Anatalon

ON ST. ANATALON, BISHOP OF MILAN AND CONFESSOR,

IN INSUBRIA

Probably in the year LXI.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Anatalon, bishop of Milan, conf., in Insubria (S.)

BY C. S.

§ I. The memory of the Saint in several Martyrologies: his cultus at Milan and Brescia: the deeds to be published.

[ ] Saint Anatalon, who by others is sometimes also called Anathalo, Nathalo, Anatolus, Anatholius and Anathalonus, The Milanese and the Brescians venerate him as their own bishop. two ancient and distinguished churches in Italy, namely that of Milan and that of Brescia, venerate as their own bishop; not that either one claims him for itself alone, but because the same man is believed to have presided over both. Milan, the head of ancient Insubria, is a city most widely known by the celebrity of its name, which it sustains even today, and therefore I forbear to note more about it here. Equally well known and celebrated by the ancient writers is Brescia, a city of the same Insubria, concerning whose antiquity and founder Elias Capreolus, or Cavriolo, reports various opinions in book 1 of the History of Brescia, where he may be consulted. This ample and fortified city, which is now in the dominion of the most serene republic of Venice, and is called by the Italians Brescia, together with the territory of the same name of which it is the head, lies between the territory of Verona to the East, that of Bergamo to the West, that of Cremona to the South, and the Valtellina and the county of Tyrol to the North, says Baudrand in his Lexicon, affirming that he had seen it several times. Among other distinctions it has a most ancient bishopric under the archbishop of Milan.

[2] He is announced in the Roman Martyrology and several others. In the more ancient Martyrologies there exists no mention of St. Anatalon, not even in the Usuardine Auctaria which Sollerius exhibited. Among the more recent martyrologists, however, Peter Galesinius inscribed him in the Roman on the XXV day of this month of September in these words: At Milan, of saint Anathalo the bishop, who, a disciple of Bl. Barnabas, propagated the faith of Christ both at Milan and at Brescia. After him Cardinal Baronius likewise recorded him on this day in his Martyrology thus: On the same day, of S. Anathalo the bishop, who, a disciple of Bl. Barnabas the apostle, succeeded in his place as bishop of the church of Milan. Philip Ferrari, agreeing as to the day, wove for him in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy the following elogium: Anatholus, a Cypriot by race, disciple of St. Barnabas the apostle and his successor in the bishopric of Milan, administered that church most holily for some years under the Pontiff Linus, many in that city being brought to the faith of Christ, whereas before the church

of Brescia, of which he was the first bishop, had been set over him by the same Apostle. Where, having suffered many things from the persecutors of the faith, he brought it about that the city, casting aside the superstition of empty gods, for the greatest part took up the Christian religion. At last, having discharged many labours for both churches, on the VII Kalends of October he ended his life, and rested in a holy end, being buried at Brescia. So he, citing the Breviary of Milan and the monuments of both churches, which we shall examine below.

[3] From similar records Constantine Ghini also drew his own account, on this day, on which he is venerated at Milan, who in the Birthdays of the holy Canons — as though this man had been a Canon Regular — on the said day speaks thus: Of S. Anathalo the bishop, who, a Greek by nation, a disciple of Bl. Barnabas the apostle, succeeded in his place as bishop of the church of Milan, and at Milan and Brescia and in other places of the Cenomani preached, propagated and confirmed by miracles the faith of Christ. At last, after his labours, he flew to his rewards in heaven. Whose sacred relics are preserved in the cathedral church of Brescia, and he himself is honourably venerated as the first bishop of that same city. On the same day of September the memory of saint Anatolon the bishop is marked in the Milanese Calendar, which Dominic Georgi published — drawn from an Ambrosian Breviary written, as he says, at the beginning of the year MCDLXV — after the Adonian Martyrology of our Rosweyde, reissued and illustrated. In agreement are Peter Paul Bosca in the Milanese Martyrology, in which he adopted the words of Baronius, and John Baptist Carisius in the Diary of the same city, in which he says in Italian: S. Anatalon, archbishop of Milan. The feast at the sacred font of S. Barnabas at the Ticinese Gate. Thus far concerning the Martyrologies which announce St. Anatalon on the XXV of September, on which he is venerated at Milan.

[4] The Brescians celebrate him on the day before, that is, the XXIV, on which day Bernardinus Faynus in the Brescian Martyrology says these things of him: in the Brescian on the day before, when he is honoured at Brescia. At Brescia, the birthday of the holy father Anathalo in the cathedral, who, the first bishop of this church, consecrated by the apostle Barnabas, increased and nourished his sheep by apostolic virtues; which he did at Milan also. But having endured many labours and hardships, under the emperor Nero he crowned his episcopal office with a holy end. As to the day, in the catalogues of the bishops of Milan and in the elogium of the Saint himself, to be mentioned below — with which the more recent Milanese writers also agree — he is said to have been laid to rest on the VIII Kalends of October, on which day the Brescians venerate him. Faynus in his Annotations to the Brescian Martyrology believed that the birthday of St. Anatalon is celebrated by the Brescians, but his deposition by the Milanese. On the contrary our Papebroch, before volume VII of May, in the Exegesis on the bishops of Milan, in St. Anatolon judged that his memory at Milan had been transferred to the XXV day, because St. Thecla was venerated there on the day before with a more solemn feast; which reason pleases me better.

[5] Further, how ancient among the Milanese the cultus of St. Anatalon is, I could not ascertain with certainty. If it were established that the inscription, to be reported at number 16, was really made by St. Myrocles, bishop of Milan, it would have to be said that his sacred veneration had already been received there at the end of the III century, or the beginning of the IV; but the discussion of this inscription will recur below. As to his annual ecclesiastical Office, He is venerated in the diocese of Milan with an Office the ancient Antiphonary of all the festivities of the year's circle of the church of Milan bids me suspect that this is not very ancient in the church of Milan, since in it no mention is made of Anatalon. The feasts marked in this Antiphonary Mabillon reviewed in volume 1 of the Italian Museum, part 2, page 109 and following, where he says that it exists in a codex of the Ambrosian library, which he judged to have been written five hundred years ago, that is, in the XII century. Nevertheless, that his annual memory was already wont to be observed there in the XIV century we gather from the Calendar of the Milanese Breviary, which we cited from Dominic Georgi at number 3.

[6] and Mass, by the Ambrosian and the Roman rite, etc., There exists in our Museum a notable Ambrosian Missal, published in type in the year 1522, in whose Calendar the memory of saint Anathalo, archbishop of Milan, is prescribed to be observed on the XXV day of September, but without a proper Mass. On the same day he is marked, with an Office from the Common, in the likewise Ambrosian Breviary of our Museum, printed at Venice in the year 1539. The veneration of the holy Bishop then grew under St. Charles Borromeo, who in the Ambrosian Breviary which he published in the year 1582, and which Federico Borromeo, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church and archbishop of Milan, afterwards ordered to be reprinted with revision, gave him a solemn Office with a proper third Lesson. In the year 1642 Cardinal Cesare Monti, archbishop of the same see, extended that same Office, accommodated to the Roman rites, under a double rite, to all the clerics of his diocese who do not use the Ambrosian liturgy. In both the Lesson is the same, which here is the fourth, the rest being added from the common. Finally the Religious Humiliati followed a peculiar rite, whose Order Pope St. Pius V extinguished; but there still survive in the diocese of Milan nuns of that same Order, in whose Breviary — once approved by Pope Paul III, and retained by them at the order of the above-praised Federico Borromeo — the Office of St. Anatalon of double rite, with three proper Lessons of the second Nocturn, is assigned on this XXV day of September, at least in that copy of the same Breviary, reprinted at Milan in the year 1751, which we have in our Museum. But these Lessons contain exactly the same things which the single Lesson of the Ambrosian Breviary has, which I here subjoin.

[7] with a proper Lesson, which is here recited. Anatalo, a Greek, the disciple of Bl. Barnabas the apostle — by whom the city of Milan was first imbued with the sacred rites of Christ — succeeded in his place as bishop. And when both by the preaching of the Gospel and by the illustrious renown of his sanctity and by the splendour of his divine virtues he had not only led to Christ the Lord an immense multitude of those who were averse from the Christian religion, through the thirteen years in which he presided over the church of Milan, but had also confirmed the wavering Christians, and had so far kindled in the minds of all a more ardent zeal for divine charity, at length, being zealous for the propagation of the faith, he came to Brescia, where too he took care that, the superstition of idols being cast aside, the whole city should take up the religion of God. And so, having discharged many labours for the faith, he rested holily in the Lord. His body was buried at Brescia. These things are for the greatest part taken from the Life or elogium of the same Saint, which we shall discuss below, after we have set forth the other matters which pertain to his cultus.

[8] [At Brescia he was formerly venerated with the Office of a martyr, now with that of a confessor.] We have already said above that St. Anatalon is venerated at Brescia on the day before, that is, on the XXIV day of September. Faynus in the Observations to his Brescian Martyrology, citing a manuscript Catalogue of the bishops of that same church (unless I am mistaken), by John Francis Florentinius, notes that our holy Bishop was there celebrated in past centuries with the Office of one martyr. But he adds that by St. Charles Borromeo, while he was acting as visitor by Apostolic authority, after the matter had been more maturely considered, it was decreed that the Office of this holy Prelate ought thenceforth to be celebrated only of a confessor and pontiff. No Office of this kind, by which St. Anatalon was ever venerated as a martyr, has come into my hands; nor yet have there been wanting writers, several of whom I shall review below, who affirmed that he was crowned with martyrdom, from a conjecture, as I judge, drawn from the times. However that may be, in the Order of the divine Office of the church of Brescia, published at Brescia in the year 1684 by the authority of the most illustrious bishop Bartholomew Gradenigo, the Office of S. Anathalo, first bishop and confessor of Brescia, is prescribed on the same day under a double rite. Of the Saint's body, laid to rest at Brescia, elevated, and venerated hitherto, we shall treat more opportunely below.

