Sermons & Letters 220 part 2/3

And indeed that these penalties of severity had been of assistance to the Church, Leo himself confirmed also from this: that bodily punishments and the executions of ecclesiastical laws had, on account of the gravest vicissitudes of wars, been obliged to cease for the space of many years, nor was it any longer permitted for the priests of the provinces themselves to assemble more frequently in one place. 'Hidden perfidy' (says the holy pontiff) 'found liberty, and was incited to the subversion of many minds by the very same evils by which it ought to have been corrected.' For which cause he at once proceeds to deplore the most wretched state of Gallicia and the Spains, of which not only the common people, as he had learned from Turribius, were corrupted by the deadly pestilence of contagion;

but, what is graver, the priests of those same regions, seized by this lethal disease, were oppressing the truth with many errors, preferring the doctrine of Priscillian to the teachings of the Gospel, and setting these things at last, depraved by profane meanings, before the people, or preaching them, so that, rejecting the revelations of the Holy Spirit, they might breathe the dogmas of the devil into the souls of their hearers. These things Turribius had proposed to be reformed to St Leo, for the deplorable state of those Churches; to which he subjoined seventeen chapters comprising the opinions once briefly condemned, which the holy pontiff, by the supreme dignity of his apostolate, condemned anew, lest any of those same blasphemies should in future seem tolerable or doubtful.

We, meanwhile, judge that it will not be unwelcome to our readers to subjoin here, briefly and as it were in a compendium, the sum of these chapters. For the accomplishing of which work, although long ago several more distinguished theologians have set their hand to writing ecclesiastical histories, yet I know not whether they have more happily noted at least all the principal errors of this sect, from which others of lesser moment also drew their origin. Nor indeed did Father Natalis Alexander fully attain this, who, undertaking to compose a certain catalogue or synopsis of all the Priscillianist errors, deceived by I know not what fate, noted only fourteen, three others—and those indeed among the more principal—being wholly passed over.

But from this single letter of Leo it becomes clearer than light to all that there were seventeen, as we shall presently declare. The holy pontiff, therefore, in order to fulfil the desire of Turribius, bishop of Astorga, treats one by one those same chapters which the deacon Pervincus had brought from Gallicia to be judged. First, the Priscillianists thought impiously concerning the mystery of the Trinity, preaching only one three-named person in God, as Sabellius and the Patripassians taught. This error the holy pontiff refutes not only by the decrees of the Nicene synod, but also by theological arguments, which seem to savour of the formulas of speech of the Athanasian Creed.

Secondly, they feigned that certain virtues proceed from God, which they affirmed God had not always possessed in His essence, but had begun at some time to possess—just as the Arians most wickedly reasoned. Thirdly, they contended that the Son of God is called only-begotten because He alone was born of the Virgin. Wherefore they either assigned to Christ a beginning from His mother, along with Paul, bishop of Samosata, and Photinus; or they believed that there was not one Son of God, but that others also were begotten of the supreme Father, of whom this one alone was born of a woman, who for this reason is called only-begotten because no other of the sons of God undertook this condition of being born.

Fourthly, they did not believe that Christ the Lord was born in the true nature of man, and therefore, with Cerdo, Marcion, and Manes, they affirmed that He had joined to Himself only an apparent and illusory flesh. Seduced indeed by this error, they spent the day of the Lord's Nativity and of His Resurrection in mourning and grief, afflicting their bodies with fasts. Fifthly, they then asserted that the soul of man is of the divine substance, and that our nature does not differ from the nature of its Creator's condition. Sixthly, they said that the devil was never good, nor was his nature the workmanship of God, but that he emerged from darkness and chaos, since forsooth he has no author of himself, but is himself the beginning and substance of all evil.

Seventhly, together with the Manichaeans they also condemned the use of nuptials and matrimony, on this account, namely, that they might shudder at the procreation of lawful offspring, and might more easily admit the licence of all vileness. To which error the eighth was most nearly akin, since they said that human bodies are the fabrications of the devil, inasmuch as the seeds of conception are shaped in the wombs of women, and that these bodies themselves, being formed by diabolical power, could by no means be suited to the dignity of the soul. Hence they denied that, once the body was dissolved, souls could and ought to come to life again through the mystery of the resurrection.

