Firminus of Amiens

ON ST. FIRMINUS OF AMIENS, BISHOP AND MARTYR,

AT AMIENS IN GAUL

About the year CCXC.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Firminus, bishop and Mart., at Amiens in Gaul (S.)

BHL Number: 3008, 3009, 3011

BY J. S.

§ I. The various copies of the Acts, and their notable variety in certain places: they are not by a contemporary writer, nor are they free of some defects.

[ ] Our Bolland, at the XVI of February, published almost the middle part of the Acts of S. Firminus, bishop and martyr, [The Acts of S. Firminus, which we have in 8 manuscripts, and which were published by Bosquet,] in order to give the deeds of S. Honestus the priest, who became known from those Acts almost alone. By the same labour, I suppose, he composed a Commentary on today's S. Firminus, to illustrate his Acts. I could easily transfer that whole Commentary hither, and add to it the things which, from documents afterwards unearthed, should occur as needing to be added. But thus I should make the dissertation both longer than is necessary and less neat, since Bolland discussed several things necessary or useful in his own time, but now well enough known to the learned. Wherefore I shall follow only in Bolland's footsteps, since he seems to have ordered everything rightly, and I shall give a somewhat longer Commentary according to our custom today. Copies of the Acts of S. Firminus we have from five manuscript codices, thus enumerated by Bolland: namely of the cathedral church of Saint-Omer, of the parish church of S. Firminus in the Valley at Amiens, of the monasteries of S. Maximin at Trier and of Bonnefontaine in the diocese of Rheims, and of the Professed House of the Society of Jesus at Antwerp, which formerly belonged to the abbot of Vaucelles of the Cistercian Order. To these were afterwards added three other copies, namely two codices of our Museum, of which the one is marked P. Ms. 55, the other Q. Ms. 5, and finally an eighth copy from a manuscript codex of the abbey of St. Gall, sent to us most courteously with several others in the year 1752. The same Acts were long ago published by Francis Bosquet in part 2 of the Histories of the Gallican church.

[2] As to the agreement of so many manuscripts and of the edition of the most illustrious Bosquet: in the manuscripts they disagree about several matters: in the deeds of S. Firminus all the codices for the most part agree; yet in words they not rarely vary, and from time to time in proper names; indeed even in some circumstances, by which Tillemont attacked the credit of the Acts from Bosquet's edition. For in most copies they begin thus: In the times of the emperors Maximian and Diocletian, at which time a tyrannical rage was raging against the Christian people, there was a man of venerable life, etc.; as Bosquet published it. In most copies likewise the governor Sebastian afterwards cites the edicts of Decius and Valerian against the Christians. But, as Bolland already observed at the XVI of February in S. Honestus, the beginning of the manuscript of Amiens is different, and of another of the queen of Sweden, of which he had only the variant readings. The beginning is likewise different in our codex which is marked P. Ms. 55. In those same three manuscripts also no mention is thereafter made of Decius and Valerian, but only of the emperors in general. The whole beginning, as it is in the three aforesaid manuscripts, I transfer hither: In ancient times, in which the Christian faith, by the illumination of the grace of the Holy Spirit, began to flourish through the various climes of the world; whence the tyrannical rage of the faithless was raging against the Christian people, there was in the Iberian city called Pamplona a man venerable for the uprightness of his life, first by birth and rank among the senators, Firmus by name and by work, etc. [and they must be published from two manuscripts in agreement, with the collation of the others.]

[3] This reading certainly is neater and more apt than the other, indeed also more probable. For since the author in the whole Life narrates more about the conversion of unbelievers than about the persecution of Christians, and in the earlier part treats almost solely of the conversion of unbelievers, it is more likely that he began from the increase of the Catholic faith than from the persecution of the gentiles. Besides, toward the end of the Life there is again a notable disagreement among the copies. For in the aforesaid manuscripts far more is read about the martyrdom of S. Firminus in prison than in Bosquet and in the copies more in agreement with his edition. On the contrary, in Bosquet and in most manuscripts many things are narrated toward the end about S. Firminus the confessor, which have little to do with S. Firminus the martyr; but in the three manuscripts already mentioned, far fewer things only, which could not be omitted because they in some way pertained to today's S. Firminus. This reason again seems to persuade that those three copies must be preferred to all the rest. Nevertheless, since in these copies too several things occur which are more displeasing than in the others, I should not dare to declare with certainty which copies more correctly exhibit the lucubration of the first writer. Yet since I rather believe this of the three so often mentioned, whose diction I found simpler in the collation, so that I suspect the phrasing in the others to have been somewhat polished; I shall publish this Life

from our codex and that of Amiens; and I shall collate them with all the rest, and accurately assign the various notable readings in the Annotations.

[4] As to the age of the author, the very beginning of the Life sufficiently shows The Acts seem to have been written in the V or VI century, that the author is not a contemporary; and from what is said toward the end about S. Firminus the confessor it is clearly gathered that it was written a good while after the death of this Saint, who died about 370 or 380, so that it does not seem to have been written at all before the V century. Bolland only observed that the Life was written before the finding of the body, which we shall fix at the beginning of the VII century. This is clearly gathered from those things which are said toward the end in most of the manuscripts. Which, if perchance they are not by the first writer, but were added afterwards, were at least written before the finding of the body. The Benedictine authors of the Literary History of France, volume 3, page 410, suspect that the Acts were written toward the end of the VI century. Baillet in the critical Table at the XXV of September judges them written in the VI or VII century, and even so calls them sufficiently ancient. But to me they do not seem sufficiently ancient, nor yet do I believe that they were written at the close of the VI century, and still less in the VII. The very style of the Acts refuses that epoch, since in the VI and VII centuries the study of letters in Gaul utterly declined, and there succeeded a marvellous barbarism of writers in setting forth facts. But the Life of S. Firminus, although it is not written in elegant and pure speech, is nevertheless far from the barbarism of the closing VI century, and for that reason seems rather to be referred to the V or VI century. For at that time there were not wanting learned men who knew Latin speech well enough to be able to compose the Life of S. Firminus in that style in which we have it written. I confess that this reason is not such as to make the matter certain. But neither do I find anything in the whole Life on account of which it should rather seem to be referred to the VII century or to the end of the VI.

[5] Tillemont, volume 3 of the Monuments, in S. Saturninus acknowledges and they labour under some faults, that the Acts of S. Firminus have gravity; but he says that they are prolix in discourses, and that many particular facts are read in them on account of which they merit little credit. Then in Note 3 on S. Saturninus he sets forth those particular facts. First he says that the Saint's martyrdom is sometimes fixed under Diocletian, sometimes under Decius and Valerian. To this objection I have already sufficiently answered at the 1st of September in S. Firminus the confessor, number 3, where I showed that it does not follow from the edicts of Decius and Valerian cited in Bosquet that the author wished to indicate that S. Firminus suffered under Decius or Valerian, as Tillemont too lightly asserted. Besides, in the codices from which I am to give the Acts no mention is made of Decius or Valerian, nor likewise any of Diocletian or Maximian. Secondly, it displeases Tillemont, and not undeservedly, that S. Saturninus is asserted to have converted forty thousand men at Pamplona. The conversion of so many thousands may seem the more incredible from the silence of the Acts of S. Saturninus. Yet if anyone considers the brevity of those Acts, in which almost nothing is read of the Apostolic labours of S. Saturninus, he will not at once infer from them that Saturninus was not at Pamplona. But I should not wish to contend that the number of those converted at Pamplona was not too much exaggerated; rather I can scarcely doubt that it was exaggerated beyond the truth, if the author meant that the conversion of so many thousands was made in three days, as the Acts have it.

[6] so that they are by no means original, but only probable: But if we say that that three days' preaching of S. Saturninus was the beginning of the conversion of many, who by degrees grew to nearly forty thousand, and were afterwards baptized partly by S. Saturninus and partly by his disciples; the conversion of men will indeed be great, but by no means incredible. Whatever the case, a writer who lived two centuries after Saturninus certainly has not so great an authority that what he reports about the deeds of S. Saturninus at Pamplona becomes sufficiently certain. In almost the same place Tillemont holds the conversions attributed to S. Firminus in various cities of Gaul. But in these I find nothing which surpasses belief, if we are willing to interpret the writer's words kindly rather than strictly. Tillemont adds again, and rightly in my judgment, that many other things occur in those Acts by which their credit is lessened. I find nothing weightier than the age of the author, who perhaps flourished two centuries after S. Firminus, perhaps even nearly three. But such things as shall present themselves as less probable I shall assign in the Annotations. From what has been said the studious reader will gather that I do not hold the Acts of S. Firminus as original and of certain credit in all things, but only as probable, and to be admitted in those points to which no weightier authority or reason is opposed.

[7] various abridgments of the said Acts. Besides the Acts already mentioned, there exist also certain abridgments of the Acts. Such we have, one from a manuscript Lectionary of the church of Saint-Omer, another from a manuscript of Utrecht, and several composed in the Breviaries of Amiens for the lessons of the Office. But abridgments of this kind, since they were contracted from the Acts, and sometimes not without errors, can be of no use except for judging of the diversity of readings where the codices disagree, and to that end they will from time to time be cited in the Annotations. There exists also a Sermon delivered on the festivity of S. Firminus, whose beginning is: By the help of the mercy of Almighty God, etc. This Sermon is found in our codex formerly of Vaucelles, and I see that some things at least were adopted from it in the ancient Breviaries of Amiens for the lessons of the Office throughout the Octave. But the said Sermon will be able to profit us little, since it is for the greater part moral, or utters general praises. Nor can it have much authority, since it was composed many centuries after the martyrdom of S. Firminus, in imitation of a certain Sermon of S. Leo on S. Peter. Finally an abridgment of the Acts of S. Firminus the martyr was given by Vincent of Beauvais in the Mirror, book 12, chapter 79; another by Peter de Natalibus in the Catalogue of the Saints, book 8, chapter 119. Both seem to have had the ancient Acts; but neither contracted them accurately.

§ II. The homeland of S. Firminus: a chronological arrangement of his life, such as it is: the time of his martyrdom.

[ ] The Saint, born at Pamplona, Of S. Firminus's homeland there is no need to discourse at length, since all the copies of the Acts agree that he was born at Pamplona in Spain, or in Iberia, as Spain was also named by the ancients. The present name of the city among the Spaniards is Pamplona, among the French Pampelune, and the name, variously expressed in the manuscript codices, comes closer to these than to the ancient Latin, which is Pompelon, or even, as some will have it, Pompeiopolis, from Pompey the restorer of the city. In Peter de Natalibus, book 8, chapter 119, he is read to have been from a city of Hibernia, which is called Pampilonia. The name of the city shows that from Iberia — for which many have written Hiberia, by a common enough error — it was by the interposition of a single letter written Hibernia. I do not inquire whether that error is Peter's own or his editors'; I only note that it was adopted by certain more recent writers, but that it is too plain to need a longer refutation.

[9] Concerning the age of S. Firminus most Spanish writers, and several French ones of preceding centuries, strayed very far from the true chronological arrangement. wrongly fixed by some in the 1st or 2nd century Bolland's words, reporting their opinions — though several be cut away for brevity's sake — I bring hither. “Prudentius Sandoval, bishop of Pamplona, in the catalogue of his predecessors, writes that S. Firminus met his martyrdom in the year of Christ 80, by a by no means probable computation, even if S. Saturninus, the chief apostle of the people of Pamplona, had been sent by S. Peter himself (which he judges by no means doubtful) to Toulouse and into the Spains. John Marieta, book 1 of the Ecclesiastical History of Spain, chapter 16, affirms that Firminus carried off the laurel of martyrdom in the reign of Trajan, and that the year cannot certainly be defined. The Spanish Chronicle, woven together by an unskilled rhapsodist, which certain more recent writers rashly and injuriously ascribe to Flavius Dexter, a most learned man, at the year of Christ 110, number 3, has thus: S. Firminus, citizen and bishop of Pamplona, disciple of S. Saturninus, who was likewise a hearer of S. Peter, suffers at Amiens under the governor Julian: yet first, preaching through the Spains as far as Toledo, he traversed the province far and wide. Yet Francis Bivar notes in the Commentary that Dexter does not treat of him in this year CX as though he had now suffered martyrdom, but because he flourished in virtues and preaching while still a young man. The remaining writers of Spanish affairs have handed down almost the same things. It irks me to report them all here, because, since they lacked the Acts of S. Firminus, and had no certain notes by which to guide their pen, it is no wonder that they went astray in many things.”

[10] Yet presently he also cites Ambrosio de Morales and Juan de Mariana, since he flourished after S. Saturninus, who conjectured that S. Firminus prolonged his life almost to the reign of Decius. Thus Bolland, from whose words about the Chronicle of the pseudo-Dexter the reader will easily see that his judgment about it was no other than that of all our Predecessors. But he presently goes on to uncover the source of so many errors. The Spaniards had most fabulous Acts of S. Saturninus, which made S. Saturninus one of the seventy Disciples of Christ. And since some believed these true, they could not but refer S. Firminus, the disciple of S. Saturninus, to the first or second century of Christ — those especially who held fictitious Chronicles for true. Not a few of the French also believed, from faulty Acts, that S. Saturninus had been sent into Gaul by S. Peter the apostle. Hence Peter Louvet in the History of Beauvais, book 2, chapter 5, fixes the death of S. Saturninus in the year 70, and that of S. Firminus under Antoninus Pius, that is, about the middle of the second century. But after the Acts of S. Firminus were published by Bosquet, and better Acts of S. Saturninus by Surius, the critical art too being meanwhile more widely received, the said errors gradually ceased, and the learned commonly acknowledged that the martyrdom of S. Saturninus must at least not be fixed before Decius, that is, before the middle of the III century; although they have not yet agreed about the certain year of the martyrdom. Wherefore I do not transfer hither what Bolland discussed to refute errors long since abandoned.

[11] and suffered about the middle of the III century; Yet since a certain learned man of Pamplona, whose courtesy I desire to satisfy, in observations sent hither very lately, has earnestly asked that we should consider, for the age and episcopate of S. Firminus, what Joseph de Moret discussed on those matters in his Spanish Work entitled Historical Investigations of the antiquities of Navarre, after he had seen Bolland's manuscript Commentary; I cannot but transfer hither briefly some things about the age of S. Firminus, and observe a few points about the endeavour of the aforesaid writer. And so I use only one argument by which it may be established that S. Firminus lived after the middle of the III century, not in the first or second century. S. Firminus was later than S. Saturninus,

and was baptized by S. Honestus, the disciple of S. Saturninus, as all, both ancients and moderns, admit. But about the age of S. Saturninus it is so certainly established from S. Gregory of Tours and from the approved Acts of S. Saturninus that a man would not deserve the name of a learned critic if at this time he should contend that S. Saturninus must be moved far from the middle of the III century and transferred to another century; as can easily be proved at the XXIX of November. There remains, therefore, no prudent doubt that S. Firminus flourished after the middle of the III century.

[12] he laboured in vain who wished to prove the contrary. But that the aforesaid Moret in the said Work, book 1, chapter 10, wished to establish another chronological arrangement, by which S. Saturninus becomes a disciple of the Apostles, and S. Firminus almost his contemporary, came about from nothing else than that he wrote at a time when Historical criticism was not yet sufficiently perfected, especially in Spain. Hence Moret scarcely distinguishes between approved documents and fabulous or supposititious ones. He cites several Acts of S. Saturninus defiled with the most open fables. He cites the supposititious and fictitious Chronicle of Dexter, with some scruple indeed, which nevertheless he labours to remove. He cites the equally fictitious Additions of Maximus, and indeed without any scruple, under the name of S. Braulio of Saragossa. To Breviaries and more recent writers he attributes an authority which they do not deserve, so that from them he would correct Gregory of Tours and the approved Acts. And, propped up by the documents already reported, partly fabulous, partly wholly fictitious, he strives to find some things in the approved Acts and in Gregory of Tours which by reasoning he may be able to draw over to his own opinion, so as to set them against their clear assertions, and thus show those documents not to be contrary to himself. This method of reasoning shows that the author did not lack a subtle wit; but that he was not sufficiently imbued with the critical art by which false or doubtful documents are distinguished from true and certain ones; nor does it please me to sift all his reasonings.

[13] Since S. Saturninus suffered between 250 and 260, Still less does it please me to inquire whether a certain year of S. Saturninus's martyrdom can be found, which will be done at the XXIX of November, where S. Saturninus must be discussed. It will be enough for our purpose to have shown that the martyrdom of S. Saturninus is fixed by the learned between the year 250 and 260. Baronius in the Roman Martyrology places the martyrdom of S. Saturninus in the times of Decius, as also in the Annals at the year 254, and indeed in the consulship of Decius and Gratus, whose consulship he fixed in the year 252, but for Pagi and other more recent writers it is the year 250. Tillemont, volume 3, in S. Saturninus, believes that the mission of this holy bishop into Gaul must be fixed in the year 250, but that his martyrdom happened some years later, in an uncertain year. This opinion Baillet follows at the XXIX of November, in S. Saturninus; and several others. Castellan in his Martyrology at the XXIX of November assigns the year 258 to the martyrdom of S. Saturninus. John de Ferreras, in the History of Spain, which was printed in Spanish in the year 1700, refers the martyrdom of S. Saturninus to some year later than the year 254: for in the year 254 he narrates the coming of S. Honestus, and soon after of S. Saturninus, into Spain, and the conversion of the senator Firmus, who was the father of S. Firminus, so that he certainly believed S. Saturninus to have been crowned with martyrdom after that year. Him I cite so that it may be clear that the more learned Spaniards no less than the French now acknowledge that S. Saturninus did not flourish and preach in the first or second century, but about the middle of the III. And this opinion is certain, and will be confirmed by solid arguments in S. Saturninus, where more may be discussed about the year of the martyrdom, and at the same time it may be investigated whether the epoch of the year 250, inserted in the Acts of S. Saturninus, is to be understood of his mission or of his martyrdom.

[14] From what has been said it is abundantly gathered that the conversion of Firmus, [S. Firminus seems to have been born about the middle of the III century, taken broadly,] the father of S. Firminus, related in the Acts at number 1 and following, happened about the middle of the III century, that is, not many years before 250, if in that year S. Saturninus obtained the palm; or some years after 250, if Saturninus then first came into Gaul. Then the Acts at number 7 begin to treat of S. Firminus, and clearly insinuate that he was far from the seventeenth year of his age when Firmus his father was converted. For when he was nearly seventeen years old, he had been instructed in letters and Catholic doctrine by Honestus, and had already been baptized before. Wherefore the Acts altogether hint that he was only an infant or a little boy at the time of his father's conversion, especially since he is not said to have been baptized with his father. Indeed the Acts leave it doubtful whether he was not born after his father's conversion: for his birth is treated of after the conversion of Firmus has been reported, so that it cannot be certainly established whether Firminus was born before his father's conversion or after. Wherefore a conjecture can be made, to be extended broadly, that S. Firminus was born about the middle of the III century. But if he was born about 250, he will have been created bishop about 280, since at about the thirty-first year of his age he is said at number 10 to have left his own country, not long after receiving episcopal consecration.

[15] He then spent the rest of his life in preaching the Gospel. [and, to the preaching of the Gospel, begun about 380, he devoted himself until his death.] But it cannot exactly be computed how many years he spent on those Apostolic labours, since it is likely that he stayed longer in various places than the author of the Acts insinuates, who was too young to be able to compose an accurate chronological arrangement of S. Firminus's labours. He may perhaps have learned from tradition or from older writings in what places chiefly he cast the seeds of the Gospel; but certainly he had no clear and distinct knowledge of the time during which he stayed in each city. Not even his stay at Amiens do I judge to have been sufficiently known to the writer of the Acts. For he records that many were converted there within a few days, and narrates everything as if he had preached at Amiens scarcely some weeks or months. But since S. Firminus is held to be the first apostle and bishop of the people of Amiens, and since the faith planted by him there struck firm roots and bore rich fruit, I rather judge that the Saint preached some years in that city, and thus we shall easily understand that nearly three thousand men, as the author asserts at number 12, could have been converted by the Saint at Amiens; and among them some chief and illustrious families.

[16] The course of his preaching in Gaul, as it is reported in the Acts, The writer of the Acts, who says that so many thousands were converted in three continuous days, rendered his credit in like matters especially suspect when at number 5 he asserted that by three days' preaching of S. Saturninus nearly forty thousand were converted at Pamplona, and indeed baptized. So great a conversion of men to the faith may perhaps have been begun by S. Saturninus and continued by his disciples. But this writer of ours seems willingly to have knit great things to a small space of time, if he did not himself also invent, out of his own imagination, the times for the deeds which he had received. Wherefore I judge that the faith was disseminated by S. Firminus in the Gauls not merely in three or four years, as the biographer seems to insinuate, if one should wish to interpret his words strictly, but in far more. For first at number 10 he is read to have preached at Agen in Aquitaine, on the river Garonne, and to have taught the people there for a good many days. Thence at number XI he is said to have set out into Auvergne, and to have converted the greatest part of that land to the faith of Christ. But if this is true, it is necessary that the Saint's stay in Auvergne was long. From Auvergne the author leads Firminus to the province of Angers, and asserts that he stayed there a year and three months, and brought the greatest part of that province to the faith. So great a conversion of that province is not incredible, if the city of Angers already had its own bishop, as the author asserts according to all the manuscript codices. Now if he gathered a like fruit of his labours in Auvergne, as the author affirms, it becomes likely that there too he stayed more than a year. And if to these we add his stay at Agen, and the quite lengthy journeys during which the Saint probably interposed some shorter stays in other cities, we shall already have nearly three years of pilgrimage and preaching, and perhaps more, since the writer may have omitted many things, and seems to have narrated only those which he had received either from older documents or from tradition.

[17] can indeed be circumscribed within four or five years, From Angers he is then said to have set out straight for the city of Beauvais, again distant by a long interval of lands. In this city he is said to have preached, to have endured prison and scourges, and at last to have built a church. That the faith was preached by S. Firminus at Beauvais, the people of Beauvais and of Amiens agree. But Morlière in the Antiquities of the city of Amiens, book 2, page 158, judges that the Saint merely passed through Beauvais and came at once to Amiens, and there established his episcopal see; and that afterwards he returned to the city of Beauvais and had the care of it too. This conjecture is quite uncertain and clearly contrary to the Acts, since he is said to have betaken himself straight to the city of Beauvais on account of a persecution which had arisen there, and is asserted to have suffered many things in that same persecution. But at what time that persecution was stirred up at Beauvais — namely whether under Aurelian about the year 273, or in the first years of Diocletian about 285, or under some emperor between them — the Acts insinuate by no indication. Nevertheless the persecution itself plainly proves that the faith had been preached there before the coming of S. Firminus, probably by S. Lucian, who is held to be the first apostle of the people of Beauvais, and was there crowned with martyrdom. That the Saint stayed a notable time in that city, the deeds themselves hint, especially the building of the church. Maurice du Pré of the Premonstratensian Order, in a manuscript French Life, some excerpts of which were sent to Bolland, wished to attribute some years to S. Firminus's preaching at Beauvais. He was also inserted by some into the catalogue of the bishops of Beauvais, as Loisel reports in chapter 3, page 66, rejecting that opinion. The aforesaid Maurice du Pré believed that S. Lucian was crowned with martyrdom at Beauvais under Aurelian: and if that were established for me, I should judge that S. Firminus came thither after the death of S. Lucian. But others fix that at the beginning of Diocletian's reign, about 286 or 287.

[18] Whatever, further, be the case about the time at which S. Firminus came to the people of Beauvais, but it is plainly uncertain how many years it was. the Acts hand down that from that city he at last came to Amiens, and there was crowned with martyrdom. Maurice du Pré fixes that coming in the time of the emperor Probus, in the year 277, and will have it that he preached at Amiens and in the neighbouring places and towns for twelve years. Those conjectures are not indeed wholly devoid of all likelihood; but they can be proved by no argument. The Acts do not define the time of his preaching among the people of Amiens,

and they narrate everything in such a way as if he had preached there rather for a few months than for many years. Nevertheless I judge that S. Firminus preached at Amiens for some years, since by the common judgment of all he is held to be the bishop and apostle of that city, and since he cast there those seeds of the Christian faith which have brought forth rich fruit even down to our times. But in how many years he built up his church, I can by no means declare; and no more can I say how many years the whole course of S. Firminus's preaching through Gaul occupied. For the Acts would not forbid our circumscribing it within four or five years, if it were established from elsewhere that it was so brief. The Acts again could easily be explained, if they had ancient documents, of S. Firminus having sweated at his apostolic labours for ten, fifteen, or even twenty years and more. Wherefore I altogether abstain from determining those years. I only note that the year of the martyrdom does not depend on a greater or smaller number of years of preaching; but that S. Firminus was born so much the earlier, and was of so much the more advanced age, the longer he preached.

