ON ST. EUSEBIUS THE POPE, CONFESSOR, AT ROME,
IN THE YEAR CCCX.
HISTORICAL COLLECTION.
Eusebius, Pope and Confessor, at Rome. (S.)
BY J. S.
§ I. The memory of the Saint in the most ancient Fasti: the day of his death, and the remaining chronology of his Pontificate.
[ ] That the few matters which occur concerning St. Eusebius the Pope, whether to be narrated or examined, may be set forth more succinctly and briefly, The Saint commemorated today in the most ancient Fasti as a confessor, I take my beginning from his ancient cult, or commemoration in the most ancient Martyrologies: for the authority of these will also serve to remove several doubts. In the Hieronymian martyrologies in Florentinius there is read on this day: At Rome on the Appian Way. In the cemetery of Callistus the deposition of St. Eusebius the bishop; and the Blumian codex adds, and confessor. The Corbie codex agrees, in which is found: At Rome, on the Appian Way, in the cemetery of Callistus, the deposition of St. Eusebius, bishop and confessor. More briefly the Epternach codex, on the preceding day — which Florentinius observes to have come about through a confusion of the columns — in this manner: At Rome the deposition of Eusebius the bishop. Yet again on this day: At Rome, of Eusebius the bishop. In the ancient codices of Rheinau and Reichenau in our possession he is commemorated in exactly the same way: At Rome the deposition of Eusebius the bishop. The Augsburg, Labbean and Gellone codices are silent about the deposition, but announce the memory of Eusebius the confessor at Rome; as is also done in the first of those in Martène, volume 3 of the Anecdota, to which the editor attributes nearly a thousand years. On the contrary the first of those which Martène gave in volume 6 of the Ampl. Collectio, and which had been attributed to Bede, has it thus without the place: The deposition of St. Eusebius the bishop. And more fully the Auxerre one: Likewise at Rome on the Appian Way in the cemetery of Callistus the deposition of St. Eusebius the bishop. More ancient than all these, the Roman Calendar which Bucherius published in his Commentaries on the Paschal Canon, page 267, mentions the Deposition of St. Eusebius in this manner: On the sixth of the Kalends of October, of Eusebius in that of Callistus, namely the cemetery. From these the learned reader will be able to understand that by the greatest consent of the most ancient Martyrologies St. Eusebius is announced on the twenty-sixth day of September, and by no less consent of them all is commemorated as a confessor, nowhere as a martyr, since either he is expressly called a confessor, or it is intimated by the word deposition that he did not die by a violent death.
[2] but in many likewise on the 2nd of October, and in some as a martyr, Nevertheless the same Eusebius the Pope, so far as it appears, is again commemorated on the 2nd of October. The text of Florentinius on that day has it thus: At Rome the birthday of St. Eusebius the bishop. The Epternach Martyrology: At Rome, of St. Eusebius the bishop. The Corbie: At Rome the birthday of St. Eusebius. The Reichenau: At Rome, of Eusebius the bishop. Confusedly a very brief mention of the same Eusebius is made in the Augsburg, Labbean and Gellone codices. Notker on the same day announced the memory of St. Eusebius not without errors, writing thus: Of Eusebius the Pope, who sat in the Episcopate seven years, buried on the Appian Way in the cemetery of Callistus: in whose time the Lord's cross was found. He found heretics in the City, whom he reconciled by the imposition of hands. Nearly the same things are read in the Appendix of Ado, and in several Additions to Usuard. Some of these proclaim Eusebius a martyr, as do certain other more recent writers, whom together with all those Additions I pass over, because they can have no authority after the more ancient documents already alleged. Our Papebroch in his Conatus on St. Eusebius judges that Eusebius died on the twenty-sixth of September, and was buried or elevated on the 2nd of October.
[3] his death fixed by some in the Middle Ages on the 2nd of October. In the second Catalogue of the Pontiffs before volume 1 of April, page XXIX, these things are read of Eusebius: He was buried in the cemetery of Callistus, on the Appian Way, on the VI Nones of October. If this day is referred to the burial, the day of death is passed over in silence in that catalogue. But probably the collector meant to indicate the day of death by the burial, as is commonly done in that Catalogue. Hence some later writers believed that St. Eusebius died on the 2nd day of October, as Florentinius observes in his Annotations to the twenty-sixth of September, writing thus: Liutprand, or whoever wrote under his name the Lives of the Roman Pontiffs, seems to speak of Eusebius as of a confessor, since, without introducing any mention of martyrdom, he says: “Who on the VI Nones of October passed to the Lord”: Abbo of Fleury has the like: “Who was also buried in the cemetery of Callistus on the Appian Way on the VI Nones of October.” He adds the catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs; but not rightly that one which was ascribed to Damasus. For from it the death of St. Eusebius would have to be fixed on the XVI Kalends of September, if it did not contradict itself. This is certain, that various writers of the Middle Ages, among whom Notker is to be numbered, were of that opinion, so that they believed St. Eusebius to have died on the 2nd day of October, and that this opinion has not displeased some moderns either. But for whatever cause it came about that the name of St. Eusebius was entered a second time in the Hieronymian codices on the 2nd of October, I would not believe that this is the day of the Saint's death.
