Linus

ON ST. LINUS, POPE AND MARTYR,

AT ROME

More probably in the year LXVII.

HISTORICAL SYLLOGE.

Saint Linus, Pope and Martyr, at Rome (S.)

BY J. S.

§ I. The pontificate of St. Linus, and his martyrdom, vindicated against the objections of Tillemont.

Although many things may be disputed toward the right ordering of the chronology of St. Linus, and although with this end in view I began to inquire at length into the year of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, The chronology of the first Pontiffs not to be repeated here: and into the succession of the first Pontiffs, yet since I find so great a variety of opinions upon all these matters, and such great difficulties in the views of each writer, which learned men have attempted in different ways to remove, that I cannot hope to render any opinion sufficiently certain by a disputation of my own, I judge that I must here abstain from a chronological disputation, lest I waste time to no purpose, and either repeat what others have said, or increase the number of those who contend with one another. Therefore I shall only indicate briefly in what manner our Henschen arranged the chronology of St. Linus; for his opinion, which in the case of the earlier Pontiffs and in the year of Christ's Passion Pagi and others have adopted, seems to me preferable to the rest, at least down to the year of St. Linus's death, with which alone we are here concerned. Now that Linus was the first successor of St. Peter the apostle in the pontificate, most learned men agree; nor are those few to be listened to who without suitable reasons have wished to maintain that St. Linus died before St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles.

[2] Concerning the years in which St. Linus administered the Roman see, St. Linus partly the vicar of St. Peter, partly Pontiff in the most ancient Catalogue of the Roman Pontiffs, given in Bucherius and before tome I of April, page XVII, these things are read: Linus, twelve years, four months, ten days (elsewhere twelve). He was in the times of Nero, from the consulship of Saturninus and Scipio down to that of Capito and Rufus. Upon the names of the consuls Henschen observed these things: The consuls indicated were Q. Volusius Saturninus and P. Cornelius Scipio, who bore that dignity in the fifty-sixth year of the common era, when about the XIII day of May he was consecrated bishop by St. Peter; and being appointed his vicar … he exercised the episcopal ministry at Rome under his authority for nine years in all, down to the sixty-fifth year, when, Nerva and Vestinus being consuls, St. Peter suffered martyrdom on the XXIX of June. He being dead, St. Linus, now true Pontiff, presided over the Church for two years, two months and twenty-six days. At last he died a martyr on the XXIII of September in the year LXVII, in which the consulship was held by the aforementioned S. Fonteius Capito and C. Julius Rufus, and it was the thirteenth year of Nero's reign: who in the following year, on the IX day of June, when he was being sought for punishment, fleeing from Rome, killed himself. So runs Henschen's chronology, which pleased Papebroch also.

[3] he is said to have been such from the year of Christ 56 to 67: But according to the consuls named in the Catalogue, twelve years are not assigned to St. Linus, as the Catalogue has it, but eleven, as the second Catalogue has it, in which three months and twelve days are added. But since in both Catalogues the beginning and end of St. Linus's episcopate are assigned to the same consuls, it is manifest that in the most ancient Catalogue twelve is wrongly read for eleven, and it appears to me most likely that this happened by the mere error of the transcribers. Other Catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs have been published by Schelstrate in tome 1 of the Antiquity of the Church Illustrated, by Pagi in tome 1 of the Baronian Criticism, and by several others. To speak of them briefly and in general, I say that in most of them eleven years are likewise assigned to Linus; in some, however, fifteen; in others seven; in others twelve; and that in the days and months too the catalogues vary somewhat. Wherefore concerning the days and months which are added to the eleven years we can be less certain than concerning the years, since these are made known from the consuls. For copyists do not so easily substitute some consuls for others as they corrupt the numbers of years, months and days.

[4] The Fathers do not deny that Linus was St. Peter's vicar, yet they assert What has been said about the administration of the Roman Church by St. Linus while St. Peter was alive does not please Tillemont, tome 2 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, Note I on St. Clement, where he objects that St. Irenæus and other Fathers are, as it were, contrary to this opinion. But the Fathers praised only mean that St. Linus presided over the Roman Church after the death of St. Peter; they by no means deny that the same Church was administered by Linus as St. Peter's vicar while that Apostle was still living. Let us hear St. Irenæus, older than the rest, book 3 Against Heresies, chapter 3: Having therefore founded and instructed the Church, he says, the blessed Apostles (Peter and Paul) handed over to Linus the episcopate of administering the Church. In Greek it stands thus: Θεμελιώσαντες οὖν καὶ οἰκοδομήσαντες οἱ μακάριοι ἀπόστολοι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, Λινῷ τὴν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς λειτουργίαν ἐνεχειρίσαν. More literally I render the alleged words into Latin thus: The Church therefore having been founded and built, the blessed Apostles gave into Linus's hands the administration of the episcopate. Irenæus does not seem able to have declared more clearly that the administration of the Roman episcopate was committed to St. Linus by the Apostles while they lived, than by the word ἐγχειρίζειν, to give into the hands: for this does not fit those who by their own death leave something to someone. Besides, since Irenæus names Peter and Paul together, it cannot be understood of the episcopate left to St. Linus by death, as to a successor: for St. Paul was not Bishop of Rome, so as to be able by his death to leave the episcopate to St. Linus. But since Peter and Paul had propagated the Christian faith at Rome, and in that manner both had founded and built the Church there, although Peter alone was Bishop of Rome, they could by common counsel commit the Roman episcopate to Linus, so that they themselves might cast the seeds of the faith in other places: and this appears to be St. Irenæus's meaning. The Father praised adds: Of this Linus Paul makes mention in the Epistles which are to Timothy. Namely in the second to Timothy, which was written at Rome, near the end it stands thus: Eubulus and Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren salute thee.