[19] About the time of the martyrdom the opinions of authors vary. S. Firminus did not suffer under Valerian or in the year 258, I now pass over those who formerly referred S. Firminus to the first or second century. Sufficiently refuted also are those who made him a martyr about the times of Decius. The learned Benedictines who continue the edition of Christian Gaul, volume 10, col. [ ], enumerate several opinions of others, and speak thus of the Acts: The Acts in Bosquet (refer the martyrdom of S. Firminus) to the year CCLVIII, under the persecution called that of Decius and Valerian, although at the beginning they speak of the persecution of Diocletian and Maximian. The Acts of Amiens refer it to Diocletian and Maximian, no mention being made of the year. But these statements are not accurate: for neither in the Acts in Bosquet is mention made of any year, nor is S. Firminus there said to have suffered in what is called the persecution of Decius and Valerian, but only the edicts of Decius and Valerian are cited, which could happen even though those emperors had long been dead, as the aforesaid writers themselves acknowledge in these words: Because at that time (at the beginning of Diocletian's reign) only the edicts of Decius and Valerian against the Christians were in force, and the persecution begun by Maximian in the Gauls in the year CCLXXXVI had long preceded the promulgation of the edicts made by him and by Diocletian. If these things are true, as they are most true, and were long ago observed by us in S. Firminus the confessor at the 1st of September, I do not see why an error should again be foisted on the Acts, wrongly imputed to them by Tillemont. Certainly things that are true, when Tillemont's chronological arrangement is to be established, will not become false when they show another lapse of his. Wherefore the Acts, as they were published by Bosquet and as they are read in several codices, refer the martyrdom of S. Firminus not to the times of Decius or Valerian, but to those of Diocletian and Maximian. But those of Amiens, with which one of our codices and several others agree, as I have learned from letters from Amiens — those of Amiens, I say, make mention of no emperor by name, as may be seen from our edition. For the rest, the opinion about the year 258 needs no further refutation, since it lacks a foundation, and in that year Firminus was perhaps a boy, or at any rate not yet a bishop.

[20] nor in the year 268; nor under Aurelian about 272, No better founded is the opinion of Malbrancq, On the Morini, volume 1, page 616, where he fixes the martyrdom of S. Firminus in the year 268, and alleges nothing besides conjectures that are by no means pressing. Firminus was probably a young man in that year, and more probably not yet a bishop, as is sufficiently gathered from what has been said about the time of his birth. A certain learned man of Amiens, whose manuscript Dissertation was sent to me in the year 1746, believed that S. Firminus suffered under Aurelian, and that the chronological arrangement should be disposed in this way. Let us believe, he says, that Firmus, the father of S. Firminus, was converted by S. Saturninus about the year 255; that at that time Firminus, being 17 years old, was handed over to S. Honestus to be instructed; and that after seven years of study, that is, in the year 262, he was sent to Toulouse to S. Honoratus, and by him ordained bishop; then, at the age of thirty-one, in the year 266, that he set out into Gaul: thus after four or five years of preaching he will have been crowned with martyrdom in the year 272 or 273, before Aurelian's edict had been carried into Gaul. The chief reason which persuaded that most learned man that the times of S. Firminus must be arranged in almost such a manner is drawn from the silence about Aurelian's edict. For neither, as he observes, would the governor Sebastian have cited the edicts of Decius and Valerian alone, omitting Aurelian's edict, if this had been promulgated. This reason would have force if it were established that Aurelian's edicts were like those of Decius and Valerian, and were promulgated everywhere. But of that promulgation we deservedly doubt; nor do we know whether Aurelian wished to command by his edicts against the Christians the same things as Decius and Valerian.

[21] from whose edict against the Christians this epoch cannot be established, How doubtful it is whether Aurelian's edicts were promulgated through Gaul, is clear from Eusebius and Lactantius. Eusebius, book 7, chapter 30, teaches that Aurelian at the beginning of his reign was well disposed toward the Christians; but that, being changed toward the end of his life, he wished to stir up a persecution. Yet he so speaks as to seem to say that by divine vengeance he was hindered from subscribing edicts against the Christians. Lactantius, On the Deaths of the persecutors, chapter 6, insinuates that edicts were written and sent to some provinces, but not to the more remote ones, when he speaks thus of Aurelian: But it was not permitted him even to accomplish what he had planned; rather he was straightway extinguished amid the beginnings of his fury. Not yet had the bloody writings reached the further provinces, and already at Cœnofrurium, which is a place of Thrace, he himself lay bloody on the ground, slain by his own friends on a certain false suspicion. These things make it doubtful whether in Belgic Gaul Aurelian's edict was ever promulgated or put into execution. I shall not indeed deny that the edict could have reached there even after Aurelian's death: but, the emperor being dead, the governors of the provinces could easily suppress the edict, if they did not themselves desire to stir up a persecution, as without doubt many did not. And so the promulgation of the edict is quite doubtful. Then, even if it be established that an edict was issued against the Christians, we do not know whether it was sufficiently conducive to the purpose of the governor Sebastian, who brought forward those edicts of Decius and Valerian by which all were compelled to sacrifice to idols, or to undergo death after various torments. Whether Aurelian's edict was such, we do not know. But if it was not such, we ought not to wonder that the governor kept silence about it, even if he had it. Thirdly, the most learned gentleman whose opinion I am weighing believes that the names of Diocletian and Maximian were added to the Acts, because in several manuscripts they are not read; but in those same manuscripts the names of Decius and Valerian are likewise not read, so that that whole reasoning at once collapses entirely. For the codices from which our edition has been given have no names of emperors at all. But others, and those the more numerous, mention the edicts of Decius and Valerian; yet they openly refer the martyrdom to the times of Diocletian.

[22] But as regards the enumeration of the times which flowed between the conversion of Firmus and the martyrdom of his son S. Firminus, and it is contrary to the age and deeds of S. Firminus, these lead us to the reign of Diocletian, nor could all these things have happened before Aurelian's edict. It is said gratuitously that Firminus was seventeen years old when Firmus was converted. If he had been of that age, he would without doubt have been baptized with his father, since he was baptized even before that age, but probably some time after his father. That Firminus was a boy or scarcely born, as I have already said at number 14, everything insinuates. For, according to the Acts at number 7, when he was nearly seventeen years old he did not begin to be instructed, but had been instructed in letters and Catholic doctrine, and then began to advance in the study of religion; and to this advance seven years are attributed, after which he himself began to teach others, namely when he was nearly twenty-four years old. The whole instruction, therefore, is said to have been given by S. Honestus before he was seventeen years old: before this instruction Firminus's baptism went first; for he is said to have been handed over to Honestus the priest to be instructed, because he was also before that his son in baptism. If now we ask why he was not committed to Honestus for instruction immediately after baptism, no other reason will occur than that he was a boy, and had not the age at which he could sufficiently grasp letters and Catholic doctrine. He was therefore a boy of ten years or less when he was baptized — we do not know how long after his father's conversion. Besides, S. Honestus is said at number 8 to have been weighed down by the time of old age when S. Firminus, being twenty-four years old, was sent by him to teach the ignorant. But at the beginning of the Acts, where the conversion of Firmus is treated, Honestus is not exhibited as an old man, but as a priest flourishing in years, and a disciple of Saturninus. And so not merely seven years had flowed since the father's conversion when Firminus was twenty-four years old, but perhaps twenty, or even more.

[23] Wherefore, if we would cleave to the Acts, we cannot attribute even ten years to Firminus whose martyrdom must be fixed under Diocletian when his father was converted; and for that reason, even if we would fix that conversion in the year 250, the birth of S. Firminus cannot deservedly be placed except after the year 240. And since he was thirty-one years old when he came into Gaul to preach, that preaching will not have begun except after the year 271; and thus, although the preaching lasted only four or five years, as the author of the said chronological arrangement will have it, the martyrdom of S. Firminus must always be fixed after the decree and the death of Aurelian, who died in the year 275. But it is more probable that the birth of S. Firminus was nearer the year 250 than 240; and thus the beginning of his preaching must be fixed about 280, and his martyrdom under Diocletian and Maximian, of whom the first obtained the empire in the year 284, and the second was chosen colleague by him two years later. Nevertheless I do not judge that S. Firminus suffered in the general persecution begun in the year 303, to which Baronius refers the Saint's martyrdom at number 130. The Acts also do not permit us to believe that he suffered under the governor Rictiovarus, as Usuard asserts in the Martyrology, and with him Baronius.

[24] This one thing seems able to be said: that he suffered in the earlier years of Diocletian and Maximian ruling together, in an uncertain year, about 290. probably before Constantius Cæsar was administering Gaul. Tillemont, volume 5, in the Persecution of Diocletian, article 2, refers the martyrdom of S. Firminus to the year 287. But I do not find suitable reasons which tell more for that year than for the following ones down to 292, in which Constantius came

into Gaul. Wherefore I should prefer to fix the Saint's martyrdom broadly about 290. This epoch appears more probable than the rest, because there were very few martyrs in Gaul while Constantius was administering it, even in the general persecution; and because some persecution seems to have been in Gaul a notable time before the martyrdom of S. Firminus, who in it is said at number XI to have endured prison and scourges at Beauvais. If this be the persecution stirred up by Maximian in the Gauls about 286, in which Rictiovarus played his part most cruelly, as is likely enough, S. Firminus will have suffered after the death of Rictiovarus under another persecutor, as the Acts have it, and therefore neither in the first nor in the second year of that storm, but in an uncertain year about 290.

§ III. On the episcopate of S. Firminus, and on some of his successors.

[ ] The episcopal dignity of S. Firminus is certain. Of the episcopal dignity of S. Firminus there ought to be no doubt, since the Acts at number 9 testify that he was consecrated bishop, and to this testimony of the Acts is added a most ancient tradition of more than a thousand years, declared by many documents. Wherefore the lapse of Peter de Natalibus is manifest, by whom he is called only a priest, nor is it fit to introduce a doubt, since he is contrary to all the rest, and not rarely strays from the truth. But it can be doubted whether he was consecrated bishop for any church by name. The people of Pamplona inserted S. Firminus into the catalogue of their bishops, and make him the first prelate of their church: the people of Amiens likewise did the same; nor yet does he seem to have been bishop of two churches at once. Prudentius Sandoval in the Catalogue of the bishops of Pamplona places S. Firminus first, but adds: How many years he governed this church is in obscurity. Yet I shall not easily be led to believe that he stayed here only two years, whose work was so necessary for disseminating the faith in so ample a province. Hence he returned to Toulouse, and, entering Gaul, imbued very many peoples with Christian doctrine, having endured many hardships, such as most of the doctors of the primitive church endured. At last he converted Amiens, the metropolis of Picardy, which the French now call Amiens. There he fixed his dwelling, and he is held the first prelate and apostle of that city, etc. I pass over the remaining assertions of Sandoval, in which he not rarely slips; but those errors can easily be corrected from the Acts. About the bishopric of Pamplona other writers too have agreed with Sandoval; but to enumerate these would be more long than useful, since the matter itself is to be examined.

[26] But he does not seem to have been consecrated for the church of Pamplona; If S. Firminus had been ordained bishop for some church by name, Sandoval's opinion would be plainly likely; since he was sent from Pamplona to Toulouse, and thence, having received the imposition of hands, returned to Pamplona, where he stayed for some time, perhaps some months. But the Acts at number 9 clearly indicate that he was consecrated in order to preach the word of life and the grace of salvation among the nations. Hence S. Honoratus is written to have said to him: Go therefore into the dispersion of the nations, etc. These words do not signify that the bishopric of Pamplona was entrusted to Firminus, where S. Honestus, with others whom he probably had there as disciples, could meanwhile in some fashion suffice; but that he must go on to the nations to whom the faith had not yet been preached, or who at least lacked suitable teachers. The event agrees with the Acts, since it is established that S. Firminus did not stay long at Pamplona, and always withdrew farther and farther from that city to those parts of Gaul which needed teachers of the Christian faith. There is added the silence of the Acts: for it ought not to have been passed over in silence, if S. Firminus had been consecrated for some particular church or city. But the Acts not only are silent about it; they even assert the opposite. Hence the people of Amiens, I suppose, will not contend that the city of Amiens was thought of, or that S. Firminus was consecrated for it by name, when he received the imposition of hands. For the reasons already given, Ferreras, cited above, in the History of Spain plainly denies the bishopric of Pamplona to S. Firminus, and does not deny him that of Amiens.

[27] Bolland in his Commentary judges that S. Firminus was consecrated for no church by name, as Bolland also judged, whom Moret endeavours to refute. and confirmed that opinion by several arguments. The aforesaid Moret had Bolland's Commentary communicated to him, and drew from it as much as he wished; but what he believed less honourable to the church of Pamplona he attempted at length to refute, as I have already said about the age of SS. Saturninus and Firminus; and now it must be said about the bishopric of Pamplona, which Moret strives with all his strength to claim for S. Firminus. He chose to refute those of Bolland's arguments which he wished, omitting several from which he could have learned on how fragile foundations S. Firminus's bishopric rests. We shall readily forgive this to love of country; but we set every country after truth, and therefore it will be well to examine how solid Moret's foundations are, especially since a most friendly and learned man refers us to him, and since this opinion of Moret's is not so openly improbable as the one about the date rejected above. Wherefore I shall here follow Moret closely, who begins his refutation of Bolland at page 194, that we may see whether Bolland's foundations are, as he says, most slight — Bolland, whose erudition he otherwise much commends.

[28] Bolland had said in his Commentary: But by what right was it lawful for him (S. Firminus) to leave the church of Pamplona, his spouse, and to make for distant nations, if he had been set over it by S. Honoratus? But he had recited many things from the Acts, from which the force of that argument grows, before he so reasoned. But Moret, omitting the words of the Acts, answers only Bolland's words as reported. Wherefore I repeat the earlier arguments. The Life to be published, at number 9, has it that S. Firminus was ordained bishop in order to preach the name of the Lord in the parts of the West. But to preach in the parts of the West is not to preach in the city of Pamplona alone. He was not therefore ordained bishop for the city of Pamplona, but for the parts of the West, to which his preaching should seem necessary. Secondly, the Acts assert that he was ordained bishop because he had been predestined and chosen for this by the Lord, that he should preach the word of life and the grace of salvation among the nations. But for preaching among the nations the bishopric of Pamplona was not necessary; rather an Apostolic bishopric fixed to no place. Thirdly, S. Honoratus said to Firminus after his ordination: Go therefore into the dispersion of the nations. But to go into the dispersion of the nations is not to go to Pamplona and have the care of its church. Fourthly, Firminus, having returned to Pamplona to S. Honestus, did not say that the care of the church of Pamplona had been entrusted to him by Honoratus, but that it had been commanded him by him to announce the word of preaching and the name of Jesus Christ into the dispersion of the nations. All these things Bolland recited, and from them drew his chief and first argument. Then he adds the very execution of the command, in accordance with which S. Firminus, leaving his country, went on into Gaul, and that not long after his consecration. These arguments of Bolland Moret preferred to leave unmentioned rather than to touch or refute, although they are both the first and the chief, so that they alone suffice to deny the bishopric of Pamplona to Firminus — especially since no mention is made in the Acts of the Gospel having been preached there after he received consecration, so that he seems to have returned thither only to bid farewell to his parents, and to provide himself with what was necessary for his journey.

[29] His second argument and his third, After these things Bolland asked by what right it was lawful for S. Firminus to leave his see, if he had been ordained for it. For if Honoratus had judged him necessary at Pamplona, he would not have permitted him to withdraw thence after no long time. In vain, therefore, does Moret in his own opinion seek that leave from Honoratus. Honoratus truly wished Firminus to preach among various nations; but because he wished this, he did not ordain him for the church of Pamplona, but for the nations not yet converted. Bolland proposed the third argument thus: Yet let us grant that it was lawful for S. Firminus to leave his church, leave having been obtained from the Roman Pontiff or from Honoratus his legate; why was not another prelate set over that church, if a pontifical see had already been erected in it, at least after S. Firminus's martyrdom? For the first bishop of Pamplona of whom mention anywhere exists is Liliosus, who subscribed to the third council of Toledo, in the era DCXXVII, or the year of Christ DLXXXIX. To this argument, which Bolland proposes so that, joined to the earlier ones, it may increase the improbability of S. Firminus's bishopric of Pamplona, Moret sets down many words, but no reason by which it may become likely that all S. Firminus's successors for three centuries remained unknown.

[30] with which Moret by no means deals satisfactorily. He says that the names of Spanish bishops were frequently omitted in the councils. But bishops become known not from councils alone; some by their sanctity, others by their learning, others by letters written or received, others in other ways; nor are there wanting Spanish bishops of the first centuries in sufficient number who became known from the councils, so that it is altogether marvellous that no bishop of Pamplona became known throughout the whole IV and V centuries and the greater part of the VI. He says secondly that the bishopric of Pamplona is found in all the ancient divisions of the bishoprics of Spain. But this is nothing, since those divisions are not sufficiently ancient. For the division which was made under Wamba, that is, in the VII century, certainly cannot prove that the bishopric of Pamplona is older than the VI century. What therefore does that make to the matter, or the other more recent ones? Thirdly he says that in many catalogues of bishops which he reviews the bishops of several centuries are wanting. But let it suffice to have said that no church has been found by him, in his diligent inquiry, in which no bishop is assigned for so long a time as that for which the church of Pamplona is ignorant of the names of its bishops, if it began to have Firminus as bishop and constantly had his successors as bishops. Indeed, in the churches which he enumerates he finds gaps imaginary rather than real, namely because he wrongly believed those churches, as well as his own of Pamplona, to have been founded in the first century, or in the times of the Apostles, whereas they rather had their beginning in the III century — at least most of those which he names. Wherefore the silence about the bishops of Pamplona, growing old down to the VI century, presses so much the more strongly against S. Firminus's chair of Pamplona, as the Acts themselves the more openly insinuate that S. Firminus was consecrated not to preach to the already converted people of Pamplona, who had S. Honestus as teacher, but to convert the nations.

[31] Let us now hear Moret's arguments drawn from the Acts of S. Firminus. Moret's first reason is invalid, He observes first that S. Firminus was sent from Pamplona to S. Honoratus, that he might establish him in the degree and grace of the episcopate by the imposition of hands. Then indeed he adds a conjecture drawn from likelihood, that he was made bishop of no other city than that from which he had been sent, in which he had his parents, and to which a bishop was necessary on account of the forty thousand men already converted by S. Saturninus. These things are indeed likely

but have little force, since S. Honoratus is not read to have said to Firminus after his ordination, Take care of thy church of Pamplona, but, Go therefore into the dispersion of the nations. Besides, Firminus, having returned to Pamplona, reported to Honestus that very command of Honoratus. Wherefore Moret has little support for his opinion in that reasoning, especially since Christ in Matthew 13, verse 57, said: A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. For this reason alone could have moved S. Honoratus to send Firminus rather to cities far distant. And the more numerous those converted at Pamplona were, the more could S. Honestus the priest suffice there, with other disciples, who could not be lacking in so great a number of converts. And so he turns to another argument, drawn from chronological arrangement, which would in fact be stronger, if it could be proved.

[32] Secondly, therefore, he observes that S. Firminus, having received the episcopate, the second cannot be proved, and is contrary to the Acts, returned to Pamplona, which is certain. Then he contends that he stayed at Pamplona about five or six years. But this we deny, as contrary to the Acts. He says from the Acts, numbers 7 and 8, that he was seventeen years old when he had been instructed, that he then advanced further for another seven years, and was sent by Honestus through the villages to preach. And not long after this seven-year period he fixes the episcopal consecration, so that he may thus find five or six years before he was nearly thirty-one years old: at which age he is said to have begun his preaching in Gaul. But there is nothing in the Acts to favour this chronological arrangement. According to the Acts he had been instructed in letters and Catholic doctrine when he was in his seventeenth year: he advanced in the study of religion for seven other years, and stood out toward the heights of the virtues. After these seven years he was twenty-four years of age. Then he began to be sent by Honestus through the villages and suburbs of the city to teach the people. But for how many years he discharged this office of teaching is not said; yet he persevered in it until he was sent to Toulouse to be consecrated bishop. Having received consecration and returned to Pamplona, he is said to have set out into Gaul not long after. He seems therefore to have been ordained when he had completed the thirtieth year of his age, and to have returned to Pamplona for no other cause than to prepare there everything for his journey and for discharging his episcopal duties, and to bid farewell to his parents. For this cause the Acts, which do not omit his previous preaching through the villages, do not mention even by a word anything done then at Pamplona for that church. Wherefore that period of five or six years is invented gratuitously.

[33] Thirdly Moret strives by other authorities to claim the chair of Pamplona for S. Firminus, the authorities adduced by him are partly fictitious, partly most slight. but with equal ill success. In the first place he sets S. Braulio, who flourished, he says, more than a thousand years ago. We know and venerate S. Braulio and his age; but that the Additions to Maximus, which under Braulio's name are hawked about among fig-tree wares, as Nicolas Antonio says in the Old Spanish Library, volume 1, page 28, were forged in later centuries, as much as the Chronicle of Dexter, which Moret subjoins, we also know. After those fictitious Works he names the Breviaries of Pamplona and the tradition of the kingdom of Navarre. How ancient those Breviaries are, he does not declare. But I cannot doubt that they are of later centuries. For I have the Offices of S. Firminus from four older manuscript Breviaries faithfully transmitted to us, namely from a Breviary of the year 1331, from a second of an uncertain year between 1349 and 1354, from a third of the year 1383, and from a fourth of the year 1440. But in none of these Offices, although they are almost wholly proper to S. Firminus, is any word found by which it is even obscurely insinuated that he was bishop of Pamplona. And so the Breviaries in which that is asserted will not be very ancient, and the tradition perhaps no more ancient. There is therefore only one authority of any weight to be weighed. For Peter, bishop of Pamplona, who in the year 1186 decreed that the feast of S. Firminus should be celebrated more solemnly than before, as I shall set forth in §10, alleges among his reasons this: Because the aforesaid Martyr … is also asserted to have been ordained bishop of that same city. But this timid mention, in the aging XII century, of a bishopric of Pamplona helps Moret's case little: for the silence of the Breviaries which I have reviewed, and of all writers, perhaps down to the XVI century, rather shows that not even the people of Pamplona themselves were persuaded that S. Firminus had been bishop of their church.

[34] S. Firminus can deservedly be called bishop of Amiens, Someone will now ask on what ground S. Firminus is called bishop of Amiens, if that city, as I insinuated above, was not committed to him by a particular title. I answer that he is called of Amiens because in this city he preached in the last times of his life, discharged episcopal duties, and ended his life by a blessed death. He could have been ordained on this condition, that he should preach to the nations, and that after such conversion of unbelievers as might be had, he should establish his see in some chief city where a bishop should seem necessary. If in that way S. Firminus placed his see at Amiens — which becomes likely from the celebrity of the city, which was to be numbered among the chief ones, as the reader will understand from what is collected about it in volume 10 of Christian Gaul at the very beginning — he was most strictly bishop of Amiens. But if he did not establish his see there, but thought of setting out again to other cities after instructing the people of Amiens, leaving there some disciples, he is called bishop of Amiens less properly indeed, yet not undeservedly, since at least he did not go on to another episcopal city, but there ended his episcopal and apostolic labours together with his life. There is nothing therefore to prevent our saying that he was bishop of Amiens, even if we do not believe that he was first ordained under that title.

[35] whose see in the year 346 was held by Eulogius, But as regards his successors: the chair of Amiens may have been vacant for several years, perhaps because there was no one there imbued with sufficient learning who could at once be substituted, nor perhaps any neighbouring bishop to ordain him. Certainly it would be no wonder if for such a cause the people of Amiens lacked a bishop for ten or twenty years, or even longer, since at that time the number of labourers in Gaul was small, and the persecution carried off many. Nevertheless the vacancy of the see of Amiens does not seem to have been too long, since certainly in the year 346 it had its own bishop Eulogius. A certain learned man of Amiens did indeed wish to cast a doubt upon me about Eulogius, whether he had presided over the chair of Amiens. His chief reason is that he is not found in a certain manuscript catalogue, which goes down to the XII century, and in which the last is Gervinus. But that catalogue, a transcript of which the aforesaid gentleman sent me, labours under very many defects, so that it cannot tell against Eulogius's chair that he was omitted there: for certain others too are omitted in the same catalogue, and several are put in inverted order. Namely there is omitted Edibius, who in the year 511 was at the first council of Orleans; there is omitted Theodefrid, who certainly presided over the church of Amiens toward the end of the VII century, as I proved in S. Firminus the confessor, volume 1 of September, pages 185 and 186; and finally one or other of the two Fulcos is omitted. Now two Fulcos in succession ruled the chair of Amiens at the close of the X century and through a great part of the XI. As to the order, after S. Firminus the confessor none is placed in his own place until almost the end of the VII century, where from Ursinian or Ursiman the due order begins.

[36] From the Acts alone of the council of Cologne, which labour under some faults, as is established from the councils of Cologne and Sardica, it becomes known that Eulogius presided over the chair of Amiens; yet weight is added for Eulogius by the council of Sardica, which was held in the following year 347. For there Eulogius subscribed among the bishops of the Gauls. Wherefore the Acts of the council of Cologne, since in them most bishops are rightly attributed to their sees, seem to suffice for us to hold Eulogius for a bishop of Amiens; especially since he has never been attributed to any other see, nor can deservedly be so attributed. For let us feign for a moment that the Acts of the council of Cologne are utterly fictitious: at least the names of the bishops who are reviewed in those Acts are not fictitious, since almost all are read also in the council of Sardica, and most of the bishops have become known from elsewhere. If therefore anyone forged those Acts, and attached to the bishops from the council of Sardica — where they are attributed in general to the Gauls — their sees known from elsewhere, even so Eulogius must be reckoned bishop of the people of Amiens, since we ought not without any reason to believe that the author erred more about Eulogius's chair than about most of the others, which he reviewed rightly. And so, even though he lacks ecclesiastical cultus, Eulogius must be held the second bishop of Amiens, who could have held the chair down to about the middle of the IV century.

