ON ST. EUSEBIUS OF BOLOGNA, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR,
AT BOLOGNA IN ITALY
ABOUT THE YEAR CD.
COLLECTION
Concerning his cult, deeds, age, etc.
Eusebius, bishop and confessor, at Bologna in Italy. (S.)
BY J. S.
Eusebius, bishop of Bologna, the Roman Martyrology announces today after St. Eusebius the Pope in this way: St. Eusebius entered today in the Fasti, At Bologna likewise of saint Eusebius, bishop and confessor. Filippo Ferrari agrees in his Catalogue of the Saints of Italy, commending St. Eusebius of Bologna with a brief eulogy, and so does Brautius in his metrical Martyrology. But Castellanus in the Universal Martyrology, where he renders the words of the Roman Martyrology into French, observes in the margin that the cult is not ancient, and that the day was chosen. I do not in fact find at what time St. Eusebius first began to be venerated, nor can I prove that his name was inserted in the ancient Martyrologies. No more is it clear whether he died on the twenty-sixth of September or on another day, although the later writers of the Church of Bologna believed him to have died on the twenty-sixth day of September, because he is entered on that day in the Roman Martyrology, and his festival is celebrated at Bologna on that day.
[2] But this very fact, that the day of his death is unknown, leaves it uncertain and his cult at Bologna. whether St. Eusebius of Bologna was not inserted on some other day in the Hieronymian Martyrologies. Certainly at the twelfth of September a bishop Eusebius is commemorated in the Hieronymian martyrologies, the place of his bishopric being omitted, as was observed there in the Prætermissi; and he may really be the Bologna saint of today, just as he may be the bishop of Milan or another. There occurs also on other days in the Hieronymian Fasti some Eusebius not so well known that it becomes certain that today's bishop of Bologna is not designated, and that he is wholly banished from the ancient Fasti. However that may be, Baronius cites the records of the Church of Bologna, and the cult is confirmed by the Bononia sacra written in Italian, in which it is said that the festival is celebrated today at Bologna, and an Antiphon and Prayer from the common of a confessor Pontiff are given. That the body of St. Eusebius is preserved in the church of SS. Nabor and Felix, which belongs to the Franciscan Religious women, Masini testifies in his Bologna perlustrata at this day: nor do I find anyone contradicting.
[3] The time in which St. Eusebius flourished, and some things about his deeds, become known from St. Ambrose, Nothing has become known about his parents, with whom he was joined in friendship, and from the council of Aquileia, in which he had a distinguished part along with St. Ambrose. About his deeds before his episcopate, or about the native land, parents and kinsmen of St. Eusebius, nothing has become known. For not only uncertain, but even less than probable, seem to me the things which Tillemont has discussed about these matters by conjecture. In St. Ambrose, articles 12 and 13, he discusses several things in order to make St. Eusebius the father of a certain Faustinus, and the grandfather of his sons. But all those things are sought from the letters written by St. Ambrose to a certain Eusebius who dwelt indeed at Bologna, but was not a bishop, as I shall say in num. 14 is certainly more probable.
[4] nor does he seem the brother of St. Chromatius: Again Tillemont, in volume XI, in St. Chromatius bishop of Aquileia, inquires whether Eusebius the brother of St. Chromatius, who was made a bishop and whose see is unknown, may not be the same as St. Eusebius of Bologna. He objects to himself the marriage of St. Eusebius, which we believe to be fictitious, or at any rate of which we are ignorant. This reason therefore cannot be an obstacle to our believing him the same, if a solid foundation for this opinion offered itself. But no other indication is brought forward beyond the name common to both, and the almost identical time in which both lived. But these considerations by no means press: for the name of Eusebius was common to many, and the times do not altogether favour it. Tillemont himself in Chromatius makes Eusebius, his brother, a deacon about the year 374, and Chromatius, the elder in birth, a presbyter. But if we consider how great authority Eusebius of Bologna had in the year 381 in the council of Aquileia, we shall scarcely doubt that he was a bishop before the year 374. Besides, Eusebius the brother of Chromatius was dead before the year 396, in which St. Jerome was writing the Epitaph of Nepotian. For he exhorts Heliodorus to show at the death of Nepotian that fortitude which the blessed pope Chromatius showed at the falling asleep of his brother, namely Eusebius. But that St. Eusebius more probably lived after the year 397 I shall prove below. Wherefore there is no fit reason why we should believe that St. Eusebius was the younger brother of St. Chromatius, and that the younger was a bishop a full ten or twelve years before the elder.
