An historical dissertation upon the Thebean Legion plainly proving it to be fabulous / by John Dubourdieu ...

CHAP. V. (Book 5)

That St. Eucherius, Bishop of Lions, ••s not the Author who wrote that Pas∣sion of the Thebean Souldiers, which both Surius, and Baronius have fol∣lowed. (Book 5)

THE first proof we bring against the Relation of the Martyrdom of the Thebean Legion, is, That it is clear and plain that St. Eucherius, Bishop of Lions, is not the Author of it, and that his Name hath been set to it by some Cheat, to gain more Credit thereto, from the esteem which the Church always had for the extraordinary Virtues and Merits of this great Prelate. To be convinced of this, 'twill suffice to mention only one passage, wherein 'tis said of Sigismond King of Burgundy,

* 1.1 That they never cease Night nor Day to sing Psalms and Hymns in the Monastery of Agaunum: And that this Holy Praclice, first appointed there by the blessed King and Martyr St. Sigismond, is observed there to this very day. It visibly appears from this place, that when this Relation was made, King Sigismond was dead. It follows moreover from thence, that it must have been compos'd several Years after the Death of this Prince; since that Author, af∣ter he hath spoken of the Rule which King Sigismond caused to be established there, adds, that this Rule was strictly observed there, usque ••odie, to this very day. So that were it true, that St. Eucherius was the Author of this Work, he must of necessity, not only have been contem∣porary to King Sigismond, but more than that he must have out-lived him many Years. But now it happens to be quit•• contrary, for St. Eucherius was dead, when Sigismond was yet on the Throne.

Most Historians do reckon the Death of this King of Burgundy, to have happen'd about the Year 520, and place that of St. Eucherius in * 1.2the Year 441. 'Tis true, that Mr. Dupin re∣fers it to the Year 454. upon the Authority of Prosper's Chronicle. Some on the contrary carry it as far back as the Year 421. Amongst whom are Gennadius and Ado. But there is much reason to suspect in both these Authors, the disingenuity of some Transcriber, since it

could not be unknown to Gennadius and Ado, that St. Eucherius was present at the Council of Orange, where his Name is found amongst the Subscribers; and that it is agreed on by every Body, that this Council was held about the Year of our Lord 441. Some indeed, to save this Anachronism, pretend that there have been two Eucherius's, like the Jews, who to mend their desperate Cause, have invented two Messia's, to reconcile in both the fulfilling of the Oracles, which they cannot apply to one alone.

But, in short 'tis not possible that St. Eu∣cherius, Bishop of Lions, should be the Author of the Passion of the Thebean Legion▪ unless we al∣low him to have had the gift of Prophecy, and make him speak Prophetically of those Rules which were to be settled in the Monastery of Agaunum, several Ages after his Death. Should some Person now put out any Writings, under the Name of Monsieur de Marca, or of Cardinal Duperron, and mention therein the establishment and Foundation of St. Cyr. To shew that these Writings ought not to be ascribed to these two great Men, it would suffice to make it ap∣pear, that they were dead several Years before Lewis the 14th made this Foundation. Never∣theless, this so plain a demonstration of Forgery, hath not hindered Surius, in his Relation of the * 1.3Martyrdom of the Thebean Legion on the 22. of September, from confidently asserting, that St. Eucherius was the Author of the Acts of their Passion. 'Tis very strange that Baronius should

* 1.4 make the same blunder, both in his Annals and in his Notes on the Roman Martyrology. And indeed this would seem yet more strange, were it not plain, that this Learned Cardinal undertook in his Annals▪ not so much to give us the Hi∣story of the Church, as to defend the prejudi∣ces and ambitious pretensions of the Church of Rome Therefore when its an advantage to him, to overlook some supposititious and Coun∣terfeit Writing, he pretends he sees neither con∣tradiction nor Anchronism in it; he is no long∣er that able Critick, whose pierceing knowledge nothing can escape, and who clears and extri∣cates the most obscure and knotty things of An∣tiquity: * 1.5In a word, he is no more Baronius.