[37] About the middle of the IV century must be placed the beginning of the episcopate of S. Firminus the confessor, the third was S. Firminus the confessor: as I said in his Acts at the 1st of September, number 13 and following; where I also noted that we must not cleave to the statements of Sigebert the chronographer, since it is abundantly clear that Sigebert drew his own matter from the Life of S. Firminus the confessor. But this writer so openly confounds the times that, if all the things which he ineptly heaped together were true, S. Firminus would have lived more than two centuries, that is, from a few years into the IV century down to the times of Pope Vigilius, or to almost the middle of the VI century. Now that Sigebert drew his blunders from that Life becomes clear from his other assertions: for he asserts both that Amiens was founded by Antoninus Pius, and that the name of the city was changed by Gratian, and that it was called Ambianum from the encircling of the rivers, and finally he attributes to Faustinian, the father of S. Firminus the confessor, the prefecture of Gaul. These things Sigebert would not have invented himself, but they all flowed from the faulty Acts of S. Firminus, from which Vincent of Beauvais narrates the same things in book 16, chapter 89, citing those very Acts; which I observe, lest anyone think that those Acts are less ancient. And so both Sigebert and with him Vincent of Beauvais have no greater authority than the faulty Acts whose errors they adopted; and that the prefecture of Gaul was committed to Faustinian by the emperor Gratian we do not believe on the strength of Acts of that kind. Certainly in the Acts of S. Firminus the martyr, which are far less faulty, Faustinian, the father of S. Firminus the confessor, is adorned with no other title than that of senator. But if Faustinian was converted and baptized by S. Firminus the martyr, as the Acts of both Firminuses have it, he was either dead or a decrepit old man when Gratian obtained the empire in the year 367, even if he had been baptized as a stripling or a young man about the year 290. And so for the chronological arrangement of S. Firminus, Sigebert is not to be followed, but the Acts of S. Firminus the martyr are to be preferred, according to which he seems to have been born

S. Firminus the confessor after the conversion of his father, perhaps at the beginning of the IV century, and to have been made bishop after Eulogius. How long he held the episcopate cannot be said with certainty. In several codices he is said to have lived 67 years.

[38] the order of his successors is less certain. Who was the immediate successor of S. Firminus the confessor cannot be declared with certainty. The most recent authors of Christian Gaul rightly suspect that the names of some bishops have fallen out. For fewer have become known than would make it likely that the rest of the IV century and the whole V century were filled by them, although this could quite well have happened, if only it were established that the episcopates of some were long. For to that time seem to belong Leodard and Audoen, who are indeed placed in Christian Gaul in the catalogue immediately after S. Firminus the confessor: to the same times perhaps belong Deodatus and Dado, who are there placed thirteenth and fourteenth, where they can scarcely find a place between Theodefrid and Ursinian, as the author himself sufficiently saw, and insinuated in these words: Both are perhaps placed out of order. And so it is likely that these too sat in the V century, since there the catalogue is empty, and they can scarcely find a place in any other century, at least if they sat several years. Nor ought it to move us much that in the ancient manuscript catalogue they are placed later, since it is clear that the order in that catalogue is disturbed, not only because all the Saints are reviewed first, but also in several other respects. Wherefore it is probable that those two also belong to the earlier times. Thus we shall have four bishops between S. Firminus the confessor, who died in the aging IV century, and Edibius, present at the council of Orleans in the year 511. And so it would be no wonder if these four — Leodard, Audoen, Deodatus and Dado — sat in succession for more than a century, and thus the whole catalogue of the bishops of Amiens would be full. For the following centuries everywhere exhibit their own bishops in the most recent catalogue. But these things, which I judged should be briefly discussed about those four bishops, known by name alone, on account of difficulties formerly proposed to me, I would have the fair reader take for mere conjectures.

§ IV. The memory of the Saint in the Martyrologies, and his cultus on several days.

[ ] The memory of the Saint at the XXV of September in most Although about the day on which S. Firminus suffered the codices in the Acts do not entirely agree, yet the common opinion is that he suffered on the XXV day of September, as the Acts have it in several codices; and therefore he is venerated chiefly on that day, and is celebrated in several Martyrologies, both older and more recent. The Corbie transcript of the Hieronymian thus clearly announces him: In Gaul, in the city of Amiens, the passion of S. Firminus, bishop and martyr. These same words are read likewise in the shorter Corbie one, as also almost in the ancient Calendar. In Martène, volume 6 of the Ample Collection, col. 646, in the Martyrology of S. Maximin of Trier, it is read thus: The birthday of S. Firminus. In the same place then, in the English Calendar: Of S. Firminus the martyr. In the ancient Calendar of Stavelot: The passion of S. Firminus. In that of Verdun: Of S. Firminus the martyr. In the Martyrology of Auxerre: In the city of Amiens, the birthday of S. Firminus, bishop and martyr. Older than these last, Rabanus has: The birthday of S. Firminus the martyr. Wandelbert:

The people of Amiens shine bright with Firminus the martyr.

Usuard gives more in this manner: In the city of the people of Amiens, of blessed Firminus the bishop, who under the governor Rictiovarus, after various torments, received martyrdom by the beheading of his head. A longer elogium Florus wove, or perhaps it was added to Florus, which is thus exhibited among us before volume 2 of March, at this day: In the city of Amiens, the deposition of S. Firminus, bishop and martyr: who in the time of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian, leaving his country and his parents, entered the borders of the Gauls, and converted the people of Auvergne, of Angers, of Beauvais and of Amiens, shining forth by the abundance of his preaching and by miracles. Where he both suffered for Christ, and sustained very many snares of the persecutors. Hence, seized by the governor Sebastian, after chains and dire scourges he was handed over to custody, and was secretly beheaded in prison in the silence of the night. These things, whether they be Florus's or another's, are clearly contracted from the Acts.

[40] The said Martyrologies, some of the earlier ones excepted, Bolland had already heaped together in his Commentary, Martyrologies is announced. and most of them from manuscripts, but these have since been published. He adds also several others, which I partly transfer hither, omitting others for brevity's sake. “A manuscript of the church of S. Lambert at Liège, and certain copies of Ado: At Amiens, of S. Firminus, bishop and martyr. But another manuscript, written in Italy (as we conjecture) five or six hundred years ago: In the city of the people of Amiens, of Bl. Firminus the bishop. A manuscript of S. Martin at Trier: At Amiens, of Firminus the bishop, who after various torments was beheaded. A manuscript of the church of the Morini or of Thérouanne: In the city of Amiens, the birthday of S. Firminus, bishop and martyr, patron of that city. A manuscript of Centula, or of the monastery of S. Riquier in that very diocese of Amiens: At Amiens, of S. Firminus the martyr, first bishop of that city.” I pass over the Franco-Gallic Hagiology published by Labbe, Belinus of Padua and the Auctaria of Usuard, Peter de Natalibus, the manuscript Florarium of the Saints, Galesinius, Maurolycus, Felicius, Canisius, and other more recent writers, and by name Saussay, who in the Gallican Martyrology gives a long elogium; but he has somewhat defiled it with various errors, which may be corrected by collation with the Acts. I therefore add only the Roman Martyrology, which has thus: At Amiens in Gaul, of blessed Firminus the bishop, who in the persecution of Diocletian, under the governor Rictiovarus, after various torments received martyrdom by the beheading of his head.

[41] Of the cultus of S. Firminus Bolland collected these things: “S. Firminus is venerated at Amiens on the XXV of September with a double Office, On the same day he is venerated at Amiens, and on three others: the religious observance being continued to the eighth day. Very many churches of Belgium were formerly wont to venerate him with an ecclesiastical Office — with one of three lessons those of Antwerp, of Saint-Omer, and others; with a double one that of Bruges; with a semi-double one that of Arras even now; with a double one likewise very many in France, those of Noyon, of Rouen, etc. John Marieta, book 1 of the Ecclesiastical History of Spain, chapter 16, writes that he is venerated at Pamplona, in his own country, on the X of October. But at Amiens, as may be seen from the Breviary of that church printed in the year 1650, on that day the anniversary memory of S. Firminus's Entry into that city is wont to be celebrated with an Office of three lessons. But the Finding of his relics is observed on the XIII day of January with a double Office, the solemnity being likewise prolonged to eight days. But of this more fully below, and of the feast of the Replacing of those same relics, which happened in the year 1107; and it is performed with an Office of nine lessons on the XVI day of October.” Thus Bolland, about the various festivities of the people of Amiens, from ancient Breviaries in which all those feasts are noted in their places. Of the festivity of the Entry there is no other reason than that in the Acts, at number 12, S. Firminus is said to have entered Amiens on the X day of October. About the feast of the Finding Bolland wished to bring forward more afterwards, as also about the feast of the Replacing; yet he did not do so, but laid aside his Commentary unfinished, probably on account of the controversies about the possession of the body, not yet decided, of which he did not wish to treat before the time. Of these I shall treat presently, when I have examined the memory of the Saint ascribed to other days too in the Martyrologies.

[42] namely on the XIII of January, the XVI of October, and the X of the same month; Of the finding and translation of S. Firminus various more recent martyrologists treat at the XIII of January, enumerated at that day in the Prætermissi. To other days too that Finding and translation has been referred, namely to the X of January by an error of Ferrari; to the XIV in several Calendars, because perhaps it was celebrated on that day in some other churches, just as it certainly was celebrated on the XV of January in the church of Cambrai. These things may be seen observed more fully at the three aforesaid days in the Prætermissi. For the rest, whether the festivity of the Finding was still celebrated on the same XIII day of January, and with the same solemnity, down to these times, I have not inquired. Further, that the translation of S. Firminus, bishop of Amiens and martyr, is noted also in a certain manuscript of Ado, and in the manuscript Florarium of the Saints, has been observed in the Prætermissi at that day. It certainly concerns today's S. Firminus; but the more uncertain the testimony of those manuscripts is, the less can I know what translation is meant: for it is certainly not vouched for by Ado, who in the genuine Martyrology makes no mention of S. Firminus, and the author of the Florarium readily transcribed what he found. The other translation of the body into a new shrine, which we said is celebrated under the name of the Replacing on the XVI of October, is thus announced in the Auctaria of Usuard at the same day, from a codex of Amiens: On the same day, the Replacing of S. Firminus, bishop and martyr. From the same codex again, at the X of October, the feast of the Entry of the living Firminus is thus recorded: On the same day, the Entry of Bl. Firminus the martyr into the city of Amiens.

[43] some commemoration on the XIV of July. Finally the memory of S. Firminus the martyr is read added to the codex of Amiens, as Sollerius observed, at the XIV of July, in these words: In that church (of Amiens) on this day is venerated the principal commemoration of the holy Mother of God Mary and of saint Firminus our elder, on account of a battle nobly waged in the suburb of this city, in the year from the Lord's Incarnation DCCCCLVII. Whether the year has been rightly noted I do not inquire, nor what that battle was, that I may proceed to what more closely concerns S. Firminus. Baillet at the XXV of September, in S. Firminus the martyr, reports another festivity at the XVIII of August, either, he says, of his Ordination or of his chair, and cites Saussay in the Supplement. But Baillet erred, since Saussay treats of the ordination of S. Firminus the confessor, not of the ordination of today's Firminus the martyr. For the rest, of the most ancient cultus of S. Firminus the martyr it is established from the Acts at number 18, where S. Firminus the confessor is read to have built a church over the tomb of S. Firminus. Nevertheless a doubt afterwards arose about the place of burial of S. Firminus the martyr, as is said in the same place in the Annotations at letter z, from several codices. But the doubt was removed by the finding of the body, of which we must now treat.

§ V. The finding and translation of the body.

[ ] The finding and translation of the body from the Life of S. Salvius. Concerning the finding of the body of S. Firminus the martyr, these things are read in the Life of S. Salvius, bishop of Amiens, given at the XI of January, number XI: But afterwards, when the peoples were ignorant where the body of the kindly martyr of Christ, Firminus, rested, being taught by the grace of the Holy Spirit, he went to the place where the Martyr of Christ was resting, and lifting his eyes to heaven, he saw as it were a ray of the sun go forth from the citadel of the most lofty throne, and shine with unspeakable awe upon that place in which S. Firminus was resting. And he, at once rendering immense thanks to the divine mercy, with great reverence began to dig, and to open the tomb of the kindly Martyr. An odour of sweetness too straightway grew so great there, as if all kinds of pigments and spices were being pounded there, and as if a field were present, green with the pleasantness of divers flowers.

And when they had raised him from the tomb, and the peoples were taking their way, carrying the holy Martyr to the city, very many companies running to meet him strewed their garments in the way, and cried with a loud voice: Hosanna in the highest, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Whom, in the church which that same most blessed prelate Salvius had built, in the Eastern crypt, distinguished with marvellous workmanship in honour of that same Martyr, he placed and entombed with worthy honour, and moreover nobly adorned his tomb with gold and gems. Thus far the Life of S. Salvius concerning the finding and translation. There exist several fuller accounts, in which far more things are narrated, but with marvellous exaggeration, so that they seem to deserve little credit in all those points which have been added to what has been given from the Life of Salvius.

[45] The one of these which is longer than the rest is a Sermon by an unknown author, Another Sermon on the same finding, published, delivered on the very festivity of the finding. This Sermon was published by Le Cointe at the year 687, number 17, from a manuscript codex of Corbie, from which we too have a transcript. The aforesaid Le Cointe calls the author of that Sermon ancient, and yet does not express at what period he seems to have lived. But the modern Benedictine authors of the Literary History of France, volume 4, page 72, discuss the age of that anonymous preacher, and assert first that he is certainly not a contemporary. This the author himself sufficiently insinuates everywhere. But then they make him more than fifty years later than the events at the finding, and doubtfully refer his age to about the middle of the VIII century; but without any arguments. The aforesaid writers, volume 8, page 449, also treat of the Life of S. Salvius, and believe its author to have lived at the end of the XI century. Wherefore, if both epochs are rightly fixed, or if neither strays far, the author of the Sermon will have lived easily three centuries before the biographer of S. Salvius. But the authors of the aforesaid History, volume 4, page 50, fixed the Life of S. Salvius about the year 720, and thus there make the Life of S. Salvius older than the Sermon of the Anonymous author on the Finding of S. Firminus. I do not know why they departed from their first opinion. But I see that the same thing happens about the age of S. Salvius and the translation of S. Firminus. For in the two passages cited where they treat of S. Salvius, they fix his age at the beginning of the VII century; but the Translation of S. Firminus, in volume 4, page 72, they believe with Le Cointe to have happened in the year 687, although it was performed by S. Salvius.

[46] I for my part cannot doubt that both the Life of S. Salvius and the Sermon of the Anonymous author were composed a long time after the event; but arguments by which I may assign a certain epoch to either in which the same things are read about the finding, I do not find suitable. Wherefore, since far more is read about S. Firminus in the Sermon of the Anonymous author than in the Life of S. Salvius, this one thing seems to me to need investigating for my purpose: which of those two monuments is the older, and consequently to which the greater authority is to be attributed. And to indicate my mind briefly, I say that it seems not to be doubted that the Life of S. Salvius is the older: for this is easily perceived from a collation of the two. For it is clear that one has borrowed several things from the other, since from time to time they set forth the same words. I bring forward one passage only, though there is no lack of more. Of the odour which is said to have been exhaled from the opened tomb of S. Firminus, both use plainly these words: An odour of sweetness too straightway grew so great there, as if all kinds of pigments and spices were being pounded there, and as if a field were present, green with the pleasantness of divers flowers. So one took many other things from the other, and many more words too without the change of a single term, so that there can be no doubt that one drew much from the other. But it is neither likely nor credible that the biographer of S. Salvius drew from the Sermon of the Anonymous author, since he omits very many things pertaining to Salvius and Firminus which are asserted in that Sermon. It is therefore necessary that the author of the Sermon received very much from the Life of S. Salvius, as his uneven style also shows — now sufficiently Latin, namely in those things which are copied out of the Life of Salvius, now gaping and rough.

[47] and many more things added, But that the reader may see that the author of the Sermon added many things which in the Life of S. Salvius ought not to have been omitted, I go on, after the words just given about the odour, with the Anonymous author of the Sermon: All who stood by thought that within the tomb of so great a Martyr white lilies and blooming roses and other green flowers of herbs were beautifully springing up: and the nearer they approached to the sacred mystery, so much the more did the immense odour breathe forth, * and water the whole diocese of the city of Amiens, and spread far and wide the pleasantness of its abundantly-flowing odour even to all the neighbouring cities of the province. Indeed the whole multitude of the city of Thérouanne, of Cambrai, of Noyon and of Beauvais was filled in that very hour with the sweetness and delight of that most pleasant odour, so that they thought themselves to be present in a paradise of delights. For no other messenger thundered to the people of these four cities that in the city of Amiens, by the revelation of the Holy Spirit, the venerable prelate Salvius and religious priests and clerics and a devout people were celebrating so sacred a mystery, save the immense odour and the inestimable sweetness. But indeed all the priests and clerics, and the people of both sexes of the aforesaid cities, at once arose with candles and palms, chanting the psalmody of hymns, and with swift step came to Amiens to meet so great a martyr Firminus, as unhesitatingly as if each one had had his own instructor and guide. And approaching the city of Amiens, they saw such miracles as neither before nor after were seen, nor were heard by anyone's report in the whole world.

[48] and those utterly incredible, As soon as the venerable pontiff Salvius and the religious priests had raised the martyr of Christ Firminus from the tomb, the whole substance of the elements was changed, and so fervid a heat had invaded the world that those who were then present, stupefied, marvelled in an ecstasy of mind. For they judged that by the divine command the whole world was being dissolved by the imminence of the heat, and reduced to nothing. That marvellous heat itself too, which is not doubtful, remained also for the space of three hours. For it was the season of winter, and the harshness of ice and an inundation of snow was greatly threatening on that very day. But suddenly, in one hour, the seasons being changed, the sun, carried up into the centre against nature on its flaming chariot, in a single moment dissolved the excess of cold with summer's fervour. These miracles are greatly to be marvelled at, because they are declared to have been done on the day of the Ides of January. Presently, in the same words as in the Life of S. Salvius, the carrying of the sacred body to the city is narrated. But then the author, out of his fertile genius for fables, adds the following: And suddenly, as they looked back, all the trees appeared blooming with the pleasantness of flowers, and fragrant with the nobility of their sweetness, so that, as if they were already bringing forth fruit nearly formed, they thus put forth their flowers by pouring them out in fullness. And the tops of the trees, with flowers unceasingly swelling, stood bowed down, and by bending offered homage at the coming of so most illustrious a Martyr. And all the people, marvelling, straightway plucked boughs with flowers from the trees, and strewed them in the way with humble devotion. All the meadows too round about Amiens, and the fields, in the point of a single moment were full of roses and lilies, and of divers kinds of herbs and flowers, etc.

[49] Of all these things nothing is read in the Life of S. Salvius, in which also almost everything is omitted it was composed later and is unworthy of credit; which the Anonymous author reports as done by Salvius toward finding the body. Wherefore I cannot doubt that that Sermon was composed after the Life of S. Salvius, and amplified out of that Life. For if the biographer of S. Salvius had seen that Sermon, and had believed the marvels reported in it to be true, he could not have omitted the coming of the people of Thérouanne (or of the inhabitants of the city of the Morini, afterwards destroyed, which I note because a recent writer in French substituted the people of Tournai), of Cambrai, of Noyon and of Beauvais. No more would he have omitted the summer heat suddenly arisen, and the leaves and flowers of the fields and trees — unless one prefers to believe that he held all those things for fictions, and so makes him more of a critic than in the past century were Le Cointe and several others, who believed the things reported in that Sermon to be true. Whether that biographer's critical judgment was so great, I cannot declare with certainty. But at least he would not have passed over the three days' fast which the Sermon has as enjoined by Salvius, if he had had this Sermon and had wished to borrow anything from it. So clear, therefore, does it seem that the author of the Sermon took many things word for word out of the Life of S. Salvius, and added his own fictions to them in a gaping and rugged style, that I do not wish to bring forward more arguments to prove it. Long ago Lestocq acknowledged this in his Dissertation on the Body of S. Firminus the confessor, chapter 1, where he also observes that whatever is said in that Sermon about the finding of the body is an oratorical amplification of what is reported in the Life of S. Salvius. In the second Dissertation, or the Apology for the first, chapter 2, page 54, he declares these things in French: The Sermon on the finding of the body of S. Firminus the martyr is nothing but a poetical exaggeration of what is reported on that matter in this Life (of S. Salvius). Wherefore there is no need to reprint that Sermon, since all those things which he added to what is said in the Life of S. Salvius seem to deserve no credit, whether he took them from another source, or invented them himself by that poetic licence which some have wrongly used even in the deeds of the Saints.

[50] Nevertheless all those things Vincent of Beauvais adopted in book 16, chapters 90 and 91. although Vincent of Beauvais and de Natalibus adopted much from it. Peter de Natalibus, book 2, chapter 70, treats from the same Sermon, as it seems, of the finding of S. Firminus the martyr, whom he did not know, and from that Sermon could with difficulty have known. Since the account is short, I transfer the whole hither, that at the same time the studious reader may see how many corruptions are wont to be added by more recent writers to more ancient monuments: Firminus the martyr, he says, was in the time of the pagans: yet under what persecution or judge, or by what punishments he was put to death, is unknown. And he was buried in the city of Amiens: yet the place where he rested was unknown. But in the time of S. Salvius the bishop the body of that same Martyr was found. For when that same bishop, together with clergy and people, had prayed to God for three days that He would reveal to them the body of S. Firminus the martyr, an exceeding odour being fragrant, and a light poured from heaven upon the place, the earth being dug up there, the sacred body was found. To which place the cities of Charoan. (Thérouanne), Cenoman. (Cambrai), Novion. (Noyon) and Bobacn. (Beauvais), sprinkled with the same odour, ran together to see the body of the Martyr: which, raised by the bishop, was translated with fitting honour to the church. At which translation the icy cold — namely in the month of January — was

turned into the greatest heat. The stripped trees suddenly put forth leaves and flowers, from which the sick, taking them, were healed. And this was done on the Ides of January: for the day of the Martyr's passion, like the rest, is unknown down to the present. So he, not knowing that this is the same Martyr of whom he treats in book 8, chapter 119. But this was not unknown to the people of Amiens. Besides, he said wrongly that he was buried in the city, since the first burial was outside the city. Then the cities which are said to have run together to the Saint's body he so expressed, with corrupted names, that for the church of Cambrai he seems to have substituted that of Le Mans; and the rest we should scarcely recognise from him. In the remainder the abridgment is faithful enough.

[51] [Another manuscript account of these things, equally inept, and other things wrongly added.] In our manuscript codex formerly of Vaucelles, which seems to have been written in the XIII century or at the close of the XII, there is another account of the finding of S. Firminus, whose beginning is this: It must be considered by careful investigation, etc. The author is plainly inept, and did not even know how to express his meanings in Latin. But he adopted everything — unless he himself first invented it — which is read in the aforesaid Sermon about the sudden heat, about the leaves and flowers of the trees, about the running together of the people of Thérouanne, Cambrai, Beauvais and Noyon. Yet he does not add that the odour of the body was perceived in those four cities. Of the rest he brings forward nothing on account of which that writing should deserve a place in our Work: for he adds nothing to what is reported in the Life of S. Salvius except errors or insipid fictions. Le Cointe, who without criticism admits all those marvels, nevertheless rejects the things added by Malbrancq and others. With Malbrancq, he says, we cannot agree, who adds the bishop of Le Mans to the four aforesaid, and props up his opinion by no authority. And presently: Those things savour of an age far more recent than Salvius which are today circulated about the lords of Balgentiacum and Pinchonium (whom they said were healed at that time), and are not found in the codex of Corbie cited above. Wherefore we shall put off to another time the examination of the notable donations which the church of Amiens afterwards received from them, and still possesses. These things indeed rightly; for if those lords obtained some benefit of healing by the patronage of S. Firminus, it will have happened later, and on another occasion unknown to us.

[52] The aforesaid little fables wrongly defended by Le Cointe, But I do not see by what criticism he attempted to confirm the running together of four cities, which the odour alone called forth to the translation of the body. For so great is the distance of those cities from the city of Amiens that even the strongest men could scarcely accomplish that journey on foot in one day. Nevertheless, if we believe the fable-monger, all the priests and clerics and the people of both sexes ran to Amiens, … and came to meet so great a martyr Firminus. And since they could not have come thither so quickly even on swift horses, they are insinuated to have come chanting psalmodies. The odour began to be perceived when the tomb was opened, and the author insinuates that all the people of Thérouanne, of Cambrai and the rest were present before the body was carried to the city. To say it in a few words, the fable-monger thus narrates the running together of the people of Thérouanne, Cambrai, Noyon and Beauvais as if those four cities, separated by so great an interval, had been just so many suburbs of the city of Amiens — so that he seems himself not to have known, or at least not to have considered, what he was saying. Wherefore for vindicating a concourse of that sort there can be of no avail what Le Cointe discusses in this manner: In memory of that event the church of the Morini established each year on the Ides of January more august rites, that by hymns or sacred odes and by lessons the finding of S. Firminus might be observed; and Malbrancq says that this was kept up down to the final destruction of Thérouanne. Morlière observes that it is also the custom that, if any bishop of the four aforesaid sees — namely of the Morini, of Cambrai, of Beauvais and of Noyon — comes to Amiens, at his entry, for the sake of singular honour, the great bell of the cathedral church is rung. These things I should not wish to deny, since they could have been begun for another cause; indeed even out of these or the like a fable could have been forged.

