Argument. 1. In the Church of Salona, tumults on account of Maximus, ordained bishop against the pope's will. 2. Gregory's constancy and patience in this affair. 3. Maximus's audacity toward the holy pontiff. 4. The emperor upholds Maximus's ordination. 5. Maximus's penitence and satisfaction. 6. What was determined concerning the archdeacon Honoratus. 7. The Empress Constantina, asking for the relics of St. Paul, meets with a refusal. The ancient custom of not moving the bodies of the saints from their place. 8. Yet in antiquity certain translations were made. (Years 593 and 594.) 1.
Scarcely had Gregory tasted for a little while leisure and quiet in the tranquil retreat of the monastery, when he had to return to the accustomed burdens of the pontificate, and to succour and take counsel for the Church of Salona and for all Dalmatia (Book IV, letter 10). The bishops of this province, corrupted by the wicked examples of Natalis, formerly their metropolitan, of whom we spoke above, had turned aside from the path of priestly honour: for, immersed in secular affairs, they had cast off all fear of God; nor had they for a long time now been accustomed to seek out and fulfil what might please God, but what might please themselves.
Hence, upon the death of Natalis, when Honoratus, an archdeacon, a man of blameless life and incredible constancy—which he had more than once shown against Natalis when he was squandering the goods of the Church—had been elected bishop of Salona, they, greatly dreading for themselves such a severe censor and master of morals, were said to favour Maximus, who, relying upon the secular power, had invaded this see. On receiving this news, Gregory judged that he should write to all the bishops of Dalmatia, that they should not presume to ordain anyone as bishop of Salona, unless the apostolic see were first consulted and gave its assent.
Those doing otherwise he denounced as excommunicated and debarred from participation in the body and blood of the Lord, and declared any future ordination null. But most especially he forbade the laying on of hands upon Maximus (ibid., letter 20). Nevertheless, either the pontifical command not yet having been received (which indeed seems the more probable), or being moreover disregarded—as was signified to the pope—Maximus, the presbyters, deacons, and all the clergy having been beaten, was led into the Church by a military band, and then perhaps consecrated bishop, if indeed that can be called a consecration which was celebrated by excommunicated persons, and conferred upon one excommunicated and devoted to curses. There was present at that time Antoninus, subdeacon and rector of the ecclesiastical patrimony in Dalmatia (Book III, letter 22);
who, having laboured by command of the supreme pontiff that the bishop of Salona might be elected according to the canons, was on that account hateful to the transgressor Maximus, and, being sought unto death by his satellites, was forced to consult his own safety by flight (ibid., letter 47). The chief author of the evil was Marcellus, proconsul of Dalmatia, as we have from letter 5 of Book IX. 2. Gregory, judging that no less prudence than constancy was necessary for removing so great an offence from the Church of Salona, admonished Maximus by letter (Book IV, letter
— letter 20), that neither he nor his ordainers should presume to handle anything of the priestly office, until he could ascertain whether he had been ordained by a true or a supposititious command of the emperor, and should write back what seemed good to him. But if he should not fear to do anything contrary to the interdict, he threatens him with anathema from God and from the blessed Peter, prince of the apostles. That Maximus had already invaded the see of Salona from the preceding year, namely as the eleventh indiction was drawing to a close, is shown by what we read concerning his penitence in a fragment now cast to the end of the letters, but formerly prefixed to the letters of the first indiction.
Wherefore it is established that letters 10 and 20, given in this fourth year of Gregory's pontificate, in the twelfth indiction, had not yet reached either him or the bishops of Dalmatia at that time; which can also be gathered from letter 20 itself. And this was perhaps the cause why Gregory afterward dealt more mildly with him, and at length ratified his ordination. It does not escape me that it was reported to Gregory that, after the interdict pronounced by himself, Maximus had been led forth into the midst by a military band (ibid.), which must have happened at his ordination. But that leading-forth could also have taken place at some interval after the ordination.