[4] For indeed I can scarcely doubt that the Saint died on the twenty-sixth day of September, but it is more probable that the Saint died on the twenty-sixth of September, that is, on the VI Kalends of October. First, I am moved by the very great consent of the Hieronymian Martyrologies, in which the deposition of St. Eusebius is commemorated on that day, and the place is added, in the cemetery of Callistus. There is added the most weighty authority of the Bucherian Calendar, from which it is understood that the festival of the deposition was celebrated on that day in the cemetery of Callistus. For that in that Calendar no other Saints are reckoned than those whose festival was celebrated in various places at Rome is intimated by the very fewness of those who are reckoned, and is confirmed by the announcement of St. Cyprian, expressed in these words: On the eighteenth of the Kalends of October, of Cyprian of Africa. At Rome it is celebrated in that of Callistus. If, however, anyone should be unwilling to believe
that in the fourth century, in which that Calendar was written, probably under the Pontificate of St. Liberius, the festivals of all the Pontiffs there reckoned were celebrated, he will nonetheless have to admit, or even the more so, that there is assigned in the same place the day of the death of twelve holy Pontiffs, among whom Eusebius is numbered. And so either the festival of the deposition is assigned, or the deposition itself, that is, the day of death. If the festival, as is more probable, it is not credible that the festival was celebrated on another day than that on which the Saint had died, before the elevation and translation of his body had taken place. But if only the day of the deposition was indicated, then no doubt will remain about the day of death, since it is there clearly marked in the same century in which the Saint died, and confirmed by the wonderful consent of the Hieronymian Martyrology.
[5] [and that it is repeated on the 2nd of October either from an error or on account of another festival:] But it ought to move us little that the memory of St. Eusebius is repeated on the 2nd day of October. For this could have come about from mere error, by which many other Saints are repeated in faulty copies. The error could easily have crept in, if only some interpolator read, in place of the VI Kalends of October, on which the Saint is announced in the first place, the VI Nones of October, as the collectors of the later catalogues of the Pontiffs probably read. An error of reading of this kind could suffice for an interpolator to add Eusebius to the Martyrology on the 2nd of October, either thinking him another Eusebius, or the same man venerated again on another day. Nor indeed have I any doubt that errors or repetitions of this sort have frequently crept into the Hieronymian Copies. Yet the Hieronymian Martyrology may be free of that error, and it in no way harms us. For since in no exemplar of the Hieronymian is the deposition marked, but either the birthday is named, or only At Rome, of Eusebius, etc., that commemoration may be understood of another festival, namely of the elevation or translation. Indeed they are deceived, if any believe that by birthday the day of martyrdom is always understood, since any festival whatever may be called a birthday. Thus in the aforesaid Bucherian Calendar there is commemorated on the VIII Kalends of March, The birthday of Peter of the Chair, that is, the feast of the Chair of St. Peter. Thus in the Hieronymian martyrologies on the 2nd of August: At Antioch the birthday of the relics of St. Stephen the protomartyr, etc., that is, the feast of the Finding of the relics of St. Stephen. Wherefore the surmise of our Papebroch about a festival of the elevation announced on the 2nd of October is probable; and it must be said that from that festival, or from the error of an interpolator, arose the opinion of certain writers of the Middle Ages, who believed that the Saint died on the 2nd day of October.
[6] his death not to be fixed on the seventeenth of August, In the first Catalogue of the Pontiffs another day of death seems to be assigned: for of St. Eusebius these things are read in the same place: Eusebius, four months, sixteen days, from the XIV Kalends of May, until the day of the XVI Kalends of September. From these words the death of St. Eusebius is fixed on the seventeenth day of August by Francesco Bianchini in the Chronotaxis prefixed to Anastasius the Librarian, volume 2, page CCXIX. Yet the aforesaid chronologist confesses in his Annotations, page 269, that the reading cannot be made consistent, since it is manifest that four months and sixteen days are not found between the asserted limits of the Pontificate. He therefore contends, from a document here corrupt, as he admits, against a document equally ancient and suspected of no corruption, and that too confirmed by the Hieronymian Martyrology — that is, against the consent of the Bucherian Calendar and of the Hieronymian Martyrology. Nay, he is even contrary to the Chronicle of Eusebius, in which, as we shall see, seven months are attributed to Eusebius the Pontiff. That chronology therefore cannot look for the consent of the learned. No more does the chronology of Pagi seem to deserve assent in those things which he hands down about the death of St. Eusebius in his Critica, at the year 311, num. 22. For both in the death of St. Eusebius, and in fixing the beginning of St. Melchiades his successor, he departs from absolutely all sound documents: and even so he says that what he says about the end of Eusebius is manifest. But, lest the authority of Pagi deceive anyone, it is well to examine the matter.