[53] Further, when I consider the little verses carved on the shrine perhaps they could have arisen from the little verses in which the body of S. Firminus is preserved in the cathedral church of Amiens, I am led into this suspicion, that those fables could have been drawn from the said verses. That the shrine was made about the end of the XII century, Theobald holding the chair, we shall say below. Now it contains on either side twelve little verses, by which the Saint's chief deeds are briefly insinuated, and by the last three his posthumous glory. And what is indicated by the verses is at the same time represented by sculpted work. The tenth verse indicates the tomb of S. Firminus found by S. Salvius, as the added words at the same time hint: S. Salvius. The tomb of S. F. The verse is this:

Here lies open to him who prays the place and resting-spot of the Saint.

There follows the eleventh verse, where the sculpture exhibits the translation, with the words S. Salvius. The verse, more obscure, runs thus:

A new thing, great praise, a flower in place of snow, the people's Hosanna.

These words, a flower in place of snow, could have offered to an orator or a poet an occasion for inventing the immense heat and the flowers and leaves, whereas perhaps the poet wished to insinuate nothing but that the earth on the Ides of January was free of snow, and that flowers were seen on some trees, or perhaps that little flowers were strewn along the way. But he certainly does not say that heat suddenly arose, and that leaves and flowers were produced in a single moment.

[54] The twelfth verse, beside which the sculpture represents four peoples running together to the body of S. Firminus, carved on the shrine, which nevertheless can be rightly explained. with these words: The people of Beauvais. The people of Noyon. The Morini. The people of Cambrai. The twelfth verse, I say, sounds thus:

The devout people bring their vows, each near and far.

Now this verse insinuates not only that the inhabitants of the diocese of Amiens honoured the tomb of S. Firminus with votive gifts, but that men also ran together from other dioceses placed round about, such as in the XII century were nearer than the rest — those of Beauvais, of Noyon, of the Morini or Thérouanne, and of Cambrai. But the verse by no means indicates that they were present on the very day of the translation, or that they ran together roused by the odour alone. Yet since some indulge their imaginations, and are wont to invent for themselves one thing out of another, perhaps someone may have wished to persuade himself that on the very day of the finding and translation those peoples ran together to the Saint's body. And further, since after the finding of the body no one could have been sent so far to invite them, that they came roused by the odour alone. I should not dare to form suspicions of this kind, had I not learned by long experience by what wretched reasonings credulous men have frequently proceeded, so as to invent for themselves out of some obscure words the dreams they desired. But from whatever source the Anonymous author of the Sermon on the finding, or others who either preceded or followed him, drew their marvels, we do not believe that more of them should be set before a prudent reader than what is read in the Life of S. Salvius.

* fragrabat

* Beaugency

* Picquigny

§ VI. The time of the episcopate of S. Salvius, or of the finding of S. Firminus.

[ ] [The time of the translation, or the age of S. Salvius, already fixed at the beginning of the VII century.] It remains for us to discuss the time of the finding, whose epoch is made known by no other note than the episcopate of S. Salvius. But about the time of S. Salvius's episcopate the learned have disputed much, since some would have Salvius sit about the beginning of the VII century, others in the VII century as it drew to its end. That controversy I examined in volume 1 of September, in the Posthumous Glory of S. Firminus the confessor, whose body S. Salvius likewise translated, and there in §2 I showed that the opinion by which S. Salvius is believed to have sat at the beginning of the VII century is far more probable than is the opposite one, which fixes his chair at the end of that same century. I drew my reasons not from the Life of S. Salvius alone — whose author, since he wrote at least two or three centuries after S. Salvius, could easily err in some chronological notes — but also from the very catalogues of the bishops of Amiens, in which none is found as the VI century drew to a close, unless S. Honoratus be then placed, whom all the older documents make the predecessor of S. Salvius, and hint to have sat at that time. In the same catalogues again, after S. Honoratus a place is found for Salvius. On the contrary, the same catalogues are so full at the end of the VII century that for the said bishops, who seem to have held the chair for a notable time, no place can by any means be found. These things may be seen discussed more fully in the place assigned. For indeed, having diligently considered the new catalogue of the bishops of Amiens which very lately appeared in volume 10 of Christian Gaul, I find nothing in what has been said needing change, and I see Honoratus and Salvius placed there in the same order, although they had been put later by the Sainte-Marthes.

[56] Le Cointe's first argument, removing it toward the end of the VII century, Yet since in the aforesaid catalogue both opinions are proposed, as a matter quite ambiguous, and since I have formerly understood from letters of the people of Amiens that they too hesitated in doubt about the age of S. Salvius — certainly before the Acts of S. Firminus the confessor were published by us — it pleases me to show in a few words how destitute of every suitable foundation is the opposite opinion of Le Cointe, and how forced is his whole chronological arrangement of the bishops of Amiens between the middle and the end of the VII century. At the year 686, number 2, he says that bishop Bertefrid, who certainly held the chair before and after the middle of the VII century, was still surviving in the year 668, and makes Dado the successor of Bertefrid in an uncertain year; then to Dado in the year 686 he subjoins Salvius. For this epoch he alleges three reasons, but all of such a kind that they can no more be proved than the very thing which by them Le Cointe intends to prove. This indeed is a perpetual fault of Le Cointe, who frequently proves uncertain things by things equally uncertain: but that writer's confidence lays no necessity on prudent men to close their eyes and admit arbitrary assertions for true proofs.

[57] Let us therefore examine the reasons brought forward by him. For he was ordained, he says, when Hautgar had already obtained the mitre of Noyon, who began to sit after S. Mummolinus, who died on the XVII Kalends of November in the year of Christ DCLXXXV. the first argument is examined, But we are still awaiting a suitable argument by which it may be proved that any Hautcarius, distinct from S. Acharius, who sat at the beginning of the VII century, ever presided over the see of Noyon. For if we now inspect the older catalogues of the bishops of Noyon, such as were published by John Demochares, John Chenu, Claude Robert and James le Vasseur in the Annals of Noyon written in French, we shall at once see that those catalogues are found most full of the names of bishops from the beginning to the end; nay, that in the whole catalogue of the bishops of Noyon no gap appears, but that even the very names of the bishops of Vermand, whom those of Noyon succeeded — the see of Vermand having been translated to Noyon — were preserved in the ancient catalogues. And so into a Catalogue of bishops of this kind other bishops, not found in the ancient catalogues of the church of Noyon, must not be inserted rashly or from slight conjectures; but there is need of certain and evident arguments, lest a succession of bishops rightly established be rashly disturbed.

[58] But it is clear from the said catalogues that no Hautcarius is found in the ancient catalogues of Noyon after S. Mummolinus, and it is shown that Hautcarius, from whom he draws that argument, but that in them Gunduin is immediately subjoined to S. Mummolinus, who follows Mummolinus at once in all the catalogues already cited. For neither would all the others have omitted Hautcarius, nor certainly would le Vasseur have passed him over, who had the ancient manuscript catalogues before his eyes, if he had been found in them. Wherefore, since le Vasseur in the Annals, chapter 126, subjoins Gunduin to Mummolinus on his death, as do Demochares, Chenu, Robert, and Theodoric Pauli, an author of the XV century, in a manuscript catalogue, it becomes manifest that in the ancient catalogues no mention is made of Hautcarius. Let us therefore examine whether there was a just and evident reason for inserting Hautcarius afterwards. The Sainte-Marthe brothers first did this, in Christian Gaul, volume 3, page 812, and by no other argument than from the corrupted chronological arrangement of the bishops of Amiens. For after in volume 2, page 93, in the catalogue of the bishops of Amiens they had torn Honoratus and Salvius from their place and removed them toward the end of the VII century, a necessity had arisen of thrusting Hautgar or Hautcarius, who is said to have been present at the election of S. Salvius, into the catalogue of the bishops of Noyon, in which they confess that he is not found. And so for all argument we have first an error from a corrupted chronological arrangement, and by another and more manifest error he is there placed between S. Eligius and S. Mummolinus. This last error Le Cointe saw, and wished to correct, placing Hautcarius after S. Mummolinus; but he brought forward no other reason for inserting Hautcarius among the bishops of Noyon than the one adduced by the Sainte-Marthes from the Life of S. Salvius, to whose election he is said to have been sent by Theodoric king of the Franks.

[59] But neither is the Life of S. Salvius, as having been written some centuries after his death wrongly thrust into the catalogue of the bishops of Noyon. and defiled by various errors, of so great authority that it is necessary for its sake to disturb the catalogues of Noyon and of Amiens; nor is there wanting a Theodoric king of the Franks, the son of Childebert, of whom all things can be explained at the beginning of the VII century, if to anyone the Life of S. Salvius should seem to be worth so much. Mabillon in the Benedictine Annals, volume 1, book 18, number 37, in the Privilege of Emmo of Sens for the monastery of S. Columba, found the names of several bishops who are said to have confirmed it in the year 695, and among them a certain Hectarius, and believed him to be Hautcarius of Noyon. I have already observed in S. Firminus the confessor that this conjecture of Mabillon's is uncertain, since Mabillon himself confesses that Hectarius subscribed without the name of a see, as did most of the others. But the Benedictine writers who today reprint Christian Gaul, volume 9, col. 985, again inserted Hautcarius among the bishops of Noyon after Mummolinus, as though from the said Privilege in Mabillon his bishopric of Noyon became certain enough. It is therefore necessary to say again that that Hectarius was believed by Mabillon to be of Noyon without any reason, and that he would have acted more prudently if he had assigned Hectarius, with four or five other bishops of uncertain sees, to no see at all. He inspected, I suppose, the catalogues of the Sainte-Marthes, and there found Hautcarius among those of Noyon, and perhaps did not inquire further; but the likeness of the name made him believe Hectarius to be of Noyon. But I showed above that the ancient catalogues of Noyon are not of such a kind that they ought to be changed by such slight conjectures.

[60] [Le Cointe's other statements are refuted, and his chronological arrangement itself.] Le Cointe's second argument, by which he believes Salvius to have been made bishop in the year 686, is drawn from the translation of S. Firminus, which he fixes in the year 687. But we do not believe Le Cointe when he says this. His third reason is that in the year 688 he subscribed to the council of Rouen. But again we do not believe that this was Salvius of Amiens. For all commonly acknowledge that he was of an unknown see, just as also that Salvius presided over a hitherto uncertain chair who at the council of Orleans about the year 639 confuted a Monothelite heretic. By uncertain conjectures of this kind, therefore, S. Salvius ought not to be torn away from S. Honoratus, nor from the beginning of the VII century, as I have shown in S. Firminus the confessor. Now indeed, if we examine Le Cointe's chronological arrangement further, we shall find it plainly improbable. For at the year 689, number 15, he substitutes Theodefrid for S. Salvius, so that he attributes only three years of episcopate to S. Salvius, and to Theodefrid likewise a short episcopate; nor can he attribute a longer one, since already in the year 692 his successor is recorded. But it is not probable from the deeds of S. Salvius that his episcopate was so short, nor again is it probable that the episcopate of Theodefrid was so short, since he at least survived Chrodegar, who was appointed abbot of Corbie in his place, whom likewise Le Cointe's forced and arbitrary chronological arrangement kills off within two years. Finally, since Theodefrid was made abbot of Corbie about the year 657, having been summoned from the monastery of Luxeuil to discharge that office, it is neither probable nor credible that he was made bishop only in the year 689 — namely after he had presided over a numerous flock of monks for thirty-two years — so that he could not but have been an aged or decrepit old man, if he prolonged his life to that year. Wherefore the new catalogue of the bishops of Amiens strayed less from the truth, in which the beginning of Theodefrid is fixed about the year 670.

[61] It is shown that S. Acharius could preside over the see of Noyon If I have discussed these things somewhat more fully, I did so on account of the doubt of the people of Amiens, and most of all on account of Hautcarius, again wrongly thrust into the catalogue of the bishops of Noyon. For in S. Firminus the confessor I sufficiently proved that there is no place for Salvius at the end of the VII century, and that he must necessarily be left at the beginning of the said century. For the rest, Le Cointe at number 10 asserts without proof that S. Acharius of Noyon was promoted to the bishopric of Noyon only after the death of Theodoric king of Burgundy, who died in the year 613. I answered that nothing hinders his having been able to be bishop from the beginning of the VII century. In that assertion I see nothing hitherto needing change, since we ought not to wonder if perchance he held the bishopric from the year 600 down to 639 or 640. Besides, no other bishop of Noyon has hitherto become known by any deed for many years even before the VII century, as is clear from le Vasseur's Annals of Noyon, from John Cousin's History of Tournai, and from all the catalogues of the bishops of Tournai and of Noyon. Wherefore on the side of his predecessors nothing has become known to prevent Acharius from having been able to obtain the chair of Noyon several years before the VII century. Yet I see that by most more recent writers the beginning of S. Acharius's episcopate is fixed about the year 621, and that an argument favours them which might seem specious if the passage be not explained. Namely, S. Acharius was a disciple of S. Eustasius under the abbot S. Columbanus. But this the more recent writers so report as if he had lived as a monk under S. Eustasius when the latter was abbot after S. Columbanus, and only then had been made bishop. If this were true, he certainly would not have been bishop before the year 610, in which S. Eustasius began to preside over the monks of Luxeuil, S. Columbanus withdrawing.

[62] But Jonas the monk in the Life of S. Eustasius, from which the aforesaid things become known, from the beginning of the VII century. does not assert that S. Acharius lived under Eustasius as abbot, but says only that Acharius, with others, was instructed by the eloquence of S. Eustasius. Namely this happened while S. Columbanus was abbot, as becomes clear from the Life of S. Agilus the abbot, given at the XXX of August, in which at number 5 S. Agilus is said to have been committed to Eustasius to be instructed in sacred letters, together with other sons of noble men: which I fixed there in the Commentary, number 17, about or a little after the year 590. But among these, and among those who afterwards became more illustrious, S. Acharius too is reckoned, as is done in Jonas in the aforesaid Life of S. Eustasius. Now indeed it is clear that S. Agilus was then handed over to Eustasius not as an abbot, but as a master, to whom the abbot S. Columbanus had committed the instruction of the Gauls. And so from the Life of S. Eustasius, in which likewise the more notable men are reviewed who at different times advanced under the discipline of S. Eustasius, no more can be inferred than that S. Acharius was, about the year 590, or between 590 and 600, a disciple of S. Eustasius, who afterwards became abbot. But this cannot hinder his having been made bishop about the beginning of the VII century, especially since neither in the Life of S. Columbanus or of Eustasius, nor in any other documents, is other mention made of his monastic Life: from which silence it becomes likely that it was not very long, but that after due instruction he was quickly promoted to the bishopric. Let these things meanwhile suffice about the time of S. Acharius's episcopate, for refuting Le Cointe's assertion. The whole can be examined more accurately at the XXVII of November, on which that Saint is venerated. For the rest, what is asserted about Acharius or Hautcarius being sent to the election of S. Salvius does not become so certain from the Life of S. Salvius that for that cause the episcopate either of S. Salvius or of Acharius himself ought to be moved from its place, if any more certain notes of time can be found, such as for S. Salvius is his immediate predecessor S. Honoratus. From what has been said it is gathered that the translation of S. Firminus happened at the beginning of the VII century, in an uncertain year.

§ VII. The translation of the body into a more precious shrine, and other matters pertaining to the Saint's posthumous glory.

[ ] S. Firminus is said to have been seen in sleep by S. Godfrey, The Life of S. Godfrey, bishop of Amiens, which Nicholas, a monk of Soissons, a contemporary writer, composed, has various things pertaining to the posthumous glory of S. Firminus. First, in book 1, number 2, he reports a vision offered to S. Godfrey before his episcopate, by which he was ordered by S. Firminus to undertake the bishopric and to administer it diligently. Since the Life of S. Godfrey is to be given and illustrated at the VIII of November, I do not transfer that whole vision hither; but only what S. Firminus, appearing to Godfrey when he was half asleep, is asserted to have done, after he had been admonished by others about his future bishopric. While they were saying these and other things, says the author, the man of God (Godfrey), lifting up his eyes, sees in a higher place of the palace a certain one sitting upon a lofty throne, of countenance and habit more brilliant and splendid than can be grasped. And when he feared to approach him, that one beckoned with his hand that he should come. And when he had come nearer, and wished to cast himself at his feet, he did not permit it; but, O servant of God, he said, receive what I am about to say, and embrace it with a tenacious memory. I am the first bishop of a certain Gallican city, and an unconquered martyr of Christ, who for His love endured innumerable injuries and death itself. This city I commit to thee; do thou take care to preside diligently over this see. Now Godfrey wished to learn from him his name, and that of the city which he mentioned, but he could obtain neither from him. And meanwhile, waking up, he greatly marvelled at the vision. These things I from the mouth of the reverend father Andrew

received, who was the third to preside after Godfrey over the monastery of Nogent, and who solemnly affirmed that he had heard these things from Godfrey himself. He related them, I suppose, as a divine dream, after he saw the things seen in sleep fulfilled by his election to the bishopric. For from being abbot of Bl. Mary of Nogent he was elected bishop of Amiens in the year 1104, as follows presently in the Life.

[64] who venerated the Saint with great piety, The aforesaid Life, book 2, number 2, also clearly insinuates how great was S. Godfrey's piety toward S. Firminus. For reporting the first entry of bishop Godfrey, it observes these things: When he had come to the church of Bl. Aciolus the martyr, which is outside the walls of the city, leaping down from his beast, along a most rough road, with bishops Lambert and John, whom we have mentioned above, pressing close on either side of him, he entered barefoot, all beholding him, as far as the church of Bl. Firminus the martyr, meanwhile drawing sighs from the bottom of his breast: where he delivered an excellent sermon to the people committed to him, etc. Again at number 5, to those who asked where Godfrey was, it was answered by his servants that he was praying, as was his custom, in the church of blessed Firminus the martyr. What this church of S. Firminus the martyr was, of which the author makes mention in various places even toward the end of the Life, I shall examine below. Let us meanwhile pass on to relate from the Life the transposition of the body of S. Firminus the martyr, performed by that same Godfrey. Of this Guibert, abbot of Nogent, also wrote. But his assertions I shall examine when the controversy, not yet ended, about the body of S. Firminus the martyr is treated.

[65] He, having exhorted the people to adorn the coffer of S. Firminus, The Life of S. Godfrey, book 2, number 26, has thus: Firminus, a notable martyr and the first prelate of the people of Amiens, having finished the course of his happy contest, and buried in that same city (not by the first burial, but by the second, made by Salvius), declares excellently by innumerable benefits bestowed that he lives with Christ in heaven. Now when on a certain day Bl. Godfrey was preaching to the people, as was his custom, turning his eyes meanwhile to the sacred relics of this blessed Martyr (for hitherto they were contained in a humble coffer), he cried out thus: Behold, little sons, how much we owe to the holy martyrs, by whose patronage we trust that we can both be snatched from the perils of this life and by their intercessions attain heavenly beatitude. And so, while we are here, let us frequently make use of their memory, that they too may be mindful of us before the Lord. Hence it is that our forefathers built basilicas in their honour, and adorned their monuments with gold, silver and gems; not that they need these, or that they become more illustrious from them (for these things they despised as mud, that they might imitate Christ in His poverty, and deserve to be enriched by His want), but that by these they might declare their love, zeal and devotion toward them. Do you therefore also, considering the narrowness of the coffer which holds the bones of Bl. Firminus, bishop and martyr and our patron, contribute gold with ready minds, that a fitting receptacle may be prepared for him. All being excellently kindled by these words of the blessed man, bring gold, silver, bracelets, rings, and very many measure out vast spaces of lands and seas to procure things that might adorn the Martyr's basilica.

[66] After the coffer had been carefully made, on the day on which the relics were to be translated, [and, having received the gifts, solemnly translates the body into a precious shrine,] so great a concourse of men came thither that all Europe might seem to have flowed together. Then bishop Godfrey with other priests approached the coffer where that heavenly treasure was kept, and with much trembling exposed the sacred relics for all to see. Beholding them, the faithful people with many tears praise Christ, that they were counted worthy to see the relics of His Witness. Further, blessed Godfrey exhorts all to visit frequently the places of the Saints, there to pay their vows, and to commend themselves and their own to their patronage. For thence, he says, innumerable benefits accrue to the faithful: then he dismisses the people. But at this spectacle those were not present who dwelt in the suburban places of the city of Amiens, being hindered some by one thing and some by another. They therefore come to bishop Godfrey; they pray that he show them also the sacred relics of Bl. Firminus. But he, greatly wondering, said: Where were you the day before yesterday, when with my own hand I exhibited them for all to look upon? They bring forward one excuse and another, but when they could not move him, with tears they recall what gifts they had offered, what labours they had undertaken, that the Martyr's temple and coffer might be adorned, and add: Shall we then be shut out from beholding the Martyr, we who for the Martyr's sake have both done and endured so much? At last the pious man is bent, and says that on the festival of All Saints, a fast having gone before, he will satisfy their prayers.

[67] At that time a continual and so dense a mist beset that region and then again shows them to the people, and places the hand apart. that the sun might seem to have departed from the sky. For through twenty whole days and more no splendour of it had appeared. All feared that by that thing dire and sad events were portended. When the solemnity of All Saints came, they hasten in the morning to the church of Bl. Firminus; bishop Godfrey too is present; he orders the casket into which shortly before he had translated the relics of the blessed Martyr to be set down on the ground, and, clothed in pontifical vestments, barefoot and in tears, he approaches it reverently (for in matters of this kind he was seen to be very religious and pious), pours out the sacred relics upon a purple cloth, and standing in a higher place where he could be seen by all, says: Behold, dearly beloved, these are the sacred bones of Firminus, our martyr and protector. And when he had said this, straightway the most serene light of the sun flooded the whole basilica, whereas for nearly a whole month, as we have said, it had utterly withdrawn all its rays. At so evident a miracle all together burst forth into the praise of the all-powerful God. Further they ask bishop Godfrey to place the Martyr's right hand apart, so that at an opportune time they might more easily both gaze upon and kiss it. Nor did the pious man wish to deny them this. At last all go home. Thus far the Life of S. Godfrey about the translation of the body into a precious shrine, and the twofold showing. Luc d'Achery in the Annotations to the Works of Guibert objects various things against the account already given, and alleges Guibert's authority to the contrary. Let it suffice here to have said that d'Achery's reasons are plainly invalid, as I shall prove below.

[68] S. Godfrey in a vision learns from S. Firminus the coming ruin of the city: The aforesaid Nicholas, book 3, number 19, reports these things about S. Godfrey: But when on a certain night … he had prostrated himself in tears before the relics of Bl. Firminus the martyr, to pray for the sins of his subjects, being pressed by a heavy sleep, or rather suffering an ecstasy of mind, he saw himself placed outside the city, and there he seemed to have a vision offered him which portended the ruin of the city, as the author reports, then going on thus: But while he greatly shuddered at the overthrow of the city, suddenly he sees standing by him a man of heroic form, clothed in pontifical vestments, waving a golden ring and a palm in his hands, wearing on his head a crown of roses and lilies, into which the sign of the Lord's cross was splendidly inserted. And to him, wishing to cast himself at his feet and asking who he was, he said: See thou do it not, Godfrey the priest. I am Firminus, the first bishop and martyr of this city, who am ready also, so far as in me lies, to bring help toward its destruction. And when Godfrey inquired for what cause so great a wrath of God hung over the city, the Martyr said: The sins of thy people have increased too much. Do thou therefore proclaim with free voice the things which thou hast seen and heard: reprove, rebuke, entreat, be instant in season and out of season, and pray with me alike for the clemency of Christ, that He turn away His fury from the people. He adds that from this vision the garment of bishop Godfrey was drenched with tears, and that he pressed on with admonitions and exhortations to turn the people to better things; but in vain.

[69] [not long after the whole city is burnt, a few things excepted and the church of S. Firminus,] Then he subjoins: But behold, on the day before that on which they were to celebrate the solemn festival of the blessed apostle Bartholomew, a most dense cloud beset the whole city, changing all the light into the darkness of night; and soon fire bursting forth from it seized here and there in the fields immense heaps of crops, and consumed them in a moment of time, and, a most vehement wind blowing, invaded the town, and feeding upon stone houses no otherwise than upon wooden ones, raged with such violence that no one dared to come nearer to calm and extinguish the flames. All things therefore being depopulated by that terrible fire, nothing was left except the church of Bl. Firminus the martyr, and the house of bishop Godfrey, and the cottages of certain poor people; and — what may seem almost incredible — the hides of divers animals sunk in the river were drawn out thence half-burnt, contrary to the nature of the waters, etc. It pleases me here to examine whether that church of S. Firminus, which alone survived the fire, was the cathedral church, in which the bodies of S. Firminus the martyr and of the other Saints of Amiens were preserved. For I doubted much at first about this matter, because neither Morlière nor the other writers whom I have seen set it forth.