[9] Our Papebroch, before volume VII of May, in the Exegesis on the bishops of Milan, writes The deeds of the Saint written by an anonymous author that in a very ancient parchment codex of the Ambrosian library at Milan, marked P. 246, there exist certain Lives of Saints, especially of Milanese ones, or a manuscript History of the first bishops of that city, which he supposed to have been written about the VI century, and which he employed to illustrate the Catalogue of those same bishops. Yet he was by no means able to persuade our Cuper of so great an antiquity for that little Work, as he himself here confesses in the Acts of St. Maternus, bishop of Milan, illustrated in volume IV of July at the day XVIII. Nor did he persuade Ludovico Muratori any more, who in volume 1, part 2, of the Writers of Italian Affairs published that little Work in type from a manuscript codex of the Ambrosian library marked C. 133, and in the Preface prefixed to it, by arguments not to be despised, that it ought rather to be referred to the IX or X century. The Author, who professes that he wrote at the command of some bishop of Milan, does not indicate who he was; indeed, that he might lie hidden, he kept silence about his own name, saying, In the whole fabric of this material I shall erase the title at the head, that the page may be mute, and may not tell the author, while unweaving the tenor of the deed.

[10] Joseph Ripamonti, Ecclesiastical History of Milan, decade 1, book 1, far removed by many centuries from his age, judged that Michael Picolpasso was the author of the aforesaid little Work. For thus he says there, page 46: There is in the Ambrosian library a codex written by hand, by the author Michael Piccolpasso of Bologna, in which codex all things concerning the Life and institutions of Anatholo are handed down in almost the same form, but concerning the relics things contrary and wholly different. And again on the following page, speaking of the same Life, he says: This Galvanus and Piccolpasso affirm by agreement. I too have a manuscript Life of S. Anatalon from a certain ancient parchment, as it is noted, to which is subscribed: Michael Picolpassus. This contains exactly the same things which the aforesaid Ripamonti records as being reported in that Ambrosian codex of Picolpasso; and it is likewise the same as that published by Muratori. Further, that Michael Picolpasso, or de Pizolpassis, flourished in the XV century we learn from Philip Argelati's Milanese Library, volume 2, col. 1083, where on the occasion of Francis Picolpasso, archbishop of Milan, mention is made of him. Yet that he is not the author of the aforesaid little Work is clearer than light from the Preface of Muratori just cited, in which he shows that this very work is manifestly cited as an aged book by Landulph the elder, who composed his Milanese History after the middle of the XI century. It must therefore be said that Picolpasso transcribed the anonymous man's lucubration, or had it transcribed, and that from his name written upon it Ripamonti was led into that error, so as to believe him the author of it.

[11] From what has been said gather that the aforesaid anonymous author was too far removed from the age of St. Anatalon which from a Milanese manuscript to have been able to hand down his deeds successfully — unless it be in so far as he had monuments older by some centuries, which, whether and of what sort he had them here, we do not know. At the end of the elogium of St. Barnabas, in which he set down some things also about St. Anatalon, he says only, in Muratori: Thus far concerning the first propagators of the church of Milan; let it suffice to have noted and glued together enough, as far as the grasp of a small talent has borne it, gathered from various pages of both languages, as a little parti-coloured garland is wont to be woven in pleasant meadows. But now from

the time of Anatelon himself down to these centuries which are now running in the present, I shall direct with a step, though a wavering one, the course of this pen; which, unless thou, most excellent prelate, stretching out thy right hand, bless and sharpen it, will go blunted with roughness through byways. Among the writers whom he here cited in general, that pseudo-Clement was one, we shall say presently. For the rest, I note here in passing that this writer, who ends with St. Dionysius, did not carry this history down to his own times, as he had promised — unless one prefers to suspect that by far the greatest part of it has perished or still lies hidden.

[12] collated with Muratori's edition, we shall print. It is likewise probable, as Muratori judged of that whole little Work in his Preface, that he also followed the tradition of his own time, and added certain things out of his own invention and from probable conjectures, lest he should too often send his readers away too hungry. Nevertheless it must be confessed that in this whole elogium of Anatalon he appears sufficiently sparing and a lover of truth. Thus, when he speaks of his body and burial, he candidly professes that nothing certain about this matter is established for him, and that he therefore leaves it to divine providence. This Life, therefore, than which we have none older, I shall publish from our Milanese transcript, collated with Muratori's edition; but what the aforesaid anonymous author records of the same Saint in the elogium of St. Barnabas, as I have just noted, in Muratori, I shall insert into this Commentary. But before I do this, the principal points of the Life to be published must, according to our custom, be discussed.

§ II. The controversy over the foundation of the church of Milan, whose first bishop St. Anatalon seems to have been: the time of his episcopate and of his death.

[ ] Whether St. Barnabas preached at Milan with St. Anatalon, Our anonymous author, citing an epistle falsely ascribed to St. Clement, makes St. Barnabas the apostle preach at Rome. Then he brings him with several companions, among whom St. Anatolo was eminent, to Milan; where, while he himself was founding the church, he sent Anatalon to Brescia for the sake of preaching, and at length, after these happy beginnings, ordained him bishop and set him over both churches, and returned into Palestine. His words our Papebroch gave in St. Barnabas the apostle, volume 2 of June, page 429 and the following, where they may be read. And so he sets down the aforesaid Apostle as the founder and first bishop of the church of Milan, and St. Anatalon as his immediate successor; which opinion the Milanese writers commonly all maintain. I said commonly all, because Tristan Chalcus in book 1 of the History of his country, or of Milan, speaks on that matter quite doubtfully. There has grown strong, he says, among certain men the opinion that Barnabas, the companion of Paul the apostle, was the author of that thing (the taking up of the Christian religion at Milan); and they record that this was written by St. Jerome in the Epistle to Chromatius and Heliodorus; likewise by Dorotheus, the disciple of Dionysius the Areopagite, in the book which he is said to have made on the Acts of the Apostles. Another maintains that the same is established from the Epistle of Clement; which testimonies, although I have sought them out most eagerly, using also the labour of others, I have nevertheless not thus far found.

[14] and founded the church, One thing indeed I have observed in Clement in the Itinerary, that Barnabas, having set out from Rome into the Gauls, first published the name of Christ, from which he could easily have turned aside to Milan, then a most ample city. For the rest, it agrees better that Anathalo, a Greek by race, was the first established in the bishopric by Barnabas himself, who, persevering constantly in the office laid upon him, reached the eighth year of Nero. The little works here cited by Chalcus are cited in the Catalogue of the bishops of Milan, published in type by Muratori in volume 1, part 2, of Italian Affairs, page 228, but they are supposititious and unfit to produce belief, even if those things were read in them. Far more favourably did Baronius judge concerning St. Barnabas's Apostolate at Milan, in volume 1 of the Ecclesiastical Annals, at the year of Christ 51, number 54, where he says these things of St. Barnabas without hesitation: That he came into Italy, and preached the Gospel in Liguria, and erected the most noble church of Milan, and far and wide happily propagated the faith of Christ, firm traditions and the monuments of the same church, confirmed by the testimonies of very many writers, make a certain and undoubted belief. Yet about those monuments and writers he adds nothing further, because, as he says, it was not part of his plan to pursue the histories of particular churches.

[15] From Baronius Tillemont dissents greatly, in volume 1 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, it is deservedly called into doubt; Note 4 on St. Barnabas, asserting without hesitation that it is proved by no argument that this holy Apostle ever preached at Milan, and judging that St. Anatalon was the first bishop of the Milanese, at least the first who is known; but that nothing particular has been handed down about his deeds. The same question our Papebroch treated at greater length on the XI day of June, §3, in St. Barnabas, where, having considered the silence on that matter of St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Gaudentius of Brescia, and of other writers in both places and in the neighbourhood in the first centuries after them, and having weighed the monuments which make for that Saint's Apostolate at Milan, he does not dare to place certain trust in them, and suspects that this tradition has perhaps no other author than the pseudo-Dorotheus in the Synopsis, a writer of no credit and full of fables. Then he further opens his mind thus: More certainly, therefore, shall I believe that Anatalon was a Cypriot and a disciple of St. Barnabas, so that perhaps the church of Milan had only this reason for fetching its origin from Barnabas; namely, that Anatalon, a hearer of St. Barnabas and sent by him, first preached the faith there and founded the church. Papebroch's reasons may be seen in that place; nor am I going to repeat them here, lest I do what has been done already. I shall only add here some things which can besides be brought forward on behalf of the Milanese.

[16] Cardinal Baronius in the Notes to the Roman Martyrology on this day brings forward a certain monument nor does the inscription cited by Baronius prove it; from which the question could be resolved, if it were established that it is truly genuine. It has pleased me, he says, to transcribe here a very ancient inscription of S. Mirocles, bishop of the same city (Milan), concerning S. Anathalo, carved on stone beside his image, in these verses, which the present inscription precedes:

TO THE LORD ANATHALO, ATTICUS, SECOND BISHOP.

Guest of Peter, and holy Anathalo, approved master, And likewise companion of the Apostolic Barnabas: Who, delivering at Milan the mysteries of the Word, Bids thee visit the kindred Cenomani. While Brescia holds thy limbs, withdrawn in fear from harsh tyrants, In a coffer close at hand: Here Mirocles restores the inscription and the venerable countenance Painted on the wall; kindly faith supplied it.