[7] [nor on the twenty-first of June, as Pagi will have it, manifestly contradicting himself,] The aforesaid Pagi fixes the beginning of the Pontificate of St. Eusebius in the year 310, on the fifth day of February, and its end, that is his death, on the twenty-first day of June of the same year. He confesses the Catalogue once attributed to Damasus to be here faulty. Yet from it alone he draws his chronology, retaining what pleases him and changing other things at his pleasure. Then he takes an argument from the beginning of the Pontificate of Melchiades his successor, whom he will have raised to the Pontificate in the same year, on the 2nd day of July. But here is the rock on which he has incautiously struck. For if we must stand by that first Catalogue of the Pontiffs, Melchiades was indeed made Pontiff on that day, but a whole year later. For he is said to have been Pontiff from the day of the sixth of the Nones of July, from the consulship of Maximian, the eighth time, alone; which was in the month of September, under Volusianus and Rufinus. Now this consulship, although roughly expressed, designates the year 311, as Pagi himself sets forth at that same year, num. 1, with the agreement of Tillemont, volume 4 of the Emperors, article 19. And so, if Melchiades was created Pontiff under the consulship of the year 311, how was he made Pontiff in the year 310? These things manifestly contradict one another. Yet Pagi no less manifestly contradicts himself, while he attempts to refute others. For at the year 313, num. 16, from the same consulship he proves that Melchiades was not made Pontiff in the year 310, because he is said to have been created under the said consulship. I transfer here his very own words. Where he had observed that the year 310 was noted as after the tenth and seventh consulship, he continues thus: If therefore Melchiades had entered upon the Pontificate in the year CCCX, the author of the Chronicle of Damasus would by no means have written that he was ordained under the eighth consulship of Maximian; and he rightly confirms this from the consulship of Volusianus and Rufinus, upon which these entered in the same year. In the same place he had said before: The author of the Chronicle of Damasus testifies in express words that he (Melchiades) was named Pontiff in the year CCCXI, in which Maximian was for the eighth time sole consul. The same again a little before, in nearly the same words, and thus three times in the same number, he asserts and rightly proves from the Chronicle or Catalogue of the Pontiffs, once attributed to Damasus. And yet in the same place, at num. 15, he also says, but without proof, that Melchiades was made Pontiff in the year 310, and finally repeats this at num. 16, just as he had said the same at the year 311, num. 22, in order to prove that Eusebius did not live until the twenty-sixth of September of the year 310.
[8] Perhaps the curious reader is waiting for me to say whence these contradictions of Pagi take their origin. and saying that Melchiades succeeded now in the year 310, now in 311. I will declare it candidly. In the aforesaid Catalogue, besides the months and days, Melchiades is said to have sat three years. These three years cannot stand with the consuls assigned for the beginning and the end of the Pontificate, but he could have sat only two years, as Papebroch saw, who therefore believed that Melchiades was from the year 310, on the 2nd day of July, the vicar of Eusebius; that Eusebius died on the twenty-sixth day of September; and that Melchiades then succeeded him in the same year, in the month of October. All these things Pagi wished to refute. But while he refutes Papebroch on the day of the death of Eusebius, the first Catalogue of the Pontiffs, or the Chronicle of Damasus, as he himself names that Catalogue, teaches that Melchiades succeeded on the 2nd of July in the year 310, and thence it becomes manifest to Pagi that Eusebius did not die on the twenty-sixth day of September. But while he attacks another opinion of Papebroch, the same Catalogue, and in the same few words, teaches Pagi that Melchiades was made Pontiff in the year 311, and thence he infers against Papebroch that the same man could not have succeeded Eusebius in the year 310. What in the end Pagi's judgment was, if indeed he himself knew it, I leave to some Oedipus to divine: for now he establishes the one year, now the other, according to the variety of the opinion against which he is arguing. This, however, is manifest, that he has alleged no proof for the year 310, and that the consuls assigned in the Catalogue stand for the year 311, as Pagi himself three times observes. And since an error creeps far more easily into numbers than into the names of consuls, it seems to be said that St. Melchiades was raised to the Pontificate in the year 311, on the 2nd day of July, as our Henschen has already observed on the Catalogues of the Pontiffs, volume 1 of April, page XXX, and after him Tillemont, volume 6, in the Donatists, article 16.
