ON ST. JUSTUS OF LYONS, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, IN THE DESERT OF EGYPT, IN THE DESERT OF EGYPT,
About the year CCCXC.
PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.
Justus, bishop of Lyons, conf., in the desert of Egypt. (S.)
BY J. S.
§ I. The most ancient cult of St. Justus: his memory announced on various days in the Martyrologies, and for what reasons. [ ] By a distinguished fame of holiness St. Justus, bishop of Lyons, flourished in Gaul and in Egypt toward the end of the fourth century, [The feast of St. Justus was celebrated with a solemn rite from the middle of the fifth century,] and he began to be venerated not long after his death; certainly about the middle of the fifth century his feast was already celebrated with great solemnity. A fit testimony of so ancient a veneration we have from Sidonius, bk. 5, letter 17, to Eriphius, in which he writes the following: We had come together at the tomb of saint Justus; but infirmity was a hindrance to you, so that you were not then present. There had been a procession before dawn, an anniversary solemnity, an immense people of both sexes, whom the most capacious basilica could not contain, nor the crypt, girded though it was with spreading porticoes. The observance of the vigils being ended, which the monks and the psalm-singing clerics had celebrated together with alternating sweetness, each of us withdrew in different directions, yet not far; since we were to be at hand at the third hour, when the divine office was to be performed with the priests. Truly, from the press of the place and of the crowds, and from the numerous lights brought in, exceedingly breathless, etc. At what season of the year this feast was celebrated the words presently subjoined suggest: At the same time the night, still nearest to summer, had scorched us shut in with silent heat; though now with the first chill of an autumn dawn it was cooling. The beginning of autumn, which he designates by this phrase, points to the XIV day of October (on which we shall prove below that the Saint more probably died), since no other feast of St. Justus falls at the beginning of autumn. Moreover these things before the episcopate Sidonius wrote, and probably as a young man, about the middle of the fifth century; so that we may judge that the feast began to be celebrated shortly after the translation of the body from Egypt into Gaul, of which we shall treat.
[2] That in the same century the Saint was renowned for miracles we understand from another monument, by which also the celebration of the feast is confirmed. and in the same century the Saint became renowned for miracles. In the year 499 there was instituted at Lyons a disputation or conference of Catholic bishops with the Arians in the presence of Gundobad, king of the Burgundians. This Conference was published in Labbe, vol. 4 of the Councils, from col. 1318, and in it this is read to our purpose: The lord Stephen (bishop of Lyons) wrote to many bishops, and invited them to the feast of St. Justus, which was at hand: at which, because of the frequency of miracles, there was a very great concourse of peoples. Then, the disputation held before the king having been reported, in which the Arians had been defeated, this is subjoined: All the bishops therefore departed: and, because the day had not yet declined, they went together with the other Catholics to the basilica of the lord Justus, confessing the Lord, because he is good, and praising him who had given them such a victory over their enemies. We see here that the church which was otherwise called that of the Maccabees was already then named of St. Justus, which name it retained until its overthrow. How great a confidence in St. Justus the Catholics had is gathered from the words of St. Avitus of Vienne, who, the Arians being again defeated in a second disputation, addressed the king in their presence thus: If our reasons cannot convince them, I do not doubt that God will confirm our faith by a miracle; let your sublimity command that both they and we go to the tomb of Justus, the man of God, and question him concerning our faith, and likewise Boniface (the Arian bishop) concerning his, and the Lord will pronounce by the mouth of his Servant in whom he is well pleased. The Arians indeed refused, and therefore this was not done. Nevertheless the writer attributes the happy outcome of the disputation to the intercession of St. Justus in these words: From that day very many Arians came to penitence, and after some days were baptized: and the Lord magnified our faith through the intercession of the lord Justus in the sight of all.
[3] From these things, which so clearly show the most ancient veneration of the Saint, [His memory is announced on various days in the Calendars, chiefly on the 2nd of September,] we can by no means wonder that his memory is read commonly inscribed in the most ancient Martyrologies. But we do wonder at the variety of days, since he never seems to have been venerated on as many different days as his name is found inserted in the sacred Calendars. First, on the 2nd of September the Saint is announced in most of them; but writers are not agreed whether that is the day of the Saint's death. The Hieronymian ones in Florentini have thus on that day: At Lyons in Gaul, the deposition of St. Justus the bishop, and the dedication of his basilica. With these agree the Corbie one in the notes, the Hieronymian one in d'Achery, vol. 2 of the reprinted Spicilegium, and the Murbach one in Martène, vol. 3 of the Anecdota, col. [ ]. The codex of the Queen of Sweden only has: At Lyons in Gaul, the deposition of saint Justus, bishop and confessor. Nor does that dedication of the church please Florentini, of which he says in his notes: But what is here added concerning the dedication of the church smacks of a copyist's addition; but I do not see for what cause. Other more abridged Hieronymian ones record St. Justus on the same day in these or similar words: At Lyons, of Justus the bishop; some also are altogether silent about him.
[4] Rabanus on the same day wove an elogium for the Saint of this kind: on which the Saint's death seems to be announced in Rabanus, At Lyons in Gaul, the deposition of Justus, bishop and confessor. When after the diaconate he was ordained prelate, he ruled for many years with such purity, modesty, piety, and patience, with such care toward the poor, with such observance of the divine commandments, that he surpassed even those magnificent and excellent priests of the Lord in every grace of the virtues; but (since) he presided over the church of the Lord's people with so vast a glory among his flock, the envy of the raging devil blazed up even to his expulsion. When therefore a sedition of the people was persecuting him, after many tribulations he set out on a pilgrimage; and with only a boy accompanying him he came into Egypt, and there among the anchorites he led a most strict life, and lived nobly. Whom saint Antiochus, a priest of Lyons, stirred by pious duty, purposed in mind to go even to visit his bishop: and saint Justus the bishop foretold to those who were with him that he too would come to him. But after some days the Saint of God, departing from this world, deserved that his bones should be translated by divine prompting to his own see, and there honorably buried. This elogium is taken from the Acts; but the violent expulsion from the episcopal see is altogether contrary to the Acts.
[5] On the same day also Notker celebrates our Saint with a brief and accurate elogium thus: Notker, Usuard, Florus: The birth of saint Justus, bishop of Lyons: who, secretly leaving his bishopric, migrated to Egypt, with a certain lector accompanying him, whose name was Viator. There therefore for some years, joined with the monks, he ended his life in holy conversation. His body was brought by religious citizens to Lyons with the bones of saint Viator his minister, into the basilica of the seven brothers, the Maccabees. With these Wandelbert seems to agree, since he announces the Saint on the same day, briefly, however, and without asserting that it is the day of his death. But Usuard with Rabanus and Notker seems to announce his death in these words: At Lyons in Gaul, the birthday of saint Justus, bishop and confessor, who, withdrawing into the desert, when for some years he had led a life next to the angels, and a worthy end was at hand to such great labors, deserved to ascend the kingdom of heaven with blessed gain. His holy little body, with the bones of blessed Viator his minister, was afterwards brought back to Lyons. In the same day of death Florus too seems to conspire, in our work before vol. 2 of March, where he has such an elogium: At Lyons, the deposition of St. Justus, bishop and confessor: who, on account of a certain fugitive of that same church, given back at the request of a chief man of the city, and put to death, ascribing that man's punishment to himself, abandoned the flock committed to him, which he had ruled for many years with great purity, modesty, and patience, and gave himself to the desert, cleaving to the Lord and to his worshipers, namely to saint Macarius and saint Paphnutius, whose life and death he shared. So many witnesses would seem to deserve belief, did not others stand in the way, whose authority is by no means to be despised; and did not the mind of the foregoing prove less clear than at first sight it will seem to some.
