ON ST. EUSTORGIUS I, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, AT MILAN IN INSUBRIA,
Before the middle of the fourth century.
HISTORICO-CRITICAL COMMENTARY.
Eustorgius, bishop and confessor, at Milan in Insubria. (S.)
BY C. S.
§ I. The Saint's memory variously reported in various Martyrologies: his cult, Mass and Office: the Lives, none of which is to be printed by us.
[ ] The church of Milan celebrates among its bishops two holy confessors of this name, of whom the younger died at the beginning of the sixth century, He is announced chiefly on this day by many, and is venerated on the sixth day of June, on which Henschen and Papebroch treated of him briefly in volume 1 of that month, page 643 and the following. The other, praised by St. Athanasius in his Letter to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, and by holy Ambrose in his Sermon against Auxentius, is two centuries earlier, and on this eighteenth day of September, on which he is believed to have died, his annual memory is celebrated. Of him, chiefly on this day, many Martyrologies both ancient and more recent treat, though often with his name dislocated, and not seldom with companions and the palm of martyrdom wrongly added to him, or with the same man sometimes even split into two. The older Hieronymian, published by Francesco Florentini, announces him on this day thus: At Milan the deposition of St. Eustorgius the bishop. The Rheinau, among the abridged Hieronymians published by Sollier in volume VII of June, has more corruptly: At Milan, of Eutropius the bishop. The Reichenau, in the same place: At Milan, of Eutropius the bishop. The Augsburg Martyrology of St. Ulrich says more correctly: Of Eustorgius; the Labbean: Of Eustorgius.
[2] In the genuine Bede nothing is read of him; but among his supplements published in our Work before volume 2 of March, some of whom wrongly commemorate him as a martyr, the Barberini copy has on the same day: At Milan the deposition of St. Eustorgius the bishop. The Arras and Tournai copies in the same place wrongly assigned him to the preceding day, where they say: At Milan the deposition of St. Eustorgius. The day is more correctly assigned with the rest by another Martyrology, which likewise bearing the name of Bede is found in Martène, volume 6 of the Amplissima Collectio, where at column 646, the name being somewhat altered, is read: Of St. Eostorgius the bishop. Rabanus too agrees about the day, saying of him thus: At Milan the deposition of Eustorgius the bishop. Ado and Usuard being silent about him, many supplements of the latter in Sollier mention him, from whom nevertheless not a few codices and the Great Lübeck edition wrongly added at the end to Usuard's text: Likewise of the saints Trophimus, Oceanus, and Eustorgius; as though all these had suffered martyrdom together. The Hagenau codex, which adds to them other anonymous persons also, expressly ascribes the laurel of martyrdom, saying: On the same day, the Passion of the holy martyrs Trophinus, Oceanus, and Eustorgius, and of others. The Vatican codex adds the arena of Nicomedia, and calls Eustorgius a bishop.
[3] others wrongly double him, since on this day But all these codices strayed from the truth: for it is certain that St. Eustorgius, who is venerated on this day, is the bishop of Milan, and that he was not a martyr but a confessor, on the testimony of St. Ambrose. But that the other martyrs mentioned do not belong to the same class either may be seen in Florentini, praised at number 1. The Lübeck-Cologne edition on that account distinguished a twofold Eustorgius, one a bishop, the other a martyr, mentioning both on this day thus: Likewise at Milan, the birthday of St.
Eustorgius, bishop and confessor. He conveyed the bodies of the three holy Magi from Constantinople to Milan, and, shining with many miracles, rested in peace. On the same day, of SS. Trophimus, Oceanus, and Eustorgius, martyrs. Greven has almost the same. Peter de Natalibus fell into another error, who also inserted two Eustorgii into his Catalogue of the Saints, both bishops, of whom, making one a martyr in book XI, in the last chapter, with the two companions mentioned above, he announced him briefly thus: Trophimus and Oceanus and Eustorgius the bishop suffered martyrdom on the XIV Kalends of October. The other, the bishop of Milan, in book 4, chapter 45, he rightly named a confessor, but, by no means agreeing with the other martyrologists about the day of his death, he says at the end of the Life or elogium: But saint Eustorgius, consecrated bishop (of Milan, as he had said before), after praiseworthy works of holiness rested in the Lord, buried at Milan on the III Ides of April.