[9] St. Eusebius died in the year 310, and more probably in the same year Wherefore, since nothing solid has been brought against the twenty-sixth of September as the day of his death, and since it is asserted in the most ancient documents, according to all sound criticism it must be said with Baronius and Papebroch that Eusebius died on the twenty-sixth of September. About the year Henschen, Papebroch, Pagi, Tillemont, and other learned chronographers and historians agree, but they differ by one year from Baronius, who fixed the death of St. Eusebius in the year 311. Baronius's reason is that St. Melchiades is read to have been substituted in the year 311, as has just been said; and that reason seems to have moved Baronius the more because he believed the Pontificate of Eusebius to have been longer than it appears really to have been. He fixed its beginning also one year earlier than the writers just praised. Here, moreover, Baronius has the first Catalogue of the Pontiffs somehow favouring him. But others judge that it needs a slight correction for various reasons, and their opinion appears to me the more probable. In the aforesaid Catalogue St. Marcellus, the predecessor of Eusebius, is said to have sat until after the tenth and seventh consulship. By this formula the year 309 is designated, which was the first after the tenth consulship of Maximian Herculius and the seventh of Galerius. But if to the formula there be added again or a second time, the year 310 is indicated, which was so marked after the consulships of Maxentius, who was consul in both years, were erased from the Fasti on account of his tyranny. And so, if it was written at the beginning just as it is now read in the said Catalogue, the opinion of Baronius about the end of the Pontificate of Marcellus is true, and from it there would be further deduced most probably, though not certainly, that St. Eusebius was Pontiff from the year 309. I say not certainly, because the Pontifical see could long lie vacant.
[10] he had only been promoted to the Pontificate, Now, however, the reasons must be alleged on account of which it seems more probable that St. Marcellus died in the year 310, on the sixteenth day of January, and that St. Eusebius succeeded in the same year. First, Marcellus is said to have sat one year, seven months, twenty days, and it is intimated that he was made Pontiff in the year 308 according to the consuls there assigned. And so, if he died on the sixteenth day of January, as the more common and more probable opinion holds, it cannot be said that he died in the year 309. If, however, anyone should contend that Marcellus died in the month of October, what is said of him in the Catalogue could be preserved intact, but at the same time it would not be necessary for us to say that Eusebius was substituted in the same year. Secondly, everything suggests that St. Eusebius died in the same year in which he was elected. For this cause it seems to have come about that in his article no consuls are assigned under whom he sat, which is elsewhere everywhere done in the said Catalogue.
The consulship had been assigned at the end of Marcellus, under which Eusebius also was elected and died. Then Eusebius is said to have sat four months, sixteen days, and these are reckoned within the same year. There is added the Chronicle of Eusebius, in which St. Eusebius is said to have sat seven months. From all these things the aforesaid writers judge that St. Marcellus died in the year 310, on the sixteenth day of January, and that Eusebius succeeded him in the same year, and again died in the same year. This opinion, as I have said, appears to me the more probable, even though in the Catalogue of the Pontiffs there must thus be added again or a second time to the consulship by which the death of St. Marcellus is marked: for it is abundantly clear that the aforesaid Catalogue is faulty in several places through the error of transcribers, and that in the case of Marcellus himself the consulships must be supplied in yet another way.
[11] which he held for at least four months. Wherefore we include the whole Pontificate of St. Eusebius with most of the learned within the year 310, and fix his death on the twenty-sixth of September. I do not review the later Catalogues, in many of which two years are attributed to Eusebius, in others five, in others six and seven with several months and days. For it is clear that these catalogues are full of errors, and are abundantly refuted by the first, even though it has contracted some fault in the numbers, which is to be attributed to the transcribers. Now it runs thus: Eusebius, four months, sixteen days, from the XIV Kalends of May, until the day of the XVI Kalends of September. Between the two limits expressed four whole months do not run, and therefore something is corrupt. But since it has been abundantly proved that the Saint died on the VI Kalends of October, this latter limit is certainly corrupt. Yet I do not care to divine what besides is corrupt: nor can I declare whether he sat only four months, as this catalogue has it, or seven, as is in the Chronicle of Eusebius. For he could have held the Pontificate for seven or even eight months, if a successor was given to St. Marcellus some days after his death. But nonetheless the Pontificate could have been vacant for several months after the death of St. Marcellus, just as it seems to have been vacant for several months after the death of St. Eusebius, and for some years between SS. Marcellinus and Marcellus. No more can I say whether St. Eusebius was previously the vicar of St. Marcellus, as Bianchini will have it without the authority of the ancients and without necessity: for the later catalogues, whose faults he has thus striven to emend, are not to be so highly valued.
§ II. The things asserted about the deeds of St. Eusebius are given and examined: his cult in particular churches.
[ ] Eulogies from two Pontifical books, Very few of the deeds of St. Eusebius have become known, and the things asserted in Anastasius the Librarian are partly uncertain, partly openly false. In the aforesaid Anastasius, as edited by Bianchini, volume 2, page 268, these things are read of St. Eusebius: Eusebius, a Greek by nation, of a father who was a physician, sat two years, one month, twenty-five days. He was moreover in the times of Constantine. Under his times the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ was found on the V Nones of May, and Judas, who is also Cyriacus, was baptized. He found heretics in the city of Rome, whom he truly reconciled by the imposition of hands. He held one ordination in the month of December, thirteen presbyters, three deacons, bishops for various places to the number of fourteen: he was also buried in the cemetery of Callistus in the crypt on the Appian Way on the VI Nones of October, and the Episcopate ceased for VII days. The second Catalogue in our volume 1 of April, page XXIX, has some similar things, but others different and fewer, in this manner: Eusebius, a Greek by nation, son of a physician, sat VI years, one month, three days. He was in the times of Constantine. Under his times the holy cross of our Lord Jesus Christ was found on the V Nones of May. By him Judas Quiriacus was baptized. He held three ordinations, thirteen presbyters, three deacons, bishops for fourteen places. He was buried in the cemetery of Callistus, on the Appian Way, on the VI Nones of October. The episcopate ceased six days. So those two Catalogues, no less discordant with each other as to chronology than with many others, and with the first, from which, with other aids added, the chronology may seem to have been established above.
