn with fire the city of Liège, the castle of Maastricht, and the town of Tongres. At the second incursion, pouring out into the borders of the Ripuarians, they devastate all things with slaughters, rapines and burnings, and consume with fire the cities of Cologne and Bonn with the adjacent castles, namely Zülpich, Wilipiacum and Neuss.

[25] Thirdly, I observe that the Life so often mentioned, and the Deeds or History of the Treviri, Besides, their authors were furnished with very few since they cannot be proved to be earlier than the ninth or tenth century, are most feeble instruments for confirming the ancient tradition and for building up the mission made by St. Peter in the first century. Add that so scanty aids were left to their authors after the destruction that, unless they were supplied to them from elsewhere — which they by no means intimate — you may not rashly suspect that almost the whole History of the Saints flowed from conjectures, pious thoughts, and vulgar traditions. How scanty the said aids were we bring out not only from the epilogue of the Life and from the atrocity of the devastation set forth, but also from the biographers of other Trevirian Saints, whose words I set out. In tom. III of March, page 622, the anonymous author of the Life of St. Felix thus complains: But in the mention of this thrice blessed Saint, as in the recollection of almost all the Saints of Trier, we are compelled to bewail the oft-repeated devastation of this city, through which it is established that the vast volumes of the Life of our holy Fathers were so utterly consumed that (unless from a very few drops, so to speak, of so great a sea, they had been in some measure restored from most ancient little sheets of other places, or even from leaden and marble tablets buried deep in the earth) our instruments, hung up as it were over the rivers of our Babylon, would long since have fallen silent in the praise of these Saints.

[26] In tom. III of May, page 52, Stephen, abbot of St. James of Liège, in the Life of St. Modoald bishop of Trier, composed in the twelfth century, blaming the lack of monuments because it was granted him to write less accurately, as is shown, with instruments thus proceeds: For it is reported that the nation of the barbarians then loosed the reins of its fury through all the borders of the Gauls, held things divine and human in contempt with equal abolition, overthrew the richest cities, profaned the sanctuaries of God, emptied out the illustrious labors of men, utterly destroyed the monuments of the Saints, the titles and names of the ancient heroes; left us no traces of virtues, none of victory, none of the praise or probity of our forefathers, exterminated all things by sword and fire. But above all the cities lying under so great a destruction, that glorious metropolis of Trier, made as it were the widowed mistress of the nations, was to be lamented with the Threnodies of Jeremiah, … and in it the monuments of ancient virtues were the more pitiably to be bewailed the more ruinously they were taken away from the advancement of many. There, when the fire consumed the Annals of ancient copies, and on this account all the series of ancient genealogies had been abolished, it happened also that all the past ancestry of Blessed Modoald (who died about the year 640) was so far withdrawn from the memory of posterity that etc. Things akin to these concerning the rage of the Normans against Trier and the surrounding cities has Sigehard, a monk of St. Maximin in the tenth century, in the History of the miracles of St. Maximin of Trier, in our tom. VII of May, page 32.

[27] for composing them, But why do we flee elsewhere? The very writer of the History or Deeds of the Treviri — understand Eberhard, or Theodoric, or any other whatever — most clearly intimates that he not only wrote after the Norman destruction, but also was furnished with very few documents. For, when he has narrated the death of SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus, he presently subjoins: Then a certain Auspicius held the rule; then, by lawful successions, there arose men distinguished and strong in sanctity and grace, Felix and the rest — whom he enumerates to the number of twenty, and all of whom, bishops and martyrs, he asserts are believed to be buried in the church of St. Eucharius. Then, to our purpose, he thus proceeds: But in the times of what emperors or consuls each of them was renowned, and what ends their life had, and how many years each administered the office of the pontificate, or how much each enlarged the revenues of his church — because the overthrow of all Gaul wrought by the Huns and the Northmen has abolished these things, let not the demand of any of our readers require it of us; since even before, under the dreadful ten persecutions in which they lived, fame was less able by the zeal of writers to perpetuate their memory by publishing it.

[28] and they are sprinkled with many fables And these things somewhat more fully for the sake of those who make so much of the Life of the first prelates and of the Trevirian History, even in those places in which the deeds of the first and second century are narrated; not caring that very many things occur among these which breathe of fable and are by no means consonant with the men and manners of those centuries: as will appear below, where I shall discuss the chief parts of the Life. Receive meanwhile the judgments upon them of certain learned men, whom Hontheim cites: Jacques Sirmond, in tom. 4 of his Works, page 501, in a letter to Alexander Wiltheim, says: In the Deeds of the pontiffs of Trier, very many fabulous things. D'Achery, their editor, tom. 2 of the Spicilegium, page 208: There is no one who does not perceive the futility of this history in those beginnings at least. In the earlier edition he had noted that the beginnings are besprinkled with futile errors and fables. Martène, in tom. 4, col. 143 and 144 of the Amplissima collectio, about to publish the Deeds of the archbishops of Trier, notes that he passes over the deeds of the first archbishops, which in the edition of d'Achery and of Leibniz are either fabulous, or very uncertain, or indeed too briefly touched upon, and he begins from the year 880. To these I do not add others, because either they have been reckoned among the asserters of the second opinion, or their words will recur below.

[29] What has been said thus far suffices for the reader to perceive that such lucubrations are foundations too weak so that they can produce no credit. for a tradition of a matter so many centuries remote from its writers to be established by them, which is the sole thing we here inquire into. But, you say, the authors of these Lucubrations had for a help at least the older little charters that survived the destruction, and the most certain relation of their forefathers, to which they appeal; and accordingly, however much they mixed fabulous adjuncts into what they collected, nothing hinders the substance of the mission by St. Peter from being retained and admitted as true. Indeed, even if the matter had been less disputed on both sides, I should reply first that the sufficient antiquity of those little charters is not established to me, nor the authority of those Elders whom they invoke. Secondly, that neither is it established whether in those little charters, or in the relation of the Elders, there was testimony about a mission by St. Peter; for since the biographers and Historians adduced are deservedly suspect in other things, without injury more indubitable testimonies may be required upon this point also. I prefer, however, to employ the words of the most illustrious von Hontheim, by which he thus answers to the same argument in his Dissertation, §3: I do not gainsay it, if by the substance of the tradition be understood that the word of God was first preached to us and to our neighbors through SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus. But I refuse it, if they would refer the circumstance of the time of this preaching, and the quality of the disciples of the lord Peter, to the substance of this History or tradition. It remains therefore that we search out whether there exist elsewhere ancient and more certain indications of this mission; for if it really happened, it is scarcely credible that this was unknown among others, or was not transmitted to the knowledge of posterity by writers earlier than the ninth century.

§ IV. The arguments taken from the testimonies of other writers and from ancient Martyrologies are examined.

The authority of Heriger and of other more recent writers Besides the Deeds of the Treviri alleged, and the Life of the first prelates, there is brought into the line of battle by the asserters of the first opinion a long column of authors building up the mission by the divine Peter. Their standard-bearer is Heriger, abbot of Lobbes, with Anselm canon of Liège and Giles, monk of Orval, in the Deeds of the Pontiffs of Tongres, Maastricht and Liège; whom there follow Marianus Scotus, Otto of Freising, Albert abbot of Stade, Alberic, monk of Trois-Fontaines, each in his own Chronicle, and several others in number, either more recent or at least not more ancient, to be named by us from time to time in the course of the work. Nor, however, ought these to detain us in this place; since all are younger than the ninth century, many than the tenth, several than the eleventh, and their authority is therefore fitted to establish this one thing, that the fame of the tradition — which up to now we have received from no approved author of the first eight centuries — was celebrated in those times in which they lived, and gradually gained strength by great increase. Lest, however, they should all be passed over in utter neglect, we select one or two of the chief, to be examined in a few words.

[31] is not admitted. As regards Heriger, it is more probable, as I intimated at num. 23, that when he wrote about the first bishops he used the Trevirian Deeds compiled after the Norman destruction; which the most illustrious von Hontheim also suspects about Marianus Scotus, and, comparing several texts conceived in the same phrase of words, he shows in §4 of his Dissertation

of his. Besides, however much Bertholet with others extols the credit of Heriger and of Giles of Orval, he does not dare to deny that the latter was more than fairly credulous, and that the former adorned his History with apocryphal miracles: What does it matter, he says in French, that apocryphal miracles are related by him again and again? Fabulous adjuncts, mixed in with the truth of the mission, do not destroy the mission itself. But to a like argument answer has been made in the preceding §. More trouble could be made here at first sight by Marianus Scotus, not indeed on account of his own age, but on account of that Methodius whom he cites. For in his Chronicle, book 2, after narrating the mission of our Saint with his Companions by St. Peter under Nero, he adds expressly: Thus far Methodius the bishop. He signifies also that he used the words of the same where he mentions Eucharius as having died in the times of Vespasian, and Maternus in those of Hadrian.

[32] Nor is that of Methodius, cited by Marianus Scotus, who is wrongly by some If now you should ask who that Methodius is, in what age he wrote, what see he occupied, Brower — who nevertheless defers very much to his authority — answers that he is an author of a time not yet ascertained. More confidently two men more recent than Brower, of whom one supposes that the Methodius of Marianus lived in the fourth century, while the other not only asserts the same, but besides pronounces upon a question of this kind nearly in this manner: It will be answered that he is much made of by Marianus Scotus, who flourished in the year 1058, and is cited at the XIV year of Nero, the I of Vespasian, and the III of Domitian; that in the manuscripts of St. Maximin he is called a martyr and bishop of Patara, etc. Assuredly, if the words produced by Marianus could be clearly proved to be those of Methodius bishop of Patara, the controversy would cease with me, and, laying aside every scruple, I would embrace the tradition, at least as to its substance. But so great an age has long since been deservedly denied to the Methodius of Marianus by others, and lately by us in tom. IV of August, page 38, where to the testimony of the same Methodius adduced in this very matter it was answered that his testimony does not suffice, and that those are deceived who confound this writer with Methodius of Patara; since the latter completed his martyrdom about the year 300, while the former in Marianus relates certain things which happened long after the said year, as is shown in the same place by the examples produced.

[33] [believed to be the bishop of Patara, does he seem earlier than the tenth century.] More things are added by Hontheim, just praised, whose words I here transfer: That he was not that celebrated bishop of Patara, crowned with martyrdom about the year 300, nor even any other of the ancient writers, is discerned from this, that in Marianus's Chronicle, page 410, col. 1, at the year 408 he reports the death of St. Augustine, which fell in the fifth century; that he cites the Tripartite History, which Epiphanius Scholasticus compiled toward the end of the sixth century at the request of Cassiodorus; that finally he measures the intervals of times from the Incarnation of Christ, which manner of computing came into use only in the eighth century. But that he did not write even before the end of the tenth century is made manifest by that verse which at page 375, col. 1, he composes in praise of St. Celsus, already reported by us above in these words: "In name and merits Celsus, sublime in mind, but also illustrious in birth, never slothful, everywhere flourishing for his country." Which was taken letter for letter from the sepulchral stone of this Saint, discovered only about the year 979, the History of whose invention, together with this sepulchral inscription published by Bolland at the day XXIII of February, was written by Theodoric, monk of St. Matthias, either the compiler or the augmenter of the Trevirian Deeds. Thus far the most illustrious man, who then concludes that he suspects that this Methodius is a counterfeit writer brought upon the stage to confirm by his authority the origins of the church of Trier (of which he affects a special knowledge) according to the system of the monks of St. Matthias. However the matter may be, such is not this Methodius as to persuade me of the tradition.

[34] Hence the patrons of the first opinion take refuge in the Martyrologies: Among the Martyrologies some wrongly object an enormous heap is adduced by the anonymous author of a letter composed in the French tongue and sent to a friend in the year 1743, speaking thus: You know, sir, that according to tradition our church (of Trier) was founded by the holy Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus, the immediate disciples (disciples immédiats) of the Prince of the Apostles. So do the Martyrologies of St. Jerome, of Rabanus, of Usuard, of Bede, of Ado, of Notker, and the Roman, persuade us. Bertholet, who inserted that letter in tom. 6 of his Work and called its author a canon of Trier, is of almost the same opinion: in tom. 1, page 76, in his Observations, he writes in this manner: Ado, Bede, Usuard in their Martyrologies, and Peter of Cluny, mention SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus as founders of the churches of Trier, Cologne and Tongres in the times of the Apostles. In the same place, page 114: All the Martyrologies of the IX and X century — of Wandelbert, Rabanus, Ado, Usuard and Notker — mention SS. Eucharius and Valerius, as does the Roman Martyrology, and call them disciples of St. Peter. Again at page 306, having recited from the Life of the Saints the words in which they are said to have been sent by St. Peter into the Gauls, he presently subjoins: The same thing very many writers confirm: such as Marianus Scotus, Albert abbot of Stade, etc. Such are the Martyrologies of St. Jerome, of Rabanus, of Usuard, of Ado, of Bede, of Notker, and the Roman, where it is said in express words: "At Trier, the deposition of blessed Valerius the bishop, disciple of St. Peter."

[35] These assertions, which, if their chief parts were sufficiently established, the Hieronymian Martyrology, would assuredly add great weight to the ancient tradition, seemed to me the more wonderful the more firmly I had believed that nothing at all could be drawn from the Hieronymian Martyrologies, from that of Rabanus, and from certain others adduced, in favor of the discipleship or the mission of our Saints by St. Peter; especially because by none, so far as I know, except by these two asserters of the first opinion have they been called in for aid. Wherefore I thought it worth while to go through each of them anew. And so I approached Florentinius, d'Achery, Martène and our Solier, who have published for the common utility the most ancient transcripts ascribed to St. Jerome and of the better sort, collated with others; yet, diligently as I searched them, nowhere did there occur to me either the name of Eucharius of Trier or of Maternus, much less their mission by St. Peter.

[36] Valerius I found, but confined within such terms that I judge the announcements are more of a hindrance to the tradition than a help: they are read variously among the praised editors according to the variety of the codices, and by a mild answer and are as follows: At Trier, of Valerius the bishop; At Trier, the deposition of Valerius the bishop; At Trier, the deposition of blessed, or of most blessed, Valerius the bishop; At Trier, the deposition of Blessed Valerius, bishop and confessor. Who would make out from this that Valerius was a disciple of St. Peter in the sense which they pretend, or that he lived in the first century? But that I judge the announcements recited to be more of a hindrance to the tradition than a help, the observation of Solier, most versed in the knowledge of Martyrologies, persuaded me; namely, because nowhere is the distinctive mark Of the ancients added — which, when appended in the Hieronymian Martyrologies, the first bishops of the first two centuries of the Church commonly enjoy, and which in this very list is attributed to St. Hippolytus, in the more ancient Hieronymian in Florentinius, in the most ancient in d'Achery, and in that which we call the Queen of Sweden's, in our tom. VI of June, everywhere at the day XXIX of January. I return to those who appealed to those Martyrologies, and I say that I do not perceive from what source they drew these things: there are two things which it is lawful to suspect; first, that those authors, reading through Bolland's Commentary on St. Valerius, not only judged that everything which is there said of Valerius alone in the Fasti enumerated is also found of Eucharius and Maternus in all of them, but further believed that there is read in the Martyrologies of Jerome and of Rabanus what in others is built up about the discipleship of St. Peter. But assuredly they were deceived; that is by no means elicited from Bolland's text, which, so far as it concerns this matter, I subjoin entire: The name of Valerius is inscribed in most Martyrologies, even the most ancient. The manuscript of St. Jerome, Rabanus, the manuscript of St. Maximin: "At Trier, the deposition of St. Valerius the bishop." Usuard, the vulgate Bede, Ado, Notker, the Roman Martyrology, and various manuscripts: "On the same day, at Trier, the deposition of Blessed Valerius the bishop, disciple of St. Peter the apostle." The other is that perhaps they had a Hieronymian transcript unknown to us; but, so I shall believe until I am convinced of the contrary, one enlarged by the additions of more recent men. Let the same be said of the Fasti of Rabanus and of certain others, of which below.

[37] they are corrected; By such an answer I reckon that the defenders of the tradition are received by me more mildly than our Henschen was very lately by a modern writer, who in a matter not much unlike had cited many authors for his own opinion and had recited their texts, in which in fact was contained what he pretended, as the said modern could not deny, speaking thus: That celebrated hagiographer (Henschen in the Exegesis on the bishopric of Tongres and Maastricht) contends that all the successors of St. Servatius, twenty in number, were called bishops of Maastricht. He cites Gregory of Tours, Baudemundus the disciple of St. Amandus, Heriger, Anselm, Notker, Giles of Orval, the author of the Great Chronicle, Godeschalc, various Martyrologies, and finally the diplomas of emperors and kings, who gave to the successors of St. Servatius the title of bishop of Maastricht, not of Tongres. Hear now how prettily he breaks through the difficulty and hisses Henschen off the stage: A single observation suffices for that heap of citations to vanish; which are rather an indication of his erudition (perhaps I render the French sense too mildly: une montre de son érudition — it ought to have been said, an ostentation) than a proof of the truth. It has never been denied that there were writers who gave them (the bishops) this title; the difficulty is whether they gave it on just grounds. What would such an author not have been going to say, if he had by no means found what Henschen asserted in most authors, or at least in the more ancient and weightier ones?

[38] The same which I have said of the Hieronymian transcripts likewise to be corrected, while Rabanus I have advised is to be thought of the Martyrology of Rabanus and of most others — I mean the genuine ones, and in so far as they are produced to prove the discipleship of St. Maternus under St. Peter. For Rabanus, who wrote about the middle of the ninth century, has nothing besides these announcements: XXIX of January: At Trier. Of Blessed Valerius the bishop. XIV of September: And the deposition of St. Maternus the bishop. VIII of December: And the deposition of St. Eucharius the bishop. And this in every copy which I have seen: which I add because Launoy probably had a corrupt transcript of Rabanus, when in his Dissertation on the passage of Sulpicius Severus, published in the year 1651, he wrote thus in chapter 29, page 119: So small is the memory of Eucharius among the ancients, that the old Roman Martyrology, Usuard, Ado, Rabanus have not yet claimed him. And page 122: Concerning Maternus there is complete silence in Usuard, Ado, Rabanus, Notker. More rightly did the same Launoy judge of Bede, when he said that his Martyrology (that, namely, published under his name in tom. 3 of his Works, and thereafter separately from the Plantin press) is not pure, and that it can deservedly be doubted whether the things which are read about Valerius were not added in the course of transcription.

[39] For that Martyrology is today absolutely denied to Bede by the learned, and they allege Bede, from whose genuine nor does it now commonly go under any other name than that of the spurious and supposititious Bede. Bolland himself, in his general preface prefixed to tom. 1 of January, chapter 4, § VI, says: It cannot deservedly be attributed to Bede; and after adducing the reasons for this assertion, he notes that he nevertheless cites it as the vulgate Bede, because it had then become known under that name. Hence you may understand what his mind was when in tom. 2 of January, page 117, he wrote that the vulgate Bede has the following: On the same day, at Trier, the deposition of Valerius the bishop, disciple of St. Peter the apostle. Add that the same Bolland, however much he had judged greater authority to be attributed to that Martyrology than is attributed today, said that these things are there read of Valerius alone — which I intimated above also — by no means of Eucharius and Maternus, who are nowhere in the said Martyrology called disciples of St. Peter. Upon those therefore who would have it proved from the authority of the venerable Bede that the three Saints were sent by St. Peter, it lies to assign some other Martyrology of his: but I fear that they will accomplish this with no prosperous success.

[40] Certainly in that which Henschen and Papebroch published before tom. 2 of March from eight ancient manuscripts Fasti nothing is brought out. as the genuine Bede, distinct from the auctaria of Florus — in that, I say, or in the auctaria of Florus themselves, I do not find even the names of SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus of Trier. There exist also in Martène, in the Amplissima collectio, tom. 6, col. 638 and 650, two ancient Martyrologies or Calendars, of which one, of the monastery of St. Maximin of Trier, complete for all the days of the year and written out eight hundred years ago, is called: The annual little book of the lord Bede the priest; but the editor does not dare to assert that it is the pure offspring of Bede; If, however, he says, the title does not deceive, it must be confessed that this Martyrology of Bede has been enlarged by various accessions of Saints, especially of Trier and of the neighboring places. The other is transcribed from a Fleury codex of Bede's Works, whose character, on the testimony of the same editor in the preliminary Observation, represents about nine hundred years; and, exhibiting few Saints for each month, and having great affinity with Bede's metrical Martyrology, it is with better right to be attributed to him. But whatever they may be at last, they in no way help the tradition; for in the latter, as neither in Bede's metrical Martyrology itself, the names of our Saints are not found: but in the former these commemorations are read: IV of the Kalends (of February), At Trier, the deposition of St. Valerius, bishop and confessor. XVIII of the Kalends of October … and of St. Maternus — and the editor notes that this was written in a second hand. VI of the Ides (of December), The birthday of St. Eucharius, bishop of Trier. Hence it is clear enough that no support can be sought from Bede for the tradition. Ado, Notker, Usuard and others must now be consulted.

§ V. The arguments sought from Ado, from the Roman Martyrology, and from Bulls and diplomas are set forth, and answers are subjoined to each.

In Ado's Martyrology St. Valerius is called a disciple of St. Peter; Ado composed his Martyrology about the year 858, or perhaps a little earlier, as Solier with others judges, and that Ado is the first who seems in any way to favor the discipleship of the Saints under St. Peter, since in him at the day XXIX of January these words are read: On the same day, the deposition of Blessed Valerius the bishop, disciple of St. Peter the apostle. In any way, I say, he seems to favor it. For these things are read of Valerius alone; of Maternus there is no mention through the whole Martyrology, nor any either, if Rosweyde has judged rightly, of Eucharius, whose announcement at the day VIII of December, conceived in these words, On the same day, at Trier, the deposition of St. Eucharius, bishop and confessor, he relegated to the Appendix as not proper to Ado. That silence about St. Maternus, and most probably about Eucharius too, appeared to me so wonderful that the suspicion presently came upon me whether that very discipleship of St. Peter ascribed to Valerius had not come to Ado from elsewhere. Nay, you say, it is not probable that it came from elsewhere, on this ground, that if anyone out of love for the church of Trier had added Valerius as a disciple of St. Peter to Ado's Martyrology, he would assuredly not have neglected either Eucharius or Maternus. Rightly indeed: but on the contrary, if the mission of St. Valerius by St. Peter was sufficiently clear to Ado himself, how did the mission of SS. Eucharius and Maternus by the same Apostle lie hidden from him; or why did he so pass them by — certainly St. Maternus — that he did not even grant him a place in the Martyrology?

[42] how most of the patrons of the opposite opinion expound this; For the rest, those who set themselves against that discipleship expound Ado's text about St. Valerius in various ways. There are those who would have that mission by St. Peter understood in an improper sense; not, that is, that Valerius was sent by St. Peter himself while yet surviving, but by one of St. Peter's successors, or by the See of St. Peter — in which manner de Cordes judged of the mission of St. Martial, the first bishop of Limoges, in his Dissertation, inserted by our men in tom. V of June from page 538: Since, he says at num. 18, the Roman Church has always been called the See of Peter, those who were sent as legates from that See have been said to have been sent by Peter; although they came from Peter's successors long ages after: which, being manifest in several places of writers, is confirmed by the dignity of Boniface, sent as legate into Germany by Gregory II for the sake of the Gospel, who is called the Envoy of St. Peter in the Letter of Charles Martel, and in chapter 2, book V of the Capitularies. Nearly the same was the mind of Castellan in his Annotations to the first two months of the Roman Martyrology rendered into French; for at page 451, observing with Solier praised above that in the Hieronymian transcripts St. Valerius is not distinguished by that formula, Of the ancients, which is the mark of the bishops of the first and second century, he at length pronounces thus: And so, when he (Valerius) is marked by Ado with the title of disciple of St. Peter, it is to be taken in this sense, either that he was appointed by the See of St. Peter, or that he followed or carried out those things which are proposed for observance in the Letters of St. Peter.

[43] The most illustrious von Hontheim, among the other ways which he shows how Hontheim does, according to whose exposition of weakening the strength sought from Ado by the adversaries, assigns also the following: namely, that Ado could have been deceived by that popular rumor which already flourished in the tenth century. Nevertheless, since on that hypothesis I do not sufficiently perceive why Ado should have passed over SS. Eucharius and Maternus, the other conjecture of the most illustrious man pleases me more, expressed in these words: Perhaps also the name of Valerius, which is read in St. Clement of Rome's First Epistle to the Corinthians, gave him (Ado) occasion to write that our Valerius, altogether different from that one, was a disciple of Blessed Peter. On this hypothesis it can be admitted that nothing was added to Ado from elsewhere, and that nothing is to be taken in an improper sense. Besides, in this way one somehow conceives how Ado mentioned neither Eucharius nor Maternus. For he did not find them noted in the Hieronymian Martyrology, of which Solier contends that he had a copy, as he had found Valerius. Nay, since Ado composed his Martyrology before the year 860, as Solier contends after Mabillon, Castellan and others, in the Preface to Usuard, num. 151, if anyone should please to add conjectures to conjectures, he could not ineptly suspect that the report of St. Valerius's discipleship under St. Peter, begun by Ado in the manner already proposed, flowed down to Usuard and Notker, both more recent than Ado, but not long so, and copiers of him in many places, and hence also to the monks of St. Matthias of Trier, namely Eberhard, who composed the Lives of SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus and ceased to live in the year 909. The origin of the report of the discipleship of St. Peter in Valerius being thus for the moment established, it is not hard to conceive that the same discipleship was attributed to SS. Eucharius and Maternus by the said monks of Trier, inasmuch as they judged that the same prerogative was due to these which they had read ascribed to Valerius alone in the said Martyrologies; for — which is to be noted — neither in Notker is there memory of SS. Eucharius and Maternus, nor in Usuard, except in the Auctaria.

[44] Finally, on the same hypothesis we easily attain why Wandelbert, in the same ninth century a monk of Prüm in the diocese of Trier, and Rabanus, from a monk of Fulda made bishop of Mainz, various conjectures are formed about the origin of the tradition. adorned neither Valerius, whom the former alone mentions, nor Eucharius or Maternus with the title of disciple of St. Peter; since, as Solier proves in his Preface to Usuard, each composed his own Martyrology before Ado. And hence it can be further observed that this very hypothesis, in which we have now stuck, is confirmed by so great a silence of two men so near at hand, and that the antiquity of the tradition is not a little weakened, unless strength come to it from elsewhere; which does not seem able to be sought from other Martyrologies, whether printed or manuscript, because, since these are later than those already recounted, what they have about the three bishops is deservedly judged to have flowed from Ado or his followers; or, if they are more ancient — such as the Roman of Rosweyde — they are deeply silent about those same bishops. Not even Bellinus, whose Martyrology was printed at Venice in the year 1498 and at Paris in 1621 under this title, Martyrology according to the usage of the Roman curia, announces Maternus or Eucharius.

[45] The answer of the same Hontheim to the Roman Martyrology But if you should object the authority of the present-day Roman Martyrology, whose announcement at the XIV day is this: At Trier, St. Maternus the bishop, disciple of blessed Peter the apostle, who led the people of Tongres, of Cologne and of Trier, and other neighboring peoples, to the faith of Christ; and nearly like ones at the days XXIX of January and VIII of December about Valerius and Eucharius — the most illustrious von Hontheim answers: What and how great reverence is to be had for the Roman Martyrology, and for that most pious and likewise most learned Cardinal to whose zeal we owe the one which we use today, I am not ignorant. But those very emendations which the most eminent man brought into the ancient Martyrologies, and which he had still determined to apply to his own Martyrology, already several times revised, sufficiently make out that the definitions of Martyrologies did not seem irrefragable even to himself. Which is also the opinion of others, and namely of the most blessed Father Benedict XIV, today happily governing the universal Church of Christ, who in book 4, part 2, chapter 17, nums. 9 and 10, On the Beatification of the Servants of God and the canonization of the Blessed, writes thus: Lastly we assert that the Apostolic See does not judge whatever things have been inserted into the Roman Martyrology to be of unshaken and most certain truth … Which is also excellently gathered from the changes and corrections commanded by that same holy See. For indeed, besides what has been set forth above, we know that Cardinal Leandro Colloredo prepared many things for a new expurgation of the Roman Martyrology; but that, being carried off by death, he could not complete the Work and publish it in print. Nor indeed

do the Apostolic Letters of Gregory XIII prefixed to the Roman Martyrology press the point, in which it is said that the Roman Martyrology has been emended, and that it is to be read in choir, and that no other is to be published with anything in any matter diminished, enlarged, or changed. For from this it is not rightly inferred that each and every error has been removed from the Martyrology; nor can it be said that men skilled in ecclesiastical History are forbidden to have recourse to the holy See, if the foundations of a new correction be at hand: which is gathered from the very discipline of the holy See, which even after the Apostolic Letters of Gregory XIII mentioned above commanded and admitted new corrections of the Martyrology.

[46] is confirmed by the authority of many. In the same chapter are brought forward several examples of corrections, assuredly of great moment, in which a title attributed to certain persons as Saint was afterwards changed, or the very name of him who was commemorated as a Saint was expunged from the Martyrology: nor nevertheless is its authority judged to have been diminished even thus, and accordingly it is not to be diminished here, where the question is not of the sanctity of the three bishops, but only of the circumstances of the time in which they came to Trier, and of the person by whom they are said to have been sent — matters which depend very much on the credit of the authors or monuments from which they came into the Martyrology; especially if the matters are separated from us by so great an interval of time. Launoy, in the Dissertation on the Passage of Sulpicius Severus, §29, says: Galesinius first inserted Maternus into the Roman Martyrology which he revised (in the sixteenth century, while Gregory XIII sat as Pope), and he not only inserted him, but set him down as a disciple of blessed Peter. And after a few words: In that (Martyrology) which appeared at Padua before the year 1500 and at Venice in the year 1549, no Maternus appears — so far is it from anyone being there called a disciple of blessed Peter. And certainly the praised Galesinius, in his notations, in which he commonly assigns whence the things contained in the Martyrology have been sought, refers for St. Maternus to no ancient Fasti, but only to the Tables of Trier, to Demochares and to Eisengrein.

[47] From the Martyrologies we proceed to the Papal Bulls, Answer is made to the Bulls and diplomas to which likewise some asserters of the first opinion appeal: nevertheless, since those Bulls, as will presently appear, do not go beyond the tenth century, and since our men have laboriously handled a like matter — especially Papebroch in the Responses to the exhibition of Fr. Sebastian of St. Paul, part 1, Art. 2, §§10 and 14, where he set forth clearly enough what according to the theologians may without irreverence toward the Apostolic See be judged concerning historical facts which do not pertain to a matter of faith, of morals or of rites, and which are reported in Bulls of this kind, without definition, only from another's account and from the common opinion for the time — lest I do what is already done, I shall simply recite what the most illustrious von Hontheim has here, whence the reader may know both the Bulls themselves and his answer to them; he writes thus: Of graver weight (than the testimonies of other writers of the tenth and eleventh century, of which he had treated) might seem certain Bulls of the Roman Pontiffs and diplomas of emperors of the tenth and eleventh century, in which it is asserted that Blessed Eucharius with Valerius and Maternus was sent to Trier by St. Peter, and that by these the church of Trier was planted. To this belongs the Bull of John XIII of the XXII of January 969, in Brower's Annals of Trier, tom. 1, page 472, and in the great Roman Bullary, tom. IX, page 1, of the Luxembourg edition. Another Bull of Benedict VII of the XVIII of January 975, in Brower cited, tom. 1, page 476. A third of Pope Leo IX of the XIII of April 1049, in the same, page 526. A diploma of the emperor Henry IV of the XIII of July 1066, in Zilles's Defensionale of St. Maximin, part III, page 43. Of these the first, John XIII, asserts that he HAD LONG SINCE LEARNED THIS HISTORY BY HEARING, NAY EVEN BY READING. He could forsooth easily have read it in the writings of Eberhard, monk of St. Matthias, who died in the year 909 (perhaps received from Theodoric archbishop of Trier, who is said in the Bull to have then come to Rome); for the Pontiff does not say that he had read it IN ANCIENT WRITINGS.