[6] but Ado, with others, distinguishing three feasts, Truly Ado in the clearest words determines another day of death, when at the 2nd of September he writes the following: The birthday of saint Justus, bishop of Lyons, a man of wonderful holiness and of a prophetic spirit. He, secretly leaving his bishopric, having boarded a ship, with only one boy accompanying him, who held the office of lector in the church, named Viator, came into Egypt. Where for some years, associated with holy monks who looked only to heaven, he lived incomparable in humility and holiness of life. And so, the course of his time being finished, himself also being made perfect in virtues, he departed to the Lord to receive the crown of justice laid up for him, on the day before the Ides of October. His body was brought back by religious citizens to Lyons with the bones of blessed Viator his minister, and laid with fitting honor in the basilica of the blessed seven brothers, the Maccabees, most glorious martyrs, on the fourth of the Nones of September. The same Ado at the XIV of October has thus: On the same day, the passing of saint Justus in the desert: who, when for some years he had led an angelic life in the desert, and a worthy end was at hand, promising the kingdom of heaven to such great labors; and when, at those last moments of his holy soul's departure, Viator stood by weeping and stricken in mind, saying: To whom, Lord, do you leave me? he is said to have answered, that he should not be troubled as though deprived of consolation, because he himself would shortly follow him thither also. Which prophecy and revelation is known to have been quickly fulfilled by the swift passing of that most holy young minister of his, who alone by ardor of faith had followed him as he fled the bishopric and desired to lie hidden. The same author also announces St. Justus on the IV day of August in these words: At Lyons, the coming of the body of St. Justus from the desert, etc.
[7] [places his death on the 14th of October, the Coming of the body on the 4th of August, and its Deposition in the church on the 2nd of September:] Ado therefore distinguishes three feasts of St. Justus, and thinks that the Saint's death befell on the XIV of October, that the body came to Lyons on the IV of August, and that it was laid in the church dedicated to him on the 2nd of September, on which the Saint is chiefly celebrated. Hence I readily believe that the church was dedicated on the same day, as the Hieronymian ones cited above have it. With Ado the Martyrology of Auxerre nearly agrees, published in Martène, vol. 6 of the Collectio amplissima, where at col. 719, at the 2nd of September, this is read: At Lyons, the birthday of St. Justus, bishop and confessor, who departed to the Lord in the desert on the day before the Ides of October, and his sacred body and that of B. Viator his minister were brought back to Lyons, and laid with fitting honor on the IV of the Nones of September. This day might be understood of the coming to Lyons, did not the day of the coming and that of the deposition in the church be most clearly distinguished by Ado, to whose mind this Martyrology seems to be expounded. For various Hieronymian ones also mark the Coming of the body on the IV day of August. The text given by Florentini has thus on that day: At Lyons in Gaul, the coming of the body of saint Justus the bishop from the desert. With this the Corbie codex and the twin one of the Queen of Sweden wholly agree; and the same is suggested by the most ancient Antwerp one in these words: The translation of St. Justus the bishop. Nay, Notker too on the same day wrote: At Lyons in Gaul, the coming of the body of saint Justus the bishop from the desert. Nevertheless these things do not agree with the others which he notes on the XIV of October, and which we shall refute as less probable.
[8] Moreover Ado's opinion of a threefold feast of St. Justus seems to me for various reasons to be preferred to the opinions of others, this opinion of Ado, to the less clear statements of others both because Ado of Vienne could examine the matter more exactly than any of the others, and because he really seems to have used greater diligence; for he sets forth the three feasts clearly and neatly, and leaves no doubt about his own opinion. But the others neither used such diligence nor explained their mind so clearly. First, Usuard announces the Saint on one day only, nor does he clearly declare that he died on that day. That is a sign that he was less exactly instructed about the several feasts, and therefore announced only the chief feast without express mention of the day of death; probably because he saw that the Saint's death was recorded on different days by the older writers. The same must be said of Florus, since he too records only one feast. No less ambiguous is Rabanus's opinion, as also Notker's: for even though the former by the word Deposition, and the latter by the word Birth, seems to fix the Saint's death on the 2nd of September, and both commemorate on the XIV of October the translation of the body, yet the same men also announce the Saint on the XIV of July in such words that they seem to have believed that it was the day of his death. Take the words of Rabanus at the said day: At Lyons in Gaul, the birthday of Justus, bishop and confessor. Notker indeed marks the death on that day less clearly; but since he records the translation on the XIV of October, and the Coming of the body on the IV of August, and here has: At Lyons in Gaul, of saint Justus, bishop and confessor, what ought we to understand but the death, especially since Notker frequently follows Rabanus, from whom he seems to have drawn the assigning of the aforesaid day to St. Justus.
[9] Another reason occurs why the opinion of the aforesaid should seem less clear. is to be preferred, All of them, except Notker, announce the Saint at Lyons. But St. Justus did not die at Lyons, but in the desert of Egypt. If they had meant to record the day of his death, why did they not at the same time record the place also? Why do they assign a place in which the Saint did not die? For no other cause, I think, than that they did not mean to designate the day of death, but expressed the day on which he was chiefly celebrated at Lyons. But, someone will say, Usuard says, The birthday of St. Justus. He therefore designates the day of death, which by martyrologists is understood by birthday. I answer that by birthday the day of death is generally designated; but not always. For both Ado and the Martyrology of Auxerre call the feast customarily celebrated on the 2nd of September the birthday of St. Justus; and yet they do not understand the day of death, since in the same place they affirm that the Saint died on the day before the Ides of October. Usuard followed Ado, and drew his two elogia into one, and therefore seems to have designated nothing else by birthday than what Ado had designated, namely the Saint's feast. So sometimes there is spoken of the birthday of relics for a translation, the birthday of the chalice for the Lord's Supper, the birthday of a temple for a dedication, and other feasts also are named birthdays, as may be seen in Du Cange's Glossary at the word natalis.
[10] various reasons persuade us: Moreover, just as birthday does not necessarily imply the day of death, so also deposition, which word Rabanus and Florus use, can be understood of the deposition of the body in the church, in which the Saint after the translation was laid. And that the body was laid in the church of the Maccabees on the 2nd day of September Ado testifies: and that the church was dedicated on the same day, the Hieronymian ones cited have it. These may have been the reasons for which the chief feast is customarily celebrated on that same 2nd day of September. The same befell in the case of St. Serapia, of whom on the following day the Roman Martyrology, from Ado and others, has thus: And she suffered on the fourth of the Kalends of August, and was buried by blessed Sabina in her own monument beside the plot of Vindicianus; but the memory of her martyrdom is held more famous on this day, when the sarcophagus of both was there set up and adorned, and the place of prayer fittingly dedicated. For the same cause I persuade myself, with Ado, that the feast of St. Justus is celebrated on the 2nd of September; with whom likewise I believe that the Saint died on the XIV of October; and that his body came to Lyons on the IV of August; for it does not seem that Ado would have distinguished these things so accurately unless he had thoroughly understood the matter. Others have written otherwise of these feasts. To their opinion I shall gladly subscribe, if anyone brings forward better reasons than have hitherto been brought forward by Théophile Raynaud and others.
[11] certainly on the 14th of October the passing over into Egypt was not celebrated. That indeed I do not think even probable which Raynaud adopted from Saussay in the Hagiologium Lugdunense, p. 71, and which he sets forth in these words: But the feast which was celebrated on the day before the Ides of October, and was called the PASSING of St. Justus, was the feast of his passing over into Egypt, and of his withdrawal from the bishopric. Saussay had gone before at the XIV of October in this manner: On the same day is commemorated at Lyons the withdrawal into Egypt of saint Justus, bishop and confessor of that first see. Thus indeed do they admirably expound the words of Ado, The passing of St. Justus in the desert; by which he announces the Saint's death. But a little better is Raynaud's other reason, which alone he ought to have alleged, when he adds: Or, as the appendix to Ado has it (with Rabanus, Notker, and certain Hieronymian transcripts), on that day was the feast of some translation. That this is altogether improbable I should not dare to assert, on account of the authors cited. But if the translation of the body had been celebrated on the XIV of October, the Saint's death would really have to be fixed on the 2nd of September. But Ado's opinion appears to me more probable, because it suggests a fit cause for the three feasts. But others do not explain what that translation of the XIV of October is; whether it is the same as the Coming of the body, which is recorded on the IV of August, or distinct from it.