[13] Now, as to his being said to have been a Greek by nation, and the son of a physician, even though it is not made certain by the collector's authority, it may at least be admitted as probable. He was moreover in the times of the emperor Constantine, in which most things are to be corrected. as the Catalogues have it, yet not while Constantine reigned in the City, where in the time of St. Eusebius Maxentius held sway. The Finding of the holy Cross took place much later, as has been proved at the third of May in the Finding of the holy Cross, where at the same time the fabulous Acts were pointed out by which the author of the Catalogue was deceived, and from which he likewise drew the rotten little fable about Judas, the fictitious finder of the Cross, who was said to have been baptized by Eusebius and named Cyriacus and consecrated bishop. The fabulous Acts of St. Judas-Quiriacus were given on the fourth of May, and there it was proved that that holy bishop is much more ancient, and that everything which was asserted about SS. Eusebius the Roman and Judas Cyriacus or Quiriacus as present at the finding of the Cross is fictitious and drawn from the fabulous Acts. It was made a charge against our Papebroch that he refuted those fables, but only by those who have loved too much the fables introduced into history in the Middle Ages. But the times are changed, and I judge that there remain no defenders of fables of that sort, or certainly very few, who have any name for historical learning. What is subjoined about heretics found in the City, and reconciled by the imposition of hands, I judge to have been taken from the beginning of the first Letter falsely ascribed to St. Eusebius, where it is said: Know that we receive by the imposition of the hand those who have been baptized in the faith of the holy Trinity. And so, since it is not found in the earlier Catalogue either, it deserves no credit. Wholly uncertain likewise are the things asserted about a single ordination, or three.
[14] The published Epitaph of Eusebius is that of this Pontiff The one sufficiently certain document which we have concerning the deeds of St. Eusebius is the Epitaph published by Baronius, volume 3, in the addenda to the year 357. The aforesaid Annalist believed indeed that the Epitaph was that of St. Eusebius the presbyter; but Tillemont, volume 5 of the Monuments, in the Persecution of Diocletian, article 39, rather judges that it pertains to St. Eusebius the Pope, namely because it is of the same style as the Epitaph of St. Marcellus, recited in our work at the sixteenth of January in St. Marcellus. To me too it seems far more probable that the Epitaph is that of St. Eusebius the Pope than of Eusebius the presbyter, of whom we treated on the fourteenth of August. For Eusebius is called rector, as Marcellus also is called by St. Damacus. And thus St. Damasus names himself rector several times, as may be seen in the Notes which are subjoined to his Works printed at Rome, page 185. By rector, therefore, he designates Eusebius the Roman Pontiff, not a presbyter.
[15] it is recited and expounded, I subjoin the Epitaph itself, as it is read in Baronius: for it is not found among the published Works of St. Damasus:
Heraclius forbade the lapsed to grieve for their sins: Eusebius taught the wretched to weep for their crimes. The people is torn into parties as the fury swells, Sedet loca ede [ ] * war, discord, lawsuits. Alike driven out by the example of the tyrant's savagery, While the Rector kept unbroken the covenants of peace, He bore his exile altogether glad under the judge, On the Trinacrian shore he left the world and life.
Nearly the same things are said in the Epitaph of St. Marcellus, which begins thus:
The truth-speaking rector, because he foretold that the lapsed must weep for their crimes, was to all the wretched a bitter enemy.
Pagi will have it that lapsus is to be read for lapsos, which I would not disapprove if it had so been found in the first editors, because probably the matter concerns those who lapsed in the persecution of Diocletian; but the sense will be the same, whichever way it is read. This piece of history, as Tillemont observes, is nowhere set forth. And so we can only say that those who lapsed in the persecution of Diocletian, when that persecution was removed in the City by Maxentius, wished to return to the Church, but that canonical penance was proposed to them first by Marcellus, and then likewise by Eusebius: and that of the lapsed there were very many who were unwilling to fulfil the laws of penance, but wished to be received without penance, being incited by a certain Heraclius, otherwise unknown.