MIROCLES, BISHOP.

Elsewhere it is read:

Kindly faith restores that which was granted of Mirocles.

Then Baronius again adds: We received it from a manuscript Commentary of Andrea Alciati, which he wrote on the Affairs of his country, unpublished. It was in the possession of the most illustrious and Reverend D. Francesco Alciati, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church.

[17] because it is not established that it was, as it professes, For indeed this would be a notable and venerable monument, if, as I said, it were certainly established that it has St. Myrocles — who at the beginning of the IV century presided over the church of Milan — for its author. But whence this may be proved, Baronius brings forward nothing; nor does he even indicate the place in which that inscription was carved on the stone, or was found by Alciati. Faynus in the Brescian Martyrology, and Argelati in the Milanese Library, say that it existed at Brescia in the church of SS. Gervasius and Protasius, but they cite Baronius alone, from whom we have nothing besides what has been said. Moreover, Alciati's Milanese History itself, divided into four books, George Graevius published from a manuscript codex of the Ambrosian library in the Thesaurus of the antiquities and histories of Italy, volume 2, part 1; but in this I find neither the inscription itself, nor any mention made of it; although Alciati in that same place, book 2, col. 35, mentions St. Anatalon and his burial, and book 3, col. 52, St. Myrocles, in both places with great praise. Hence I do not know whether the aforesaid inscription fell out of Alciati's Work of itself, or was passed over by the editors on purpose.

[18] set up by St. Myrocles. The Catalogue of bishops Argelati, volume 1 of the Milanese Library, in Andrea Alciati writes that the same Work was printed at Milan before Graevius by John Baptist Bidelli; and since this edition is not at hand for me, I could not consult it. Perhaps too Baronius, by a lapse of memory, cited the Commentary on the affairs of his country in place of the Inscriptions of the Milanese monuments, a collection of which, made by the same Alciati, the just-cited Argelati affirms to exist in two manuscript codices in the said Ambrosian library. Finally, however these things may stand, the inscription with which we are dealing is not sufficiently vouched for us, that it should be believed, without a more certain argument, to have been set up by St. Myrocles at the beginning of the IV century. I come now to the ancient catalogues of the bishops of Milan. Ludovico Muratori, in volume 1, part 2, of Italian Affairs, page 228 and the following, published one from a very ancient, as he says, manuscript codex of the library of the metropolitan chapter of Milan, in which, although the names of the other bishops are reviewed only briefly with the time of their see, and the day and place of their deposition, death or burial, yet concerning St. Barnabas, in the first place of all, the following elogium is exhibited.

[19] published by Muratori, in which St. Barnabas The first pontiff of the church of Milan was Bl. Barnabas, apostle of Jesus Christ, as Bl. Jerome attests among other things which he writes to Chromatius and Heliodorus, saying: “Barnabas, who with Paul ministered the word, first preached Christ at Rome, and afterwards was made bishop of Milan.” That Bl. Barnabas was also the first pontiff of the church of Milan, Bl. Dorotheus, the disciple of Bl. Dionysius the Areopagite, in the book which he composed on the Acts of the Apostles, manifestly asserts: “For in that Apostle the church of Milan was founded.” It is read also in the most ancient Histories, which are today held in the city of Milan, that Bl. Barnabas himself removed from the city of Rome to the city of Milan, and preaching in it the word of life, converted the citizens of Milan to the worship of Christ, and formed them in faith and morals; and likewise converted the citizens of Brescia to Christ through Anathelo, his companion, sent to them by the Apostle himself.

[20] And this Bl. Barnabas, ordaining the church of Milan a metropolitan one, decreed that it should perpetually be held the see of the chief eminence is reckoned in the first place, and the metropolis of the other churches in its province, and first after himself he set the aforesaid Anathelo over it and consecrated him archbishop of the church of Milan and first bishop of the church of Brescia, committing to him the care of both churches together; whence the verses:

Barnabas, the illustrious prelate of the city of Milan, Consecrates for himself Anathelo as Pontiff, Whom he exalted with metropolitan honour; He leads to the light of faith, and to the light of morals too. Brescia at the same time received Anathelo as its first shepherd, Brescia, which had been joined to Christ in faith through him. Let this noble region, founded upon so great a patron, Praise him deservedly and honour him reverently.

Then follow the other bishops, and in the first place: Saint Anathelo sat XIII years. He was laid to rest on the VIII

Kalends of October, and lies at the city of Brescia on the mount of S. Floranus. So far that source; and how much these things are worth must now be inquired.

[21] The writer of this Catalogue is certainly not older than the XIII century, is not older than the XIII century, and its author since, on Muratori's testimony, it ends with the death of Philip de Lampugnano, which fell in that century when it had been begun but a few years. The things which then follow down to the year 1251 (perhaps Muratori meant to say the year 1257, and even a little later; for the catalogue is carried down to that point) he notes to have been added by some other person. But that the author of the rest of the catalogue, from the beginning down to the aforesaid Philip, is not the same, is manifest from the style: for from St. Anatalon down to St. Honoratus, who died in the year 570, or, as others prefer, a few years later, the word laid to rest always occurs, but thereafter the words he died and he was buried. It must therefore be said that he transcribed the first part of the Catalogue from an older document, which ended with St. Honoratus. Yet lest you infer from this that the elogium of St. Barnabas, which we gave above, was found by him in that same ancient document, the author himself forbids it, when for establishing that holy Apostle's bishopric of Milan he mentions the most ancient Histories, which, as he says, are today held in the city of Milan.

[22] For indeed, as Muratori rightly observed in his Preface, cites the aforesaid Lives of the bishops. those most ancient Histories are that very little Work on the Site of the city of Milan, or the Lives of the first bishops, of which we treated above, and among which the Life of St. Barnabas has the same things which the author of the said elogium records. And so, since those Lives, in Muratori's own judgment, are to be referred only to the X century, or at the utmost to the IX, the compiler of the Muratorian catalogue could not have found that elogium in so ancient a monument, unless perhaps it had already been added by a more recent interpolator, in whose time those same Lives were already held for most ancient Histories. But as this is certain, so it appears to me far more likely that not even the name of Barnabas was written in that older Catalogue which the author of the said elogium transcribed. Take the reason. Our Henschen, when he was staying at Milan in the year 1662, transcribed with his own hand an ancient catalogue of the bishops of that city from a very ancient codex of the Ambrosian library marked P. 246. This transcript of Henschen our Papebroch had carefully collated afresh with the original by the excellent and Reverend D. Peter Paul Bosca, prefect of the said library, and thus examined he illustrated it with his observations and published it before volume VII of May.

[23] In this catalogue the style, at the same place and in the same manner in which we said above of the Muratorian one, changes at Laurence, In the older catalogues St. Barnabas is not read, who succeeded St. Honoratus after Frontus or Fronto; whence one may with reason suspect that some same ancient document, or a copy like it, lay before the writer of both catalogues. There occur indeed here and there some variant readings, but these can partly be ascribed to the carelessness of the transcribers, and partly also be held for additions. The chief difference is in the aforesaid Fronto; for where the Papebrochian Catalogue has: Frontus, he sat XI years, laid to rest at Genoa at S. …; in the Muratorian is read: Frontus sat XI years. He was the first to ascend the Ambrosian chair by simony, and, a fitting punishment answering to his deserts, the earth swallowed him up, like Dathan and Abiron; nor was his body ever after seen or found, nor did it receive Catholic burial. But this seems to be only an addition of him who continued the same Catalogue. Yet whether this narration is true or false — which does not exist in two other catalogues shortly to be cited — I do not here inquire, because it does not pertain to my purpose.

[24] except in the Mabillonian one, in which it has been added by a most recent hand. But this bears upon our matter, that the Papebrochian catalogue, making no mention of St. Barnabas, begins the order of bishops from St. Anatalon thus: Anatolon, sat XIII years, was laid to rest on the VIII Kalends of October. In like manner in the Muratorian one is read: S. Anathelon, sat XIII years. Laid to rest on the VIII Kalends of October; and then is added: and lies at the city of Brescia on the Mount of saint Floranus. While Papebroch had already committed the aforesaid catalogue to the press, Mabillon published his own in volume 1 of the Italian Museum, which he had drawn from an old codex of the same Ambrosian library marked B. no. 245, and which Papebroch found so like his own that, notwithstanding various readings here and there, and the differing note written on the codex, he supposed both to have been transcribed from the same codex. But whether this was the same or another, in it too St. Barnabas, on Mabillon's testimony, does not occur, except added in the first place by a most recent hand, and with the single word Barnabas. Nor does any mention of St. Barnabas exist in the other catalogue, published by Muratori in volume 4 of Italian Affairs, page 141 and following, which ends with St. Galdinus, who died in the year of Christ 1176, and which begins thus: Anatolon sat XIII; he died on the VIII Kalends of October.

[25] The author of the aforesaid Muratorian Catalogue, It is therefore most likely that the author of the other Muratorian catalogue did not find St. Barnabas in that older one either, but added him according to his own view, and laboured to persuade the rest that the holy Apostle had been the founder of his own country's church. Let us see, then, how successfully he accomplished this. First of all, from the epistle of St. Jerome to Chromatius and Heliodorus he cites the following: Barnabas, who with Paul ministered the word, first preached Christ at Rome, and afterwards was made bishop of Milan. These words are not read in the aforesaid epistle falsely ascribed to St. Jerome, but the same, with a few changes, may be read in the Synopsis on the Lives of the Apostles, a fabulous little Work falsely ascribed to holy Dorotheus, bishop of Tyre and martyr. It exists in the Library of the Fathers of the Lyons edition, volume 3, where on page 427 these things are found: Barnabas, appointed with Paul a minister of the word, first preached Christ at Rome, and afterwards was made bishop of the Milanese.