[70] which was the cathedral. Yet, all the documents which present themselves having been considered, I scarcely doubt that it is the cathedral church itself which alone was preserved in that terrible fire. Certainly the cathedral of Amiens was at that time dedicated to the most blessed Virgin Mary and to saint Firminus the martyr, as I gather from the charter of Rorico, bishop of Amiens, given in the year 1085 at the council of Compiègne, which Labbe recites in volume 10 of the Councils, col. 407. For besides other things decreed there in favour of the church of SS. Acius and Acheolus, Rorico speaks thus of the said church: And because, as we have said before, this church had been dedicated to the Mother of God, and the dust of the pontiffs of this chair had long lain hidden in it, let it be committed only to the jurisdiction of the canons of Bl. Mary and of the kindly martyr Firminus, to whom it formerly belonged. The canons of the cathedral church are called the canons of Bl. Mary and of the kindly martyr Firminus, so that we cannot doubt that their church was dedicated to both. Now indeed I can scarcely doubt that it is the same church which Nicholas in the Life of S. Godfrey everywhere cites under the name of S. Firminus the martyr. For in book 2, number 2, S. Godfrey at his first entry into the city goes barefoot straightway to the church of Bl. Firminus the martyr, and there delivers a sermon to the people. The same man at number 5 prays, as was his custom, in the church of Bl. Firminus the martyr. In the same church at numbers 26 and 27 he preached, and twice showed the Saint's relics to the people. In the same he is said to have prayed often, and by name in book 3, number 10, where it alone is recorded as unharmed by the fire. But of any other church of the Bl. Virgin Mary no mention is anywhere made in the Life, so that it must be said that this is that very one, but that the name of S. Firminus, as the city's patron, was then more usual, and therefore alone employed by the biographer. Afterwards, however,

under bishop Everard the said cathedral was burnt, as is read in volume 10 of Christian Gaul, col. [ ], where it is said to have happened in the year 1220.

[71] The aforesaid author of Christian Gaul, at col. [ ], fixes the aforementioned translation of the body of S. Firminus into the precious shrine in the year 1107, [The said translation seems to have happened about the year 1110, the fire in the year 1115;] I know not on what ground, since the year is not expressed in the Life of S. Godfrey, nor by Guibert the abbot, whom he cites. If the order of narration was rightly kept by Nicholas the biographer, it will rather have to be fixed about the year 1110. The fire of the city of Amiens is fixed in the aforesaid Christian Gaul on the XVI day of October of the year 1107. This year was perhaps taken from the Breviary of Amiens, where nevertheless another day is noted. For in the Breviary which we have, printed in the year 1554, at the XVI of October there is the Office of the Replacing of S. Firminus, and there in lessons 5 and 6 these things are read: Therefore in the year of the Lord's Incarnation MCVII, namely on the day on which the finding of blessed Stephen the protomartyr is celebrated (that is, on the III day of August), our adversary the devil attained the desires of his malice. For he consumed by fire certain of our outward things, but our inward things, by the prohibition of divine grace, he did not touch. For by his instigation almost the whole city with its churches, our sins requiring it, was burnt on this side and that as though with Sodomitic fires. But that Breviary is of less authority. The same epoch is indeed set down in an older Breviary, I suppose, and that a manuscript one of Amiens, or at any rate in a manuscript of Amiens, a transcript of which bearing upon this matter has been sent to us. But the authority of Nicholas the biographer is to be preferred, who asserts that the fire happened on the vigil of S. Bartholomew, that is, on the XXIII of August, and reports it a little before the death of S. Godfrey, so that it seems to have happened in the very year 1115, in which S. Godfrey died, not three whole months before his blessed death.

[72] Wherefore I should believe that it happened under some successor of Godfrey [but the carrying-about of the body which was attempted, after the death of S. Godfrey,] which in the printed Breviary is subjoined to the words given about the fire in this manner: These things being thus done, the clergy and people, grievously injured by the loss of temporal goods, took wise counsel (if we may believe the collector's judgment), that the body of Bl. Firminus the martyr should be honourably carried within the compass of their jurisdiction (that is, through the territory of Amiens) for the restoration of their church (namely, for collecting money). On the appointed day, therefore, all coming together to the church, expected to be deprived of their own Patron. Whence both greater and lesser, grieving vehemently, cried out, saying: Why, Father, dost thou forsake us, or to whom dost thou leave us desolate? Alas! from thy absence there will be greater trouble for us than from the goods which the divine sentence has justly taken from us. But when the aforesaid Martyr had come, with crowds accompanying, to the gate which is commonly called BEYOND THE BRIDGE, he stood so immovable that by no human strength could he be carried out. And those who carried him, willing or unwilling, stood still. Which being perceived, all who stood by, greatly rejoicing, cried out, saying: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, because He hath visited and wrought the salvation of His people. And there, both in the marketplace and in the church, precious gifts were offered to the precious Martyr — golden necklaces, precious stones, and the garments which they used on festal days. These things therefore being done, the desirable treasure is replaced with honour and reverence in its seat: and with immense joy all return to their homes. These things are read in almost the same manner in the manuscript just cited. They will have been done after the death of S. Godfrey, perhaps before the election of a successor, or under Ingelrann, who succeeded Godfrey, or even later under Guarin.

[73] Some benefits bestowed on the wretched: In the same manuscript there are likewise reported several benefits bestowed on the wretched, of which the anonymous author, about to treat, begins thus: The miracles of S. Firminus which are written to have been done even against the course of nature in the text of his Passion and of his Finding, we deem it superfluous to repeat. Yet a few things which we have seen while placed in their presence we have determined to note down in writing. For every good shines forth the more beautifully when it is brought into common view and reaches the knowledge of very many. In our times, therefore, when the meadows and fields round about were wasting away from the excessive heat of the sun, and the waters were drying up to the very bottom, even to the destruction of the fish, it was decreed by the counsel of clergy and people that the body of the blessed Martyr should be honourably carried about the city. And when this was being done with great zeal of devotion, a certain old woman, who had long been crippled, began from her inmost heart to implore the help of so great a Martyr: and she who before was carried in her weakness by the hands of others, straightway rose and walked with us to the procession, all beholding her, praising God. On another day, when a synod had assembled in our church, the noble man Warin presiding over the pontifical chair, a certain young girl, dumb for several years, the bond of her tongue being loosed by Bl. Firminus, spoke most plainly. On which day likewise a certain man of advanced age, long held by the falling sickness, was brought into this city before the health-bringing urn of the Martyr, and, the divine mercy bestowing it, received health. These three things seem to have been committed to writing by the same author, who testifies that he saw them. But the episcopate of Warin or Guarin, in whose time those benefits happened, in the most recent Christian Gaul, col. [ ], is extended from the year 1127 down to 1144.

[74] another of uncertain time. If the counsel about carrying the body of S. Firminus round through the jurisdiction of Amiens was taken under that same bishop Guarin, the same author could also have written the things about the fire of Amiens and about the body immovable at the gate which have already been recited from the Breviary: for these follow in the manuscript in words a little fuller than were given above. But it seems to me at least doubtful whether those things are by the same author, on account of a certain diversity of style, and because he disagrees with the Life of S. Godfrey in designating the day and year of the fire of Amiens. However that may be, I subjoin another, which in that writing is the last, and is reported in these words: After this, when nearly fifty days had passed, God again raised up the ancient miracles for His servant Firminus. For about his festivity, which is on the VII Kalends of October, flowers appeared in our land; the meadows belonging to the church, with the trees which had recently suffered burning, flowered. And he who saw it bore witness, and his witness is true. Many too, moved by the novelty of the miracle, coming from distant regions, carried off with them to their own homes some of the aforesaid flowers. This may be referred to the aforementioned fire of Amiens, and thus it will not belong to the author who narrated the three benefits just given; or to the excessive drought and heat of the sun, on account of which the body of S. Firminus was carried about the city, and on that reckoning the same author could have narrated it as a benefit obtained by the carrying of the body.

§ VIII. The body placed in a golden shrine: some churches of S. Firminus: his cultus in other dioceses of Gaul.

[75] Further, that the piety and reverence of the people of Amiens toward saint Firminus in the XII century was exceptional The Saint's body endowed with a golden shrine, Theobald sitting. is clearly declared by the golden shrine with which his sacred relics were probably honoured in that same century. Certainly it was made under bishop Theobald, who held the chair from the year 1169 down to 1204. The author of the reissued Christian Gaul observes this, volume 10, col. [ ], in these words: Theobald sitting, the body of S. Firminus the martyr was endowed with a golden shrine, as the inscribed verses testify, which we reported above in S. Firminus. Now the little verses which indicate this are these:

May the Martyr receive this work, and may it please him: Which he knows was prepared by the love and zeal of his own flock, Theobald administering the pontificate of this place.

To this inscription at the foot of the first side there answers on the other side another, by which S. Firminus is invoked in these little verses:

May he who, watchful, rendered continual service to the Lord, Whence nothing ought to be denied to his devout prayers, Obtain for his servants a blessed end without end.

That most precious shrine, marvellous no less for its huge mass and workmanship than for its gold and gems, I myself with a colleague inspected in the year 1752, the canons being present and turning it about into various positions with marvellous courtesy; and on that occasion we transcribed the carved verses. Three of them, bearing on his posthumous glory, I gave at numbers 53 and 54.

[76] The remaining nine, by which a summary of his life is exhibited, I transfer hither. The little verses are given, with the figures and words The picture represents saint Firminus receiving the pastoral staff from S. Honoratus of Toulouse, with these words carved beside: S. Honorat. of Toulouse, bishop. S. Firminus,

The prelate, as is the custom, is given the staff of honour.

Then S. Firminus is exhibited bidding farewell at Pamplona to his parents and to S. Honestus, with these words added: parents. S. Honestus. Saint Firminus. Pamplona; and this little verse:

He is sent, and weeping looks back on the weeping [*] faces of his parents.

In the third place the sculpture exhibits the conversion of the people, not only at Agen but also in Auvergne, although the verse mentions only Agen: for the words carved beside are these: S. Firm. Arcadius. Romulus. judges. Now Arcadius and Romulus he is said to have confuted and converted after he had departed from Agen into Auvergne. The deeds done in the diocese of Angers, therefore, may also be understood as comprised in that verse.

He teaches and baptizes the chief men of the realm of Agen.

Thence there is a passage to the deeds in the city of Beauvais, and the prefect Sergius is represented driving the Saint from the city — but perhaps it will more rightly be said, casting him into prison — with these words: the people of Beauvais. S. F. Sergius the governor; and this little verse:

The evil arbiter of the city troubles the Saint with [*] the city.

Presently there follows the death of Sergius, thrown from his horse, and saint Firminus in prison, as the added words insinuate: Sergius. prison. S. Firminus. The verse is this:

Thus the unjust governor's just death befell that man.

[77] carved on the said shrine. In the sixth place is represented the building of the church of saint Stephen, as the added words hint: S. F. in honour of S. Stephen. This indeed the Acts have as built at Beauvais, but the people of Amiens seem at that time to have believed that that church was built by the Saint at Amiens — unless perhaps they meant that the episcopal see was first placed by the Saint at Beauvais. Certainly the verse insinuates that both were done in the same city.

Here he fixes the prelate's see and the protomartyr's church.

The first sculpture on the other side represents at Amiens the conversion of Faustinian, with these words: At Amiens. S. F. Faustinian. This verse is added:

Faustinian being converted from vain worship.

Presently the Saint is exhibited at the gate of the city healing a blind man and two lepers, with these words added: the Clipian gate. S. F.; and this little verse:

He proves the power of Christ by working health for these.

Finally is exhibited the prefect Sebastian, ordering the Saint to be slain in prison, with these words explaining the figures: Sebastian the governor. S. F. prison. The added verse sounds thus:

And so, pleasing to God, he becomes a victim, secretly slaughtered.

Let these things suffice concerning that magnificent shrine of the relics

which with others is kept in the treasury of the cathedral church. To that shrine there answers the magnificence of the cathedral church itself, whose foundations were laid in the year 1220 by bishop Everard, after the ancient one had been burnt.

[78] The Saint was renowned for miracles at Amiens in the XIV century also. That S. Firminus was renowned for miracles in the XIV century also, I gather from the letters of Robert, bishop of Amiens, given in the year 1318, in the month of August, by which various things are decreed about the cultus of the Saints of Amiens, and by name, that on the feast of the Finding of Bl. Firminus the martyr … there be held in that same church a great double, and that all things pertaining to divine worship be solemnly chanted in the church to his memory, etc. For the aforesaid bishop then subjoins these things: And because the praises of the glorious Virgin, Mother of the Lord our God, and of Bl. Firminus the martyr, which are spread abroad in manifold ways far and wide, we cannot keep silent, nor pass over in dissimulation: considering moreover that the Only-begotten of that same Virgin Mary works clear and open miracles in that same church for her and for His aforesaid renowned Martyr very often — which sometimes, because no bell is rung at their occurrence in that same church, have hitherto passed into oblivion: in like manner we ordain and also decree that, as often and as many miracles as shall happen in the church, by the Lord's doing, for the spreading of the faith and the fuller devotion of the faithful, the bells be solemnly rung by our people, candles be lighted, and the venerable body of Bl. Firminus be uncovered by us, as expressed above, and Te Deum laudamus be devoutly and solemnly chanted by the choir, etc. These letters may be seen entire in Lestocq, in the Dissertation on the Body of S. Firminus the confessor, page 239 and following.

[79] Besides the cathedral church, which formerly had been dedicated not only to the most blessed Virgin Mary, Two other churches of S. Firminus: a part of the head kept separately. whose title today's one bears, but also to S. Firminus the martyr, there exists at Amiens another parish church sacred to S. Firminus, and that a very ancient one, which is called S. Firminus in Castillon. It is believed to have been built above the prison in which S. Firminus was beheaded. It certainly has a subterranean crypt with an altar built there, and in the crypt two dungeons are shown, in one or other of which most of the people of Amiens believe S. Firminus was slain. Morlière, who is of the same opinion, page 65, asserts that there can be no doubt of the matter, and will have it that it was the prison of the castle of Amiens in which the Saint was slain. Nevertheless this does not seem to be the common opinion of all the people of Amiens: for when in the year 1752 we carefully inspected that church and crypt, someone suggested to us that S. Firminus was not slain in that place, but in the place called At the Stone. There is another parish church of S. Firminus there, which is called At the Gate or At the Stone, where formerly there was an abbey called S. Firminus in the Valley, of the Premonstratensian Order, which in the XII century was translated to another place more remote from the city, its name being changed along with its place, and it still flourishes under the name of S. John. Of that abbey may be seen Christian Gaul, volume 10, col. [ ] and following, or Hugo in the Annals of the Premonstratensian Order, volume 1, col. 901 and following. He at col. 911 numbers that church among the parishes subject to the abbey of S. John, and teaches that it is situated within the walls of the city. Yet it had been founded in the XII century in the suburb, but the suburbs were afterwards enclosed within the city, as Morlière teaches at page 69, who may also be consulted about the foundation of that church at pages 93 and 94. Which of the two churches of saint Firminus was built above the Saint's prison, and whether it is sufficiently certain of either, I cannot declare. The aforesaid Morlière, page 85, insinuates that the head of S. Firminus is kept apart from the body in the chapel of S. John the Baptist. I judge it to be a part of the head, which about the year 1590 Godfrey de la Martoine, bishop of Amiens, placed upon a silver head, as I find in the fragments which were formerly communicated to Bolland from the Work of Maurice du Pré. Thus far concerning the cultus in the diocese of Amiens.

[80] But S. Firminus is venerated also in several other dioceses of Gaul, The cultus and memory of the Saint among the people of Beauvais, and especially in the nearer ones. The ancient Breviary of Beauvais exhibits for S. Firminus, bishop and martyr, an Office of nine lessons; nor do the people of Beauvais undeservedly celebrate S. Firminus, since they number him among the earlier apostles of their city, although Antoine Loisel at page 66 deservedly excludes him from the catalogue of the bishops of Beauvais. Louvet at page 165 writes these things in French in the margin: In the marketplace of Beauvais there still exists a stone which is commonly called le pas de S. Fremin, or the footprint of S. Firminus. Tradition holds that S. Firminus impressed upon this stone the print of his foot, which is still to be seen, when, yielding to the fury of the enemies of the Christian faith, he withdrew from the city of Beauvais. He is likewise said to have gone out through a certain subterranean passage, which is at the gate of the hospital house. These assertions indeed rest on no written testimony, but on tradition alone and the common voice of the people, which nevertheless does not seem to be too far from the truth; since in our time there was found in the ditches near the hospital gate and outside the city a subterranean passage, level with the surface of the water, which is vaulted, and leads toward the abbey of S. Lucian; and it admits two men walking in one rank. So he. But the said tradition of the people of Beauvais about the Saint's flight through a subterranean passage, since it is not confirmed by any ancient writing, can be little helped by the finding of a passage of that kind.

[81] likewise in the dioceses of Rouen and Lisieux, In the ancient Breviary of Rouen the feast of S. Firminus is noted as to be celebrated as a triple feast. That for several centuries the feast of S. Firminus was celebrated with such solemnity at Rouen is clear from the Chronicle of Rouen in Labbe's Library, volume 1, page 375, where bishop Theobald, who died in the year 1229, is said to have instituted it. In the most recent Breviary, however, it is set down only as a simple feast. In the diocese of Lisieux, which is under the metropolis of Rouen, S. Firminus is also venerated; but in the Breviary of the year 1624 I find only one lesson about the Saint. Nevertheless in the diocese of Lisieux there is a place which Morlière at page 158 designates as notable for the cultus and miracles of S. Firminus, writing thus in French: Several places are pointed out in which that great Saint stopped and taught the people. Of these there can be no doubt, since the miracles which are daily done in them attest the truth too clearly. Then he assigns one of those places in present-day Normandy, and in the diocese of Lisieux, going on thus: As is done two French miles from Pont-Audemer, in a chapel dedicated to this holy Martyr, which is situated within a farmstead named Du Doub and belonging to the abbey of Préaux, where by the tradition of the people the Saint is believed to have been cast into prison. Thither there run together each year in the month of September, on which falls the feast of the beheading of our S. Firminus, more than ten thousand men: nor does any year slip by in which some notable miracle is not wrought, so that already as many as sixty are narrated from there, and those notable ones, which those who by profession write the Lives of the Saints ought long since to have published in writing. I could wish that Morlière had at least briefly reviewed some of the miracles, if he had them well ascertained: for I find nothing either about those miracles, or about the cultus itself of S. Firminus in the place assigned. Arthur du Monstier in the Pious Neustria, page 505, treats at length of the abbey of Préaux, to whose lordship the place is said to belong, but makes no mention of the cultus or miracles of S. Firminus.

[82] and in several churches of Gaul. I could here enumerate the metropolitan sees of Trier, Rheims, Sens and Paris, and many cathedral churches, especially in Belgic Gaul, which formerly celebrated, or still celebrate, the festivity of S. Firminus with a double, semi-double or simple Office, or even with a commemoration alone, as is clear from the Breviaries; but I abstain from that enumeration for brevity's sake, especially since changes in these matters are not rare in France. But as regards relics: in the Chronicle of Centula, in d'Achery, volume 4 of the Spicilegium, page 503, it is reported that Odulph, keeper of the church of S. Riquier, asked relics of Hilmerad, bishop of Amiens, and obtained some from the chasuble of saint Firminus which he had worn when he was slain for Christ. Other churches also will probably have something of the relics of S. Firminus, just as the people of Pamplona certainly have, of whose piety toward S. Firminus I shall treat more at length below. But we cannot investigate every minute particle of relics. And so I proceed to examine the reasons of those who attribute the whole body of S. Firminus to their own church.

* there fle

* cum

§ IX. Whether the body of S. Firminus was translated to the abbey of S. Denis.

[ ] [Guibert the abbot in the XII century would have it that the body of S. Firminus is not at Amiens,] Hitherto I have spoken of the body of S. Firminus, bishop and martyr, preserved among the people of Amiens, as though there were no doubt that it is the true body of the Saint — as indeed I have no doubt about its genuineness. Nevertheless for several centuries Guibert, abbot of Nogent, has striven to introduce a doubt about the genuineness of that body, or rather wished to attribute the body of S. Firminus to the famous abbey of S. Denis in France, near Paris. Whether Guibert always remained in his opinion, and whether he had any who agreed with him in the XII century, in which he flourished, or in the following centuries, I am wholly ignorant. For d'Achery, who published the Works of the abbot Guibert in the year 1657, and in the Notes on Guibert, page 566, wished to defend his assertions about the body of S. Firminus, adduces no writer of any merit supporting the said opinion. He recites, however, a writing as though ancient, in which is narrated a history of the translation so ridiculous and clumsy, and so openly fabulous, that the more critical Benedictine writers were ashamed of that history. Certainly Michel Félibien in the History of the abbey of S. Denis, page 20, openly refutes the History adduced by d'Achery, although elsewhere at page 143 he claims the possession of the body of S. Firminus, in words at least, for his own abbey.

[84] Mabillon too in the Benedictine Annals, volume 1, page 370, sufficiently openly insinuates and against the people of Amiens several moderns contended for this. that that History, produced by d'Achery for the body of S. Firminus, as much as others for other bodies of Saints which the abbey of S. Denis attributes to itself, does not deserve credit, writing these things: I hardly know whether those rest on a better foundation who relate that churches were despoiled by him (king Dagobert), in order that he might enrich the single basilica of saint Denis with the plunder gathered together. For besides the doors of cast bronze, which he is said to have carried off from the basilica of saint Hilary of Poitiers, many of the Saints'

bodies too they declare to have been carried off by him by force from other churches — those of saint Hilary bishop of Poitiers, of Firminus martyr of Amiens, of Patroclus of Grenoble, of Hilarius of Gabala, and of Romanus the monk. Which bodies indeed our monks of S. Denis show even today: but whether they were carried off by force, or rather received on loan, is not sufficiently ascertained. Mabillon would not so speak if the History adduced by d'Achery seemed in any way probable. Nevertheless John Baptist Thiers, who attempted by a Dissertation more sharp than solid to snatch the body of S. Firminus the confessor from the cathedral church of Amiens, and in the same Dissertation, chapter 16, strove to do the same for the body of S. Firminus the martyr, argues at length from the said History of d'Achery. But Lestocq answered Thiers much better and more modestly in Dissertation 1 for the Body of S. Firminus the confessor, part 2, chapter 3, in which he vindicates the body of S. Firminus the martyr for the church of Amiens. Whether others afterwards treated the same controversy I have not learned. But for our undertaking I am not permitted to pass it over. Wherefore I shall weigh the reasons which present themselves on either side.

[85] Guibert, abbot of Nogent, in the little Work on the Relics of the Saints, book 1, chapter 3, §2, writes these things: Guibert's account of the translation is not contrary Plainly my predecessor (S. Godfrey), bishop of Amiens, when he was carrying the body of Firminus the martyr, as he thought, from one shrine into another, found there no slip, not the testimony even of a single letter, as to who lay there. From the bishop of Arras and from the bishop of Amiens himself I heard what I report. On which account the bishop of the city presently inscribed on a leaden plate that Firminus, martyr and bishop of the people of Amiens, was buried there. And without delay the same thing is done in the monastery of saint Denis. A more ornate casket having been prepared by the abbot, while he is being taken up from there, while the head is being unwrapped with the limbs, a little parchment is found in the Martyr's nostrils, in which it is set forth that this was Firminus, martyr of Amiens. Since therefore nothing supports the people of Amiens in so great a business, but on the other side others have testimonies of whatever sort supplying at least a voice, let reason, I pray, sit down to make anyone's judgment. Whatever was written on the leaden plate by the lord bishop, will it not rightly be annulled, since in that writing nothing at all bears witness for him? And certainly those men of S. Denis at least mutter something, who at any rate are supported in some fashion by little letters. Thus Guibert, to whose judgment d'Achery attributes so much in his observations, page 566, that he would set him against and prefer him to Nicholas, the monk of Soissons, who composed the Life of S. Godfrey, and whose words I gave at number 65.

[86] to the account of Nicholas of Soissons: they differed only in judgment. But in Nicholas's whole account of the translation of S. Firminus I find nothing at all which does not cohere excellently with Guibert's assertions, even if we suppose these certain and beyond doubt. For both write that the body of S. Firminus was translated by S. Godfrey into another shrine. That an immense multitude of men ran together to this solemnity Nicholas teaches: nor does Guibert deny it. On the other hand Guibert asserts that there was no testimony with the body when saint Godfrey opened the chest: nor does Nicholas dissent from that assertion, since he keeps deep silence about any testimony found in the chest. Wherefore there is not even the least disagreement between Guibert and Nicholas in what they narrated about the transposition of the body into another shrine; and gratuitously does d'Achery declaim against Nicholas, as though he had written less sincerely, as though he had been simple and too credulous — indeed a stripling, who had scarcely passed the years of puberty. There is no disagreement in the account of Guibert and Nicholas, I say, as d'Achery endeavours to persuade, since all the assertions of both can be excellently reconciled. Yet those writers disagreed in the judgment which they passed upon the body translated by S. Godfrey into another shrine: for Nicholas insinuates no doubt that it is the body of S. Firminus; but Guibert tries to persuade his readers that it must not be held for the body of S. Firminus. But there Guibert does not fight against Nicholas, who had not yet written, but against S. Godfrey, who had translated it as the body of S. Firminus. And so the authority of Guibert must be set against the authority of S. Godfrey, not of Nicholas alone; as d'Achery, with little consideration, does.