[5] The beginning of St. Eusebius's episcopate cannot be fixed to a certain year. but made bishop about 370, he promotes virginity, It is fixed by some broadly about the year 370. This epoch, although it is not certain and may err by several years, is nevertheless probable enough: nor do I see that another more probable can be established, since he seems both to have survived almost to the end of the fourth century, and in the year 381 to have been among the chief bishops of the council of Aquileia, so that he seems to have been made bishop a notable time before that council. Hence most probable is the opinion of Baronius, who at the year 377 understands of St. Eusebius of Bologna the following words of St. Ambrose in his book on Virginity, chapter 20: And it has happened well, because the Lord knew that we should have to labour and furnished help from companions. Here is present the fisherman of the church of Bologna, apt for this kind of fishing. Give fish, O Lord, since Thou hast given helpers. Certainly no other than the bishop is called the fisherman of Bologna: for Ambrose is treating of leading maidens to embrace virginity. He had observed before that this is difficult, and is not accomplished without God, … since so great tempests and storms of this world stand in the way. Doubtless the lovers of worldly things do not understand how much more excellent it is for maidens to serve God in virginity with a free mind than to follow the pride or the pleasures of the world.
[6] Nevertheless that by the favour of divine help no little progress had been made by St. Ambrose and St. Eusebius of Bologna, and he gathers a college of virgins at Bologna. the aforesaid doctor intimates, writing thus: But when the Lord wills, He bids the nets be loosed, and a multitude of fishes is taken: and not only one, but a second ship also is filled; because many churches are filled with a spotless people. Thus St. Ambrose about the year 378. But how much St. Eusebius had accomplished in his church of Bologna is gathered from book 1 on Virgins, which seems to have been written in the year 377, in which St. Ambrose in chapter 10 speaks thus: For what shall I say of the Virgins of Bologna, a fruitful band of modesty, who, renouncing worldly delights, dwell in the sanctuary of virginity? Without the companionship of the other sex (that is, without the fellowship of men), yet with the companionship of modesty, advanced to the number of twenty and to the hundredfold fruit, and having left the lodging of their parents, they press on in the tabernacles of Christ, untiring soldiers of chastity: now they resound with spiritual songs, now they earn their living by their works, and also seek with their hands the means for their generosity. Someone has so expounded these words as if that college of virgins dwelling together had been at Milan; but there is no reason why we should say that those virgins dwelt together anywhere but at Bologna: for they are said to have left the lodging of their parents, not the city. Now from this care of St. Eusebius for the sacred Virgins, and from the zeal against heretics which he brilliantly showed in the council of Aquileia, we may deservedly conjecture that he was wonderfully solicitous also for the rest of his flock.
[7] In the council of Aquileia, which was held in the year 381, He is present in the year 381 at the council of Aquileia, St. Eusebius had the chief part after St. Ambrose in refuting the answers of the Arians. Two Arian bishops were present, Palladius and Secundianus, with a certain Attalus, a presbyter equally Arian, who were there condemned. Of the Catholic bishops, among whom several are illustrious for holiness, the greater part were from Italy, others from Gaul, Illyricum and Africa. The Acts have been published not only by the collectors of councils, but also among the Works of St. Ambrose, volume 2 of the latest edition, column 786 and following. But even though in the enumeration of the bishops of the council St. Valerian of Aquileia is everywhere placed first,
yet the chief actor against the heretics is always St. Ambrose, and we can call St. Eusebius the second, who frequently presses them with great dexterity and uncovers the ambiguity in their answers. Palladius, refusing to answer about his own faith, he attacks thus: Eusebius the bishop said: But you ought simply to bring forth the freedom of your faith. If a heathen were demanding of you how you believed in Christ, you ought not to blush to confess it. Then six times in various ways St. Eusebius pressed Palladius, to induce him to answer and to cut off his various excuses. But when Palladius had begun to use ambiguous answers, St. Eusebius is read to have interposed nineteen times, that he might either draw Palladius to a clear confession, or show that his ambiguous words did not suffice for a Catholic profession of faith or for the condemnation of the Arian heresy.