Cardinal Bellarmine, whose Zeal for the glo∣ry of the Roman Church did not yield to that of Baronius, hath taken another way to save the ••ruth of the Passion of the Thebean Legion, that it might not be objected to his Church, that it worshipped some for Saints, who never had so much as a being in the World. For since Men would at the very first sight be startled, to see so long an interval of time between St. Eu∣cherius and St. Sigismond, he hath endeavoured to cut it much shorter, and to render it so little, as that it might pass wholly unobserved, or howe∣ver be but very little minded. He tells us, that this Bishop of Lions lived till the Year 499. and he grounds his conjecture upon a place in the Life of St. Cesarius, Bishop of Arles, compos'd by Cyprian the Priest; where it is said, that these two Bishops, being in company together, resto∣red

a Woman to her former health, who was af∣flicted with a very sore Distemper. If there were any certainty in this Conjecture of Cardi∣nal Bellarmine, Eucherius would have been al∣most contemporary with King Sigismond. For Messanius a Priest, and Stephen a Deacon, two other Disciples of St. Cesarius, in the Book they have added to the Life of this Holy Prelate, say that he dyed forty Years after he had been made a Bishop, and since every body knows that he succeeded Ennoius, about the Year 504. his Death should be placed in the Year 544 or 545. For it is certain that he was present at the Coun∣cil of Arles in 524 and at the second Council of Orange in 529▪ And to prove that he was alive in 528. we have a Letter that Pope Vigil wrote to him under the Consulship of John and Volusian.

But though we should grant Cardinal Bellar∣mine's Conjecture not to be groundless, yet he would be but little the better for it. 'Tis not enough to prolong St. Eucherius's Life to the Year 499. 'Tis to no purpose, likewise to prove that St. Eucherius might have seen St. Cesarius Bishop of Arles. King Sigismond dyed about the Year 520. and they must make it appear that St. Eucherius out-lived him a great many Years, to make good the usque hodie of the place we have before quoted. Now it is so far from being true, that St. Eucherius did out-live St. Sigismond, that on the contrary, there is no like∣ly-hood that he liv'd till the Year 499. accor∣ding to Cardinal Bellarmine's Conjecture. It ap∣pears by the Subscriptions of the first Council of

Orange, that he was Bishop of Lions in 4••1; and consequently he must have been then at least thirty, or forty Years Old; for at that time it was not usual to raise any person under that age to the Dignity of a Bishop; Bishopricks being not yet bestowed as rewards upon Families, and the Holiness of Canons holding yet out against the Vanity of the Clergy, and the Usur∣pations of Kings. Now since we are certain of this, can we think it probable that St. Eucherius should live to see St. Cesarius Bishop of Arles, who was not raised to that Dignity, till after the Death of Ennoius, about the Year 504 In∣deed, I think a Man must needs be very bold in his Conjectures, who can allow St Eucherius to have lived above a Hundred Years, if he have no other Warrant for it, but that place of the Life of St. Cesarius: Those who shall carefully examine this Life of St. Cesarius, will agree, that it ought not to be rely'd upon too much. 'Tis true, it is polite and judicious enough for that Age, and seems not unworthy of him who had been one of the Disciples of St. Cesarius, and who for his great Piety and Merits was raised to the Dignity of a Bishop, as appears by his Name found in the Subscriptions of the second Council of Orange▪ But what if some Im∣postour here disguised himself under the Name of a Famous Disciple of St. Cesarius? At least this pretended Disciple seems not to be much in∣form'd of his Masters Affairs. He saith in one place, that St. Cesarius sent some Grave and Learned Men to a Council Assembled at Va∣lence

to Condemn the Opinions of Pelagius. Which having given me occasion to examine the Acts of the Councils held at Valence, I ••ind nothing in them concerning the Heresie of Pela∣gius, wherein St. Cesarius could have any hand. So that being mistaken in a matter of Fact of this Importance, he might as well have been over-seen in joyning Eucherius and Cesarius in the Cure of that Diseased Woman.