[4] only the bishop of Milan, a confessor, is venerated. Occasion for this error could have been given by Eustorgius the presbyter, whom he passed over, who is said in the Usuardine Martyrologies to have suffered on that day of April, as may be seen on that day in us, volume 2 of April, page 13. Maurolycus and Felicius, however, assigned both this one and that to the eleventh day of April: but that the Bishop of Milan belongs to the eighteenth of September our Elders already observed in the same place among the Passed Over, and it is established from the older Martyrologies that St. Eustorgius, who is announced today, was bishop of Milan, and not a martyr but a confessor; although some have either assigned him to other days, or even doubled him. As regards the bodies of the three holy Magi translated by him to Milan, we shall refute this below. Much more correctly Belinus, omitting Eustorgius the martyr, says on this day: On the same day, of saint Eustorgius, bishop and confessor. Rightly too is read in the Ottoboni Martyrology, published by Domenico Giorgi at the end of Ado's: At Milan, the deposition of saint Eustorgius the bishop. The Milanese Calendar 1, published by the same in the same place, agrees, which in the special character by which only the greater feasts are marked has: St. Eustorgius, bishop of Milan. I pass over many other Martyrologies, being about to add only two; one the Milanese published by Pietro Paolo Bosca, the other the Roman of Cardinal Baronius. The first of these has likewise on this day: At Milan, of St. Eustorgius I, bishop, famous by the testimony of Bl. Ambrose, who wonderfully translated the bodies of the holy Kings the magi to Milan; the other, as more briefly, so more correctly: At Milan, of St. Eustorgius the first, bishop, famous by the testimony of Bl. Ambrose.
[5] We cannot doubt that the cult of St. Eustorgius among his people of Milan is most ancient, He is venerated at Milan since St. Ambrose himself, praised above, denying that he would concede any church to the Arians, reckoned him among the holy bishops of his see and adorned him with the glorious title of confessor, saying: Far be it from me to hand over the inheritance of the fathers, that is, the inheritance of Dionysius, who died in exile for the cause of the faith, the inheritance of Eustorgius the confessor, the inheritance of Mirocles, and of all the faithful bishops before us. At what time, however, he began to be venerated, is unknown to me: for what the Milanese writers commonly say about a church built for him not very long after his death and dedicated to him by St. Ambrose, and marked with his name by the same, lacks solid arguments; although it must be admitted that that church, which still survives and is said to preserve his body, is quite ancient. More certain are the things which we have from elsewhere about his ecclesiastical cult, whose beginning we do not know. There exist in our Museum a notable Missal and two Breviaries of the Ambrosian rite, in which his festivity is prescribed to be kept with Mass and Office on this very day of September. That Missal, published in the year 1522 with Milanese types, exhibits his Mass, which, since we have few things about him, I have thought should here be recited.
[6] It is therefore of this kind. On saint Eustorgius, archbishop of Milan. The annual Mass Over the People. May the precious confession of blessed Eustorgius, thy priest and confessor, we beseech thee, O Lord, cherish us, and may his devout intercession continually protect us. Through. Over the corporal. Look propitiously, O Lord, upon the prayers of thy people, and make us to rejoice in the suffrages of him whose annual solemnities thou grantest us to celebrate. Through. Over the offering. For the commemoration of thy holy confessor Eustorgius we pay to thee, O Lord, the gifts which we owe; grant, we beseech thee, that they may work for us the remedy of everlasting salvation. Through. There follows the Preface, of which the first part is taken from the common, and then it proceeds: Eternal God. For when could we be able, O Lord, sufficiently to render thee thanks, who therefore exercisest us frequently with the solemnities of martyrs and confessors, that thou mayest both by continual devotion urge thy faithful to advance, and mayest kindly raise up our frailty by devout intercessors. And that what we do not deserve by our own works we may obtain by intercessors pleasing to thee. Among whom, offering the homage of due piety to thy holy priest and confessor Eustorgius, we proclaim thy power, O Lord, by whose grace he was such; and we believe that through him pardon will not be denied us. Through. After communion. We beseech thee, almighty God, that the gift of this day's solemnity, being accepted, may afford health both to our bodies and to our minds. Through. Thus far the Mass.
[7] and with an Office in the Ambrosian and Roman rite. Of the two Breviaries, likewise Ambrosian, the older, printed at Venice in the year 1539, has on the same day the Office of St. Eustorgius, but wholly from the common of a confessor bishop except for two prayers, which are almost the same as the first two of the Mass which we have given. The other Breviary, published by St. Charles Borromeo, and revised and enlarged by Cardinal Federico Borromeo, archbishop of Milan, was printed at Milan in the year 1635. In it his solemn feast is prescribed today with the Office from the common except for the two prayers already recited, and the third lesson, which is proper. Now it is noted that this Breviary was collated with the one published by St. Charles in the year 1582, and in the calendar prefixed the changes made by the praised Cardinal Federico are added by pen: whence we learn that in both the Office of St. Eustorgius is the same. That lesson, which I shall examine afterwards, I here recite meanwhile. Eustorgius, born in Greece of a noble family, illustrious also by the name of eminent piety, was created bishop in the place of Maternus, who at that time had holily died in the Lord, by the fullest consent of all. Besides many other memorials of religion with which he adorned the church committed to him, this also is worthy of everlasting memory, that he wonderfully translated to Milan the sacred bodies of the Magi from as far off as the city of Constantinople, whither they had long since been brought from Parthia, and in their name built a basilica, which was afterwards called Eustorgian. When he had holily done these and other things, at last, a bishop of illustrious virtue, praised by the testimony of St. Ambrose, and famous above all for the praise of that holiness which God often attested by the greatness of his miracles, he rested in the Lord on the fourteenth of the Kalends of October. So far concerning the Ambrosian Offices. But for those who follow the Roman rite, the Most Eminent Cesare Cardinal Monti, archbishop of Milan, among the proper Offices of his diocese, which I have as published in the year 1642, placed on the same day the Office of St. Eustorgius with a double rite in his own basilica. Now all things are taken from the Common of one confessor bishop, except the lesson already given. The prayer: O God, who dost make us; but the fifth and sixth lessons from the Sermon of St. Ambrose on St. Eusebius: The deposition; the Mass Statuit; the Gospel: No man lighteth, and the Homily of St. Gregory the Pope, Moralia 28, chapter 6, near the end: What is expressed by the eye, for the lessons of the third Nocturn.