[12] The feast of his ordination is unknown to all the ancients, Besides the three feasts of the Saint mentioned, Saussay announces two others as well, the one on the XIV of July, the other on the V of August. Of the former he has thus: At Lyons, the ordination of saint Justus, bishop and most glorious confessor, whose happy passing is marked in the sacred records of the Church on the second day of September. Whence Saussay took it that the Saint's ordination was celebrated on that day is wholly hidden from me; but I strongly suspect that it is a mere conjecture, resting on no other foundation than that he saw St. Justus celebrated on that day in various Martyrologies. Certainly in various Hieronymian transcripts on the XIV of July it is read thus: At Lyons in Gaul, the birthday of St. Justus the bishop. In several is added, and confessor. The same too Rabanus has, and Notker with a longer elogium clearly designates the same Justus of whom we treat, but not without some error, since he has thus: At Lyons in Gaul, of St. Justus, bishop and confessor, who, having died in anchoretic conversation through the fervor of divine contemplation, and having been gloriously translated to his own city, left distinguished monuments of his genius on the Song of Songs. What he says of his writings on the Song pertains to St. Justus, bishop of Urgel in Spain, of whom we have treated at the XXVIII of May. Very many other Martyrologies of a more recent age mark St. Justus at Lyons on this day; but of his ordination they are silent. This feast of his ordination, therefore, does not seem to have been celebrated; nor did Raynaud record it. Saussay wished, I suppose, on each of the days on which he found St. Justus in the Martyrologies, to announce different feasts — rightly indeed, if he found them in fit monuments; but very badly, if he invented them.
[13] This is certain, that St. Justus is not so announced in the Martyrologies [nor was that or any other feast of the Saint celebrated on the 14th of July; nor is another Justus known there:] as though that were the day of his ordination; but as though he had died on that day, and indeed in various ones with a companion Amicus or Amatus or Amantius. Various things about these our Sollerius has already noted in vol. III of July, in the passed-over entries at the XIV day, where he shows that that Justus, now alone, now with Amicus, Amatus, Amantius, by which names the same man seems to be designated, passed from the supplements of the Hieronymian ones into Rabanus and Notker, and thence into the supplements of Bede and Usuard: In so great a concord of the Martyrologies, he then adds, which more recent writers with Peter de Natalibus have increased, who could doubt that both Saints belong to this day? Meanwhile at Lyons for this day Raynaud found neither Justus nor Amicus, and he confesses indeed that the latter is not known to him, however much Saussay and Castellanus report him. If I may here indicate my conjecture, I shall not fear to suspect that that Amicus, joined with St. Justus, is Viator himself, his most faithful companion or friend, who from his Lord is not to be separated. Raynaud believes that Justus to be other than the one of whom we treat, and consequently Amicus other than Viator; but of neither did he find anything, as has already been said. The matter indeed seems to me ambiguous, nor should I dare to determine anything with certainty. Nevertheless Sollerius's conjecture pleases me more. Nor is it therefore necessary that some feast of St. Justus was formerly on the XIV of July. For the announcement of St. Justus could easily have crept in by error into some one Hieronymian, and thence into others. Occasion for the error could have been given by another St. Justus, a confessor of the third century, who on the same day is venerated in the diocese of Bourges, and is unknown to the ancient Martyrologies. The compiler of a Martyrology could have noted for the one of Bourges the Justus of Lyons, as being better known. Whatever the case, neither Raynaud nor Severt noted any feast of St. Justus on that day.
[14] The other feast, which Saussay would have added to the three aforesaid, the dedication of the church, reported by Saussay at the [ of August, was probably made on the 2nd of September.] is thus set forth by him at the V day of August: At Lyons, the dedication of the church of saint Justus, in which his most sacred bones were laid with religious observance. I ask again, what author he has for this assertion of his; and I find none. Peter de Natalibus, bk. 7, ch. 26, says that the Saint's body was laid up on the Nones of August in the church of his name; but he does not say that the church was then dedicated. But that the dedication and the deposition of the body befell rather on the 2nd of September we have already said. For which cause that feast too seems to lack a foundation, nor was it known to Raynaud. These things concerning the Saint's ancient feasts I have wished to discuss more diligently on account of the greatly varying opinions of modern writers about them. The author of our Ms. Florarium followed Ado exactly; for he announces the Saint's death on the XIV of October, the coming of the body on the IV of August, and the deposition of the same body and the chief feast on the 2nd of September in these words, with which I put an end to this discussion: At Lyons in Gaul, the birthday of saint Justus, bishop and confessor, a man of wonderful holiness and of a prophetic spirit. He, secretly leaving his own bishopric, having boarded a ship, with only one boy accompanying him, who held the office of lector in the church, named Viator, came to Egypt, where for some years, associated with holy monks who looked upon his zeal, he lived in holiness and humility not in a middling degree. And so, the course of his time being finished, himself also being made perfect in virtues, he departed to the Lord to receive the crown of justice laid up for him, on the day before the Ides of October. His body was brought back by religious citizens to Lyons with the bones of blessed Viator his minister, and laid with fitting honor in the basilica of the holy seven Maccabee martyrs on the IV of the Nones of September.
§ II. What and of what sort are the Saint's Acts: whether their author is Constantius the priest. The diverse copies of these Acts, some of which are interpolated. Two sets of Acts to be published.
[ ] [Tillemont praises the Life of St. Justus too much, and suspects it to be by Constantius the priest,] The Acts of St. Justus exist both in print and in manuscript in various codices. Tillemont, vol. 8 of the Monuments, in the article on St. Justus, p. 546, passed such a judgment on them: His Life seems to have been written a good while after his death; whence perhaps it happened that it contains more general eulogies than particular facts: but its style, grave, holy, and full of majesty and elegance, gives cause for judging that it is the work of Constantius, the famous priest of Lyons, who wrote the Life of St. Germanus of Auxerre toward the end of the fifth century, or of some other who was at least of the same age. Thus Tillemont concerning the Surian Acts, who here seems, after his manner, too kindly. Certainly, since he assigns Surius in the margin, who says, We have here and there moderately polished the style, he passes judgment on the style of the ancient writer from a polished style, and from the style altered by Surius he divines that the author was Constantius, or another of the same age. Baillet in his Critical Table at the 2nd day of September praises the same writer of this Life, but believes him anonymous, who seems to have lived in the sixth century, or at any rate not later. The writers of the Literary History of France, vol. 2, in the article on Constantius the priest, p. 547, attribute this Life to Constantius more confidently which others affirm more confidently and try to prove, but in vain: than Tillemont himself had done, and allege certain reasons.
[16] The first reason is a style grave, holy, full of majesty and piety. The second they express thus: The few facts which are contained in that little Work suggest that its author was well enough instructed concerning the history of this church (of Lyons). They add a third reason in these words: Constantius declares that he wrote this Life on account of many solicitations, in almost the same manner in which we have already seen the Life of St. Germanus of Auxerre written by him. Fourthly, at last, they affirm that this Life is far better written than was commonly written in the sixth century of the Church. But these reasons neither seem to me true in every part, nor sufficient to settle the question proposed, even if they were otherwise most true. For first, what is said of the gravity and elegance of the style I do not find even in Surius, and it appears far less in the Mss. than in Surius, who notably polished the style; nor does that elegance prove anything, since many other writers flourished in Gaul who used greater elegance and majesty in their writings. What is subjoined, that that writer was well instructed concerning the affairs of the church of Lyons, nowhere indeed appears: for he reports nothing that pertains to that church, except that its patron is St. Justus, and that Antiochus afterwards presided over it as prelate. But, even if he had been most fully instructed about the church of Lyons, how can it thence be inferred that he was Constantius? What is said in the third place about the solicitations by which he was impelled to write the Life, just as he says that he was solicited to write the Life of St. Germanus, is so dissimilar that it rather exhibits different authors than the same: for in this Life he says briefly: We are compelled to set forth briefly the Life of blessed Justus, bishop of Lyons, out of admiration (in another Ms. by adjuration, in another about to admire). But Constantius in the Life of St. Germanus prefaces much concerning his own lesser capacity for writing and the difficulty of the subject. Nor again would this similarity, if it were true, prove anything; since all commonly, or at any rate many, were wont to preface similar things in that time. The fourth, finally, is no truer, since various men flourished in the sixth century who wrote more elegantly and more correctly than this Life is composed.