[8] and there shows himself brave against the heretics, At last, when the impiety of Palladius had become sufficiently known, the sentence of condemnation upon him was pronounced in different words by twenty-three fathers. But of them all none set forth so clearly and at such length the impieties of the Arian man, of which he had been convicted from his answers, as St. Eusebius, who uttered his sentence thus: Eusebius, bishop of Bologna, said: Since Palladius not only was unwilling to condemn the impieties of Arius, written with a diabolical pen, which it was not lawful even to admit to the ears, but also stood forth as their defender, denying that the Son of God is true Lord, good Lord, wise Lord, everlasting Lord — this man I judge to have been rightly condemned from the priestly assembly both by my sentence and by the judgment of all Catholics. Palladius being condemned, St. Ambrose began to question Secundianus, who likewise attempted to hide his impieties by ambiguous answers. St. Eusebius alone with St. Ambrose is read to have argued against Secundianus, interposing three times, to prove that his answers did not suffice for a Catholic profession, but were such as would be admitted by other heretics also.
[9] and prudent and learned. That Secundianus was condemned by the Fathers of the council equally with Palladius is established from the letters written by the council. But part of the Acts has perished, and we do not have the sentences of the individual fathers against Secundianus, nor the whole disputation held against him by the Fathers. Wherefore it will suffice, in praise of St. Eusebius, to observe that from what was done in that council it clearly appears that he was a man excellently learned in the knowledge of the Scriptures, outstanding in keenness of intellect, kindled with a wonderful zeal against heretical impieties, and that thence it seems to have come about that he prevailed with great authority in that council. For after St. Ambrose, to whom the province of questioning the heretics and setting forth the opinions of the Catholics had been committed, no one interposed so often as Eusebius, and no one seems to have pressed the evasive so skilfully and bravely. To transfer here all the words of St. Eusebius themselves seemed too long: for anyone will be able to find them in the collections of the Councils or in St. Ambrose.
[10] He finds the bodies of SS. Vitalis and Agricola, St. Eusebius then went on to rule his church for many years almost to the end of the fourth century, but his illustrious deeds have remained obscure, if we except one act which contributes much to proving the man's holiness. This was the finding of the bodies of SS. Vitalis and Agricola, martyrs of Bologna, which seems to have taken place in the year 393, St. Ambrose being present there. Now this presence of St. Ambrose makes us more certain about the time when the thing was done, especially because after the bodies of the Saints were found he set out for Florence, and there wrote about them in the little work which is entitled the Exhortation to Virginity. For St. Ambrose undertook those journeys in the year 393, when the tyrant Eugenius was leading his army from Gaul into Italy, as was said at the seventeenth of September in St. Satyrus, the brother of St. Ambrose, who had died not long before, num. 28. That pilgrimage of St. Ambrose is also narrated in his Life, written by his disciple Paulinus, in which at num. 28 and 29 he narrates the things done at Florence, and there adds this about the things which had been done a little before by the same man at Bologna: In the same city (Florence) he also established a basilica, in which he deposited the relics of the martyrs Vitalis and Agricola, whose bodies he had raised in the city of Bologna. For afterwards the bodies of the martyrs were among the bodies of the Jews; nor was it known to the Christian people, unless the holy martyrs had revealed themselves to the priest of that church. And when these were being deposited under the altar which is set up in that same basilica, there was there great joy and exultation of all the holy people, and punishment of the demons confessing the merits of the martyrs.