No less monstrous was their ninth remark, whereby they preached that the sons of promise are conceived not from the seed of the flesh, but from the Holy Spirit, and that these are in no way subject to the sin and mortal contagion which pass into the offspring by the fault of Adam the first parent. Tenthly, moreover, they taught that souls which are inserted into human bodies had once sinned in the heavens, stripped of all bodily mass, and on that account had fallen down from higher things to lower, and had come under princes of diverse quality, and had been enclosed by the aerial and starry powers, some in harsher, others in gentler bodies, by a diverse lot and dissimilar condition, so that whatever comes forth in this life variously and unequally might seem to happen from preceding causes.

Their eleventh blasphemy was that they held both the souls and the bodies of men to be bound by the fatal stars, and therefore, together with the gentiles, they were zealous either to worship the stars favourable to them, or to appease those adverse. Twelfthly, they described the parts of the soul as being under some powers, and the members of the body under others, and they set the qualities of the interior rulers—namely of the virtues, which they feigned to govern the soul—under the names of the patriarchs, to which on the opposite side they set the bodily signs, to whose power the bodies would be subjected. They added that the parts of the human body correspond to the twelve signs of heaven, and are composed according to them, placing Aries in the head, Taurus in the neck, Gemini in the shoulders, Cancer in the breast, and so forth.

Thirteenthly, they erred concerning the knowledge of the Scriptures, since they received the body of the canonical Scriptures under the names of the patriarchs. For they fabled that those twelve virtues which work the reformation of the interior man are indicated in these names. Fourteenthly, they so subjected man to the power of the stars and constellations that they contended that many things are found in the holy books which pertain to the exterior man, so that in the Scriptures themselves a certain contrariety is at variance with itself between the divine and the earthly nature, and that from one source is what the rulers of the soul claim for themselves, and from another source likewise the framers of the body. Fifteenthly, having adulterated the true Scriptures, they introduced false ones, which they called canonical;

in order, forsooth, that the holy pontiff might meet this most grievous evil, he laid down that general law by which he commanded the priests of the Churches to apply all diligence, lest either falsified codices should be had in use for reading, or apocryphal writings should be preserved by anyone. Concerning these he wrote thus: 'The apocryphal writings, which under the names of the apostles contain a seed-bed of many falsities, are not only to be forbidden, but altogether to be removed, and to be burned with fire.' By no defence, therefore, are heretics or innovators protected, when with many injuries they assail the more recent Roman pontiffs because they proscribe their works and command them to be burned with fire.

This discipline in the Catholic Church is exceedingly ancient, nor is it to be traced back only to Pope Gelasius, or to the council of seventy bishops then held, but to Leo the Great, who inculcates it as to be observed by all Catholic bishops. Wherefore Leo's manner of acting persuades and makes clear that, among other non-Catholics, Van Espen and Beausobre were splendidly deceived.

For Van Espen, when in the earlier part of his Works, entitled 'Of the Universal Ecclesiastical Law,' he by no means adverted to this decree of Leo, and when he undertook to treat of the Church's discipline in prohibiting the books of heretics, he relied solely upon the Gelasian decree, whose words he attempts to strip entirely of all force and strength, as it were affirming from the pulpit that the Church wished to guard only against the public, not the private, reading of proscribed books. Splendidly, I say, does Van Espen deceive himself. That this may become known, there will be no need at all that, departing from our purpose, we now begin to discuss the Gelasian decree. For that decree has come forth adorned with many learned notes, by the study and labour of Chifflet, Holstenius, and Fr Joseph Bianchini,

so that to enrich it with new observations would be altogether superfluous. To forestall Van Espen's lapse, therefore, it will suffice to advert to what St Leo subjoined. He, then, forbade under the mark of heresy—to the bishops who should permit it—not only the public use of corrupted, apocryphal, and false codices by Catholics, but also to be occupied with the private readings of these, or even to retain such copies in their houses. Wherefore he subjoined:

'Hence if any of the bishops has not forbidden the apocrypha to be had throughout the houses, or has permitted in the Church those codices to be read under the name of the canonical which are corrupted by the emendation of Priscillian, let him know that he is to be judged a heretic; because he who does not recall others from error, proves that he himself is in error.' A very ancient manuscript exemplar of the Palatine Vatican, after these words, exhibits to us a famous fragment of this letter, hitherto neither noted nor made public by the preceding editors of St Leo's Works. And although this does not seem wholly to savour of Leonine oration, yet the antiquity and authority of the praised codex, together with the tenor of the argument, most closely agreeing with the preceding words of the holy pontiff,

lead us to that counsel, that we should commit it to type, set within brackets, in the second volume. And as regards the antiquity of the codex, the appraisers of ancient characters have judged along with us that it reaches the ninth century. The tenor of the argument plainly answers to St Leo's aim in writing. For after rejecting the apocryphal writings, it seemed to concern him to designate the canonical ones, and in what order they should occur to be read in the Church, so that with the utmost concord the ministers of the holy altar might come together in chanting the divine praises and celebrating the mysteries. Moreover, by the accession of this addition, the earlier matters are most aptly joined to the later; and in the codex we came upon this heading, namely:

'Here begins the opinion of Pope Leo concerning the apocryphal writings.' Which has its exordium in those words of the praised chapter 15 of this letter to Turribius: 'Care must therefore be taken, and it must be most especially provided by priestly diligence, that falsified codices, etc.,' as far as those words which in all the printed editions close this chapter, namely: 'Because he who does not recall others from error proves that he himself is in error.' After which these other things are immediately subjoined: 'Now all the divine Scriptures of the holy canon are read in the Church of St Peter in this order from the beginning of the year to the end. In the time of spring, that is, seven days before the beginning of Lent up to the eighth day before Easter, are read the books of Moses with Joshua son of Nun and Judges, etc.'

Two things, therefore, in this brief leisure, we do not omit to note and mark down. The one, that the order described in this fragment for the reading of all the Scriptures of the holy canon throughout the course of the whole year does not differ from that distribution and arrangement which even now is seen in the Roman Breviary. For this proves the authority and antiquity of this sacred rite, derived from our forefathers, who took the resolution to distribute and accommodate, to each of the four seasons of the year, the readings of Scripture more fitting for the divine mysteries to be celebrated in the Church and more consonant, so that they might the more provide for and look to the dignity of the mysteries and the instruction of the peoples.

The other is, that in the praised fragment there are found described all the books described in the Tridentine canon, session 4, if however we except one or another. Which two things will indeed furnish to the studious men of the sacred Liturgies—who deservedly in these times spend labour on this work, with great profit to sacred antiquity—a supply of learned dissertations. We do not here subjoin the whole entire, lest we depart further than is fitting from our proposed aim. Yet that, just as it stands in that manuscript codex, we shall make public in the second volume of all the Works of St Leo the pontiff, and shall adorn it with brief notes. Returning therefore to our matters, we reason thus.

If, then, with regard to the rigour of canonical discipline, already in the fifth century of the Church, it was permitted to no one to have in his houses the sacred Scriptures corrupted and depraved by heretics, how can it now come to pass that the heterodox complain so vehemently, when they understand that their own books have been forbidden to Catholics by the Apostolic See to be read under pain of anathema? But to linger longer over this most thoroughly established matter would be reckoned a fault in me; and therefore we make a step to the sixteenth chapter, in which the holy pontiff spoke concerning the other books written by the zeal of heretics.

This sixteenth chapter, therefore, St Leo the Great calls the last, in this sense namely, that the little book of Turribius transmitted to the Apostolic See contained sixteen chapters to be discussed. But because the same bishop of Astorga had subjoined yet another thing in the extreme part of his familiar letter, which is concerning the flesh of Christ—whether it rested in the sepulchre—for that reason we have judged that the old vulgate reading, namely 'sixteen,' is to be expunged, and that by the suffrage of the codices, as we have said, a new one, namely 'seventeen,' is to be followed. To the sixteenth chapter, therefore, of the little book of Turribius, the holy pontiff,

meeting it, first of all approves the complaint of the same Turribius, namely that which was turning upon the writings and treatise of a certain Dictinius, once his predecessor in the see of Astorga. That Dictinius had committed those books to writing while he was polluted with the Priscillianist stain, the Acts of the council of Toledo, Augustine and other contemporary writers, as we have seen, and now St Leo himself, have most fully attested. Now many read those books with veneration, who ought rather to love his restoration than his lapse. 'They read, therefore, not Dictinius' (says the holy pontiff) 'but Priscillian, and they approve that which he taught while erring, not that which he chose when corrected.' Wherefore he declares that those who make use of his writings are outside the ecclesiastical assembly.