[16] So far does the audacity of those men seem to have gone and it is vindicated for St. Eusebius the Pope. that they wished to force themselves by violence into the assemblies of the Christians, and, a sedition being stirred up, broke out into slaughter. For which cause Marcellus first, and then Eusebius, were banished into exile by Maxentius, the latter being sent into Sicily and dying there. Now those words of the Epitaph:
Alike driven out by the example of the tyrant's savagery, While the Rector kept unbroken the covenants of peace, He bore his exile, etc.
seem to be expounded in this manner: When the Rector, that is, the Pontiff Eusebius, after the example of his predecessor Marcellus, likewise driven from the City by the savagery of the tyrant Maxentius, was keeping unimpaired the covenants of peace, that is, the ecclesiastical laws established for the reception of the lapsed to peace or communion, he bore his exile, etc. And so, since it is also established from the Epitaph of Marcellus that he was driven from the City on account of the tumults stirred up for the sake of the lapsed, and since Eusebius is said to have kept, after his example, the ecclesiastical laws established about them, and to have been for that reason banished into Sicily, no doubt is left that that Epitaph is of St. Eusebius the Pope, as many learned men agree. But it is now well to weigh somewhat the constancy of St. Eusebius in not receiving the lapsed to communion without due penance, and to explain what has been said more fully.
[17] In what way Maxentius, having obtained the empire in the year 306, The persecution of Diocletian having been removed by Maxentius, showed or feigned an affection towards the Christians, Eusebius sets forth in book 8, chapter 14, writing thus: His son (that is, of Maximian Herculius), Maxentius, who seized the tyranny at Rome, at first indeed feigned a profession of our faith, that he might in this humour and flatter the Roman people. Accordingly he commanded his subjects to desist from the persecution of the Christians, putting forward, that is, a feigned show of piety, and that he might seem far more kindly and humane than the preceding princes. But in the course of time he by no means showed himself in the facts to be such as he was hoped to be. Nay on the contrary, carried away by a kind of frenzy of mind to every crime and outrage, he omitted no kind of impiety or lust. Then he enumerates the crimes of Maxentius more at large, and yet does not clearly number among them a persecution stirred up against the Christians, and hence Tillemont judges that Maxentius did not stir up a persecution against the Christians. It is not necessary to examine this question here, since it is at least established that the Christians were harassed by Maxentius on other pretexts.
[18] But now if we consider the atrocity of the past persecution, in which many doubtless had lapsed, we shall not doubt that many at Rome lapsed in it, and indeed in different ways, so that some had sinned more grievously than others, and so that the more guilty
were to be purged by a longer penance. If anyone should be eager to learn the various kinds of lapsed in the persecution of Decius, he may go to the Acts of St. Cyprian, as also the Acts of St. Cornelius the Pope, both given at the fourteenth of September, where they have been treated from the letters of St. Cyprian and of the Roman clergy, and from the writings of others. He will there find some who, struck by fear alone, had come forward of their own accord to sacrifice to idols without any punishments; others who succumbed after being overcome by many torments; others who by giving certificates lied about that crime, and who for that reason were called libellatici, and who were not free from wickedness either, even though they had kept their hands from sacrilege. To these there were added in the persecution of Diocletian those who handed over the sacred books, or other sacred things of the Church, to the persecutors, and from the Scriptures thus handed over were called traditores. For these lapsed, then, penance had to be performed according to the variety of the crime, before they were received into the communion of the Church, as had been established by the common counsel of the Roman and the African Church through SS. Cornelius and Cyprian.
[19] and from among them some who wished to be received without due penance, But there were never wanting among the lapsed a good many who desired to be received into the communion of the Church and into the participation of the Sacraments without due penance, or before the time of penance was completed; and they easily found some even among the confessors or martyrs themselves who with excessive kindness favoured their desires, and made themselves troublesome to the bishops that they might receive those lapsed. How great troubles St. Cyprian suffered in these matters is set forth at length in his Acts from §12 to §17, where the studious reader will also find how bravely and constantly St. Cyprian opposed himself to the desires of certain men, so that to many he even seemed too severe. Yet the same was the judgment of the Roman clergy, as is set forth in §17, and St. Cyprian used the letters of the Roman clergy, written while the See was vacant, to defend himself against his detractors.
[20] great constancy was certainly necessary to the Pontiff; From these things we can somehow gather how great a constancy was necessary, after the persecution of Diocletian was quieted at Rome, first to St. Marcellus and then to Eusebius, lest the Church's discipline concerning the reception of the lapsed after due penance should be dissolved. Cyprian, when the persecution of Decius was ended and he was restored to his church, soon held a synod, in which it was determined that neither should the hope of communion and peace be altogether denied to the lapsed, lest they should fail the more through despair and, because the Church was closed to them, should follow the world and live as heathens; nor yet again should the Gospel censure be relaxed, so that they should rashly leap forward to communion; but that penance should be long drawn out, and the fatherly clemency be entreated with grief, and the causes and wills and necessities of individuals be examined, as Cyprian himself speaks in his Acts, num. 394. Now this care of St. Cyprian shows what Marcellus and Eusebius did at Rome, when the persecution there ceased or was interrupted, especially since there comes forward the most weighty witness St. Damasus, teaching that each of them was to the lapsed a teacher of penance, that for that cause each had many adversaries, just as very many had been adversaries of St. Cyprian earlier than the Middle Ages; and that each was driven from the City because they constantly defended ecclesiastical discipline. But that the discord arising thence grew even to sedition and slaughter did not come about through the fault of St. Eusebius, who only defended the ecclesiastical laws according to his office, but either through the fault of those who wished to be received into communion by right and wrong alike, or perhaps also of the heathen, who for their sake raged against upright Christians, and kindled the discord perhaps with this intention, that they might exasperate Maxentius against the Christians and inflame him to a new persecution.