[48] That opinion, namely, was then sufficiently spread abroad in the world; which are alleged for the tradition. but an opinion, although it be believed by one or by several, nay by all through several centuries, does not by this acquire new weight, and remains such even if it be transferred into the charters of princes. We shall confirm this by the authority of Sirmond, tom. IV of his Works, page 500, writing thus to Fr. Alexander Wiltheim in another cause indeed, yet a Trevirian one: "As regards therefore the diploma of Dagobert on behalf of St. Maximin, the same judgment, I think, must be made as of all the rest which proceed from Pontiffs or from princes. Each of these obtains force and authority in the things which they enact or which they grant; in the rest, which they narrate as set forth to them by others, they produce no other credit than was that of those who set them forth. But that uncertain and false things are for the most part suggested is beyond doubt." Wherefore also no learned man has hitherto judged that the said Diplomas of Pontiffs and emperors (although they have now been in the public light for a hundred years and more) contribute much to the decision of this question.

§ VI. The Catalogues of the bishops of Trier, brought forward in support of the tradition under dispute, are produced and discussed.

[49] The catalogue of bishops set forth by Brower and others It remains that we examine the catalogues of bishops, especially that of Trier, on which the tradition here disputed is believed chiefly to rest: and that this may duly be done, I set it first, so far as it concerns this matter, in the order in which it is commonly exhibited as transcribed from Brower's Annals:

I. Eucharius.

II. Valerius.

III. Maternus.

IV. Auspicius.

V. Celsus.

VI. Felix.

VII. Mansuetus.

VIII. Clemens.

IX. Moyses.

X. Martinus I.

XI. Anastasius.

XII. Andreas.

XIII. Rusticus I.

XIV. Auctor I.

XV. Mauritius I.

XVI. Fortunatus.

XVII. Cassianus.

XVIII. Marcus.

XIX. Navitus.

XX. Marcellus.

XXI. Metropolus.

XXII. Severinus.

XXIII. Florentius.

XXIV. Martinus II.

XXV. Maximinus.

XXVI. Valentinus.

XXVII. Agritius.

Behold for you, say some of those who contend for the tradition, a series of six and twenty bishops who governed the church of Trier down to Agritius, whom by the common consent of the learned today it is established to have governed it in the year 314, against the calculations of Brower, who defers the beginnings of Agritius to the year 327: and this indeed, they add, contributes very much to the glory of this church, which amid so many and so great persecutions, devastations, and burnings preserved by an altogether peculiar benefit the names of its pastors; whereas most other tables of the churches of Germany and Gaul commonly suffer a gap of one century or of another.

[50] is not proved older than the Trevirian History; Many things again can be objected here, and are objected by the patrons of the opposite opinion: and first indeed the recited catalogue of bishops will appear not so very commendable, if to those who inquire after its first source, or if you will, the most ancient monument from which it was drawn, a halt must be made at the Trevirian History (and that a halt must truly be made there they themselves contend, nor do the adversaries make out the contrary), which is fitted to bring it no great weight either from its age or from its authority. The same may be judged of the Methodius of Marianus Scotus, an author of uncertain time, and, as the suspicion is, a transcriber of the Trevirian History. See above nums. 32 and 33. This difference, however, there is between the Methodius of Marianus and the said History, that he in his enumeration suppresses the names of the eight later bishops and after Marcus adds these particles: And very many others; and besides assigns Celsus or Serenus, not expressed in the Trevirian History, as successor to Auspicius. Nor should you say that a halt is by no means to be made at these, but that we must proceed further to the most certain relation of the Elders and to the older little charters snatched from the Norman destruction, of which above at num. 29: for what was answered at the number cited holds place likewise here.

[51] Besides, what would you judge of authors who, after they had composed a copious but fable-crammed History of the deeds of the three first prelates, there are many things, annex about twenty successors, all martyrs, all buried in the church of St. Eucharius, of whom they acknowledge that they had learned neither the origin, nor the country, nor any deeds, nor the beginning or end of the episcopate, nor the kind of death, nor finally anything besides the names? Let us give the very words of the Trevirian History in Calmet and in others. After the death of St. Maternus has been narrated in chapter 26, chapter 27 thus begins: Then a certain Auspicius held the rule of the church; then, by lawful successions, there arose men distinguished and strong in sanctity and grace, Felix (and the rest enumerated above down to Agritius), of whom the last eight (Navitus or Avitus, etc.) are known to have presided also over the church of Tongres. All of whom at diverse times, industrious and illustrious not only in their own province but also in the furthest and remotest parts, existing not only by confession but even by martyrdom, conquered the kingdoms of tyrants — which bishops, namely, are all believed to be buried in the church of St. Eucharius. But in the times of what emperors or consuls each of them was renowned, and what ends their life had, and how many years each administered the office of the pontificate, or how much each enlarged the revenues of his church — because the overthrow of all Gaul wrought by the Huns and the Northmen has abolished these things, let not the demand of any of our readers require it of us; since even before, under the dreadful ten persecutions in which they lived, fame was less able by the zeal of writers to perpetuate their memory by publishing it.

[52] Is it not now lawful to suspect — which will appear more clearly from what is to be said hereafter — which that those names of bishops were fetched from elsewhere, more probably from the diptychs of other churches, and transferred into the Trevirian catalogue to this end, that, the gap of nearly two hundred years being removed, the tradition of a mission by St. Peter might come out more plausible? For to this that seemed less suitable which is read in the same chapter of the Trevirian History; namely, that when Maternus was dead, the Treviri lost the belief of the right faith and returned for the greatest part to the former vomit of paganism: or what is said more generally by the biographer of St. Agritius in our tom. 1 of January, page 775, in these words: For as we have gathered by diligent computation, we know that there were two hundred and one years between the glorious departure of St. Maternus from this world and the happy entrance of Blessed Agricius into this city; during which space of time the episcopate of this see ceased, the pagans holding the city itself. Hontheim thinks that this author was Lambert of Liège, a monk of St. Matthias of Trier, and that he flourished in the middle of the twelfth century. And indeed he abundantly betrays that he is not much more ancient than that, since in chapter 5, writing of the matter as of something long since past, he mentions Otto I, and notes that there were three emperors of that name.

[53] Hence indeed you may conjecture either that in the said century the report was not so celebrated of St. Maternus's

successors down to St. Agritius, for confirming the tradition but that it was unknown to some, or, if known, was not admitted by all; for what would have impelled the biographer already cited to build up a vacancy of the see of nearly two centuries, if he had known its bishops and had truly admitted them as such? But — and you may wonder at it — that succession of bishops was not known even to all the continuators of the Trevirian History, or at least did not appear worthy of credit. Go to chapter LXVII: you will find one of them, who in the same twelfth century wrote out the deeds of Bruno, prelate of the Treviri from the year 1102 to 1124, writing thus: For thus St. Sylvester writes to blessed Agritius, the fourth of the bishops of Trier whose names we have known, etc. Indeed with Calmet I should believe that it is made out from this frank confession of a domestic writer that the names of the twenty bishops who are given as successors to St. Maternus and predecessors to St. Agritius had not yet been devised in that century, did not Heriger and Marianus Scotus — to say nothing of the latter's Methodius, whoever he was — forbid it: since Marianus in the eleventh century had already named fifteen of them, with this clause added: And very many others; and Heriger toward the close of the tenth century the remaining eight, who were believed to have governed at once the church of Trier and that of Tongres.

[54] make it less apt and very suspect of interpolation: Wherefore, unless one should wish that Heriger and Marianus were in these places also interpolated in the twelfth century or later, in the opinion of those who reject that series of St. Maternus's successors there are two things which I should prefer to say. The first is that its inventor was a monk of St. Matthias, more probably, for reasons presently to be given, younger than Eberhard, who is written to have died in the year 909, but older than Goldscher, who from the year 1012 to 1038 had the care of continuing the History of his country. For thus I understand how Heriger, whose death is fixed at the year 1007, and by whom they will have the said History to have been seen, accepted several bishops there ascribed at once to the church of Trier and to that of Tongres; while the Methodius of Marianus drew out his own, and besides added to them St. Celsus on account of the verses found on the sepulchral stone in the year 979 and recited by us from Hontheim at num. 33. The other is that perhaps the Methodius of Marianus himself fabricated the said series of bishops, and that this — that you may perceive it was truly unknown to the monks of Trier of the twelfth century — was adopted only by their successors and enlarged out of Heriger; although on this hypothesis I do not see why they omitted the name of St. Celsus, or why they were so incautious that, after they had inserted the names of the bishops in chapter 27, they did not correct the passage which we gave in the preceding number out of chapter 67, altogether contrary to that catalogue of bishops. But in whatever way at last you explain the matter, we sufficiently conjecture that in the twelfth century those prelates, successors of St. Maternus, were either not known to all — as I was just saying — even of the Trevirian writers, or were not universally admitted as such.

[55] since there exist ancient copies, Further, the suspicion of an interpolation of the Trevirian catalogue is very much increased by the testimony of Calmet in the preliminary Observation to the Trevirian History, published at the end of tom. 1 of the History of Lorraine, which runs thus: We have seen the autograph of this History in the abbey of St. Matthias of Trier, and have collated it with an older and more contracted manuscript, which Theodoric probably used, and which is as it were the foundation and basis of this History. The beginning, and the Lives of the first bishops of Trier, Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus, are read in the same words in both manuscripts; but elsewhere there are various additions and corrections, which we shall assign in the course of the work. Then lower down, in the margin at chapter 27, he notes that in the ancient Trevirian manuscript no mention is made of the succession of bishops from St. Maternus; but that after the burial of this Saint has been related there is a passage straightway to the history of the martyrdom of the soldiers of the Theban legion, and that accordingly the whole of chapter 27 is wanting. The praised author had noted this same thing in the Dissertation on the bishops of Trier prefixed to the said tom. 1, in almost these words: The ancient manuscript of St. Matthias, seen by us in that same abbey, does not speak of those twenty-one bishops, successors of St. Maternus.

[56] Hontheim indeed confesses, who uses this same argument, in which between St. Maternus and Agritius, the bishop of the fourth century, that he made inquiry among the monks of St. Matthias for the more ancient manuscript alleged by Calmet, and did not find it; yet he thinks that it was carried elsewhere, or perhaps still lies hidden in that same place, not easily to be found among the multitude of manuscript volumes, standing in no order, as he himself says, distinguished by no numbers or titles, and not even entered in catalogues or indexes. Then he adds: I am the less doubtfully in suspense about the good faith of that most ample and most religious man (Calmet), because another excellent man, most prudent in these matters, has reported to me that a like copy of the manuscript Deeds, in which likewise there are no names of bishops intermediate between Maternus and Agritius, was seen by him in another place. These testimonies standing — for I see no just reason for rejecting them — it seems to me to follow, as I observed above, that the inventor of the disputed succession, if he was a monk of St. Matthias of Trier, was younger than Eberhard, than whom no older writer of the Trevirian History is acknowledged; since at least one or another copy of the said History, in which the memory of this succession is lacking, is found older than that which Calmet published, and which he says seems to him probably to have been composed by Theodoric and continued by Goldscher. Nay, still adhering to the same hypothesis, it becomes probable to me that the writer of the Deeds of archbishop Bruno in the twelfth century confessed that only the names of SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus down to Agritius were known, because he had not read others in the older copy of the Deeds, and had thought that new catalogues of bishops — if however he had seen them built up by more recent men — were to be neglected, as propped up by no more ancient and credit-worthy testimony.

[57] The same may be judged of the biographer of St. Agritius praised at num. 52: no intermediate one is read. namely, either that he did not have those interpolated catalogues (which I should prefer to believe, because he does not seem to have labored much to distinguish the certain from the uncertain, or the true from the doubtful), or, if he had them, that it seemed to him better to admit so long a vacancy of the see than catalogues of this sort, perhaps afterwards to be repudiated by the more clear-sighted, and likely to harm rather than help the tradition of the discipleship under St. Peter, if namely older and original catalogues, perhaps lying hid somewhere, should be discovered. As the most illustrious von Hontheim judges has really happened, and he calls this the weightiest support of his opinion. For in §5 of his Dissertation he produces a catalogue drawn out of the library of the monastery of St. Ghislain in Hainaut, together with a letter written to him in the French tongue in the year 1747 by the lord Pierre Baudry, Prior of the monastery, who in it testifies that that catalogue, most diligently transcribed by him, is found at the end of the Acts of SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus in a parchment codex of the aforesaid library, marked D D D. But as regards its age, he says that it seems to him not to have been written out later than the eleventh century, and that this is gathered both from the thicker parchment, less bright and polished than was customary in later centuries, and from the antiquity of the character. We shall give it in the following §.

§ VII. An ancient catalogue is exhibited, contrary to those hitherto published and to the tradition itself.

[58] The catalogue, most recently published by Hontheim, The said catalogue, which Mabillon also, in tom. 1 of the Benedictine Annals, page 487, intimates was seen by him and calls ancient, exhibits the bare names of the bishops of Trier without any note of time, and seems unimpaired at the beginning, but is mutilated at the end: the praised Baudry alleges the cause, writing thus: Since that catalogue is very ancient and placed on the last page of the codex, time that consumes all things and the roughness of the cover have so eaten away the names of certain prelates that several are wholly obliterated, others in half: I speak of those which are on the reverse face of the page, that is, the one nearest the cover of the codex. It will not be beside the purpose to transfer it hither entire, as it stands in Hontheim, § V of the Dissertation.

Here begin in order the names of the bishops of the Treviri.

[60] is indeed worn away at the end by age To this catalogue, besides what here properly pertains to our purpose, we notice three things. The first is that here and there, as often happens in ancient charters, the names of the prelates are written otherwise than in the other catalogues, and are not everywhere placed in the same order: thus Quirillus is elsewhere Cyrillus; thus Rusticus is elsewhere placed after Nicetius. The second, that Auctor, who in others is set between Legontius and Severus; Hidulf, who between Milo and Wiomad; Hamelanus or Hamelarius, who between Wizo and Hetti; and who are certainly believed to have presided over the church of Trier — have here no place, nor is any space left for inserting them. About Hidulf, more probably however to be placed between Numerianus and Basinus, Hontheim suspects that this happened because, having abdicated the episcopate, he closed his last day in the monastery of Moyenmoutier, since, he says, in ancient catalogues of bishops the omission of those who did not die in their own see is frequent: but no less frequent is the inadvertence of copyists in transcribing catalogues. The third is that the worn and mutilated, nay utterly eaten-away names can without difficulty be restored and the vacancy assigned filled up out of other catalogues — if you except Rubert [*], the last of all, at which indeed I am at a stand.

[61] Hontheim understands Ludolf, whom he notes in the margin as read in some manuscript as Rudolf, but at the beginning is to be preferred to the others; bishop from the year 994 to 1008, and thence believes that the catalogue of St. Ghislain is more ancient than the catalogue cited by our Elders commonly under the name of the Queen of Sweden's; since this last ends in Egilbert, only elected to the infulæ of Trier in the year 1078. I confess that when I consider this catalogue of the Queen of Sweden, set forth by the praised most illustrious man from a manuscript codex of the Vatican library, tom. 3 of his Work, page 962, I presently see that the two successors of Henry, whose names in the St. Ghislain catalogue are mutilated, were Theodoric and Eckbert; but so slight an affinity appears to me between the word Ludolfus, which follows next in the Queen of Sweden's catalogue, or, if you prefer, Rudolfus, and Rubert [], that some suspicion is left that Rubert [] grew together out of Egilbert, and that the names intermediate between Eckbert and Egilbert — Ludolf, Meingaud, Poppo, Eberhard, Udo — were perhaps, save for a few letters, utterly obliterated in the codex of St. Ghislain; which could more easily be determined if there were opportunity of consulting the said codex. For the rest, I willingly assent to Hontheim that the catalogue of the library of St. Ghislain is more genuine, and probably more ancient than all the rest, even on this head, that it lacks

the twenty and more successors of St. Maternus, bishops and martyrs.

[62] Beware, however, of turning back upon me what I was just intimating about the inadvertence of copyists; to which besides the reckoning of the time for it is one thing to pass over one or two in a long series, another to pass over so great a number of bishops at a single stroke, and precisely those about whom the controversy is, and whom two domestic writers of the twelfth century did not know — the continuator of the Trevirian History and the biographer of St. Agritius, praised at num. 52; in a word, men whom you would find mentioned in no author earlier than the ninth century as bishops of Trier and martyrs. Meanwhile, if you believe the Methodius of Marianus, all of them, illustrious not only by confession but also by martyrdom, conquered even the kingdoms of tyrants: which very same words you have likewise in the Trevirian History, chapter 27, said not only of the first fifteen but also of the eight later ones, who are asserted to have presided at once over the church of Tongres and that of Trier. Nay, there are not wanting those who will have the first fifteen carried off by martyrdom within so small a space of time that Navitus, substituted about the year 128 or 130 immediately after St. Maternus at Tongres, after their death took up the care of the church of Trier also about the year 180 or even earlier. How little these things agree with the saying of Sulpicius Severus, that martyrdoms were first seen within the Gauls under Aurelius the son of Antoninus, there is no one who does not see. Besides, I shall not easily persuade myself that persecutions raged at Trier and in the neighboring places so constantly that fifteen bishops in all were carried off there in so tiny a space of time, and not even one at Tongres. There is added that between the years of Christ 130 and 180 Antoninus Pius held the empire for about twenty-three years, in which time there was peace for the churches, on the testimony of the same Sulpicius, book 2 of the History.

[63] Call now to mind the preceding times, and wonder in how unlike a manner it fared with the three earlier prelates of the Treviri, and the state if credit is to be given to their biographer, to the Methodius of Marianus, to Heriger, to the Trevirian Historian: In the year therefore of the Lord's Incarnation 54 — the words are the Historian's in Calmet — and in the IX of the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in the VIII year of the Episcopate of blessed Peter the apostle at Rome, St. Eucharius, the third in order of the LXX-two disciples of the Lord, with his companions Valerius and Maternus, having been directed to preach to the Gallic nations, came at last to Trier. Overcoming the battle-line of its unbelief, he obtained the citadel of the true religion, and held the pontificate of that city for XXIII years. (Now he died on the VI of the Ides of December, and) he was buried in the church of blessed John the Evangelist, which he himself had built before the middle gate, and round about it he had blessed a cemetery. After whose death Valerius succeeded to the priestly ministry, and ruled it most approvedly for XV years, living holily and preaching the word of life. Of whose preaching so great was the urgency that already then throughout Gaul and Germany the Christians surpassed the pagans both in number and in religion. Now he died on the [ ] of the Kalends of February, and he too was buried in the same church beside the body of St. Eucharius. After whose decease blessed Maternus, taking up the pontifical summit, for XL years faithfully multiplied the talent entrusted to him. He converted the people of Tongres and of Cologne to the faith of Christ, and presided over these three cities by pontifical right.

[64] of the Christian faith Do not, I pray, studious reader, cling to the examination (to which we shall afterwards give place) of the truth or verisimilitude of the several things here related: but, as regards our present purpose, attend how expeditiously, how quietly, how fruitfully those three holy Men are said to have propagated the Gospel among the Gentiles, to have founded churches and bishoprics, and to have governed them for about 78 years. But when? In most troubled times, in the midst of the persecutions of tyrants, under the rule of Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian. These, forsooth, the most atrocious persecutors of the worshippers of Christ, who directed the most cruel decrees against the Christians into all the provinces subject to the Roman empire, or ordered those directed before to be observed, and who wherever they could exercised their savagery against detected Christians — these, meanwhile, are supposed to have looked upon the most flourishing church of Trier (to say nothing of others through Gaul and Germany, in which the Christians surpassed the pagans in number) with a peaceable eye and mind: whereas nevertheless the successors of the said tyrants, as the same historian asserts, so raged against the church of Trier that after the death of Maternus, according to some interpreters of that historian, fifteen bishops obtained the laurel of martyrdom in the course of 50 years, or at least all of them, twenty-two in number in all, before the prelacy of St. Agritius.

[65] is opposed; Let those reconcile these things, assuredly, with whom Methodius, an author of uncertain time but probably not earlier than the tenth century, and the fable-sprinkled Trevirian History, are of such account that Sulpicius Severus obtains no authority; and with whom nothing is fitted to cast any suspicion of the supposititiousness of a catalogue of so many bishops and martyrs — first, those things which are read in the same History about the belief of the right faith lost at Trier after St. Maternus's death and the return to paganism; secondly, what the biographer of St. Agritius hands down about a two centuries' vacancy of the episcopal see; thirdly, what the twelfth-century continuator of the same History professes about the names of bishops between Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus and Agritius not being known to him; fourthly and finally, the ancient catalogue from the codex of the library of St. Ghislain recited at num. 59, and the older copy of the oft-mentioned History seen by Calmet, in which the series of twenty-two or three bishops and martyrs does not appear.

[66] I could wish, however, that they would seriously declare by what fate they think it happened as also the silence about so many martyrs contained in them that not even their names seem to have been known to the supreme Pontiffs and emperors of the tenth and eleventh century cited at num. 47, who, as Hontheim observed before us, when they do good to the church of Trier, declare that they do it for the merits of SS. Eucharius, Valerius, Maternus, Agritius, Maximin, Paulinus, Severus, by no means in honor of Auspicius, Celsus, etc. The same could be asked about the author of the deeds, translation and miracles of St. Maximin, written in the eighth century, as Henschen supposed, and published by him in tom. VII of May, page 21, from a very ancient Parisian manuscript of St. Victor. For that author in two places honorably mentions SS. Eucharius, Valerius, Maternus and Agritius; about Auspicius and the rest he is so silent that you may deservedly judge they were unknown to him, since there would have been sufficient reason and a most apt place for mentioning them, as the reader will perceive from his words to be recited below. But — what is harder than these things — let them declare by what fate it happened that neither in any histories or monuments, nor in Fasti earlier than the ninth century, nor in the classic Martyrologies (I mean the genuine ones, purged of the additions of later men), does there exist any notice of so many illustrious bishops and martyrs. I confess it plainly a wonder, says Solier in tom. 2 of July, page 464, treating of St. Navitus, that so many holy bishops of Trier, who in the first three centuries alone are numbered at one and twenty, could be neglected by those classic martyrologists who have mentioned other neighboring Saints, if truly they all occupied that see with the glory of sanctity.

[67] They will perhaps say that the cause of this silence is assigned in the Trevirian History itself, in ancient monuments namely persecutions and the destructions of the city, and especially, because the overthrow of all Gaul wrought by the Huns and the Northmen has abolished these things. But whence did the author or interpolator of the Trevirian History, and the Methodius of Marianus, dig out names of bishops of Trier unknown to all antiquity, and whence their martyrdoms? It is worth while here again to bring forward the words of the most illustrious Hontheim: This was not brought about by these tumults (of the persecutions), that the knowledge of other true prelates should not be preserved for us in documents venerable in their age and indeed common to the whole church. Gregory of Tours speaks of Eucharius; the Martyrology of Jerome and other classic Martyrologies of Valerius; Eusebius, Optatus of Milevis and others of Maternus; the Acts of the council of Arles of Agritius; Athanasius, Jerome and the rest of Maximin; the same together with Hilary of Paulinus; the councils of Valence and of Rome of Britonius; Sulpicius Severus of Felix, etc. And shall all be silent about those twenty-two intermediate men alone, and that, be it noted, in a single series? Who would believe it, or, without suitable witnesses, persuade even the little prudent of it? Thus far he.

[68] The praised most illustrious man, then recounting nine of the twenty-two or three disputed bishops and in the Trevirian Fasti themselves who occur in the present-day Breviary and Offices of the church of Trier — Celsus, Fortunatus, Navitus, Auspicius, Valentinus, Martinus, Marcellus, Metropolus, Severinus — proves at length that their names were inscribed in the Kalendars of the said city and in other ecclesiastical monuments after the eleventh century, and yet that they were not all celebrated with an annual festivity in the thirteenth century — understand the nine already enumerated; which I add because I do not perceive why a festivity was granted to these rather than to the rest, since by Methodius and the Trevirian historian all are equally said to have been illustrious by confession and by martyrdom, nor is anything brought forward from more ancient writers whence you may elicit the sanctity of the nine named, as prelates of Trier, any more than that of the others whose annual festivity is not cherished. Some of the nine bishops mentioned have been treated in our Work, and the same which Hontheim proves has commonly been observed. Thus at the day VIII of July Solier said of St. Auspicius of Trier, of whom he treats, not only that he is not consigned to the ancient or classic Fasti, but that he is nowhere mentioned even in the more ancient Kalendars and Martyrologies of the city of Trier and of St. Maximin, and that the first mention of him stands in the enlarged Usuard of the Lübeck-Cologne edition of the year 1490, in these words: At Trier, St. Auspicius, bishop and confessor.

[69] of Trier — At the day X of June, in the Prætermissa, concerning St. Fortunatus, of whom there is likewise memory in the praised auctarium of Usuard as of a confessor, Papebroch opened his mind candidly enough, writing thus: St. Fortunatus is reported as bishop of Trier and confessor in the Kalendar and Lectionary of that church of the year 1645, and the third lesson is ordered to be recited from the common, with the rite of a simple Office. He was taken from the Trevirian Chronicle, very fabulous at its beginning, where after Mauritius Fortunatus is named, and each is reckoned to have sat about the years 240 and 250, when Brower treats of them. To us the existence of both is doubtful, and we think the day was taken from the day on which Amalarius Fortunatus died, of whom presently below. Here we stop; for to repeat what has been said of each, or to set forth what should thereafter be said, would beget weariness both to us and to our readers, and would confer little profit. For indeed the more deeply we look into this matter, the more doubtful and less probable does the pretended succession of prelates of Trier between Maternus and Agritius come out, and the less fit to bring aid to the tradition of St. Maternus's mission by St. Peter.

* read Ruobert

* read Ruobert

§ VIII. The catalogues of the bishops of Tongres and of Cologne bring no strength to the tradition of St. Maternus's mission by St. Peter.

[The eight successors of St. Maternus at Tongres, taken from the Trevirian catalogues] No more fit for strengthening the tradition are the catalogues of Tongres and of Cologne. For the Tongres catalogues have no author or witness older than Heriger of Lobbes, whom we have said more probably borrowed the eight bishops who succeeded St. Maternus down to St. Servatius from the Trevirian historian, who signifies that they presided over Tongres and Trier at once. Besides, the praised Heriger affirms of his men of Tongres, in almost the same words, what the historian had confessed about the twenty-two or three of Trier — except the laurel of martyrdom ascribed to those of Trier. Thus he has it: After his (Maternus's) decease there succeeded him in the pontificate in order, Navitus, Marcellus, Metropolus, Severinus, Florentius, Martinus, Maximinus, Valentinus. And in the time of what emperors or consuls these were renowned, or what ends the life of each had, and how many years each administered the office of the pontificate, or which is the place of burial of any of them — let no man's demand require it of us, since the overthrow wrought by the Huns has abolished the memory of the churches of all Gaul.

[71] Giles of Orval, later by a good two centuries, betrays himself in his additions as having discovered certain things unknown to Heriger. taken from Heriger, Giles of Orval Of Navitus he hands down the following: After the decease of blessed Maternus they succeeded him in the pontificate in order. A precious man and most worthy of all praise, blessed Navitus, arose as second bishop. He converted many to the faith, as they saw the signs and miracles which the Lord did through him. Who, after he had governed the priesthood for many years, namely sixty and more, passed to the Lord in a good old age, and was buried in the city of Tongres. He flourished under the Apostolic lords Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus and Pius, in whose third year he died. Then, after a brief elogium of the rest, he repeats the words of Heriger recited in the preceding number, suppressing however this clause, or which is the place of burial of any of them; and he closes in this manner chapter 17, which he added: With that overthrow (by the Huns) impending, blessed Servatius, of whom we are about to speak, translated their bodies, buried in the city of Tongres, to Maastricht, and buried them honorably in the crypt where he himself was afterwards buried, together with many other relics of Saints which he had translated from the city of Tongres. Nor is it to be passed over that these eight bishops already named are read to have presided also over the church of Trier. Thus Giles, but without surety or witness, and without verisimilitude, as I indeed judge, even in the opinion of those who repeat the beginnings of the episcopate from the first century.

[72] For these bind the death of St. Maternus to the year 130, and Joannes Placentius adorned with fables, as Heriger has it, or 128, as they have read in others. How then did Navitus, the successor of Maternus, after he had governed the priesthood or episcopate for sixty years and more, die in the third year of Pope Pius, whose first year no one, so far as I know, places later than the year of Christ 158? More than this did Joannes Placentius of Saint-Trond dare, or perhaps some unskilled writer not much older whom he followed, in the Catalogue of all the prelates of the Tungri, of Maastricht and of Liège, where, having narrated the death of St. Maternus — after SS. Eucharius and Valerius the first prelate of Trier, then of Cologne, and lastly of the Tungri — he says that Navitus, the son of a duke of the Gauls and nephew by a brother of the king of the Tungri, most highly commended by the dying Maternus, was elected by the suffrages of all in the year of Salvation one hundred and thirty-one, and, after he had gloriously discharged his office for forty years, died in the year of Salvation one hundred and ninety, on the twelfth of the Kalends of October, and was buried at Tongres. An enormous error in the computation of the years betrays itself of its own accord. Further, as of Navitus, so also of Maternus — whom he fables to have been a Lombard and the son of a count of Pavia — and of the country, family, time of the see and deeds of the remaining seven prelates down to St. Servatius, he pronounces so confidently and so unskillfully that he would move to laughter anyone even slightly tinctured with the first rudiments of antiquity and of historical and chronological matters, as anyone will presently confess who shall wish to go to his little lucubration, published about the year 1529 from the Antwerp press, or, in default of it, to consult tom. 3 of the enlarged Gallia Christiana, col. 809, where the matters pertaining hither, from a manuscript of an anonymous author written about the year 1506, have been contracted into a compendium and hissed off the stage.

[73] as more recent writers confess, who wonderfully torment themselves, Foullon, who with Brower, Fisen and other writers of Trier and Liège deservedly judged that those little fables, admitted by a few of the less clear-sighted, are to be sent far away, adds about Giles of Orval that he pronounced rashly about the duration of St. Navitus's episcopate, and that he does not discern whence that author divined what he handed down about the same Saint's burial at Tongres, or where he found other things no better ascertained from elsewhere, and not before discovered by Heriger, who was assuredly more sagacious and more ancient. But it is a wonder into what diverse opinions both the praised writers and others have been cast by, first, the words of the Trevirian historian, testifying that Navitus presided at once over the church of Trier and that of Tongres after Maternus and his fifteen successors; secondly, of Heriger, indicating that the same Navitus succeeded to the bishopric of Tongres immediately after Maternus's decease; and finally of Giles, confirming both. For some, desiring that nothing be derogated from the authority of these, have established the succession in this order. When Maternus died about the year 129 or 130, Auspicius was substituted at Trier, Navitus at Tongres. But when Auspicius and fourteen others of Trier had been crowned with martyrdom, in the space of 30 years according to the author of the Great Belgic Chronicle, or of 50 according to others, as I intimated above in a word, Navitus, surviving, took up the rule of both peoples, and held it until the year 180 or 190 — for not even about the duration of the see is there agreement among these.