[5] Eusebius, book 3 chapter 2, has thus: But after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first to undertake the episcopate of the Roman Church. that he was also the first Pontiff after Peter. And again in chapter 4: But Linus, whom (St. Paul) testifies in the second Epistle to Timothy to have been with him at Rome, obtained the episcopate of the Roman Church first after Peter, as we have already said above. St. Jerome, On Writers, book 15, enumerating the four first Roman Bishops, says: Linus was the second. Optatus of Milevis, book 2 On the Schism of the Donatists, and St. Augustine, Epistle 53, likewise say that Linus succeeded Peter, and place him second among the Roman Pontiffs. Nevertheless some of the ancients set Clement second in place of Linus, whom others set third, and others fourth. For the aforesaid Jerome in the eulogy of Clement has it thus: Clement … the fourth bishop at Rome after Peter: since Linus was the second, Anacletus the third, although very many of the Latins think that Clement was the second after Peter the apostle. Tertullian, On Prescription against Heretics, book 1 chapter 32, seems to put Clement first, when he speaks thus: As the Church of the Romans publishes that Clement was ordained by Peter. But if we consider the passage alleged rightly, we shall not find that Clement is said to be the first successor of Peter, but ordained by him. Now Clement could have been ordained bishop by St. Peter for the preaching of the faith in various places, even if he was not the first Bishop of the Roman Church after him. Certainly Tertullian prefaces these words: As the church of the Smyrnæans relates that it has Polycarp appointed by John. But Polycarp does not appear to have been the first bishop of Smyrna, since S. Bucolus preceded him, of whom we have treated at the VI of February, and probably others, concerning whom Le Quien may be consulted in the Oriens Christianus, tome 1, column 737. I judge therefore that these men were named by Tertullian chiefly, not because they were the first bishops of their churches, but because they were better known, and had grown famous by the writings with which the heretics were refuted. But if anyone should prefer to believe that Tertullian really believed Polycarp to have been the first bishop of Smyrna, and Clement the first successor of Peter in the Roman Church, it would have to be said that the order of bishops of both Churches was not sufficiently clear to Tertullian when he wrote those things. But it is by no means necessary to assert this, since his own words are conveniently explained in the manner already stated.

[6] Again, another opinion concerning the first Pontiffs is that of Rufinus in the Preface to the book of Recognitions, Nor is Rufinus to be listened to, who from a supposititious Epistle of Clement which he turned from Greek into Latin. For in it he writes these things: The Epistle indeed, in which the same Clement, writing to James the brother of the Lord, announcing the death of Peter, and that he had left him the successor of his chair and of his teaching, … I have for that reason not prefixed to this Work, because it is later in time, and was long ago translated and published by me. But what in it will perhaps seem to some inconsistent, if it be here explained, I do not think will seem absurd. For certain persons ask how it is that, whereas Linus and Cletus were bishops in the City of Rome before this Clement, Clement himself, writing to James, should say that the chair of teaching was handed over to him by Peter. Of which matter we have received this to be the reason, that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but while Peter survived; namely, that they should bear the care of the episcopate, while he himself should fulfill the office of the apostolate. As he is found to have done at Cæsarea also: where, though he himself was present, he nevertheless had Zacchæus, ordained by himself, as bishop. And in this way both will seem true, that they are numbered bishops before Clement, and that Clement nevertheless received the seat of teaching after the death of Peter.* So Rufinus, in order to reconcile the supposititious Epistle of Clement to James with the opinion of the Romans concerning the first Pontiffs.

[7] believed that Linus had died before Peter: But since the Epistle of Clement to James the brother of the Lord is manifestly supposititious (for in it the death of St. Peter is announced, whom it is agreed to have survived James by some years), Rufinus indeed deserves pardon, but he cannot have authority here. For since his reasoning seems to be drawn solely from the assertions of that Epistle, Rufinus deserves no greater credit than the supposititious Epistle itself, which he unskillfully thrust upon us as authentic. The Apostolic Constitutions, since they too are supposititious, ought to detain us no more, even though in book 7, chapter 46, they have it thus: Of the Church of the Romans, Linus the son of Claudia was indeed the first, ordained by Paul; but the second, ordained by me, Peter, after the death of Linus, was Clement. For the authority of this unknown writer, who falsely attributed to himself the name of Clement of Rome, cannot be great in these matters.

[8] St. Epiphanius also favors our opinion. Epiphanius, Heresy 27, chapter 6, acknowledges that Linus was the first Pontiff after the Apostles, Cletus the second, Clement the third. He doubts, however, whether Clement was ordained by the Apostles, or afterward by St. Cletus. Whether, he says, while they (Linus and Cletus) were yet surviving he was consecrated bishop by Peter with the imposition of hands, and, having declined that charge, remained free of all administration, … or rather was appointed after the Apostles by Bishop Cletus, is not clearly established. Although even for this reason other bishops could be substituted while the Apostles, namely Peter and Paul, were still living, because those same men were undertaking journeys into other cities and regions for the sake of preaching the Gospel, and yet Rome could not be without a bishop… And it may well have happened that, Clement having first been appointed, and he shrinking from it (if indeed so it fell out, which I would say by way of opinion rather than of assertion), afterward, Linus and Cletus being dead, who each singly held the episcopate over a space of XII years, after the slaying of the apostles Peter and Paul, which falls in the XII year of Nero, then at last he was compelled to take up the Pontificate. So Epiphanius, with much hesitation, yet asserting without hesitation that the first Pontiff at Rome after the Apostles was Linus. But he by no means asserts that Linus's episcopate could not have begun before the martyrdom of Peter and Paul; rather the contrary. Wherefore we ought, it seems, to abide by the more ancient Catalogues, in which the years during which St. Linus is said to have sat begin from the year 56 and end in the year 67: for the objections raised by Tillemont and others proceed from no authority of the ancients, but from another system which they have chosen, and to which they try to adapt the years of St. Linus. But whether Clement or Cletus succeeded St. Linus — a question which is very ambiguous — I do not here dispute.