[16] As these reasons can in no way persuade that the Life of St. Justus was written by Constantius the priest; for various reasons persuade so the comparison of this Life with the Life of St. Germanus leaves me no doubt that each has a different author. The Life of St. Germanus is gravely and historically written with the circumstances of persons, places, and particular deeds, from the Saint's birth to his death. But this Life contains almost nothing except certain general eulogies, and so few particular facts that almost all of them could have been drawn from the Martyrologies, and written in the same manner in the tenth century. Nothing of the Saint's birth, nothing of the bishop his predecessor, nothing of the day of his death, nothing of the translation of his body, save in general terms, nothing of the place of his burial, of his miracles, of his cult. Nowhere, finally, is any time assigned in which the Saint flourished, nor any in which the writer himself lived. These things the adversaries will confess: but they affirm that it happened so because Constantius wrote long after St. Justus's death. But Constantius did not flourish a whole century after St. Justus: for already in the year 473 he was of a quite advanced age, as the said writers of the Literary History have it of him, vol. 2, p. 545. But our Saint did not die until the end of the fourth century; how then could a learned and diligent man write so meagerly of St. Justus in that very church of Lyons, where doubtless not a few monuments concerning the bishops of Lyons, and especially concerning a Saint so famous, could be found?
[17] that this Life was not written by Constantius, but later: Then Constantius in the preface to the Life of St. Germanus complains that he writes too late; So many courses of times, he says, have now flowed away that knowledge, obscured by silence, is scarcely gathered; and yet he found and narrated very many things there, with places, times, and persons attached. But this writer of the Life of St. Justus nowhere complains of that matter; yet he speaks magnificently, as if he had all things thoroughly understood, and meanwhile relates almost none of the Saint's deeds in detail. It is not credible, therefore, that this Life is Constantius's; nor should I believe it composed in the fifth century, certainly not in the form in which it was published by Surius and exists in the Mss. agreeing with his edition. Moreover our anonymous author so filled his little Work with sentences of sacred Scripture and moral doctrine that it may seem rather a sermon delivered to the people than a history of a life. Hence it is uncertain to me whether this Life was composed in the fifth century, the sixth, the seventh, or later.
[18] various copies of the Acts agree with the Surian ones as to substance; The Ms. copies of this Life are various and sprinkled with some faults, some with more, others with fewer; but the printed ones are neater, though less genuine. Besides, certain Ms. copies differ much from the printed ones and from other Mss.: but other transcripts rightly agree with the edition of Surius at the 2nd of September, and with the edition of Vincent Barrali in the Chronologia Lirinensis, p. 316; which was given from Surius, provided we except only the corrections of style made by Surius. This polishing of the diction is notable enough, and occurs in almost every phrase, not indeed so as to change the writer's sense, yet so that not a few things are emended, and certain inept things omitted. Three such transcripts we have, of which the first our Chifflet formerly sent hither from the Passionary of St. Justus of Lyons and from an old Ms. of St. Claude, and it was collated with the Acciacum Ms. The second was taken from the Utrecht Ms. of St. Salvator; the third from the Ms. of Rouge-Cloître. Those transcripts agree with one another, except in the faults with which each labors. For this cause I shall follow one of them in the edition in such a way that I shall correct the faults from the others, as far as I can, or from the printed editions, and shall at the same time indicate where anything occurs in the others which is worth noting.
[19] others differing from these, which seem interpolated, The copies which I have said to differ from the others do not differ in all things, even if we look only at the words, but rather for the most part so agree, even in words, that the author of the one doubtless saw the other's little Work and partly copied it. But in these the whole preface is omitted, which indeed can be absent without loss to any fact; other things too are omitted, pertaining rather to moral discourse than to the Saint's history. On the other hand, in these copies some things are read which are absent from the printed editions and the aforesaid Mss. These are certain things concerning the Saint dwelling in the Egyptian desert, which the writer asserts that he learned from a ninety-year-old priest who had lived familiarly with the Saint in the desert. Of these Acts we have one copy in a Ms. codex marked P. Ms. 20, fol. 178. This codex is very ancient, but written more negligently than is right, since it has not a few most manifest faults. Another copy, agreeing with the preceding, was sent from a Ms. of St. Maximin of Trier, likewise filled with many faults. These copies have something from which I should believe them interpolated, or unskillfully patched together out of two: for where they speak of Viator, they have thus: Besides that Viator whom we mentioned above, etc., although in that same place Viator is never before named or mentioned. It is clear that this was taken from those things which have already been published, where the same is rightly said, because Viator had been named in the preface.
[20] The same Acts again, but more compressed and neater, exist in the codex 33 of the Queen of Sweden, and finally others briefer and better than the preceding. as I gather from a comparison of these with those. These, although the copy itself is not to my hand, I can from the diverse readings accurately noted communicate to the reader, and shall indeed communicate, since I judge that they will please more than all the other copies, because they contain most of the facts, and lack useless digressions. Of these it may deservedly be said what Tillemont and his followers too liberally asserted of the Surian ones. Their writer was nearly contemporary with St. Justus, and must necessarily have lived in the fifth century, since he says at n. 4: But I myself saw a certain holy priest, now nearly ninety years of age, by whose relation these things became known to me: for, as follows, that priest had lived with St. Justus in the desert. Nor indeed can I judge that these things were added by some impostor, that thus greater credit might be won for the Acts: for in exactly the same style are written those things which are read in these Acts and which are absent from the Surian ones, in which all the rest is reported. Nay rather I judge that these Acts were written first, and that the Surian ones were composed from these by someone who added almost nothing but certain rather frigid pieces of reasoning, by which he strives to prove that St. Justus fulfilled a martyrdom, that his holiness was beforehand signified by his very name, that he was in certain respects like Elijah, and other smaller matters. Hence I shall deservedly say that the longer Acts are not distinct from the briefer, but interpolated, while the briefer are pure. In the facts the interpolator does not differ from the author of the Life, except in the departure alone, which he places after a certain synod, of which the other says nothing, and more rightly indeed, in my judgment. For these reasons I do not doubt that the studious reader will with me prefer the briefer Life, which I shall publish in the first place, to the longer, which I shall subjoin, lest anything should seem passed over concerning St. Justus. Now I shall set about discussing the Saint's deeds in order, that some chronological arrangement of his deeds may be had, and that not a few things passed over in the Acts may be supplied.
§ III. What certain modern writers have written concerning the Saint's birth and boyhood seems fabulous: he may have been born under Paschasius of Vienne and been a deacon under Claudius; but not a monk of Lérins: the rest of his deeds discussed, his epitaph, his relics.
[ ] The marvels which have been written concerning the Saint's birth and boyhood, The authors of the reprinted Gallia Christiana, vol. 4, col. 15, report and reject the opinion of certain men concerning the birth of St. Justus, in these words: Wonderful things they are, but altogether uncertain, which Severt and de la Mure report concerning St. Justus's birth. Severt calls him the son of the most illustrious count of Anjou. De la Mure asserts that he sprang from the noble family of the Tournons in Dauphiné, and was born in the castle of Anton near Vienne, which is commonly called d'Anjou; and certainly that illustrious family claims him for itself as its own ornament, and its elders take his name upon themselves. Both add that, when the provost or prefect of Anjou had accused his mother of adultery, he himself, scarcely yet born, pleaded the cause of the innocent woman with an articulate and manly voice: that he pointed with his finger to the lord of Anjou, who was present, and said most truly that he was his own father, and that afterwards he kept silence after the usual manner of little children. Finally Severt affirms that, at the instant in which he was washed in the sacred water, a dove of snowy color came and settled upon him.
[22] [lack a fit foundation: he seems to have been born at Vienne or in the province of Vienne] If you ask whence they have these things: From tradition, they say, and from an old tablet in the church dedicated under his name, in which these verses are contained.