* 1.6 It appears that the Learned Doctor Cave re∣lyed a little too much upon this Life of St. Ce∣sarius. He saith in his History of Ecclesiastical Writers, that this Holy Bishop, understanding that he was suspected of Pelagianism, caused a Council to be Assembled at Valence, to clear him∣self of this accusation; and being hindred by rea∣son of the illness of his Health from going to it, he maintained there publickly by his Legates, that Man in the state of Sin, cannot work out his Salvation without a preventing Grace. But if, instead of following this Cyprian, Dis∣ciple of St. Cesarius, and who was afterwards Bishop of Thoulon, Doctor Cave had given him∣self the trouble to look over the Councils of Valence, he would have observed that in the first, which was held in the Year 734. their whole business was about Bigamy; that in the Second, which met in 599. (some place it in the Year 684, and some in 589.) they were wholly taken up with the great Donatives which Gun∣tran King of Burgundy had bestowed upon the Church: And that the Third, in which Pela∣gius, Hinmark, and John Scot were Condem∣ned,

and the Acts whereof are cited by Forbesius in his Instructions, was not called till the Year 855. as appears by the Acts of it being pre∣sented to the Emperour Lothary, and to Charles the Bald. Now St. Cesarius was unborn at the time of the First Council, since Doctor Cave brings him into the World, only in the Year 469. And he was Dead when the Second met, accor∣ding to the same Doctor, who places his Death in the Year 542. And 'tis, I think needless to add that he was not concern'd in the Third, which was held in 855. and in which the Pelagian O∣pinions were Condemned. This short digression, which we have thought necessary, to remove St. Cesarius from St. Eucherius's times, will not seem, I hope, unseasonable. It appears then that Bellarmine, for all his Conjecture, cannot bring St. Eucherius near enough to St Sigismond King of Burgundy. The distance is too great to admit of any means of reconciling the Dis∣pute. We shall observe by the way, that Usuard and Aimonius have commited the like mistake: But because it is but a matter of three or four Years difference, they may perhaps find Friends to help them out. These two Writers say, that Clovis was delivered from a dangerous Sickness, by the Vows and Prayers of St. Seve∣rine, Abbot of Agaunum. And it is certain that Clovis was Dead three or four Years before Sigismond had founded that Monastery. Grego∣ry of Tours saith, that he caused the same to be Built, and richly Endowed it, after the Death of his Father Gombaldus. But Marius Bishop of

Avanches marks precisely the Year in his Chro∣nicle, and saith that Sigismond founded the Agau∣nian Monastery, under the Consulship of Floren∣tius and Anthemius, viz. Four Years after the Death of Clovis. This Remark is owing to Monsieur de Valois, in his Notice of the Gauls; * 1.7where he saith, that he cannot understand how Severine could have been Abbot of that Mo∣nastery in Clovis's time. Nevertheless the Mira∣culous recovery of a great King, being of great Credit to the Prayers and Suffrages of Monaste∣ries, Usuard and Aimonius, who were both Monks, caused Prayers to be made for Clovis in Agaunum, even before King Sigismond had it in his thoughts to build a Monastery there. 'Tis true, that Bollandus would fain perswade us, that this Prince did only repair and beautifie it. But this he asserts without any ground, since both the Ancient and Modern Writers who speak of the first Foundation of the A∣gaunian Monastery, do all generally agree that 'twas St. Sigismond King of Burgundy, who caused it to be Built to the Honour of the The∣bean Legion, which suffered Martyrdom in that place.

Notes

• * 1.1

  D••u noctu{que} hymn••rum, Psalmorumque decantatio non desini••, quod jubente praeclaro Sancto{que} Martyre Beato Sigismu••do Rege in∣stitutum, usqu•• bo••ie co••∣servatum est.
• * 1.2

  Dupin Nov. Bibl. Tom. 4. pag▪ 175.
• * 1.3

  Surius Tom. 5▪ 22. S••p▪
• * 1.4

  Martyr. Rom 10. Kal••n••. Oct. pag. 3••5.
• * 1.5

  Bellarm. in Catal. Script. Eccl. in Euch.
• * 1.6

  Cave Hist. Li••. Script. Eccles. p. 333. in C••sario.
• * 1.7

  Hadr. Va∣le••i••s No∣tit. Gall in Heaun∣um.