[87] But since Guibert everywhere shows himself unfair to S. Godfrey, If now we would weigh Guibert's authority in these matters, his assertion does not seem of such weight as to be able to introduce a prudent doubt in us. For first, toward that most holy man and his predecessor in the abbey, Godfrey of Amiens, he shows himself unfair in various places, maliciously carps at his deeds, and rashly constitutes himself judge even of the intention of the holy man, which is known to God alone. A few things I transfer hither. Guibert, book 2 of his own Life, chapter 2, insinuates that saint Godfrey when set over the abbey was like a very small light in the midst of darkness, and then not obscurely hints that Godfrey was suspected by him of having desired the bishopric, adding these words: But I have learned that the inheritance to which one hastens at the beginning will lack a blessing at the last. Though his beginnings plainly were full of the usual praise, and for some years a heralding report attended him, now, as may be seen, whatever seemed to blaze up in the way of glory in the man has not only cooled but grown cold. But these things Guibert, insulting him bitterly, attributed not to the perversity of men, as he ought, but to Godfrey himself, as though he had promised great things at the beginning and daily performed less: For his state, he says, growing abundantly slack from day to day, began unceasingly to make its own pledge worse than itself. Presently again at chapter 3 he says that he could have been happy in his own monastery if he had been willing to be content with what he had — as though he had ambitiously desired the bishopric. But the biographer, book 1, chapter 30, testifies that Godfrey wished to escape by flight when he had been elected, and that, being commanded, he at last consented to the election. And certainly it was not the part of a kindly and moderate man to write of a holy bishop such things as Guibert writes. Far more bitter still are the things which he has in book 2, chapter 13, on the occasion of Godfrey's resignation of the bishopric and his afterwards resuming it at the command of the archbishop of Rheims. I omit the taunts, worthy of an irascible man, unworthy of the abbot Guibert; nor do I hesitate to declare openly that Guibert deserves as much credit against S. Godfrey as an enemy deserves who declaims against one with whom he is angry.

[38] Wherefore what Guibert asserts about no testimony of the body having been found is highly suspect. and passes his judgment against him most lightly, He says indeed that he received it from the bishop of Arras and from the bishop of Amiens himself; but these perhaps narrated something about what was done in that translation, which he set forth after his own fashion, and from which he was led into that opinion. Certainly I should not believe that S. Godfrey proceeded imprudently, and without sufficiently certain knowledge exposed the body of S. Firminus to the veneration of the faithful. Either he knew that the monks of S. Denis ascribed the body of S. Firminus to themselves, or he did not know it. If he knew it, the holy man must be believed to have proceeded so much the more cautiously, and consequently would not have placed upon the shrine a leaden plate by which he asserted it to be the body of S. Firminus, unless either he had had certain arguments beforehand, or had found certain indications. If he did not know the persuasion of the monks of S. Denis, it was probably unknown generally, and perhaps not yet born. But whether that controversy had already been born, or arose afterwards, I have far more confidence in the prudence of S. Godfrey in acting than in that of the abbot Guibert in writing. S. Godfrey could hold for the same the body which for several centuries had been held in the church of Amiens for the body of S. Firminus, and venerated by all the people, even though he had found no express testimony of the fact, since it was established about the body found by S. Salvius and never afterwards carried away, and since the place where it was kept was known, and the chest in which it was laid up. But Guibert, even if we should wish to believe true what he asserts himself to have heard about the little parchment found in the martyr's nostrils among the monks of S. Denis, betrays his own levity in passing judgment in favour of that body. Certainly a little parchment so found in the nostrils ought to have been more suspect, where no translation was established, than a body without testimony, but kept in its own church and held for the body of S. Firminus.

[89] And so of little weight seem to be the words of a man who declaims against a holy man on every offered occasion, it cannot be proved to us, nor does it seem to have been proved at that time. who with marvellous levity passes judgment on a matter not sufficiently examined, and who narrates many things in his Work from mere hearsay in such a way that they will hardly find credit among prudent men. If Guibert had had to prove everything which he lightly asserts with his iron pen, he would have passed over not a few things, I suppose. Wherefore no one, I think, will be able to take it ill if I do not judge Guibert to be believed in what he asserts about S. Firminus, bishop of Amiens and martyr, since by diligent inquiry I have not been able to find any writer of good repute, or indeed any man at all, who in the XII, XIII and XIV centuries seems to have attended to those assertions of Guibert or to have given them credit. Credit certainly the people of Amiens did not give them, who without any doubt went on venerating the body kept in their church, and in that same century translated it into a golden shrine. Credit the people of Pamplona did not give them, who in that same century asked relics of S. Firminus from the bishop of Amiens. Credit to Guibert's judgment likewise Nicholas of Soissons did not give, who in the Life of S. Godfrey insinuates no doubt that the body of S. Firminus is kept in the church of Amiens. And Nicholas was writing in the same century in which Guibert had written; nor could he easily be ignorant of the persuasion of the monks of S. Denis, if they at that time believed that the body of S. Firminus was kept in their own church. Why therefore does Nicholas make no mention of a body kept in the said abbey? Did he, a monk, wish to set himself against monks, and rather to favour the church of Amiens? Neither is likely. The only reason for the silence, as far as one may conjecture, is that not even the monks of S. Denis themselves claimed the body of S. Firminus of Amiens for themselves. For however diligently I have gone through the writers of S. Denis and the documents adduced by them, I could find no trace of a body of S. Firminus of Amiens kept there in the XII century. I have found no famous cultus of the Saint in the abbey which might hint at such a thing, no writer of those times who might indicate it, no sound document in which mention of S. Firminus is made; nothing, finally, in the deeds of the abbots of S. Denis, nothing in the Chronicles of the XII or XIII century, nothing in the description of the church and of the sacred furniture. And so I shall hardly be able to believe that the monks of S. Denis themselves in the XII century adhered to Guibert's judgment, or believed that the body of S. Firminus of Amiens was kept in their church.

[90] Indeed Guibert seems, out of Firminus the martyr In vain therefore does d'Achery institute a comparison between Guibert and Nicholas; in vain does he exalt Guibert

above his merit, and press Nicholas down below his merit. In vain does he suspect that Nicholas so wrote about the translation in order to throw dust in men's eyes and to becloud the truth. For the good faith and moderation of Nicholas in writing shine forth too clearly for a suspicion of that kind to be likely or tolerable — especially since the abbots of S. Denis, who in those times were Adam and the most famous Suger, seem to have raised no controversy with the people of Amiens for claiming the possession of S. Firminus of Amiens for themselves, and Nicholas seems only to have followed the common opinion. He says rightly indeed that Guibert could spare nothing and dissemble nothing; but for that cause I do not judge that he is to be preferred to Nicholas. I could wish that he had better known how to spare those with whom he was angry. I could wish that he had been better able to dissemble those things of which he had persuaded himself by testimonies not sufficiently certain and by perhaps slight conjectures; and thus I should give greater credit to Guibert's words. But as it is, because Guibert employs greater freedom than criticism and prudence, I judge that Nicholas, a sober and modest writer, is more to be believed than Guibert, who is not only free but also irascible. He says that among the monks of S. Denis a little parchment was found in the martyr's nostrils, in which it was written that this was Firminus, martyr of Amiens. But with this assertion the things adduced by Doublet in the History of the abbey of S. Denis, book 1, chapter 42, do not sufficiently agree. He asserts at page 314 that the tenth of the upper chapels is dedicated to S. Firminus, bishop of Amiens and martyr. Whose body, he says, except the head, rests there in a wooden and gilded shrine. I do not sufficiently understand how a little parchment could have been found in the nostrils, if the head was not with the rest of the body. In order therefore that that statement of Guibert's might be judged true, the head must afterwards have been separated from the rest of the body: but I judge that this separation can be proved by no document.

[91] precipitately to have made a Firminus of Amiens. More against Guibert tell the things which Doublet then subjoins. He says that in the said chest is contained a writing, and that in capital letters these words are written on it: The most sacred body of blessed Firminus the martyr. He adds that in the chapel these two little verses are written:

Let him learn who knows not: Firminus rests there, A martyr, given to us for certain by Dagobert.

If a writing of this kind was found in the nostrils or among the relics of the martyr, such as is given by Doublet, Guibert slipped by precipitate criticism, who at once made out of Firminus the martyr a Firminus of Amiens. He did not know how to spare, he did not know how to dissemble, as soon as he believed that he had found something against S. Godfrey, toward whom he everywhere shows himself angry; and by precipitate anger rather, I suppose, than by bad faith, he supplies what was wanting in the writing found, saying that of Amiens was said in the writing, whereas in it he was only called Firminus martyr. But there are several Firminus martyrs; only one, however, has become known by that name as of Amiens. Besides, martyrs whose name is unknown can be endowed with the name of Firmus or Firminus, since firmness of soul was needed for them to obtain the crown. The writing therefore no more teaches, even if we should wish to admit Guibert's other statements, that that Firminus is of Amiens than that he is a Greek or an Armenian. There is added the omission of the word bishop; by which omission it is rather hinted that he is not of Amiens, since the bishopric of Firminus of Amiens was certain and known. For the rest, let no one contend that in the slip found was written of Firminus of Amiens, although the word of Amiens was omitted in the plate afterwards affixed. For it will never become likely or credible that the word was afterwards to be omitted in the plate, if it had been found in the earlier writing. These things I judge sufficient against the authority of Guibert objected to us.

[92] The aforesaid Doublet, in order to vindicate the body of S. Firminus, martyr of Amiens, for the abbey of S. Denis, The fabulous History adduced for the said translation, produced a ridiculous history of the translation, unearthed, as he says, from a quite ancient manuscript. The same history d'Achery reprints in the Annotations to Guibert, page 567, from an old manuscript codex of the library of S. Victor of Paris. But Lestocq at page 198 notes that that manuscript of S. Victor is on common paper, and does not seem older than the XVI century. I have already noted that Mabillon and Félibien altogether abstain from that fabulous history. Nay rather, Mabillon seems by no means to have doubted that the body of S. Firminus is kept in the church of Amiens. Certainly in volume 5 of the Annals, page 482, he observes that the sacred relics of blessed Firminus the martyr and of others were laid in the earth by S. Godfrey of Amiens. If Mabillon had doubted the genuineness of the body of S. Firminus which is kept at Amiens, he could have said in general that relics were laid in the earth. Wherefore, even though in volume 1, page 370, he does not openly attack the monks of S. Denis, he afterwards clearly declared his opinion for the people of Amiens. Félibien did not wish to desert the cause of his own abbey, whose history he was writing; but he defended it at page 143 by the authority of Guibert alone. Yet he did not wish to express Guibert's words to the letter; but where the latter had said that the little parchment was found in the nostrils, Félibien says among the bones. He could thus have corrected Guibert when he says that on the little parchment was written Firminus, martyr of Amiens, since the word of Amiens was absent from the writing recited by Doublet, as I have already noted; and the reason for both corrections is almost the same. But, that correction being made, Félibien could bring forward nothing against the people of Amiens, since he is unwilling to champion Doublet's fabulous history, and thus he would have deserted the cause of his own abbey, for which, while he brought forward nothing from its most rich archive, even by his silence he sufficiently manifested his poverty here.

[93] As regards now the fabulous history published by Doublet and d'Achery, of which a summary is given, this is a summary of it. The Huns are said in the time of king Dagobert, that is, in the VII century between the year 622 and 638, to have wished to subjugate France, and to have had the Flemings and the people of Amiens agreeing with them. Presently he says that all together moved toward France, and that Dagobert met them with an army at the place which was then called Leo; and that the Huns and their allies were cut down by the Franks with so great a slaughter that none escaped, and that from the slaughter the place was called Lyons ensantez, which in Latin may be called Leo in a pool of blood. The victory won, Dagobert is said to have led his army to Amiens and seized the city; and when the relics had been carried off to the fortified castle which is called Picquigny, he likewise leads his column thither, seizes the castle, and translates the body of S. Firminus the martyr to the abbey of saint Denis. This wretched little fable of an unlearned man Doublet and d'Achery published as true history. But Thiers joins to it another in French too, or rather the same given in French with some change by Nicolas Gilles, who composed the Annals of France at the end of the XV century, and he even endeavours to defend the fable against Le Cointe. The latter at the year 638, number 8, observes these things: First, neither did the Huns provoke Dagobert to war, nor did the people of Amiens challenge him to vengeance by making a revolt… Secondly, the Flemings were not neighbours of the people of Amiens in the reign of Dagobert. He adds that the Flemings had not long before begun to become known, and were less widely extended. These observations could have sufficed for him to say that that work is by an author neither very ancient nor much learned.

[94] ill defended by Thiers, Nevertheless Thiers, according to his own criticism, denies that reasons were adduced by Le Cointe; and adds that perhaps the Huns were taken for the Wends, since the Wends had their seats not far from the Huns in Dacia. To the second observation he says that neither by Le Cointe nor by Bolland, whom the former had cited, was the distance of the Flemings from the people of Amiens, or their narrower boundaries, proved. Then indeed he adduces to his own purpose these words of Baronius: What is brought forward by a more recent author about matters so ancient, without the authority of some older writer, is despised. But how ineptly Thiers adduced these, the reader will see if he but inspect Bolland's Commentary on saint Anschar at the III of February, cited by Le Cointe, where at §5 he shows that the boundaries of Flanders in the IX century were small. But if anyone will inspect Valois's Notitia of the Gauls, he will perceive still better with what childish licence he denied that Flanders in the VII century was small, and thence far less near to Amiens than it was afterwards, when the power of the counts of Flanders grew greatly, especially in the XV century, in which the counts of Flanders were at the same time dukes of Burgundy and possessed everything as far as Amiens. For in Dagobert's time the Flemings were scarcely beginning to become known, nor had they such a name that the Huns or the Wends would have entered into a treaty with them for invading France, just as those same men would not have required the alliance of the people of Amiens. But that anonymous author of Doublet's, who perhaps composed his fable in the XV century, since he knew how great the power of the Flemings had been for some centuries, believed them fit to be made the allies of the Huns along with the people of Amiens; and, not considering how many lands they must measure out from Pannonia as far as Flanders, and that through the dominions of the Franks, extended at that time far beyond the Rhine, he places the Huns at once with the Flemings and the people of Amiens in Picardy, as if they had flown thither at once after the manner of swallows changing their abodes.

[95] it can be held for nothing but a most inept invention, Wherefore to defend a fable so ineptly stitched together is the same as to expose oneself gratuitously to the laughter of the learned. Lest I do what has been done already, I shall only briefly set forth the observations of Lestocq, who by various reasons pointed out the falsehoods of that account. First, he says, it is false that there was a treaty between the Huns, the Flemings and the people of Amiens, since none of the ancients has mentioned such a treaty. Secondly, he says, it is false that Dagobert had a war in Picardy with the Huns, the Wends or the Slavs. He had indeed a war with the Wends, but beyond the Rhine in present-day Germany, and it is known that the Wends never crossed the Rhine, much less penetrated into Picardy. Thirdly it is false, he says, that the Huns (or even the Wends) were cut down by Dagobert with so great a slaughter that none escaped, since the ancient and contemporary writers who narrated the deeds of Dagobert nowhere mention so great a victory. Fourthly it is false, he says, that the name Lyons ensantez was given to the place for such a cause, or that that name is genuine, or so ancient, since it is known that only after the year 1300 the place which before was called Lihons received the surname en Sangters. Fifthly it is false, he says, that the body of S. Firminus was carried to the castle of Picquigny. There was no castle there in the time of Dagobert, indeed not for four hundred years after Dagobert. The relics therefore could nowhere be kept more safely than in the city itself. These things certainly suffice to refute the writing of an unknown man, who had more boldness for inventing than skill. He knew that the Huns had at some time burst into Gaul: he knew that the Flemings had at various times been allied with the enemies of Gaul, and he saw the dominions of the princes of Flanders extended as far as Amiens. He believed therefore that the Huns should be allied with the Flemings, and that the people of Amiens should be joined to them, as being necessary for the catastrophe of the fable, that is, for feigning the carrying off of the body of S. Firminus. But the inept fable-monger did not consider how clumsily he was feigning all these things under Dagobert. Here therefore [the] place

is held by the words of Baronius, ineptly alleged by Thiers: What is brought forward by a more recent author about matters so ancient, without the authority of some older writer, is despised. Nor does this avail only against that anonymous author himself, but against all who adopted his fables.

§ X. The notable cultus and relics of the Saint at Pamplona, of which, as of the whole kingdom of Navarre, he is patron: his cultus also in all Spain.

[ ] The cultus of S. Firminus, begun at Pamplona at an uncertain time, Since we have treated enough for our purpose of the cultus of S. Firminus in the city of Amiens, and in some other places of France, it remains for us to visit the Saint's homeland Pamplona, the metropolis of the present kingdom of Navarre, where he is honoured with a notable cultus, and the rest of Spain. Lengthy accounts to this end were courteously transmitted for us in the year 1754 by a man most excellent in erudition, Firmin de Lubian, Prior of the cathedral church of Pamplona. I could transfer them hither entire; but I fear lest a lengthy inquiry into each particular should be troublesome to the reader, and for that cause I shall recite the chief matters in summary, so far as shall seem to suffice for our purpose. The most learned Lubian observes first that the church of Pamplona was long deserted after the Saracens in the VIII century had occupied almost the whole of Spain, and from that cause he believes it came about that no document about the cultus of S. Firminus is found in the archive of Pamplona which is older than the XII century. The first instrument, therefore, from which the ancient cultus of S. Firminus in the church of Pamplona is proved, is of the year 1186; but from it at the same time it is proved that even then the Saint's relics were there, and that the cultus itself, whose increase is decreed, is older. Sandoval in his Work on the bishops of Pamplona, in Peter II, cited that very instrument, and from it narrated the increased solemnity of S. Firminus. That its genuineness cannot be doubted Lubian says, who transcribed the whole from the archive of the cathedral church, and testifies that it is of the same script as the rest of the XII century.

[97] [is increased in the year 1186 by bishop Peter, who had received the Saint's relics:] Now by those letters Peter II, bishop of Pamplona, grants to the warden of the infirmary of the Canons, who are regulars, the possession of a certain garden, In order, he says, that on the feast of S. Firminus thou mayest provide for the convent of the Canons, to the honour of that same S. Firminus, whose festivity we have decreed to be celebrated more solemnly than before, namely with the singers doubled in choir, as is wont to be done on the feasts of the Apostles. And this we have decreed for this reason, because the aforesaid Martyr is maintained to have been born of parents of Pamplona, and is also asserted to have been ordained bishop of that same city. And again for this reason, because the relics of that same holy Martyr, obtained by our intervening prayers from the bishop of Amiens, and transmitted to us in a golden cross, are contained in our church. Presently there are enumerated the things which were to be given to the Canons on that day at dinner and at supper, and there follow the signatures of bishop Peter and of Pontius the Prior on behalf of the whole convent. That the things decreed by these letters are still observed the aforesaid Prior Lubian testifies, yet with some change, because the possession of the garden was afterwards transferred from the warden of the infirmary to the Prior; but in return for it the Prior pays him each year a rent of twenty measures of wheat.

[98] these, and perhaps others, are still preserved in the cathedral church. But about the relics mentioned, which had been transmitted to Pamplona by the bishop of Amiens, not by the abbot of S. Denis, either in that very year 1186 or before, but while Peter was sitting, Lubian again testifies that they are still kept in the church of Pamplona, not indeed in a golden cross, yet in precious shrines. For a part of the skull, he says, having as it were the breadth and length of two joined fingers, stands in the breast, under crystal, of a beautiful silver statue representing the Saint in pontifical vestments. He adds that other parts exist in a silver shrine of oval shape, magnificently wrought; On whose foot, he says, is found written in Gothic letters: relics of the head of saint Firminus, bishop and martyr. But presently the aforesaid Prior insinuates that a silver casket, which is enclosed in the oval shrine and fastened with nails so that it cannot be opened, shows a greater antiquity. For in capital characters, in use in the XII century, it has thus on the upper part: Of the head of saint Firminus. But what part is laid up there, no one has attempted to scrutinize. And presently he says that the shrine of oval form, in which we have said another is enclosed, is carried about processionally in the cathedral on feasts of the first class, and solemnly, borne by one deacon. Thus the aforesaid Prior, from whose words it seems in some fashion doubtful whether the relics just enumerated are those very ones which Peter II received from the bishop of Amiens. Yet this is likely, at least of one or other particle.

[99] [An altar dedicated to the Saint in the Cathedral: the feast celebrated with an Octave:] From another instrument of donation, which Lubian cites and testifies to have been given in the year 1217, on the 2nd day of December, it is gathered that already at that time there was in the cathedral church an altar sacred to S. Firminus. For the donation is made to the warden of the infirmary, that he may support a chaplain who should daily at dawn celebrate Mass at the altar of the said Saint, and that he should have a lamp burning before the altar day and night. The aforesaid Prior adds: In the cathedral there still remains the altar of the said Saint in a certain very seemly chapel, where a lamp burns continually. In the first diocesan synod of Pamplona which has become known, which in the year 1300 Michael Perez de Legaria, bishop of Pamplona, convoked, as Sandoval too has it at folio 96, the cultus of S. Firminus was again increased. For from the cathedral archive Lubian brings forward this decree of that synod: Item, let the feast of S. Firminus, which was of old established, be kept and be held with a solemn octave. And that this festivity of S. Firminus was celebrated on the X day of October with an Octave I gather from the Breviaries of Pamplona: for Lubian transmitted to us the whole Office of S. Firminus transcribed from several manuscript Breviaries, and observes that it is placed at the X of October; and that the same day was kept down to the year 1590, when it was changed, as we shall see below. From those Breviaries I learn further that almost the whole Office of S. Firminus among the people of Pamplona was proper, and for the greater part composed faithfully enough from the Acts to be published, with words for invoking the Saint frequently added. It would be tedious for the reader to read again the same things which are found joined together in the Acts, torn apart into very many pieces in the lessons, antiphons and responsories; and for that cause I subjoin only a brief notice of the said Offices in order of time.

[100] The first of the said Breviaries was elegantly written on parchment in the year 1332: A proper Office of the year 1331, for that book was completed in the year of the Lord MCCCXXXII, on the IV Kalends of December, as is noted at the end; yet it seems to have been composed in the year 1331, since at the beginning is placed the Paschal table of the year 1331, era MCCCLXIX, Easter the XXXI of March, Dominical letter F. For all these designate the year 1331. In this year, then, that proper Office of S. Firminus was perhaps composed; perhaps too it was already in use before. Wherefore already at that time the ancient Acts of S. Firminus, such as we shall publish, were known to the people of Pamplona, and with the same beginning, In ancient times; for thus the first lesson begins. Besides, in that whole Office I find no word by which it is insinuated that S. Firminus was bishop of Pamplona. And so, even if some had long before said this, as is clear from the words given at number 97, that opinion was not yet admitted as certain or sufficiently proved. The collect alone from the said Office I transfer hither: O God, who art the marvellous splendour of all Thy Saints, and who hast consecrated this present day with the blood of blessed Firminus, martyr and pontiff; grant to Thy Church ever to rejoice in his birthday, that before Thy mercy we may be protected both by his examples and by his merits. Through, etc.

[101] The second Breviary is of an uncertain year; but Lubian judges that it was written between the year 1349 and 1354, another of the same century, and alleges suitable reasons. In it two proper hymns are added, whereas in the first only hymns from the common of one martyr are assigned. It will be enough if for a specimen we recite the hymn at Matins. This has:

A glad day gives us joys, Let a glad people give melodies: Whence mother Church Prepares heavenly things for her own.

O how happy the borders, Happier the household, Within whose consolations Is the presence of Firminus.

Let us venerate him with praises, Let us entreat him with tears; That from our excesses We may be guarded by his prayers.

Peace be to the unbegotten Father, Power be to His Begotten, Praise of both to the Paraclete, Reigning in due manner. Amen.

More from this Office I do not bring forward, although some other things are changed, since in it also everything conforms to the Acts.

[102] a third of the year 1383, a fourth of the year 1440. The third Breviary is of the year 1383, in which the Office of S. Firminus has lessons a little longer than in the first and second, but likewise drawn from the Acts. There I find a new collect at Sext, conceived in these words: O God, who didst constitute blessed Firminus, Thy martyr and pontiff, an illustrious teacher of the true faith to peoples of divers nations, grant, we beseech Thee, that we who today celebrate his solemnities may obtain the joy of present prosperity and the glory of future blessing. Through, etc. The fourth Breviary is of the year 1440, and in it likewise exists a similar Office of S. Firminus. Lubian also transcribed a Mass of S. Firminus from a manuscript Missal, which is indeed of uncertain year, but was composed at least between 1466 and 1499, as the aforesaid Lubian shows. That Mass has some things proper to Saint Firminus, most of which, however, can be said of other martyr-doctors also. Finally the collector Lubian observes that yet another Office of S. Firminus was composed in the year 1680; but that it was not approved by the Congregation of Sacred Rites. About it he adds that it is said to have been composed from the ancient Breviaries of Pamplona, Toulouse, Amiens and Angers. Which I note, that from these the reader may gather that the cultus of S. Firminus is ancient also in the churches of Toulouse and Angers. Let these things suffice about the various Offices; let us return to the promotion of the cultus among the people of Pamplona.

[103] [The Saint's festivity, quite solemn and formerly celebrated on the 10th day of October,] Nicholas, prelate of Pamplona, held a synod in the year 1466, on the XIX day of July, as Sandoval too writes at folio 118, from which Lubian produces this decree: Item, although the festivities of the Epiphany, and of the Lord's Ascension, and of the Nativity of the glorious Virgin Mary, and of Bl. Firminus, bishop and martyr, are celebrated in our diocese in four copes with solemn Octaves from a long time back, yet because in the ancient constitutions it is not found that this was ordained or established, therefore we establish that henceforth they be so celebrated solemnly with Octaves, as is customary, and as is contained in the Breviaries. On these things the most diligent Lubian observes that the Octave of S. Firminus was established from the year 1300,

for the cathedral church, by the words given at number 99, but that now it is extended to the whole diocese. From the words recited there, Which was of old established, he also rightly infers that the festivity of S. Firminus among the people of Pamplona is quite ancient, and perhaps was celebrated already before the irruption of the Saracens into Spain. Yet he confesses that this last cannot be proved by any monuments, and therefore is uncertain. Finally he observes that the festivity is noted in all the Breviaries on the X day of October, on which the Entry of S. Firminus is celebrated among the people of Amiens; and that on that day the festivity was continued down to the year 1590.