[8] The Life published by Mombrizio The Life of our St. Eustorgius, without the author's name, Bonino Mombrizio published among the Acts of the Saints, volume 1, of which I also have a mutilated copy, I do not know whence received. The author, who nowhere identifies himself, at the end speaks thus, as though he had delivered it in a sermon on the Saint's own festivity. Let us therefore, he says, dearest brethren, rendering worthy homage to so great a Father, all exult in the Lord, and rejoice with spiritual gladness, and, celebrating with heart and mind the holy solemnities of the most blessed bishop and our patron Eustorgius, let us continually commend ourselves to him with entire faith and devotion, etc. But whoever he was, he himself confesses that he was far removed from the Saint's age, and had not obtained written records from which to compose his Life. For he speaks thus: Nor is there any doubt that almighty God more famously glorified afterwards his Elect, whom before his promotion (to the bishopric of Milan) he deigned so wonderfully to honor; although we can find few things about his deeds, on account of the negligence of our predecessors, who neglected to write what they knew, or at some time to restore what had been written and lost, though they were able.
[9] That he is not older than the twelfth century is suggested by the names Caspar, is by a more recent author, Balthasar, and Melchior, by which he called the three holy Magi who adored Christ new-born in the cradle at Bethlehem, and by which Papebroch affirms in the Greco-Muscovite Ephemerides before volume 1 of May, page VIII, that he has read of their being named by no Greek or Latin writer before the times of Frederick Barbarossa. This very thing is confirmed from the fact that the same biographer speaks of the aforesaid bodies of the Magi, which he asserts were brought by St. Eustorgius from Constantinople to Milan, and which the same Frederick after the middle of that century ordered to be translated to Cologne, as though these no longer rested at Milan in his own time. Let us hear him. But there, laid in that holy ark, the holy Kings together, the elder, the middle, and the younger, whose names are Caspar, Balthasar, and Melchior, used to be venerated and glorified and worthily praised at Milan by day and by night. Some Milanese writers indeed write that those bodies lay hidden for a long time before Frederick's times, and therefore the biographer could seem to have spoken of the cessation of their cult, interrupted for that cause; but the first is much more likely.
[10] Further, as he confessed above, he learned few things of the Saint's deeds, nor is it to be published, as neither are the others, and even those which he has conflict with sound chronology and cannot be admitted, as Papebroch has already shown in his Exegesis on the Bishops of Milan before volume VII of May, and as we shall prove below. Tillemont too rejected the same Life as more recent and stained with various faults, in volume 6 of his Memoirs, Note 8 on the Donatists. It is not pleasing therefore to reprint it, especially since it may be read in Mombrizio, and therefore only for the sake of refutation shall I recite in this Commentary the Saint's deeds which it contains. I have at hand another manuscript Life, formerly transmitted to my Elders from Rome by father Matteo Gerardelli, but with the author's name, the library, and the codex from which it was taken passed over. Its beginning is: St. Eustorgius, a Greek by birth, tenth archbishop of Milan. But although this is much shorter than Mombrizio's, it is nevertheless also much more fabulous; and is composed of almost nothing but little fables, which it is irksome even to refute. Peter de Natalibus in his Catalogue of the Saints, book 4, chapter 45, likewise exhibits a short Life,
which, because it is composed from the one just mentioned, or from one like it, I shall pass over for the same reason.
[11] Among many other Lives of the same Saint, which various more recent writers, chiefly Milanese, have written, which are mentioned briefly. Pietro Paolo Bosca in his Annotations on the Milanese Martyrology praises one in manuscript by Bonaventura Castiglioni, which I have understood to be not yet published. Of this most illustrious man, who died as provost of the noble collegiate Ambrosian church at Milan in the year 1555, you have an elogium in Filippo Argelati, volume 1 of the Milanese Library, part two, column 348 and following, where among his other Works are reckoned, in Italian words, the Lives of eleven archbishops of Milan (among whom St. Eustorgius is one), predecessors of St. Ambrose. Then the author of the Library adds: Manuscript in quarto, autograph, codex marked L, number 32, in the metropolitan library, and in the archive of the monks of St. Ambrose, codex marked A, number 44. Of this Life we have no copy, so far as I know; nor did I think that I ought to labor to obtain it, since its writer is more recent, and it has doubtless been seen by others who have treated of the sacred affairs of Milan. I pass over many other writers, likewise more recent, who have published in printed books Lives or elogia of our St. Eustorgius, and who agree in substance with the one published by Mombrizio.