[74] that they may find a probable way of succession. To others it has seemed more probable that the churches remained united, as they were in St. Maternus's age, and accordingly they grant to Auspicius and his fourteen successors a place in the catalogue of the bishops of Tongres equally as in that of Trier; and besides, not acknowledging Navitus as a disciple of St. Maternus and removing him further from his times, after the middle of the third century, to which they extend the lives of Auspicius and the others and the duration of the see, they number him not as the second prelate of Tongres, but as the nineteenth of both united sees. Others finally go off plainly in a different direction; for they deny that Auspicius and the remaining fourteen ever presided over the church of Tongres, or Navitus and seven others ever over that of Trier; but they say that the former obtained the pastoral care at Trier from Maternus down to Agritius, and the latter at Tongres from the same Maternus down to Servatius, and that they were ineptly mixed in with the bishops of Trier by the author of the Trevirian History. There are, besides those, some who try to loosen the most intricate knot somewhat otherwise; but because these, wherever at last they turn, at length at some point fall in with one or the other way of exposition already reported, I forbear to report them. These things suffice for you to notice how greatly those very men torment themselves and disagree among themselves who believe the mission of our Saint to have been made by St. Peter — lest, namely, they be compelled to admit a void of nearly two centuries in the episcopal sees: of these same bishops the discussion will recur at § X.

[75] [The catalogues of Cologne are purer, contrary to what Gelenius thinks, between St. Maternus] Most writers on the affairs of Cologne, although they likewise refer the beginnings of their church to St. Maternus as a disciple of St. Peter, do not so laboriously avoid the void just mentioned. There have not been wanting, however, those who have tried in some way to fill even that. Thus Ægidius Gelenius, in book 1, syntagma 5, On the Greatness of Cologne, assigns to St. Maternus, whom he calls the first and who died about the year 128 or 130, two successors indeed, but ones whose names and deeds were obliterated by the disasters of Cologne; as third successor he sets Blessed Aquilinus about the year 237, and thence he proceeds to the year 312, in which he places Maternus the second of that name, and he says that his prelacy was taken up by Euphrates, and then by St. Severinus, who died about the beginnings of the fifth century. The praised author in the same place, syntagma 6, exhibits a series of bishops somewhat different from this; in it St. Maternus is first; II an anonymous, by some believed to be St. Paulinus the martyr, to which opinion he does not subscribe; III an anonymous, by others called Charentinus, but him he himself sets only as the twelfth; IV Blessed Aquilinus; V an anonymous; VI Maternus II, whom nevertheless he openly professes to be omitted in the ancient catalogues — which he could truly have professed of the others also, as I indeed gather from the things which manifestly oppose him.

[76] For, to say nothing of the Great Belgic Chronicle, in which it is read that after the death of St. Maternus down to Euphrates and St. Severinus, or rather Euphrates, no one is found who presided over the church of Cologne; and of the Catalogue of the prelates of Cologne composed by Petrus Merssæus Cratepolius, where the Ubii are said, when Maternus died, to have gone over to paganism and gentile abominations, and to have been without a lawful bishop for 244 years — these things, I say, to pass over, there stands in Heinrich Meibom the younger, tom. 2 of the Writers on German affairs, page 4, a catalogue of the archbishops of Cologne collected by Levold of Northof in the fourteenth century, and published in the tenor in which he himself found it, with nothing added, or corrected, or in any way changed; and in it from St. Maternus, the first bishop, down to St. Severinus no one intermediate is placed — not even Euphrates, to whom, because he was believed to have been a heretic, a place in the catalogue was not granted, and down to whom, on Levold's testimony, no one is found to have presided over the church of Cologne.

[77] To this is added the Life of St. Gereon M. in Surius at the day X of October, whom some wrongly by heresy in which the following words are read: Therefore St. Maternus, bishop of the Treviri, the first pastor of Cologne, ruled it with worthy governance, whose life the writings of his deeds record to have been renowned for many virtues. The third prelate of this see of those known to us, the successor of St. Severinus the confessor of Christ, was named Evergislus. I know that the collector of this Life — from ancient records, however, according to Baronius's mind — Helinand, a monk of Froidmont of the Cistercian Order in the bishopric of Beauvais, flourished only at the beginning of the thirteenth century; but the younger he is, the more apt he appears to me for confirming what we maintain, namely that at that time those bishops of Cologne between Maternus and Severinus whom some with Gelenius produce were not yet known. But Helinand does not mention Euphrates, probably for the same reasons for which Levold excluded him from his Catalogue. Like reasons are also indicated in the historical Sermon on St. Severinus, which the same Surius published from ancient manuscripts at the day XXIV of October, in these words: And it was brought about by the wonderful dispensation of almighty God, that Severinus, the herald of the eternal Judge, should not succeed Euphrates, the teacher of a most wicked perversity (above he had called him a hireling, not a pastor); but that, the author of the pestiferous seed having been expelled and exterminated,

there should exist a successor of Maternus, that most valiant champion and most vigilant propagator of the Christian faith, unlike neither in faith nor in doctrine.

[78] But that those reasons, on account of which these and other writers thought that the name of Euphrates was to be erased from the roll of the bishops, rest on a false foundation, is today the opinion of very many, and the better one, who deny that the said Euphrates was ever either infected with heresy to have been infected, or condemned in the council of Cologne, which is believed to have been celebrated in the year of Christ 346. Since the same Euphrates not only was present at the council of Sardica of the year 347 with most of the Gallic bishops by whom he is read to have been condemned before in the Acts of Cologne, but also was chosen with Vincentius bishop of Capua to approach the emperor in the name of all the Fathers of Sardica, as St. Athanasius testifies, whose cause was being pleaded, in his letter to those leading the solitary life: When, he says, bishops had been sent on an embassy by the holy council — Vincentius of Capua, which is the metropolis of Campania, and Euphrates of Cologne, which is the metropolis of upper Gaul — that in accordance with the decrees of the synod the emperor Constantius might suffer the bishops whom he had himself cast out to return to their sees, and to that same purpose letters having been given by the most pious Constans to his brother, in which he commended the bishops to him.

[79] they have written, that the bishops of the fourth century, It is not credible, say the defenders of Euphrates, that he who in the year 346 had been shamefully condemned and cast down from his see because he had denied the divinity of Christ, as is written in those same Acts of Cologne, should after so short a time have been chosen out of so many bishops to discharge a most honorable embassy, even granting that he had laid aside the heresy; wherefore, since no suspicion can arise concerning the testimony of St. Athanasius, Baronius at the year 346 believes that the Acts of the Cologne synod labor vehemently under the suspicion of imposture; Henschen, in tom. III of May, page 210, judges that another name crept into the text, either falsely substituted by some smatterer, or by an unskilled copyist deformed far from the truth. There are those who loosen this knot otherwise, as may be seen in those who have handled that matter; we have thought this brief digression should be made, lest, while we cite here Levold, Helinand and others, the reader should judge that whatever they themselves have related is admitted by us; for they could be deceived by corrupt Acts, but in this they may safely be believed, when they assert that from Maternus down to Euphrates, or, he being excluded, down to Severinus, the bishops are unknown to them.

[80] do not exhibit an intermediate bishop. Let us add to these another writer on the sacred affairs of Cologne, Erhard Winheim the Carthusian, who absolutely signifies that no bishops presided over that church from St. Maternus down to St. Severinus, in the Sacrarium Agrippinæ, written and committed to the press at Cologne at the beginning of the century just past. For that author, at page 6 and following, writes that that city is to be extolled above all the rest, both on account of various prerogatives, and because, always remaining unshaken in the faith it had received, even for the space of 313 years — that is, from the death of St. Maternus down to the times of St. Severinus — bereaved of a pastor, with fifteen Roman families intervening, brought by Trajan to be garrison-troops of the city, it persevered constant, aided from above, in preference to others who had pastors but failed. Splendidly said indeed, but neither probably nor, if you attend to the particulars, truly. Since it is certain that some Maternus, whether he was the first or the second, wore the infulæ of Cologne about the year 313; and accordingly, even adhering to Winheim's opinion about the first Maternus, who died about the year 128 or 130, that church was not bereaved of a pastor for the space of 313 years.

[81] Finally, that you may perceive further how destitute of all foundation is Gelenius's series of the first bishops, the testimonies must be heard of men who have most diligently searched out the records of Cologne, and about whom the most illustrious Hontheim reports the following in his Dissertation, § VI: About the Chronicles of Cologne, that plainly excellent man and most zealous student of the antiquities of his country, Joseph Hartzheim, S.J., doctor of Cologne, had written this to me in a familiar letter from Cologne on the V of January 1744. "I have seven more ancient Chronicles of Cologne, unpublished: they mention Maternus alone; then a lacuna of three centuries; thereafter Severinus appears in the fourth century. Wherefore, if we must stand by them, we shall be compelled to confess an immense interval, and one indeed empty of bishops, between Maternus and Severinus." With like sincerity concerning all the ancient monuments Fr. Michael Mörckens, an alumnus of the Charterhouse of Cologne, in which, on the testimony of the Bibliotheca Coloniensis of the just-praised Hartzheim, page 232, for fifty-eight years he joined the cultivation of the history of Cologne to sacred asceticism; he, I say, Mörckens, in the Chronological Attempt at a Catalogue of the archbishops of Cologne, published in the year 1745 with the approbation of the Ordinary of Cologne, page V: "Nor after Maternus," he says, "do I find anything, not even the names of his successors; and those things which a later age boasts to have discovered, a better mind does not admit in this learned and critical age."

§ IX. Maternus, who was most celebrated in the fourth century, is more probably not different from ours.

Maternus, bishop of Cologne, who in the fourth century That the chair of Cologne was occupied about the year 313, as I said in the preceding §, by a prelate whose name was Maternus, is today so far certain that he is blind in broad daylight who would dare to call it into doubt; wherefore I would not have you judge that the things to be mentioned about him are brought forward by me here as though I intended thus to prove what is clear to all the learned; but only to this end, that I may exhibit who and how great a man he was, and set forth what can most probably be concluded from it for our purpose. Receive therefore a compendium of the history, proved by the testimonies of contemporaries, in which Maternus of Cologne played a part illustrious among few. When Mensurius, bishop of the Carthaginians in Africa, had ended his life, Cæcilian, archdeacon of the same church, was by lawful suffrages elected and ordained successor: but when he sought back the sacred vessels which Mensurius, summoned to Rome, had before his departure deposited with the elders of the church, these, not bearing that that treasure should be snatched from them, rise up against Cæcilian, charge him as guilty of many crimes, and indeed pretend that his ordination was faulty; because they falsely alleged that Felix of Aptunga, by whom he had been consecrated, had been a traditor — so were called those who in the persecution had handed over the sacred Codices to the unbelievers to be burned. And so they depart from Cæcilian's communion, condemn him in a conventicle, and substitute Majorinus, ordained by Donatus, the author of the schism which took its name from this occasion and began at this time.

[83] Nevertheless several African bishops adhered to Cæcilian, in the cause of Cæcilian against the Donatists, and a vast tumult arose on both sides, so that at length the Donatists, having sent a petition to Constantine the Great, demanded Gallic bishops as judges of the cause. Optatus of Milevis reports the words thus in book 1 On the Schism of the Donatists against Parmenian: We ask you, O Constantine, best of emperors, since you are of a just race, whose father alone among the other emperors did not carry on the persecution, and Gaul is free from this crime; for in Africa there are contentions between us and the other bishops: we petition that your piety command judges to be given us from Gaul. Given by Lucian, Dignus, Nassutius, Capito, Fidentius and the other bishops of the party of Donatus. Optatus subjoins: When these had been read, Constantine answered with full indignation; in which answer he also betrayed their prayers, when he says: "You ask of me a judgment in the world, while I myself await the judgment of Christ." And nevertheless judges were given: Maternus from the city of Cologne, Reticius [*] from the city of Autun, Marinus of Arles.

[84] as is shown from contemporary authors St. Augustine, who handles this controversy between Cæcilian and the Donatists in very many places, confirms what has here been said about the judges, in tom. 2 of the new edition, in letter 43, elsewhere 162, to Glorius, Eusebius and others: For being asked, he says, the emperor sent bishops as judges, who should sit with him (Pope Miltiades, to whom Constantine had remitted the judgment of the cause) and determine what seemed just concerning that whole cause. But Constantine himself expressly sets out the names of the bishops in his Letter to Pope Miltiades, in Eusebius, book 10 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 5, writing in this manner: It has pleased me that the same Cæcilian, together with ten bishops who appear to accuse him, and with ten others whom he shall himself have judged necessary to his cause, should sail to Rome, that there in your presence and in the presence of Reticius, Maternus and Marinus, your colleagues, whom for that cause I have ordered to hasten to Rome, he may be heard, as you know best befits the most holy law.

[85] presided at Rome with the Pontiff, The manner of the matter transacted at Rome the praised bishop of Milevis thus describes: They came to the city of Rome, both those three Gauls and fifteen other Italians: they met in the house of Fausta in the Lateran, in the fourth consulship of Constantine and the third of Licinius (so in the edition of the year 1599; Baronius reads: in the third consulship of Constantine and Licinius, that is, in the year of Christ 313), on the sixth of the Nones of October, the sixth day of the week. When there had sat down Miltiades bishop of the city of Rome, Reticius and Maternus and Marinus, Gallic bishops, and Merocles of Milan, etc. These nineteen bishops sitting together, the cause of Donatus and Cæcilian was set forth in the midst by each. Against Donatus these sentences were pronounced: "That he confessed that he had rebaptized, and had laid hands on lapsed bishops, which is alien from the Church." The witnesses brought forward by Donatus confessed that they had nothing to say against Cæcilian. Cæcilian was pronounced innocent by the sentences of all above mentioned, and by the sentence of Miltiades also, with which the judgment was closed in these words: "Since it is established that Cæcilian is not accused according to their own profession by those who came with Donatus, nor is it established that he has been convicted by Donatus in any part, I deservedly judge that he is to be retained in his ecclesiastical communion with unimpaired standing."

[86] and absolved Cæcilian: Of the council also St. Augustine speaks in several places, and namely in the Breviculus of the Conference, day three, chapter 12, writing thus: Then next were read also the letters of the above-said emperor given to the bishops, where he enjoined upon them the cause of Cæcilian to be heard; and thence in order there began to be read also the episcopal judgment of Melchiades bishop of Rome and of the other Gallic and Italian bishops with him, made in that same city of Rome, … where the accusers of Cæcilian who had been sent denied that they had anything to say against him; where also Donatus of Casæ Nigræ was on the spot convicted of having made a schism at Carthage while Cæcilian was still a deacon, etc. But the Donatists, as is the disposition of heretics, by no means content with that sentence, carried new complaints to Constantine, who, on the testimony of the bishop of Milevis, thus answered: O rabid audacity of fury! As is wont to be done in the causes of the gentiles, they have interposed an appeal.

[87] Nevertheless the schismatics by their own effrontery so far

drove the emperor by their wickedness and then was present at the council of Arles, gathered for the same cause, that for the sake of a fuller examination he assembled a council at Arles in the following year. Hear here again St. Augustine, letter 105, elsewhere 166, to the Donatists: Again your men came to the emperor, and murmured about the judgment in which they had been beaten. For how can a bad litigant praise judges by whose judging he has been beaten? Again, however, the most clement emperor gave other bishops as judges at Arles, a city of Gaul. And letter 43, elsewhere 162: He (Constantine) gave another judgment at Arles, namely of other bishops, not because it was now necessary, but yielding to their perversities and desiring in every way to restrain so great an impudence; for the Christian emperor did not dare so to receive their tumultuous and deceitful complaints as to judge himself concerning the judgment of the bishops who had sat at Rome.

[88] Further, when St. Augustine says that this cause was committed to the examination of other bishops, he was present he is not so to be understood as though those who had given judgment at Rome were not summoned to the synod of Arles, but rather that a greater number of bishops, fetched from every quarter of the Christian world, were joined to them. This is plain not only from this, that the synod was held in the very city of Arles, over which Marinus, one of the three Gauls, presided as bishop, but also from the subscriptions which you have annexed to the canons in Sirmond, tom. 1 of the councils of Gaul, and in others, in which among the Fathers of the Roman council are read Proterius of Capua, Merocles of Milan, Marinus of Arles already mentioned, Reticius of Autun, and Maternus of Cologne, bishops; and the subscription of the last is read thus: Maternus the bishop, Macrinus the deacon, of the city of the Agrippinenses. The names of the same bishops, and Marinus's indeed in the first place, are prefixed to the letter by which, after the condemnation of Donatus and the repeated absolution of Cæcilian, the canons of the council of Arles were offered to St. Sylvester, the successor of Melchiades, to be confirmed and promulgated, and in which the Fathers at the same time intimate how greatly they had desired the presence of the Pontiff himself. But let these things suffice, that we may at length come to what we intend.

[89] Who, considering the things already related even in passing, could produce any tolerably suitable reason and who was renowned for his virtues, is the same why a Man so eminent, of whom there is so honorable a memory in Optatus of Milevis and in Eusebius in the letter of the emperor Constantine — to whom and to his two companions the same emperor, as to men remarkable for the integrity of their life and for their praiseworthy manner of living (as he says in another letter, in Sirmond, tom. 1 of the councils, page 1), willed a cause of such moment to be committed; who not only at Rome adjudged the same suit with the supreme Pontiff, but also was present at and subscribed the council of Arles, most widely known to the whole world, so that from these things alone his name could not but be everywhere most celebrated — who, I say, could produce a reason why a Man so eminent should have been so long unknown to the people of Cologne alone, who could deservedly have gloried in him, so that he is neither inserted in the ancient catalogues of bishops, nor does the least mention of him occur in the old chronicles or monuments of that same city? Which nevertheless all are today compelled to confess who pretend that Maternus, set forth in the catalogues in the first place, was a disciple of St. Peter.

[90] more probably as the one whom the catalogues exhibit in the first place, These men will perhaps plead persecutions, incursions of enemies, destructions, in which the diptychs of Cologne perished, and with them the memory of this Maternus fell away; but, besides that that memory could easily have been restored by so many instruments already assigned as existing elsewhere, why should the name of that most celebrated prelate rather have remained wrapped in darkness for so many centuries, than that of his nearest successors Severinus, Evergislus, Solinus and the rest, whose series was preserved notwithstanding the destructions or the vicissitudes of times and affairs of this sort? These things so struck Cardinal Baronius that in his Observation on the Roman Martyrology at the day XIV of September he seems to have judged that the Maternus placed at the head of the Catalogue of the prelates of Cologne is he who flourished in the fourth century: But since, he says, all with one mouth confess that this man (whom he announces in the text) was a disciple of St. Peter the apostle, it is assuredly necessary to say that there were two bishops of that same name of the same church of Cologne, namely this elder one, of whom we treat on this day, the disciple of Peter, and a younger, who was renowned in the times of the emperor Constantine. Then he shows the existence of the younger in the fourth century by the same instruments which we have used, and thus proceeds: We wonder greatly how in the tables of the bishops of Cologne, which Demochares transcribed in his book On the Sacrifice of the Mass, only one Maternus is reckoned, who, if (as Demochares himself sets down in them) he preceded Euphrates, who as an Arian was condemned in the council of Cologne, it manifestly stands that he did not live in the times of the Apostles. But on this hypothesis the same difficulty returns: for if that younger Maternus obtained a place in the catalogue, why was the elder neglected, whom all (on account, that is, of the tradition and of the other things impugned above) with one mouth confessed to be a disciple of St. Peter, and whom the people of Cologne venerated as such and as their first apostle and bishop?

[91] and whom later ages called a disciple of St. Peter. Wherefore, that we may at length open our mind candidly and fully upon this most difficult controversy: since it is established that some Maternus existed in the fourth century, and since the people of Cologne, as also those of Tongres, do not prove that their first bishop was sent into the Gauls by St. Peter in the first century by any documents or reasonings other than those which we have already examined as alleged by the people of Trier — these are to us neither solid enough nor ancient enough for us to subscribe to their assertion; on the contrary, the things opposed to them by their adversaries are more solid and more consonant with the times and with ancient and credit-worthy writers, and their opinion therefore is by far preferable to us. And so we believe that St. Maternus, whom the people of Trier venerate as their third bishop, and those of Cologne and Tongres as their first, is more probably no other than the Maternus of the fourth century, bishop of Cologne, legate of Constantine the Great and judge of the Donatists, and that the report of his mission by St. Peter arose and grew strong in some manner set forth in the answers to the arguments on either side. To the remaining things which can here be objected or asked, we shall answer in the following §§.

* elsewhere Reticius

§ X. Answer is made to certain objections against the opinion now chosen.

[Bolland called St. Maternus and his companions disciples of St. Peter, in order to avoid this controversy,] Someone will perhaps here object that by the choice just made of the negative opinion in preference to the affirmative we depart from the views of our Elders, especially of Bolland, who in various places acknowledges SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus as disciples of St. Peter, and as propagators of the faith throughout the Gauls in the first and second century. We answer that this is true; nor yet is it a wonder. For even so we judge that we adhere to the footsteps of our Elders, who were never ashamed — as befits candid writers — to change or abandon even their own opinion previously inserted in the Work, after they had been better instructed about the greater probability or truth of the opposite. Bolland allowed himself to be carried away by the current of a tradition which he probably judged more ancient than the credit of the Acts and of the Martyrologies which we have reported above, the more easily the more studiously he advised, in the general Preface printed before tom. 1 of January, that he had avoided certain questions and disputations, among which he not obscurely indicated the present one; where in chapter 2, §6, he writes in this manner: The other rock, against which I have hitherto taken care not to dash my ship or in any way to drive it, is the disputation about the apostles of the Gauls. Nearly all the Gallican churches trace the beginnings of the faith among them from the disciples of Christ and of his Apostles. By many learned men, Gauls also, that opinion is not approved. Then in a few words he reports what these say, or what may be objected to them, and thus proceeds: When I have come upon the Life of some Saint, I set forth what is handed down in it about his age, what is built up by other writers, and how far I approve it. Any fuller disputation about that matter I either leave to the more learned, some of whom have lately written excellently on this controversy, or reserve to another place and time.

[93] Indeed I scarcely doubt that that man, by no means unskilled in the critical art, or because he lacked instruments afterwards brought to light; if he had seen the instruments dug out of darkness after his death and elucidated by the learned observations of more recent men, and if he had had a mind to recall the present question to examination — I scarcely doubt, I say, that he would have judged otherwise about the age of SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus, and would have made less of their Life, written by the men of Trier; although he did not make so much of it as a certain modern would have wished, since in the Preface praised above, chapter 3, §3, he reckoned the said Life among those which are written from report, a long time after the Saints had departed, or from monuments not so authentic or illustrious. But that I might more confidently establish what I just now intimated about Bolland, courage was added by a letter written in his own hand and directed on the XI day of April of the year 1651 to Cologne, to Fr. Jacob Kitsraedt, a priest of our Society, in which he openly signifies that he wavers concerning St. Maternus.

[94] certainly he had a doubt about St. Maternus. The words of the letter pertaining hither are these: About St. Maternus, which your Reverence formerly asked, I have nothing except what I published on the XXIX of January about St. Valerius. But a scruple always clings to me, whether the Maternus who is venerated among you is not he who nearly two hundred years after the other was bishop of Cologne. It is to be noted that in the margin of the letter, opposite the words recited, this question is set down: What does the very reverend lord Gelenius think? To it is annexed, in the proper hand of the same Gelenius, as I indeed judge from a character otherwise known to me, the following answer: The lord Streithagen once suspecting this and disputing with me about it (I supply: objected it to me). It would be, in my judgment, the overthrow of the whole ancient tradition of Cologne and of Trier. Thus the same letter was sent back to Bolland. Whence you may gather not only that he wavered, not having seen the instruments afterwards dug out, but also that Gelenius himself, distrusting his own cause, evaded a further examination of it.

[95] The successors of St. Maternus at Trier down to Agritius You will now ask what we think of the successors of St. Maternus at Trier, assigned in the Trevirian History and in Marianus's Chronicle down to Agritius; and what of those of Tongres, set out down to St. Servatius in Heriger's Deeds of the pontiffs of Tongres, Maastricht and Liège? We answer that we think almost the same of those of Trier as Hontheim and Calmet: that they were all, or certainly for a great part, holy bishops, yet none of them at Trier before Agritius; but that, as we have already signified that we suspect, they were inscribed in the catalogue by those who

repeating the beginnings of their church from SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus — bishops, according to them, of the first century and disciples of St. Peter — thought that a gap of nearly two hundred years was to be filled, so that thus the tradition might come out more plausible; which could easily have been done in this manner: first, that they adopted as their own prelates men whom they had learned had died among them in the odor of sanctity, or had been visited with martyrdom in those same parts, or whose relics they knew to be honored in some church of the diocese. Secondly, that they made their own bishops of other cities who were celebrated with an annual cult in the church of Trier, as is most frequently the case.

[96] were more probably taken Nor are probable reasons wanting for these conjectures. For for the first we have foundations in St. Celsus, who is commonly set in the fifth place in the lists, and who nevertheless in the manuscript Trevirian History published by Calmet, as he himself testifies in his annotations, was added in a more recent hand: nay, who was not acknowledged as a bishop of Trier by Theodoric, monk of St. Matthias, a writer of the eleventh century; for he, in the history of the invention of St. Celsus, made in the year 979, in the relation of the miracles which followed it, and in the sermon on his solemnity, printed by Bolland in tom. III of February, never adorns him with the title of bishop. For the second conjecture the diptychs of various churches supply the foundation. Thus those of Toul have among their first prelates Mansuetus and Auspicius; those of Metz, Clemens, Felix and Auctor; those of Cologne and of Bordeaux, Severinus; so that it is easy to conjecture that they are no other than the men of the same name who occupy a place in the Trevirian Catalogue, as has been established about Mansuetus and Clemens in tom. 1 of September, page 634 and following.

[97] from the lists or diptychs of other churches. Besides these, Hontheim and Calmet judge that Marcellus was fetched from Chalon in Burgundy; and that Fortunatus and Felix are those who were sent by St. Irenæus of Lyons to Valence to preach the Gospel. But since only a single Felix is read among those who came to the men of Trier from elsewhere before Agritius, it becomes more probable to me that he was the bishop of Metz. Of Fortunatus see what we have adduced from Papebroch at num. 69. As regards Marcellus, I would not deny that the learned men judged rightly; but besides the one of Chalon, whom we showed in tom. 2 of September, page 195, to have been a martyr, not a bishop, there were other bishops of the same name in Gaul: the people of Die in Dauphiné venerate their bishop Marcellus on the IX day of April, those of Paris theirs on the 1 of November, so that it is difficult even by conjectures to establish whence the men of Trier borrowed theirs; but whence they received the others, one might perhaps discover by conjectures for whom it would not be burdensome to search out the diptychs of the several churches of Gaul or of Germany. Although nevertheless it is not altogether abhorrent from probability that the names of some bishops who sat at Trier after Agritius were duplicated; for instance, those of Felix, Rusticus, Auctor, Mauritius, Maximinus, which are read both before and after the name of Agritius in the catalogues.

[98] What can more probably be said, on the opinion now chosen by us, about the eight bishops of Tongres assigned by Heriger of Lobbes between SS. Maternus and Servatius, We judge the same of certain of his successors at Tongres. has in some measure been set forth in tom. 2 of September, page 202, in the Sylloge on St. Marcellus, bishop and martyr at Tongres or Trier in Germany; where, after it had been observed that nothing besides the bare names of those eight prelates is mentioned by the praised Heriger, the following was subjoined: Not so sincere and prudent were the writers younger than Heriger, who handed down various things about them which are today either rejected by the learned as figments, or called into doubt as uncertain opinions. Nay, there are not wanting learned men to whom St. Maternus, the third prelate of the Treviri and the first of the Tungri, seems not to be distinguished from St. Maternus bishop of Cologne, who in the year 314 subscribed the council of Arles. Whence it follows that between him and St. Servatius, who in the year 347 was present at the council of Sardica, fewer prelates beyond doubt than eight ruled the church of Tongres, since one or two suffice to fill up the years which flowed between the episcopate of Maternus and that of Servatius. So that of our Saint (Marcellus) nothing is placed beyond all controversy except his cult, for the sake of which alone we here give him a place. Further, as we acknowledge the cult of St. Marcellus, so also that of the remaining seven; but which of them were the intermediate bishops at Tongres from St. Maternus down to St. Servatius, or what churches the rest ruled, is not clear.

[99] You will say that this diminution of so many bishops made in the catalogues of Tongres, and especially of Trier, Satisfaction is made to the objection against this opinion sought is alien from what has been established here and there in our Work; for not Bolland alone, but others also of our predecessors believed that those bishops, if not all, at least for the greater part, are to be admitted. Thus Henschen, both elsewhere and especially in the historical Exegesis on the bishopric of Tongres and Maastricht, prefixed to tom. VII of May, would have only the eight later of the twenty-three pretended bishops of the Treviri ascribed to the church of Tongres, but nevertheless seemed to leave the rest to the men of Trier. The answer to these things, in so far as they regard Bolland, is to be sought from what has been said above at num. 93 and following; and in so far as they pertain to others, almost the same can be given here. For since Bolland had bound the death of St. Maternus to the beginning of the second century, and they had either not yet seen the instruments afterwards brought to light, or had not laboriously weighed the reasons of the learned opposed to the Bollandian epoch, they did not think that they must openly recede from it before the opportunity of examining the matter more fully should arrive. Meanwhile, however, they commonly proceeded doubtfully, not rarely indicating that they scarcely doubted about an interpolation of the catalogues.

[100] from the writings of our Elders. Indeed even from the very passage objected it is plain how little Henschen made of the Trevirian catalogue, when he expunged the names of eight bishops as ineptly thrust into it, and as often as occasion recurred called the Trevirian Chronicle fabulous at its beginning. For the rest, what has here been objected about our predecessors is not to be taken of all: certainly Solier, in his Observation at the day XXIX of January of the Usuardine Martyrology, spoke in such a way that you cannot doubt that already then he judged that all the successors assigned to St. Maternus down to Agritius were to be expunged from the said catalogue, and that he had gone over to the side now chosen by us. For after he had noted that it cannot be taken in the proper sense when in Ado Valerius is written a disciple of St. Peter, he presently adds: But these things will be discussed more laboriously either in the supplement to January, or on the XIV of September at the Life of St. Maternus, whom, if you remember to have flourished in the time of Constantine the Great, you will detect the age of this Valerius with no trouble. For since Agritius also flourished under the same Constantine as emperor, as is established from the council of Arles of the year 314, which is thus subscribed: Agræcius the bishop, Felix the exorcist, of the city of the Treveri — it follows that Solier gave no place to intermediate bishops between Maternus and Agritius. But this also follows, that it was certain to the same Solier that Maternus of Trier was not distinguished from him whom we have shown above to have governed the church of Cologne under the empire of Constantine the Great. For from the epoch of the latter he would not have asserted that the age of St. Valerius, bishop of Trier, can be detected with no trouble, if he had doubted about the identity of the same with that Maternus who is believed to have succeeded Valerius immediately at Trier. But why I observe this, the following § will teach.