[26] whose credit is shown to be feeble, Then the anonymous author subjoins from Dorotheus, as he says, the disciple of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, another testimony: For in that Apostle the church of Milan was founded. But I do not know what Dorotheus, disciple of St. Dionysius, or what work of his, he here cites; unless perhaps it be that very one which we have just mentioned, and which, as we said, is stitched together out of fables and wrongly ascribed to Dorotheus of Tyre. Those things are indeed not found in the said little Work; but the anonymous author, who ascribed to St. Jerome the things mentioned above which were read in it, with a slight change, could easily also have attributed those things, taken from elsewhere, to some Dorotheus or other, a disciple of St. Dionysius the Areopagite. Finally, that anonymous author draws a third testimony from the little book on the Site of the city of Milan, or on the Lives of the first bishops of that city, of whose slender antiquity we treated above, and which cites the little Work falsely ascribed to Clement. From these things at any rate it is permitted to conclude that that Muratorian Catalogue, which has so inept a writer, and one no older than the XIII century, cannot support the opinion of the Milanese about their bishopric having been founded by St. Barnabas; nor is that made likely by it which Muratori in that same Preface, page 202, affirmed as certain, that the name of Barnabas was not omitted from the Ambrosian Catalogue (published by Mabillon and Papebroch) at first out of mere carelessness.

[27] For as it would have been an altogether unheard-of carelessness to pass over in a Catalogue of bishops the first founder and bishop of one's own church, an Apostle, seems to have added St. Barnabas. if he had truly been such; so it was an easy thing for some later man, after several centuries, to enrol him from tradition of whatever sort and from written copies, in order to give lustre to his own church — namely in the same way in which it is today ascertained that other churches too once wrongly traced the origins of their bishoprics from Apostles or from the disciples of Apostles. And that this happened here also is persuaded by the reasons brought forward by Papebroch in St. Barnabas, and among the rest by the silence of St. Ambrose, who could neither have been ignorant of that bishopric of St. Barnabas, nor seems likely to have kept silence about it, when in the Sermon against Auxentius the Arian, to whom he had been commanded by the emperor Valentinian to hand over the church, he spoke thus: Far be it from me to hand over the inheritance of the fathers, that is, the inheritance of Dionysius, who died in exile in the cause of the faith, the inheritance of Eustorgius the confessor, the inheritance of Myrocles, and of all the faithful bishops before me. For truly this was an opportune place, if ever any was, for commemorating St. Barnabas, if the holy doctor had believed him the founder of his own see.

[28] More probably, therefore, we believe that St. Anatalon was the first bishop of the church of Milan, Our conjecture on these matters. The Saint is said to have sat as he is also called in that very often-cited History of the first bishops of Milan in Muratori, where this title is prefixed to the Life of St. Anatalon: The deposition of saint Anatalon, first bishop of Milan. Yet we do not deny that he was at some time a disciple of St. Barnabas, and perhaps sent by him to preach. Indeed from this it perhaps came about, in the lapse of time, that the Milanese held that same holy Apostle to be the founder of their church and its first bishop. The name Anatalon or Anatelon is certainly Greek, derived from ἀναθάλλω or ἀνατέλλω, I sprout, I rise, or from some like verb. Of the time of his see the Catalogue published by Papebroch has thus: He sat XIII years, he was laid to rest on the VIII Kalends of October; and the other Catalogues agree, namely the Mabillonian and both Muratorian ones, which we have cited above. The same day of deposition is noted also by the author of the Life to be published, who besides records these things about the beginning and end of his episcopate: Now he was in the pastoral care of both sees (that of Milan and that of Brescia, of which below) for thirteen years, from the seventh year of Claudius until the eighth of Nero.

[29] But these chronological notes suffer a difficulty. The seventh year of the emperor Claudius began on the XXV day of January of the year 47 of the vulgar era; but Nero entered on the eighth year of his rule only from the XIII of October of the year 61 of the same era. for 13 years, from the 7th year of Claudius Now, even if we begin St. Anatalon's episcopate from January of the year 48, on the XXV day of which the seventh year of Claudius had been completed, we shall already have the thirteen years of his episcopate completed in that same month of January of the year of Christ 61, on the XIII day of October of which the eighth year of Nero was first to begin. That these may be reconciled with one another, it must be said that the anonymous author by those words until the eighth year of Nero wished to indicate not the eighth year as already then begun, but as about to begin not so very long after; namely, since between the XXIV day of September, on which with the Catalogues he asserts St. Anatalon to have been laid to rest, and the XIII day of October, on which Nero entered upon the eighth year of his rule, only eighteen days intervened,

and therefore St. Anatalon in fact reached about the eighth year of Nero.

[30] until the 8th of Nero, which chronological notes This interpretation being admitted, his episcopate can, the aforesaid chronological notes standing, be carried from January of the year 48 of the vulgar era down to about the XXIV day of September of the year 61; yet in such a way that he must then have sat about eight months more than thirteen years. I confess indeed that it can be doubted whether all those notes are sound; for who would dare to be surety for a matter so ancient upon the credit of a witness so much later? — as Papebroch rightly says here. Yet because our anonymous author perhaps learned them from older catalogues of the church of Milan or from other monuments, they are not to be despised, when they can be rightly reconciled, and nothing is produced from elsewhere by which they may be convicted of falsity. Yet the same anonymous author could here be objected against us in the Life of St. Caius, who succeeded St. Anatalon in the bishopric. For he says that Caius, when in the fifth year of his episcopate he was making for Rome, learned on the way by divine revelation that SS. Peter and Paul had consummated their martyrdom. Further, that these two Princes of the Apostles suffered on the XXIX day of June in the year 65 has been proved in more than one place of our Work by Henschen and Papebroch, with Pagi in the Critique of Baronius agreeing. According to these things, St. Caius in the month of June of the year of Christ 65 was reckoning the fifth year of his episcopate; and so he could not have succeeded Anatalon, who died only at the end of September of the year 61.

[31] are weighed. To this I answer, first, that the anonymous author in that place sufficiently insinuates that this matter was not sufficiently established for him, since he adds: As it is reported. Secondly, that passage is certainly faulty, since the fifth year of Caius is there put together with the last of Nero in these words: Which was the last of Nero, which Papebroch judged to have been added by some smatterer. Thirdly and finally, it must be observed that St. Caius, even if he first succeeded Anatalon at the said time, was nevertheless, on the anonymous author's testimony, ordained bishop and his successor by him beforehand, no time being added. Let him therefore have been ordained bishop before the XXIX day of June of the year 61; thus he could have begun the fifth year of his episcopate, or of his ordination, when he understood by divine revelation, as it is reported, the martyrdom of SS. Peter and Paul on his journey to Rome. There is even less difficulty in the opinion of Tillemont, who fixed their martyrdom in the year of Christ 66: but nothing compels us to depart from what has been said before. And so we deduce St. Anatalon's episcopate from the year 48 down to September of the year 61 from the chronological notes adduced, until someone shall bring forward more certain things. Papebroch in the Exegesis is almost of our mind, when in the preliminary Catalogue he assigns the same limits, but afterwards the years 49 and 60.

[32] But Tillemont differs far from us, in volume 1 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments, Note 4 on St. Barnabas, where he placed the beginning and end of St. Anatalon's see much later, writing thus in French: Father Mabillon's Catalogue reckons only nine bishops between him (Anatalon) and saint Ambrose; An answer is given to Tillemont's arguments, and although it attributes to some of them LIII and LIX years of episcopate, yet it makes them all together sit for only CCLXV years: according to which the death of St. Anatalon would have to be tied to the year CIX, and the beginning (of his episcopate) to the year XCVI, since thirteen years are assigned him. This is very late for him to be believed to have been ordained by St. Barnabas. Nay, something must even be cut back from that antiquity: for the Catalogue puts LXVIII years between the death of St. Myrocles and that of saint Dionysius. Yet St. Myrocles was present in the year CCCXIV at the council of Arles; and St. Dionysius died not later than the year CCCLXII; which (intervening space) is only of XLVIII years. And in truth it is clear from the time which that Catalogue ascribes to SS. Ambrose and Simplician that in it the times of the bishops are rather enlarged than diminished. Thus far Tillemont, whose words let us weigh.

[33] I confess indeed that only 265 years are assigned in the Mabillonian Catalogue to the nine bishops who are said to have sat between St. Anatalon and St. Ambrose; who thought the beginning of his episcopate but in the Papebrochian one only 262, because in this only 22 years are attributed to St. Protasius, to whom in Mabillon 25 are given. Nor do I deny that if we subtract those 265 or 262 years from the year of Christ 374, in which St. Ambrose was ordained bishop, there will come out the year of Christ 109 and 112; but I deny that anything can thence be established against our aforesaid chronological arrangement. Tillemont did not notice, namely, that the times of the vacancy of the see are not noted in the aforesaid Catalogue, but only how many years each of the bishops sat; nor did he notice that in those same Catalogues the name of Auxentius, the Arian bishop, is not written, who occupied the chair of Milan for many years, and on whose death St. Ambrose was raised to it. What wonder, then, if, no account being taken of all those years, a far smaller space of time than the said chronological arrangement requires should come out of calculations of this sort between St. Anatalon and the ordination of St. Ambrose?