The wife of the count of Anjou is kept in ward until her delivery, made guilty by the provost's charge. The infant, no infant, is born with a speaking mouth, that he may free his mother from her suspicion. By the name of baptism he is called Justus, a dove coming, and names the count to be his father, etc.
But all these testimonies are too recent to win belief. Except for what is said of his native land; as will be clear from what follows. Of the Saint's native land nothing is said, except that he was born in Dauphiné, and that indeed is very likely, since he is said to have been reared under St. Paschasius, bishop of Vienne, as we shall see. Hence, I say, it is likely that he was born at Vienne or in the province of Vienne. Further, from the age of St. Paschasius, whom our Predecessors in vol. III of February, p. 290, determine to have died about the year 313, we can conjecture that the Saint was given to the world about the beginning of the fourth century, which rightly agrees with the Acts to be published below, in which he is called an old man when he left the bishopric not long after the year 381.
[23] [in the time of St. Paschasius of Vienne, who died about 313; made deacon under Claudius,] That St. Justus was reared under St. Paschasius and was a deacon under Claudius, bishops of Vienne, Ado testifies in the Chronicle at the year 379 in these words: Now it is established that this venerable bishop Justus was reared under Paschasius, bishop of Vienne, was a deacon of Claudius, bishop of that same city, and was afterwards translated to govern the holy church of Lyons. But Tillemont, vol. 8, p. 798, that is, note 1 on Justus, accuses Ado of contradiction, thus arguing: Ado contradicts himself, asserting in one place that St. Justus was instructed by Paschasius, bishop of Vienne, and made deacon by Claudius his successor, and in another place saying that this Claudius was present at the great council of Arles in the year CCCXIV; whereas St. Justus, who lived for several years after the year CCCLXXXI, would not have been of an age fit for the diaconate in the year CCCXIV: and elsewhere we have observed how little attention need be paid to all that is read in Ado's Chronicle concerning the bishops of Vienne. Thus Tillemont, whose reasoning is no less ridiculous than his accusation is bitter. Hermant in the Life of St. Ambrose, bk. 3, ch. 1, p. 33, also contends that Justus could not have been made deacon by Claudius, if the latter was present at the council of Arles; and the same Baillet has in his article on St. Justus. But there is here no contradiction in Ado's words, but a gross hallucination in the reasoning of Tillemont and the others. For what, I ask, is this consequence: Claudius in the year CCCXIV was at the council of Arles; therefore, if he made St. Justus a deacon, it was done in the year CCCXIV, in which Justus was not of such an age that he could be a deacon? Where has Tillemont shown, or tried to show, that Claudius did not live after the council of Arles, and that Justus was not afterwards made deacon by him?
[24] Truly, even if Claudius had certainly been present at the council of Arles, [which could have happened about 336 or a little later: and is wrongly denied by some:] which I do not discuss, he could have survived after the council for twenty, thirty, or even more years. And in fact Ado in the Chronicle refers St. Nectarius, Claudius's successor, to the reign of Constantius and his brothers, after the year 337, as Tillemont himself acknowledges in note 3 on St. Irenæus. Claudius therefore lived, in Ado's view, at least until the year 337 or later. And so, if we believe that St. Justus was born about the year 306, and consecrated deacon about 336, all Ado's statements will rightly hang together, all will be also consonant with the Acts of St. Paschasius already assigned, and with the Acts of St. Claudius given in our Work, vol. 1 of June, p. 2; and thus St. Justus would have been nearly seventy-six years old when as an old man he abandoned the bishopric. And so neither here, nor in vol. 3, p. 625, note 3 on St. Irenæus, where he says nearly the same things of these matters, does Tillemont convict Ado of error, but he has rendered his words less faithfully, when he says that he is said to have been instructed by Paschasius, whereas Ado only says that he was reared under Paschasius, and this may be understood of a boy or an infant, so that he seems to mean nothing else than that he was born in the time of Paschasius's episcopate. What Tillemont adds, that he has shown (note 3 on St. Irenæus) how little one ought to trust Ado's statements about the bishops of Vienne, does not bear upon this. Frequently indeed he there carps at Ado; but not always with equal success, nor does he point out so many errors that the rest ought on that account to lack authority.
[25] Vincent Barrali in the Chronologia Lirinensis, p. 320, notes the following about St. Justus: he could not have been a monk of Lérins: That this most blessed archbishop of Lyons, Justus, at some time led the monastic or eremitic life in that most sacred arena of the island of Lérins, under the very beginnings of our most holy father Honoratus, even though it is not clearly established from the sequence of the aforesaid Acts, yet the Lérins records of divers ancient manuscript codices, with the addition of modern printings, constantly proclaim that same saint Justus both a monk of Lérins and archbishop of Lyons. He adds certain other things of the same kind, and in the Life of St. Agricolus, bishop of Avignon, to be published at this day, the same is said. Nevertheless, since St. Honoratus did not inaugurate the monastic life in the island of Lérins until the fourth century was verging to its end, St. Justus could not have been a monk there either before the diaconate or after receiving the diaconate, as will be made plain from what is to be said, and as Tillemont rightly observed. The Life of St. Agricolus is not of such authority as should here detain us.
[26] But in what year our Saint was promoted from being deacon of Vienne to the bishopric of Lyons cannot be exactly determined. [he was made bishop, as it appears, not long after the middle of the fourth century: he is present in the year 374 at the council of Valence,] In the catalogues of the prelates of Lyons he is commonly placed after Verissimus, who was present at the council of Sardica in the year 347. Hence it does not seem doubtful that he was made bishop between the year 347 and 374, in which he was present at the council of Valence; nor does any other note of time occur by which we might assign the beginning of his episcopate more nearly. Nevertheless, since he is said in the Acts to have governed the bishopric for many years, there may be a suspicion that he was raised to the episcopal chair not long after the middle of the fourth century. Whatever be the case about the beginning of his episcopate, it does not seem to be doubted that he is the same Justus who in the year 374 was present at the council of Valence, to which he subscribed in this manner: I, Justus, bishop, wish you, brethren, to be well in the Lord. His name also occurs in a twin letter written by the Fathers of that council, as may be seen in Labbe, vol. 2 of the Councils, cols. 904 and 906.
[27] and in the year 381 at that of Aquileia, as legate of the Gauls: In the year 381 was held the synod of Aquileia, in which the Arian bishops Palladius and Secundianus were condemned. At this likewise St. Justus was present as legate of the Gauls. And being asked his opinion by St. Ambrose, he set it forth among the first: for thus have the Acts of the council, published among the Works of St. Ambrose, vol. 2 of the edition of the year 1690, col. 790: Ambrose the bishop said: What also does my lord Justus say? Justus the bishop, legate of the Gauls, said: Whoever does not confess the Son of God coeternal with the Father, let him be held anathema. All the bishops said, Anathema. Then again at col. 801 he among the first condemns Palladius in these words: Justus the bishop said: Palladius, who was unwilling to condemn the blasphemies of Arius, but rather seems to confess them, I judge can no longer be called a priest, nor be reckoned among the bishops. The names of the bishops who were present at the said council are recounted at col. 805, and among them St. Justus in this manner: Justus, bishop of Lyons, another legate of the Gauls. In the editions of Labbe and Hardouin the words of Lyons are not added. But since to most of the bishops the place is also there added, it can scarcely be doubted that the words bishop of Lyons dropped out there, and that it is rightly read added in St. Ambrose. He is called another legate because two legates of the Gauls had already been reckoned. In no way, therefore, does it seem to be doubted that this Justus was both legate of the Gauls and bishop of Lyons.