§ XI. The opinion of Jean de Launoy, who denies that St. Maternus was ever bishop at Trier, is set forth and rejected.

The reasoning of Launoy, We have said above that it is more probable to us that St. Maternus, whom the people of Trier, of Cologne and of Tongres venerate as their bishop, is no other than the Maternus of the fourth century, prelate of Cologne. There remains one difficulty which Launoy raises: namely, whether that Maternus really governed the church of Trier; this he not obscurely denies in the Dissertation on the passage of Sulpicius Severus vindicated, §29. For first he says that Baronius contends that there was no Maternus bishop of Trier, and acknowledges none; in which, he says, he does not err, but in this, that he will have there to have been two bishops of Cologne of this name, one who lived in the time of the Apostles, the other in that of Constantine. Then after a few words he pronounces thus: For the rest, if this question be weighed by monuments which pertain to the first eight centuries of the Church, a single Maternus will be established under Constantine as bishop of Cologne; but they afterwards made him bishop of Trier, as in the Acts of St. Gereon and elsewhere; and then a disciple of blessed Peter, as in the Deeds of Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus and in Galesinius. Indeed I have consulted Baronius; but I have found not a word either in the Annals or in the Observations on the Roman Martyrology from which I might dig out that the most eminent man contended this; whereas on the contrary Maternus is in the Martyrology indicated as bishop of Trier, as Launoy himself confesses a little below. But let us return to the latter words of the same Launoy.

[102] Their force the excellent Hartzheim felt, and he proposed to weaken it, set forth more fully in his praised Response to the most illustrious Hontheim. by Hartzheim For after in the first two paragraphs he had endeavored to show that the religion of Christ was brought into the Gauls and the Germanies at the close of the first century, and that in the same, or at least at the beginning of the second, it was known to the people of Cologne and received by them, in the third paragraph he concludes that heralds of the Gospel were therefore sent; but whether their names were Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus, he confesses is not established from any nearly contemporary or contemporary author, intimating that he believes it on account of a tradition of many centuries. In the fourth paragraph he confesses again that their existence in the first century is not demonstrated from the ancient Martyrologies or from the most ancient catalogues of Trier and of Cologne; he admits that their Deeds have been disfigured with fabulous digressions; and he says that he attributes no more authority to Marianus Scotus, to Methodius, and to Heriger; he acknowledges that it has been truly judged that antiquity was ignorant of bishops intermediate between the Maternus of the first century and the Maternus of the fourth. But, he says, although I willingly grant all these things to your exact disquisition, most illustrious lord, I cannot nevertheless assent to paragraph VI, in which you said that Maternus of Cologne, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century, is the same as the Trevirian predecessor of Agritius. He alleges the cause of this by an argument, as they say, ad hominem, which I transfer hither in his own words, cutting away, however, what is not necessary for perceiving its force.

[103] One Maternus alone is known to us from ancient monuments before the ninth century, set forth more fully, and this Maternus, whose name we know from contemporary writers, flourished at the birth of the fourth century. That Maternus sat at Trier is established from ancient catalogues, but from no contemporary author, none nearly contemporary, no catalogue written before the tenth century; for that which is brought forward by you, most illustrious lord,

as the most ancient of all in § V, from the library of St. Ghislain near Mons in Hainaut, that ends in Rudolf, raised to the chair of Trier in the year 994; whence the catalogue is six centuries later than the Maternus about whom the question is; and by nearly as many centuries are removed from the age of Maternus the Life, the Chronicles, the Lectionaries, the Breviaries, the Martyrologies: wherefore the Trevirian episcopate of Maternus ought to seem to modern critics intestate and incapable of testimony.

[104] There is therefore lacking to the alleged Trevirian Maternus every contemporary or nearly contemporary witness: and by which the Trevirian episcopate of St. Maternus is impugned nor was the name of Maternus of Trier entered into the Fasti of the church of Trier — at least those known to us — until after six centuries. And yet by a like argument, most illustrious sir, you think that the Maternus of the first century is to be taken away from both churches, because the age of such a man is proved by no contemporary, no nearly contemporary witness… Wherefore, if I may once use Launoy's negative argument, and your postulate that upon him who affirms the existence of this or that person in this or that century lies the burden of proving, and that indeed by contemporary or nearly contemporary witnesses, I cannot admit that the Maternus of Cologne who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century ever sat in the chair of Trier, until I be taught it by certain arguments. For Goldscher, Helinand, Heriger, without more ancient contemporary or nearly contemporary witnesses, merit no greater credit when they relate that Maternus existed in the first century than when in the fourth.

[105] differs much from our reasonings An ingenious reasoning indeed, and apt to press those who would exalt their criticism to that degree as to establish that in historical matters credit must be denied to everything which is not confirmed by the testimony of a contemporary or nearly contemporary. We, since we adhere as to the more probable to that opinion which draws back the mission of Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus into the Gauls to the third century, and admits one Maternus common to the people of Trier, of Cologne and of Tongres, do not argue thus: that mission in the first century lacks the testimony of a contemporary or nearly contemporary writer, therefore it did not take place; but thus: like missions of many bishops into the Gauls are deservedly rejected by the learned as only later devised out of love of antiquity; what then of this particular one, which not a few and not unlearned men also reject?

[106] against the Saint's existence in the first century; After a laborious examination we have found that the History of the said mission, written in the ninth century, teems with open little fables, conflicts with the manners of men of the first century, and with the assertions of ancient writers, especially of Sulpicius Severus; and because it is such, we require more ancient and more solid testimonies, and do not find them. On the contrary, we notice that the catalogues of bishops, the sayings of writers even more recent than the ninth century, and other monuments are such that they hinder the tradition rather than help it: so that to these churches may be applied what Buchier asserts about most others: Assuredly, he says, no one a little versed in these matters fails to see that nearly all the catalogues of ancient sees are carried into uncertainty in reckoning the ages, order and number of their first prelates, and repeat most things more like the fables of poets than the manners of the ancients: and there is no church of any antiquity which does not endeavor to fetch its origin from the lord Peter himself. So great is the love of antiquity. Hence a very great chaos of history has been introduced, and, I know not what, a void interval of nearly two hundred years, for the filling of which forsooth so much smaller a number of bishops does not suffice. I plainly go over to the opinion of Gregory of Tours, that to the greater part of the Gauls bishops were first sent from Rome about the reign of Decius, or the year of Christ 250. Thus far Buchier, in Chapeaville, tom. 2, in the Addenda to the historical Disputation annexed in the same Chapeaville, tom. 1.

[107] nor does it suffice for denying his Nothing of this kind opposes the Trevirian episcopate of St. Maternus at the close of the third century: not the times, not the manners of men, not the ancient assertions, not fabulous adjuncts; so that the reason is different why more certain arguments should be exacted for the tradition of his mission in the first century than for the tradition of his episcopate at Trier in the third or fourth. Further, the most illustrious Hontheim, whom Hartzheim's objection regards, proves the unity of the Maternus of Trier, of Tongres and of Cologne in the oft-praised Dissertation, §6, and briefly intimates the distinction between the two traditions which we have already given. That one Maternus alone, he says, was always read in the tables of Trier, and is read today, just as in those of Tongres, is known to all; but that this one is the same as the one of Cologne is proved by the cult and the most constant and legitimate tradition of the churches of Trier, of Cologne and of Liège — not such a tradition as that of the interpolated bishops which we impugn, and which we have proved to be opposed to antiquity; and credit is produced for the cult of this common Prelate of the three churches mentioned by the Breviaries and Lectionaries of the same churches, by the Roman Martyrology of Galesinius, by Molanus, by Baronius citing Bede — though the enlarged Bede — and by others at the day XIV of September, on which day the feast of this common Patron is equally celebrated in those three churches.

[108] To these the most illustrious author adds the most ancient catalogues of the Treviri; Trevirian episcopate in the fourth century then he alleges the Life of St. Maximin bishop of Trier, according to the judgment of Henschen, who published it in tom. VII of the month of May, page 22, written in the eighth century; where Maternus is numbered among the predecessors of St. Maximin. He also brings forward the instrument of another anonymous writer, whom he believes to have written before the middle of the ninth century, in which Hetto, prelate of Trier, is said to have been admonished by St. Maternus, who was the third archbishop of the Treviri, to build a monastery at Coblenz, and to lay up in it the body of St. Castor. You have this instrument in Lambeck, book 2 of the Commentaries on the Imperial Library, page 391. However the matter may be, I do not see a reason sufficient for me, going over to Launoy's opinion, to take away from the people of Trier Maternus, their bishop in common with the people of Cologne and of Liège, both on account of what has already been recited, and because that tradition is such that not only foreign writers, but even the domestic writers of Tongres and of Cologne themselves — although they disagree in other things, and often err in the number and age of their bishops — nevertheless commonly conspire in this, that they say that that Maternus who as the first bishop preached and propagated the Christian faith at Tongres, at Cologne, and in the neighboring places and cities, presided also over the people of Trier, and that his sacred body is preserved among them. But what the cause was why St. Maternus in the monuments of the fourth century recited at § IX was called bishop from the city of Cologne, of the city of the Agrippinenses, not of the Tungri or of the Treviri, we shall presently try to unfold by a probable conjecture.

§ XII. The Saint's mission with his companions from Rome into the Gauls is most probable; it is uncertain, however, whether it was made about the middle of the third century or later; what the state of the Christian faith was at Trier about these times.

The mission of the Saints from Rome After settling the epoch, more probable to us, of a single Maternus of Cologne, and of his identity with the one of Trier and of Tongres — from which, as Solier rightly observes, the age of SS. Valerius and Eucharius is brought out with no trouble — the plan of our undertaking requires that, amid so great a silence of ancient writers at least worthy of credit, we set forth what seems to us also more probably to be established about the place whence, and the year in which, they were sent into the Gauls, and in what order and manner they instructed the peoples and administered those churches. And first indeed, since by common consent the people of Trier acknowledge those three Men as their first apostles and the founders of their churches, and the Tungri and the Ubii acknowledge Maternus, the constant tradition among them appears to us true, that they were directed thither by the holy Roman See; conformably to what Pope Innocent I wrote at the beginning of the fifth century in his Letter to Decentius, bishop of Gubbio, saying that it is manifest that in all Italy, the Gauls, the Spains, Africa and Sicily, and the islands lying between, none founded churches but those whom the venerable apostle Peter, or his Successors, appointed as priests.

[110] is placed by more recent writers about the middle of the third century; For since that assertion of the Pontiff — Peter or his Successors — as is the nature of disjunctives, requires the truth of only one part in order that the whole may be true; and since, as has often been said, SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus do not seem to us to have been appointed by St. Peter himself, it remains that we say they were appointed by some one of the Pontiffs, successors of St. Peter: but by whom, who could certainly determine? Hontheim conjectures that their mission happened about those times in which the learned believe that the first bishops of the more celebrated churches in the Gauls were sent from Rome, that is, about the reign of Decius or the middle of the third century, as Gregory of Tours testifies of several. Calmet says that the epoch of the Christian religion among the Treviri may be fixed at the year 254, and that twenty years of episcopate may be granted to Eucharius, as many to Valerius, and the rest to Maternus, and thus one arrives at the year 313. I do not altogether oppose the arrangement of either learned man; but what hinders me from wholly assenting to it also is the great age of St. Maternus; for they admit that he, according to the same tradition, came from Rome into the Gauls together with his two predecessors; therefore if we grant him then twenty-five or thirty years of age, he must have been nearly ninety when in the year of Christ 313 he was ordered by the emperor Constantine to go to the Roman council, and in the following year to that of Arles — at which age it is rare for anyone to gird himself for journeys so long.

[111] certain monuments join to them as companions SS. Sixtus and Sinicius, If greater credit could be given to the author of the Trevirian Deeds, and to certain other writers of no greater weight, as regards the companions of the mission than as regards the time, I should indeed arrange the matter in another way and at the least equally probable. For the former relates, in the editions of Calmet and Leibniz, chapter 20, that with Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus there were destined at the same time from Rome to the Gauls Sinicius and Mansuetus, Clemens and Felix and Memmius and very many others: chapter 21: Clemens with Felix, he says, turned aside to Metz, Mansuetus to Toul, Sinicius to Reims, Memmius to Châlons, and the rest to the places foreordained for them by God. Almost the same companions the author of the Life of St. Memmius assigns to St. Eucharius, in our tom. 2 of August, page XI, and the biographer of St. Mansuetus to St. Maternus, likewise in our tom. 1 of September, page 639. If, I say, credit could be given to those writers at least on this point, we should not without foundation conjecture that the mission of our Saints took place about the year 288, about which the mission of St. Sixtus — whom the biographer of St. Memmius also attributes to Eucharius as a companion — and of St. Sinicius seems to us to be fixed, as we have shown in tom. 1 of September, page 122.

[112] sent into the Gauls only after the year 287: For the Acts of the said SS. Sixtus and Sinicius, which have nothing to make us believe them later than the fifth or sixth century, clearly say that SS. Crispin and Crispinian, after they had undergone martyrdom at Soissons in Gaul, appeared to the Roman Pontiff, informed him of their martyrdom, and admonished him that the heralds of the Gospel, who at that time on account of

the persecution were exceedingly rare in the parts of the Gauls, should be directed thither; then the Pontiff is said to have obeyed the admonitions, and to have directed thither Sixtus and Sinicius. Now the Passion of SS. Crispin and Crispinian is annexed to the year 287 or 288, because in their Acts, to be examined at the day XXV of October, Rictius Varus, who inflicted death upon them under the empire of Diocletian and Maximian, is likewise written to have been carried off from among the living about the same time. Certainly that it happened not long before the said years is plain from the emperors named, who are named also together with Rictius Varus in the Acts of SS. Sixtus and Sinicius, and always elsewhere.

[113] In this arrangement provision is made for the aforesaid longer age of St. Maternus; nevertheless, since it rests only on monuments of uncertain credit, but these are of uncertain credit, and difficulties and since the Acts of SS. Sixtus and Sinicius do not mention Eucharius and the other companions, I would not assert it to be more probable than the other. There is added that before the year 288 — say about the year 286, according to Brower's calculations in the Annals — the same Rictius Varus is said to have raged most savagely at Trier, and to have crowned with martyrdom innumerable Christians, not only soldiers of the Theban legion but also senators and inhabitants of the city of both sexes; of whom we shall have to treat in the month of October at the fourth, fifth or sixth day, on which their slaughter is written to have been made in the leaden tablet which, when the Norman devastation was pressing on, about the year 882 (as Hontheim says, tom. 1 of the Historia diplomatica Trevirensis, page 221), was buried beside the bodies of the Saints to preserve their memory, and was discovered together with the relics in the year 1071. The last words of the same tablet, as the praised author exhibits it in that place, are these: Now Rictiovarus entered Trier on the fourth of the Nones of October, and on the same day slew Thyrsus (who, as is said above, held the command of the Theban legion) with his companions; but on the following day Palmatius with the other chief men of the city; and on the third day he carried out a slaughter upon the common people of both sexes.

[114] Which if they are true, and to be admitted in the sense in which Brower will have them at the year cited, occurring on either side make the matter doubtful. credit cannot be given to those who write that our Saints migrated into the Gauls together with SS. Sinicius and Sixtus, unless we believe that a vast number of the Treviri had embraced the faith of Christ before those Saints came thither, and that they were therefore called the first apostles and prelates because they revived the religion nearly extinguished in that persecution, and in a manner founded a new church. It is a wonder, however, if they arrived there before the persecution, how Valerius and Maternus — for according to Calmet's computation Eucharius had already then departed from among the living — escaped the hands of the tyrants in so general and so atrocious a persecution; for Valerius, like Eucharius, as has been said above, is constantly exhibited in the ancient documents as a confessor, and about Maternus there can be no doubt of this.

[115] Whichever opinion at last be the truer, it sufficiently appears that very few Christians existed at Trier about the year 288, The state of the Christian faith at Trier and that they, whether they had been converted to the faith by our Saints before the persecution from which they withdrew themselves, or gave their name to Christ after it, had only a hidden exercise of their religion; since in the same times Maximian, an emperor most bitter against the Christians, long resided in these parts, and Mamertinus the orator in his panegyric, delivered to him at Trier, speaks of this city in such a way that you perceive it to have been utterly given over to idols. Hear the words in Brower at the year 287: Again you returned from the battle-line in triumph, and filled this whole city, anxious at your sudden sally against the enemy, with gladness and exultation, and with blazing altars and sacrifices and kindled perfumes to your divinity. Thus at both seasons of that day the divine service was twice celebrated with equal religion: to Jupiter, while vows are made for the future; to you, while they are paid for the victory.

[116] under Maximian Herculius down to the year 292; Such indeed was the disposition of Maximian Herculius that, granting even that he afterwards did not so severely search out the Christians scattered through the Gauls, he would never have suffered these openly and publicly to profess their faith in those parts in which by his order so great a slaughter of the Theban soldiers and of other faithful had been made a little before; for as by Brower that of the martyrs of Trier, so also by most other writers the passion of SS. Maurice and his Companions is fixed at the year 286, which will be examined at the day XXII of September. Further, Maximian is said to have stayed in the Gauls and for the greater part at Trier down to about the year 292, so that it is easy to think that the flock of the faithful whom our Saints cherished and ruled down to these times was not numerous; but one may deservedly conjecture that a freer way of propagating the faith was thereafter opened to them, namely when Constantius Chlorus, the father of Constantine the Great, about the year just mentioned was created cæsar with Galerius by the Augusti Diocletian and Maximian, and a little afterwards, having obtained the government of all Gaul, fixed his seat at Trier.

[117] and then under Constantius Chlorus. He, namely, was always of a kindly mind toward the Christians, and was not only lovable but even venerable to the Gauls, chiefly because under his rule they had escaped the suspicious prudence of Diocletian and the bloody rashness of Maximian. The words are Eutropius's, book 10 of the Breviarium. With Eutropius agrees Lactantius in the book On the Deaths of the persecutors, where in chapter 15, treating of the heaviest persecution of all, instituted about the year 303, he says that letters were sent by Diocletian to Maximian Herculius and Constantius Chlorus, that these should carry out, each in his own part of the empire, what he himself had already begun at Nicomedia. And indeed — the words are Lactantius's — the old Maximian willingly obeyed throughout Italy, a man not very clement. For Constantius, lest he should seem to dissent from the precepts of his elders, suffered the conventicles, that is, the walls, which could be restored, to be pulled down; but the true temple of God, which is in men, he kept unharmed. Then chapter 16: The whole earth therefore was harassed, and except for the Gauls, from the East to the West three most bitter beasts (Diocletian, Maximian and Galerius) were raging. An equally honorable testimony to the same Constantius the Donatists gave; we have given the words at num. 83 from Optatus of Milevis.

§ XIII. Continuation of the same matter.

Such was Constantius Chlorus's disposition toward the Christians, In altogether beautiful colors does Eusebius depict Constantius in the Life of Constantine his son, whose words, however somewhat long, it will not be beside the purpose to transcribe here. Thus he has it in Valois, book 1, chapter 17: But what an end of life befell him (Constantius), when he had shown himself such toward God, and how great a difference between him and the other partners of the empire that God whom he had worshipped willed there to be, whoever shall weigh the matter itself more attentively will easily know. For after he had for a very long time given many indications of royal virtue, acknowledging indeed one supreme God of all, but condemning the impiety of those who worshipped many gods, and had fortified his house on every side with the prayers of holy men, he is said to have passed the remaining time of his life expeditiously and tranquilly with the greatest glory, possessed of that felicity which men commonly say consists in this, that we are neither troubled by others nor ourselves trouble others. In this manner therefore, through the whole time of his rule, which was ever even and placid, he consecrated his whole household, namely his wife and children with all his ministers, to God the one king of all. So that the multitude of those who dwelt together in his palace differed in nothing from a church of God. Among whom were also ministers of God, who with continual prayers worshipped God for the safety of the prince; whereas nevertheless among others it was commonly not lawful even to utter the very name of the worshippers of God.

[119] Like things does the praised Eusebius hand down elsewhere about Constantius, so that, while he reigned, none but these abundantly suffice for our purpose; for from the opposition of the last period alone we learn that there was plainly one face of things in the Gauls when Maximian dwelt there, with whom, as with the rest of his colleagues, it was not lawful even to utter the very name of the worshippers of God, and quite another when Constantius stayed there, whose united household is compared to a church of God. For although the said opposition can be taken of the time in which at the beginning of the fourth century the most savage persecution of the emperors began, nevertheless from it there is not a little confirmed what we said at num. 115 about the fewness of the Christians at Trier while Maximian stayed here or in the neighborhood in the year 287 and following. For the rest, from the testimonies recited some not undeservedly judge that many martyrs of the Gauls, whose passion in the Histories of provinces and cities is referred to the persecution of Diocletian and Maximian, obtained the palm not in that general persecution begun in the year 303, but in particular ones which the historians have confounded with it; so that the death of most is to be consigned to the beginning of Diocletian's rule, and to be attributed especially to Maximian, namely when he set out into the Gauls against the Bagaudæ, and at the same time exercised his rage against the Christians also.

[120] If, however, it must absolutely be held that the martyrdom of certain persons belonged to the general persecution, or exceedingly few, against his will, this assuredly cannot be ascribed to Constantius, but to the prefects of cities and provinces, or to the furies of the people stirred up against the Christians, which he, perhaps being absent, could not repress, or, with the design of avoiding a greater evil, did not dare, on account of the decrees of Diocletian, which not only Galerius the cæsar, the chief author of the persecution, but Maximian Augustus also seconded with so great rage. That cause Lactantius clearly alleges concerning the sacred places overthrown in Gaul: Constantius, lest he should seem to dissent from the precepts of his elders, suffered the conventicles, that is, the walls, which could be restored, to be pulled down. He suffered them, he says, to be pulled down, but did not order it, nor pull them down himself. And hence it is plain that Lactantius does not conflict with Eusebius, who in the Ecclesiastical History, book 8, chapter 13, writes thus: Finally, as in other matters he showed himself most humane and most beneficent toward all, so in the war stirred up against us (Christians) he in no way took part. But when he had kept the worshippers of the true God who lived under his rule free from all harm and calumny, and had neither overthrown the buildings of the churches nor devised anything against our people, at length he attained a most happy and most blessed end of life.

[121] suffered in the Gauls, and for promulgating the faith But since both Lactantius and Eusebius generally affirm that Christian men were kept safe and unharmed under his rule, it follows that, if what we said in the preceding number must absolutely be held, it should be understood of exceedingly few martyrs, who fell at the first onset, Constantius being absent, unaware, or at any rate unwilling. From the felicity of all Gaul just described, at the time when Constantius governed, we easily discern

what the state of the city of Trier was, and how great the liberty of professing the faith: which liberty assuredly could not but be further extended when about the year 305 Constantius was made from cæsar an Augustus and emperor, and nothing therefore stood in the way of his openly and fully testifying his favor toward the Christians.

[122] there was great liberty Whoever shall have attentively considered these things, let him still believe, if he please, Brower and others, who, lest they conflict with the Trevirian History, write, following it, that the succeeding bishops of Trier were visited with martyrdom — Metropolus in the year 303, then after some years Severinus, Florentius, etc. But, that we may return to our Saints, for whose sake we have set out these things somewhat at length, it becomes likewise clear that under the whole government of Constantius a most ample field lay open to them for exercising apostolic labors, promoting religion, and notably increasing the number of the faithful. Nay, since at that season the fixed seat of the Cæsar or Augustus who held the principate of the Gauls was at Trier, it is scarcely doubtful to me that those same Saints were both known to Constantius and prevailed in favor with him.

[123] [the Saints being perhaps friends of the emperor. Their succession is thus arranged,] For since, on Eusebius's testimony, among those who dwelt in his palace there were also ministers of God, what forbids us to believe that by these are designated either the Saints themselves, or at least those priests whom the bishop from among them had then appointed in that place? But which of the three held the episcopate of Trier while Constantius reigned, it were hard to determine. Certainly Eucharius, in the opinion of Calmet and of others who place his coming into the Gauls about the middle of the third century, had by then already departed to heaven, and perhaps even so, though we should set that same coming later. Wherefore it is more probable to me that upon Valerius at that time lay the care of governing that church, and that he remained until the supreme power of the Gauls had devolved upon Constantine the Great. During which interval of time it seems also most probable to me that St. Maternus made excursions to the Tungri, the people of Cologne and the surrounding peoples, among whom he preached the Gospel and laid the first foundations of the episcopate: until, Valerius being dead, he was summoned to Trier, and thus presided as bishop over three churches at once; but since meanwhile the number of Christians was growing immensely, especially when to it there was added the emperor Constantine himself about the year 311, for whose conversion St. Maternus is believed to have labored, it is credible that he asked and obtained that another bishop be substituted for him at least at Trier.

[124] that it may be understood why St. Maternus is read as bishop only of Cologne, In this way it is clear why the same Maternus, sent in the year 313 to the Roman council, is adorned with the title of bishop of the Agrippinenses alone, and himself subscribes with that alone to the canons of the council of Arles of the year 314, to which, as we mentioned before, Agritius bishop of Trier is read subscribed. But from this same subscription there falls also that passage of Brower's Chronology in which the beginning of Agritius's episcopate is thrown back to the year 327 on account of a certain tradition by which the same Agritius — according to some patriarch of Antioch, according to others only of the clergy of Antioch — by the intervention of Helena, mother of Constantine the Great, then returned from Palestine, and therefore about the year just alleged, was believed to have been set over the archbishopric of Trier by Pope St. Sylvester. The diploma falsely attributed to this Pontiff, and other monuments on which that tradition rested, have been discussed and disapproved elsewhere. They may be consulted in tom. 1 of January, page 773, in the preliminary Commentary to the Acts of St. Agritius; in the History of the patriarchs of Antioch prefixed to tom. IV of July, page 38 and following; and in tom. III of August, page 550, in the preliminary Commentary to the Acts of St. Helena.

[125] To what has now been established some form for themselves a certain difficulty, and how, having left the see of Trier, but, in my judgment, a very slight one. Hontheim sets it forth and dissolves it in §6 of his Disquisition: I remember, he says, that it has been objected also by someone that it can hardly be believed that Maternus passed over to the chair of Cologne, leaving that of Trier; because that passage seems to conflict with the custom of those times. To these I replied that here there is banished every translation of Maternus properly so called, which cannot be established where before the conversion of Constantine not even a diocese in the proper signification appears in our parts; but hitherto an indefinite field, circumscribed by no limits, cultivated and watered by the word of God through Eucharius and Valerius within narrower bounds, through Maternus within wider ones, and at last under him divided for the greater good of the now exulting Church. Grant nevertheless that this ought to be called a translation: it would have been undertaken with the best and most salutary counsels, not with such as the Arians and other heretics used, namely of ambition and avarice, whose deeds gave occasion to the Fathers of the council of Nicæa to enact a canon against the translations of bishops — which canon itself sufficiently proves that in that age the passages of bishops from one church to another were by no means rare, but rather frequent.

[126] Nowhere, so far as I know, had the praised most illustrious man determined he retained for himself Cologne and Tongres. whether St. Maternus, before he had succeeded St. Valerius at Trier, had cast the seeds of the Gospel and the foundations of the episcopate among the Tungri and the Ubii; and hence, I believe, he thought the difficulty lay in this, that he had passed from the see of Trier to that of Cologne. But indeed according to our arrangement the difficulty would be whether it did not conflict with the custom of those times that Maternus, already bearing the care of the churches of Tongres and Cologne, should have taken on the government of that of Trier also after Valerius's death; and that difficulty would easily be dissolved by the reasons adduced by the most illustrious man. On the contrary, no difficulty appears in our arrangement for a passage from the see of Trier to that of Cologne and Tongres, such as can in no sense be thrust upon us here, since he was already governing all the churches at once, and only wished to be relieved of part of so great a burden by another, for the reasons adduced above — in which deed you would rather suspect humility and lowliness of mind than imagine to yourself even the slightest shadow of ambition or avarice.

[127] Besides, on our hypothesis we probably attain also why the Saint, about to transfer part of the burden to another, did not choose rather to remain among the Treviri than to return to the Tungri and the people of Cologne. Since, namely, as he had before judged that it would conduce to the greater service of God and the profit of the Christian faith if he divided his cares and labors, and consoled, cherished and ruled the faithful of Trier bereaved of their pastor, lest for want of another bishop, or at least of one endowed with sufficient authority, they should be scattered — Constantine perhaps being not yet converted to the faith — so, after he was converted, and it was sufficiently established to Maternus concerning the virtues of St. Agritius and the endowments required for the episcopal dignity, he thought it fair to commit that flock to him, that he himself might expend all his care and labor on the Tungri, the people of Cologne and the neighboring peoples alone, and thus perfect the work begun. For although without doubt he had labored also at the beginning with Eucharius and Valerius for the conversion of the Treviri, it ought not to seem a wonder that he was affected with a certain fatherly zeal and solicitude toward the people of Cologne and the Tungri, inasmuch as he had lately begotten them to Christ by a peculiar labor. This latter order of events we have proposed only as deduced from our conjectures, to which, if anywhere it be necessary to concede somewhat more, it assuredly was here: meanwhile, if anyone shall have devised a better one and more consonant with the times, let him propose it, and we shall not unwillingly acquiesce in it; which we would have understood both of the several things said before and of those to be said hereafter.

§ XIV. The remaining deeds of the Saint, narrated in the Lives and Histories, are shown to be fabulous, or adorned with fabulous adjuncts.

Fabulous are the things We have discoursed at length in § III of the authors of the Life of SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus; likewise of the Deeds both of the Treviri and of the pontiffs of Tongres, Maastricht and Liège; and then concluded that little authority can accrue to these lucubrations from the age in which they were written, especially since the earlier sources from which they flowed cannot be assigned. But from what has been discussed and established up to now it shines forth of its own accord what our judgment is about the deeds themselves which are narrated of our Saints: the same, namely, which is today that of very many writers, that most are fabulous, or at least adorned with fabulous adjuncts of times and persons; nay, that some are of such a nature that they would produce no credit even if the coming of the Saints into the Gauls in the first century could be proved by the most solid documents; and this we establish with greater right of the narrations which in the course of time were devised by others and committed to writing or to print. Let us give specimens of each.

[129] which are related about St. Maternus's birth Of the birth of SS. Eucharius, Valerius, or Maternus there is no mention in the Lives; of Eucharius alone it is said in the Trevirian Deeds that he was a Greek, as his name indicates. Nevertheless that silence did not prevent others from finding out Maternus's country and parents. The trifles of Placentius, who writes that he was a Lombard and the son of a count of Pavia, I have reported at num. 72. But another fabler built up for him a more wonderful birth, and that one obtained credit at least among a few. Hear Gelenius, On the greatness of Cologne, book 1, syntagma 5: But who is this Maternus? I shall say it briefly: "That youth of Naim, of about nineteen years, restored to life by Christ our Lord, in the year XXXII from his own birth and from that of the public salvation, in the Autumn about the Ides of September." Then the author subjoins that he reports what has been said and written by others, and cites in the margin a manuscript codex which Malbrancq mentions in book 2 On the Morini, chapter 7. And truly, Malbrancq says in the place cited that in the year 1603, when he was lodging at Namur, he lighted upon a codex of this sort, but he recites nothing from it. There are, however, writers older than Gelenius in whom the same things are reported. Thus in the German Martyrology, after the Saint's elogium, these words follow: Some judge that he was the widow's son called back to life by Christ. The same has Cratepolius, On the Saints of Germany; the same Brower in his Annals — but he himself does not believe this, any more than another thing, whereby Maternus is said to have been afterwards aggregated to the college of the seventy-two disciples.