[9] In the second Catalogue of the Pontiffs Linus is said to be by nation an Italian, The asserted martyrdom of St. Linus, which Tillemont of the region of Tuscany, his father Herculanus, and crowned with martyrdom. Presently it is added: He, by the precept of the blessed Peter, ordained that a woman should enter the church with her head veiled. Who was also buried beside the body of the blessed Peter in the Vatican, on the IX Kalends of October. Of the martyrdom of St. Linus, Tillemont discourses in tome 2, on St. Clement, Note 4, where he brings forward some conjectures to persuade us that the Saint did not die by martyrdom. He nevertheless holds that he is rightly called a martyr on account of the things which he suffered for our Lord Jesus Christ. But if anyone had asked of Tillemont what St. Linus suffered for Christ, if he did not suffer death, he would certainly have been compelled to answer that he did not know. Certainly in the Catalogue just praised he is said to be crowned with martyrdom; but it is not added with what torments he was tortured, or by what kind of death he was taken off. Since moreover he denies credit to Ado, Usuard, Wandelbert, and the other martyrologists of the IX century who assert the martyrdom of St. Linus, he would not have believed the present Roman Breviary, in which these things are read: This Pontiff had his head cut off for the constancy of the Christian faith, by order of Saturninus, an impious and most ungrateful man of consular rank, whose daughter he had freed from the vexation of demons. These things, I say, Tillemont would not have admitted, nor do we believe them sufficiently certain, since we know of no ancient writer by whom they were asserted.

[10] Nevertheless we by no means agree with Tillemont, who assails the martyrdom of St. Linus with reasonings plainly feeble. denies on frivolous grounds: The first reason is drawn from St. Irenæus, who enumerates the Roman Pontiffs down to his own times, and asserts the martyrdom of Telesphorus alone. How futile this reason is, by which the crown of martyrdom is denied to many Pontiffs, I have already shown at the XXVIII of August in St. Hermes, number 17: for St. Irenæus does not there write the deeds of the Pontiffs, but recounts most briefly their order and succession, and does not so much as touch upon the martyrdom of Peter or of Paul. His second reason is that the name of St. Linus is not inscribed in the Hieronymian Martyrology. Hear, reader, Tillemont himself, in tome 2, on St. Telesphorus, whose martyrdom St. Irenæus asserted, and who likewise is not read in the Hieronymian Martyrology: There would be reason to wonder that the name (of that St. Telesphorus) is not found in the monuments of the Church before the IX century, did we not know from many other examples that martyrs more ancient than the rest were less well known. Therefore, if Telesphorus could be omitted in all the monuments of the Church down to the ninth century, Tillemont ought not to have wondered that St. Linus, far more ancient, was omitted in the Hieronymian Martyrology, nor to have denied his martyrdom on that ground. The third reason is that in Bede, at the VII of October, he is announced only as Pope, the title of martyr being omitted. I answer that the title of martyr or of martyrs is not seldom omitted in Bede, even where the martyrdom is agreed upon. Certainly at the XXIX of June he has thus: At Rome, the birthday of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Examples of this kind, not a few, will occur to one who runs through Bede's Martyrology. But in the same, at the XXVI of April, these words also are read: The birthday of St. Cletus, Pope and martyr. Now Tillemont denies the martyrdom to Linus and to Cletus by the same arguments, so that Bede is more against him than for him, seeing that he asserts the martyrdom of Cletus.

[11] [and he wishes him to be called a martyr because he suffered something for the faith.] Wherefore he ought rather to have considered the ancient tradition of the Roman Church concerning the martyrdom of Saints Linus, Cletus, Clement and Alexander, the martyrdom of all of whom is asserted not only in the Catalogue of the Pontiffs which Henschen gave in the second place, but also in the canon of the Mass, in which mention is made only of Apostles or of martyrs. Tillemont indeed admits that in the Canon none but martyrs are recounted along with the Apostles, and he himself observes that Linus, Cletus, Clement and Alexander were inserted into the Canon; but he contends that they can be called martyrs because they suffered for the faith, even if they did not end their lives by martyrdom. Yet he brings forward no example of this in the canon. For of all the others it is agreed either that they were Apostles, or martyrs taken off by a violent death. Besides, the martyrdom of St. Clement and of St. Alexander is asserted also in their own Acts, and in other ancient monuments of the Church, as Tillemont confesses in Alexander the Pope and in Note 12 on St. Clement. But for Tillemont it suffices that they suffered for the faith, just as there suffered, he says, St. John the Evangelist, St. Apollinaris of Ravenna, and St. Felix of Nola; since it is certain from the manner of speech of the first ages of the Church that confessors of this kind were held for martyrs. In this way St. Irenæus, whose authority in these matters is weighty, will not be contrary to Rufinus and Pope Zosimus, who affirm the martyrdom of St. Clement. So Tillemont reasons, asserting in various places that those were acknowledged martyrs who had suffered for the faith, even if they had not fallen amid torments. But this assertion of his he nowhere proves: nor can it be proved in general, as it is asserted by him.