§ II. The time and the order in which the Saint held the see of Milan.
[ ] The Saint sat at Milan in the fourth century. Before we sift the few things which are related about St. Eustorgius I, it is needful that we investigate the age in which he flourished and the order in which he succeeded in the bishopric of Milan; for from that it will be easier to judge of the rest. In the first place, from the testimony of St. Ambrose recited at number 5, it is beyond doubt that our Eustorgius was one of his predecessors; since the other Eustorgius II, from what has been said, flourished only in the sixth century. This same thing is also manifest from St. Athanasius's Letter to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, which some think was written in the year 361, others in 356, and in which that Saint praised Eustorgius among the Catholic bishops and apostolic men, whether living or dead, whom he reckoned up in great number, in these words: And so, if the things which they (the Arians) write were written by the orthodox, such as the great Hosius and confessor, and Maximinus of Gaul, or his successor, Philogonius and Eustathius of the East, or Julius and Liberius, bishops of Rome, … Eustorgius of Italy, … and others who hold the same as they; if, I say, those men were like these, there would surely be no room for suspicion in their writings: for the disposition of apostolic men is simple and candid.
[13] The time of the sees of SS. Maternus, That he sat at Milan in the fourth century, all the catalogues of the bishops of that church agree, as do the writers, but about the order in which he sat they do not so well agree. Papebroch in his Exegesis before volume VII of May exhibits an ancient catalogue of this kind, copied by Henschen from a manuscript of the Ambrosian library, in which St. Eustorgius I is reckoned after Mirocles and Maternus, between Protasius and Dionysius, in this manner.
Mirocles sat 22 years, deposed on the day before the Kalends of December, at St. Victor's.
Maternus sat 12 years, deposed on the 15th of the Kalends of August, at St. Nabor's.
Protasius sat 22 years, deposed on the 8th of the Kalends of December, at St. Victor's.
Eustorgius sat 17 years, deposed on the 14th of the Kalends of October.
Dionysius sat 14 years, deposed on the 8th of the Kalends of June.
A similar Catalogue agrees, published by Jean Mabillon in volume 1 of the Museum Italicum, page 109 and following, except that it ascribes 25 years of the see to Protasius. With Mabillon's edition two other catalogues agree, which Muratori published in volume 2 of the Italian Writers, from page 228, and in volume 4, from page 141. But Papebroch in the same place clearly demonstrated that not only Maternus is to be set before Mirocles, but also Eustorgius before Protasius. And he proves it by these reasons. From the Acts of St. Maternus it is established that he sat at Milan up to the most grievous persecution stirred up by Diocletian and Maximian.
[14] Myroclit Those Acts our Cuper illustrated on the eighteenth day of July, in which, since it is also read: The same confessor of Christ was laid to rest under Maximian; and since he abdicated the empire in the year 305, he consequently fixed the death of St. Maternus at the beginning of the fourth century. That St. Mirocles was bishop of Milan while Constantine the Great was emperor, the same Papebroch proves from Optatus of Milevis, book 1 to Parmenian, where he is said to have been present at the Roman council held by Pope Melchiades in the case of the Donatists in the year 313. Receive the words of Optatus. They assembled in the house of Fausta in the Lateran, in the third consulship of Constantine and the third of Licinius, on the VI Nones of October, on the sixth day of the week. When there had sat down Miltiades, Bishop of the city of Rome, and Rheticius and Maternus and Marinus, bishops of Gaul, and Merocles from Milan, etc. The same man too is read as having subscribed to the first council of Arles, celebrated in the following year, in Labbe, volume 1 of the Councils, column [ ]: Merocles the bishop, Severus the deacon, from the city of Milan, in the province of Italy. It is therefore certain, contrary to what the catalogues do, that Maternus is to be set before Mirocles.
[15] Nor is the age of St. Protasius more doubtful, whom Papebroch in the same place, at number 13, teaches to have been present in the year 345 at the colloquy Protasius and Maternus which St. Athanasius held with the emperor Constans at Milan, praising the deeds of the same St. Athanasius, illustrated on the 2nd day of May, number 166, where he had proved it from his Apology by the words adduced. Lastly he observes that the same Protasius is read as having subscribed in the year 347 to the letter of the synod of Sardica to Pope Julius I, in Hilary among the fragments, although with the name corrupted: Partasius from Italy, from Milan. In Labbe, volume 2 of the Councils, column 659, it is more correctly read: Protasius from Italy, from Milan. And in the same place at column 678, among those who subscribed to the letter of the same synod to all the bishops, Protasius is again read. Lastly, that St. Dionysius was driven from his see of Milan into exile in the year 355, Papebroch teaches both in the Exegesis praised and on the twenty-fifth day of May, where he illustrated his deeds.