[104] but in the year 1590 transferred to the 7th of July. But in that same year 1590 Bernard de Sandoval, bishop of Pamplona, by a synodal decree established that the festivity of S. Firminus should thenceforth be celebrated on the VII day of July, and no longer on the X day of October. That decree, which is written in the Spanish tongue, the bishop made at the prayers of the city, which said that that time was more convenient. But Lubian prudently observes that that time seemed more convenient to the citizens for no other reason than that, by the more celebrated bull-runnings and the fairs usually held at the beginning of July, a greater multitude of people might be drawn to the festivity; and therefore he rightly says that it would have been fairer and juster, the change of the ancient day being made, to bring back the feast to the proper day of the martyrdom, and to separate sacred things wholly from profane. Yet he adds that that very change conduced to a greater cultus of S. Firminus, or to a multiplication of festivities, as we shall see below.

[105] But now let us say a few things with Lubian about the procession of the clergy of the cathedral church to the parish church of S. Lawrence on the festivity of S. Firminus, The annual procession of the clergy to the church of S. Lawrence, and about the relics long kept in that parish church. Lubian teaches, from the very ancient rules of the choir of the church of Pamplona, that all the clergy of the cathedral church, after the said hourly prayers of terce and sext, went out processionally to the church of S. Lawrence, where is the principal invocation of the most blessed Martyr and bishop: and that in that church too, the collect of S. Firminus having first been sung, the office of Mass was performed; and that then the clergy returned to the cathedral. These things being set forth more at length, Lubian subjoins: This form of procession, which held rather the manner of a station, was observed even through the whole XVI century, since the Rules of the choir, printed in the year MDXCVIII, express the same, the month and day alone being changed. But since in the following year a plague in the city of Pamplona was extinguished by the intercession of the holy Patron, it received from him a more solemn amplitude. In the ancient form the chapter with the clergy and the regulars went forth from the cathedral, and by a direct route came to the parish church of S. Lawrence, and there, the Sacrifice having been celebrated at the altar of S. Firminus, the return to the mother church was by the same route.

[106] But in the later arrangement the procession begins, as is right, [whose solemnity was increased on account of a plague extinguished by the Saint's patronage:] in the cathedral, and while it, with the secular and regular clergy, goes to the aforesaid parish church, the ancient sacred image of S. Firminus, which is venerated there, is carried about processionally with great solemnity through almost the whole city, and, that being restored to the same church of S. Lawrence, Mass is there celebrated with figured chant, and afterwards, the sacred image being left there, the chapter returns to the cathedral to end the procession. Thus far Lubian, who then sets forth at somewhat greater length what he said about the plague extinguished among the people of Pamplona in the year 1599 by the Saint's patronage. For he testifies that this happened in the year 1599, his (S. Firminus's) protection having first been implored, with a vow of the city, on the VI day of July (which was then the vigil of the festivity), to abstain from flesh-meat for ever. Which is always in force: but the fast, observed by almost the whole people, is of devotion; for it is not contained in the promise, nor is there an Office of his Vigil.

[107] The aforesaid Lubian also reviews the relics enclosed in the image of S. Firminus the Saint's relics kept in the church of S. Lawrence which he had said is carried about in the procession. His words I transfer hither: In the aforesaid sacred image, which stands in the parish church of S. Lawrence, another relic of that same holy Martyr and Bishop is preserved, given as a gift in the year MDLXXII by the lord Cardinal Anthony (de Créqui), bishop of Amiens, the king of France intervening, and the most excellent lord Francis de Alava (ambassador of Philip II at the court of the king of France). Which was solemnly received at Pamplona on the XII day of April by the bishop, chapter, clergy and people, as the most illustrious Sandoval narrates in the Catalogue of the bishops of Pamplona under the prelate D. Diego Ramirez, folio 130; and it is a considerable front part of the head of that same Martyr with the left eye… Other sacred parts also of the same body are kept laid up in the same sacred image of S. Firminus of the parish (church) of S. Lawrence: one, which belonged to the most famous doctor Martin Azpilcueta (he is commonly called Navarrus), and it is said to have been given to that illustrious man by the king of France, and afterwards in the year MDXCV to have come into the hands of the city of Pamplona. And another, which was given by the bishop and chapter of Amiens to a certain Navarrese captain named de Olague, for the merit of guarding and reverencing his mother church at the entry of the Spanish soldiery in the time of the civil wars, was at last given over to the people of Pamplona in the year MDXCVII, and is another portion of the same head of the Saint.

[108] where also is his magnificent chapel. To these the collector subjoins some things about the origin of the chapel which is sacred to S. Firminus in the church of S. Lawrence. He writes that in the year 1399 a small altar was built beside the high altar, with the venerable image of S. Firminus. Afterwards about the year 1550, devotion increasing, he says, and heavenly benefits being repeated, the place was enlarged and another altar built, in which his life is represented in sculpted images. Finally in the year 1696 the first stone of a magnificent chapel was laid by the bishop, the chapter, the viceroy and others assisting; whose construction, since it depended chiefly on alms, did not receive completion before the year MDCCXVII. But then on the VII day of July the image of the Saint, with the sacred relics kept in it, was translated into it and placed there.

[109] The Office of the Saint extended to all the dominions of the king of Spain. Hence the most diligent collector passes on to the Saint's Office. Of the ancient ones we have treated before. But the use of them was abrogated when the church of Pamplona received the Roman Breviary corrected by Pope Pius V. New lessons were then composed for the second nocturn, which Lubian testifies were approved in the year 1587 by Sixtus V. And that this Office with the said lessons was in the year 1725 extended to all the realms of the Catholic king for the VII day of July, Lubian testifies. There was afterwards added to this Office, for the whole dominion of the king of Spain, a proper collect, which the aforesaid collector observes was composed in the year 1746 by Pope Benedict XIV, still happily reigning, to be added to the Office in place of the common one. And it is conceived in these words: O God, who by the proclamation of the faith and by the contest of his passion didst crown blessed Firminus, bishop and martyr, with the laurel of immortality, mercifully grant that we may attain also the reward of him whose triumph we celebrate. Through, etc. It remains to treat of the other festivity of S. Firminus, which at length began to be celebrated in the whole kingdom of Navarre. Lubian confesses that he has no certain knowledge of the year in which that festivity was begun; but he conjectures that it was begun after the year 1647, and had its origin from the fervour of those who were disputing about the chief patron of the kingdom of Navarre. Of the beginning and end of this controversy, therefore, we shall first treat briefly.

[110] [The beginning of the controversy about the chief patron of Pamplona and of all Navarre,] The most learned Prior Lubian thus narrates the occasion of the controversy: In the aforesaid year MDCXLVII, on the XII day of November, the most illustrious lord bishop John Cuerpo de Llano — not undeservedly most worthy of perpetual memory among the prelates of Pamplona — had the Offices of the Saints of his diocese reprinted, and there on the feast day of S. Firminus he added that this Saint is the more principal patron, not only of that bishopric but also of the whole kingdom of Navarre; and on the III day of December, in the Office of S. Francis Xavier, he said that he is the less principal patron of the kingdom. Both Saints had before been venerated equally as patrons, no attention being paid to the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites approved by Urban VIII. And this was the cause of discord; and truly it supplied the tinder of a civil war among the peoples and the very families of Navarre. For every inhabitant of the kingdom fought that this or that of those two Saints should obtain the chief place of the patronage, according to the greater devotion of his own affection toward them. That controversy grew strong in the Roman curia, and a most violent fire blazed up among us.

[111] All these things I wished to recite from Lubian about the beginning of that controversy, elsewhere not rightly set forth. Since the due election had not been made; because in volume 10 of Christian Gaul, col. [ ], in S. Firminus, another beginning of the suit is set forth in these words: This dignity (of Patron) Francis de Marlou, bishop of Pamplona, endeavoured in the middle of the XVI century to take away from him (namely S. Firminus the martyr), in order to transfer it to S. Francis Xavier. About which a great suit was carried on before Pope Innocent X between the bishop and the canons, who on this occasion wrote to the people of Amiens on the IX Kalends of February MDCLI. Here indeed the suit is said to have arisen because Francis de Marlou wished to substitute S. Francis Xavier as patron in place of S. Firminus. But the suit had already arisen because the bishop of Pamplona, out of two patrons who before were equally venerated as patrons, had chosen S. Firminus as the principal one, and declared S. Francis Xavier the less principal. This the aforesaid bishop had without doubt done because he knew that only one principal patron can be chosen. Nevertheless a grave controversy could not but arise, because by that declaration S. Francis Xavier was cast down from the place in which the people of Navarre believed him to be, and venerated him with the highest devotion. And certainly it was not for the bishop alone, even with the chapter and clergy, to choose the patron of a city or a kingdom, as is clear from the Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, made in the year 1630 with the approval of Urban VIII, which are recited by Benedict XIV in the Work on the Canonization of Saints, book 4, part 2, chapter 14, number 4. For there these things are read: That the election of a city's Patron ought to be made by secret suffrages by the people, through the general Council of that city or place, and not by the officials alone, and that the consent of the bishop and clergy of that place ought to be added: and that the same ought to be observed in the case of a kingdom's patron, who likewise ought to be chosen by secret suffrages by the people of the several cities of the province. These things certainly had not been observed: for no contention could have arisen if S. Firminus, or even S. Francis Xavier, had been so chosen.

[112] For this cause the judgment for neither party

was delivered at Rome, the suit was indeed carried on at Rome, but never decided, as Lubian observes, and the aforesaid Benedict XIV, chapter 15, number 4, writing thus: Grave contentions were stirred up in the kingdom of Navarre, with great loss to the public quiet and the salvation of souls, about the patronages of the saints Firminus the martyr and Francis Xavier the confessor. The controversy was brought to the Congregation of Sacred Rites, then to the auditory of the Rota, and it remained in the middle, since it was judged that the proofs brought forward on either side supported neither of the parties, indeed were defective in several points. These are almost the very words of Alexander VII, who terminated by prudent counsel the suit which was pending, or rather left undecided by the judges, as we shall presently see. Wherefore the aforesaid author of Christian Gaul is again much mistaken, when he writes: At last by a decisive judgment the possession of the ancient honour was assured to S. Firminus. He is mistaken, I say, because he insinuates that a judgment was delivered, which never happened. Secondly he is mistaken when he hints that S. Firminus was declared the principal patron before S. Francis Xavier.

[113] Again he is mistaken when he says that the suit was between the bishop and the canons. nor was any judgment delivered for either party: For from the letters sent to Bolland about the controversy then in force, I perceive clearly enough that the nobles of Navarre laboured for S. Francis Xavier, and the clergy for S. Firminus; and that the bishop was at first for the latter is clear from what has been said above, although perhaps Francis de Marlou departed from his predecessor's opinion. Bolland received in the year 1655 the reasons alleged for S. Francis Xavier, and wrote above them in his own hand these words: Why S. Francis Xavier rather than S. Firminus, bishop and M., ought to be chosen patron of the kingdom of Navarre. This the nobility desired, the clergy resisting. The Father who wrote these was sent to Rome by the nobility. That was Fr. Gaspar Lopez, and he is said in another letter to Bolland to have been sent as procurator for that cause by the kingdom of Navarre. On that occasion, I suppose, Bolland illustrated the Acts of S. Firminus; nor can I detect by even the least indication that he did anything else for either party, unless perhaps he advised Alexander VII, to whom he was dear and to whom he frequently wrote letters, that he should satisfy the desire of both parties.

[114] but Alexander VII declared SS. Firminus and Francis Xavier Of the end of that controversy the aforesaid Benedict XIV rightly writes these things: But to settle this controversy, with the counsel of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, Alexander VII derogated from all contrary constitutions, and ordered that the saints Firminus the martyr and Francis Xavier should be venerated in the kingdom of Navarre as equally principal patrons. Then he recites some words of the Bull of Alexander VII, given on the XIV day of April of the year 1657, which may be seen entire in volume 6 of the Bullarium, page 54. Besides, considering, says the Pontiff, that the Congregation of our venerable brethren the Cardinals of the holy Roman Church set over the sacred rites, and also our beloved sons our chaplains and auditors of the causes of the Apostolic palace, the matter having been several times maturely weighed and keenly discussed, recognizing that the proofs brought forward on either side did not sufficiently support either of the parties, indeed were in several points defective, dismissed the matter itself undecided, as one never, or only very late and with the greatest difficulty, to be terminated, and that with immense loss and grave inconvenience to those same parties; of our own motion, not at the instance of any petition offered us on this matter by any person, but of our certain knowledge and mature deliberation, and out of the plenitude of Apostolic power, and by special grace, both for the aforesaid causes and for others known only to us, moving our mind, we enjoin by the tenor of these presents upon the secular and regular clergy, and also upon the universities and the people of Pamplona and of the whole kingdom of Navarre, that each year, as of equally principal patrons of the said kingdom, they observe by the precept of the Church the feasts of the aforesaid saints Firminus the martyr and Francis Xavier the confessor, and that they recite their Offices and celebrate their Masses with Octaves equally hereafter, respectively, etc.

[115] equally principal patrons of the city and kingdom, By this prudent counsel of his Pope Alexander restored peace and concord to the kingdom of Navarre without any judgment, but by a singular grace; and gave to Navarre two equal patrons, both of whom had been venerated as patrons. But since of the principal patron a commemoration is made daily at Vespers and Lauds, when the solemnity of the Office does not prevent it, the sacred Congregation of Rites on the XVII day of November of that same year approved antiphons and a collect composed for both. Now at Vespers this is the Antiphon: These are the two protectors of the kingdom, the strength of the people, and our offering before the Lord is in their hands. ℣. With glory and honour hast Thou crowned them, O Lord. ℞. And hast set them over the works of Thy hands. At Lauds the Antiphon: These are the two men of mercy, whose acts of kindness have not failed us, and their glory shall not be forsaken. ℣. With glory and honour, etc., as above. Collect. O God, who dost surround us with the twofold protection of Thy saints Firminus, Thy martyr and pontiff, and Francis Xavier the confessor, by their intercession make us to rejoice in constant peace, and preserve us by perpetual defence from the snares of all our enemies. Through our Lord, etc.

[116] Further, Lubian suspects that from the controversy just related arose the other festivity of S. Firminus on the XXV of September, [The other festivity on the 25th day of September in the whole kingdom of Navarre:] who writes the following about it: That festivity was celebrated only in the parish (church) of S. Lawrence, with a votive Mass and a sermon, the decurions of the people assisting, the first Vespers also being solemnly chanted on the XXIV day. But in the year MDCCXXXIII the church of Pamplona with its prelate besought the Sacred Congregation of Rites that on the said XXV day of September it might be lawful to recite the aforesaid Office of S. Firminus a second time in the city and diocese. But this it obtained only under a simple rite, with the title of the Commemoration of the martyrdom, by the decree of the IV day of December: which in the year MDCCXXXV, on the XXV day of June, was raised to a semi-double rite; and afterwards by the most holy Pope Benedict XIV in the year MDCCXLVI was endowed also with a double rite, on the III day of September, and extended to the whole kingdom of Navarre, as is clear from the decrees preserved in the cathedral.

[117] From the aforesaid suit Lubian insinuates that yet another festivity of S. Firminus arose, another certain solemnity without an Office. but without an Office, as that one was begun which is now celebrated with an Office on the XXV of September. There is held, he says, this solemnity, such as it is, on the Ides of January, that is, on the XIII day of January, if this be a Sunday; otherwise on the second Sunday after the Epiphany. And this, he says, is the festivity which is called that OF THE RELICS of S. Firminus, but more truly should be called that OF THE FINDING of the sacred body. And that festivity should rather be called one of the whole kingdom of Navarre than of the city of Pamplona. For while the general estates of the kingdom are being held, all who are gathered in the estates attend the festivity; but while the estates are not sitting, the deputies for the business of the kingdom attend in their stead. And they come solemnly to the church of S. Lawrence, are present at the celebration of Vespers, and on the following day betake themselves to Mass with a sermon. This feast, says Lubian, does not extend beyond the said Vespers and the votive Mass, to be celebrated in the aforesaid parish church for a grave matter; since no Office has been granted of the said Saint's finding, such as the church of Amiens has.

[118] We have seen above that the Office of S. Firminus was extended by Benedict XIV to the whole of Spain. A confraternity and church at Madrid: a confraternity likewise at Saragossa. Hence it may be that his cultus has been promoted in several places in later years. But it will suffice me to give what Lubian collected, and what is partly older, partly later. Since it has already been said, he says, about the cultus of S. Firminus among the people of Pamplona and the other peoples of Navarre, it now occurs that we must set forth what concerns the city of Madrid. There exists there a noble and numerous confraternity, among whose members the Catholic kings are numbered, which venerates S. Firminus with a most solemn annual cultus on the VII day of July and the XXV of September. Those are admitted as members who are natives of Navarre, or who derive their origin from that kingdom. And lately a church under the Saint's title was there erected by the Confraternity: and to it was translated the sacred image from the church of the Fathers of the most holy Trinity, where it was venerated from of old. Another like confraternity was erected in the year MDCCLII at Saragossa, in the parish church of S. Michael. Besides, the author testifies that in an ancient and precious little book of prayers, which is believed to have belonged to S. Elizabeth queen of Portugal, and is kept at Saragossa in the treasury of the church of the most blessed Virgin Mary of the Pillar, commonly called del Pilar, he found litanies of the Saints, and that in them S. Firminus is invoked among the martyrs, as also S. Saturninus. He observes, however, that S. Firminus is not named in the litanies inserted in the Saragossa Missal of the year 1552, although in those too S. Saturninus is found.

[119] The head of S. Firminus which is kept at Madrid, Francis Lanovius in the Chronicle of the Minims, at the year 1561, discourses about the convent of the Minims at Madrid, and there at page 257 writes these things to our purpose: Certainly that church (of the Minims) rejoices in most precious sacred pledges, but then chiefly in the head of S. Firminus, bishop of Pompeiopolis. Of this persuasion John Tamayo in the Spanish Martyrology at the XXV of September speaks thus in the Annotations: Lanovius … asserts that the head of our Martyr exists in the Madrid monastery of the Minims which is called La Vittoria. But who translated it, he does not disclose. Lubian, so very often cited, does not acquiesce in the persuasion of the Minims of Madrid, but strives to refute it from the various parts of the head of S. Firminus which the church of Pamplona possesses.

[120] does not seem to be that of today's Saint of Amiens. For when he had enumerated these, he reasons thus: From which it is clear that the head shown among the Minims of Madrid is that of another S. Firminus, since that one is found entire; whereas we have almost the whole of our Patron of Pamplona, cut into various parts, deposited in the cathedral and in the aforesaid church of S. Lawrence. For although the said Friars of S. Paul, to establish the genuineness of their relic, put forward a donation made by the Catholic queen, Maria Luisa of Bourbon, first wife of Charles II king of the Spains, nothing else is there asserted except that it is of S. Firminus: and there are several Saints of this name. So he, enumerating some Firminuses, to whom more may be added. But if all that Lubian here asserts he had ascertained with certainty, it can scarcely be doubted that the Minims of Madrid have the head of another Saint, perhaps an anonymous one, on whom the name of Firminus could have been imposed. Certainly they cannot allege a donation of Maria Luisa of Bourbon, who was married to Charles II, unless they convict their own Lanovius of a lie, or wish to have two heads. For the Chronicle of Lanovius was printed in the year 1635, that is, long before Maria Luisa or even Charles II was born. Perhaps the Minim Fathers do not know from whom they received that head. But if it is entire, it is far more likely

that it was brought from the Roman catacombs than that it was separated from the rest of the body of S. Firminus, martyr of Amiens.

LIFE

From two manuscripts, that of Amiens and that of Antwerp, collated with six others and with Bosquet's edition.

Firminus, bishop and Mart., at Amiens in Gaul (S.)

BHL Number: 3003

From manuscripts.

CHAPTER I.

The Saint's homeland, his parents and their conversion: his boyhood, his youth, his episcopal consecration.

[ ] Firmus the senator, father of S. Firminus, dwelling at Pamplona, In ancient times, in which the Christian faith, by the illumination of the grace of the Holy Spirit, began to flourish through the various climes of the world, whence the tyrannical rage of the faithless was raging against the Christian people, there was in the Iberian ^a city called Pampolana ^b a man venerable for the uprightness of his life, first by birth and rank among the senators, Firmus ^c by name and by work: and he had a wife like him in manners and comeliness, Eugenia by name. For both were renowned according to the dignity of the world, and rich in means and wealth. And when in those days they were going forth, according to the rites of the Gentiles, to worship at the temple of Jupiter, on a certain day there arrived there a certain priest of the Christians, Honestus by name. And when with the free voice of preaching he proclaimed among the people that the idols were to be execrated, Firmus, a most illustrious man, came to him and said to him: If our gods, as thou assertest, are idols — whom hoary antiquity and the Roman princes have worshipped from the beginning of the age — say then what religion, or what God to be worshipped, thou wouldst rather bring in for us.

[2] Answering him, Honestus said: The Maker of heaven and earth, he is taught by Honestus the priest the vanity of idols, of the sea and of all things that are in them; know that He is the true, one and only God, through whom are all things, in whom are all things, and without whom no creature can subsist. For He is the ruler of death and of life. For the gods of the nations, whom your profane religion worships and deluded heathendom practises, ^d must rather be believed to be demons than a religion of Divinity. For thus the Holy Spirit speaks through the prophet, saying: For all the gods of the nations are demons: but the Lord made the heavens. And Firmus the senator, hearing these and such things, turning to Faustinus and Fortunatus, said: What must be said against these things? ^e To whom Fortunatus said: Let us hear his reasoning yet further, and learn the ground of the matter, that from his own reasoning we may be able to confute him. But Firmus, turning to Honestus, says to him: And thou, of what sect or religion art thou, that thou presumest to utter so wicked an opinion against our gods and goddesses?

[3] Answering him, Honestus said: If thou wouldst know of me who I am, or from whom I sprang, and the omnipotence of God, I shall in part show thee a clear account; for I profess that I was born of my father Emelius ^f and my mother Honesta, in the city of Nîmes. ^g But as to what is further — as thou hast asked, of what sect or doctrine I am, or what my religion is — I shall constantly teach it with free voice. I am a Christian, instructed in the Catholic faith, dedicated in the Order of the priesthood, a disciple of Saturninus ^h the bishop, and his son in baptism, taught in the liberal letters, and imbued from the earliest time of my youth with the instruments of the divine Scriptures; and as I have found there by the study of doctrine, so I teach. Namely, that God is one, who rules over all things visible and invisible, who is and was and shall be; in whom are all the treasures of wisdom, who encloses all things in His fist by the nod of His majesty — Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, one God in three Persons; and three Persons in the true Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.

[4] and the marvellous works of His incarnate Son. Which mystery, if anyone shall wish to know fully, we shall be able, by His own gift, to open it. But this, as it stands, ⁱ no one can comprehend without the grace and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But if any of you shall wish to know and to acknowledge the true God, let him first confess that there is no other God besides the one ^k omnipotent, who is Three and One; and it is not lawful to deny Him. Namely because the gods whom ancient heathendom cultivated are dumb and deaf images; for they are made either of metals, or of wood or stones, by a craftsman ^l in the likeness of a human figure, or even — what is more — golden, silver and bronze ones are adorned by the craft of smiths. They have a mouth, and speak not; they have eyes, and see not; ears, and hear not; ^m nostrils, and smell not; hands, and handle not; feet, and walk not — as the divine Scripture recalls, saying: Let them that make them become like unto them, and all that trust in them. But our omnipotent God Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God the Father, begotten before the ages out of the secret of the Godhead, was born in our age of the Virgin Mary; to whom power was given in heaven and on earth, who loosed the human race from the bond of death by the trophy of His passion: who, triumphing over the devil, snatched the human race from the lower regions, and led forth all who believe in Him from death to life, from darkness to light, from servitude to liberty, and redeemed all by the price of His blood from the captivity and power of the devil. Who, walking through the deep with dry feet, trod it down; who raised Lazarus, four days dead, from the dead; who sits at the right hand of God the Father; who is to come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire: who will then render to each according to what he has done and wrought in this short life: to whom angels and archangels stand by; who will establish the holy and just in an everlasting kingdom, and will lay infinite punishments and torments upon the impious and sinners. This religion and clear doctrine of truth Saturninus the bishop, disciple of the Apostles, ⁿ showed us, and commanded us to preach the Gospel of truth among all the gentiles, and by this saving doctrine to teach and baptize all men, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, unto the remission of sins, and unto life perpetual without end.

[5] Then S. Saturninus, coming to Pamplona, with a great multitude of people At this consideration Firmus ^o the senator, admiring his eloquence and weighing within himself the sense of what was set forth, said: If Saturninus, whom thou callest a disciple of the Apostles, had asserted such words and opinions to us, to him perhaps we should have turned the edge of our mind; for we have heard his fame and his powers, shining forth in words and in many signs, which he works in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. To whom Honestus, as he was intent, said: If it be your consideration that you may be able to acknowledge the light of truth, my lord, father and master Saturninus is at hand, to implant in you the saving preaching of everlasting life, and to lead you from darkness to the true light. These things being done, that prelate and pontiff on about the seventh day [p] came to the city of Pampolana, and, sitting there under a terebinth, where a most ancient temple of Diana was worshipped in a cypress grove, [q] set forth the word of preaching openly to all, and, the execrable superstitions and worship of idols being condemned, taught that the true God was rather to be worshipped; to whom a concourse of the city was made from all sides. And there, teaching the people the word of salvation for three days, and confirming it by mighty signs, he called back nearly forty [r] thousand men of both sexes from error and the profane worship of idols to the acknowledging of the true God Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God the Father; and baptized them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the guilt of their old life being wiped away; and he ordered the most ancient temple of Diana to be destroyed from its foundations, and rooted out the grove utterly.