Indeed the supreme pontiff excepted no one, but that he might comprehend men of every order and state, he pronounces from the seat of the holy apostle Peter: 'But let no one presume this with impunity, nor let him be reckoned among Catholics, whoever uses writings condemned not only by the Catholic Church, but also by their own author.' After this St Leo exaggerates the secrets of the Priscillianists and the Manichaeans, which they used more secretly in order to forestall the severity of the imperial laws. Now the men of these sects, since they had hearts in accord with one another, professed the same sacrileges, although they were called by different names.

Wherefore, even though the offspring of the Manichaeans should refute the Old Testament, which the Priscillianists pretended to receive, yet 'to one end' (says the holy pontiff) 'the intention of both tends, since what these assail by rejecting, the Priscillianists corrupt by receiving.' As for the rest, that in execrable mysteries, in obscenities, and in every kind of vileness the Priscillianists agreed with the Manichaeans, I think has already been proved from the whole series of this history. Which Leo, especially inculcating here to Turribius, appeals to that most solicitous inquisition held at Rome against the Manichaeans, of whose judgment and Acts he directed copies to the same bishop of Astorga.

There remains the last chapter, which, as we have already said, Turribius had proposed in the extreme part of his familiar letter to be defined by Leo: namely, whether the flesh of Christ truly rested in the sepulchre. For this mystery of our religion had come into doubt even with very many of the Catholics, from the fact that Christ had descended to the lower regions. For by what reasoning those two things—namely the descent to hell and the repose of Christ's flesh in the sepulchre—could be joined together with true propriety, the peoples of the Spains could by no means understand. That these two dogmas of the apostolic Symbol in no way contradict one another, the holy pontiff demonstrates by various testimonies of the Scriptures.

But that the contrary assertion had derived from the dogmas of Priscillian and Manes, there is no doubt—men who (he says) 'with a sacrilegious sense so pretend to confess you, O Christ, that they take away the truth of Your incarnation, and of Your death, and of Your resurrection.' It is not therefore to be feared that in retracting those chapters St Leo has performed the parts of a supreme judge and master. For that here too there can be no place for the trifles of adversaries, the holy pontiff himself makes manifest. Who, in order that his own doctrine and canonical judgments might become known to every assembly of clerics and to individual faithful, first commands encyclical letters to be held among the bishops, designating a suitable place for holding a council.

To that place he then enjoins the priests of the neighbouring provinces to come together, where, a most complete examination having been held, he wished and commanded them chiefly to recall to scrutiny whether there were any among the bishops who were polluted by the contagion of the Priscillianist heresy. And those whom the council should find contaminated by so great a stain, all the rules of these pontifical sanctions being observed, he decrees are without doubt to be separated from Catholic communion, if however they should refuse to condemn the most abominable sect through the depravities of all its meanings. But that these things which pertain to the rights of the Apostolic See might be more fully and easily committed to execution, the holy pontiff was by no means content with this letter.

But, with no delay interposed, he gave other letters to his fellow bishops—namely the Tarraconensian, the Carthaginensian, the Lusitanian, and the Gallician—by which he proclaimed a general council; in the proclaiming of which he certainly cannot be doubted to have exercised the supreme right of his pontificate. For these words of Leo plainly make it clear. 'It will pertain' (he says) 'to the solicitude of your charity, that the authority of our ordination be conveyed to the bishops of the aforesaid provinces.' But whether Leo wrote only one encyclical, or several letters, to compel all the praised bishops of the Spains and Gallicia to come to the council, I have not dared to define;

since whatever those letters may have been, they have not hitherto come forth, and perhaps by the injury of the times they have already perished. Now indeed, if it were permitted me to inquire of the cavillers against the rights of the Roman See, why that great Turribius, being amid the greatest straits, directed his consultation to the one Apostolic See, and not indeed to the bishop of some other see—what would Launoy, Blondel, Quesnel, and the others reply among the rest? For will they dare to contend that the whole business had been remitted to a future council? They would indeed be deceived, and would put a deception upon themselves.

For the supreme pontiff, treading in the footsteps of his predecessors, from the Vatican throne not only rejected the several errors of the Priscillianists by theological arguments, but also condemned them under anathema; he proscribed the private and public reading of copies of the apocryphal writings and of the books of heretics, and commanded the same to be burned; declaring those bishops to be outside Catholic communion who should not have obeyed such statutes. What then? Did he remit these things to be defined by a future council? Would it have been permitted to the Fathers of the council even lightly to recede from these rules and statutes?

