Sermons & Letters 212

1. While the emperor Gratian survived, and Macedonius managed the affairs of the empire, no hope could remain to the Catholic bishops, and especially to Ithacius, that the impiety and audacity of the Priscillianists might be overthrown. But as soon as the legions of the Gauls, hostile to Gratian, proclaimed Maximus, commander of the imperial forces, emperor—both in Britain and in other regions—forthwith the cause of those same Priscillianists, being made worse, was brought all the way to their ruin. But what sort of character Maximus had, Gildas, surnamed the Wise, has summarily described, saying:

'Maximus, by cunning craft at first rather than by valor, binding to his perjured and lying, crime-laden reign the neighboring districts and provinces also against the Roman state, and extending one of his wings to Spain, the other to Italy, and setting the throne of a most iniquitous empire at Trier, raged with such great madness against his lords that he drove out two lawful emperors, one from Rome, the other from a most religious life.' Having then firmly established Trier for Maximus, and his imperial seat there, Ithacius did not delay to inform the new emperor of all things which had hitherto been done by the Priscillianists, by the Catholic Fathers, and by Gratian. For at that time Gratian was no longer surviving;

for he, deserted by his own men—arising perhaps from the excessive leniency shown toward the Priscillianists—was slain through the guile of the general Andragathius, at Lyon, on the eighth day before the Kalends of September, in the year 383. Meanwhile Maximus, lest he should seem intent upon the affairs of the Church and should suffer them in those days to be more disturbed, committed the judgment of the heretics to the ecclesiastical pastors, who were to assemble as one at Bordeaux. For this reason, says our Severus Sulpicius: 'Letters being given to the prefect of the Gauls and to the vicar of the Spains, he orders that all whomsoever that taint had involved be brought to the Synod of Bordeaux. But when they had assembled at the synod, Instantius, first presenting himself before the judges, being bidden to plead his cause, when he could not clear himself of the crimes objected...'

...they animadvert upon him and pronounce him unworthy of the episcopate. Priscillian, perceiving this, and conscious to himself that he had the worse cause, at once interposed an appeal to the emperor Maximus, that he might elude the judgment of the sacred assembly. In nearly these words the same Severus describes the history, who moreover with a gentle arm rebukes the Fathers of the council, subjoining: 'But Priscillian, lest he should be heard by the bishops, appealed to the prince. And this was permitted by the inconstancy of our men, because they ought either to have passed sentence even upon one refusing, or, if these very men were held suspect, to have reserved the hearing for other bishops—not to have committed to the emperor a cause concerning crimes so manifest. Thus all whom the cause had involved were led away to the king.'

Lest, however, we should seem to be acting off-stage, we altogether refrain from here discoursing on the violated rights of the Church. Let it suffice that we have merely noted the testimony of Severus Sulpicius, from which none but the stupid or the purblind will be able to deny that the Church, from her very cradle, shuddered at such appeals as sacrilegious—appeals which, all too boldly and rashly, in the last century, one Maimbourg alone championed as lawful under the guise of abuse. 2. Maximus therefore, who had by fair means and foul tyrannically overturned all the rights of the empire, having set aside and despised the manner of proceeding both of Aurelian and of Constantine the Great, did not shrink even from this office of judging, but forthwith claimed it for himself.

But the most holy bishops, among whom was Martin of Tours, reckoning this a most grievous crime, earnestly and repeatedly besought the emperor that he should not visit capital punishment upon the heretics; but, content with the sentence of the priests, he should order them to be thrust out from their episcopal sees. At first indeed Maximus seemed to incline to this opinion—nay, even to have already come down to it, chiefly at the exhortation of Martin of Tours—Severus Sulpicius asserts.