[16] It remains, therefore, in what place our St. Eustorgius is to be inserted into the series of the bishops of Milan. St. Eustorgius did not succeed Maternus immediately, In the first place he seems not to be moved far from the times of Diocletian and Maximian: for since St. Ambrose, in the words given at number 5, expressly honors him with the glorious title of confessor, he must have endured something for the faith of Christ; for that title was not given in St. Ambrose's age to any but those who had suffered something for that cause. Hence he might not inconveniently be placed between SS. Maternus and Mirocles, had not St. Ambrose, in the same words, which it will be useful to have repeated, set him after Mirocles; saying, Far be it from me to hand over the inheritance of the fathers, that is, the inheritance of Dionysius, who died in exile for the cause of the faith, the inheritance of Eustorgius the confessor, the inheritance of Mirocles, and of all the faithful bishops before us. Besides, the number of years for which St. Eustorgius is said in all the catalogues to have sat would then have to be lessened: for the seventeen years of his episcopate, added to the year 303, about which we said St. Maternus died, bring us to the year 320, in which it is established that St. Mirocles had already sat several years; since indeed he was present at the Roman council in the year 313, and at that of Arles in 314. We shall indeed say that some error has crept into the years of Maternus, Mirocles, Eustorgius, or Protasius, but nothing urges us to believe that this was done in the years of our Saint, and the words of St. Ambrose just recited dissuade us.
[17] No more likely is what the praised catalogues have, but he is to be placed between Mirocles and Protasius. that St. Eustorgius immediately succeeded Protasius before Dionysius. For Protasius, from what has been said, was still living in the year 347, nor is it known how long he survived: but Dionysius went into exile in the year 355, being driven out. Now this scanty interval between the years 347 and 355, from which the remainder of Protasius's episcopate and the beginning of Dionysius's see must further be deducted, not only cannot be reconciled with the seventeen years of St. Eustorgius's episcopate, but does not even allow a sufficiently notable time in which he could have sat. It remains therefore that we place Eustorgius in the middle, between his predecessor Mirocles and his immediate successor Protasius; and that we say with Papebroch that he merited the honorable title of confessor under Maximian, when he was still serving the church in the minor Orders. Now as regards the years assigned in the catalogues, it is certain that some error lurks in them, if, as we have proved must be done, Maternus is set before Mirocles; as Papebroch proves. For if we assign 22 years to Mirocles and as many, or even 25, as other Catalogues have, to Protasius, and 17 to Eustorgius, we shall have 61 or 65 years, which could not have intervened between the year 303, about which Maternus died, and the year 355, in which Dionysius was driven from his see.
[18] Papebroch's surmise about the years of their sees. Hence Papebroch surmised that, along with the inversion of the bishops' names, the number of years also had been inverted, and accordingly that the twenty-two years of Mirocles are to be assigned to Maternus, and the twelve of the latter to Mirocles, in this manner:
St. Maternus sat 22 years, namely from the year 282 to 303.
St. Mirocles sat 12 years, up to 315.
St. Eustorgius sat 17 years, up to 331.
St. Protasius sat 22 years, up to 352.
St. Dionysius sat 4 years, up to 355.
I am not willing for my part to adopt this whole chronology, which suffers its own difficulties. For although some years are certainly superfluous in the catalogues, it is nevertheless like a riddle to declare whether they are to be subtracted from the episcopate of Mirocles, or of Eustorgius, or of Protasius. This one thing I observe: if a decade be taken from Mirocles, the chronological arrangement will no longer labor, and St. Eustorgius will be moved so much nearer to the times of Maximian. Yet because the matter, as I have said, is uncertain, I have preferred to note his death, with a latitude of years, before the middle of the fourth century.
[19] The opinion of some is refuted Tillemont too agrees about the order of succession, in volume 6 of his Memoirs, in the History of the Donatists, article 13 and Note 8 on the same. There are, however, not a few who depart from this order, among whom Charles, bishop of Novara, in his History of the church of Milan, makes St. Eustorgius the immediate successor of Maternus, following, as he himself says, Tristano and all the Milanese writers. The chief argument for this is that he is adorned with the title of confessor by St. Ambrose, and therefore it seems beyond doubt that he suffered in the persecution begun by Diocletian and Maximian and thereafter continued. But this proves nothing, since St. Ambrose does not say that he was already a bishop when he merited to become a confessor. Giuseppe Ripamonti in book 2 of his History of Milan, and Ferdinando Ughelli in volume 4 of Italia Sacra, column 39 and following, Maternus
likewise set before Mirocles, but between the latter and Eustorgius they insert a certain Prosius or Orosius, whom they would have substituted for Mirocles about the year 314, and they cite the council of Arles held in that year, from whose subscriptions alone they confess that he is known.