[130] To fables likewise the same Brower could have relegated concerning St. Eucharius's presence at the Last Supper, what the author of the Trevirian Deeds has about St. Eucharius, whom, although he believed him a Greek by nation, he affirms to have been the third in the order of the LXXII disciples, and whom he says to have been set by St. Peter over the other bishops sent into the Gauls, because with the same St. Peter, from the Lord himself while dwelling in the flesh — as, he says, we have received it handed down from our elders — he received the rudiments of the sacred faith; who also at that most holy Supper, in which the Lord delivered to his disciples the precious mysteries of his Body and Blood to be celebrated, was present among those eating with him, and deserved to see with the Apostles, in blessed vision, him rising from the dead and ascending into heaven, and received the Holy Spirit and the tongues of all nations in the appearance of fire. He says only that he was present among those eating together at the Supper, not daring to say that he reclined with them. Prudently indeed, since among the Evangelists there is mention only of the twelve Apostles reclining with Christ. But he would have done more prudently to omit the whole, since in Mark, chapter

14 mention is made only of the twelve Apostles who accompanied Christ to the place of the Supper: But when evening was come, he came with the twelve. But does not that also, even on the opinion of those who, standing for the first century, bind the death of St. Eucharius to about the year 73, breathe of fable which is narrated in the same author of the Trevirian Deeds, chapter 26? Thus he has it. Now he died on the VI of the Ides of December, and was buried in the church of blessed John the Evangelist, which he himself had built before the middle gate, and round about it he had blessed a cemetery.

[131] Does not that, I say, breathe of fable, concerning a church erected to St. John the apostle about the year 70, if the words be taken as they stand, and as they have been taken by Johann Enen in his Epitome of the Deeds of the Treviri, by Cratepolius in his Annals, and by others? The first of these, who died about the year 1519, speaks in this manner in book 2, chapter 1: There was at that season (Cratepolius adds, in the year of the Lord 70) a certain most noble senator's wife, by name Albana, widowed of her husband but not of faith, having an only son, whom, cut off by death, she offered to be raised up by the intervention of the blessed man Eucharius, filled with good grace (for so his name interpreted sounds), in the faith with which she was full. Her son having been raised again in the name of him who called back from the dead the widow's son before the gate of Naim, he permitted her to depart in peace. Then she, blessed Eucharius sanctifying it, appointed as a church the house which she had, a preeminent one, which blessed Eucharius consecrated under the name of St. John the apostle and Evangelist. A little below he asserts that Eucharius was buried in that basilica. Let those believe it who will; for my part, even if I should grant that Eucharius existed in the first century, and that it was within his power to build a church with a cemetery, I should never persuade myself that between the years 70 and 73 it was consecrated to St. John the Evangelist, who was still alive for twenty-five years, having died toward the end of the same century.

[132] Since mention of Albana and of her son called back to life has occurred, let the reader observe in passing that the same miracle was also attributed to St. Maternus in two Lives of St. Symmetrius M., and concerning St. Symmetrius raised again, which are current, neither of which Henschen thought fit to give in tom. VI of the month of May, where St. Symmetrius was treated of, because they are besprinkled with many fables: They relate, he says, that St. Symmetrius was raised again in his infancy by St. Maternus, and that on that occasion Albana his mother with her offspring received the sacraments of the faith, to whom Symmetrius, the sixth count of Salm, Albana's brother, gave his name. Then he recites some verses in which the same things are reported, and at length concludes that all is fabulous. They displeased Brower also, at the year of Christ 50. Otherwise thought Gelenius in the Precious Hierotheca, chapter 5, where he calls Symmetrius, the infant raised again by St. Maternus, a princeling of the family of the lords of Salm, and thence divines many things about the antiquity of that stock in book 2 On the greatness of Cologne, syntagma 34. Which and like things Henschen, just praised, hisses off the stage.

[133] very many other things are of uncertain credit on account of fabulous adjuncts. We said at the beginning of this § that most of the things which are narrated about our Saints are fabulous, or at least adorned with fabulous adjuncts of times and persons. Of the former kind we think those which we have already recounted about the birth of St. Maternus and his calling back to life by Christ, about the presence of Eucharius at the Last Supper, etc.: but of the latter, whatever pertaining to them is reported in the oft-mentioned Lives or Deeds. For since all are bound to the first century, or to the second not far advanced, we cannot admit the adjuncts of times, nor consequently those of persons either, except as fabulous. But as regards the very substance of the deeds, we do not deny that there are many which, if they be purged of the said adjuncts, could truly have happened, nay probably did happen; such as the conversions of innumerable gentiles, the overthrows of idols, the miracles, the virtues and things like these which are ascribed to them, and which square very well with the third and fourth century, especially when Constantine the Great ruled. But whether the several things ascribed to Eucharius were truly wrought by him, and likewise by Valerius and Maternus those which are peculiarly attributed to them; nay, whether among them there are not deeds feigned even as to substance, and which those are, no one would easily determine. This, forsooth, those triflers and inept fablers, or, to speak more mildly, encomiasts too credulous or more than fairly tenacious of popular traditions, bring about: that while they long, with I know not what ambition of antiquity and preeminence, to extol their Saints, they stuff their deeds with so many adjuncts so alien from verisimilitude that things otherwise most true in themselves lose almost all appearance of truth, and posterity is deservedly indignant that it finds nothing on which it may safely set its foot.

[134] The miracle concerning St. Maternus Someone will here ask what then our judgment is about the most celebrated raising of St. Maternus by St. Eucharius with the staff of St. Peter the apostle, set forth at length in the said Lives and Deeds of the Saints, and thence handed down to a great number of other writers. Before we answer the question, it is worth while to set before the eyes of our readers, in the very words of the biographer, the history about which it turns. Thus he has it in our Work, tom. 2 of January, page 918: Who, being sufficiently fitly instructed by their master (St. Peter the apostle), took up with alert mind the charge laid upon them, and, having received his blessing, began to go to the above-said regions (Gaul and Germany). Proceeding on their way, they ceaselessly evangelized sound doctrine to all, and by signs and virtues called many to the solidity of the sacred faith. And when they had come to a certain fortified town of Gaul, by name Elegia, and, tarrying there some little time, were constantly urging all to belief, one of them, namely Maternus, being seized with a fever, began to be grievously sick, and, that same trouble of infirmity increasing, after not many days ended his life.

[135] By which bereavement Blessed Eucharius, exceedingly saddened, poured out abundant tears upon his face, dead on the road and groaning at the same time said: O hostile and hateful death, who by the envy of the devil didst enter into the world, why hast thou blazed so cruelly against us? Why hast thou violently taken away him whom the heavenly piety destined for the driving out of the death of unbelief? I know that thou, most impious one, didst fall in the most precious death of Christ: and whence hast thou raised thyself again against his servants? But I trust in my Lord Jesus Christ that thy author will not be able to hinder what he has disposed to be done through us: and that what he himself has foreordained for the salvation of believers, thy inventor the devil will not avail to pervert. Saying these things he restrained his tears, and, commending the body of his Disciple to the earth, taking Valerius with him he returned with speed to Rome, and tearfully narrated in order to his master all that had befallen him on the way, saying: We cannot again return by the way on which thou didst send us, and teach the aforesaid nations, unless thou raise from the dead by thy holy prayers Maternus thy disciple, that the power of our Lord Jesus Christ may be made manifest to those nations.

[136] Whom he clemently consoled, saying: Do not mourn, and called back to life, dearest, nor be sad; because him whom thou now grievest for as dead, thou shalt shortly see rise again by the grace of our Redeemer, and shalt have him a faithful and unharmed Companion of thy journey: for the death which he has for a time bodily undergone, this almighty God has provided for the salvation of very many. But now receive my staff, and accomplish the journey begun; and when thou hast come thither, place that same staff upon the body of the dead man, saying: Peter the apostle commands thee, in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of the living God, that thou rise from death, and perform with us the ministry committed to us. But St. Eucharius with his brother Valerius, gratefully taking up his master's command, came with swift step to the aforesaid fortified town: and approaching his Brother's tomb, and digging out that most beloved treasure, he laid the staff upon the corpse: and when he had repeated the Apostle's words which he had enjoined, immediately Maternus, taking up his spirit again, sat up, and, having given his hand to the pontiff, rose from the tomb alive and unharmed before the multitude of the people. In this is shown what the prophet said: God is wonderful in his Saints, etc. And in another place: All things are possible with God. Then all who were present raised their praises to heaven, and many of the pagans, obtaining the grace of Baptism, joined themselves to the truth of the faith: and thus was fulfilled the Apostle's foregoing saying, that the occasion of that death should become the resurrection of many unto salvation. In which place the Christians afterwards built a church, and from what had happened there imposed on it the name of the Resurrection.

[137] The praised biographer, in the volume cited, page 922, indicates the space of time after forty days, although his account in which St. Maternus lay in the tomb, in the following words: As he lay forty days in the sepulchre, so also he remained as many years in the priestly ministry. Heriger, in Chapeaville: Strengthened by the Apostolic consolation, on the fortieth day from the blessed Man's decease they returned with faith to the body; the Trevirian Historian: Having already forty days in the sepulchre. For the rest, they agree among themselves about the manner and order of the miracle; they differ in this, that each has accommodated his style to his own genius, and that what one had set forth in more words another has touched upon in fewer. Now to the question. It is not necessary here to repeat that this history is not approved by us in the adjuncts of the time and of the person of St. Peter sending the Saints into the Gauls, and giving his staff to them on their return to the City: there are other things which make the whole matter suspect to us; and first indeed from this, that the same miracle, with scarcely or not even scarcely a change of order, has been falsely attached to other Saints by historians.

[138] for various reasons Thus in the Life of St. Memmius, bishop of Châlons, in our tom. 2 of August, page XI, it is narrated that that Saint was sent by St. Peter into the Gauls with Dionysius of Paris, Sixtus of Reims, Eucharius of Trier, Sabinian of Sens, Sinicius of Soissons, bishops, and six other men of the same Order, together also with Donatian the deacon and Domitian the subdeacon. But when all these had proceeded to the eighteenth milestone, it happened that Memmius's subdeacon Domitian died; whom, when he had grievingly buried him, he returned to Rome, and having received a garment from St. Peter, afterwards laid it upon the dead man and raised him. In the Acts of St. Fronto, bishop of Périgueux, in Bosquet, part 2 of the Histories of the Gallican church, page 7; and in the same place in the Acts of St. George, prelate of Le Velay, Fronto, directed into the Gauls by St. Peter, is said on the third day of his pilgrimage to have lost his companion George, but, by applying the staff of St. Peter, to whom he had returned to ask help, to have raised him — and that so conformably to what has been recited from the biographer of our Saints that, if you except the names, the length of the journey, and the changed phrases, you would confess it plainly the same history. The same you will confess, if you shall think it worth while, on going to Surius at the day

XXX of June, and read in passing what is handed down in the fabulous Acts of St. Martial, bishop of Limoges, about Austriclinian raised again by the staff of St. Peter through the work of the same Martial in the place which is called Else. Indeed I cannot doubt that others borrowed that history, adorned by one writer, and each applied it to his own Saint.

[139] it is suspect of fiction Further, to dispatch in few words what besides displeases in the recited history: the apostrophe to death ascribed to Eucharius, an apostolic man most ready for every event, is not probable enough to me; nor is the complaint to the Pontiff more suited to such a man, as though, Maternus the subdeacon being dead, every approach to the conversion of the gentiles were shut off; besides, the untimely and incredible return to Rome after so vast a space of road had been traversed; and finally the interval of forty days appears to me too narrow for them to have gone from Alsace, in which Elegia is situated — by others Alegia, Legiacum, Hellum or Helellum, formerly a city, now a village — to Rome, and thence again, their business dispatched, to have migrated back to Alsace, however swift a step they are said to have set out with.

[140] it could have happened in the third century, Brower, at the years of Christ 49 and 50, in confirmation of the miracle, besides the Lives and Deeds named produces the testimonies of Peter of Cluny, Honorius of Autun, Thiofrid of Echternach, and of very many others whom he cites in the margin; but since these are more recent than the former, and, not searching out matters so carefully, could easily be deceived — although in matters less remote from their age credit ought not to be denied them — here their authority avails no more for confirming the miracle than for establishing the mission of the Saints in the first century, which they likewise hand down. Nor yet from this should you conclude that the miracle of Maternus's raising is altogether denied by me; on the contrary, as I certainly believe that the mission just mentioned was truly made, but later, so I see nothing that compels me to deny that the Saint was raised again, if all be brought back to the third century, in which a like miracle conduced no less to promoting the fruits of the Gospel than in the first.

[141] Nay, if what Cæsarius of Heisterbach has on this matter in his Dialogues, distinction and it would have to be said really to have happened, 8, chapter 78, could safely be admitted, all dispute about the truth of this miracle would vanish; but that author here and there narrates things so wonderful and incredible that you easily perceive he was prone to credulity. Let us hear meanwhile what pertains to our purpose: The lord Gerard of good memory, abbot of Clairvaux, who lived in our times, when at a certain time he was proceeding to a cloister for the sake of a visitation, and was lodging with the religious brethren of St. Matthias, on that same night, when Matins had been said, entered the crypt of the church alone, and prayed devoutly at the sepulchres of the holy Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus, who were the first bishops of the Treviri and the apostles of our regions: most of all, however, he asked that it might be divinely revealed to him whether it were more expedient to remain in the office of the abbacy or to resign it. To whom those three glorious Prelates, appearing together in great splendor, said: Brother, by no means resign thy office: because in a short time thou shalt come to us with the palm of martyrdom. And thus they disappeared. In the morning, when he was about to set out, the Provost of St. Simeon asked him that he would deign to lodge with him on his return: which he also promised.

[142] And when, the visitation completed, he was returning to Trier, he sufficiently repented of his promise, if what he relates as done in his own time wishing to pray again where he had before, hoping that certain things neglected in the first visitation would be revealed to him anew. Here Apollonius, who is brought in speaking with Cæsarius, asks: What were those things? Cæsarius proceeds: Where the soul of St. Maternus had been during those forty days in which he had been buried. What more? Mindful of his promise he betook himself to the Provost's house: and, as he himself had arranged, on that very night rising earlier than usual and chanting Matins, leaving the monks and taking a lay-brother with him, he proceeded to the church of St. Eucharius and entered the crypt: where under the form of the former vision he deserved to see the aforesaid Pontiffs. To whom St. Eucharius said: I know for what thou hast come. Behold Maternus, ask him. Which when he had done, that one answered: My soul during those forty days was in paradise, and because it knew that it was to return to the body, it could not enjoy the reward prepared for it in the heavenly places. Remain therefore in thy office: because through the palm of martyrdom thou shalt soon be associated with us. Which so came to pass; for he was secretly killed by a certain wretch on account of his zeal for the Order. Then the blessed Pontiff added: While I was in paradise, nothing was done in the world which I did not see. Thus far he, in Tissier, presently to be praised.

[143] That account is not of the kind of which most of those written about the Saint's deeds are, Cæsarius of Heisterbach, whose authors, namely, were most remote from the times of the event; but it was consigned to writing by a contemporary, as he himself intimates, and as is established from elsewhere. For Cæsarius at the close of the twelfth century put on the monk's habit in the abbey of Heisterbach of the Cistercian Order, situated opposite the city of Bonn not far from the Rhine, and there about the year 22 of the following century composed his Dialogues, as all affirm who speak of his age. But the reported apparition must have happened in the same twelfth century, since Gerard presided as sixth abbot over the abbey of Clairvaux in the diocese of Langres in the year 1170 and the following, down to the year 1175, in which or the following he was cruelly slain at Igny by Hugh of Basoches, a monk, as is shown by testimonies adduced in the Gallia Christiana most recently published, tom. 4, col. 801.

[144] would merit credit. Nevertheless, however near Cæsarius was to the times in which he writes that that apparition happened, I would not guarantee its truth as it has been narrated. Certainly fifty or even thirty years are not required for the adjuncts of some fact to be changed and to grow, and to be admitted by a man pious indeed but too credulous, such as we suppose Cæsarius to have been. Bertrand Tissier himself, a Cistercian monk, who inserted the Dialogues of Cæsarius in tom. 1 of the Library of the Fathers of his Order, and endeavored in several places to vindicate him against adversaries, not only held the account of the said apparition suspect, but did not hesitate to note in the margin that that part of it is fabulous in which Gerard is handed down to have questioned St. Maternus and the latter to have answered him; because, namely, it would have been a curious, useless, and unworthy prayer for Blessed Gerard, presently to be a martyr, by which he should ask that it be revealed to him what the soul of Maternus himself did and where it was during the XL days in which he is said to have been dead. Thus he has it in the Notes to chapter 23, Distinction 2, of the Cistercian Exordium inserted in the same Volume, and in which the said apparition is reported in a much less probable manner.

[145] Traces of the miracle are believed to survive in Alsace. Concerning Tissier's reasons, as also concerning the whole history of the apparition, we leave the judgment to the reader. If it be true, especially in that part which the praised author reproves, the miracle is sufficiently proved; if fabulous, it does not indeed harm the tradition of the miracle, but the tradition itself remains uncertain, as being, like very many others, confirmed by no testimonies older than the ninth century. Its fame nevertheless flourishes to this day in Alsace, and traces of the miracle are believed to exist in the place where it happened. Beatus Rhenanus of Sélestat testifies this in book 2 of German Affairs, in the following words: At Hellum, a village three miles distant from Sélestat, there is still shown the vault in which he (Maternus) lay dead for some time, but was presently restored to life, that he might further instruct the Treviri and the people of Cologne. Jacob Wimpheling, himself also of Sélestat, in the prologue to the Catalogue of the bishops of Strasbourg, published in the year 1508, after narrating the raising of Maternus proceeds in this manner: A church was built up over the spot, to which to this day the people flock; especially, however, on the Saturday before the Sunday Jubilate down to the third day, on account of the pardon of sins granted by the supreme Pontiffs to those journeying thither. The same report Brower in his Annals at the year of Christ 49, and Laguille in the History of Alsace, book 4.

§ XV. On the staff of St. Peter, by whose touch St. Maternus is believed to have been called back to life, and whose parts are kept to this day.

Our opinion standing, the tradition about St. Peter's staff is not overthrown. Since St. Maternus's calling back from death, of which in the preceding §, is commonly said to have been made by the touch of the staff of St. Peter the apostle, and that staff, or rather parts of it, are today preserved and held in the highest price in places to be assigned below, it will be well to have instituted a discussion of it also here, lest anyone should think that we wished above to impugn its truth, by drawing some sort of consequence from our having rejected the Saint's mission by St. Peter. And so, as we do not judge that the calling back from death itself is to be denied, although in the lapse of time it has been clothed with adjuncts of times and persons which are disapproved by us, so neither do we think it ought to be denied that St. Peter truly used that staff at some time, and that by its touch St. Maternus returned to life, even though we do not admit that it was handed by St. Peter himself to St. Eucharius. For it does not follow: the staff was not handed in the first century by St. Peter himself to this person; therefore a staff of St. Peter was never handed by anyone, even though through a long series of centuries it was held as such and preserved with the highest veneration. But that it was so held through a long series of centuries we learn from those very men who in the ninth century and the following disfigured the deeds of St. Maternus and his Companions with little fables, and brought it about that we cannot determine the true manner of the translation of St. Peter's staff into these regions. Let us hear what others write about it.

[147] Sigebert in his Chronicle, at the year 953, treating of Bruno, brother of the emperor Otto I and archbishop of Cologne, An error of certain writers about the epoch of its translation is detected. says: By his zeal there were translated from Rome to Cologne the bodies of the holy Elisius (Elifius), Patroclus, Privatus, Gregory, together with the staff of St. Peter. Nearly the same has the anonymous author of the Chronicle of Tours in Martène, tom. 5 of the Amplissima collectio, col. 988; the same Alberic, monk of Trois-Fontaines, likewise in his Chronicle, who nevertheless presently subjoins: Of that staff of St. Peter there is a full narrative, that by it Maternus was raised again, and in process of time it was translated from Trier to Metz and held in great veneration; through this Bruno at last it was translated from Metz to Cologne; then, as is contained in what follows, Warinus archbishop of Cologne restored a part of the same staff to Erbert bishop of Trier. And indeed that an error lurks in the epoch assigned by Sigebert and by the other anonymous chronographer for the staff's being brought from Rome to Cologne is made manifest by the Life of the said Bruno, written by Rotger at the bidding of Folcmar, Bruno's immediate successor, and published in print by Leibniz, On the Writers on the affairs of

Brunswick, tom. 1, page 283, in which it is thus read: With what diligence, with what fervor, with what joy he brought to Cologne the staff and the chain of St. Peter, the one from Metz, the other from Rome, all men know.

[148] Brower in his Annals, at the year of Christ 49, alleges a more ancient testimony of the existence of the same staff in these parts: for after narrating the Saint's raising he thus proceeds: Brower gathers that it lay hidden at Metz in the ninth century There makes for this affirmed narration also the custom, in use here more or less nine hundred years ago in provincial synods, by which, besides the authority attested in writing, it was usual for bishops to confirm ecclesiastical decrees by the staff of St. Peter, or the most sacred staff, with this elogium of the staff added: With which Blessed Maternus was raised from the dead. He cites in the margin manuscript synodal acts under Lothair from the chief church, designating without doubt the decrees of a synod which he mentions again in the same Annals at the year 980, and which he judges to have been held in the city of Metz in the time of Adventius, prelate of that see from about the year 855 down to 873, at which season Lothair, son of the emperor of the same name, who died about the year 869, held the kingdom of Lorraine. Of these decrees, which he testifies are kept in the parchments of the chief church of Trier, he recites in the place just cited the closing clause in these words: These statutes therefore, promulgated by the Spirit of God almighty, each of us has confirmed with his own hand, and with the staff of St. Peter, which he directed into the Gauls from the Roman see by the hand of Blessed Clement, the first bishop of the church of Metz, with which also Blessed Maternus was raised from the dead, who afterwards was the most holy pontiff of the church of Trier; nay, by the key delivered by St. Flodulph [*] the bishop to blessed Trudo, we confirm them more solidly.

[149] from manuscript synodal decrees, in which he thinks another error lurks. We do not search out what and of what sort that synod was, nor whether what is there built up about the mission of St. Clement by St. Peter is true: another place will be given for discussing that matter. As regards the present point, it evidently appears that, although the recited clause of the decrees in some measure confirms the ancient custom in provincial synods asserted by Brower, it altogether conflicts with the same author's opinion about the staff brought into the Gauls; since he himself with others commonly contends that it was brought by St. Eucharius, while the synod attributes this to St. Clement. The praised author noticed this very thing, and therefore that same clause of the decrees, alleged in the first place to confirm the ancient custom, he could not but disapprove in the other place, as contrary to the tradition about St. Peter's staff brought over by Eucharius. Here are his words at the year 980: But as regards what requires necessary caution — during the time in which this deposit lay hidden among the Mediomatrici, by what right is uncertain — the memory of the very event being already then corrupted and abolished there by such great disasters, later men thought thus, as though Blessed Clement, the first bishop of the people of Metz, had carried that staff into Belgica. Of which opinion, as I once remember, was an ancient synod at Metz, if I judge rightly while Adventius sat, assembled against the audacity and insolence of sacrilegious men.

[150] How the staff came to Metz is uncertain. Let us believe that this truly so happened, but let us at the same time confess that it is most true that traditions of this sort, where they favor some particular church, are easily accepted and find credit without due examination. Further, if you believe the author of the Trevirian Deeds in Calmet and Leibniz, that staff was carried from Trier to Metz in the times of St. Servatius, bishop of the Tungri, for fear of the enemy pressing on, and was there retained — the men of Trier seeking it back in vain — down to the empire of Otto the First; but we have already indicated more than once that that author and his continuators, in matters pertaining to earlier centuries and not confirmed from elsewhere, are of too light authority with us for us to be willing to establish anything according to them. There is added that of all these things there is not even mention in the Deeds or History of Trier published by d'Achery.

[151] Let us proceed therefore to what is better ascertained about the translation of the staff to Cologne and afterwards in part to Trier. It was brought to Cologne and cut in two in the tenth century; The words of the biographer Rotger we have given at num. 147, from which we certainly conclude that the staff was translated to the people of Cologne within the years of Christ 953, to which the beginning of Bruno's archbishopric is commonly bound, and 965, in which he ceased to live. Now the staff was preserved entire at Cologne down to the times of archbishop Warinus, who is read to have occupied the see from the year — according to some 974, according to others 976 — down to 985, and who at the prayers of Blessed Egbert, archprelate of the Treviri, cut it into two parts, and reserved one for his own church, granting the other to that of Trier.

[152] The history of the whole matter, accommodated however to the tradition of the discipleship under St. Peter, and the one part remained there, the other was granted to the men of Trier. is inscribed on the case in which the part of the staff was enclosed at Trier, and it is kept with veneration to this day. Brower gives it in the following words: The staff of Blessed Peter, once sent by him for the raising of Maternus, and brought hither by Eucharius, this church long held; afterwards, in the times of the Huns, as is reported, being carried away to Metz with the other treasures of this church, it remained there down to the times of Otho the elder, the most pious emperor. Thence, being sought by his brother Bruno the archbishop, it was translated to Cologne. But in the time of Otho the younger, the emperor, at the request of Egbert archbishop of the Treviri, and with the consent of the venerable Werinus archbishop of Cologne, lest this church also should be defrauded of so great a treasure, it was cut into two parts. The one, namely the upper, was restored to this church, and laid up by the lord bishop in this case; the other, with the ivory tip, retained there. In the year of the Lord's Incarnation 980, Indiction VIII.

[153] The church of Prague also rejoices in a part of that same staff, obtained at Trier, A little piece of it is honored also at Prague as we learn from the Diary of the relics which are kept in its metropolitan church of St. Vitus. That stands in the Phosphorus On the Glory and majesty of the said church, published in print in the year 1673 by Thomas Johann Pessina of Czechorod, page 501, and at the day XXII of February, on which is cherished the memory of the Chair of St. Peter at Antioch, it has this: The lower part of the staff of St. Peter the apostle, of the breadth of three fingers, which Charles obtained in the church of Trier in the year 1354, and caused to be laid up in the staff or crosier of the archbishop of Prague; and he obtained from Innocent VI that on certain festivities — namely of SS. Vitus, Wenceslaus, Adalbert, of the Dedication of that church; likewise of the Nativity of the Lord, of the Circumcision, of the Epiphany, of the Resurrection, of the Ascension, of Pentecost, of the Body of Christ, of the four principal feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary, namely of the Purification, of the Annunciation, of the Assumption and of the Nativity, of St. Peter the apostle, of All Saints — while the archbishop uses that same staff at the sacred rites, all who should be present at those rites should have an indulgence of one year and one quarantine, to last for perpetual times.

[154] The occasion and the manner in which the church of Prague was enriched with that treasure and with other relics, the emperor Charles IV himself sets forth sent thither by the emperor Charles IV in letters sent from the city of Trier to the chapter of the metropolitan church of Prague, and inserted in the praised Phosphorus, page 438, whence I transcribe his words which chiefly pertain hither: To the honorable dean, scholastic, and the whole chapter of the holy church of Prague, our beloved and devoted. Charles by the grace of God king of the Romans ever Augustus and king of Bohemia. Beloved and devoted. When in these days just past, after the death of the venerable Baldwin, archbishop of Trier, of happy memory, a prince and our dearest uncle, we came, sad at his death, from the city of Mainz into the city of Trier: that comforter, the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, deigned there to console us wonderfully in our tribulation, wiping every tear from our eyes, and turning the sadness of our mourning into the joy and solace of gladness and delight; when there met us in that place the pledges of holy relics which we had long borne, foremost among our royal desires, with ardent longing.

[155] sent from Trier And although we could justly and reasonably and without any reproach have had great and innumerable quantities of money from the bishop-elect and the chapter of the church of Trier, nevertheless the royal dignity, rejecting them, judged that it should obtain from the same clergy and chapter — albeit unwilling and with grief of their heart — such heavenly and spiritual treasures, which neither moth destroys, nor rust consumes, nor thieves dig through or steal, namely the relics written below. And unless at that time the church of Trier itself had been destitute of a pastor, and, that we might be the readier to interpose our part in the promotion of the aforesaid church at the Apostolic See, and might deign to hold it commended to our royal Highness, we should by no means have had the aforesaid relics from them.

[156] in the fourteenth century. After these things he recounts a great number of relics acquired in that manner, and among them the part of the said staff: Besides, he says, we had a part of the staff of Blessed Peter, of the breadth of three fingers, namely of the lower part of the staff, which we cut off with a saw with our own hand — that staff by which Blessed Maternus was raised after forty days. Finally, after several things interposed, he subjoins: Besides, you should know that it is the entire will of our intention that we insert that part of the staff into the pastoral staff of the archbishop of Prague, so that, as he is known to be clothed with the pallium of Blessed Peter, so also the archbishop himself and his successors in that church of Prague may use his staff in perpetual times to come; which will be a new thing in the aforesaid church of Prague, nor do we believe that anything like it can be found elsewhere in the whole world; and you will in all and singular the premises, and in any of them, give us singular joy. Given at Trier under the ring and secret seal of the aforesaid emperor Henry, on the XVII day of the month of February, in the VIII year of our reigns. Of Christ, that is, 1354. By the emperor Henry he designates his grandfather, the seventh of that name, whose seal and ring he had likewise obtained at Trier.

[157] A little piece of it is believed to be preserved also in Swabia. In a notable portion of the same staff there glories also today the monastery of Weingarten in Swabia of the Order of St. Benedict, as is witness Gabriel Bucelin, formerly an alumnus of the said monastery, in the Germania sacra, part 1, page 24, at the same time intimating on what occasion and at what time that portion came thither: That staff of St. Peter, since neither the people of Cologne nor those of Trier could afterwards keep it (by an altogether singular will of the Deity, and not without mystery), was at last divided between both churches. A most notable part, and, as it seems, the uppermost, falling to the Swabian monastery of Weingarten, is there most religiously kept. Thus far Bucelin. We know that the staff at the prayers of St. Egbert was cut into two parts within the years, as we said above, 953 and 965, and that one of them is guarded at Cologne, the other at Trier; but however great the diligence we have employed, we have found nothing by which to confirm the sayings of the praised author, and let the credit of them therefore rest with him. He mentions the same also in part 2 of the praised Work, page 304, in the catalogue of the relics of his monastery, in the words

following: Of the crozier or staff of Peter, prince of the Apostles, and indeed its uppermost part armed with iron; of that staff which he had sent into Germany through SS. Eucharius and Valerius for the raising from the dead of his disciple Maternus.

* Clodulph

§ XVI. The temples which in several places, as the tradition is, and especially in Alsace and in Belgium, St. Maternus founded.