[12] [But the recitation of the name in the canon implies martyrdom strictly so called;] Those certainly were held martyrs at that time, and are still now, who had suffered such things as naturally bring on death, even if by a miracle they were preserved in life, as befell St. John the Evangelist, cast into a cauldron of boiling oil. They too are called martyrs who to the end of their life abide either in prison or in exile for the faith, and die therein. Thus in truth St. Clement the Pope might be called a martyr on account of his exile, even if his violent death were not established. But those who only for a time suffered for the faith persecution, exile, prison, stripes or other torments not wont to bring on death, and afterward died in peace, were not honored after death as martyrs, although while living they were from time to time named martyrs, and more frequently confessors. Some confessors of this sort were present at the Council of Nicæa, such as SS. Paphnutius and Spiridion, who are not venerated as martyrs but as confessors. The examples which Tillemont adduces by no means show that in the earlier ages of the Church any were held for martyrs who had not endured a violent death, or a grievous punishment of a kind to bring on death. But much less do they prove that martyrs of this kind were inserted into the canon of the Mass, even if they are really martyrs on account of a deadly punishment. For the example of St. John, who was inserted into the canon as an apostle, is unfit to prove that other martyrs also, who had not fallen by a violent death, are recounted in the canon. As for Apollinaris and Felix of Nola, they are not recited in the canon, and the former is believed to have died a violent death; the latter is among the ancients more frequently called confessor than martyr.

[13] and that consideration alone far outweighs Tillemont's inept reasonings. Therefore the recitation of the names of SS. Linus, Cletus, Clement and Alexander in the canon of the Mass shows that the tradition of the Roman Church concerning their martyrdom is most ancient. But the argument which Tillemont opposes to this and to the other monuments, drawn from the silence of St. Irenæus, is so feeble, not to say ridiculous, that I cannot but wonder that it could so greatly please a learned man and be so often repeated. St. Irenæus, he says, asserts the martyrdom of Telesphorus alone: it can therefore hardly be believed that the others were martyrs. But he ought to have observed how briefly he enumerates the mere succession of the Pontiffs, and he would have seen well enough that it was not St. Irenæus's purpose there to declare by what kind of death each had died, but only to note those things which conduced to establishing the tradition of the Roman Church. But if anyone should ask why he speaks only of the martyrdom of Telesphorus, if he believed several of the Pontiffs to be martyrs, I shall answer that he could do this because Telesphorus had suffered in his own age, and many were still living, while he was writing, who could have seen it and remembered it. But those four Pontiffs, of whose martyrdom he is silent, had died long before. Wherefore the silence of St. Irenæus about the martyrdom of St. Linus is no more effective for denying it than is his silence about the martyrdom of SS. Peter and Paul: and Tillemont ought rather to have followed the authority of the ancient monuments than to have assailed them with reasonings so inept. The chief reason, I think, on which he wished to deny St. Linus's martyrdom, arose

for him out of the chronology by which he fixes the death of St. Linus under Vespasian: for he contends that there was no persecution under Vespasian. But neither does this prove enough: nor do we fix the death of St. Linus under Vespasian, but under Nero.

elsewhere nunciat*

§ II. The traditions of the people of Volterra concerning the Saint's homeland and deeds: his body at Rome, relics in various places: his cult, and his name on several days in the sacred Calendars.

[ ] [The traditions of the people of Volterra concerning St. Linus's homeland and deeds] What remains to be said concerning St. Linus is exceedingly uncertain and slight. That he was by nation an Italian from Tuscany, the second Catalogue and Anastasius the Librarian hold. Baronius and others have also called him a man of Volterra. Raphael of Volterra, in book 22 of the Anthropologia, cites in favor of that opinion an old writing, and has it thus: Linus, of Volterra by birth, of the family of the Mauri: for so we read in a certain old writing in that city; that Linus of Volterra was sent to Rome by his father Herculanus at the age of XXII for the sake of studies, being then in the household of Q. Fabius, his father's friend: that afterward, when Peter came to Rome at that time, he left all things and followed him, and that on account of his outstanding faith and eloquence together he remained his coadjutor in the Gospel… He wrote the deeds of Peter, especially his contest with Simon Magus. So Raphael of Volterra, who adds also a chronology, better to be sought from the ancient Catalogues. He adds also that he was a martyr under Saturninus the consul, whose daughter he had delivered. This last is read also in the Roman Breviary, taken perhaps from Raphael of Volterra; but there Saturninus is not called consul, but of consular rank. I have also two manuscript collections concerning the Saints of Volterra, sent long ago to our Elders, in which all the things already given from Raphael of Volterra are asserted. The one collection, written in Latin, contains a visitation of all the relics with annotations concerning the Saints. The other is an Italian tract concerning the Saints and relics of Volterra, composed at the beginning of the XVII century by Emilio Fei. It is clear therefore that all the aforesaid things were commonly believed at Volterra.

[15] In the Office of St. Linus, which was composed for the city and diocese of Volterra and approved by Pope Leo X in the year 1519, the things asserted are recited: there are recounted those deeds of St. Linus which seemed more probable than the rest. Wherefore two lessons from the printed Office are here [ ]

Of the lineage of Linus, that he was of the region of Tuscany, is all that is found written by the ancients. But we have come to a nearer knowledge of him. The men of Volterra say that he is their fellow-citizen, by a steady report handed down from their forefathers; and that at the same time it appears in a certain old writing still preserved in that city that he was descended from the noble family of the Mauri, and was sent to Rome by his father Herculanus at twenty-two years of age for the sake of studies, and was in the household of Q. Fabius his father's friend: and that at last, when Peter came to Rome at about that time, he left all things and followed him; and that on account of his outstanding faith and eloquence alike he was made by him a helper of the Gospel. But of his sanctity and of his skill in governing the Church we have again the testimony of Peter; inasmuch as he, while yet living, designated him his successor, contrary to the custom of those who came after. Moreover his authority and perpetual memory is honored daily by the priestly order in the Sacrifice of the altar, so that it is fitting that this man should come, among the rest of our chiefs, as the greatest suffrage for the preserving of the Christian cause forever in the grace of God. He ordained that no woman should enter the temple save with covered head. He wrote the deeds of Peter, especially his contest with Simon Magus. Of which Hegesippus also, a neighbor of the Apostles, making mention, seems to have borrowed from the same. From the last year of Nero he lived on to the times of Domitian; under whom he was a Martyr, as Damasus says. But in the catalogue of the Pontiffs which is by some attributed to Damasus nothing is read concerning the martyrdom, but it is asserted in the following catalogues, yet not under Domitian, but under Nero. Therefore I omit what follows, since it pertains to the chronology and is contrary alike to the ancient catalogues and to the learned moderns.