[34] I do not wish to set these matters forth here at greater length: let the reader only go to the aforesaid Exegesis of Papebroch, and his death and he will easily perceive that nothing is wanting for the whole of that series of years which, according to our chronological arrangement, flowed from St. Anatalon down to St. Ambrose, to be conveniently filled out. Nor do I doubt that Tillemont would not have raised that argument of his, if he had consulted the said Exegesis. Tillemont's other argument proves an error in the Catalogues, and, this being corrected from elsewhere by Papebroch in the same Exegesis, our chronological arrangement remains safe. Namely, in the aforesaid Catalogues Myrocles next follows Monas, then Maternus; whom, however, the often-cited author of the History of the bishops of Milan expressly makes the immediate successor of Monas, and Papebroch proves that he really was, with Cuper agreeing in St. Maternus on the XVIII day of July — whom I too followed on the XVIII day of September in St. Eustorgius I, likewise bishop of Milan. And this being laid down, it is clear that St. Myrocles could have been present at the council of Arles in the year 314.

[35] For the rest, I shall readily admit that some errors lurk in the number of years ascribed to individual bishops; must be fixed much later. but not on that account shall I believe that the beginning of St. Anatalon's episcopate must be drawn out to the year of Christ 96, and his death to 109, or even further, as Tillemont wished to persuade. Nor did it seem otherwise to Papebroch, who in volume 2 of June, in St. Barnabas, page 430, number 32, after weighing his reasons, persisted in his own opinion, saying, See in my Exegesis before volume VII of May his (St. Anatalon's) episcopate defined within the years XLIX and LX: nor do we depart from that on account of Tillemont's calculation, page 1192 (in the edition which I use these things are found on page 657), by which the beginning of Anatalon is deferred until the year XCVI. Further, as is wont to happen in uncertain matters of this kind, among the moderns one assigns one year of death and another another, yet within the first century. Ughelli, volume 4 of the enlarged Sacred Italy, col. 36, sets down the year of Christ 64; Puccinelli in the Zodiac about the year 63; Ripamonti in the History of Milan, decade 1, page 47, the year 70; Paul Morigia, book 2 of the History of Milan, the year 93; John de Deis, in the Successors of S. Barnabas in the church of Milan, assigning no year, records that St. Anatalon sat under SS. Peter and Linus.

[36] was of that opinion. Peter Galesinius, in the Table of the archbishops of Milan published by decree of the fourth provincial council of that church, and afterwards enlarged, lays down that St. Anatolius sat only ten years, and under the Pontiff St. Linus. Finally Charles a Basilica Petri, afterwards bishop of Novara, in his likewise History of the church of Milan, equally confesses that his year cannot be determined with certainty; that it seems to him, however, that he reached by living down to the 8th year of Nero, which was the year of Christ 61 and 62, and perhaps passed beyond it. Nor do I judge that so much should be attributed to the often-cited History of the bishops of Milan that it can safely be believed in all things without any danger of error; nevertheless I see nothing to hinder St. Anatalon's episcopate from being set within those limits which we assigned above from the same and from the Catalogues. Thus far we have treated of his see at Milan; now we must inquire about that of Brescia; for the Brescians too affirm that he was given to them by St. Barnabas the apostle as their first bishop, and that he ruled both churches, and they venerate him as their own bishop with an annual ecclesiastical Office, as has been said above. The same people also, from what is to be said, possess his sacred body now for many centuries, indeed from his very death.

§ III. The controversy over the bishopric of Brescia of SS. Anatalon, Antigius and Evasius: martyrdom formerly wrongly ascribed to Anatalon: his body at Brescia.

[ ] St. Anatalon is said by St. Barnabas The History of the bishops of Milan, in the Life of St. Barnabas, has these things to our purpose: Then (St. Barnabas at Milan), addressing that most illustrious man Anatelon, equally stuffed with Apostolic doctrine, said: Go from this city toward the Eastern quarter, at the sixtieth milestone, to Brescia, which is contiguous to the Alps and is one of the by no means ignoble cities of Venetia, and impart to its citizens the saving fodder of the word. I believe indeed that grace has been conferred upon thee; and no small crowd of the faithful will grow up there after a little while, at thy preaching. And he, taking up with a glad mind the embassy of him who commanded, went hastily to that same city. And when with honey-flowing narration he was unlocking the sweet mysteries of everlasting life to the rustic and fierce minds of the gentiles, soon, by the co-operation of the ineffable providence of the Almighty, a good number of the people received with sagacious mouth the monuments of the faith. When the Man of God saw this, returning at once to his master, he announced the prosperous journey of his legation. And he, filled with immense joy, gave festive thanks to the goodness of the Creator; admonishing him again and again that he should press on to lay out with the money-changers the talents entrusted to him, that with the good and faithful servant he might deserve to hear that desirable word: “Well done, good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of thy Lord;” and alluding to his name Anatelon, he said: Brother and fellow-apostle, thou who art to be set over many things, thou must present more gains to thy Lord.

[38] Praying, therefore, and laying hands upon him, he bade him thenceforth vigilantly exercise the episcopal care of the sheep committed to him by Christ among the inhabitants of Milan and of Brescia, also to the Brescians as one delegated by the mastership of doctrine and by the institutes of the Christian faith. Hence it came about that what he had commanded was fulfilled; namely, that at all times, as long as he lived, he should bestow pastoral care with equal steadiness upon the peoples of both churches. Besides which he decreed that the church of Milan, which he himself had founded, should perpetually be held the see of the chief ecclesiastical eminence and the metropolis of the other churches in that province. These things being thus accomplished, the most blessed apostle of Christ Barnabas began to hasten his own departure,

and, calling his disciples together, he indicated that the feast day of Easter was coming on, and that he, with Christ's help, would celebrate it according to his vow together with his brethren and fellow-apostles. There arose an immense grief both of Christians and of pagans, who cried out that they were suffering the loss of all their happiness in him — that is, if he departed, if he left them even for a little.

[39] Especially the man of God Anatelon groaned tearfully and heavily at this, given as first bishop. that he had said he would not return again, because for the remaining time of his life he would abide with his own countrymen and brethren, awaiting always with a grateful mind that day of his own dissolution on which he should receive from Christ the unfading crown of his labour. Whom his master so consoled as to say: Why art thou so delighted with my presence, since that of Christ Jesus, my Lord, will never fail thee? For thus He willed to promise us: Behold I am with you even to the consummation of the world. Hast thou not been instructed by me in all His words and works, as I was by the most blessed Peter and James, the masters of the Church? Can anything be lacking to thee as thou sweatest in the vineyard of the Father of the household? Behold, together with the doctrine of the faith the efficacy of virtues too shall not be lacking to thee, and thou shalt obtain what thou shalt ask. Being relieved by these and the like assurances, he dismissed him carefully instructed in all things; and straightway returning to the Roman port, having boarded a ship, he made his way back to the bosom of Palestine. So he; concerning which consult Papebroch on the XI day of June, in St. Barnabas. I here treat only of the Saint's bishopric of Brescia.

[40] Ughelli, in volume 4 of the reissued Sacred Italy, begins the series of the bishops of Brescia from this same Saint, The Catalogues of these men, against the authority of Rampertus, whom he calls Anathalo, and he has agreeing with him almost all the Brescian writers who have treated of this subject. Yet a learned man, Paul Galeardi, canon of Brescia, dissented from them, and judged that St. Anatalon ought rather to be struck out from the bishops of his church, and that he presided over it in no other way than as metropolitan, that is, as bishop of the church of Milan, under which Brescia lay. This opinion of his he sets forth in the Annotations to the aforesaid Venetian edition of Ughelli's Sacred Italy in these words: If D. Anathalo ascended the chair of Milan already in the year LI from the nativity of Christ, as Ughelli will have it among the Milanese, or rather in the year XLVII, as we said there from Papebroch's calculation, how was he constituted prelate of Brescia by St. Barnabas in the year LIII, as the author here asserts? For my part I incline to that opinion which strikes St. Anathalo out of the number of the bishops of Brescia, relying on the authority of Rampertus, who calls Philastrius the seventh bishop of Brescia in the Sermon which he delivered at his translation. Which certainly cannot be true unless the aforesaid Anathalo be omitted; for none other of his predecessors can be doubtful. And I judge the authority of Rampertus, who flourished in the youth of the IX century, to be such in this place that it can in no way be evaded without a mark of rashness. Anathalo, moreover, may have presided over this church, not as its city bishop, but as metropolitan.

[41] in three bishops So he; which things must now be examined and illustrated at somewhat greater length. Rampertus, whom Galeardi here cites, and whom Ughelli at col. 532 writes to have been initiated into the bishopric of Brescia in the year of Christ 814, solemnly translated the body of St. Philastrius, bishop of the same see, in the year 838, and consigned that translation to writing in the Sermon which on that occasion he delivered to his clergy and people. This the aforesaid distinguished man Galeardi published more correctly at Padua in the year 1720, together with the Sermons of St. Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia, and the little Works of Adelmann, prelate of the same church; and from it our Cuper reprinted it in St. Philastrius on the XVIII day of July. Further, Rampertus in that Sermon on St. Philastrius says among other things thus: For this seventh bishop, gathering together the church of Brescia by then preaching Christ, guarded the holy doctrine, etc. An ancient hymn too, much older than Rampertus, which Galeardi and Cuper exhibit, has these words of the same St. Philastrius: Seventh he sat upon the throne of the see of Brescia. Hence the aforesaid Galeardi in the Annotations to Ughelli's Sacred Italy, and Cuper in St. Philastrius, deservedly warn that Ughelli must be corrected, and all who with him made St. Philastrius the tenth among the bishops of Brescia. Go, if it please you, to our Cuper in the place cited above.