In addition, the pope had received very many reports concerning this bishop and his corrupt morals, which rested on no legitimate testimony, and which he afterward refuted—such as that he had used a surreptitious imperial diploma, that he had attained to the episcopate through simony, that he was guilty of violated chastity. Why then should we not say that it had come to the supreme pontiff by an uncertain or even false rumour that Maximus had been ordained in contempt of his letters? Indeed Gregory, writing afterward to the Empress Constantina, namely in the following year, as though now more certainly informed of everything, complains only that Maximus had been ordained without his own and his representative's knowledge (Book V, letter 21). 3. What afterward followed, St.
Gregory teaches in the letter to Sabinianus, apocrisiarius or legate of the apostolic see with the Emperor Maurice (Book IV, letter 47). For Maximus, relying on secular and courtly authority, came to such a pitch of audacity that he caused the pope's letters, which threatened excommunication unless he should submit and come to his senses, to be publicly torn up, and accused the pope himself before the emperor of having killed in custody Bishop Malchus, who owed him a certain sum of money. This calumny the most holy man thus refuted:
'On which matter,' he says to Sabinianus, 'there is one thing which you may briefly suggest to our most serene lords, namely that if I, their servant, had wished to mix myself in the death of the Lombards, today the nation of the Lombards would have neither king, nor dukes, nor counts, and would be divided in the utmost confusion. But because I fear God, I dread to mix myself in the death of any man whatsoever. Bishop Malchus, moreover, was neither in custody nor in any affliction, but on the day on which he pleaded his cause and was adjudged, he was, without my knowledge, led by the notary Boniface into his house, where also a dinner was prepared for him, and there he dined, and was honoured by him, and in the night suddenly died.' And so this false accusation of Maximus at once vanished. 4.
Nevertheless Maurice none the less upheld his ordination, at the instigation, as one may conjecture, of the prefects and dukes who were set over public affairs in Dalmatia; to whom indeed, having stripped his own Church, he was said to furnish many rewards. Writing about this matter to the Empress Constantina, St. Gregory vehemently expostulates: 'And if,' he says, 'the causes of the bishops committed to me are disposed of before the most pious lords by the patronage of others, what, unhappy man, am I doing in this Church? But that my bishops should despise me, and against me have recourse to secular judges, I give thanks to Almighty God, I impute it to my sins. This one thing, however, I briefly suggest, that I am waiting a little while;
and if he should long delay coming to me, I shall in no way cease to exercise canonical strictness upon him.' Maurice had commanded that Maximus should present himself to the pope, and that Gregory should receive him with honour; which seemed grievous to him: for with what honour was he worthy, concerning whom such and so great things were reported, before, the cause having been examined, he had proved himself innocent? Nor indeed was there any longer any question about his ordination having been made without the Roman pontiff's knowledge: for, in order to comply with the emperor, he consented to ratify it, as if this bishop had been ordained with himself as author; although under earlier princes no bishop of Salona, up to these times, had been appointed with the authority of the Roman prelate passed over.
But many crimes still remained to be washed away, namely that he had lived shamefully and unchastely, that he had been chosen by money paid out, and that, being excommunicated, he had presumed to celebrate Mass. Maximus had craftily contrived that Gregory's letters, by which he was commanded to cease from the celebration of Mass, should not reach him. And therefore, by a repeated command, the Pope forbade him the sacred office. Concerning this matter he wrote to the clergy and the leading men, both of Salona and of Jadera (Book vi, Epistles 27 and 29), that they should withdraw from communion with Maximus; for as yet no one had rejected his communion, except Paulinus the bishop, and Honoratus the archdeacon, whose election, of which we have treated above, the holy pontiff no longer upheld;
seeing that he calls him only archdeacon, not bishop. 5. At length, by his fatherly exhortations and his unbroken steadfastness, Gregory brought it about that Maximus returned to a sounder mind. From his communion very many had already withdrawn; and Sabinianus, bishop of Jadera, moved by repentance because he had clung to the usurper and traitor, had betaken himself into a monastery, laying aside his episcopate, that he might wash away so great a fault with tears. But St. Gregory, having received him back into his communion and friendship, exhorted him to resume the pastoral care and to offer to the rest an example of returning to the Church, which he hoped would come to pass (Book vii, Epistle 17; Book viii, Epistle 10). Nor indeed did his hope deceive him;
for Maximus himself at last returned to his heart and subjected himself to the yoke of due obedience. When the Pope urged him to come to Rome to be judged, he could plead that the roads were beset by enemies, and the emperor's command, who had ordered that this dispute should be settled either at Salona or in Dalmatia; which was also in accord with the sacred canons. Moreover it was ready to hand to reply that the populace and the prefects with an armed band had hindered his setting out and his journey.
