Sermons & Letters 210

1. But now, having rejected the things which were said too inaccurately by critical men, and which could lead the reader's mind into wicked suspicion, we must return to Idacius and the other eleven bishops of the Gauls and Spains, who, as we have seen, when through many contests they had never been able to check and correct the audacity, the unbridled morals, nor the sacrilegious superstition of Priscillian, by the sacred authority of the Church and by unanimous consent the Fathers upheld those decrees which should better provide for religion, for divine worship, for the mysteries of the faith, for piety, for the integrity of morals, and for human society, and should destroy and blot out that nefarious plague.

Those bishops of the sacred order who came together into one place at Caesaraugusta were: Fitadius, Delphinus, Eutychianus (or Bastitanus), Ampelius, Argentius, Lucius, Ithacius, Splendonius, Valerius of Caesaraugusta, Symposius, Catherius, Idacius; who all, as though by a sacred decree of the senate, framed eight canons, or sacred laws, and Lucius the bishop recited them in the third session, so that anathema might be proclaimed together with all the bishops against the transgressors. Now copies of these decrees or laws are written in the second volume of the Councils, and Severinus Binius adorned the same with various notes. Meanwhile, however, while these things were being done in the Council of Caesaraugusta, neither Instantius and Salvianus,

nor Priscillian, nor any of that sect's sectaries took part in the assembly; but all refused to present themselves before those Fathers, lest they should commit themselves to judgment. Severus Sulpicius narrates the matter, adding that sentence was passed against the absent, and against those who should have dared to receive the condemned into communion. Therefore after many contests worthy of memory between them (he says), a synod is gathered at Caesaraugusta, in which the Aquitanian bishops also took part. But the heretics, not daring to commit themselves to judgment, sentence was then passed against the absent, and there were condemned Instantius and Salvianus, bishops, and Helpidius and Priscillian, laymen. It was added also, that if anyone should have received the condemned into communion, he should know that the same sentence would be pronounced against him.

But these things, when they became known to the sectaries, were the cause of greater hatred against the Church and against all Catholics. For, in order to increase seditions the more, and to propagate the more their nefarious errors, those two bishops, Instantius, namely, and Salvianus, condemned by the judgment of the Council of Caesaraugusta, in order to strengthen their forces (says the same Severus), appointed Priscillian—a layman, but the chief of all evils, marked by the same synod—bishop in the town of Labiensum, reckoning of course that, if they had armed a keen and cunning man with priestly authority, they would be safer.

Now the impiety of so great a crime, by which the honour and authority of the priesthood was polluted with the utmost disgrace, one man among the rest, Jerome, noted and indeed abhorred, in his letter to Ctesiphon, describing the origin and great increases of that heresy: In Spain Agape led Elpidius, a woman a man, blind leading the blind, into the pit, and had as her successor Priscillian, a most zealous student of Zoroaster the magus, and from a magus a bishop, to whom Galla, joined not by nation but by name, running hither and thither, made a sister the heiress of another and neighbouring heresy. 3. Now that Council of Caesaraugusta was convened in the year of the Lord 381 under the pontificate of Pope Damasus, its canons, edited by Garsias Loaysa, quite clearly show.

But that the entire Acts of the same Council have either perished or not yet come to light, is ascertained by us from what Severus Sulpicius has. For he narrates, as we have seen, that in that same sacred assembly anathema was pronounced against those who had rashly dared to receive the already condemned into communion. By which sentence they wished especially to animadvert upon Hyginus, bishop of Corduba. For although he, at first desirous of abolishing that sect, had declared war on Priscillian and his associates and had solicited Idacius himself by letters to that end, yet, his mind afterward changed, he did not approve the counsels of the Catholics, but, basely depraved, abstained from the council, and received the most nefarious heretics into communion.

And this business was given to Ithacius, bishop of Sossuba, to bring the decree of the bishops to the knowledge of all, and especially to put Hyginus outside communion, who, when he had first of all openly begun to attack the heretics, afterward, basely depraved, had received them into communion. From the course and narration of this deed we rightly understand that the aforesaid eight canons which survive are wholly sincere and genuine, since among the bishops who subscribed to them we by no means meet with the name of Hyginus, or Idiginus, of Corduba.

They attack, moreover, and censure certain notorious errors of that sect, and openly prohibit and inveigh against their rites, teaching, assemblies, and fasts, although perhaps they pass over many other crimes and shameful deeds not yet sufficiently investigated, I think. 4. But indeed the state of those Churches was daily rendered more wretched. For those two Catholic bishops, especially Idacius and Ithacius, after the synodal decrees, and after that base ordination of Priscillian, pressing more keenly, approached the secular judges, so that by their decrees and executions the heretics might be driven from the cities.

Therefore, on the authority of the same Sulpicius, after many and foul dealings, at the entreaty of Idacius, a rescript was elicited from Gratian, then emperor, by which all heretics were ordered to depart not only from the churches or cities, but to be driven beyond all lands. That this manner of acting of Idacius and Ithacius was too harsh and foul, both Severus Sulpicius and the other Catholic bishops of milder disposition judged. For, no other bishop of the Spains and Gauls having been consulted, nor even Damasus himself, the Roman pontiff, being made more certain, the cause of the sectaries was brought to the tribunal of the world. For the matter concerned not laymen, but the bishops Instantius, Salvianus, and Priscillian, stained indeed with heretical corruption.