[42] have been increased in their earlier part. Let us therefore see whether St. Anatalon is to be reckoned among those three who were wrongly inserted into the catalogue of the bishops of Brescia. Ughelli wove his catalogue down to St. Philastrius in this order: 1. S. Anathalo; 2. S. Clathæus; 3. S. Viator; 4. S. Flavius Latinus; 5. S. Apollonius; 6. S. Antigius; 7. S. Evasius; 8. S. Ursicinus; 9. S. Faustinus; 10. S. Philastrius. Galeardi on the contrary, omitting St. Anatalon, begins the series from St. Clathæus, and besides lays down that SS. Antigius and Evasius must be removed from it. Of St. Clathæus or Clateus our Henschen treated briefly on the IV day of June; nor does any reason present itself on account of which we should suppose that this man must be struck out of the said Catalogue. Concerning St. Viator's bishopric of Brescia not only the Brescian writers agree, but also those of Bergamo, who place him among their own bishops too; whether because he was translated from the see of Brescia to that of Bergamo after St. Narnus, as Ughelli judged; or because after the death of that same St. Narnus he ruled both sees for some time, which appears more likely. St. Narnus is venerated on the XXVII day of August, where he was dealt with among us; and saint Viator is inscribed in the Roman Martyrology on the XIV day of December.

[43] One of them, St. Antigius, who Concerning St. Latinus, or Flavius Latinus, and saint Apollonius, likewise bishops of Brescia, our Work may be consulted on the XXIV day of March and the VII of July. That St. Ursicinus was bishop of the same see is established also from the council of Sardica of the year 347, in Labbe, volume 2 of the Collection of Councils, col. 659 and 664, where he is called Ursacius, and is read to have subscribed thus: Ursacius from Italy, of Brescia. His deeds may be illustrated at the Kalends of December, on which he is venerated and has a place in the Roman Martyrology. Similarly it is established concerning St. Faustinus, whose memory is celebrated on the XVI day of February, where my Predecessors treated of him. But now let us see why Galeardi wishes SS. Antigius and Evasius to be struck out of the series of the bishops of Brescia. That this Antigius, he says in the Annotations to Ughelli, was not bishop of Brescia, we are taught from the manuscript Ado of the church of Toulon, afterwards of the Queen of Sweden, in which codex the collectors of the Acts of the Saints, volume 2 of February, page 808, number 15, testify that these things are read concerning S. Antigius on the XVIII Kalends of December.

[44] “At Langres, a city of Gaul, in the territory of Mont-Magne, the passing of S. Antigius, died among the Langrois, and out of fear of the Northmen confessor and bishop, who was first buried there, but afterwards translated thence and honourably laid up in the villa of Caiciacum, in the church of S. Mary and S. Martin, by the lord Haymo, a venerable priest. Then after not very many years, on account of fear of the Northmen, who at that time laid waste the greatest part of France and Burgundy, he was carried off by that same holy priest and brought into Italy, and in the city of Brescia, in the monastery of the holy martyrs Faustinus and Jovita — which that same aforesaid venerable abbot * afterwards ruled honourably for eight years, IV months, XXIII days — he venerably rests.” So he, the words which I have distinguished by inverted commas being reported from the place of our Work cited by him, where they are really transcribed from the said Martyrology. Further, that this St. Antigius is the same as the one whom Ughelli and others reckon in the sixth place among the bishops of Brescia is altogether persuaded by the day of his cultus and the place in which his sacred bones are said to rest.

[45] For on the same day on which in the aforesaid Auctarium of Ado the passing of S. Antigius, confessor and bishop, is announced at Langres, was translated thence to Brescia, namely the XVIII Kalends of December, he is commemorated also in the Brescian Martyrology, and is venerated at Brescia as a bishop and confessor with a semi-double rite, as the Order of the divine Office of that diocese has, published in the year 1684 by order of Bartholomew Gradenigo, bishop of Brescia. The same church too, in which this Saint's body is honoured, both the aforesaid Martyrology and the Brescians assign. The Brescian Martyrology on the aforecited XVIII Kalends of December has thus: At Brescia, of S. Antigius the bishop; in saint Faustinus the Greater. In agreement is the Order of the divine Office on the same day: Of Antigius, bishop and confessor of Brescia. He is held in SS. Faustinus and Jovita. Faynus, the collector of that same Martyrology, in the Brescian Heaven, in the second catalogue of bishops: S. Antigius… rested in the Lord at Brescia on the XIV day of November… His bones, placed separately but honourably, are held in honour in the parish church of SS. Faustinus and Jovita. It seems therefore certain that St. Antigius, whom the Brescians venerate as their own bishop, is the same as the one whom the Martyrology of Toulon in Provence records; since both the name, and the title of confessor and bishop, and the day of death and of cultus, and the place of the deposited body agree entirely.

[46] But that he was not a bishop of Brescia, but rather a Gaul, was not bishop of Brescia, the above-cited announcement of the Martyrology of Toulon sufficiently declares; since according to it he pertains to the Brescians in no other way than because his sacred bones were carried over to Brescia out of fear of the Northmen. Hence too I think it came about that several Auctaria of the Usuardine Martyrology in the Gauls, to be mentioned below, announce S. Antigius on the same day, and that Castellan did not hesitate to reckon him in his universal Martyrology among the Saints of Gaul, calling him in French Antege, in Latin Antidius, and saying thus: At Langres, of S. Antidius the bishop; whose body at the time of the irruption of the Northmen was translated to Brescia, into the church of S. Faustinus. Further, the Northmen after the middle of the IX century direly depopulated Burgundy; and at that time the bodies of other Saints too were carried away, lest they should fall into their hands. But that this translation may become still more likely, it will help to have noted a few things here.

[47] nor as such Rampertus, bishop of Brescia, a little before the middle of the ninth century had built a monastery attached to the church of SS. Faustinus and Jovita, and had handed it over to the abbot Leutgar and the monk Hildemar, whom he had summoned from the parts of Gaul, that they might introduce monastic discipline there. Consult, if it please you, Ughelli's enlarged Sacred Italy, volume 4, col. 532 and following, where the charter of foundation, marked with the year 841, is reported. To this monastery, therefore, that Haymo, probably a monk, could flee with the sacred relics of Antigius as though to his own brethren, and, these having been laid up in the church of SS. Faustinus and Jovita, could then preside over that same place as abbot for eight years, four months, twenty-three days, as in the aforesaid Martyrology

it is expressly asserted. Further, although that Martyrology was first that of the church of Toulon in Provence, yet our Henschen deservedly suspected, in the place cited above — that is, in the preliminary Commentary to the Acts of SS. Faustinus and Jovita, volume 3 of February, page 808, number 15 — that it had already long ago been brought to Brescia and there enlarged, because, as he says in that place, it comprises most accurate encomia of the Brescian Saints.

[48] recognized as such by the Brescians themselves from ancient times; This same thing also seems certain concerning the aforesaid announcement of S. Antigius, in which both his passing or death and his burial at Langres, and the translation first to the villa of Caiciacum and then to Brescia, made by Haymo, and finally the latter's prelacy in the Brescian monastery of SS. Faustinus and Jovita, are so accurately recorded that I for my part cannot doubt that that announcement was added at Brescia. Yet at what time it was first made I do not know; but from it itself it is sufficiently clear that St. Antigius's bishopric of Brescia was unknown to its author. Nor can it here be soundly enough replied that St. Antigius, having set out abroad from Brescia, died among the Langrois; for if it were so, doubtless the author, who noted the rest carefully, would have added a little word from which his bishopric of Brescia might be made known, or at least he would not have written in such a way that St. Antigius, if not of Langres, ought certainly to be believed the bishop of any other place rather than of Brescia, as will be manifest to one who considers it.

[49] but he seems to have been either of Langres, Whether, however, he was bishop of Langres, I should not dare to assert, since I do not find him in the catalogues of the prelates of that see published by Claude Robert and by the Benedictines in Christian Gaul; although in these too the bare names only of several bishops are reported, nor is there wanting a place where St. Antigius could be inserted. I do not know whether the aforesaid Martyrology is the same as that which Mabillon, citing it in volume 2 of the Annals, at the year of Christ 843, number 75, says was of Toulon, but at that time preserved in the Ottoboni library, from which he records in his own words almost the same things as we have reported, but calls S. Antigius only a confessor, and affirms that his memory is there marked at the seventeenth day of the Kalends of December. I do not know, I say, whether that is the same Martyrology or a different one; and whether Mabillon, by an easy lapse of memory, noted one day for another and omitted the title of bishop, or whether he accurately followed that Ottoboni copy. This one thing I can assert, that that announcement, as I have reported it from Henschen, is more entire than Mabillon's sentence, as will be clear to one who compares both.

[50] The XVIII Kalends of December, with the Henschenian copy, several Auctaria of Usuard in Sollerius also keep, or at any rate a Gaul. but they omit the title of bishop. The codices of Anchin and of D. du Cheval have: On the same day the birthday of saint Antigius the confessor: that of Caudiacum: The birthday of saint Antigius the confessor: Grevenus: Of Attingus the confessor. But however these things stand — which may be examined more fully at the aforesaid day of November — from what has been said I judge it sufficiently clear that St. Antigius, whom the Brescians venerate on the same day, is no other than he who is recorded in the often-cited Martyrology of Toulon, and that he was not bishop of Brescia. Perhaps Baronius got wind of this very thing, who, although he had found St. Antigius recorded in Galesinius as bishop of Brescia, by no means inserted him into the Roman Martyrology, in which he has not yet received a place. These same things will be confirmed below, after I have briefly reviewed the matters which pertain particularly to St. Evasius's bishopric.