When these grounds of reasoning had been prudently weighed, and the entreaties of Callinicus the exarch had also been added, Gregory granted that Maximus should clear himself at Ravenna before Marinianus the archbishop, and Castorius the chartulary of the holy Church, both of the simoniacal heresy and of the other crimes charged against him, after taking an oath upon the body of St. Apollinaris the martyr (Book ix, Epistles 79, 80, 81). But since he was manifestly guilty of disobedience and of treason against the apostolic see (for it was established that he had approached the sacred altar after the excommunication threatened by the supreme pontiff), he left it to be determined by the judgment of Marinianus by what satisfaction such a fault ought to be purged.
Perhaps by the counsel and sentence of that bishop, Maximus lay prostrate for three hours, crying out with grievous grief and penitence: I have sinned against God and against the most blessed Pope Gregory (In the appendix of Epistles). Raised up by Marinianus, with the help of Callinicus the exarch and Castorius the chartulary, he began to grieve more vehemently; but as a token of reconciliation and absolution, Castorius presented to him a letter written by St. Gregory, in which he signified that the grace of brotherly charity was restored to him, and promised that he would send him the pallium as soon as possible. 6.
When Sabinianus bishop of Jadera, Honoratus archdeacon of Salona, and very many others had upheld the rights of the apostolic see against Maximus, the most wise pontiff ordered that he should receive them with the charity that was fitting (Book ix, Epistle 125). Gregory desired that Honoratus should not be driven out from the office and dignity of archdeacon, concerning which there had already been a dispute from the times of Archbishop Natalis; but the custom of that Church stood in the way, which compelled archdeacons, after five years were completed, to be removed from their ministry. Maximus affirmed that this was held as law in the Church of Salona, and Castorius the chartulary confirmed it;
nay, he even added that the three preceding archdeacons had been compelled by Honoratus himself to give way, after they had ministered for five years. Wherefore Gregory's sentence was that a judgment should not be demanded from Honoratus concerning a cause which he himself had already judged. Such was the outcome of that long-lasting contention concerning the ordination of Maximus, in which the unbroken patience and constancy of the holy pontiff at last prevailed, being wont to be increased by adversities. These endowments and virtues of soul he excellently describes in a letter to Sabinianus the deacon: I am readier, he says, to die than that the Church of blessed Peter should degenerate in my days. You also know my character well, that I bear long; but if once I have resolved not to bear, I go gladly against all perils (Book
Book iv, Epistle 47). 7. In this whole affair Gregory found John of Constantinople to be his adversary before the emperor, as it is reasonable to believe; inasmuch as, by reproving and rebuking him on account of the usurped title of ecumenical patriarch, he had made him hostile to himself. But before this dispute is treated more fully and more clearly, which will be done a little later, the order of time requires that we disclose by what art this same John strove to render the mind of the Augusta Constantina estranged from Gregory. For the most holy pontiff seems to point him out with his finger in these words: But certain men have wished to stir up your Piety against me, so as to withdraw from me, which God forbid, the favour of your good will (Book iv, Epistle 30).
The most pious Augusta had taken care that a basilica should be built in honour of St. Paul the apostle in the very palace of the royal city; and that she might enrich it with the sacred relics of the same, she asked of Gregory that he would make haste to send her either the head of the most blessed apostle, or something else of his body. To her command he replied that he could neither obey nor dare to do so, because the bodies of the holy apostles could not even be moved from their place with impunity, nor be touched; and this he confirms by many miracles there recorded. Constantina had also asked for the sudarium of the blessed apostle, by which name perhaps ought to be understood some cloth stained with his sacred blood, and enclosed in the tomb.