The tradition of several places where, the more ancient writers being silent, I once wondered, when I was reading through the Lives of SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus, and the Deeds of the Treviri and of the Tungri, that their authors — otherwise very attentive in noting the years of the reign of the emperor Claudius and of the Pontificate of St. Peter, in which according to them the mission of the Saints into the Gauls was made; industrious in describing the history of Maternus raised again; eloquent in extolling the apostolic labors and the fruits of the Gospel preached; careful in fixing the duration of the episcopate of each, namely of Eucharius 23 years, of Valerius 19, of Maternus 40; and finally liberal in setting forth the other things which they narrate — I wondered, I say, that the praised authors were sparing and careless in certain other matters conducing not a little to the glory, namely, of St. Maternus: I speak of the very many temples built by this Saint, as the tradition is, after idolatry was overthrown, to God, to the Most Blessed Virgin Mother and to St. Peter in various places, of which there is no mention in them. Of the city of Trier alone the biographer has, in the Life of St. Eucharius: Meanwhile the city is cleansed from the pollution of idols, superstitious error is cast away, the altars of demons are destroyed, churches of Christ are built throughout the places, … and she who before, by not knowing her Creator, was an adulteress, by converting herself through faith became the most sacred bride of Christ.

[159] I should not easily believe that others escaped the notice of those authors, temples built by the Saint are mentioned by Giles of Orval, it conflicts since they were both near to the places, and since Giles of Orval, removed by two centuries from the times of Heriger, mentions and names several in his Additions to the Deeds of the pontiffs of the Tungri. Further, most of the temples erected by St. Maternus have been collected from Giles and others by Foullon in the History of Liège, tom. 1, page 27 and following, and by Bertholet in the History of Luxembourg, tom. 1, page 119; but each is doubtful about the truth of the matter. The former speaks in this manner at page 29: Although I think it impious to doubt that the divine Maternus traversed almost all the borders of the Tungri and the confines of the Nervii preaching the Gospel, yet of so many sacred buildings everywhere and openly built I have nothing to assert, if you except the one at Tongres, of which both the celebrity of the city and the consent of the peoples have persuaded me; for it is not easy to pluck out inveterate opinions from the minds of the vulgar, especially where the name of antiquity flatters them, which all affect as a kind of appearance of nobility. Nor yet were those times such that I should easily believe uncertain authors that temples were placed in the open for Christians, and that there was then in this Roman soil another form of living than at Rome and in the other parts of the Roman world, where very few sacred buildings were placed openly; others were shut up in crypts or within the walls of private houses, to elude the curious cruelty of the enemies of the Christian name.

[160] [with the first century, and agrees with our opinion about the age of St. Maternus;] More absolutely does Bertholet pronounce, in the place cited, in his Annotations, whose French words run thus: Whatever some authors assert about those churches, that part of the history is not attested, and, except that of Tongres, the others can, nay must, be called into doubt: and he subjoins the same reasons as Foullon. Rightly indeed; for so many churches do not agree with the first century; but whether the reason for which each would have the church of Tongres excepted here is probable enough, let the judgment be with others. We meanwhile judge the traditions of very many churches built by our Saint, which they disapprove as not agreeing with the first century and consequently with their own opinion, to be altogether probable: nay, we believe that by them the epoch established for St. Maternus's age is in some measure confirmed; since it is certain not only that the Christians were dealt with most mildly while Constantius Chlorus ruled in these regions, but that they had the fullest power of erecting temples when Constantine the Great held the empire and was converted to the faith; and this care regarded chiefly the prelates, as Constantine himself sufficiently signified afterwards, exhorting them to this holy work by letters. So that no one can deservedly deny that this was performed by St. Maternus also; wherefore his honor demands of us that we report what we have found handed down about them.

[161] in the sense, however, here set forth. Let us report them, I say; for it is not our mind to adopt the several particulars, much less to defend them: since we well know that those traditions about churches erected by the Saint have in the lapse of time, and through the unskillfulness of men or their love of antiquity, been clothed with little fables and with those adjuncts which do not stand with our epoch. Therefore, that the studious reader may fully perceive our mind, let him observe the following: first, when we said above that those traditions are altogether probable, we understand it simply of the temples erected, that is, of the bare substance of the matter handed down, and in so far as this is congruous with the times in which the Saint lived. Secondly, lest we be compelled to useless and tedious repetitions of the same thing, we altogether disapprove what in the words to be recited here and there is built up about the mission of St. Maternus by St. Peter. Thirdly, we shall not scrupulously examine what is handed down about the origin and nomenclature of the cities and places, as not pertaining to our aim. Fourthly, when in recounting the churches we set one before another, we do not thereby intimate that we judge them to have been built in that order of time. Fifthly and finally, because of certain places we do not treat elsewhere, on the same occasion we shall here note down whatever concerning the Saint's cult or relics has come to our knowledge.

[162] In Alsace, whose Apostle he is called, We begin from Alsace, in which, as we said above at num. 134 and following, the Saint is believed to have been called back from death, in that place where the vestiges of the church afterwards raised there survive to this day, worn by the religion of those who assemble and by votive pilgrimages. Franz Guillimann, in the book On the Bishops of Strasbourg, page 41, treating of the beginnings of the faith laid there, thus writes: To the divine Maternus is owed that grace, that glory. He, sent by the lord Peter, prince of the Apostles, under the rule of Nero, having proceeded from Rome into Gaul with his companions Eucharius and Valerius, was the first in Alsace who thoroughly taught the worship and religion and benefits of Christ our Liberator, showed the idols to be empty and deceitful, freed very many of the inhabitants from vain superstition, led them to a sound mind and the true knowledge of God, established also some sacred buildings, and by great and illustrious miracles proved his words and deeds. Deservedly therefore is Maternus venerated by the Alsatians as the Apostle and Prince of the Christian faith among them, and held in chief honor: although he established an episcopal see at Trier with those same fellow-disciples of his, and chiefly frequented and cultivated the peoples of the Belgians. Here you have the tradition of the churches founded, and the testimony of the present-day cult.

[163] Of the churches, Jacob Wimpheling names two in the prologue to the Catalogue of the bishops of Strasbourg, he is said to have erected churches, both consecrated to St. Peter: one near Molsheim, a town about two German miles distant from Strasbourg, which to this day is called in Latin the House of St. Peter, in German Dompieter, and which Brower testifies that he saw frequented and venerated with a great concourse and with the hope of remedies which were sought for those in fever: the other outside the gate of the city of Strasbourg, which today is within the city and is a collegiate church, and has the name of St. Peter the elder, to distinguish it from the more recent. Of each church, as erected by our Saint, Laguille likewise makes mention in the History of Alsace toward the end of book 4, but presently subjoins that he has not found sufficiently solid documents of that tradition.

[164] But what the praised Wimpheling writes about the cult and veneration of the Alsatians toward our Saint and he obtained a notable cult. is confirmed in the Breviary of Strasbourg of the year 1489, where at the XVIII of July (I know not on what ground at that day) his Office is prescribed, with a commemoration of St. Arnulph bishop of Metz; the whole is from the common of a confessor pontiff, except the lessons of the second Nocturn, which are taken partly from the Acts, partly from other sources, I know not what, no less fabulous; and the prayer, which runs thus: O God, who grantest to glorious priests to feed thy sheep by the flower of doctrine, may we, by the succor of blessed Maternus thy confessor and pontiff, whose birthday we today venerate with our observances, deserve to stand by thee in heaven on the right side. Through our Lord.

[165] There are also at Cologne temples which are said to have been built by St. Maternus, At Tongres a temple to the Mother of God, and others, but a fitter place for treating of them will be below, where we treat of his death and the translation of his body. And so we descend first to the Tungri and to the places nearer to us. Of the ancient greatness, origin, nomenclature and nobility of the Tungri Giles of Orval relates many things, as may be seen in Chapeaville in the Addition to chapter 13 of Heriger, where he also describes at length the beginnings of our religion at the coming and preaching of St. Maternus, and has these words to the present purpose: The worship of Jupiter, of Juno and of Venus is condemned, a temple of the Blessed Mary ever Virgin is built; the shrines of demons are cleansed; churches of the Saints are dedicated to the number of seventy-two congregations. But throughout his bishoprics also he founded very many churches. With Giles agrees the collector of the Great Belgic Chronicle, adding however concerning the church of the Most Blessed Virgin (which was afterwards destroyed by the Northmen, and then restored, and ennobled by a notable college of canons): That is said to be the first church consecrated in honor of blessed Mary on this side of the Alps: and after a few words: It is reported that all the churches which blessed Maternus consecrated in that diocese he consecrated to blessed Mary, although afterwards they were named otherwise by others.

[166] as some write, he built very many. The praised Giles and the Belgic chronicler, as regards the church of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary consecrated by Maternus at Tongres, have been followed by Fisen, Foullon and other more recent writers; but what they affirm about churches dedicated to the number of seventy-two congregations, these commonly suppress in silence, either because they did not attain the sense, which is truly obscure, or because it seemed incredible that so many churches were built in one city, as the context intimates, in the first century according to their opinion. And indeed, if this must absolutely be interpreted of so many different churches in the strict sense of the name, it appears to me equally incredible for the third or fourth century. Wherefore I judge that this, like many other things, was gratuitously feigned by some, alluding to the seventy-two disciples, into whose number they thrust St. Maternus; or, if there be any truth underlying it, that by churches are to be understood conventicles or places designated by the Saint, that in them under the patronage

of the Saints the laws of the Christian faith might be expounded at stated times, and the praises of God chanted. To this exposition there seems to be favorable what Giles himself has in chapter 24, where, narrating the coming of St. Servatius to the city of Tongres, he says: On that day there had assembled there seventy-two congregations in the basilica of St. Mary, God's will foreordaining that they should thus meet Servatius on that day.

[167] At Maastricht, which is a celebrated city of Belgium and was once episcopal, it is likewise a tradition that churches were set up by our Saint. At Maastricht he is believed to have erected a church to St. Mary the Virgin, The citizens assert that at Maastricht a temple was set up to the divine Virgin by the divine Maternus, says Foullon. The same is read in the proper lessons of the Office which is prescribed for the Saint in the Proper of the Offices of the diocese of Liège of the year 1623, and in the Breviary of the year 1636, in the following words: That he was the first to build churches to God in honor of the Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, at Tongres, at Maastricht, at Huy, at Dinant, at Walcourt, and in various places round about … is handed down among writers. Fisen, in book 1 of the History of Liège, page 35, mentions two churches at Maastricht in this manner: At the neighboring crossing of the Meuse, which had already begun to be frequented, having strenuously set to work, he founded one temple to the Savior and to the prince of the Apostles, another to the Great Mother of God on the military road itself, says Giles. I have diligently turned over Giles's Additions to Heriger, where mention of our Saint occurs, and he truly treats in various places of the temple of St. Salvator and of the prince of the Apostles; but I have found nothing about a church founded to the Great Mother of God on the military road. Wherefore, if indeed the praised Giles left that tradition in writing, it must be said that it was either omitted in our copy, or escaped our eyes. But it matters little, since his authority is not so great as to stand in the way of the tradition. Let us hear, however, what he has consigned to writing about the other church.

[168] and another to the Lord Savior and to St. Peter, in which St. Servatius Chapter 13, which he added to Heriger in the Life of St. Maternus, thus has it: And when, preaching and healing the sick, he passed through villages and towns, he came to Maastricht, where on the public highway which is called the Royal Way he dedicated a church in honor of the Lord Savior and of the prince of the Apostles. The said chapter he closes with these words: In the Life of Blessed Servatius we read that he (St. Maternus) founded the church of Maastricht, which is now called at St. Servatius, in honor of St. Peter the apostle. Of a church built or founded by St. Maternus nothing is read in the Life of St. Servatius collected by Heriger; but in the Addition to its chapter 24, which Giles himself made, as Chapeaville observes, these words are read: On the public highway which is called the Royal Way there was a basilica dedicated by blessed Maternus in honor of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles; entering this, he (St. Servatius) considered and said, with inmost tears and words: Here the holy Maternus of the Lord walked, here he pronounced the word of life, here he sat, here he prayed. The same Giles thus begins his Addition to chapter 28 of the Life of St. Servatius: And when he had come to Maastricht, in the basilica beside the public causeway, once built there by blessed Maternus, he commands a crypt to be made in the midst; thither he transferred the whole treasure of Octavia (so he calls the city of Tongres), and placed his own sarcophagus among them. Then, after narrating St. Servatius's death and the celebration of his obsequies: On the eighth day, he says, he was buried in the aforesaid church beside the public causeway. Which last sentence conflicts with the sayings of St. Gregory of Tours, of Heriger, and of Giles himself.

[169] Gregory, in chapter 72 On the Glory of the confessors, describes the burial of St. Servatius in this manner: was not buried, as is proved from Gregory of Tours But Servatius, bishop of Maastricht, is recorded to have lived in the time of the Huns, when they were breaking forth to invade the Gauls; and he is reported to have been buried beside the very bridge of the public causeway: about whose sepulchre, although snow had fallen, yet it never wetted the marble which was laid above. And although those places are bound with the frost of exceeding cold, and snow covers the earth even to the thickness of three and four feet, it does not in any way touch the tomb. For it is given to be understood that this man is a true Israelite: for to them, between walls of waters, the waters were not for destruction but for salvation; and about the tomb of this Just man the falling snow is not a cause of moisture but of honor; and you may see snowy mountains raised round about, and yet not touching the boundary of the monument: and we do not wonder that the earth is covered with snow, but we marvel that it has not dared to touch the place of the blessed sepulchre. For very often the devotion and zeal of the faithful built an oratory of smoothed wooden boards; but presently they were either snatched away by the wind or fell of their own accord. And I believe that these things were done for this reason, until there should come one who would build a worthy structure in honor of the glorious Prelate. But as time went on, bishop Monulph, coming into this city, built, arranged and adorned a great temple in his honor: into which the body, translated with much zeal and veneration, now prevails with great powers. Thus the bishop of Tours in the Liège manuscript codex which Henschen used, tom. III of May, page 217, and, if you except slight changes of words, in that which Ruinart used. Which manifestly show that the sepulchre of St. Servatius was not in a basilica, but exposed to the bare sky, and that it remained there down to the sixth century, in which both Gregory himself and St. Monulph, the founder of the present-day Servatian church, flourished.

[170] Heriger, who in the Life of St. Servatius, chapter 28, had simply said against Giles of Orval. Henschen's conjecture that he was buried beside the public causeway, in chapter 32, treating of St. Domitian, writes almost the same things as Gregory; while Giles in his Addition to the same chapter not only repeats the same things, but also calls Gregory himself as witness to his own sayings. And hence again it is clear how much is to be made of the things which rest on Giles's authority alone. Our Henschen, in the preliminary Exegesis to tom. VII of May, chapter 9, discoursing of the cathedral church which was at Maastricht before St. Monulph, touched briefly on the same matter, and so arranged it that on our opinion, with certain things changed, the tradition of the churches built to SS. Mary the Virgin and Peter the apostle remains sufficiently probable. Having premised some things about the origin of the city of Maastricht, he thus proceeds: But that its walls occupied no long space from the bank I believe the more willingly because I altogether judge that the place where St. Servatius was buried by the faithful beside the very public causeway was outside the walls — by the consent of all, next to that area in which the Servatian basilica now stands.

[171] about these temples, For it was among the Romans a usage, nay a law, to carry out the dead beyond the circuit of the walls: and this the Christians also for the most part kept, so long as they were under the Romans, so that they had their cemeteries outside the cities, but by no means within. On the same occasion also, and likewise that they might more freely attend to their sacred rites with less offense to the heathen, it came about in the first times of Christianity that, so far as the persecutions allowed, they had their oratories in the same places: such as, the common opinion of the people of Maastricht reports, was once consecrated there by St. Maternus — which I could wish to see confirmed by a more ancient and more faithful witness than is Jucundus (who in the eleventh century wrote the Life of St. Servatius, mingled with fables), drawing Giles after him as a follower. However it be, when Constantine the Great gave the Christians liberty to erect and to have temples in all the cities of the Roman empire, and animated all by his own example to the work, it is not credible that the people of Maastricht were long content with that suburban oratory, if there was one: but it is fair to believe that a church capable of holding the people was built in the middle, as it then was, of the city. This we can believe to have been in the place where now is the collegiate church of St. Mary, whether it was from the beginning sacred to the Mother of God, or afterwards received this appellation: for no other place whatever pretends to a prerogative of this kind in the lower and riverside tract, which alone constituted the town before the area consecrated by the Servatian sepulchre was enclosed with walls. In this therefore I should say that the Saint performed the divine offices during that short time in which he lived among the people of Maastricht; in this that Agricolaus was ordained; in this that the pontifical chair was, down to the times of St. Monulph, under eleven bishops. Thus far the praised Henschen.

[172] adapted to our opinion, sets forth the tradition probably. These things thus arranged leave probable the tradition about churches built here by our Saint, but, as I have noted, with certain things changed or at any rate otherwise understood than Henschen understood them. For he, both here and elsewhere, proceeded according to that opinion in which St. Maternus is placed in the first century, and in which accordingly the beginnings of the church or oratory of St. Peter could indeed be ascribed to him, but by no means the beginnings of the church of St. Mary the Virgin, which Henschen deservedly draws back to the times of Constantine the Great. But on our opinion about St. Maternus's times, the beginnings of each place are easily attributed to him, by saying that outside the circuit of the city, not far from the place where St. Servatius was afterwards buried, he erected an oratory or humble church to St. Peter when he first came thither, Constantine being then still a gentile; but the other, much more ample, to St. Mary the Virgin in the city itself, when, Constantine having been converted to the faith, he transferred the care of the church of Trier to Agritius and returned to his own Ubii, Tungri and people of Maastricht.

§ XVII. Various churches of Belgium which acknowledge St. Maternus as their founder.

He is written to have set up temples What St. Maternus is believed to have performed at Tongres and at Maastricht, that same do other cities and towns of the same diocese of Liège refer to him, and first of all Huy — by others Hujonum, Hujonium and Huum — situated on the river Meuse, at an equal distance of five miles from Namur and from Liège. Thus writes the Great Belgic chronicler: Seeing the multitude of the faithful increase, he went round the little villages of the diocese and came to Huy, and there built a church of blessed Mary at the foot of the mountain, where to this day the altar which he himself erected of tufa stone is preserved inviolable before the fountains, before which the lord Theodinus, the XXIV bishop of Liège, was buried. Of this church there is mention also in Giles of Orval, both elsewhere and especially in the deeds of the said bishop Theoduinus, in Chapeaville, tom. 2, page 3, where the following privilege of his is produced: I Theoduinus by the grace of God bishop of Liège wish it to be known to those present as well as to those to come, how, after the freedom of the church of Huy, which the lord Maternus, bishop of blessed memory, initiated by consecrating it, I have added the freedom of the town also. For the aforesaid church I rebuilt from the foundations to the ceilings, from the ceilings and beyond, and I also enriched it with gold and silver and gems and estates according to my measure, and from

Hagar I have made her to be Sarah. These things, with a brief elogium of Theoduinus, who is commonly written to have been raised to the episcopal see about the year 1049, Chapeaville says are confirmed in the Deeds of the abbots of St. Lawrence, and he recites their words in this manner: After Wazo, Theoduinus succeeded, the placid star of the church of Liège, who built at Huy a basilica of the holy Mother of God Mary, with as great devotion as with great labor, in which he also rests buried before the altar which blessed Maternus built there.

[174] With Giles and with the Belgic chronicler the present-day writers on the affairs of Huy agree, at Huy, when their discourse is of the first foundation of the church; but few have mentioned the said altar; nay, that no memory of it survives today Fisen is witness in the History of Liège, page 35. In the same place the same Fisen subjoins another tradition, about John of Trier, a disciple of St. Maternus, which he repeats somewhat more fully in the Paralipomena to the Flowers of the church of Liège, page 585, under this title: St. John of Trier, disciple of St. Maternus; and then, citing the Great Belgic Chronicle, thus proceeds: Born at Trier of a father of senatorial rank, as a youth he left all hopes placed in human affairs, and his very parents, that unencumbered he might strive after the institute of a holier life. He came to Maternus when the latter was preaching the Christian law at Huy about the hundredth year of Christ. Him as he came he received with apostolic charity, and instructed him with precepts so salutary unto all holiness that he led a most upright life next to the church which already then had been built in that city at the foot of a very high rock to the Virgin Mother. But the praised author was plainly deceived, if he had these things from no other source than the Great Chronicle; for here it is not the church of Huy that is treated, but that of Tongres, as is plain from the words of the Chronicle, which I likewise transfer hither. Likewise the son of a certain consul of Trier at this time, by name John, fleeing the world and his parents, is enclosed by blessed Maternus in a narrow cell beside the church of St. Mary at Tongres, holily serving God.

[175] at Dinant, Hence we proceed to Dinant, by others Dionantum, a town of the same dominion of Liège, of whose conversion to the faith and of whose chief church built by our Saint Fisen writes in this manner, in the History of Liège, page 35: For Dinant was then a city (when St. Maternus came thither) of long site, in a narrow valley between the Meuse and steep rocks, which they record to have had its name from Diana. Certainly today a cave is displayed in the middle of the city, which the vulgar affirm to have been once sacred to Diana and celebrated for oracles delivered. The place itself is such as would give credit to the report. Impiety being exterminated, Maternus, setting about to establish the sincere worship of the Deity, had as his helper Memmius, the apostle of Châlons, whom a holy impulse of mind had carried away beyond the borders of his own diocese to Dinant. By a common effort, when they had declared war on the powers below and waged it happily, they each founded and consecrated sacred buildings: Maternus to the Virgin Mother, Memmius to Stephen the protomartyr. Almost the same have Foullon and Placentius, but without testimonies. The deeds of St. Memmius have been discussed at the day V of August, and his coming into the Gauls placed in the third century.

[176] at Leffe, at Ciney, at Andain, At Leffe also, which is now an abbey of the Premonstratensian Order in the suburb of Dinant, where the river Leffe flows into the Meuse, it is the tradition of the inhabitants that a temple was built by St. Maternus to the Great Mother of God, as the same Fisen and Foullon testify. The former adds, in the Flowers of the church of Liège, that in that temple Maternus placed an image of St. Mary the Virgin which he himself had fashioned with his own hands, afterwards celebrated for miracles. The same author records a like thing about Ciney, a town of the dominion of Liège, in which also he erected a building sacred to the best Mother, and adorned it with her image, which prodigies wrought down to our own age have made illustrious. Brower, moreover, in book 2 of the Annals, page 163, from a manuscript compendium of the Trevirian deeds adduces a notable miracle wrought by the Saint when he was at Ciney: namely that five persons, and those, as it is handed down, king's sons, crushed by a fall of building, were by divine power called back from death to life. There are those who will have a temple set up by St. Maternus also at Andain, which place is situated in the Ardennes and is today called at St. Hubert, Saint Hubert, and consecrated to the divine Peter, prince of the Apostles.

[177] at Namur But wonderful are the things which are current about the beginnings of the church of Namur. Hear Fisen, page 36: To Namur also he brought the Christian standards, that by waging war he might rout the evil demon, who there too was vending his own lies to wretched mortals as oracles; for it is a report from antiquity that his image, by the name of Nam, was held in veneration. Which, when at Maternus's coming it had grown dumb and thereafter delivered no oracles, the inhabitants, embracing the Christian rites, called it Nammutum: from which the name remained to the city, first Namucum, then, by a slight change of letters, Namurcum. So they report: there is no credit for it from the ancients. Although it is established that about this time the oracles grew dumb in almost the whole world. Further, that Maternus set up and dedicated a building to the Mother of God likewise beneath a steep rock, no one doubts. He carried about with him the sweetest Mother fixed in the inmost marrow of his soul: for he hoped for no usefulness in his labors, no perpetuity in their fruits, save under her auspices.

[178] The same things as to substance are read in Foullon, in the city, and it is subjoined that there is shown to this day in the temple of the divine Virgin a small hollow of a column, which they suppose to have belonged to that idol, and in the same place a chapel built by the divine Maternus to the memory of the divine Virgin. That other monuments of St. Maternus's piety exist to this day, Jean-Baptiste Gramaye is the author, in the History of Namur, part 1 of the septenary, speaking thus: The province of Namur … is that whose name was mute, and in which idolatry was changed into religion. It is that which, first of all the provinces of Belgium, having obtained as herald a Disciple of the prince of the Apostles, imitating the example of Strato of Tyre, with eyes turned to the west of superstition, deserved first to behold and venerate the dawn of the rising of our faith. It is that which, displaying four altars dedicated by the lord Maternus, was so tenacious of the doctrine received from him that through more than a thousand five hundred years, stained by no adultery of heresy, infected by no frauds of atheists, it perseveres entire. I do not examine what the praised historian here sets forth in an oratorical style; but what he says about the four altars he does not sufficiently explain, so that I might assign in what places of the province of Namur each survives to this day. One, however, he himself points out in tom. 2 of the same History, section 26, in these words: Let there succeed (to the college of the cathedral church) that old college of canons of the lord Virgin, and one which for a long time contended about preeminence with the college of the lord Alban (of the cathedral church). For they display the altar and the place where St. Maternus, giving his labor to the conversion of the unbelievers, performed the divine service.

[179] Other temples erected in the county of Namur by our Saint are enumerated in the Sacrarium of the same diocese, and of the same county published in print in the year 1619, page 22, in the following order: St. Maternus, disciple of the divine Peter, apostle of the people of Namur, dedicated to the Queen of the heavens the temples of Hastière, of Walcourt, of Namur, and of Namêche in the country of Namur, which even today stand entire in his cult. Then in testimony of the assertion the archives of those same churches are called. Of that of Hastière, which is an ancient monastery of the Order of St. Benedict across the river Meuse, Gramaye affirms the same in the Antiquities of the county of Namur, section 3 on the prefecture of Bouvignes, and produces, in confirmation of it, the diploma of the foundation of the said monastery, written, as he indeed thinks, in the seventh century; but that this is manifestly supposititious has been proved on several heads with us in tom. III of April, page 820; which therefore, as it takes nothing away from the truth of the tradition of the church founded by St. Maternus, so also avails nothing to confirm it.

[180] The same Gramaye, in section 10, treating of the town of Walcourt, [and in other places, where he is venerated with an Office on the 19th day of September.] has this to the present purpose: As regards sacred matters, this place, situated in the Ardennes district, as they then spoke, received the light of the faith at the announcing of blessed Maternus, who, when Arbo, the tyrant of these places, had been converted to better fruit, dedicated a church to the Virgin Mother, and placed in it an image drawn, as is believed, with his own hands, most renowned for miracles and wont to be visited by a frequent concourse of pilgrims. These things likewise are read almost word for word in the Sacrarium cited in the preceding number, page 13. But of the temple of Namêche, which above was enumerated in the last place, I find nothing further. For the rest, the annual festivity of St. Maternus recurs throughout the whole diocese of Namur at the day XIX of September, as I gather from the Proper of the Saints, in which at the aforesaid day an Office is prescribed to be recited of him under a double rite, from the Common of a confessor pontiff, with proper lessons of the second Nocturn, drawn from his oft-mentioned Life.

§ XVIII. Temples built by the Saint at Cologne and at Bonn; miracles wrought in several places.

He founded churches to God and to his Mother, and to St. Peter; That Cologne was ennobled by St. Maternus with temples is the unanimous consent of the inhabitants; nor is there silence on this matter in any who has written about the Christian beginnings of this most celebrated city. Two are named by Giles of Orval in his Addition to chapter 13 of Heriger: He came to Cologne, he says, in which, by his preaching, when the worship of Mars beside the Capitol in the gate had been destroyed, and throughout the city the temples of divers gods, he built two principal churches together with other various oratories of the Saints: one in honor of our Lord, which is now called St. Cecilia's; another of Blessed Peter, which is now called St. Victor's. And a little below: He founded throughout the diocese of Cologne many churches of divers Saints, the temples of idolatry having first been destroyed. This leader, in what he has about the two temples of Cologne, Fisen, Brower, and Gelenius in the Precious Hierotheca of Cologne, chapter 5, have followed. The same are likewise named by the author of the Great Chronicle, who adds that in the basilica of St. Peter St. Maternus placed the episcopal seat. But Eisengrein, in book 1 of the Affairs of Speyer, says that the church now marked with the name of St. Cecilia was first dedicated to the Most Blessed Virgin, and set within the walls of the city; but the other, outside the walls, to St. Peter.

[182] but not so the chapel today called of St. Servatius, Gelenius, treating of the same churches again in book 1 On the Greatness of Cologne, syntagma 5, thus expounds what from the Belgic Chronicle and Eisengrein was fitted to beget doubt: That which is now called St. Cecilia's was erected by the Blessed prelate Maternus to God the Best and Greatest and to the Mother of God, and either the metropolitan or the cathedral dignity was brought into the city from the suburb, as the monuments and the writers of the Life assert. Thus Gelenius, who nevertheless a little higher up seems himself to have confounded the temples and the names of the Saints in these words: At Cologne St. Maternus made greater progress, a little building in the port

he is handed down to have built, which St. Severinus, restoring it, left to the memory of blessed Servatius his guest. It is handed down also that he built the first metropolitan church to God at the very moat of the city before the gate of the Paphian goddess, where now is the basilica of the divine Andrew, formerly called of Blessed Matthew in the moat; which both other monuments and the vestige of the work often and lately dug up show. But when I say that a basilica was erected at his first coming, understand houses and large upper rooms turned into a title-church, such as Baronius describes at the year 57, num. 100, and elsewhere. The studious reader easily notices why this last is added: because, namely, with the first century, to which the praised author binds St. Maternus's episcopate, the erection of so many basilicas does not sufficiently agree. But let us weigh the rest.

[183] The first thing which he asserts, about a little building in the port, afterwards named of St. Servatius, as Gelenius thought, who also designates a site of the church of St. Peter raised by our Saint, I find propped up by the suffrages of no other writers; on the contrary Erhard Winheim in the Sacrarium Agrippinæ expressly affirms, page 305, that the chapel of St. Servatius — under which name only one comes in the series of the buildings of Cologne, situated in the street of St. John — had as its founder St. Servatius himself, who built it in honor of God on the occasion of having seen there in his sleep a fiery column, and named it the Gate of heaven; which name the chapel afterwards put off, and took that of Servatius its founder. What he builds up in the second place, and repeats in book 3, syntagma 137, the praised Gelenius — that the basilica of St. Andrew, formerly under the name of St. Matthew, was St. Maternus's first metropolitan church — I know to be likewise confirmed by the testimony of no writer, and it conflicts not only with the Belgic Chronicle, in which it is said that the Saint dedicated to St. Peter the church which is now St. Victor's, and placed in it his episcopal seat; but it has also against it the report which he himself confesses flourishes today among the people of Cologne, in book 3, syntagma 1, §4, where he treats of the structure of the metropolitan church.

[184] But the report, as I gather from Gelenius himself, from Winheim and from others, contrary to the tradition. is this: St. Maternus first raised for himself and for his see a humble church or oratory outside the walls of the city — the old city, that is — and consecrated it to St. Peter. Then, when Christian affairs took increase, he transferred the see into the city to a more august church, likewise erected by him to God and to his most holy Mother. In the lapse of time the oratory of St. Peter was enclosed within the circuit of the city, and obtained the name of SS. Matthias and Victor, nay more commonly of St. Maternus, and to this day, situated in the parish of St. Paul, it is called by the vulgar the Ancient Summit, in German, Der alten thum. The basilica of blessed Mary the Virgin afterwards went under the title of St. Cecilia, and had the dignity of cathedral church down to the times of Charlemagne: Now, on Winheim's testimony, it is a college both of men, not having however a provost and a dean, and of noble and patrician virgins under the rule of Blessed Augustine, living, through the reform, in a very strict enclosure and sufficiently disciplined; whose abbess, the head of the whole college, is for the most part a countess.