[51] Ughelli has these things of him: S. Evasius, bishop of Brescia in the year CCVI, S. Evasius, whom the Brescians venerate as their own bishop, concerning whom in the same Martyrology (the Brescian), on the IV Nones of December: “At Brescia, of S. Evasius, bishop and martyr of the same city;” as in a most ancient slip found in the chest in which also rests the body of that same holy martyr, at the church of S. Peter in Oliveto. So he; which Galeardi in the same place takes up thus: That this S. Evasius was only a martyr and not a bishop, the inscription on the most ancient slip enclosed in his chest, found in the year MCDLIII, teaches abundantly enough, of this tenor, as is clear from the public monuments: Evasius, holy martyr; which certainly would by no means, contrary to custom, have been silent about his prelacy, if he had really been a bishop. Besides which, if the seventh place, on Rampertus's authority, must be assigned to S. Philastrius, no place here can fall to this Evasius. But the recent inscription of the Brescian Martyrology which Ughelli brings forward, and in which he is called bishop and martyr, is supported by no ancient witness.

[52] Faynus in the Annotations to the Brescian Martyrology, where he defends St. Evasius's bishopric, does not seem to have been a bishop, but only a martyr; agrees that the same inscription, Evasius holy martyr, was found in his chest in that same year 1453, and adds that on account of it many were rendered uncertain about his bishopric. But since, he adds, it has been received from ancient monuments and from ecclesiastical tradition that Evasius held this see of Brescia, therefore in the same place, to remove all ambiguity, this other inscription, reported by Obicius the Capuchin, was added: The body of S. Evasius, bishop and martyr of Brescia. There is not at hand for me any Brescian Martyrology besides the one of Faynus just cited, in which, no mention being made either of martyr or of confessor, it is only said: At Brescia, of S. Evasius the bishop, in saint Peter in Oliveto; who, adorning his see by the preaching of the word of God and by the sanctity of his life, laden with good works, passed over to Christ. In the Order of the divine Office for the same diocese also, published in type, as I said, in the year 1684, on the 2nd day of December is read: Of Evasius, bishop and confessor of Brescia, semi-double. He is held in S. Peter in Oliveto. The Brescians therefore believe that that body of S. Evasius which is preserved in the church of S. Peter in Oliveto is that of their bishop, whom nevertheless they venerate not as a martyr but as a confessor.

[53] The aforesaid Faynus, wondering at this very thing, says, Why, however, this Saint is not venerated with the Office of a martyr, as that slip indicated, we have not found. But perhaps because that alone was not a sufficient testimony to prove martyrdom; or lest something be detracted from antiquity, which celebrated him only as a bishop. But to me it seems, on the contrary, that from that slip so found it ought rather to have been laid down either that that sacred body is not that of a bishop of Brescia, or, if it were, that he was not a confessor but a martyr. As to the ancient monuments and ecclesiastical tradition cited by Faynus in general, nor do they bring forward ancient monuments concerning his bishopric; I fear they are not so ancient as that writer makes out. Certainly those which he had cited there by name are later than the finding of the body; or if any are older, they must have been obscure, and the tradition itself quite uncertain; since Faynus in the manuscript Vindiciae of the Brescian Martyrology in my possession, page 44, on the silence of Jacobus Malvecius and Elias Capreolus in their Chronicles about S. Evasius, did not hesitate to reply that this was no wonder, because the first of these wrote before the said finding, and the second indeed after it, but nevertheless had not seen that slip.

[54] ancient monuments; nor do they agree What is this but to say that there was either no memory or a slender one of S. Evasius's bishopric among the Brescians before that sacred body was found — which yet, how will he prove from the added slip to be that of a bishop of Brescia? On the contrary, against the bishopric of Brescia of both Saints, namely Antigius and Evasius, tells equally the silence of the Brescian writers about both in part, and in part their differing opinion, in inserting them into the catalogue of bishops, as to place and time. The aforesaid Capreolus, who reviewed the other bishops of Brescia, mentions Antigius no more than Evasius. By Capreolus here I understand his Brescian History, written in Latin in fourteen books, and published in the new Thesaurus of the writers of Italy by Graevius and Burmann, volume 9, part 7; from which that one which Patrizio Spini published translated into Italian differs greatly. Evasius likewise John Francis Florentinius omitted in his Index or Catalogue of the bishops of the same see; but Antigius he there recorded in such a way as sufficiently to hint that this man's bishopric of Brescia also is not approved by him.

[55] about the time and order in which he sat, nor can their opinions Take his words: S. Antigius. Some assert, but less probably, that in the year DCCC, when he was translating the bodies of SS. Faustinus and Jovita from their church, now that of S. Afra, to the place where they are even now venerated, he rendered his soul to God in the midst of prayer. Nor is he mentioned by Rampertus. He is celebrated on the XVIII Kalends of December. That Camillo Maggi in his Chronicle of the affairs of his country, and Jerome Covus in his ancient Catalogue, are likewise silent about both, Faynus confesses in the aforesaid manuscript Vindiciae in my possession, folio 41; but I have read neither man's little Work. I said above that the Brescian writers do not agree about the time at which those two Saints are to be inscribed on the roll of their bishops. Florentinius, whose words we have just given, makes S. Antigius the immediate successor of saint Deusdedit, who flourished toward the end of the VII century. Ascanio Martinengo agrees, in the Lives of the Brescian Saints, etc., page 230 and following, where he then places S. Evasius immediately after Antigius. But this opinion is convicted of manifest error from Rampertus, bishop of the same church, in the Translation of S. Philastrius, where, reviewing by name all the bishops of venerable memory who had sat between himself and that same S. Philastrius, he makes no mention of SS. Antigius and Evasius.

[56] be reconciled with Rampertus's statements. By the same argument are refuted those who wrote that the bodies of SS. Faustinus and Jovita were translated in the year 806 by S. Antigius, confusing him with Amphridius or Amphrigius, whom the aforesaid Rampertus affirms himself to have succeeded after Peter. Of this opinion also was Jacobus Malvecius, who says the said translation was made by the same S. Antigius in the time of Charlemagne. Philip Ferrari, in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy on the 2nd day of December, laid down that SS. Antigius and Evasius sat after Rampertus, led by no other reason than that he could assign them no other place because of Rampertus's statements. Finally Faynus in the Brescian Heaven and in the Annotations to the Martyrology, and Ughelli in Sacred Italy — whom Ottavio Rossi in his manuscript History, on Galeardi's testimony in the Preface to Rampertus, had preceded — placed SS. Antigius and Evasius after S. Apollonius, where in the Catalogues much empty space occurs, namely in the sixth and seventh place, and thus made S. Philastrius the tenth of the bishops of Brescia, whom the aforesaid Rampertus, a bishop of the IX century, had affirmed in express words to have been only the seventh.

[57] Now therefore let the fair reader judge whether those two Saints, Hence both seem to be struck out of the Catalogue; and St. Anatalon Antigius and Evasius, the first of whom at Langres

died, and was thence brought to Brescia about the ninth century; and the second of whom we have shown to have become known from the finding of a sacred body with a slip exhibiting only the Saint's name with the title of martyr — let the fair reader judge, I say, whether these are to be inscribed in the catalogue of the bishops of Brescia, when the Brescian writers themselves partly were ignorant of them, partly do not agree about the time at which they are to be said to have sat, and are at variance with Rampertus. I for my part assent in this part to the learned Paul Galeardi, canon, as I said, of Brescia. Now let us return to St. Anatalon, for whose sake these matters had to be treated somewhat more fully. SS. Antigius and Evasius being struck from the roll of the bishops of Brescia, St. Philastrius, who is numbered by Rampertus only as the seventh bishop, will be the eighth even so, if their series is begun from St. Anatalon. Hence this too appears to me more likely, which the aforesaid Galeardi judges, that Anatalon presided over the Brescians not as their city bishop but as metropolitan; or rather that he himself, while presiding as bishop over the church of Milan, cared for the Christian flock of Brescia both by himself and through his own men, until St. Clatheus was set over it.

[58] Nor does the often-cited ancient author of the History of the first bishops of Milan seem to have indicated otherwise, presided over the Brescians only as bishop of Milan. when he says: Praying therefore (St. Barnabas, about to depart from Italy) and laying hands upon him (Anatalon), he bade him thenceforth vigilantly exercise the episcopal care of the sheep committed to him by Christ among the inhabitants of Milan and of Brescia, as one delegated by the mastership of doctrine and by the institutes of the Christian faith. Hence it came about that what he had commanded was fulfilled; namely, that at all times, as long as he lived, he should bestow pastoral care with equal steadiness upon the peoples of both churches. Besides which he decreed that the church of Milan, which he himself had founded, should perpetually be held the see of the chief ecclesiastical eminence and the metropolis of the other churches in that province. For these things to be true, it is by no means necessary that we should say that a twofold bishopric was here instituted and that St. Anatalon was set over both at once. But of his bishopric of Brescia before he undertook that of Milan the same author says nothing. Finally, to make an end of these matters, on this reckoning S. Philastrius will have been only the seventh bishop of Brescia, as Rampertus asserts — the most ancient writer whom we have on this subject — and with him the historian of the first bishops of Milan will rightly agree.

[59] Of the time of his see we have already treated in §2. Of his blessed death the author of the Life to be published says these things: He passed over to Christ, to receive the perpetual rewards of his labours, and was laid to rest on the VIII Kalends of October. On which day too his holy deposition is venerably observed at the Assemblies of the Saints. The same Saint died not a martyr, but a confessor. These words indicate clearly enough that he was taken from among the living not by martyrdom but by a natural death, otherwise than several believed, of whom Faynus in the Annotations to the Martyrology speaks thus: The abbot Gaetani, John de Deis, Eugenio Cattaneo, Donato Bossi, Milanese writers, and others, agree in this opinion, that Anatalon perished by martyrdom for the splendour of the faith under the governor Anolinus; and indeed in past centuries he was venerated with the Office of one martyr, as Francis Florentinius reports in his manuscript Catalogue of the bishops. But that lofty watchman, S. Charles Borromeo, archbishop and Apostolic visitor, after the matter had been more maturely considered, decreed that the Office of this holy Prelate ought thenceforth to be celebrated only of a confessor and pontiff. I believe indeed that that opinion about St. Anatalon's martyrdom formerly arose from nowhere else than from the time at which he is said to have died, namely the year VIII of Nero, as is read in the Life to be published.