[11] From the words alleged there has arisen among the learned some doubt about the person which had become known through a revelation, to whom the revelation was made. For instead of the words given from the latest edition of the Works of St. Ambrose, Unless the holy martyrs had revealed themselves to the priest OF THAT CHURCH, in the earlier editions there was read, Unless the holy martyrs had revealed themselves to the priest himself, as the Benedictine editors testify that it is read also in one manuscript. That phrase to the priest himself was ambiguous and could be understood of St. Ambrose or of the bishop of Bologna. Many, even at Bologna, believed that the revelation was made to St. Ambrose. Tillemont, volume 5 of the Monuments, Note 3 on SS. Vitalis and Agricola, argues doubtfully on both sides, but prefers to believe that the revelation was made to St. Ambrose. Baillet however, at the fourth of November in SS. Vitalis and Agricola, attributes the revelation to St. Eusebius of Bologna, because he had seen the latest edition. This opinion would please me also, even if the ancient reading were to be preferred. But from the reading of the latest edition, to the priest of that church, which is both more elegant and seems truer, every ground of doubt is removed. For this clearly designates the bishop of Bologna, namely St. Eusebius. There comes to confirm this opinion St. Ambrose himself in the Exhortation to virginity, composed at Florence, which he begins thus: Those who are invited to a great banquet are accustomed to bring home gifts with them. I, invited to the banquet at Bologna, where the translation of a holy martyr was celebrated, have reserved for you gifts (namely relics) full of holiness and grace. Since St. Ambrose came invited, he assuredly who invited him knew where the bodies of the said martyrs were to be found, even though they had not yet been dug up.
[12] Wherefore it must be said that the revelation was made to St. Eusebius, [and that revelation seems to have been made not to St. Ambrose but to St. Eusebius.] and that by him St. Ambrose was invited to seek and translate those bodies of the martyrs, just as in fact they sought them together, and found and translated the sacred bodies of Vitalis and Agricola, as will be set forth more at large at the fourth of November, on which SS. Vitalis and Agricola are entered in the Roman Martyrology. The letter about this finding, which was once published under the name of St. Ambrose, and was rejected by the Benedictine editors into an Appendix, need not detain us here, although it says that those bodies were revealed to St. Ambrose, since it is deservedly reckoned supposititious; and to the other reasons by which it is denied to St. Ambrose this very one may be added, that it brings in St. Ambrose saying that the place where those bodies lay hidden was revealed to himself. For if Ambrose himself had written that, Paulinus his biographer would not only have narrated it in a few words on occasion of the dedication of the church, or of the relics deposited under the altar at Florence, but would have judged that revelation and finding of the bodies worthy to be exactly related in its own place. But that St. Eusebius survived, and that no other bishop of Bologna is to be sought here, will become clear from what is to be said below about the time of his death.
[13] There remain to be examined some things related about St. Eusebius, but less certain. Ferrari in his Catalogue of the Saints of Italy at this day says of St. Eusebius: He, after the example of St. Ambrose, built two monasteries, He is believed to have built two monasteries or churches. one dedicated to SS. Vitalis and Agricola, the other to St. Proculus the martyr. Brautius in his Metrical Martyrology sings thus at the same day about St. Eusebius, bishop of Bologna:
To three saints the Prelate raised two temples. Many things dead he restored alive to God.
By the three Saints he intimates Vitalis and Agricola, to whom he judges one temple was built, and Proculus, to whom the other. Carlo Sigonio in the Bishops of Bologna, page 18, has it thus: At the same time also Eusebius, following the example of St. Ambrose, is believed to have erected one monastery to SS. Vitalis and Agricola, and likewise another to St. Proculus the martyr. Nevertheless in the Bononia sacra at this day there is no treatment of a church or monastery of SS. Vitalis and Agricola built by St. Eusebius, but the structure of the church of St. Proculus and of others is attributed to him from report. I find nothing more certain about these matters in other writers of Bologna, so that with difficulty can anything certain be established, or rather it cannot in any way, for want of documents sufficiently ancient. Wherefore, since the building of churches in the long episcopate of St. Eusebius is quite probable, especially of the church of SS. Vitalis and Agricola on account of the finding of their bodies through a revelation, I shall not cite more writers: but I shall only observe that Ghirardacci in his History of Bologna, page 17, wrongly confuses the building of the church of SS. Vitalis and Agricola with the church which St. Ambrose dedicated at Florence.