But because it could not be drawn out except by uncovering the apostle's body and moving it from its place, which was unlawful, the Pope could not grant the pious Augusta's entreaties. In the letter which Gregory sent to her, he says: Because it is not the custom of the Romans, when they give the relics of the saints, to presume to touch anything of the body; but only a brandeum (that is, a covering) is placed in a small box, and set beside the most holy bodies of the saints. When this has been lifted, it is deposited with devout veneration in the church which is to be dedicated. He adds that in those places many miracles are wont to be wrought, as if they possessed the bodies of the saints themselves.
Furthermore he teaches that in all the regions of the West it is altogether intolerable and sacrilegious, if perchance anyone should have wished to touch the bodies of the saints. Would that we had indeed forever retained this pious custom, so befitting the veneration of the relics of the saints. When the contrary practice of the Greeks might be objected — for whom, forsooth, there was no scruple against lifting the sacred bodies and transferring them elsewhere — St. Gregory replied that those relics which they transferred and dispersed seemed to him of doubtful authenticity; and he confirms his suspicion by this example.
For certain Greek monks, two years before, had been caught at Rome in the silence of the night beside the church of blessed Paul, digging up the bodies of the dead lying in the field, and hiding away their bones. When they were questioned with what design they did this, they confessed that they were about to carry those bones off to Greece as if they were the relics of saints. In Gregory of Tours and in other writers here and there, such frauds occur — not pious (as they are commonly called) but sacrilegious — which have rendered doubtful very many otherwise genuine relics of the saints.
Whence it is clear that no greater or more certain veneration can be procured for the saints than by leaving their sacred pledges whole and untouched in their former sepulchres (which nevertheless it is fitting to adorn): a thing which is also provided for by the civil laws. 8. Yet far be it from us to condemn all translations of the saints made with pious intent. In the time of the emperor Constantius we read that the body of St. Timothy, previously buried at Ephesus, was brought to Constantinople, and placed in the basilica of the holy apostles. A little later also the relics of the holy apostle Andrew and of Luke the evangelist were brought from Achaia, and deposited in the same place; which Jerome relates and praises (Jerome, Against Vigilantius).
Read in Mabillon (Preface to Volume II of the Acts of the Saints, observation 8) of very many translations of the saints made in the fourth and fifth centuries in the West, and in Italy itself, of which Gregory could by no means have been ignorant. Concerning these also consult the notes on Epistle 30 of the fourth book. But in these translations those sacred pledges were brought forth from their tombs, that they might rest in some more seemly place, nor were they carried far off. The holy Doctor did not indeed disapprove that the bishop and clergy of the city of Euria, migrating from there, had taken with them the body of St. Donatus, and deposited it in the fortress of Cassiope on the island of Corcyra (Book xiv, Epistles 7 and 13). But the barbarian sword and hostile incursions had made that migration necessary.
Fearing therefore lest the sacred relics of St. Donatus, in a deserted and open church, should suffer some injury from the barbarians, the priests and clergy of this city preferred to carry them away with themselves. What we have said, according to the mind of St. Gregory, about the bodies of the saints not being moved from their place, ought by no means to be understood of their garments or of other things pertaining to the saints themselves: for when he had received from John the abbot a tunic of St. John that had been found, he asked that he would take care to transmit it to him. That this tunic belonged to St. John the apostle and evangelist, and was placed at Rome in the Constantinian basilica, John the Deacon teaches (Book iii, nn. 57, 58, 59), where he asserts that it shone with many miracles.
Whether this reply of the Pope satisfied Constantina the Augusta, we do not know for certain. Nevertheless there survive very many letters of the holy pontiff written to her afterward, from which it is understood that she did not take it amiss that the relics of St. Paul had been denied her, but always burned with pious zeal toward the apostolic see.