[20] who are of another opinion. They were deceived by a faulty copy of that council, such as Papebroch observes was published in the Cologne collection of the Councils of the year 1551 under the title of the second Council of Arles (which nevertheless is the same as the first), in which is read: From the province of Italy, from the city of Milan, Orosius the bishop, Nazaraeus the lector. But you have this error corrected in the more accurate editions of the same council by Labbe and Hardouin, in which Mirocles or Merocles is read as having subscribed as bishop of Milan in the words recited at number 14, and then there follows: Oresius the bishop, Nazarius the lector, from the city of Marseilles, in the province of Vienne. Hence Papebroch rightly warns that that Orosius was wrongly inserted into the table of bishops published by decree of the fourth council of Milan under St. Charles Borromeo, and is to be erased from it. No better known, nor to be reckoned among the bishops of Milan, is Julius, whom the two writers praised make the immediate successor of St. Eustorgius before Protasius, relying on the Roman council which is said to have been celebrated in the year 337 under Pope Julius, and in which various bishops are said to have been present with Julius, bishop of Milan. But that synod is reckoned by learned critics to be faulty in many things or wholly spurious. See Tillemont cited above, and Pagi in his Critique of Baronius at the year of Christ 337, number 10.
§ III. There are examined the things wrongly related about the Saint's country, his profession in the world, the manner in which he entered the episcopate, and the bodies of the holy Magi translated by him: he lies in the church of his own name.
[ ] The things about his country, his profession in the world, The Life published by Mombrizio makes St. Eustorgius a Greek by nation and a Constantinopolitan by country, in these words: There was at the city of Constantinople, before the time of Bl. Ambrose, archbishop of Milan, a most Christian man, by name Eustorgius, a Greek by nation, a Constantinopolitan by country, noble by birth, but nobler in character, and in knowledge the most learned among all. That he was a Greek by nation the others too who have written of him agree, and the name Eustorgius itself favors them. But that he was born at Constantinople the epoch of that city, founded by Constantine the Great and first dedicated in the year 330, does not allow us to believe, when compared with what we have discussed above about the time of the Saint's episcopate. The writer might indeed be explained by prolepsis, so that he meant that he was born at Byzantium, where Constantinople was afterwards founded; but he is too recent and too little accurate for us to labor at expounding his assertions. The same biographer highly commends St. Eustorgius both for his other virtues and for singular prudence in giving counsel, on account of which he affirms that he was especially dear to the emperor, whom he does not name. Then he sets out the occasion and manner in which, while still a layman, he was raised to the bishopric of Milan, in words which I here transfer.
[22] Now it came about, by the Lord's disposing, that the emperor sent this Man as legate into Italy, to the parts of Liguria, his legation, and the manner of entering the episcopate which is now called Lombardy. Who, coming straight to Milan, the metropolis of that province, was received honorably by the people of Milan, as was fitting. And there, while he was discharging with clemency the office of the legation committed to him, having tarried for some while, he came into such grace and favor with the clergy and people that, the holy man of God Prothasius, eighth bishop of that city, having then died, they would choose none but him, considering the Man's outstanding probity and the grace of God which shone wonderfully in him; and also the reverence due to their most Christian lord the emperor, etc. After these things he brings in St. Eustorgius as resisting much, and at last overcome by entreaties, and returning to Constantinople with the legates of the Milanese in order to seek the emperor's consent, which he easily obtained. The Milanese writers agree about these things, and some of them relate that he had followed the profession of arms: Puccinelli in the Zodiac of the church of Milan, part 2, adds that in a certain war he had strenuously performed the part of a commander. But they all rely on the same or a similar Life, whose credit we have warned is slight, and which is sufficiently clear from this passage also.
[23] are reported by various writers, The emperor, whom the biographer mentions without a name, the other writers praised affirm was Constantine the Great; nor indeed could another more likely be assigned, since besides him none reigned at Constantinople and at Milan at once before Constantius toward the end of the year 352, as Tillemont observes in Note 8 on the Donatists. That these things could not have happened under Constantius is beyond doubt from what has been said above. For then St. Dionysius, successor of Eustorgius after Protasius, was sitting at Milan. But neither can the same things be referred to the reign of Constantine in the opinion of the biographer, who makes St. Eustorgius the successor of Protasius, whom we proved at number 15 to have been sitting in the year 345, and therefore long after the death of Constantine, who died in the year 337. Add that, according to the sounder chronology of the bishops of Milan, Constantinople was not yet founded when St. Eustorgius entered upon the episcopate. Hence whatever that biographer, and after him the other more recent writers, have so positively handed down about St. Eustorgius's legation and his election to the see of Milan cannot but be very suspect to me, and seem fabulous; and which the earlier of them perhaps, since he had nothing certain about his deeds, and did not know how a Greek had come to that bishopric, fabricated from the similar election of St. Ambrose.