[21] as is confirmed from the canons of St. Peter of Alexandria, But that the counsels of SS. Marcellus and Eusebius, in refusing to admit the lapsed without penance, were praiseworthy, is taught not only by the examples of SS. Cornelius, Cyprian and the Roman clergy, who were of the same judgment with them, but is also confirmed by the canons of St. Peter, bishop of Alexandria, who fell a martyr in that very persecution of Diocletian, and composed his canons about the lapsed in the fourth year of the persecution, that is, in the year 306. These canons may be seen entire in Hardouin, volume 1 of the Councils, column 225. I transfer here a very brief summary. The first canon determines that to those who after prison and torments had failed through weakness, communion should be restored after a penance of forty days. This reason for the short penance is added among others: For they both display the marks of Jesus in their bodies, and are now in the third year lamenting — some of them, that is, as it stands in the Greek. From these words Tillemont, volume 5, in St. Peter of Alexandria, article 7, wrongly gathers that those three years seem always to be presupposed in the following canons. For since the door to penance, and through it to communion, is opened to all, and yet no longer penance is prescribed for those who had lapsed in the second, third and fourth year of the persecution, it is gratuitously imagined that those three years are everywhere presupposed and added to the remaining penance, especially since in what follows no mention at all is made of that three-year period.
[22] The second prescribes a year of penance to those who had endured prison, but had lapsed before the torments. here recited in summary. In Greek there is read: ἐπαρκέσει ἑνιαυτὸς πρὸς τῷ ἑτέρῳ χρόνῳ, that is, a year will suffice, joined to the remaining time, namely the time of prison and of grief for the lapse, whether that was long or short. The third, by the parable of the barren fig tree, seems to prescribe four years of penance to those who without prison had fallen from fear alone. The fourth altogether excludes those who refuse penance. The fifth imposes six months of penance on those who had not sacrificed but had feigned that crime. The sixth enjoins a year of penance on slaves who had sacrificed for their masters at their command; but for the masters themselves, or free men, who had sent their slaves to sacrifice on their behalf, the seventh canon prescribes three years. The eighth restores communion without any penance to those who had indeed lapsed at first, but had of their own accord returned penitent to the contest, and had endured prison and torments. The ninth canon teaches at length that one must not leap forward of one's own accord to the contest, yet teaches that communion is to be held with those who had done so; and consequently the tenth deprives of clerical honour, though not of clerical communion, those clerics who, having gone forward of their own accord to the contest, had lapsed in it, even if they had renewed the fight. The eleventh teaches that those are to be dealt with kindly who had come to the contest for a just or praiseworthy cause. The twelfth excuses, nay even praises, those who had ransomed themselves with money; just as the thirteenth also defends those who had fled, even if on that occasion others were taken. The fourteenth numbers among the confessors those upon whom violence had been used, so that they might seem to have sacrificed; and finally the fifteenth is about the fast of the fourth and sixth day of the week.
[23] I wished to set forth these things more at large, that the studious reader may better understand the one deed The Saint's exile for that cause, and his death in exile, make him a martyr. which St. Damasus the Pope celebrates in Eusebius — Damasus who was perhaps a boy while St. Eusebius administered the Pontificate, which he himself held in the same century, but fifty-six years later. Eusebius is said to have been banished into exile because he was unwilling to admit those who had lapsed into idolatry to ecclesiastical communion unless they fulfilled the due penance, which is the one thing that Damasus also celebrated in St. Marcellus. St. Eusebius is also said to have died in exile, namely on the Trinacrian shore, that is, in Sicily, which by another name is called Trinacria. Wherefore holy Eusebius seems to have deserved the title of martyr no less than St. Marcellus, who is venerated as a martyr, since for the defence of ecclesiastical discipline he bore exile and died in it. Against the death of St. Eusebius in Sicily someone perhaps will wish to object his burial near Rome in the cemetery of Callistus. For about the deposition and burial of his body in the cemetery of Callistus we cannot doubt. But the body of the deceased could have been transferred immediately after his death, or, if that was not done straightway after his death, it could certainly have been done after some years under Constantine. For it is not credible that the Romans, or the succeeding Pontiffs, had no care that the body of the holy Pontiff should be brought back to his own Church, since they could easily obtain this through the peace which the Roman Church, and all Italy and Sicily, afterwards enjoyed. This burial therefore may perhaps have taken place on the 2nd day of October, on which in the later catalogues he is said to have been buried, and on which, as we have seen, he is announced in various Fasti.