[185] See more about this collegiate church in the praised author, page 115 of the Sacrarium, Other churches of Cologne, where he discourses at length on the name first imposed on it by St. Maternus, and at the same time indicates that the parish church of St. Peter adjoining it is also the work of the same St. Maternus; and this last indeed he absolutely affirms at page 249, where his discourse is peculiarly about the parish of St. Peter. Let us add here from the same what he hands down about the beginnings of the collegiate church of St. Andrew, page 64: First founded under the patronage of St. Matthew the apostle by St. Bruno, the first of that name but the XXV bishop of Cologne, it was assigned to virgins consecrated to God, but a little afterwards was by the same converted into a college of canons, the patronage of Matthew being changed into that of St. Andrew. Nothing at all about that antiquity which Gelenius attributes to it. Further, the said Bruno sat as bishop after the middle of the tenth century. There is also another church in the city of Cologne, and that a parish church, under the title of Blessed Mary the Virgin on the shore, whose cradle seems to Gelenius, book 3, syntagma 22, to belong to our Saint's times; nay, he affirms that it is believed by some to be the work of the Saint himself, especially the old little church, which is now a subterranean cave or crypt, called St. Maternus's cell, in which they report that the body of the blessed confessor was deposited before the translation to Trier, of which below.

[186] ascribed to the Saint, and one at Bonn, The names or the site of the remaining churches, of which they will have very many to have been erected by St. Maternus throughout the diocese of Cologne, I have not found among the collectors of the affairs of their country, except one, mentioned by Cratepolius in the Annals of the archbishops, page 2, in these words: At Bonn he dedicated a church in honor of St. John the Baptist, which afterwards became a college of noble virgins. In the margin he indicates that that college is called of Dedo, commonly Ditkirchen: whence, on Winheim's testimony, page 267, about the year 1313 the sacred virgins were translated to the church of St. Agatha, situated in the middle of the city of Cologne, where to this day a convent of the Order of St. Benedict is seen.

[187] converted to the faith by him. Certainly Bonn, which is a city four German miles distant from Cologne, and the ordinary seat of the elector of Cologne, acknowledges St. Maternus as its first apostle, as I conjecture from Giles of Orval, who writes thus in the Addition often assigned to chapter 13 of Heriger: And when, going down the Moselle and the Rhine, he had preached along the bank in castles and villages, and had converted the lords of the towns and villages, and especially the lord of Bonn, he came to Cologne. Peter Bertius, in book 3 of the Commentaries on German affairs, touching briefly on the origin of the Christian religion among the people of Bonn, says it is reported that St. Maternus, teaching here, overthrew the altars and idols of Mercury, using no other arms than the efficacious doctrine of Christ. Gelenius likewise, in book 1, syntagma 5, giving the words of Giles just cited somewhat enlarged, speaks thus: But among his other works St. Maternus performed at Bonn a benefit not to be passed over in silence. There presided there, as the writers of his Life hand down, either the governor of the town or a commander of the Roman legions; having gained him for Christ, he founded there a notable church preserved to the present time. Hence seems to flow the great power of the clergy of Bonn. Thus he, proceeding then to describe that power at greater length.

[188] He is written to have wrought many miracles; As nothing presents itself to hinder us from believing that most of the things which we have hitherto reported from the traditions of particular places about the building of churches are true as to substance, even though no special notice of them has been left among the biographers and historians whom, in default of others, we are compelled to invoke as more ancient — Eberhard, Theodoric, Goldscher and Heriger — so neither does a reason betray itself why we should deservedly doubt that the tradition is true by which the Saint is believed to have wrought by divine power in various places, for the confirmation of the faith delivered by him, miracles and prodigies, and those very many in number, as at least in general the authors already praised intimate, when they write thus: St. Maternus, taking up the pontifical summit, began constantly to preach through cities and regions the true faith which is in Christ, to grow daily in great virtues, and to shine far and wide with signs and miracles. But they have likewise transmitted to us a more explicit knowledge of only a few, which besides it has not been granted to supply from elsewhere, since Giles himself with the others is here silent.

[189] of these one, related by many, And so, besides one or two recited above on the occasion of the churches erected, and left, so far as regards the probability of the adjuncts, to the reader's judgment, we find only three prodigies distinctly set forth; the first of which we exhibit in this place, reserving the other two for the following paragraph. That one the author of the Trevirian Deeds, in Leibniz and Calmet often mentioned, sets forth in these few words: He converted the people of Tongres and of Cologne to the faith of Christ, and presided over these three cities by pontifical right, in each of which he is reported to have celebrated the divine Office on one and the same Paschal (in d'Achery, Pentecost) day. This author Giles transcribed in his Addition to Heriger, chapter 14, indicating however that that prodigy was done with an angel leading him. And from Giles more recent writers commonly recite it, but not all pass the same judgment upon it. Brower believes it, at the year 92, and, having adduced examples from Scripture and set forth the rites and customs of the first prelates of our faith, endeavors also to win credit for it among others, against certain persons who maintained that it was incredible.

[190] Foullon suspends judgment about the truth of the Fact; Fisen does not dissemble that he greatly doubts; does not find credit with all; the reasons for which by a modern writer, and the reason of each is that they acknowledge Giles, according to them its most ancient witness, to be a man more than fairly light in bringing forward marvels. There is added Bertholet, who in book 1 of the History of Luxembourg, page 121, so discourses of the fact that you easily perceive that he does not attribute credit to it. For after he had said that Giles is an author otherwise of some weight, but in the matter of miracles too credulous, he presently subjoins in his French tongue the following, turned into Latin: That this may be clear to us, we need attend only to one thing which he relates: namely, that St. Maternus celebrated Mass on the same day of Easter at Tongres, at Cologne, and at Trier. He would have spoken more rightly if he had said that he preached there; since the ceremonies of the Mass were not determined at that time. I know that the Saint could have been at the same time in different places, since nothing is impossible with God; but that this miracle was wrought by St. Maternus, Giles of Orval does not prove.

[191] I readily assent to the praised historians in what they pronounce about Giles's excessive credulity; it is called into doubt, nay, I say more: his authority is so slight with me, when he reports the deeds of the first centuries, that I receive nothing from him except with a doubtful credit, which I do not find proved from elsewhere. But I do not sufficiently perceive why he is beaten here because he writes that St. Maternus celebrated the divine Office, or why he would have spoken more rightly by saying that he preached, because the ceremonies of the Mass were not determined at that time. Does Giles indicate even by a word that St. Maternus, according to him a bishop of the first and second century, used those ceremonies which were afterwards established by the Church? He says nakedly that he celebrated the divine Office, whence you would elicit that no more than from what is read in the venerable Bede about St. Mark the Evangelist in the Martyrology at the day XXV of April: Seeing him (the pagans) celebrating Masses on the holy day of Easter, they cast a rope about his neck, etc. Is Giles perhaps carped at because he says that St. Maternus celebrated in three places, and accordingly three times on one and the same day of Easter? But how

will it be proved that in so great a scarcity of priests that custom did not exist in the first centuries which afterwards flourished, and flourishes even today, that on account of the multitude of the faithful the most sacred Sacrifice of the Mass is repeated by one priest in different places?

[192] are not approved by us. Wherefore, if the fact of which we treat ought to be called into doubt, or rejected as fabulous, the reasons alleged by the praised historian availed nothing at all for this, and it were better to keep within the terms of Foullon and Fisen, namely that Giles is not a suitable witness to produce credit. But neither do I sufficiently attain why Giles is here traduced as the first asserter of the miracle, since it is read in all the editions of the Trevirian Deeds, whose authors, although no more suitable for persuading us, are certainly believed much more ancient than Giles, and who with the historian of Luxembourg and with others who defend St. Maternus's mission by St. Peter the apostle have authority beyond all exception.

§ XIX. The Saint's virtues, death, and the translation of his body from Cologne to Trier.

Although the things which are reported about the Saint's That our Saint was adorned with excellent endowments of mind, and that there shone forth in him especially, besides holiness of life, doctrine, prudence and the highest dexterity in handling matters of faith, we sufficiently gather from Eusebius, Optatus of Milevis and the emperor Constantine cited at §9; but besides the general testimonies of these, nothing is certainly ascertained by us about his virtues. A compendium indeed of his other particular virtues is exhibited by the biographer in our tom. 2 of January, and by Heriger in Chapeaville tom. 1, and such a one as contains nothing discordant, nothing incredible; but since it has no other witnesses than those about whom we have often opened our judgment, and since besides it appears to us of such a kind that it can easily be fitted to any holy prelates whatever and to pastors inflamed with zeal for promoting the divine glory, we cannot but suspect that it was piously devised rather than acquired from elsewhere. Wherefore we transcribe it under that caution under which we have often elsewhere transcribed deeds of Saints composed by authors removed by too great an interval of time, and not fortified by sufficient authority of monuments, and very suspect.

[194] virtues, Such is it in the biographer, and scarcely unlike in Heriger: The more he had seen the multitude of the faithful increase by daily increments, the more diligently he strove to order regularly the ministry laid upon him. For although he was a Man of great authority and prudence, yet he did nothing of his own command, as though using a free power; but did all things humbly and simply, and showed himself common to his subjects in the zeal of holy love; in all things also which he probably did, he sought not his own glory but Christ's; and he, being among the other exercises of holy virtues most gentle, consoled the afflicted, fed the needy from what he had, clothed the naked, redeemed captives, received strangers, mercifully showed the way of salvation to the erring, clemently promised to the despairing the hope of obtaining pardon, always urged forward to the things before those running the way of God's commandments, spurred on with a word of exhortation those lingering in it, and, now by teaching, now by exhorting, now by enduring, now by exposing himself in dangers, met all unceasingly with pious solace. Then he is said, propped up by these virtues, to have come to a holy and praiseworthy old age, and to have remained forty years in the priestly ministry, as he had lain as many days in the sepulchre, namely when by the staff of St. Peter he was called back to life, of which above.

[195] We know that St. Maternus held the episcopate in the year 313 and 314, his death being foretold to him, and we believe that he laid it down before 347, in which Euphrates, prelate of the people of Cologne, is read to have been present at the synod of Sardica; in what year he died, and whether the biographer received from a better tradition than usual what he both hands down about the long duration of the see and narrates more fully about the Saint's death and its adjuncts, we do not know; and accordingly we transcribe these things only under that caution of which we gave notice at num. 193. He therefore was accustomed in the night's quiet to frequent silently the place where the bodies of the Saints rest, and there to persist alone rather long in prayer: whence, when on a certain night he entered that same church according to custom, and there celebrated the divine praises more at length, about midnight he began to be weighed down with sleep, and to be retarded from the urgency of his prayers, his tongue often stumbling; he, sitting on the bench which was there, with his elbows fixed upon his knees, reclined his holy head between both hands, and yielding a little to sleep, quickly fell asleep: and immediately there appeared to him in a vision St. Eucharius and Blessed Valerius, shining with most bright countenances, gleaming with priestly infulæ, bearing on their heads crowns each woven with wonderful art of roses and lilies and the other fragrant flowers, showing a like garland and saying: Behold, Maternus, as we once promised you, so before the day of your falling asleep we come to visit you. Now therefore rejoice and be glad, because on the third day you shall depart from this world, and shall enter into the unspeakable joys of your Lord. Behold, look upon the incorruptible crown of your reward, which has been taken from the paradise of perpetual pleasantness, and destined for you by Christ through his servants; whose flower never withers, whose odor never fails of its sweetness, whose perseverance knows no end; which after the corruption of the present life you shall incorruptibly possess, and crowned with it you shall persevere eternally in the sight of the King of kings.

[196] Having said these things they presently disappeared; but he, awaking from the lightest sleep, and its other adjuncts, was indeed very glad at the vision shown him, but nevertheless immediately felt that a trouble of the body was at hand, and, having summoned his attendant, with his help returned to his cell, and apart related to his familiar disciples this which had been shown him. But on the following day, the band of the brethren having been called together to him, he began earnestly to admonish them about the integrity of the faith, and to kindle their minds to heavenly desire with delightful words, and, not ceasing all day long to give them salutary admonitions, he prolonged his exhortatory discourse to the eighth hour of the following night; and what remained of the night he passed in psalms and hymns with the brethren. But after cockcrow, day being now at hand, there came from above a clear voice, all who were in that little cell hearing it, saying: Maternus, beloved of God, come. Who, presently, as though hearing an accustomed voice, turned to the brethren standing about and said: Farewell, my little sons and my bowels: for I shall now depart, and shall be no more with you in the present world. And saying these things he received the communion of the Lord's Sacrament, and immediately breathed out his holy soul. Then the faithful who were present performed worthy obsequies, and honorably laid his body not far from the relics of SS. Eucharius and Valerius, on the XVIII day of the Kalends of October. Thus far the biographer, and after him, with only the phrasing changed and the day of death omitted, Heriger.

[197] the translation of the body from Cologne to Trier The place of his death, not noted in the transcripts which Bolland used, is clearly expressed in other copies of the Life, and along with it is described the prodigious translation of the sacred body, of which there is no mention either in those or in Heriger in Chapeaville. Let us give the text entire from the copies mentioned and to be assigned hereafter: Now he died at Cologne on the XVIII of the Kalends of October in the year of the Lord 130. His death being known, the men of Trier presently set out for Cologne, demanding back their Pastor. There were present also the people of Tongres, who together with the people of Cologne [] were busily striving to retain him for themselves. [] The contention lasted long on both sides. Meanwhile a certain venerable old man, appearing in the city, admonished the citizens that, desisting from the strife, they should obey his counsels, and, placing the Pontiff's body in a ship and then driving it from the shore into the waves, should let it go whither God should will. Wondrous thing! Presently, as the angel had advised, it was done, and the ship laden with the sacred body, with no pilot steering it, is directed against the waves by an angelic oarsman [*], and in the small space of an hour, a mile being completed, is brought to shore in the place which from the sadness of the people of Cologne was then called Ruigne (by others Rowehe, Roze, Rawenkirch). Then the men of Trier, receiving with thanksgiving the body of their Pontiff, destined for them by God, carried it back to Trier, and buried it honorably in the church not far from the bodies of the holy Eucharius and Valerius.

[198] are uncertain, So have it, if you except minutiæ of which I have noted the chief, two parchment codices among our manuscripts, marked P. Ms. 14 and P. Ms. 19. Likewise two manuscript transcripts, one of which was taken from the Utrecht codex of St. Salvator, the other from a manuscript of the monastery of Blessed Mary of Munster at Luxembourg. There agree also the Trevirian Deeds in Calmet, d'Achery and Leibniz, and almost word for word the Great Belgic Chronicle, and finally Giles of Orval in his Addition to chapter 16 of Heriger. There are added a Trevirian manuscript of the cathedral church, communicated to our Elders by Johann Gamans, a priest of our Society, and the Marrow of the Trevirian deeds, composed by Johann Enen and rendered into Latin by Johann Schekmann: but in these the contention of the three peoples about the Saint's body is set forth somewhat otherwise. This series of monuments and writers attesting the same about the place of his death I have not adduced with the mind of intending to defend from so great a consent the several things handed down in them: on the contrary, as is clear from what has been said, I cannot but oppose the year of death designated in them, to which, as I indeed judge, the very history of the translation subjoined is opposed.

[199] [yet they agree better with the fourth century than with the first; that he died at Cologne,] For I do not find a probable enough reason for connecting with the midst of heathenism, which certainly held sway in those parts about the years 128 and 130, that concourse of the men of Trier and of Tongres to the city of Cologne, the public contention of the three peoples over the sacred body, and its translation safe and unharmed to Trier — things which assuredly, if they were done, will square more fitly with the fourth century. And so I have brought forward those testimonies on account of certain moderns, otherwise not very incredulous, who, fixing the Saint's death at the years 128 or 130, not only seem to relegate the history of the translation to fables, but further expressly deny that the Saint died among the people of Cologne, because this, as they think, was not asserted by anyone more ancient than Giles of Orval, and because Heriger says that Maternus was buried beside St. Eucharius by the faithful who had been present at his death, and accordingly intimates that he died at Trier. For, to answer each reason in few words: there is no doubt that among the writers cited there are men more ancient than Giles, and namely the authors of the Trevirian Deeds, so that the history is wrongly rubbed off upon him as its first inventor. See the preceding § at the end.

[200] Besides, from Heriger, whom I do not judge earlier than the said authors of the Deeds, which a modern writer denies not consistently enough it does not follow that the Saint died at Trier. For although he says that he was buried at Trier by the faithful,

who had stood by him as he died, this can be so expounded that some of these, especially his household, accompanied the body of the holy Pastor from Cologne to Trier, and there performed his funeral rites. I repeat what I have said before: I do not defend Giles, nor the writers of the Trevirian Deeds, nor others: but I wonder at the rule of writing here employed by a certain person; when he defends St. Maternus's mission by St. Peter, the silence of the ancients does not oppose him at all, nor the reasons adduced to the contrary. It is a tradition, confirmed by the testimonies of writers, and that suffices, although these are removed by many centuries from the matter handed down, and, as he himself does not dare to deny, have patched together their histories with fabulous adjuncts. Here meanwhile, because one or another of like writers does not express the place of death and keeps silence about the translation of the body, the tradition avails nothing, the consent of very many others obtains nothing.

[201] Of very many, I say; for besides those enumerated, that the body of St. Maternus, who died among the people of Cologne, was translated to Trier is handed down by Alberic, monk of Trois-Fontaines, it is handed down by the consent of almost all; Albert abbot of Stade, Wilhelm Eisengrein, Petrus Merssæus Cratepolius, Gelenius and others, most of whom that very modern calls in for aid where he makes St. Maternus a disciple of St. Peter. There are added the auctaria of the Usuardine Martyrology — the Lübeck-Cologne, Grevenus's and Molanus's — at the days XIV of September and XXIII of October: likewise the Breviary of Cologne of the year 1618, and that of Liège of the year 1636, and also the Trevirian Lectionary, in whose lessons proper to the Saint his death among the people of Cologne and his translation to those of Trier are described. Besides, according to that same modern and to all the rest who defend the miracle of St. Maternus once raised in Alsace, there greatly help to win credit for that tradition the vault which Beatus Rhenanus says is shown to this day at the village of Hellum, in which the Saint lay dead for some time, and the vestiges of the temple once built in that place, which, on Brower's testimony, survive today, and are worn by the religion of those who assemble and by votive pilgrimages. What reason is there, therefore, why like monuments existing to this day should have less strength for confirming the tradition of the Saint having died among the people of Cologne and afterwards been translated to Trier?

[202] For indeed, to say nothing of the old little church which is now a subterranean cave or crypt, and from the monuments which survive, called St. Maternus's cell, and in which, as Gelenius says, they report the body of the blessed Confessor was deposited before it was carried from Cologne to Trier, there is a place celebrated to this day where the little ship with the sacred pledge to be carried to Trier is believed to have rested. Let us give a few testimonies. But to Augusta of the Treviri, says Eisengrein in book 1 of the History of Speyer, he is carried to be buried, with such groaning of the city of Cologne, with such mournful lamentation and weeping of the sorrowing people, that in that place, where at that time there was uncultivated field, a shrine sacred to Maternus was built in perpetual memory of the matter, and from the event of the deed was named Rawenkirch; which temple, today most highly frequented, together with an excellent farm, is corruptly called Rodenkirch. Gelenius in the Hierotheca, page 22: In that place, however, where the little ship stayed its course, the very entrails of St. Maternus were buried, which the people of Cologne have honored with a perpetual monument. For there in memory of that matter they raised a chapel, commonly called Rudenkirchen, as it were Ruhen and Rewenkirchen, that is, the church of rest or of grief. Of the same place and relics Winheim likewise writes in the Sacrarium Agrippinæ, page 23; nor do I think that of others is to be understood what is read toward the end of lesson VI in the Breviary of Cologne before named: A little portion of his relics, left outside Cologne on the Rhine in a neighboring place, is even today celebrated with a frequent concourse. I have also a letter, sent to our Papebroch from Kalkar, a city of Germany, on the XXX day of July in the year 1689, by a man whose subscribed name I do not sufficiently distinguish, but who testifies that he had often been at Ruhekirchen, or corruptly Rodekirchen, and that a part of the relics of St. Maternus is visited there by the people of Cologne from the day XIV of September down to the feast of St. Michael. To these let there be added Theodor Rhay, a priest of the Society of Jesus, in the book entitled Illustrious Souls of Jülich, Cleves, Berg, the Mark, etc., writing thus at the day XIV of September, page 154: In the duchy of Berg, the prefecture of Löwenburg, the village of Rodenkirchen, two leagues above Cologne, the feast of St. Maternus, bishop of the Treviri, of the Tungri and of the people of Cologne, whose entrails resting there the people of Cologne (delightful according to the countenance of the Saints) constantly celebrate, together with the neighboring inhabitants, with a visitation of fourteen days.

[203] and for other reasons it is altogether probable to us. For the rest, setting aside even these monuments, according to our opinion it is altogether probable that the Saint died among the Ubii, not among the Treviri, since he presided as bishop over the former, not the latter, in the later years of his life, as has been established before. But whether the translation of the body was performed with that prodigy or with those adjuncts, I would neither wish to assert, because again I have no witness more ancient than the ninth century, nor should I dare absolutely to deny, because it is established from the Lives of other Saints that very many things no less prodigious have happened. This is certain to me, that nothing occurs in the miracle of the body translated more incredible than in the other of the Saint raised in Alsace, as I just intimated; and if for the truth of the fact one must have recourse to tradition, monuments, authors, the first has not been more solidly proved to me than the second. Finally, let us suppose that adjuncts afterwards feigned have accrued to the history of both events; we shall not yet labor to attain in some measure by conjectures how the men of Trier obtained the sacred spoils, or how the Ubii suffered themselves to be deprived of them. For since Eucharius and Valerius had died and been buried at Trier, it could have happened — as the author of the Belgic Chronicle writes did happen — namely, that the Saint asked to be carried after his death to Trier to be buried with his companions, and that the people of Cologne would not, or did not dare, to oppose this last will of their holy Father.

* elsewhere to the people of Cologne

* elsewhere they were attempting

* elsewhere by oarage

§ XX. The place of the first burial; the translation of the body to the metropolitan church of Trier; its public exposition; relics in other churches.

The body was first buried beside SS. Eucharius and Valerius, That the precious remains of St. Maternus were first honorably deposited among the men of Trier not far from the bodies of SS. Eucharius and Valerius we have seen in the preceding §. Brower, in book 2, num. 98, says that the place of the deposition was that very oratory once consecrated to St. John the Evangelist, which was thereafter called the Cell or basilica of St. Eucharius, and where now outside the circuit of the city is seen the basilica of St. Matthias and the most celebrated monastery of the Order of St. Benedict, marked with the name of that same Apostle. But that the sacred remains were thence translated the praised annalist intimates, to the northern chapel outside the new basilica of St. Matthias, built under the name of St. Maternus himself, and that there to this day his marble tomb rises above the ground. The same about the tomb the Lectionary of the Trevirian Offices printed in the year 1645 confirms, and the same about the chapel.

[205] There stands in Calmet among the proofs to the History of Lorraine, tom. 1, col. 385 of the first edition, then in the church of St. Maternus, the instrument of a notable donation made to that chapel or temple about the year 979 by Egbert, archbishop of Trier, whence I transcribe the following: We give and bequeath (the villa of Longuesure) with its fields, citadels, buildings, tithes, courts, households, bondsmen of either sex, lands, meadows, vineyards, pastures, woods, huntings, waters and watercourses, mills, fisheries, hamlets, ways and pathless places, outgoings and incomings, lands cultivated and uncultivated, sought and to be sought, and with all its appendages and adjacencies, to St. Maternus, whose basilica is built near to the north of the basilica of St. Eucharius the confessor: on this condition, namely, that from the present day the stability of the divine Office remain there in perpetuity with vigilant care, and that at all the hours of the night the light of a kindled lamp before the holy altar never fail to be present. But if any person, etc. Whence you may understand that even then it was a church rather than a chapel of small bulk. Likewise Gabriel Bucelin calls it a church, in part 2 of the Germania sacra, page 224, where, recounting the abbots of the monastery of St. Matthias and citing Antonius Mesenich, an ascetic and historian of the same monastery, he writes thus: The XX (abbot), Frederick of Heinsberg. Under him was built and endowed the altar of St. Elizabeth in the church of St. Maternus by the noble and most strenuous man Heinrich Schenck, commonly called Zizermundt. He departed from life in 1344, on the XVI of the Kalends of September.

[206] At what time that temple was founded, or in what year the sacred spoils of St. Maternus were carried into it, after the eighth century, however, as it appears, I have not found committed to writing; but certainly in the eighth century his body was even then resting beside the bodies of SS. Eucharius and Valerius, if the biographer of St. Maximin has noted rightly, who according to Henschen's conjectures flourished in the said century, and who writes thus in our tom. VII of May, page 22, where he narrates the translation of St. Maximin from Aquitaine to Trier. Then at last, coming (the people of Trier, bearing the body of St. Maximin) into the parish of the Treviri to the castle which is called Ebosius, behold, a certain woman having an unclean spirit cried out to the people of Trier, and said: Why have you done this to us? Were not the saints of God Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus and Blessed Agritius enough for you, who torment us unceasingly and inflict many straits upon us, that you have brought St. Maximin hither? And straightway she was cured of the unclean spirit… Then they drew near to the city of the Treviri. Then the whole people of either sex, with censers and incense and lights and a great abundance of ornaments, went forth to meet their pontiff. St. Paulinus therefore, the prelate of the city, commanded him to be carried into the basilica of St. John, which his predecessors had built. Namely, SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus had prepared for themselves another place there to rest in: and there the most blessed man was honorably laid in the church of which we made mention above. But the holy Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus rest on the other side of the city, within the church which they built for themselves far from the city with wonderful workmanship.

[207] [and thence it was translated in the year 1037 to the metropolitan church of Trier.] The latter words, before which it seemed good to set the others for the reason alleged at num. 66, sufficiently intimate that the three bodies of the Saints lay hidden together in the same church when the author was writing; according to whose credit therefore the temple of St. Maternus did not for very long enjoy this sacred treasure, since a little after the times of archbishop Egbert mentioned above the metropolitan church of Trier itself was enriched with it. Brower, in book XI, num. 62, binds the translation to the year 1037, and reports it in this manner: Poppo (archbishop of Trier) on the XII of the Kalends of November translated the sacred pledge of the divine Maternus from the monastery of blessed Eucharius to the chief church, the bishops and the clergy leading the procession with notable veneration, and dedicated a part of the temple, previously endowed with excellent gifts and ornaments, a great multitude of men having poured out to the spectacle; and thence the pristine splendor of the basilica of the divine Peter began to rise again, and the worship of sacred things, which had been interrupted,

began to be more briskly resumed. Thus he: he is to be corrected, however, as regards the day assigned to the translation, both from his own words to be recited below, and from Schekmann, book 3, folio 42 verso, and from the Trevirian Lectionary presently to be cited; for in both places it is clearly said that the translation was performed on the X of the Kalends of November, or the XXIII day of October, of the year 1037. The same year is noted also in the little book on the exhibition of the relics of the metropolitan church, written in the German tongue and published in print under the auspices of Richard the archbishop, who from the year 1511 to 1531 governed the church of Trier, and of whom the discussion will presently recur; it is added that three bishops assisted at the translation, namely of Metz, of Toul, and, so far as I conjecture from the German name of the city, Wirden, of Verdun, and that thereafter the festivity of the translation was celebrated with an annual memory in the metropolitan church. More says Brower in book 2 of the Annals, num. 98, writing thus: The memory of which matter, kept as a holy day of old throughout the whole diocese, the old books of the Fasti preserve with this note: X of the Kalends of November, at Trier, the translation of St. Maternus.

[208] and the memory of that translation is cherished there with an annual Office. Certainly that even today in the said diocese the festive memory of the translation is cherished every year we have from the Lectionary several times cited, where at the day XXIII of October an Office is prescribed on the translation of St. Maternus, to be recited with a semi-double rite with proper lessons of the second Nocturn, the fourth and fifth of which contain the history of the translation from Cologne to Trier, while the sixth, after the place of the first deposition has been assigned, is closed in this manner: At length by divine ordinance, through the renowned archbishop Poppo, he was translated to the greater church of Trier, dedicated to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, on the tenth of the Kalends of November. In which place, working great marvels, he by no means forgets his first resting-place, illuminating both places with an incredible multitude of miracles.

[209] For the rest, that sacred treasure, as I understand from Schekmann's Marrow, book 3, folio 43 verso, In the year 1190 it was placed in a new altar, was laid up in that part of the church which was afterwards called the Choir of St. Nicholas, until about the year 1190 Johannes, archbishop of Trier, the first of that name (the words are Schekmann's), when he had erected a new choir for the church and set up a new altar to the divine Peter, in order that he might adorn it with most magnificent relics, took on the Kalends of May from the altar of the divine Nicholas that seamless tunic of the Lord Jesus, and laid it up in the new altar dedicated by him to blessed Peter the apostle, together with the body of the glorious pontiff St. Maternus, and fortified it most firmly with bars and iron bolts, that approach and opening might not be easy. Likewise the said and ever to be remembered pontiff left the altar of the divine [*] Nicholas laden and stuffed more than enough with relics (of St. Maternus also, as will afterwards be seen) of great esteem.

[210] In the altar of St. Peter, in the manner which has been said, the sacred spoils of our Saint were shut up until the year 1512, and thence taken out in the year 1512, in which the emperor Maximilian, coming to Trier with a most illustrious company of the princes of the empire, urged upon Richard the archbishop and elector, and obtained, that the tunic of the Lord and the rest of the sacred treasure lying hid in that altar should be unclosed and exposed to public veneration. This last we have from two contemporary witnesses, and probably eye-witnesses: Johann Enen, doctor of sacred Letters, at that time preacher of the chief church and afterwards suffragan bishop, and Johann Schekmann, Enen's translator, about the same time a monk in the monastery of St. Maximin. They say therefore that the archbishop with the most noble college of canons betook himself to the chief church on the XIV day of April of the aforesaid year, the fourth Feria of Easter, and ordered the altar to be opened, in which three chests were found; and then, after enumerating the relics contained in the first two, they hand down the following about the third to our purpose: In the middle of the altar the third chest was of wood, girt with three iron bars, upon which was a silver coin having this graven or in relief upon it: Saint Maternus. In which was found the body of St. Maternus with his head, who was the third prelate of the Treviri, and the first of the people of Cologne and of Tongres. Thus in Schekmann, book 3, page 45.

[211] On the following page he describes the pomp and the manner in which the relics after some days were publicly exposed: the emperor, the electors, prelates, princes assisting There were celebrated, he says, on that third day of May (consecrated to the finding of the most holy Cross) the funeral observances of the most illustrious lady Maria Blanca, most serene empress, daughter of the duke of Milan, with great solemnity, devotion and worship, as was fitting. There was present the most illustrious, most excellent, most invincible prince and greatest lord, the lord Maximilian, most select emperor of the Romans, ever Cæsar Augustus, with the other electors of the holy empire, archbishops, bishops, chief men, magnates, dukes, counts, barons, ambassadors, and the rest of that kind, as you will see printed afterwards. The relics found were carried out in three silver chests to the choir upon the altar, which had then been placed before the power of the Cæsarean eminence. The imperial brightness was propped up or thronged by these princes: the Electors of the empire, whom the common speech of the forum names princes of the choir; Uriel archbishop of Mainz, Richard archbishop of Trier, Philip archbishop of Cologne, Ludwig count Palatine on this side of the Rhine. Bishops, dukes and margraves: Albert margrave of Brandenburg, master and lord of the whole Teutonic Order; Frederick margrave of Brandenburg; Frederick duke of Bavaria and count Palatine; George bishop of Bamberg; Wilhelm bishop of Strasbourg; Ulrich duke of Württemberg; Christopher margrave of Baden; Matthew bishop of Gurk; Hugh bishop of Toul; Casimir and Johann margraves of Brandenburg, Philip and Ernest margraves of Baden.