Nor was the question about those crimes whose cognizance pertained to the emperor, but only about those which ought to undergo an ecclesiastical judgment. There is added, finally, that Idacius and Ithacius, by private authority alone, not by the sanction of a council, appealed to Gratian and sought his judgment, and therefore it has been rightly judged to have turned to the disgrace of the Church and to the greatest ignominy of the sacred order. 5. Meanwhile, however, Priscillian and the others who seemed to be bishops, when they understood that they were smitten with exile, distrusting their affairs, and not daring to contend in judgment, withdrew of their own accord; but fear dispersed the multitude of the laity. Yet while they were pressed by these afflicted affairs, they did not by any means despair of being able to find help and protection.

For this reason those three bishops, the ringleaders of the rest of the sectaries, resolved to set out for Rome, so that men who by the decree of the public authority were paying the penalties of their crimes might—by then circumventing Damasus, the Roman pontiff, with their guile—be reckoned by the Catholics as innocent and blameless, a certain ecclesiastical reconciliation having been fraudulently procured. Accordingly, while journeying to Rome, they took their route from Spain through the province of Aquitaine, where, being magnificently received by the unwary, they scattered the seeds of their perfidy, and above all perverted the people of Elusa—at that time indeed a good people and zealous for religion—by their depraved preachings.

Elusa, moreover, is a most ancient city on the little river Gélise, once the seat of the archbishops or metropolitans of Novempopulania, under which, together with many others, the city of the Auscii itself was comprised. From Elusa, indeed, that bread called 'Elusan' took its name, which is now the county of Armagnac. It is said, however, to have been reduced to a small town, on account of the frequent disasters by which it was worn down by the Goths, the Saracens, and the Normans. These things we have noted from Denys de Sainte-Marthe, in volume I of the Gallia Christiana, who besides testified that he had lately seen a new catalogue of the bishops of Elusa recently compiled. Thereupon Priscillian and the rest betook themselves into the diocese of Bordeaux.

There, being repulsed by Bishop Delphinus, they tarried a while on the estate of Euchrotia, a wicked and shameless woman, and infected not a few with their errors. Then, having set out upon their journey, with a truly base and shameful company of wives and even of women belonging to others—among whom was Euchrotia and her daughter Procula, of whom there was talk among men that, being made pregnant by Priscillian's debauchery, she procured her own miscarriage by herbs—whether therefore Procula conceived offspring by Priscillian and brought about its destruction or abortion, or not, or whether Priscillian himself lay with mother and daughter in nefarious incest: this our author Severus, resting on the mere opinion of certain men, by no means dared to affirm.

That Priscillian with his companions came to Rome after new and countless and so horrible crimes is made manifest not only from popular rumor but from most certain records. This scheme of counsel supplies, moreover, new examples of ecclesiastical discipline, whereby we may understand that those condemned in councils were wont to appeal and have recourse to the judgments of the Roman pontiffs, so that these, namely, by the apostolic authority of the divine Peter, might either rescind or confirm the acts of other bishops, even those defined in synods.

This example indeed, inasmuch as it is drawn from the enemies of the faith, though we deem it to be reckoned as of no worth, and do not lean upon it in order to assert the supreme right of the Apostolic See in establishing matters of faith, yet we contend that it is by no means to be rejected. For the bishops of the Spains did not belong to the Roman council—the only ones whom Quesnel pretends could be judged by the pontiffs. Nor had Priscillian and his companions been enrolled on the register of the Roman clergy, nor were they willing to defer to the Roman See, as the most crafty Launoy contends concerning like cases; but they intended to make use of that right which the sacred Scriptures indicate, which the universal tradition of the Fathers proclaims, and which finally the general practice of the Churches everywhere had established by usage.

Such, then, was the course of action open to Priscillian and his companions, both after the synodal decrees and after the sentence of the emperor Gratian, that they might in no wise appeal to a general council; so that from such sayings and votes of the heretics we become more certain against those who fashion arguments for restricting the authority of the Roman See within narrower bounds. But it is most thoroughly established that Priscillian, together with his companions, strove to procure both a defense and protections for his cause before Damasus, the Roman pontiff. For, on the authority of Sulpicius, when these men reached Rome, desiring to clear themselves before Damasus, they were not even admitted into his sight.

Nor does it stand in the way that the holy pontiff, led by that Spirit which will ever abide in the successors of Peter, rendered vain the unjust attempts of those praised men, permitting them no access whatever for their purgation. For that very coming of theirs into the City, in order to plead their cause, is the greatest and most solid argument that the causes of bishops and of others, already brought to their conclusion by synodal decrees, could be examined afresh and judged again by the authority of the Roman pontiffs. These things I have chosen to touch upon lightly, lest the mode of reasoning of the more recent dogmatists should seem to escape us. But now, their former attempts having been frustrated, Priscillian and Instantius turned their minds to new ones, as will presently appear from what follows.