[28] [the Saint does not seem to have gone off into the desert immediately after that council;] But another doubt occurs here to be discussed. The more prolix Acts at n. 5 have it that the Saint, returning from a certain synod of Italy, did not come to Lyons, but remained about Tournon, that he might bid farewell to certain friends, and thence departed secretly into Egypt. Tillemont, who had not seen the other Acts, judges that he really departed at once after the council of Aquileia, and indeed suspects that he communicated to St. Ambrose and the other Fathers of the said council his purpose of abandoning the bishopric. Yet the briefer Acts do not agree with these: for they report the Saint's departure at n. 2 in such a way that between the occasion of departing and the departure itself they leave nothing in the middle. From the mind of these Acts, therefore, it must necessarily be said that the council of Aquileia preceded, and that that tumult which persuaded the Saint to exile followed afterwards. Truly, if we weigh the matter itself, it appears more likely that the holy Bishop, who ascribed an unjust execution to his own indulgence, presently abandoned the episcopal office, as though he were unworthy of it, than that he went off to a council in order in the meantime to go on exercising the episcopal office there, and then to relinquish it. If he wished to relinquish the bishopric that he might do penance, as it is established that he did, I do not sufficiently perceive why he should have deferred that purpose, and gone on discharging episcopal duties until the end of the council of Aquileia. No more can I persuade myself that St. Ambrose and the other Fathers of the council of Aquileia advised the holy Bishop to abandon his bishopric: which rather they would have dissuaded for many reasons. I suspect, therefore, that that tumult at Lyons, on occasion of which St. Justus went off to the desert, happened not long after the council of Aquileia, and thence that the writer of the more prolix Life fell into error. Hence the studious reader will gather that the time at which the Saint sought the desert is not certainly established.
[29] Among the letters of St. Ambrose there are two inscribed to Justus, nor does the twin letter of St. Ambrose seem to have been written to him: which in the edition of the year 1690 are the seventh and the eighth. Tillemont judges, whom not a few others have followed, that these letters were sent to St. Justus of Lyons. The beginning of the former favors this conjecture, since Justus is called by Ambrose brother, and therefore seems to have been a bishop: Beautifully do you admonish me, Brother, that we should turn the talk of letters and the conversation of the absent to the interpretation of the heavenly oracle, asking me what that didrachm signifies, half of which the Hebrew is commanded to offer for the redemption of his soul. For what is so companionable as to weave together talk about divine things? The same beginning suggests that Justus's piety and zeal for progress in the sacred Scriptures, and also suggests a certain familiarity with St. Ambrose. Nevertheless I do not persuade myself that the said letter was written to St. Justus: for the end seems rather to stand in the way of that conjecture than the beginning to favor it. Take the words with which Ambrose concluded his letter: And do you therefore be, after the likeness of God, one and the same: not today sober, tomorrow drunken; today peaceable, tomorrow quarrelsome; today thrifty, tomorrow incontinent; for each man is changed by a variety of manners, and becomes another: in whom is not recognized what he was, and he begins to be what he was not, degenerate from himself. For it is a grievous thing to be changed for the worse: but be, like the image on a drachma, unchangeable, keeping the same appearance every day… Farewell, and if you judge that that didrachm entrusted to me was not unfruitfully so entrusted, do not hesitate to entrust again whatever you have. By these words he seems indeed to carp at the inconstancy of Justus, whoever he was; and, though Ambrose was by no means wont to dissemble, I should by no means believe that he wrote this to a holy and aged Bishop, especially since he himself was much younger. And that that Justus is once called brother does not necessarily imply his episcopate. For the same Ambrose thus begins letter 80 to Bellicius, You have heard, brother. And yet he was not a bishop, as is clear from many things. And so I suspect that neither this nor the following pertains to Justus of Lyons.
[30] I have said that the Saint probably withdrew into the desert not long after the council of Aquileia, [his death is to be fixed before or about 390, but the year is uncertain, as is that of the translation:] that is, the year 381. The Acts have it that he lived in the desert for some years. Hence we can conjecture that he died before or about the year 390; but we cannot know it for certain, since we have no note of time that is sufficiently certain. Equally unknown is the year of the translation of his body from Egypt, since no one assigns any note of time. Ado in the Chronicle at the year 379 records only this concerning his episcopate, death, and translation: But Justus too, bishop of Lyons, a man of wonderful holiness, who afterwards, having left the see of his bishopric, hiding among the most holy anchorite fathers with wonderful humility, dies in Egypt: whose bones the men of Lyons, anxious with pious love, bring back to their own city: the bones also of Viator, his most holy fellow-minister. It is likely that the translation befell a few years after the Saint's death, and before the end of the fourth century.
[31] Raynaud in the place indicated before recites the Saint's Epitaph, the Saint's epitaph, which is a compendium of his life: premising this: In an old codex of epitaphs lately published by Duchesne, there is this Epitaph of the holy Man, which I have thought fit not to omit.
Here, under the worthy name of the ancient father Justus, In hope of everlasting life the pledges rest: Limbs blessed enough, which ever given to Christ Through varied labors fastened themselves upon the cross, That better they be caught in a swift cloud into the air, When the Judge himself, coming from heaven, shall shine. He was at first a distinguished levite at Vienne. Then, a Prelate conspicuous in doctrine and in deed, He fed the Lord's flock in the city of Lyons. Afterward, aflame with love of the anchoretic life, Thirsting he sought the far deserts of Egypt. There, joined to holy elders in a covenant of piety, When with his last look he had closed a wondrous life, Called back by his people's love to his native city With pious Viator, he is entombed at Christ's altar; That those whom living he nourished with unsleeping piety He may cherish with unceasing prayers, his sons, through the ages.
[32] [his body preserved in the church of St. Justus until it was overthrown by the Calvinists] The Acts testify that the Saint was buried in the church of the seven Maccabees. This afterwards, as a collegiate church, bore the name of St. Justus, and gave a place of burial to many other Saints. In the year 1287 the Saint's tomb was opened and the relics visited, as is read in an instrument of that same year, which we gave in vol. V of June, p. 345, in the treatise on St. Irenæus. The body of St. Justus remained in the same church until in the year 1562 it was utterly overthrown, and the relics scattered by the impious fury of the Calvinists who had occupied Lyons. We have a collection of the Acts which were written concerning these things under Charles IX, printed at Lyons in the year 1662, in which the Saint's plainly magnificent church with all its ornaments is described, such as it had been before the overthrow. In these, at p. 6, concerning the body of St. Justus this is recorded in French: In this church also, behind the high altar, was kept a casket in which was the body of St. Justus, set upon four marble columns, each of which had a thickness of one foot and a height of ten feet. This casket was of alabaster. And the church of St. Justus was in the suburb of Lyons, and another was afterwards built in the city itself.
[33] a few relics withdrawn from the fury of the heretics. Dominique de Colonia, of our Society, in the Literary History of the city of Lyons, vol. 1, p. 135, would have it that some of the relics of St. Justus were withdrawn from the sacrilegious hands of the heretics; for he writes this: The silver statue formed down to the breast, which is still seen in the new church, is a monument of the piety of one of the canons, named Clement de Belle-Croix. In it is enclosed a part of the Saint's head, which was with difficulty withdrawn from the fury of the heretics, who burned and scattered the rest of the body. Baillet in his article on St. Justus asserts that certain relics of St. Justus of Lyons are shown at Paris in the church of St. John of Grève. Gelenius too in his Colonia, p. 547, among the relics of the church of St. Maximin of Cologne reckons some of St. Justus the bishop, but does not add that it is the one of Lyons. Whether several other pledges of this Saint are still shown in other places is not clear to me. That the Saint shone with miracles has been said in general at n. 2; but I find none anywhere written down individually. But St. Gregory of Tours in the Lives of the Fathers, ch. 8, narrates that St. Nicetius appeared with SS. Justus and Eucherius to a certain priest, and severely rebuked him for blasphemous words.
THE LIFE
by an anonymous author, From the codex 33 of the Queen of Sweden.
Justus, bishop of Lyons, conf., in the desert of Egypt. (S.)
BHL Number: 4599
By an Anonymous author.