[60] His body, about which there was a controversy, The author of the same Life does not record the place of the Saint's death; about his burial too and his relics he expressly professes that he knows nothing, in these words: For since about the clod of his most sacred body I have found nothing certain down to the present, I leave it to the knowledge of God alone, to whom all things lie open. It is most likely, as the author of the Life suspects, namely that the mortal remains of the holy Bishop were laid up in an obscure place because of the ferocity and fear of the gentiles of that time. But hence at one time a contention arose between the Milanese and the Brescians as to which of them possessed that sacred treasure. So Joseph Ripamonti testifies, History of Milan, decade 1, book 1, writing thus: The relics of the sacred body are in great ambition, and in an ancient contention between the Cenomani (that is, the Brescians) and the Milanese. On the one side the church of D. Babylas, on the other that of Florianus, are said to keep the mortal part of the divine Man. I should not hesitate to judge for the Cenomani, led by the authority of a most ancient poem, which Andrea Alciati, that great investigator of his country's (Milan's) affairs, noted as having been added to the image of Anatalon himself by bishop Mirocles, and reported in the monuments of letters, distrusting the marble against the injury of time.

[61] formerly buried at Brescia and elevated, Whatever be the case with that inscription, which we said above at numbers 16 and 17 is circulated under the name of St. Myrocles, and of which the author of the History of the first prelates of Milan too must be said to have been ignorant, the Ambrosian Breviary of Milan itself, published by order of St. Charles Borromeo, agrees about his burial at Brescia in these words: His body was buried at Brescia. With the Brescians there agree also, besides Ripamonti, Paul Morigia, History of Milan, book 2, chapter 2, Placido Puccinelli in the Ecclesiastical Zodiac of Milan, part 1, Philip Ferrari in the Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, Francis Orlendi in the Sacred and Profane World, part 2, Ughelli in Sacred Italy, and others. These commonly agree that the body of St. Anatalon, hidden from fear of persecutions, lay long concealed; but at what time or on what occasion it was found, they do not declare. The aforesaid Puccinelli writes that it was found incorrupt and fragrant with a sweet odour, when it was translated from its former tomb to the church of S. Florianus; but I fear that this incorruption and odour do not rest on a sufficiently firm testimony.

[62] is venerated there in the cathedral church, Faynus in the Annotations to the Brescian Martyrology says these things of his translations: The bones of that same apostolic Prelate, buried in an obscure place (lest they should be destroyed by the infidels), were after some centuries carried away into the church now of S. Florianus; not, however, to Milan, as some say. And thence in the year MDLXXII they were translated to the cathedral church, to the altar of the holy Crosses, Dominic de Dominicis being bishop of Brescia. That at last they were placed in the altar of S. Martin by bishop Dominic Bollani, the following inscription bears witness: “The body of the divine Anathalo, first bishop of Brescia, was translated hither from another place of this temple in the year of its restoration, the Lord Dominic Bollani being bishop of the same city, MDLXXII.” The same inscription, with some difference of words which makes nothing to the matter, exists in Puccinelli in the Zodiac and in Ughelli in Sacred Italy. That Dominic de Dominicis, to whom Faynus ascribes the translation made from the church of S. Florianus to the cathedral, held the bishopric of Brescia at that time, I have read also in Ughelli and others; who, since they make no mention of the aforesaid translation made under him, I leave it to Faynus's credit.

[63] But at whatever time it happened, that it did happen where his arm too is preserved separately. we have also from other writers, among whom John Francis Florentinius in the Index of the bishops of Brescia speaks thus: His body, when it had been translated from the place where it was first buried into the church of S. Florianus, was soon brought into the cathedral, into the altar of the most holy Cross of the Oriflamme; then in the year MDLXXII it was placed in the altar then erected to S. Martin, his arm being left in the former place. The learned Galeardi agrees in the Annotations to Ughelli, where, using almost the same words, he says: The body of Anathalo, brought into the cathedral, was first placed in the altar of the most holy Cross of the Oriflamme, then in the year MDLXXII in the altar then erected to S. Martin, his arm being left in the former place. For the rest, at that time there sat in the chair of Brescia the aforesaid Dominic Bollani, a Venetian knight, by whom the cathedral church, falling down from age, was restored, as may be seen in Ughelli. On that occasion, therefore, he will have translated the body of St. Anatalon, except the arm, to the new altar of S. Martin, as the inscription cited above teaches.

* elsewhere abba

LIFE

By an anonymous author

From the Milanese manuscript of Michael Picolpasso, collated with Muratori's edition.

Anatalon, bishop of Milan, conf., in Insubria (S.)

BHL Number: 0416

A. By an Anonymous author.

Being made bishop of Milan, Anathalo, ^a receiving the summit of the episcopate in the stead of his most holy master Barnabas, ^b as by Christ's gift, formed it by apostolic works and adorned it with upright deeds. ^c For he was fervent with the fire of divine charity, splendid with the brightness of virtues, outstanding in continual frugality and in the persistence of his vigils, unceasingly intent upon the word of God; so that he both bore up the peoples committed to him to the heights by assiduous prayers, and did not cease to draw them by most salutary admonitions out of the profane rite of images. And although he was not a little distressed at the absence of his master, yet, refreshed by his most faithful promises, he cultivated most earnestly the field of God's holy Church, and, casting far off the thistles ^d of the ancient unbelief, he continually grafted in the fruit-bearing vines of a new planting. He had with him, in short, Gaius, ^e his fellow-disciple, likewise a man of the highest ^f holiness, whom for the sake of preaching, having now been made co-heir of his Master, he had carried off to his own assistance by a faithful violence rather than by stubborn pride.

[2] he discharges his office strenuously: This man, already then laden with the worthy honour of the priesthood, he took to himself as a most steadfast companion at his side in the work of the word. Several also of those who had believed, shining with the beauty ^g of the Christian faith and approved by all uprightness of manners, he instituted deacons. And while they were watching more keenly and carefully providing for the Lord's sheepfold, the divine Majesty ^h gave assent, and the assembly of the faithful people began unexpectedly to be multiplied. Although, in the course of their believing, in comparison with the infinite multitude of those who continued rebellious to Christ, very few seemed those who by day * had come together to hear the word. Further, the most holy man Anathalo preached the way of salvation without difference to nobles as much as to the common people, living for the most part in the suburb of the city, in order to avoid the rage and filthiness of the pagans; where too he was accustomed to perform under the open sky both the seals of sacred Baptism and the solemnities of Masses and prayers, together with those who were joined to the faith.

[3] he ordains a successor for himself, and a bishop for the Brescians: Now he was in the pastoral care of both sees ⁱ for thirteen years, from the seventh year of Claudius to the eighth of Nero. ^k In which time he ordained for himself two successors: the one bishop of the city of Milan, the other of Brescia. And he constituted his fellow-disciple, most excellently learned in divine doctrines, a Roman citizen, ^l metropolitan prelate of the city of Milan before his own decease. To which city indeed he knew that so great a privilege had been granted by his master that, just as among the other cities of the Italian provinces — of those at least which stretch out from the bosom of Italy toward the Western border — it seemed after the Roman citadel to hold the first place by the eminence of its gleaming structure and by the most frequent assembly of courtiers; so by the prerogative of ecclesiastical jurisdiction it should excel all others after the Romulean See. In this manner

that aforesaid Prelate himself too, differing in nothing from his instructor, established the metropolitan chair there for the faithful of Christ in times to come; so that the prelates of the neighbouring peoples — that is, of Venetia, Liguria, Æmilia, Rætia, * the Cottian Alp, as many as should be in holy mother Church throughout these oft-named provinces — ought to have the prelate of the see of Milan as a kind of head and notable ornament after the Roman Pontiff. ^m

[4] he dies: his body lies hidden. These things being thus decreed, he passed over to Christ, to receive the perpetual rewards of his labours; and he was laid to rest on the VIII Kalends of October: on which day too his holy deposition is venerably observed at the Assemblies of the Saints. ⁿ For since about the clod of his most sacred body I have found nothing certain down to the present, I leave it to the knowledge of God alone, to whom all things lie open. Why this happened is no wonder to anyone; since at that same time, when almost the whole world was terrified and troubled at the unknown name of Christ, whatever believers there were kept faithfully to their divine watches through certain hiding-places and such caverns as they could find, not from dread of the most monstrous persecution, but rather withdrawing themselves for a time from suffering, for the increase of believers. So it came about, for the avoiding of the fury of the pagans, that the most precious corpse of a Priest of Christ was secretly * handed over to burial by the Christians; especially since at that pressing moment of time the Neronian tempest ^o most atrociously fed upon the increase of the Christians, executors of so dire a work having been delegated throughout every province, to shake the worshippers of the newly-begun Church with the most savage storms of their furies. In which course of time also Peter and Paul, the most glorious teachers of the holy faith and renowned warriors of Christ's combat, fell by the bloody command of Cæsar: [p] not because, overcome, they submitted their necks to their enemies; but because they wished to leave to their followers a rule of fighting so valiantly.

ANNOTATIONS.

p Go to the preliminary Commentary, number 31.

* Murat. interdum

* Murat. Rhetiæ

* Murat. occultæ