But when Ithacius then all too strenuously played the part of accuser, and, raging with grave hatred against the accused, urged the emperor for their death, while the matter still hung in doubt, the assembly of Catholic bishops was split into two factions, the one refusing to communicate with the other. For the former prudently and holily contended that they should abstain from the blood of the unfortunate men. But the latter, more savage and pitiless, demanded that they should wash away the crimes by death. While matters thus hung in suspense, the secular tribunal deferred taking cognizance of that cause for as long as St. Martin remained at Trier;

for Maximus received him kindly and most courteously, and attended him with such great reverence and honor that, as Martin was about to depart from the city of Trier, he elicited from him a promise that nothing bloody should be decreed against the accused. Yet the outcome of the matter forthwith mocked the promise. For the emperor, being corrupted by Magnus and Rufus, bishops of the Spains, and turned aside from milder counsels, committed the cause to the prefect Evodius, a keen and severe man, who, having heard Priscillian in a twofold judgment and convicted him of maleficia—Priscillian not denying that he had devoted himself to obscene doctrines, that he had held nocturnal assemblies of base women, and had been accustomed to pray naked—pronounced him guilty, and remanded him into custody until he should refer the matter to the prince.

But of the bishops who had corrupted Maximus, since no mention of them occurs among the ancients, we cannot report the names of their sees. Of a certain Bishop Rufus alone we read in the Life of St. Martin, that he was so deceived by the cunning of a certain young man calling and feigning himself Elias and Christ, that he adored him as the Lord. On which account we have seen that he was afterward cast down from the episcopate. 3. But as to the judgment ill-begun by Evodius against the Priscillianists, it is by no means to be feared that a bloody outcome did not follow, contrary to the pledge given by the emperor to Martin.

For the inquiry into the first capital charge having already been made, the confession of the accused likewise heard, and the malefactors themselves detained in prison, nothing else remained but, according to the fine points of law, to summon the accusers face to face with the accused, so that, the inquiry being strengthened and completed, the emperor might at last pass sentence. Then Ithacius (says Severus Sulpicius), seeing how odious it would be to him among the bishops if he should have stood forth as accuser even in the final judgments of capital matters (for it was necessary that the judgment be repeated), withdrew himself from the cognizance—in vain, the cunning crime being now accomplished. Only on account of the ill-will stirred up against him among the Catholic bishops, then, did Ithacius begin to shrink from the perpetrated crime;

but in vain did he wish to have withdrawn himself from the pressing of the charges. For Maximus bade a certain Patricius, advocate of the treasury, to discharge the functions of Ithacius and the parts of accuser; and, this man pressing the case, Priscillian, together with Felicissimus and Armenius, who had lately defected to the heretics' side, was condemned to death. Latronianus also and Euchrotia, Asarinus and the deacon Aurelius, were dispatched by the sword. Yet more mildly was it dealt with Instantius. For him they deported into exile to the island of Sylina beyond Britain, where he had as companion Tiberianus, who by the judges' decree was deprived of all the goods he had previously possessed.

The rest finally, namely Tertullus, Potamius, and John, as being baser persons and worthy of mercy, because before the inquiry they had betrayed themselves and their companions, were relegated to a temporary exile within the Gauls. 4. But Prosper in his Chronicle narrates that this same slaughter occurred in the year of the Lord 385, at the consulship of Arcadius and Bauto, at which time Siricius, Damasus having already departed this life the preceding year, had obtained the helm of the Catholic Church. But the same Prosper besides adds that in the following year, in the consulship of Honorius and Evodius, a certain disciple of Priscillian by name Urbica, on account of her obstinacy in impiety, was stoned to death at Bordeaux through a sedition of the mob.

But in another Chronicle, which is circulated under the name of Tiro, it is narrated that this sedition of the mob against Urbica was stirred up in the consulship of Arcadius and Bauto. But now, all being slain or afflicted with exile, the affairs of religion and of the Church were seen to be borne headlong into ruin. For in the first place, not only was the heresy which had broken out with Priscillian as its author not repressed, but it was confirmed and more widely propagated. For his followers, who before had honored him as a saint, afterward began to venerate him as a martyr. The bodies of the slain were carried back to the Spains, and their funerals celebrated with great obsequies; nay, to swear by Priscillian was reckoned the highest religion.

Nor indeed was religion in Spain alone undermined by so sacrilegious and wicked a cult, but in the Gauls too, a great schism having arisen, even the Catholic bishops themselves separated into two factions. For some not only reproved in Ithacius that he had, contrary to the custom and leniency of the Church, prosecuted in a capital cause men guilty of injured faith who were harassing the Church, but also, because he had been openly condemned by Bishop Theognostus, abstained from his communion. But others, mindful of the king, favoring Ithacius, by no means shrank from his communion.