[24] are fabulous or uncertain. From the same Life of St. Ambrose I think was borrowed what Puccinelli has in his Zodiac, where he says that, while St. Eustorgius refused to consent to his own election, an angel cried out: Eustorgius alone among you is worthy of the pastoral office. He had read, namely, that a boy cried out something similar while St. Ambrose was unwilling to accept the bishopric offered by the people. Giovanni Francesco Besozzo in his Pontifical History of Milan, or he who enlarged it, Melchiorre Riva, in § XI alleges another cause for his entering the episcopate. For he says that St. Eustorgius, sent by the emperor Constantine together with the Nicene fathers to Pope Sylvester at Rome, to have the council of Nicaea confirmed, became intimate with that Pontiff, and by that means and by the common consent of all was advanced to the mitre of Milan. So indeed they, but praising no author, no record. More correctly the author of the Ambrosian Breviary, the legation and the rest being passed over, set down only in lesson 3: Eustorgius, born in Greece of a noble family, illustrious also by the name of eminent piety, is created bishop in the place of Maternus (rather, of Mirocles), who at that time had holily died in the Lord, by the fullest consent of all.
[25] The bodies of the three holy Magi No more can be admitted the things which the same biographer, and all the other Milanese writers with great consent, have narrated about the sacred bodies of the three Magi who adored Christ new-born at Bethlehem, translated by the same holy Bishop from Constantinople to Milan. It will be useful to have reported here the biographer's own words. After he has said that the emperor consented to the election of St. Eustorgius, then bringing him in as speaking, he proceeds thus: But hear, I pray, most Christian lord, ever Augustus, command that of God's holy things and of thine I may carry with me what I shall wish, and that they be transported to the devout city of Milan and to its holy church, to be honored with sacred relics, and reward the people subject to thee with a worthy recompense. To whom the emperor said, Take, receive, carry off what thou wilt. Be as thou art: and, if it can be done, be made better. Greet my people, and henceforth release it from all tribute. Strengthened therefore and departing, Eustorgius chose to receive the holy and most sacred marble ark containing the bodies of the three holy Magi and kings, who offered three gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh, to the Son of God born on earth, Christ the Lord. Which indeed were once carefully gathered into one from different parts of the world by the blessed queen Helena, mother of the emperor Constantine, and laid up with devotion in the same ark.
[26] And this ark, lifted up, aided by his company with divine help, is said to have been translated from Constantinople to Milan, setting out on so great a journey, by land and sea, and laboring with many vigils and prayers, full of faith he brought as far as the aforesaid city. And so in a famous place, where in his days a church honorable in the honor of God and of themselves was built, he most honorably placed that same ark with the bodies of the holy Kings; where, namely, is a famous and most holy font, in which the holy ones coming to the faith of Christ used to be baptized, whose healthful water, according to the merits of those baptized in it and believing with great faith, is said once to have received by divine gift such power that some who were feverish, when they drank of it, were quickly freed from their fevers and recovered their former health. But there, that holy ark being set down, the holy kings together, the elder, the middle, and the younger, whose names are Caspar, Balthasar, and Melchior, used to be venerated and glorified and worthily praised at Milan by day and by night. So far the biographer, with whom our Ambrosian Breviary agrees in these words: Besides many other memorials of religion with which he adorned the church committed to him, this also is worthy of everlasting memory, that he wonderfully translated to Milan the sacred bodies of the Magi from as far off as the city of Constantinople, whither they had long since been brought from Parthia, and in their name built a basilica, which was afterwards called Eustorgian.
[27] The Milanese writers, as I have said, unanimously relate the same translation, which translation and try to adorn it with a certain new prodigy, which nevertheless different writers report differently. Paolo Morigia in book 2 of his History of Milan, chapter 10, and Placido Puccinelli in his Zodiac, part 2, under St. Eustorgius, will have it that a wolf, which had killed one of the oxen that were drawing the sacred ark not far from Milan, being ordered by St. Eustorgius to take its place in the yoke, wonderfully obeyed. They add that the same ark, when they had come to the spring of St. Barnabas, stood still, weighed down with such heaviness that it could not be moved thence, and therefore was laid down in that very place as in a spot divinely designated, and honored by a church built there. On the contrary Ripamonti in book 2 of his History of Milan wrote the following about the same alleged miracle. In certain Annals I find that, when those three bodies of the Magi were being conveyed to Milan, a certain admirable chance befell not far from the city, which I shall report as I received it. When one of the oxen which were drawing the ark had by chance sunk under the labor, and the remaining beasts were not thereafter sufficient for the load, suddenly a wolf, wandering over the fields, presented itself, and the attendants yoked it, tame and as it were willing; and thus that strange animal afforded to the city, which had poured out to see, the spectacle of a new obedience.