[6] These things being thus done, and this being heard, [s] a week having passed, he converts Firmus and the other senators to the faith. Firmus, Fortunatus and Faustinus, as they were the first and elders in the senate, came thither with a multitude of the common people and with the citizens of the city, to Saturninus the bishop, that in his presence they might receive the mysteries of his holy doctrine. For before that they had heard very many things about him by the report of many. And indeed they remained before his face for about three days, drawing from his mouth the substance of divine grace; they learned the path of truth and the ways of justice, and that the burning of the true light consisted in his preaching and doctrine. Then, salutary counsel being taken, they forsook the profane worships of idols, and determined to follow and believe the true God whom Saturninus preached. Then Firmus, and Faustinus, and Fortunatus, prostrate at the pontiff's feet, renounced the idols, and professed that the living God Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, was to be worshipped and believed in, and straightway, having received the mystery of sacred baptism, by the confession of the holy Trinity they were made not only Christians, but even teachers and masters of Christians.

[7] And so the aforesaid Firmus held the chief place among the people and the senate, Firmus's son S. Firminus, rightly instructed by Honestus, a man of marvellous gentleness, illustrious above his other fellow-citizens for uprightness and religion. He had a wife named Eugenia; of whom he begot Firminus, and Faustus, and Eusebia [t] their sister. But in course of time the aforesaid Firmus, being Catholic in faith and in work, handed over his firstborn son named Firminus to Honestus the priest, that he might imbue him with liberal letters and Christian discipline, because he was also before that his son in baptism. But Firminus, when he was nearly seventeen years old and had been instructed in letters and Catholic doctrine, began to advance in the study of religion; for, longing after the churches at every hour, he hastened assiduously to render praises and honours to God and to His Saints.

[8] And when he had advanced nearly seven years in the study of religion and in the degrees of wisdom, in his youth he teaches the people, he stood out toward the heights of the virtues. But the aforesaid priest Honestus, being weighed down by the time of old age, often sent him through the villages and suburbs of the city, [u] where he might confirm by the word of preaching the people now devoted to God; and he himself, although he was in the flower of youth, with marvellous gravity and constancy called forth the people to the zeal of the Christian religion. And when his father and master Honestus considered this — that in that same spiritual grace he was increasing more and more before all in word and doctrine — he sent him to Honoratus, [w] bishop of the city of Toulouse, that he might establish him in the degree and grace of the episcopate by the imposition of hands.

[9] and then is made bishop by S. Honoratus. When Honoratus the bishop saw him, he perceived in him that he had been predestined and chosen for this by the Lord, that he should preach the word of life and the grace of salvation among the nations; and he ordained him bishop, that he might preach the name of the Lord in the parts of the West

should preach. And he addressed him also before all in these words: Rejoice, son; for thou hast deserved to be a vessel of election to the Lord. Go therefore into the dispersion of the nations; thou hast received from the Lord grace and the office of the apostolate. Fear not, for the Lord is with thee; for know that in all things thou must suffer many things for His name, that thou mayest come to the crown of glory. And so blessed Firminus the bishop, bidding farewell to Honoratus the bishop, to his brethren and fellow-priests, returned, with life for companion, to Honestus the priest, his master and foster-father. And he [x] related to him all the things which had befallen him on the way, and with what words that holy prelate Honoratus had imbued him; and how and in what manner he had commanded him to announce the word of preaching and the name of Jesus Christ into the dispersion of the nations.

ANNOTATIONS.

p So in both manuscripts which I follow. In the others on about the seventeenth day, as Bolland published. Bosquet omitted the day, which the author probably did not know, and set down only by conjecture. Indeed I scarcely doubt that all the discourses reported were composed by the author's own meditation.

q So most manuscripts have. Bosquet, with two, in loco opressino, faultily, I suppose. But it is not likely enough that S. Saturninus began his preaching in an open place, if he had come to Pamplona on account of Firmus and his fellow senators. The account would certainly be more probable if the senators, presently to be named, were said to have been converted and instructed first, and the preaching then begun for the whole people. But the author seems to have had only a confused knowledge of the deeds of S. Saturninus; so that scarcely anything else out of all this seems to be admitted than that Firmus and some other senators, and much of the people, were converted there. Bolland has already observed that the place where S. Saturninus is believed to have preached at Pamplona is now called the borough of S. Sernin, or Saturninus, and that in the Life of S. Papulus it is asserted that S. Saturninus stayed two years and more at Pamplona. If so long a stay is true — which the said Life cannot make certain — the conversion of nearly forty thousand men may also be true, which our author seems improbably to enclose within a brief time.

r In one manuscript fifty, in another twenty. The author will have written forty, probably with greater exaggeration than exact knowledge of the number of the converted.

s Elsewhere, These such things being heard, or, These such things being thus done and heard.

t In Bosquet and in one manuscript Sebiam. In one of ours no mention is made of Faustus and Eusebia.

u In four manuscripts suburban cities. Bosquet, faultily, per vices, etc.

w S. Honoratus, bishop of Toulouse, is announced by Castellan at the 25th of December; but he says that his feast is celebrated on the 16th day of the said month, so that he must be treated on one day or the other.

x Namely Firminus to Honestus, as a little before qui is said of Honoratus.

* elsewhere excolit

* elsewhere adduxit

* elsewhere hos

* elsewhere locum

* elsewhere inhianter

* elsewhere perficeret

CHAPTER II.

The preaching of S. Firminus: his various contests and his martyrdom.

[ ] The Saint, leaving his father and his country, sets out into Gaul: Then, not long afterwards, ^a that holy prelate, the aforesaid Firminus, turning over and considering the proclamation of the divine Scriptures, and laying up in the bosom of his heart the doctrine of evangelical truth, where it says: Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And again: Take no thought how or what you shall speak; for it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you. And in another place: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the good tidings of virtues; ^b and many other things which are found in the divine Scriptures about the perfection of announcing the Gospel of the Son of God. Therefore about the thirty-first year of his age, leaving his country, his father, his brother and his sister, and the most sweet acquaintance of his own people, he went on into the parts of Gaul, to the city of Agen; ^c and there he stayed for a good many days with Eustagius ^d the priest, confirming ^e and teaching the people, and instructing them in the zeal of Catholic doctrine and in the grace of the divine Scriptures.

[11] he preaches in Auvergne, at Angers and at Beauvais; Then passing through the borders of the city of Auvergne, ^f he called forth the greatest part of that land to the grace of Christ: and there, contending with Arcadius and Romulus about the contempt of idols, he nevertheless after many hazards brought them to the grace of holy baptism. Afterwards therefore, crossing the river Loire, he was detained by Auxilius, prelate ^h of the city of Angers, ^g for a year and three months in the word of preaching, where he brought the greatest part of that province to the knowledge of evangelical truth. And so most blessed Firminus the bishop, hearing that the governor Valerius ⁱ in the Gauls, in the city of Beauvais, was exercising a tyrannical impiety toward the Christians, and afflicting many in those borders for the name of Christ with divers torments of punishments, himself, like a most valiant athlete of Christ, came to the city of Beauvais, where the onset of the battle was fiercer; and there he sustained very many snares of the persecutors. For being thrust into prison, he endured chains and not a few scourges, ceasing not day and night to preach the Gospel. But afterwards, the governor Sergius ^k having died by a sudden stroke, blessed Firminus the bishop is released from prison by the Christian people, and, announcing to all the Gospel of truth with free and unbound word, he first ^l confirmed that people in the solidity of the faith. In which place he established a church of the blessed protomartyr Stephen, ^m and there led back very many peoples from the worship of idols to the acknowledging of the light of truth.

[12] and at last he comes to Amiens, where he converts many. Then, coming to the town of the people of Amiens, on the tenth day of the month of October ⁿ he entered this city, and, being received by Faustinian ^o the senator, he called his household to the grace of baptism, and made that same Faustinian a catechumen; and he baptized the household of Auxentius Hilarius, together with Auxentius himself: Attilia, once the most illustrious wife of Agrippinus, with her children, menservants and maidservants, he baptized on the same day: and there were converted in those three continuous days [p] by blessed Firminus the bishop nearly three thousand of both sexes. And the aforesaid catechumen Faustinian he brought to the perfection of the glory of baptism with great joy of the Christians.

[13] And so the governors Longulus and Sebastian, [q] hearing what was being done at that time by blessed Firminus the bishop, Before the governors who had entered Amiens came from the city of Trier, and entering the city of the people of Amiens, presiding before the tribunal, gave orders and commanded that all should assemble on the third day at the Cimilian praetorium; [r] and there, three days having passed, according to the command of the governors, all the tribunes of the soldiers and the whole soldiery assembled there together. Then the governors gave orders and commanded that the councillors and the priests of the temples should come together into their presence, and, these standing by, Sebastian the governor said: The most sacred emperors [s] have decreed that the honour and worship of the gods in all

the borders of the world be preserved by peoples and nations, and that the altars and shrines be venerated with incense according to the old and ancient customs of the princes; and that if anyone shall attempt to go against the decrees of the most sacred emperors, or shall be unwilling to observe them, he be afflicted with divers kinds of torments; and it has been established by decree of the senators and princes of the Roman commonwealth that he undergo a capital sentence.

[14] To whom Auxilius, a councillor and venerable priest of the temples of Jupiter and Mercury, answering, S. Firminus is accused as overturning idolatry, said: There is here one pontiff of the Christians, who not only overturns the city of Amiens from the worship and religion of the gods, but seems to be separating almost the whole world, and the integrity of the Roman empire, from the worship of the immortal gods. To whom Sebastian said: Who is he that has dared to perpetrate so great a wickedness and profane crime? Auxilius said: Firminus by name, and a Spaniard by race, most eloquent in art and speech, ready in all sagacity. This man preaches and teaches the people that there is no other God, nor any other power in heaven and on earth, save the God of the Christians, Jesus Christ, whom he calls the Nazarene. Him he calls omnipotent above all gods; but our gods he names demons, and by free protestation declares to all that the idols and images are vain, dumb, deaf and senseless: so he overturns the people from the worship and religion of the gods, that no one now comes to the venerable temples of Jupiter and Mercury to burn incense or make supplication; but he seduces the hearts of all the senators to the Christian sect. If thou dost not exterminate him, and afflict him with divers punishments as an example to others, great danger will thence accrue to the commonwealth, and at the last he will strive to overturn the foundation and stability of the Roman empire. But hear our counsels, most excellent governor, that the commonwealth may be saved by thee, and thou mayest deliver the gods and goddesses from the imminent danger. Command that he be presented here before the tribunal, all being present.

[15] Then Sebastian commanded his soldiers to present him at the spectacles of the theatre, at the Clippian gate, before he preaches the faith freely when questioned; after two days. Hearing therefore that the cause of the matter was being handled, the precious martyr of Christ Firminus, going forth on the next day, came to the praetorium, and stood steadfastly before the tribunal in the sight of the princes, and taught that the omnipotent God Jesus Christ the Nazarene must be adored, and preached that the images and profane shrines of the idols must be destroyed and exterminated. Turning to him, Sebastian said: Art thou that wicked man, who destroyest the temples of the holy gods, and dividest the common people and the populace from the holy religion of the most sacred emperors? Whence art thou? Or by what name art thou called? Of what city or race dost thou seem to be? Saint Firminus, the precious bishop of the Lord, answering him steadfastly, said: If thou askest about my name, I am called Firminus, a Spaniard by race, [t] a senator by rank, a citizen of Pampolana, a Christian by faith and doctrine, a bishop in degree; sent to preach the Gospel of the Son of God, that the nations and peoples may know that there is no other God in heaven above nor on earth beneath; who made all things out of nothing; in Him all things subsist: who has the power of life and death; and no one can snatch anything from His hand; to whom stand by angels and the powers of the heavens; to whom every knee is bowed, of things in heaven, on earth and under the earth: who bows down kingdoms and looses the belts of kings; under whom the seasons run and the generations are changed, and He Himself shall not be changed for ever, since He is the same and His years shall not fail. But the gods whom you nations worship, through the illusions and phantasms of demons, are dumb, deaf and senseless images, which deceive souls and plunge their worshippers into the depth of hell. These things I preach, and declare with free voice that they are diabolical fabrications; and I pronounce that they must be forsaken by all peoples and nations, lest with them they be plunged into the depths of Tartarus and everlasting Gehenna, where their father the devil is.

[16] and despises threats. Hearing these things, Sebastian the governor, filled with impious fury, cried out with a loud voice. And, silence being made, he uttered such a sentence: By the immortal gods and goddesses and their unconquered power, I adjure thee, Firminus, to come to thy senses from this folly of thine, and not to withdraw from the holy religion which thy fathers cultivated; but say now [u] that thou wilt speedily sacrifice to the gods and goddesses. For if thou dost not, all kinds of torments shall receive thee, and I shall cause thee to be consummated by a most shameful death in the sight of all. To whom saint Firminus, the martyr of Christ, answering steadfastly and fearing nothing, said: Be it known to thee, governor Sebastian, that I fear not thy torments and the punishments which thou promisest me; but I rather grieve at thy folly and vanity, that thou shouldst believe that I, the servant of the immortal God who rules over all, can be shaken by impious kinds of torments. The more punishments thou shalt promise to heap upon me, so much the more will my omnipotent God give me the strength of endurance; that I may deserve to come worthily through so many contests to the crown of unfading glory — I who, for the temporal punishments which thou promisest me, will not let go the perpetual life in the kingdom of the Son of God, where we shall reign with Him without end. But thou shalt endure the torments and perpetual torture of Tartarus and the inextinguishable flames; and there thou shalt burn without end in the heat of inextinguishable fire for the impiety which thou now exercisest against the servants of God.

[17] The governor orders the Saint to be slain secretly in prison, But Sebastian and the assembly of the peoples and of the common folk marvelled exceedingly at the constancy and the preaching of blessed Firminus the martyr: and the people wished to snatch him from the hands of Sebastian, because through him various miracles had been shown. For he both raised up paralytics and purified bodies possessed by demons: two he cleansed of the disease of leprosy at the Clippian gate; he restored a struck-out eye to Castus the son of Andrew; he healed fevers and very many infirmities, the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit being invoked; and many other innumerable miracles the Lord worked through him. Therefore Sebastian feared to hand him over to torments, lest through him a tumult should be found among the people. And so Sebastian commanded his soldiers to seize him, and to commit him to the keepers of the prison; and he ordered him to be secretly beheaded in the prison in the silence of the night, and his body to be hidden, lest he should be honourably venerated by the Christians whom he had brought to the true light.

[17] Meanwhile, [w] while that precious and acceptable victim to the Lord, the most blessed bishop Firminus, ceased not by his wonted preaching to make solid the people of Christ in the Catholic faith, where he is crowned with martyrdom. the soldiers with excessive severity, as had been commanded them, seized him unawares, and, having seized him, led him away to the prison. And when, between their hands, marked with a divine token, he ceased not with living voice to praise Christ the Son of God in the face of their rage, hastily thrusting him back into the dungeon of the darkest prison, and the door being sealed and guards set, they departed. But on the following night, when the people of Somonobrica * had given themselves to sleep, the sword-bearing soldiers are at hand, ready to carry out the commands of their most wicked governor. Beholding them, that sacred and acceptable holocaust to Christ, filled with a lively exultation of heart, began for very joy to pour forth tears, and, entreating with suppliant prayer, to chant: I give Thee thanks, Lord Jesus Christ, rewarder of all good things, good shepherd, who hast deigned to call me to the fellowship of Thy faithful. Deign therefore, merciful King, most clement King, mercifully to guard those whom Thou hast willed to acquire for Thyself by our ministry, and clemently to hear all who through me have sought Thy help; for Thine is the kingdom and the lofty power, through the immortal ages of ages. These things therefore being said, one of the soldiers, drawing his most impious sword, did not fear to strike the holy neck. And thus the Martyr of the Lord was made perfect in the confession of the holy Trinity, and gloriously crowned in the heavens.

[18] And when the corpse of the most lofty Martyr lay lifeless, The Saint's burial, above which a church was built: Faustinian, [x] whom that same most precious witness of Christ Firminus had already before baptized, silently by night carried off his body, taken up from the prison; and in his own cemetery, which is called Abladana, with spices and precious linen cloths, he laid it in a new tomb [y] in which no one seemed to have been placed as yet. In which [z] place saint Firminus, bishop and confessor, built a church, [aa] and at the head of that same most glorious martyr blessed an altar in honour of the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary. In which, when on a certain day, ministering, he was consecrating the Sacrifice before the altar, the heavens being opened, he beheld the palm of our Lord [bb] and Saviour Jesus Christ by the merits of his aforesaid most precious Martyr. There at length, by the co-operation of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the honour and praise of that same most illustrious witness of His, Firminus, frequent and health-bringing miracles are done. For the sick coming receive their former health, the blind their enlightenment, the lame their recovery, those vexed by a demon their deliverance.

[19] Worthily therefore does he abide in eternal praise, since by paying out the seeds of the divine word, a general elogium of the Saint. our church shines forth from him. O how blessed a Man, who prudently fulfilled the commands of God, and happily came to the kingdom of Christ! For he was fervent in spirit, serving the Lord, rejoicing in hope, succouring with cheerfulness those placed in tribulation; for that he might make God propitious to himself, he relieved the want of the needy. Therefore he has been exalted above the stars, and worthily glorified by the worshippers of Christ on earth. Venerable, then, is his illustrious solemnity, who, persevering steadfastly in the confession of the true faith, received the sword, and after the enormity of his torments was gathered into the fellowship of the Saints; and happy also and exulting he triumphs with Christ in the kingdom of the heavens, to whom be honour, praise and unfailing jubilation through the infinite ages of ages. Amen. [cc]

ANNOTATIONS.

passed through the borders preaching, so that it cannot be said in what place he contended with Arcadius and Romulus and converted them.

p It is not likely that all that is here narrated was accomplished in three days.

q In this reading seven manuscript codices agree. Bosquet, with whom the Trier codex agrees, published thus: And so Valerius Sebastian, hearing, etc. But this reading seems faulty: for Vincent of Beauvais and the manuscript abridgment of Utrecht have Longulus and Sebastian as distinct persons, as also does Peter de Natalibus; but in him for Longulus is read Longinus, as Loisel too has at page 66. But Louvet at page 165 calls him Longulus, and adds Sebastian to him, with all those already mentioned. Tillemont and Baillet followed Bosquet's faulty edition, because they had scarcely any manuscript Acts. A little after, for they came from the city of Trier, Bosquet has, he came to the city; the Trier manuscript, he came to the city of Trier — without doubt faultily.

r Cimilianum have three codices of ours with three others, the Amiens one Cymilianum, the Trier one Emilianum, Bosquet Æmilianum.

s In two codices, namely the Amiens one and one of ours, which I follow as more correct than the rest, the names of the emperors are not expressed. But in six others, and in Bosquet, there is added, Decius and Valerian. See what is said in the Commentary, number 5. The remaining words of Sebastian are also expressed in a somewhat different manner in the codices, but the sense is everywhere the same.

t In Bosquet and in five manuscripts a Roman by race: but in the two which I follow, and in the other of ours, a Spaniard by race.

u In certain codices for dicito is read dicto, the sense being left incomplete; in one dic te, etc.; in others, sacrifice sooner than said. Bosquet: declare that thou wilt sacrifice to the gods sooner than said.

w What is read in this whole article down to the Saint's death is not found in Bosquet, nor in most of the manuscripts. Yet these things are in the two codices which I follow, namely the Amiens one and ours, to which another of ours accedes, formerly of Vaucelles. But in the rest these things about the Saint's martyrdom are briefly substituted: Bl. Firminus the bishop therefore confessed Christ in martyrdom, and was martyred in that confession on the VII day of the Kalends of October. Bosquet gave these very words, but still more contracted.

x In this word Faustinian all the codices about the burial almost agree; Bosquet alone has Faustinus.

y That about the new tomb, etc., is again read only in the three codices just mentioned. But the burial of S. Firminus having been related, the two codices which I follow plainly disagree with all the rest down to the end, even in almost all the facts.

z Since all the codices, with Bosquet, disagree with the two manuscripts whose text I publish, it will be well to recite everything here from them, from the Saint-Omer manuscript, with which most of the codices agree in almost everything. Sebastian at length, not many days after, is slain by the soldiers in the city of Beauvais (elsewhere Belvacum). But Faustinian, whom we mentioned before, who also laid up the body of Bl. Firminus, in love and memory of Bl. Firminus, martyr and confessor, named his only son Firminus: and, having had him imbued with sacred letters, handed him over to religious men to be instructed. Who afterwards shone forth to all in the parts of the Gauls in wisdom and doctrine, like a most brilliant ray of the sun. For while he was comely of countenance, most sure in speech, upright in morals and chastity, he was made father and master of almost all the churches of Europe. And when by the degrees of the virtues he seemed to be ascending to the heights of the church, he is ordained to the office of the episcopate by John, prelate of the church of Lyons. Through whom the divine mercy deigned to show many miracles in His Church: for he both restored very many paralytics to their former health, and freed the son of the patrician Callistus from fevers by the power of prayer, and many times purified in individual places those vexed by demons: as even to this day his merits shine far and wide for all who invoke him and hope through him. Who also built a church in honour of holy Mary the Virgin, where S. Firminus, martyr and pontiff, is handed down to have been laid: there too Firminus the bishop had chosen that his burial should be. But because it is doubtful, on account of the pressing weight of the persecution which then was, where S. Firminus the martyr was secretly laid by Faustinian, yet it is not doubtful where S. Firminus, confessor and bishop, is laid, after many miracles shown. There without doubt the Martyr also must be believed to rest. And he lived sixty-seven years: on the tenth day of the Kalends of September he happily departed from the world, our Lord Jesus Christ reigning, who with the Father together and the Holy Spirit lives and rules through the immortal ages of ages. Amen. Thus far the Saint-Omer transcript, with which five other manuscripts almost agree, except for a few things to be noted presently. In Bosquet the discourse is more polished than in any manuscript. But since all the aforesaid things are not read in the two codices, I vehemently suspect that they are not the first writer's, but were added afterwards; just as I judge that some things too were added in the said two manuscripts. Further, the codices do not agree about the age of S. Firminus. With the Saint-Omer one about the sixty-seven years three others agree, namely one of ours, the manuscript of St. Gall, and that of Bonnefontaine, so that this seems the true reading, four manuscripts agreeing. For Bosquet, who published forty-seven, has agreeing with him only the Trier codex, which everywhere is more conformable to that edition than all the rest. In our codex alone, formerly of Vaucelles, is read seventy-seven. About the day of his death again the codices disagree. That he died on the tenth day of the Kalends of September our codex, formerly of Vaucelles, has with the Saint-Omer one. But on the day of the Kalends of September, with Bosquet, three codices have, namely the Trier one, that of Bonnefontaine, and one of ours: and this is the opinion of the people of Amiens, who venerate S. Firminus the confessor on the 1st day of September; and it is asserted both in the Breviary of Amiens and in the Life of S. Firminus the confessor. In the codex of S.

Gall is read, On the VII day of the Kalends of October he happily departed from the world. But on that day S. Firminus the martyr is believed to have suffered: yet the passage alleged all have commonly understood of S. Firminus the confessor, and the words given, he happily departed from the world, hint that it must be understood of him; indeed in one codex of ours it is clearly said: On the day of the Kalends of September that same Firminus the confessor happily departed from the world. For the rest, John, bishop of Lyons, who is said to have ordained S. Firminus the confessor, is plainly unknown, as I have already observed at the 1st of September, in S. Firminus the confessor, number 6, where I also noted that the age of S. Firminus the confessor is more rightly set down in one codex as sixty-seven years than as forty-seven in Bosquet, which I have now abundantly confirmed by searching through all the codices.

aa That this church was dedicated to the most blessed Virgin Mary, other codices have, whose words I have given; and the same is here hinted by the altar consecrated to the Virgin Mother. More about this church I observed at the 1st of September, in the Posthumous Glory of S. Firminus the confessor, §1.

bb The same is read in the Life of S. Firminus the confessor, number 8, where at letter p I annotated that that miracle is in several documents referred to S. Honoratus, who presided over the church of Amiens at the end of the 6th century, and of whom we treated at the 16th of May. Wherefore, since the same favour probably did not happen to both, it seems to have been transferred by an error from one to the other. Certainly it is doubtful whether it befell S. Firminus the confessor, especially since these later things are read only in two codices, and are omitted in six other manuscripts of ours, so that there may be a vehement suspicion that this whole later part was added to the Acts long afterwards, and is not the work of the author of the Life of S. Firminus. Wherefore, as I insinuated in the place alleged, that grace of the Lord's hand seen will at least more probably be attributed to S. Honoratus than to S. Firminus the confessor, even though it is read in the additions of the two codices.

cc Here the Acts end in our codex. In the Amiens transcript these few words follow: Sebastian at length, not many days after, is slain by the soldiers in the city of Beauvais.

* in one manuscript Valliæ

* elsewhere Ligerim

* elsewhere Hilaria

* elsewhere facundus

* elsewhere venit

* elsewhere Clipianam

* elsewhere prolis

* elsewhere balteos

* elsewhere Somanobrica