The Saint's diaconate and episcopate excellently administered: the occasion, Justus, then, was first a deacon of Vienne a, and afterwards was consecrated bishop of the church of Lyons: which he ruled for many years with such purity, modesty, piety, and patience, with such care toward the poor, with such observance of the divine commandments, that he surpassed even those magnificent and excellent priests of the Lord in every grace of the virtues. Therefore, when he was presiding over the church of the Lord with so vast an increase of his own glory and of his people's, the envy of the raging devil blazed up even to his expulsion. For on a certain day in that same city a certain man, through a sudden madness of mind, having gone out into the public street, had stabbed with iron those who unwittingly met him, and, a tumult having been stirred up at the atrocity of the deed, was being pressed on this side and that by a hostile multitude; defending himself with the same weapon which he had used in his crime, having somewhat recovered his senses, he fled to the church, and, the doors of the sacred building being barred, for a long time the reverence of the place kept off the fury of the maddened people. But when the growing sedition now even threatened fire to the divine house, the aforesaid Bishop, compelled by necessity, having received from a certain chief man the pledge of oaths that no peril should be threatened to this man, and that he was to be received only into custody until satisfaction should be made to the people, dismissed the guilty man from the enclosure of the church. And the multitude, which in a tumult weighs nothing, having received him, dragged him with his feet bound and inflicted upon him the last punishment of death.
[2] But then that Man of God, memorable for his holiness, ascribed to himself the crime committed b, moved by which he departs into the desert, though it was not his own; so severe an avenger of what he thought his own fault, so ready a concealer of another's. For indeed, when the deceit of the enemy who assailed him made the people's hand a minister of his own crime, blessed Justus turned that whole offense upon himself: for that Justus who had been great in the priesthood, was made greater in exile. And so he resolved to abandon the priestly office, and to seek foreign parts where he might lie hidden. For no one c (so unexpectedly did he tear himself away) went as a companion even of his journey, except Viator, a boy of excellent character, who then held the office of Lector in the church. He alone followed in the footsteps of the most blessed Old Man, who desired to lie hidden; and when he had already taken his place between Arles d and Marseilles upon the seashore, and was ready to board a ship, coming upon him, not without astonishment, he presented himself to him: and being received * as a solace of his pilgrimage, seeking the desert, he sailed to Egypt.
[3] There then Justus, by merit and by name, when first he came thither, where he hides his dignity, until he is recognized by someone: being already set among the Saints, for a long time concealed who he was, that with his name and honor suppressed he might be able to exercise the highest humility, showing himself inferior now not only to clerics but also to monks and laymen. But when he had long lain hidden thus covered, it happened at some time that in a great assembly of monks and holy men he was recognized by a certain brother there, who had then suddenly come as a pilgrim from these parts: and he fell down at his knees. All being amazed, and asking what this was, he answered that it was the holy bishop Justus . Which being done, all, marveling at a Man of such humility, and blaming the past presumption of their ignorance, in that they had unknowingly set themselves before a Pontiff, repented with fresh honor of their old lack of respect toward him. He was, however, admonished, not now without reverence for himself, by those Saints eminent in virtue, that he ought not to seek his own reward with the sin of others, nor to seek gain from his own abasement at the loss of the rest who were present. Whence not undeservedly it was long ago said by the prophetic spirit: Who understands his offenses e?
[4] his holy life in the desert, and his continual prayers: But I myself saw a certain holy priest, now nearly ninety years of age, by whose relation these things became known to me: for in his discourse there was, as it were, the trustworthiness of a sacred history. He used to report that he had long stayed in those parts of the desert, and had not only seen Justus of most blessed name, but had also enjoyed his familiarity with him; and that there appeared magnificent among those who then in the desert shone like great luminaries by revelations and virtues, holy Macarius, Paphnutius f, and the rest, whose fame of holiness flourished throughout the East. And so our Justus, a sharer of their life, joining nights to days in prayers and fastings, stood ever watchful in the sight of the Lord, the defender of the people of Lyons. He was indeed absent from their sight, but present to their profit by his prayers; nor had he abandoned those to whom in any case he referred himself by intercession. He had sought out places convenient for weeping, that, giving himself to the Lord alone, he might the more effectually obtain what he asked for his own people. There therefore, like Moses of old, stretching unwearied hands to heaven, he strove in prayer against Amalek. In that remote watchtower, sitting as on a lofty hill, he awaited that perilous conflict with the ancient enemy. Wisdom g, ever holding his hands intent upon prayer, and thus against the devil's war ever supplied the supports of the fight, victory by prayers.
[5] [he is visited by St. Antiochus, and being about to die foretells his death to St. Viator:] But at the same time in which he was staying in the desert, saint Antiochus h, then a priest of Lyons, stirred by pious duty, purposed in mind to go even to see his Bishop, a man outstanding in strictness, and one who now not undeservedly, after an interval of time, was taken up to the same summit of the pontificate. He therefore, when out of desire for so great a Bishop he was crossing lands and seas, Justus of venerable name is said so to have foretold his coming that he did not even keep silence as to what places he would approach on what days, saying: Our dear Antiochus is staying today in such a place. Which is affirmed to have been so manifestly proved that even on the very day on which he came to him, he had foretold that he would come. For the rest, when for some years in the desert he had led a life nearest to the angels, and a worthy end was at hand, promising the kingdom of heaven to such great labors; and when, at those last moments of his holy departing soul, Viator stood by weeping and stricken in mind, saying: To whom, Lord, do you leave me? he is said to have answered that he should not be troubled, as though deprived of consolation, because in a short time * he would follow him thither also. Which prophecy and revelation is known to have been quickly fulfilled by the passing of that most holy young man.
[6] the translation of his bones to Lyons. But in his glory I would not silently pass over that favor of the people of Lyons, that in bringing back his holy little body the care of the venerable citizens reached out even into the Southern region: and those revered bones of the holy Old Man they brought back from remote parts of the earth with alacrity and religion, and received them with tears and joy; and they labored that he who was already in spirit with them should be with them also in body.
ANNOTATA.
*. add thither
*. add duties, or something similar
*. in one Ms., Justinus
*. read non
*. otherwise, ne
*. in a short while, I think
THE MORE PROLIX LIFE
From a Ms. of St. Justus of Lyons, collated with the Mss. of Acciacum, Utrecht, Rouge-Cloître, and with the edition of Surius.
Justus, bishop of Lyons, conf., in the desert of Egypt. (S.)
BHL Number: 4600
By an Anonymous author.
[The author tries to prove the Saint a martyr, even though he did not die for Christ;] We are compelled, out of admiration a, briefly to set forth the Life of blessed Justus, bishop of Lyons: who, once the priest of the city of Lyons, is now a patron with Christ; whose unconquerable faith in works I call to mind; his outstanding rigor in diet; his long sojourn in solitude; and I affirm without hesitation b that he, though his passion was not fulfilled, fulfilled a martyrdom. For not the shedding of blood alone completes martyrdom, nor does that burning of flames alone give the palm of faith, nor the deadly touch of the executioners; by contempt of the body also, and not by death alone, one comes to the crown; without injury to the Saints who died in persecutions, let it be permitted to say: to have afflicted the flesh, to have triumphed over the world, to have conquered the devil, is a martyrdom c. For that we may set these very things side by side in a comparison of matters: the martyr conquered the tormentor's sudden fire, most blessed Justus conquered the daily flame of the body. The martyr has a brief conflict with the persecutor; he had a long struggle against the vices of the flesh. The one kept his patience in a heathen wrestling, the other in a diabolical assault. The martyr suffers for Christ, because he desires to suffer d; and he too wished to suffer. The one, denying idols, confesses God; he, that he might the more brightly confess Christ , denied himself to himself. Lastly death completes the martyr's contest, while it is inflicted; his contest was increased while death is denied. The Apostle speaks from this and says: For the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.
[2] he reasons about his name and that of Viator. And first, that we may say a few things about his name, it is usual in the sacred Letters that the pronouncing of names should already be an announcement of things to come. Hence then our Justus also. From his very cradle his name expressed the grace of his later life, when by divine instinct, bearing beforehand the force of what was to be, he received the appellation of a name from the testimony of merits. Whence I judge also that this came about, that that holy youth, a partaker as much of his journey as of his virtue, being one day to be the companion of his way, received the name of Viator e.