[24] The Saint is said to have baptized St. Eusebius of Vercelli; But let us return to the deeds of the living Eusebius, related also in other places, although these are quite uncertain, and some even improbable. Baronius in his Annals, at the year 311, num. 42, seems in some fashion to approve what is read in the ancient Acts of St. Eusebius of Vercelli about the baptism conferred by our Saint upon St. Eusebius of Vercelli. The times certainly are not repugnant, and more recent writers have handed down the same of St. Eusebius of Vercelli. But the Acts of St. Eusebius of Vercelli are not written so accurately that the matter becomes certain from them. Wherefore I shall transfer here only a few things from the Acts published by Ughelli in volume 4 of the Italia sacra, in the Bishops of Vercelli, where these things are read. St. Eusebius of Vercelli is said, after the death of his father, to have come as a boy with his mother Restituta from Sardinia to Rome, and there, made nobler in faith by a second regeneration by the blessed Pope Eusebius, to have been called Eusebius by that most holy man's own name. This may be true, and from the name and the time it is sufficiently probable. But not all the things added are true, namely that St. Eusebius the Pope was slain on the following day, after the sacred ministries had been performed on the day of Easter, and that the churches at Rome were overthrown. Hence it is also uncertain whether the baptism was conferred by St. Eusebius the Pope on the vigil of Easter, especially since we do not know whether St. Eusebius was already Pontiff at Easter of the year 310, which was not celebrated in the month of March, as is there said. But what is there said in praise of St. Eusebius is probable, provided it be not understood of the persecution of Diocletian, which was ceasing at Rome, but of the vexations which could be inflicted both by the lapsed and by the Christians who favoured them too much, and by the tyrant Maxentius: The aforesaid most holy Pope, while he was strong in holiness amid various persecutions, like a rose among thorns, so living rightly amid the threats of the persecutors, in no wise suffered himself to leave unfulfilled the order of his ministry. The examination of the baptism of St. Eusebius of Vercelli I remit to his Acts, to be given at the fifteenth of December.
[25] the same is not rightly said of St. Sabina: the Letters are supposititious. What is said in our volume 2 of January, pages 944 and 945, about the baptism of St. Sabina, virgin of Troyes — And she was baptized by the holy and venerable man Pope Eusebius — is more openly fabulous than to need refuting at length: for those Acts seem stuffed with little fables. Nor is it necessary to show at greater length
that the three Letters which were published under the name of St. Eusebius are supposititious, since others have long ago proved that, and the learned everywhere acknowledge it. They may be seen in Labbe, volume 1 of the Councils, column [ ] and following. In the same place, at column [ ], there are read also four decrees attributed to St. Eusebius; to which Coustant adds a fifth in the Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, page 319, but he believes them all supposititious, even though they were cited by Gratian, Ivo of Chartres and others. Benedict XIV also assigns one about administering Extreme Unction, in the Work often praised by us on the Canonization of the Servants of God, book 3, chapter 32, num. 31. I add no more about these, because it can hardly be known whether all the decrees are supposititious, which is proved more clearly of the letters; nor yet will it easily be proved that any of them belong to St. Eusebius.
[26] The Saint's cult in various churches: his body That St. Eusebius is venerated in a particular church, the just-praised Benedict XIV testifies. Certainly the festival of St. Eusebius the Pope and confessor is celebrated with a double Office in two of the chief basilicas of the City, namely in the Vatican and the Lateran; nor do I doubt that he is venerated in several others, especially where his body is believed to be held. Now about the body our Papebroch observed this in the Addenda to the Conatus, page 48: Panciroli, Region 9, church 19, treating of the church of St. Sebastian, which is held to be above the very cemetery of Callistus on the Appian Way, asserts that of so many bodies of Pontiffs formerly buried there, two only, those of SS. Eutychianus and Eusebius, are still preserved there. But if the body of Eutychianus is believed to have been translated to Luni and afterwards to Sarzana, why should it not be doubted about the body of St. Eusebius, whether it too has not been carried off elsewhere?
[27] Certainly the Spaniards claim it for themselves, and in the Spanish Martyrology on this day the following is read: it is said to have been carried into Spain. At Monte Celio in Carpetania; the deposition of the sacred remains of the body of St. Eusebius, Supreme Pontiff, which, enclosed in a very rich and gilded shrine, are honourably guarded, and are venerated and worshipped by the piety of all. The author cites Pedro González de Mendoza, archbishop of Granada, in the History of Salzeda, book 4, chapter XI, where indeed González asserts that the body of St. Eusebius is preserved there, and that it was translated from Rome into Spain in the year 1607, that is, only nine years before that History was printed in Spanish. But Panciroli wrote before the year 1607 there designated, since the first printing of his Work was made in the year 1600, so that he could truly attribute the body to the church of St. Sebastian, and the other narrate a translation made later. Piazza however, in his Diario sacro written later, at the twenty-sixth of September continues to ascribe the body of St. Eusebius to the church of St. Sebastian, and some relics to the church of St. Laurence in Panisperna. I do not set myself up as judge, since the name of Eusebius can be attributed to other Saints also; or a part may have been translated, the remaining bones being left at Rome.
Annotations* perhaps sedition, slaughter