[16] other things from Peter de Natalibus. How certain those traditions of the people of Volterra may seem, I leave to the judgment of the learned. This one thing I observe, that nothing is read in the Office about the daughter of Saturninus the consul, or man of consular rank, being freed from the vexation of demons, nor about Linus being beheaded by his order. In that Office likewise there is not read what is asserted of Linus in the Roman Breviary in these words: Whose faith and sanctity was so great that he not only cast out demons, but even called the dead back to life. But those things Peter de Natalibus relates in book 8, chapter 109, omitting the tradition of the people of Volterra. His words, omitting however what he says about the chronology, I subjoin: Linus, Pope and martyr, an Italian of the region of Tuscany, his father Herculanus, succeeded the blessed apostle Peter in the Roman Pontificate… This blessed Bishop, when he put demons to flight, raised the dead, and worked other miracles, and baptized many who had been converted; and had also freed the daughter of Saturninus the consul from a demon, and converted her to Christ; Saturninus the consul, believing that this was done by magic arts, afflicted him with various punishments and beheaded him, Nero reigning, on the IX Kalends of October. Nothing indeed in these things is incredible, just as the traditions of the people of Volterra are not incredible; but all would become far more certain than they now are, if they could be proved by monuments or authorities truly ancient and approaching the first centuries of Christ. As for what concerns the things which St. Linus is said to have written, one may see the observations of Henschen in the preliminary Commentary to the Acts of SS. Peter and Paul, tome V of June, page 399, where he shows that all the things which have been published under the name of St. Linus are to be held supposititious.

[17] [The Saint's body buried in the Vatican, concerning whose translation nothing is established:] Concerning the burial of St. Linus the more ancient catalogues, except the first, assert that he was buried in the Vatican beside the body of St. Peter. The aforesaid Peter de Natalibus adds a translation of the body, writing thus: And although his body was at first buried in the Vatican, yet afterward it was translated to Ostia by Gregory bishop of Ostia, and laid up in the greater church of St. Laurence. Whence he took these things I plainly do not know; nor does he indicate of which Gregory he speaks, among the various bishops of Ostia of that name. Besides, the Roman writers, Francesco Maria Torrigio in the Vatican Diary, Bartolomeo Piazza in the Hemerologium or Roman Diary, both at the XXIII of September, and other more recent men, assert that the body of St. Linus lies in the Vatican basilica. With these agrees Peter Mallius, a writer of the twelfth century, in the History of the ancient Vatican basilica, given among us in tome VII of June, page 41, where he enumerates the Pontiffs laid to rest in the Vatican basilica. In Marlot, in the History of the metropolis of Rheims, tome 2, book 1, chapter 37, a writing is recited concerning the relics preserved in the church of SS. Timothy and Apollinaris, and in it is read: But in the left part, lower down, rests S. Linus. But since I do not find that St. Linus is honored with a special cult at Rheims, I do not think that St. Linus the Pope is designated; but either the name is corrupted, or there is an error in that writing.

[18] Others think that they possess some relics of St. Linus. some relics preserved in various places: The aforesaid Piazza attributes them to the chapel of St. Sylvester, which is annexed to the church of the Four Holy Crowned Martyrs, and with him agrees the inscription placed in the said chapel on the left side of the altar beneath the window, which Martinelli recites in Roma sacra, page 293. Masini in Bologna Surveyed, at the XXIII of September, page 462, says that the festival of St. Linus is celebrated in the basilica of St. Stephen, and that his relics are preserved in the parish church of St. Isaiah. Gelenius in Colonia Agrippinensis, page 456, ascribes to the Charterhouse of Cologne a great bone of St. Linus, Pope and martyr. Raiss in the Hierogazophylacium Belgicum, page 414, reckons among the relics of the collegiate church of St. Peter at Douai: Of St. Linus, Pope and martyr. The same, page 474, enumerating the sacred pledges of the church of St. Servatius, collegiate of Maastricht, reckons among them A tooth of St. Linus, Pope and martyr. Relics of St. Linus the Pope are preserved likewise at Volterra, where also a church with a monastery is dedicated to that Saint, as I shall say at somewhat greater length from the Volterran documents indicated above.