[3] The holy administration of his episcopate: the occasion, Justus, then, was first a deacon of Vienne, and afterwards was made bishop of the church of Lyons, which he ruled for many years with such purity, modesty, piety, and patience, with such care for the poor, with such observance of the divine commandments, that he surpassed even those magnificent and excellent priests of the Lord in every grace of the virtues; but when he presided over the Church of the Lord with so vast an increase of his own glory and of his people's, the envy of the raging devil blazed up even to his expulsion. For on a certain day in that same city a certain man, through a sudden madness of mind, having gone out into the public street, had stabbed with iron those who met him unaware f, and, a tumult having been stirred up at the atrocity of the deed, was being pressed on this side and that by a hostile multitude; defending himself with the same weapon which he had used in his crime, having somewhat recovered his senses, he fled to the church; and, the doors of the consecrated building being barred, for a long time the reverence of the place kept off the fury of the maddened people. But when the growing sedition now even threatened fire to the divine house, the aforesaid Bishop, compelled by necessity, having received from a certain chief man the pledge of oaths * that no peril should be threatened to this man; that he was to be received into custody only, until satisfaction should be made to the people, dismissed the guilty man from the enclosure of the church: and the multitude, which in a tumult weighs nothing, having received him, dragged him with his feet bound and inflicted upon him the last punishment of death.
[4] But then that Man of God, memorable for his holiness, ascribed to himself the crime committed, which persuaded the Saint to withdraw from his bishopric: though it was not his own; so severe an avenger of what he thought his own fault, so ready a concealer of another's. For indeed, when the deceit of the enemy who assailed him put the people's hand as a minister to his own crime, blessed Justus turned that whole offense upon himself, absolving all, not pardoning himself. But what wonder if the Just Man is his own accuser at the beginning of his speech, or in the judgment of his own examination. How modest is the confession of holiness and piety! Whereas shamelessness is wont to turn its own offense upon another *, he interprets a stranger's crime as though it were his own. The unruly common people sinned, they sinned at Satan's instigation; but what did Justus do? To whom, since he trusted in the Lord, it was said: Flee into the mountain like a sparrow. That ancient sinner had indeed bent the bow of his wickedness, that in secret he might by the art of his craft pierce the spotless man; but because the Lord's hand helped him, the enemy profited nothing against him; for that Justus who had been great in the priesthood was made greater in exile. And so he resolved to abandon the priestly office, and to seek foreign parts where he might lie hidden.
[5] And returning from a certain synod of Italy g, to which he had been summoned, [returning from the synod, he secretly sails to Egypt with Viator alone accompanying him:] — which scarcely anyone can call to mind without tears — he did not come to Lyons, lest, bound by the love of the whole people, he should not have free opportunity of departing; but staying about Tournon h, he waited to see whether any of his dear ones would run out thither to bid him farewell: where, crowds of weeping people running together, fearing lest even there he should be held fast, overwhelmed by the multitude, he departed secretly, alone, and suddenly. For no one (so unexpectedly did he tear himself away) clung as a companion even of his journey, except that Viator whom we mentioned above, a boy of excellent character, who then held the office of lector in the Church. He alone followed in the footsteps of the most blessed Old Man, who desired to lie hidden. And when he had already taken his place between Arles and Marseilles upon the seashore, and was ready to board a ship, coming upon him, not without astonishment at him, he presented himself. And the boy being received as a solace of his pilgrimage, seeking the desert, he sailed to Egypt, having cast all his thought upon the Lord, cleaving in mind to him alone who is the hope of all the ends of the earth, and far off upon the sea.
[6] Therefore, when he had set his mind on far-off Egypt, being carried into the desert he conceals his dignity; from the face of the devil's wrath, as another Elijah from the face of Queen Jezebel, he withdrew into the deserts: there, the Egyptians supplying him nourishment, I shall say plainly that he too, by the Lord's gift *, took his food by the ministry of ravens. For as often as sustenance is brought to the saints by the hands of sinners, so often does the Lord feed his own, with ravens bringing food: of whom the wicked not undeservedly take that black color from the darkness of their offenses; and indeed what does the avarice of sinners always cry to those who ask, but tomorrow, and tomorrow? Whence the divine oracles also say against a man of this sort: Say not, Go and return; tomorrow I will give, when you can do good at once. It is therefore a marvel, both in sinners who feed the saints and in ravens who serve them, if their generosity puts itself forth today, whose avarice knows nothing but to put off i. There therefore, Justus by name and by merit, when first he came thither, being already set among the Saints, he for a long time concealed who he was; that with his name and honor suppressed he might be able to practice the work of the highest humility, showing himself inferior now not only to clerics but also to monks and laymen.
[7] but he is at last recognized through a pilgrim: the Saint's continual prayer: But when he had long lain hidden thus covered, it happened at some time that in a great assembly of monks and holy men he was recognized by a certain brother there, who had then suddenly come as a pilgrim from these parts; and falling down at his knees, all being amazed and asking what this was, he answered that it was the holy bishop Justus. Which being done, all, marveling at a Man of such humility, and blaming the past presumption of their ignorance, in that they had unknowingly set themselves before a Pontiff, weighed out their old lack of respect toward him with fresh honor k. And so our Justus, a sharer of their life, joining nights and days in prayer and fastings, stood ever watchful in the sight of the Lord, the defender of the people of Lyons. He was indeed absent from their sight, but present by his prayers; nor had he abandoned those to whom in any case he referred himself by intercession. He had sought out places suited to weeping, that, giving himself to God alone, he might the more effectually obtain what he asked for them.
[8] he is visited by St. Antiochus, whose coming he foretells: But at the same time in which he was staying in the desert, saint Antiochus, then a priest of Lyons, stirred by pious duty, purposed in mind to go abroad even to see his Bishop, a man outstanding in strictness , and one who not undeservedly, after an interval of time, was taken up to the summit of that same pontificate. He therefore, when out of desire for so great a Bishop he was crossing lands and seas, Justus of venerable name is said so to have foretold his coming that he did not even keep silence as to what places he would approach on what days, saying: Our dear Antiochus is staying today in such a place. Which is affirmed to have been so manifestly proved that even on the very day on which he came to him, he had foretold that he would come.
[9] the Saint's pious death, and the death foretold to Viator: For the rest, when for some years in the desert he had led a life nearest to the angels, and a worthy end was at hand, promising the kingdom of heaven to such great labors, and when, at those last moments of his holy departing soul, Viator stood by weeping and stricken in mind, saying: To whom, Lord, do you leave me? he is said to have answered that he should not be troubled, as though deprived of consolation, because in a short time he himself would follow him thither also: which prophecy and revelation is known to have been fulfilled by the swift passing l of that most holy young man.
[10] the translation of his body. But in his glory I would not silently pass over that favor of the people of Lyons, that in bringing back his holy little body the care of the venerable citizens reached out even into the Southern region, who, searching those solitudes almost inaccessible for their burning heats, and running in devotion from the very setting of the sun almost to the places neighboring its rising, made almost the whole world a witness of their piety, and as far as the flight of the most modest Priest had withdrawn him, so far did the zeal of the faithful stretch itself. They knew how to long for him because he had fled; and they did not know how to reproach him because he had abandoned them: for indeed he had not abandoned them out of contempt for the people, but out of compunction for an offense. They proved themselves not unworthy of so illustrious a Bishop, when they matched the greatness of his grace with the glory of their dutifulness m: in so great an example of an excellent Priest, there was exhibited also a deed of a most faithful people, which would seem no less wonderful n: those revered bones of the holy Old Man they brought back from remote parts of the earth with alacrity and religion, and received them with tears and joy: and they labored that he who was already with them in spirit should be with them also in body; to the honor of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom is power and glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.
ANNOTATA.
*. Acciacum Ms.: brought in
*. otherwise, by nature
*. otherwise, Christ
*. otherwise, denied
*. Acc.: from
*. Acc.: so
*. Surius: of an oath
*. two Mss.: to press
*. otherwise, hands
*. in the Utrecht one, to go abroad
*. Acciacum: strictness