[28] others adorn with other additions; A thing incredible to tell, or perhaps even of such a kind that serious men would think it hardly worthy of history! But I would not report it, had I not gone up to the column which in Eustorgius's own basilica displays the whole event carved in effigy, and unless the street, which from that they have called the Cow,
were a monument of the miracle. So Ripamonti, who also agrees about the ark being weighed down with wonderful heaviness at the spring of St. Barnabas and being set down in that place. But to me neither that column, whose age Ripamonti does not declare, nor the street called the Cow, will prove that prodigy of the wolf or a translation of the three Magi made by our St. Eustorgius. I should not indeed wish to deny that their sacred bodies once rested at Milan, whence, after the middle of the twelfth century, under the emperor Frederick I, they were translated to Cologne, as among others William of Newburgh, a historian nearly contemporary with that time, writes in book 2 of his English History, chapter 8. Nor do I inquire whether he wrote correctly in the same place: Nor is it known by what persons their (the Magi's) sacred relics were brought thither (to Milan) and laid up there. But whatever may be the case about all these things, that they were not translated to Milan by St. Eustorgius the deep silence of St. Ambrose about them ought to persuade us, as Papebroch observed in the often-praised Exegesis at number 16.
[19] but neither this For although St. Ambrose in book 2 of his Exposition of the Gospel according to Luke set forth the coming of the Magi to Christ's cradle, and carefully added from Matthew what Luke had passed over, yet he does not mention even by a word their bodies resting in his own city. And what cause of this silence are we to think there was, unless that in his time they by no means rested there, or at least had not been brought thither by St. Eustorgius: for Ambrose could not have been ignorant of this, who had succeeded St. Eustorgius in the chair of Milan in the same century, with only three intervening, namely SS. Protasius and Dionysius, and Auxentius the Arian. Nor anywhere else in the works of St. Ambrose is mention made of those same bodies; although he speaks more than once of the holy Magi themselves, or of their history. On the contrary, that same translation, made by St. Eustorgius, rests on a fabulous Life, to which the later age of the writer can add no authority, and whose inept narration cannot but render it suspect.
[30] is shown to have been made by him. Add that that same biographer, who was little careful about a correct chronological arrangement, sufficiently intimates that the bishop who translated those sacred pledges to Milan was further removed from the age of Constantine and Helena than Eustorgius was removed, who lived in their time. For he says: Which (bodies) indeed were once carefully gathered into one from different parts of the world by the blessed queen Helena, mother of the emperor Constantine, and laid up with devotion in the same ark. You see here, studious reader, that the biographer asserts that those bodies were once gathered by St. Helena and deposited in that ark; and that he distinguishes not obscurely between Constantine and that emperor from whom he tries to persuade us that the bodies mentioned were given to Eustorgius. And yet, from the age of Eustorgius, it is certain that he could have received them with those circumstances from no other emperor than Constantine. I pass over other things which likewise make against the alleged translation. For the rest, Papebroch's conjectures on the same subject may be seen both in the praised Exegesis, numbers 22 and 23, and in the Sylloge on St. Eustorgius II on the sixth day of June.
[31] From what has been said gather what is to be thought about the church It is also uncertain at what time the church was built, which they will have to have been built on that occasion by our St. Eustorgius for the three holy Magi, and afterwards to have been called Eustorgian. The biographer speaks of it thus near the end of the Life: Now Bl. Eustorgius was buried in the venerable church of the holy Kings, established afterwards in his own honor and name. By these words he sufficiently acknowledges that that church was founded by someone other than the holy Bishop himself; unless he used the word established for dedicated. Ripamonti in book 2 asserts that Eustorgius built a chamber for keeping those sacred remains, which was thereafter enlarged into a church, and in St. Ambrose's time first began to be called Eustorgian. Eustorgius, he says, built a chamber in that place, and there laid up the bodies of the three Magi. This is that chamber which afterwards, dedicated to Eustorgius himself, the religion and wealth of the following age raised to a wonderful amplitude and spaciousness. Down to the times of St. Ambrose it was called the basilica of the Kings; he, imposing a new name, made the old appellation obsolete, and established there an order of canons, whom long afterwards Enrico Settala assigned to the ministries and worship of the church of St. Lawrence, when he had granted the basilica itself to the Dominican friars.
[32] Other Milanese writers commonly have the like; in which his body rests. The day of his death, etc. but none of them produces any ancient document from which it appears that the Eustorgian church already existed in the time of St. Ambrose: nay rather, since from what has been said it seems certain that the sacred bodies of the Magi were not at Milan in his time, it is clear on what uncertain records they rely when they affirm that the church of those same Saints, the name of the Kings being made obsolete, began to be called Eustorgian by St. Ambrose. Further, at whatever time it was founded, it has now for some centuries been possessed by the Dominican fathers, with a noble monastery added, and in it the body of St. Eustorgius is honored, as among many others Francesco Orlendi writes in volume 1 of the Sacred and Profane World, part 2, book 2, chapter 5, number 6, where he says: In the most ancient and most elegant church of St. Eustorgius, which the Friars of the Order of Preachers now possess, a most noble monastery having been built there, rests the body of that same holy Archbishop. Further, besides what has already been discussed, the biographer has nothing about him except an elogium in which he praises in general his episcopal virtues, and with which we do not doubt that he shone. The day of his death he indicates thus: At length, his course being happily completed, falling asleep in peace he rested on the fourteenth of the Kalends of October. He names as his successor St. Dionysius; but wrongly, as has been proved above.