[19] The aforesaid Emilio Fei, in his manuscript Work, folio 6, relates a church with a monastery dedicated to the Saint at Volterra, where that Raffaele Maffei, a nobleman of Volterra, whose piety of life he sets forth with a lengthy eulogy, in the year 1513 erected a church of ample size with a spacious monastery of nuns of the Order of St. Francis, and that that church was dedicated to St. Linus, Pope and martyr, as a citizen of Volterra. Besides, the author of the Latin manuscript collection, folio 36, confesses that the people of Volterra labored long in vain to obtain some relics of St. Linus. Then he subjoins: Only when Urban VIII held the Pontificate did they receive, through the interposed prayers of the lord knight Emilio Fei, a small relic or some little fragment of the bones of St. Linus. In confirmation of this assertion an instrument is recited, given on the Kalends of September of the year 1624, and written by a notary, and fortified by his subscription and that of other witnesses. The instrument runs thus: I, Bernardino Maschi, priest and citizen of Urbino, testify that Girolamo de' Conti, a clerk of Cingoli, when in the month of April last, of the year MDCXXIV, he entered the service of my most illustrious and most excellent lord, the duke of Bracciano, prince of Piombino, etc., gave me certain sacred relics to keep, which he had received as a gift from the most reverend father Fulgenzio Galluccio, bishop of Tagaste and prefect of the Apostolic sacristy, in recognition of the service rendered by his most reverend lordship in the custody of the aforesaid sacristy: and he affirmed on oath that those relics had been taken from the chest of relics placed in the same Pontifical sacristy. And since among them were certain bones of St. Linus, Pontiff and martyr, I, moved by his merits and by his singular piety toward that holy Pontiff, gave them, with the leave of the same Girolamo, to the most illustrious and exceedingly excellent man, the knight Emilio Fei, a patrician of Volterra. All which things the same Girolamo ratifies, etc. There follow the names of the witnesses, the oath of the notary and the subscriptions. Then in the year 1629, on the Kalends of October, Benedetto Bava, provost of Volterra and vicar general of the bishop of Volterra, permitted the said relics of St. Linus to be exposed for public veneration.

[20] both relics and a solemn cult. Another particle also of the relics of St. Linus came to Volterra in the year 1636, as is clear from the same writing, in which these things are read concerning the rite of celebrating his festival: The festival of this Saint was formerly wont to be celebrated by the church of Volterra with an Octave, down to the year MDCXXIX, when the sacred Congregation of Rites published the decree concerning the Offices of the Saints. Yet his feast on the XXIII day of September is even now kept with solemn pomp: and with great applause the silver head of the holy Pontiff is borne in its yearly procession to the church of the monastery dedicated to holy Linus, with the clergy, the magistrates, and the whole people present. Having been brought into the tabernacle

the image of the holy Pontiff, the sacristans bring out a huge ostensory of brass and gilded bronze, in which another particle of the relics of St. Linus is preserved, with an authentic written record already signed in the year MDCXXXVII on the Kalends of January. For Father Fr. Ottaviano Manucci of Volterra, of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine, received this relic from the bachelor Father Fr. Riccardo Anconino of Rome, of the Ilcian congregation of the same Order; who in the month of June MDCXXXVI was presented with it by Don Giovanni Battista Paolucci of Rome, his kinsman, that he might see it carried to the city of Volterra: which he himself had received to this end from the most reverend father sacristan of the supreme Pontiff. This therefore, having been viewed, is closed up and carried back to the place from which it was moved: the keys are restored to the lords to whom they belong. Thus far concerning the cult among the people of Volterra, from the documents most courteously transmitted by them to our Elders. Several things are discussed in them concerning the chronology, and the manner in which St. Linus first became known to St. Peter. But those matters, as resting upon conjectures not sufficiently founded, I have judged not to be touched upon.

[21] It was believed at Milan that St. Nazarius M. was baptized by St. Linus; In the Acts of SS. Nazarius and Celsus, martyrs of Milan, of whom we have treated at the XXVIII of July, St. Nazarius is said to have been baptized by St. Linus the Pope, and the same is likewise asserted in the Menology of the Greeks, which was composed by order of the emperor Basil Porphyrogenitus in the X century, at the XIV of October. But neither are the Acts, in which this is affirmed, so ancient or so accurately written, nor is the said Menology of such authority, that from these and other like monuments the matter can seem certain, especially since the baptism of St. Nazarius is by others attributed also to St. Peter, by others to St. Clement, as may be seen in the preliminary Commentary on SS. Nazarius and Celsus, § XI. Equally or more uncertain is it whether St. Linus baptized St. Protasius the martyr, which in the Sirletian Menology at the XIV of October is asserted with the same lightness. Nevertheless it is the persuasion of the Milanese, and not an improbable one, though uncertain, as I have said, that it was St. Linus who baptized St. Nazarius; and by that persuasion Arderic, in the X century archbishop of Milan, seems to have been led to build at Milan a chapel to St. Linus in the church of the Apostles.

[22] Giovanni Pietro Puricelli in the Nazarian Dissertation, chapter 84, number 3, recites these things from a manuscript Catalogue of the archbishops of Milan: and that therefore a chapel was built there to St. Linus. This archbishop caused to be built the church of S. Andrea ad Murum Ruptum, and the chapel of S. Lino in the church of the Apostles. And presently, from the same: The aforesaid Arderic died in the year of the Lord nine hundred and forty-nine, on the third Ides of October. He lies in the aforesaid chapel of S. Lino. Concerning the church of St. Andrew, which does not pertain to our purpose, Puricelli judges that it was then rather restored than built, and concerning the chapel of St. Linus he subjoins: The chapel of S. Lino alone, then, I for my part should believe not to have existed there before, and to have been first built by Arderic: nay, to have been for that reason dedicated to S. Lino, because he himself had administered Christian baptism to S. Nazarius, as I explained in chapter 14. And that same chapel stands even now between the singing-hall of the basilica and the canons' houses adjoining it on that side: and its doorway still lies open, where passage is given that way between the singing-hall and the houses. Yet because it is exceedingly dark, and cannot meanwhile receive light from any other source, it cannot therefore serve even for sacred ministries in the meantime, and remains venerable by the sole title of S. Lino, still perpetually retained; while for the rest not even those signs of the sepulchre appear there in which we believe Arderic, its founder, to have been entombed.