[212] and their legates, it was publicly exposed, The names of the ambassadors or legates and of certain magnates: the legation of the lord Pope; the ambassador of the legation of the king of France, Claudius bishop of Marseilles; the legations of the king of Spain, of the king of England, of the king of Navarre, of duke Wilhelm of Bavaria, of the duke of Ferrara, of the bishop of Worms, of the bishop of Speyer, of the Landgrave of Hesse; the ambassador of the lord of Wallachia on the border of Constantinople. Likewise the Landgravine of Hesse, the count of Henneberg and many other illustrious nobles, counts, barons, knights, squires, doctors, prelates, who are all here passed over in silence, both for love of brevity and on account of their almost innumerable multitude. In the margin the following words are written with a pen: These things I, Brother Christopher, then about XVIII years old, saw at the time being present; and it is added below in the same hand that the three chests, surrounded with precious tapestries and with due ornament, great tapers going before, were carried from the chamber of relics by the venerable and noble lords canons, the lord Otto von Breidbach the archdeacon, the lord Christopher von Reineck, and a third canon likewise, whose name, the writer says, has slipped from him.

[213] [and indulgences were granted to the visiting people, and this is repeated every seventh year.] Brower, in book 20 of the Annals, num. 48, having narrated the same things about the finding and exhibition of the relics, subjoins that, when the matter had spread abroad to the neighboring peoples and to those placed further off, there are said to have flowed together to Trier at that time for religion's sake a hundred thousand men. After these things, on account of the frequent running together of pilgrims, and by the procurement of archbishop Richard and at the request of the whole metropolitan chapter, notable indulgences were granted by Pope Leo X to those visiting the said church, and it was established that every seventh year, for fourteen continuous days, beginning from the X day of the month of July, the public exhibition of those same relics should be repeated; as Schekmann narrates at length in book 3, pages 41 and 42, where, recounting again the relics to be exhibited, he places in the second position the staff of St. Peter the apostle by which St. Maternus was raised; in the eighth, the odorous body of St. Maternus the bishop.

[214] The Saint's relics Hither likewise pertains what he reports at page 50 in these words: In the year of the Lord's Incarnation one thousand five hundred and thirteen, on the thirteenth day of April, when the lords canons of the greater church of Trier intended to construct for the aforenamed relics a notable place of preservation, they found it necessary to break into the altar of the divine Nicholas, which is in the same church. Which when it had been opened, they found a chest fortified at the corners with iron, and sealed with the seal of the lord Johannes of most happy remembrance, the first archbishop of Trier of this name, in which the relics written below were found, and on the feast of the apostles Philip and James, when the day of the dedication of that church is celebrated, were announced and made known to the people.

[215] Then, describing them in a long series, he says of our Saint: are kept also at Trier in the church of St. Paulinus Of the jaw of St. Maternus the bishop with two teeth, and other relics of the same wrapped in a cloth. Hence at length the praised author proceeds to the enumeration of the relics, very many of which are kept in the other chief churches of the city of Trier; but among them (except the church of St. Matthias) he assigns none of our Saint; because, I believe, he intended to produce only the more notable ones. For certainly the collegiate church of St. Paulinus possesses some of his relics, as we learn from the printed little book on the solemn exhibition of the relics which takes place in it in leap years on the Sunday nearest the third of the Ides of May. The praised Schekmann, at page 56, treating of the monastery of St. Matthias and its basilica, and at the same time giving a catalogue of the chief relics of which the exhibition there, as he himself says, is celebrated twice each year — on the fourth Feria in the painful (holy) week in the morning about the ninth hour; likewise on the Vigil of Pentecost in the morning about the ninth hour, and after dinner about the first — places among them the relics of St. Maternus also; the same is done in another catalogue printed separately about the year 1515, but in neither is it expressed what or of what sort these are.

[216] There are kept in the same church other spoils of our Saint also, [in the monastery of St. Matthias, and in the city of Luxembourg of the same diocese:] but these have been hidden away in the secret places of the altars since the year 1148, when that church, newly built, was dedicated with solemn pomp to St. Matthias the apostle by Pope Eugene III, several Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and bishops assisting and cooperating, on the Ides of January, and at the same time seven altars were consecrated, enriched with several relics of Saints, and three indeed with those of St. Maternus: the chief one, which is sacred to SS. John the Evangelist, Eucharius, Philip and James, and to St. Stephen the protomartyr; the second, which is situated at the tomb of St. Matthias and erected in honor of the holy Cross and of the holy apostles Matthias and James the brother of the Lord; and the third, which in the lower part is dedicated to SS. Gregory the Pope, Nicholas, Benedict the abbot and to all the confessors of Christ. These and other things pertaining to the same matter you have fully described at the day XXIV of February in our tom. 3, page 453, from an instrument received from Trier, in which are read also the names of fifteen most eminent Cardinals who, besides those which the supreme Pontiff himself and Adalbero archprelate of the Treviri had granted, each conferred indulgences upon all (the words are the instrument's) visiting the thresholds of the holy apostles John and Matthias, Philip and James, and of the holy confessors Eucharius, Valerius, Maternus, Agritius and of many other Saints who rest in our monastery. Other spoils of the Saint

I have not found in the cities or places subject to the archdiocese of Trier, except at Luxembourg in the Munster monastery of the Order of St. Benedict, where, on the testimony of Raissius and Bucelin, the gloves of St. Maternus are seen.

[217] From what has been set out in this and the preceding § it is easy to judge with how great cult and honor he was formerly regarded in it, twice in the year his festivity recurs. so that it is not necessary to produce in testimony of that matter Fasti or other monuments of this kind of ancient cult. But of the present-day cult there is no doubtful indication in the Lectionary of the Offices, in which two days in the year are designated as sacred to St. Maternus: the XXIII of October, on which the memory of the translation is cherished with a semi-double Office, as has been said above, and the XIV of September, on which the festivity of his birthday in heaven is celebrated with an Office under a double rite; but that this may be anticipated is indicated in the Calendar which is prefixed to the Lectionary, without doubt on account of the feast of the Exaltation of the holy Cross concurring on the same day. The Office is taken almost wholly, as I conjecture, from the common of a Confessor Pontiff; for nothing is noted as proper except the lessons of the second Nocturn, which are collected partly from the Life, partly from the traditions hitherto set forth and examined, so that it is even superfluous to describe them here. And so we pass to others among whom the cult of St. Maternus flourishes and his relics are honored.

* of the divine

§ XXI. Relics and cult at Cologne, at Tongres, at Liège, and at Maastricht.

In the diocese of Cologne there are various relics, Of the relics of St. Maternus kept among the people of Cologne we have already given some foretaste; for instance of those which are honored in the church erected to him not far from the city, in the place which they call Rodenkirche; and of the prodigious staff of St. Peter, in some way pertaining to our Saint, inasmuch as by it he is believed to have been called back to life, and a part of which is to this day exhibited with other most precious treasures in the sacred treasury of the cathedral church. If Gelenius writes rightly in the Sacred and pious Fasti of Cologne at the XIV of September, notable relics of his are guarded also in the churches of Blessed Mary the Virgin ad Indulgentias and of Blessed Mary the Virgin on the shore, and in each indeed the thumb of the holy Bishop, as he notes in book 3, syntagmata 22 and 26, On the Greatness of Cologne, and in the latter place he cites Winheim, who truly has this in the Sacrarium about the church of St. Mary ad Indulgentias; but about the thumb kept in the church of St. Mary on the shore I find nothing in him.

[219] and notable is the cult of St. Maternus. An illustrious indication of the supreme veneration of the people of Cologne toward our Saint is the silver reliquary in which in the year 1633 was laid up the body of St. Engelbert, and which the praised Gelenius, delineating in a separate little book, thus describes in chapter 2: On the front of the breadth, which is one foot and a half, are exhibited the statues of Blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, and of Blessed Maternus, the first prelate of the people of Cologne, between which in the middle is set the image of Christ the Savior; the reverse and last face of the breadth is adorned by the Blessed Virgin Mary with the Magi of the Gospel, bringing gifts to the Θεοτόκος. But they celebrate his birthday with an annual festivity on the XIII day of September, on which he is both announced in the Lübeck-Cologne edition of the enlarged Usuard and in others in Solier, and an Office is prescribed to be read with a double rite in the Breviaries of the diocese. We have two printed copies, one of the year 1458, the other of 1618. All things to be said are in both noted from the common of a Confessor Pontiff, except that in the older one the lessons of the first and second Nocturn are given as proper, compiled, as has been said of those of Trier, from the Life and from the traditions; the Responsory following the eighth lesson was read: Let us praise the Lord in the merits of the blessed prelate Maternus, glorious. To his sepulchre the sick come and are healed. Verse: The venerable God, who makes blessed Maternus shine with assiduous miracles. And the Prayer this: O God, who hast appointed illustrious preachers of the true faith for the peoples of divers nations, grant, we beseech thee, that all who come together to the feasts of our most holy doctor Maternus may obtain the prosperity of the present life and the future glory of eternal blessedness. Through our Lord. The same Prayer remained in the more recent Breviary, but the responsory was omitted; and the lessons from the Life were reduced to three and assigned, according to the norm of the Roman Breviary, for the second Nocturn only. And these are the things which I have found noted about the relics and cult in the diocese of Cologne; I come to that of Liège.

[220] Arnold Raissius, in the Hierogazophylacium Belgicum, page 330, writing of the church of Blessed Mary the Virgin at Tongres, His arm and episcopal crosier at Tongres; at Liège some bones, records that notable relics of St. Maternus are kept here, namely one arm, and besides his episcopal crosier. And of the crosier indeed there is the same tradition among the men of Trier: for in the manuscript of this cathedral church, of which I made mention at num. 198, after the division of St. Peter's staff between the men of Trier and those of Cologne has been narrated, there follows thus: But when the people of Tongres besought that at least some part of that staff be given them, and the men of Trier could not be induced to this, by the counsel of prudent men it was providently so ordained that there should be given to the people of Tongres the staff of St. Maternus, which he himself had been accustomed to use in his pastoral office. Which also was done. Likewise the cathedral church of Liège rejoices in notable relics of the Saint, brought thither from the city of Trier in the ninth century. Knowledge of this matter we have from the History of the visitation of the relics made in the year 1489 in the month of April, written by a contemporary author, and added at the end of chapter 45 of the Deeds of the pontiffs of Liège in Chapeaville, tom. 3, page 213.

[221] On what occasion and by what authority and in whose presence the said visitation was instituted, in the year 1489 we have set forth in tom. III of September, page 108 and following, in the preliminary Commentary to the Acts of St. Madelberta, whose sacred spoils rest likewise in the same place, to which for brevity's sake we remit the reader, here only about to describe what is reported of St. Maternus. And so the said anonymous writer, having premised the narration of the visitation of the shrine of St. Lambert, made on the XIV day of April, and of SS. Peter and Andoletus MM. on the XVIII, says: Then on the next following day the same lord cantor (Henry of Palude), by virtue of the same commission, visited the shrine of Blessed Maternus the confessor, in which he found some bones of that same Confessor, together with several other relics of other Saints, and in the same shrine a schedule of this tenor: "In this shrine are the bones of St. Maternus the confessor, first bishop of Tongres, translated from Trier to Liège, together with very many relics of the holy Apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins and other elect, in the year of the Lord eight hundred and forty-two, by Otger the dean, with the license of Pope Stephen the fourth."

[222] Thence the anonymous writer proceeds to the shrine of St. Madelberta, and, having set forth its visitation, are visited, writes thus: All which having been thus visited and becomingly replaced, the same said cantor ordered both shrines to be closed and nailed with their ironwork, and, like schedules being also placed and affixed on the outside, he ordered both shrines to be most worthily colored with a red color, and to be placed in their former place, as they were set. Finally, after a few things interposed, he thus concludes the History: At length, all these most sacred relics having been most worthily placed in their own receptacles, the keys of the shrine, both exterior and interior, were carried by my lords the dean and chapter and placed in the archives of the church in the upper chest, which is entitled Mechlin. The same things word for word reports the aforementioned Raissius, page 264, citing Bzovius in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 1489. But I wonder that a chronographical error was not observed, which most probably crept by the drowsiness of the copyists into the schedule found in the shrine of the relics of St. Maternus; where Stephen IV is joined with the year 842; whereas Stephen V, called IV, died after a Pontificate of seven months and some days in the month of January of the year 817. Gregory IV therefore is to be substituted for Stephen, who from the year 827 down to 843 occupied the Chair of St. Peter. If, however, anyone desires to retain all the characters of the schedule, let him say — provided it appear probable enough — that a license granted by Stephen about the year 816 was carried into execution in the year 842, while Gregory sat.

[223] they are carried about with notable pomp, To the said History of the visitation of the relics there is annexed in the cited Chapeaville another relation, composed by the same anonymous writer, about a most solemn festivity celebrated in the same year 1489 at Liège, which indeed chiefly regards St. Lambert, and therefore will perhaps be given entire when we come to treat of him; nevertheless, since our Saint too had some part in it, it will be well to cull from it at least those things in which mention is made of him. The author begins by extolling the solemnity held in his own days, and asserting that such a one had not been seen before at Liège; then he describes at length its occasion, the preparation preceding it, the adornment of the church and the city, the special prayers appointed, the fasts instituted, and other things of this kind; and at length, the order of the procession, to which the whole clergy and all the religious Orders had come together, being as it were depicted, he thus proceeds: After the advance of all in that manner, there go out the chaplains of the abbeys and churches, the bearers of the relics; torches are carried on either side; they gleam with vestments; the people wonder, and prostrate adore. Hence the shrine of St. Theodard, by four canons of the lesser table, and in like manner after them that of St. Maternus by as many; another more precious, of St. Lambert, was carried with all solemnity by men clothed in red copes.

[224] and are exposed to public veneration. A chapel There follows also there a third relation of the same author, in which he again graphically depicts the public exhibition of the relics, which had been placed at the entrance of the choir of the chief church upon a most richly adorned altar; begun with great solemnity on the X day of the month of July of the year 1489, and, an innumerable throng of people flowing in, continued almost daily down to the feast of St. Mary Magdalene, on which with like pomp they were placed in their former places. To the relation he subjoins a catalogue of the relics and the order in which they were exhibited. For the fourth time, he says, the shrine of St. Madelberta, etc. The shrine of St. Maternus, first bishop of Tongres, in which are many bones of his body, translated to Liège by Oger the dean with the license of Pope Stephen the fourth, in the year of the Lord eight hundred and forty-two. So much for the relics. For the rest, the same anonymous writer toward the end of the Catalogue mentions a chapel in the cathedral church, marked with the name of St. Maternus and adorned with relics; I transcribe the words: Likewise there are, besides the aforesaid most holy relics, in the church of Liège, at the high altar and within the enclosure of the shrine of St. Lambert, in the chapel of St. Maternus and in the chapel of St. Giles, divers other venerable relics, which on account of their multitude were not exhibited.

[225] Besides, in the same church of St. Lambert there is even now a college of Canons, and a college of canons there named from St. Maternus. named from St. Maternus, whose beginnings and founder Fisen sets forth in this manner at the year 1113: The church of Liège produced in these times a man noble by birth, but by religion, charity

and Christian justice more illustrious, Helinus by name, whom the writer beyond the Meuse calls provost of St. Lambert, others abbot of St. Mary, and he was ennobled by many illustrious deeds destined to endure to posterity. He placed in the chief church ten canons of the lower rank, to whom he gave the name from St. Maternus; whom, with others of the same condition, whom they call canons of the Lesser Table (under the title of St. Giles), he willed to carry on the divine service.

[226] The feast of St. Maternus, which is anticipated by the people of Cologne, His feast is celebrated on the 19th of September, is deferred by those of Liège to the XIX day of September, and that custom has been observed certainly for three centuries, and probably for more; at that day his memory is made in various additions to Usuard, namely in a manuscript taken from the Register of the Charterhouse of Utrecht, and in another which we call the manuscript of the lord Du Cheval: likewise in the Lübeck-Cologne edition and in Grevenus; and in these indeed, because the Saint is announced on other days at Trier and at Cologne, for distinction the city is added in this manner: On the same day, the commemoration of St. Maternus archbishop and confessor at Tongres. This same is also observed in our manuscript Florarium of the Saints. There agree the Missal of Liège and the very ancient Breviaries of Maastricht and of Liège. But in the old Breviary of Tongres his Office is set at the day XXV of September.

[227] The Missal appeared from the Paris press in the year 1509, and has at the said day XIX of September a Mass of the Saint partly proper, for which the ancient Missal of Liège has a Mass, partly composed from the common of a Confessor Pontiff. Receive the prayers: Collect. O God, who hast given thy holy Maternus as a preacher to thy people, grant that by the intercession of so great a Pontiff and by the defense of thy piety we may be freed from all adversities and may rejoice in thy praise in tranquil prosperity. Through our Lord. Secret. May the annual festivity of thy holy confessor Maternus, we beseech thee, O Lord, render us acceptable to thy piety, that a blessed retribution may attend both these offices of pious oblation and him, and may win for us the gifts of thy grace. Through our Lord. Postcommunion. Grant, O Lord, that we be cherished by the supplications of thy holy confessor and pontiff Maternus, that we may be commended to thee by the intercessions and merits of him whose solemnity we celebrate with an annual observance. Through our Lord.

[228] The Breviary of Maastricht of the church of St. Servatius, very ancient, and various Breviaries have a proper Office; but mutilated at the end, has on the said day an Office wholly from the common except the first six lessons, taken from the Life of St. Maternus, and the following prayer: Protect us, O Lord, by the safeguards of thy holy confessor and pontiff Maternus, that we may ever be commended by the intercessions and merits of him whose solemnities we celebrate. Through our Lord. But that of Tongres, which is likewise mutilated and no less ancient, and that of Liège published in the year 1558, contain such Offices of our Saint that, if you take away the psalms and, in that of Tongres, the Lessons of the third Nocturn, the rest are almost all proper. This Office, with very few changes, was also inserted into the Proper of the Saints of the diocese of Liège in the year 1623. The prayer we have given from the Breviary of Maastricht; the rest are generally accommodated to that opinion by which the Saint is set down as a disciple of the divine Peter, and to the other things which we have discussed. Here is a specimen for you in the Hymn which was sung at both Vespers.

To whom all things live,

Let the Church celebrate

The day of the great Confessor,

On which he obtained the rewards

Of his course and of his labor.

Foreordained here first

By the divine Clemency,

Destined for the Germans

By Peter's providence,

He was one associated

For the grace of preaching.

Who, pressing on with full vows

In the office of the word,

Weighed down by the pains of death,

Was snatched from the midst,

And for four times ten days

Was held in the earth's bosom.

But raised again from death

By the sacred staff of Peter,

And given as prelate for as many years

To the people whom he converted,

As the days for which he had thus

Been buried in the tomb.

His body, sought with grateful lamentation

By the people of Tongres

And by those of Cologne,

The Rhine being turned upward,

Is given to the men of Trier.

Chosen servant of God,

By thy suffrages,

O Maternus, bend God,

Pardon being obtained,

That we may attain

The joys of perfect salvation.

Glory and honor be to God

Everywhere most high,

Alike to the Father and to the Son,

And to the renowned Paraclete,

To whom is praise and power,

Through the eternal ages. Amen.

[231] A more recent Office, and other things pertaining to the cult. We doubt, however, whether the praised Office is employed to this day in any church of the diocese of Liège. For in the Breviary which was revised by the authority of the most reverend and most serene Ferdinand, bishop-prince, and with the consent of both clergies, and published from the press in the year 1636, an Office of St. Maternus is indeed prescribed, to be said with a double rite at the day XIX of September; but nothing is given as proper except the prayer and the lessons; for the rest one is remitted to the Common of a confessor pontiff. Now the people of Liège seem formerly not only to have celebrated the Saint's chief festivity on this day, but besides to have cherished the annual memory of the translation of his relics at the day XIX of March, at which, as we noted in the Prætermissa, tom. III of March, page 767, there is inscribed in the manuscript Ado of Liège of the monastery of St. Lawrence, and in our manuscript Florarium, the following announcement: At Liège, the translation of the relics of St. Maternus, bishop and confessor. However it may be, from what has been said it is abundantly established that the people of Liège, equally with those of Trier, of Cologne, and the other peoples enumerated, have always been affected with the highest veneration and piety toward St. Maternus, through whom they received the faith and the purity of divine wisdom, which through the long lapse of so many ages perseveres unstained, and which we, says Fisen, the late descendants of that apostolic Hero, hold and venerate, and shall hold and venerate for ever, heaven favoring; and thus, as we live to Christ through Maternus, so the immortal glory of Maternus shall live in us, never to be shut in by anything save eternity.

§ XXII. The Saint's relics in Bohemia and in Spain; miracles wrought after his death, and narrated only in general.

[At Prague, on account of notable relics, an annual commemoration of the Saint is made.] We said at § XV that the church of Prague rejoices in a portion of the prodigious staff by whose touch St. Maternus is reported to have been called back to life, and on what occasion it obtained that treasure we showed both from the Phosphorus On the Glory and majesty of the said church, and from the Diary or index of the month and day on which the relics kept there are honored in the course of the year: and from this Diary we learn that there are other relics also of the Saint in the same church, and that their chief veneration is had at the day XIV of September, at which it is thus read: XIV, of St. Maternus the bishop, who was a disciple of St. Peter the Apostle. A notable fragment of the arm, brought in 1357. Another brought from Aachen by Charles (IV, the emperor) in 1372. Likewise his little pectoral cross of metal. On account of these same notable relics, no doubt, an annual commemoration of St. Maternus is made in the archdiocese on the very feast day of the Exaltation of the holy Cross, with a proper prayer, which I transfer hither from the Proper of the Saints for Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia, printed at Prague-Old-Town in the year 1732. O God, who by the merits of blessed Peter thine apostle didst raise up blessed Maternus, thy confessor and pontiff, on the fortieth day from his death, and didst thereafter adorn him for forty years with the pontifical infula; grant, we beseech thee, that we may be aided before thee by the prayers of him whom we have seen shine with so many miracles upon earth, and may be freed from every evil of body and of soul. Through our Lord.

[233] There are kept also in Spain relics of our Saint, The royal monastery of St. Lawrence in Spain with many others of the Saints, sent in the sixteenth century by the archbishop-elector of Trier to the Catholic king Philip the second of that name, and laid up in the most celebrated and royal monastery of St. Lawrence, which is commonly called the Escorial, as we understand from a document which our Cuper, being in that place in the month of February of the year 1722, transcribed with his own hand from the manuscript Lipsanology of the same monastery. The Spanish words rendered into Latin run thus. Likewise the relics which the archbishop of Trier sent to his Majesty in a great reliquary in the form of a book with clasps of gilt silver. On the front part of the cover there are four smaller shields (escudos) embroidered with the needle on black velvet with gold and smaller pearls; in the middle a larger shield. But on the inner part four medallions of gilt silver with the four Evangelists, and in the middle a great medallion in the manner of a sun with the resurrection of Christ in the midst. Which (reliquary) the said archbishop of Trier sent to his Majesty with the relics to be mentioned below, laid upon a covering of red velvet (de camersi) with fringes interwoven with gold and covered with a red silken cloth.

[234] possesses a rib of his, received from Trier After these things the relics are assigned in the order of the Saints, and among them One rib of St. Maternus archbishop of Trier, long a fourth part of an ell and two fingers, broad one finger. To the catalogue of relics Cuper subjoins the testimonials, or rather fragments of testimonials, and notes in the margin that a great part of them was purposely cut away by him, probably with a view to gaining time. Of the first testimonial, which is of the archprelate and prince of Trier himself, he says the beginning is as follows: Jacob by the grace of God archbishop of Trier, archchancellor of the holy Roman empire throughout Gaul and the kingdom of Arles, and prince elector. After some things about the praise and patronage of the relics and about the elogium of king Philip and of the duke of Alba, there is a passage to the enumeration of the same and of the places whence they were taken, for instance from the monastery of St. Matthias near Trier of the relics of SS. Matthias and Philip the apostles, of St. Blaise bishop and martyr, and of St. Modestus bishop of Trier. Besides — these are the very words of the instrument — from our metropolitan church of Trier we have added the venerable relics subscribed. First, of St. Maternus… The feast of the deposition of St. Maternus, the XIV of September; and of the translation, the XXIII of October, is celebrated every year with a great concourse and devotion of the whole people.

[235] in the year 1570. There follow then several things about the relics of SS. Modoald archbishop of Trier and Barbara virgin and martyr, taken from the same metropolitan church. Likewise about the relics of SS. Paulinus, Felix, Marus, bishops, and of the Theban martyrs, taken from the church of St. Paulinus outside the walls of the city; and at last the testimonial is closed with this formula: In faith of all the above-said we have willed these presents to be fortified by the inscription of our own hand and by the appending of our seal. Given in our city of Coblenz in the year of the Lord 1570, on the XXVII day of the month of May. Jacob archbishop of Trier, prince Elector, with his own hand subscribed. Of the second instrument the praised Cuper notes this: There follows another Latin testimonial of the year of the Lord 1570, on the last day of the month of June, in which it is asserted that the above-mentioned relics sent by the most illustrious Prince above-said were, by his deputies, opened and exhibited to the lord Viglius van Zwichem, Provost of the church of St. Bavo among the people of Ghent, etc., and afterwards shut up again. But he recites nothing from it except the following clause: These things were done at Brussels in the house

of the aforesaid reverend lord Provost, chancellor and president, in the year, month and day above written, in the presence and with the cooperation of the reverend father in Christ the lord Gerard, abbot of Boneffe; of the noble and excellent lord Jacob Hessel, knight of the golden order, counsellor of the royal Catholic Majesty; of the lord Urban de Scharenborg, royal secretary; of the lord Henry de Palude, priest, and of several other Catholics worthy of credit, and of me, Ghislain Grafeus, secretary of the royal Catholic Majesty, subscribed. By the command of the reverend and most illustrious lord Provost and president, G. Grafeus subscribed.

[236] Very many miracles at his holy body The plan of our undertaking and our affection toward the Saint would now require that, just as with all the accuracy we could we have discoursed of his deeds, cult, relics, and of the things pertaining to these, in the same manner we should set before the eyes of our readers the miracles and benefits obtained by his patronage after his death — such as, if you consider what has been generally committed to writing, you will conjecture were neither few nor common. Hear the epilogue of the Acts of SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus in our tom. 2 of January, page 922: These things concerning the deeds of the holy Fathers, searching more diligently among the ashes left after the destruction of the city of Trier, we found written here and there on little charters, which, reduced into one, we faithfully commend to the usefulness of readers both present and to come: and although in the present little book few things about their most holy acts are contained, on account of the disaster mentioned above, it is without doubt to be believed that the Lord exercised many powers through them while they still lived in the body; since now at their relics he does not cease to do this same thing. For in that place the blind are frequently enlightened, the sick are healed, demons are put to flight from possessed bodies, and various infirmities both of body and of soul are cured: and whoever shall have come thither with pious desire and faithful devotion, and shall there have prayed the Lord through their merits concerning any necessity whatever, not only obtains what he has asked, but also rejoices to have received even greater things than these, our Lord Jesus Christ granting it, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns God through the infinite ages of ages. Amen.

[237] Hear also the last period of the sixth lesson of the Office [are touched upon only in general: an apparition of him made in the ninth century.] which is read at Trier on the XXIII day of October on the translation of the body of St. Maternus: In which place (in the metropolitan church) working great marvels, he by no means forgets his first resting-place (the monastery of St. Matthias), illuminating both places with an incredible multitude of miracles. No less honorable is the mention of miracles in the Responsory which we described above from the older Breviary of Cologne. Add Schekmann in the Marrow, book 3, folio 42 verso, writing thus: The suffrages of his merits heal every disease, but chiefly fever. Nevertheless, whatever labor I have expended in searching either manuscript or printed books, nowhere has a particular narration of his benefits or miracles come to hand. Wherefore I put an end to the Commentary with one apparition of the Saint, which I read as having been made in the ninth century in the oft-mentioned Deeds of the Treviri, chapter 40, in these few words: After Fortunatus, Hetti, abbot of Mettlach, presided over the church of the Treviri. He, admonished in a vision by St. Maternus, in the XXIII year of the emperor Louis, carried away the body of St. Castor from the place which is called Cardenna (Cordona) to Coblenz, to the monastery which he himself had built. More on these matters may be seen in tom. 2 of February at the day XIII, on which the Acts of St. Castor were illustrated.

APPENDIX

The seventh paragraph of our Commentary on St. Maternus had already gone under the press when there was brought to us a letter written at Trier on the XX day of February of the year 1752 by the often praised most illustrious lord Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim, bishop of Myriophytum, suffragan of the archbishop-elector of Trier, in which that man, most excellently deserving of our Work, writes thus: When lately I was on business in the abbey of Prüm, I lighted upon a book which they call the Golden Book, containing the more ancient documents of the monastery and other memorable matters. It is a codex preciously bound, of the eleventh century. There are seen in it catalogues of the emperors, of the archbishops of Trier, and of the abbots of Prüm. The first ends in Henry IV, the second in Egilbert, the first hand of the third in Nizo; all of which fall in the same time. I have thought that this catalogue of the prelates of Trier should be communicated to your Reverence, because as regards the immediate succession of Maternus and Agritius it is like the St. Ghislain catalogue which I published in the Dissertation On the Era of the founding of the church of Trier, and accordingly it confirms not slightly the thesis established in the same Dissertation. That catalogue does indeed confirm the most illustrious man's opinion, and likewise confirms especially what we in our said Commentary, paragraphs VI and VII, observed about the twenty-two or three bishops between Maternus and Agritius, who appear in the catalogues of the prelates of Trier of Brower and of others, and for whose real episcopate no monuments more ancient than the Deeds of the Treviri and the Chronicle of Marianus Scotus are shown there; into which Deeds of the Treviri, however, they were probably not brought in by their first compiler, but afterwards imprudently thrust in by continuators and interpolators, that namely, the vacancy of the episcopal see of nearly two hundred years asserted by others being removed, that popular tradition of the mission of SS. Eucharius, Valerius and Maternus by St. Peter the apostle in the first century of the Christian era might come out more plausible; as in the places cited we have endeavored to prove, both from the Deeds of the Treviri themselves and from other monuments, whose authors, although themselves domestic, either did not know those pretended bishops, successors of St. Maternus, or, knowing them, did not admit them as such. Among those monuments we produced the catalogue just praised, transcribed from a parchment codex of the library of the monastery of St. Ghislain in Hainaut, to which certainly, since it was mutilated at least at the end, it would have been worth while to add this one of Prüm, if it had arrived in time. Wherefore, judging that we shall render a service agreeable to our readers, we here subjoin it.

THE NAMES OF THE BISHOPS OF TRIER.

From the golden book of the monastery of Prüm, folio 108.