[14] [The writings of St. Ambrose, sent to a Eusebius, do not seem to pertain to St. Eusebius:] The aforesaid Ghirardacci judges that the Letters of St. Ambrose which are read as addressed to Eusebius were sent to St. Eusebius the bishop. Of the same opinion is Tillemont, volume 10, in St. Ambrose, article 14 and Note 6, judging, yet not without doubt, that to the same man was also written the book on the Instruction of a virgin. About the book Baronius agrees, at the year 377. But the Benedictine editors, volume 2, page 247, dissent about the Eusebius to whom the book on the Instruction of a Virgin is addressed, and rightly, in my judgment at least, since it has nothing from which we can believe it to have been written to a Bishop. About the Letters they judge similarly, at column [ ] and 1004, that they were sent to Eusebius a secular man, to whom they believe the aforesaid book also was sent. He had a son and grandsons by his son, as Tillemont acknowledges, who makes our St. Eusebius the grandfather of Ambrosia, for whose sake the book on the Instruction of a Virgin was composed. I, to declare my mind briefly, find nothing in those writings from which I can gather that the Eusebius to whom they were sent was a bishop. The editors confess indeed that the Letters were in some manuscripts and printed editions addressed to Eusebius the bishop, but they judge that this happened by an error. Certainly nowhere in the whole context does Ambrose indicate by a single word that he is writing to a bishop, which is plainly astonishing in three different writings, if they are directed to a bishop.
[15] He could have been present at several councils. Sigonio, praised above, adds from a probable conjecture the following words about the deeds of St. Eusebius: He also could have been present with the other bishops of Æmilia at the synod held by St. Ambrose at Milan in the year three hundred and eighty-seven, against
those who rashly brought in marriages of consecrated virgins: which St. Geminianus, bishop of Modena, also visited. The author is speaking of the council held against Jovinian the heretic and his followers, which Labbe fixed in the year 390. Pope Siricius had condemned Jovinian, that most base heresiarch, in a Roman council, and had written to St. Ambrose that he should do the same with the neighbouring bishops. The letter of St. Ambrose and of the council of Milan to Siricius about the condemnation of those same heretics is recited in Labbe, volume 2, column [ ]. Among the few bishops who are read as subscribed, St. Eusebius is not found; but the subscriptions of all are not expressed, and therefore the conjecture of Sigonio remains probable. The same conjecture could be made about the council of Capua and others held about that time, but I abstain from uncertainties.
[16] The death of St. Eusebius is fixed by some writers of the Church of Bologna about the year 400, From his successor Felix, who in the year 397 was a deacon of Milan, by others it is passed over in silence. But from all the Catalogues of the bishops of Bologna it somehow appears that between St. Eusebius and St. Felix, who is commemorated on the fourth day of December in the Roman Martyrology, no one sat between. Certainly nowhere do we find that another was the first successor of St. Eusebius, so that we may rightly believe that St. Felix succeeded him, as all the Catalogues have it. And so the epoch given cannot wander by many years from the true time of his death. For St. Felix was a deacon of Milan when St. Ambrose was dying, since Paulinus in the Life of St. Ambrose, num. 46, among the deacons of Milan who were present with St. Ambrose before his death, names Castus, Polemius, Venerius and Felix, when he is treating of St. Simplicianus his successor. Then of all of them he subjoins: To this Simplicianus, Venerius, whom we mentioned above, was successor: but Felix even until now rules the church of Bologna: while Castus and Polemius, nurtured by Ambrose, good fruits of a good tree, discharge the office of the diaconate in the church of Milan.
[17] the Saint's death is to be fixed broadly about 400. From these words we have it that St. Felix was not yet a bishop while St. Ambrose was dying. Wherefore it is most probable that St. Eusebius was then still alive, unless he had died a little before Ambrose. But since St. Ambrose is commonly believed to have died in the year 397, on the fourth day of April (which is certainly either true or very near the truth, though I leave it to be examined in its own place), the death of St. Eusebius cannot be fixed many years before 400. Again, since Paulinus wrote his Life some years after the death of St. Ambrose, and Felix was then bishop of Bologna, the death of St. Eusebius cannot prudently be placed after that year, and at least he could not have survived a notable time after the year 400. For between this year and 410 Paulinus seems to have written, and he does not mention the episcopate of St. Felix as recent. Wherefore the epoch given broadly will not err by many years.