[23] Although the festival of St. Linus, Pope and martyr, is performed in the Latin Church on this XXIII day of September, The Saint's memory in many Martyrologies at the 26th of November, yet his memory is recalled in the Martyrologies on days very diverse. The author of the Little Roman Martyrology, published by Rosweyde, was the first to announce Linus at the XXVI of November in these few words: At Rome, of Linus the Pope. On the same day Ado has thus: The birthday of holy Linus the Pope, who after the apostle Peter first held the Roman Church twelve years, three months, and twelve days: and being crowned with martyrdom, he was buried in the Vatican. Of this Linus Paul makes mention in the Epistle to Timothy. Usuard in almost the same manner, but more briefly: The birthday of the blessed Linus the Pope, who after Peter first held the Roman Church twelve years, and being crowned with martyrdom, was buried in the Vatican. Wandelbert chose the same day, singing thus at the sixth Kalends of December:

The sixth thou hallowest, Linus, Pope, with thy rosy blood.

There is added the Martyrology of Auxerre, in Martène, tome 6 of the Ample Collection: The birthday of S. Linus, Pope and Martyr, who after the blessed Peter first held the Roman Church twelve years, three months, twelve days, and being crowned with martyrdom, was buried in the Vatican. I pass over the Usuardine supplements, and other Martyrologies of later ages, which agree upon the same day. From these, however, we cannot doubt that the festival of St. Linus was formerly celebrated in various places on the said XXVI day of November, especially since it is noted on that day in the Breviaries of Besançon.

[24] Jean-Jacques Chifflet, in Vesontio, part 2, page 9, sets St. Linus first among the prelates of Besançon or Vesontio, [on which St. Linus is also venerated at Besançon, as the first bishop of Besançon;] and says that he is the same as St. Linus the Pope and martyr, whom he says to have preached the faith at Besançon before he undertook the Pontificate, nay even before he became St. Peter's vicar at Rome. He says, namely, that St. Linus, one of the seventy-two Disciples of Christ, sent into Gaul by St. Peter, came to Besançon in the fifty-fourth year of the Christian era, and there built a small sacred edifice; but afterward, a persecution being stirred up, was cast out of the city and returned to Rome to St. Peter. Saussay agrees, at the XXIII of September. But that opinion concerning Linus the Pope seems neither sufficiently founded nor ancient. Certainly in the Breviary of Besançon, which we have printed in the year 1590, for the festival of St. Linus at the XXVI of November these things only are read: Saint Linus, Pope and martyr, IX Psalms and three lessons. The whole from the common of one martyr-pontiff. The same things are read in another Breviary of Besançon written on parchment in manuscript, which is certainly older than the preceding.

[25] but that episcopate is little probable. Therefore some Linus is indeed set first in the catalogues of the bishops of Besançon: but Pierre-François Chifflet, a priest of our Society, exceedingly well deserving of our Work by many services, when he had recited from a manuscript Martyrology the opinion concerning St. Linus the Pope as apostle of Besançon, himself observes what follows: Certainly that some Linus cast the first seeds of the faith among the people of Besançon is a constant tradition. But whether this same man be the Linus who was either the successor or the vicar of the blessed Peter in the Roman episcopate, the people of Besançon themselves have seemed to doubt, who, though they venerate Linus the Pope and martyr on the XXVI day of November, do not honor him with a double Office of the first class (which the patrons of churches are wont to enjoy), but only with a semidouble; in which they have not a word about his apostolate at Besançon. These and other words of Chifflet may be seen among us in tome 1 of June, page 681. There follow in the same place, page 683, the Annotations of our Papebroch, briefly refuting the opinion concerning the episcopate of Linus the Pope at Besançon, which may be consulted, lest I should seem to dwell longer upon these matters and do what has been done already.

[26] [Some announce on that day a translation of St. Linus: but the matter is uncertain.] Further, in the manuscript Florarium of the Saints, at the XXVI of November, a translation of St. Linus is announced in these words: In the city of Ostia, the translation of the body of S. Linus, Pope and martyr, made by Gregory bishop of that city with much solemnity of clergy and people: which was laid up in the greater church, that is, of S. Laurence. His deposition is held on the ninth Kalends of October, although Usuard places it here. The same opinion is intimated in a manuscript Lectionary, not very ancient, of the church of Saint-Omer, in which the body is said to have been translated to Ostia, and magnificently placed in the temple of holy Laurence. But at the end it is added: But the commemoration of it (of the translation) is kept at Rome on the sixth Kalends of December. The translation is likewise announced at the XXVI of November in the German Martyrology; and it is added that the birthday is celebrated at the XXIII of September. Similar things Greven noted at the XXIII of September. Nevertheless I judge that the translation was fixed to that day by mere conjecture by the said authors, all of whom are more recent than Peter de Natalibus. Castellan in the Universal Martyrology at the XXIII of September observes in the margin that Linus ought not to have been announced on that day, but Liberius. And afterward at the XXVI of November he announces Linus in these words: At Rome, S. Linus the Pope, predecessor of S. Anacletus. But in my judgment Castellan would have done enough if he had observed that the day of St. Linus's death is not certainly the XXIII of September. For the things which he himself thrusts upon us by his announcement as if they were certain seem to me more uncertain than Linus's martyrdom, which he omits. Uncertain is the day which he notes: uncertain also and less probable the order of the first Pontiffs which he intimates, when he makes Anacletus the successor of Linus, implying by those words that Cletus is not distinguished from Anacletus. But this is, to say the least, uncertain, and contrary to most of the ancient catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs, as has been shown among us in Anacletus at the XIII of July. Wherefore I should not dare from the said Martyrologies to infer with certainty that St. Linus either suffered or was translated on the XXVI day of November.

[27] At the XXIII of September also the memory of St. Linus is announced in many ancient Calendars. In three Martyrologies frequently in agreement, The Saint entered in several Calendars on the 23rd of September; namely the Gellonense in d'Achery, the Augustan and the Labbean among us, he is read announced in the same words after Liberius the Pope at Rome: Of Linus the martyr. Florus, as he was published by our Elders: On the same day at Rome, S. Linus, Pope and martyr: who, ruling the Roman Church as second after Peter for nine years, was crowned with martyrdom in the time of Nero. Rabanus: Likewise on the same day at Rome the passion of Linus the Pope, who after the Apostles first held the episcopal chair there XI years, VII months, XIII days. In the Hieronymian, which Martène published from the codex of Auxerre in tome 3 of the Anecdota, on the same day it is read thus: At Rome, of Linus the bishop. In the first Martyrology which the same Martène published in tome 6 of the Ample Collection from an ancient codex bearing the name of Bede, it stands thus: The passion of S. Linus. In the same place, in the Stavelot Calendar: At Rome, S. Linus the Pope, the first after Peter. Again in the Verdun Calendar: S. Linus, Pope and martyr. There is added the Vatican Calendar, published from a codex of the XI century, in Giorgi after Ado; and the ancient Calendar published by Fiorentini after the Hieronymian Martyrology, page 1049. I pass over various Martyrologies and Calendars

manuscript and printed, because they are less ancient, as also the Appendix of Ado, in which the memory of St. Linus is recalled on the same day. Several Usuardine supplements agree, and some with a more prolix eulogy, as the manuscript Florarium Sanctorum also has. Wherefore there was no reason why Castellan should repeat St. Linus at the XXVI of November, as if he had not rightly been given at the XXIII of September in the Roman Martyrology in these words: At Rome, of holy Linus, Pope and martyr, who first after the blessed apostle Peter governed the Roman Church: and being crowned with martyrdom, was buried in the Vatican near the same Apostle. For neither is the day which Castellan chose more certain than this one: and the eulogy which he substitutes is far more uncertain, and incomplete, the martyrdom being wrongly omitted.

[28] At the VII of October day St. Linus the Pope is also commemorated by some. in some at the 7th of October. At that day Bede has thus: On the same day the birthday of S. Linus the Pope. The Corbie Calendar in Martène, tome 3 of the Anecdota: At Rome, S. Linus the Pope. Wandelbert, who celebrates Linus at the XXVI of November, has him also with Marcus the Pope at the VII of October, singing thus:

The Nones the Pontiffs Linus and Marcus hold.

So it is read in our manuscript parchment codex, and in another transcript. But in d'Achery it has been published against the law of the metre as Linusque Marcusque etc. The Appendix of Ado repeats St. Linus on the same day. The Fulda Martyrology in Giorgi has thus: At Rome the birthday of S. Linus the Pope, who was a disciple of S. Peter the apostle, and was crowned with a glorious martyrdom. In the same, however, he is again found at the XXVI of November. But in the Ottobonian, which follows there, at the VII of October there is only the memory of Linus the Pope. There are added some supplements of the Usuardine Martyrology, to be read in Sollier. The author of our manuscript Florarium has thus on the same day: Likewise the burial of Linus, Pope and martyr. If anyone therefore should wish to listen to this author, he will say that St. Linus was crowned with martyrdom on the XXIII of September, buried on the VII of October, translated on the XXVI of November. But I had rather be ignorant of the reason for so great a diversity of days on which St. Linus is commemorated among the chief martyrologists, than lightly follow a writer who is merely guessing, as I judge. We are likewise ignorant why Linus the martyr has been inserted at the XXIV of March in the Brussels Usuardine Martyrology, if he be the one of this day. Finally, as for Felice, who announces the ordination of St. Linus at the XII of June, we do not believe that the day of his ordination was any more clearly known to him than the day of his death to Castellan.

[29] The Greeks give Linus with others at the 5th of November. The Greeks join St. Linus with four other disciples of the Apostles, Hermas, Caius, Philologus and Patrobas, and announce these five together, as being of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, in the printed Menæa at the V of November, where they also call them Apostles. In the Menology, however, which Sirlet turned into Latin, they are called martyrs, not Apostles; nor are they said to be of the seventy. But again in the Basilian Menology they are called Apostles of the number of the seventy. For the Greeks are wont to reckon all whom they find praised in St. Paul among the Apostles of the second order, and among the seventy disciples of Christ. But St. Linus seems rather to have been an Italian, and converted at Rome or at least in Italy. That no other Linus than the one of this day is indicated by the Greeks is clear from the eulogy added in the Menæa, and in the Basilian Menology, which has thus expressly concerning Linus: Moreover Linus, after the most holy apostle Peter, was named bishop of great Rome. The same things are read in the Menæa and in a manuscript Synaxary.

[30] The beginning of a short sermon delivered on the festival. No Acts of St. Linus have come to our hands, except a very short Sermon on the Saint's martyrdom, delivered on his festival, which in the year 1753 we found in the manuscript Vatican codex 529. The Sermon is so composed as to suit all martyrs, and sets forth no circumstances of the martyrdom. Wherefore, since the reader can learn nothing from it, I subjoin only the beginning, which runs thus: Dearest brethren, it is a joy to celebrate solemnly, and to proclaim not sluggishly, the most valiant and glorious passion of the holy martyr Linus. We have seen in mind and beheld in thought how much he endured, what he answered: and in a manner a wondrous spectacle has been set before our eyes: an unjust judge, a bloody torturer, an unconquered Martyr, a contest of cruelty and of piety, etc. The rest I let pass.