They would be dealing in trifles who feign this, since those zealous for truth understand that only the examination was remitted to the Fathers of the council—whether there were any among the bishops who were polluted by the contagion of this heresy, who, according to these responses to the Turribian consultation, were without doubt to be separated from communion. 'For in vain' (says the holy pontiff) 'do they use the Catholic name, who do not resist these impieties.' It was not therefore to be dealt with in that council concerning the condemning of the heresy, which already the Roman Pontiffs and Leo himself had condemned; but concerning the punishing of the heretics, whose cause had not yet been sufficiently explored by the Apostolic See.

Therefore our Leo, the matters pertaining to law having now been sufficiently discussed, subjected to the judgment of a general, or at least a provincial council, those things which could turn upon persons and deeds. And indeed because the whole mind of the pontiff was chiefly engaged in remedying the evils of Gallicia, and in forestalling lest, by these spreading more widely in those regions, the Catholic religion should be led to utter ruin, he judged it right to employ the following economy.

Namely, if anything should have hindered a general council from being celebrated, he commanded that at least the priests of Gallicia should come together into one; the care of assembling whom was committed to Idatius and Ceponius, as being marked with metropolitan right, to whom he also joined the solicitude of Turribius, so that a remedy might the more quickly be brought to such great wounds, even by a provincial assembly. While therefore Leo commanded these things to be done in Gallicia and Spain, and while he handed over to Pervincus, deacon of Astorga, the pontifical letters to be conveyed to the bishops of both kingdoms, already Calipius and Ardabur were holding the Roman consulate. That this happened in the year of Christ 447, the tables of the Roman consuls already make clear.

If, however, the studious of theological matters and the lovers of truth desire to obtain there anything more abundant for refuting the errors of this most abominable sect, let them consult the homilies of the same holy pontiff. For scarcely, when the impiety and sacrileges of these most wicked men had been discovered by him, could he restrain his zeal from assailing and harassing, amid the performing of the sacred mysteries, that profane religion and its dogmas. Of which manner of acting it is enough for us to have given an indication, lest this our discourse turn out more prolix than is just.

But now we must write of more obscure matters, and much more difficult than those which we have already treated, especially since, owing to the loss of ancient monuments, we are without those aids which might easily direct and lead us to the knowledge of the truth of things. Meanwhile, nevertheless, we shall not withdraw our hand from the undertaking we have taken up, until it be more clearly explored in what manner the priests of both kingdoms obeyed the pontifical mandates. Those bishops, therefore, since—both on account of the diverse administrations of civil affairs, as we have already seen, and on account of the diverse stock, dispositions, and religion of the different princes—they were by no means able to come together into one general council, the metropolitans of each kingdom convened their own synods.

For the bishops of Tarraconensis, of Carthaginensis, of Lusitania and of Baetica—over whom, in civil affairs, Theodoric the Arian, sprung from the stock of the Goths, held dominion—celebrated their council in that same year 447. And I am persuaded that a famous testimony to this very fact is found in the very source which the collectors of the general Councils supply. For after the canons of the First Council of Toledo there occurs, to be read, a certain rule of faith which bears the following heading:

「Here begins the rule of the Catholic faith against all heresies, and most especially against the Priscillianists, which the bishops of Tarraconensis, of Carthaginensis, and of Baetica composed; and, by the command of Leo, the pope of the city of Rome, they transmitted it to Balconius, bishop of Gallicia; these same bishops also established the aforesaid twenty chapters of canons in the Council of Toledo.」 That the bishops of Spain therefore assembled at Toledo, those last words indicate. But let no one persuade himself that the preceding chapters—just as they are today preserved in the collection of the Councils—were published in the time of Leo; for to those same chapters Patruinus first subscribed, along with the rest, who in the year 400 had assembled in the case of Symphosius and Dictinius.

Moreover Ortygius, bishop of Gallicia, subscribed as well—concerning whom we have already treated more than sufficiently in the foregoing. But that they could still have been surviving in the year 447, or that Ortygius should have been free to come to this assembly with the bishops of the Spains, is altogether beyond belief. It appears therefore clearer than light that Harduin's annotation is to be approved, who wrote that in the edition of this council prepared by Dionysius these words are read: 「Here ends the Council of Toledo」—which are proof that the ensuing rule of faith in no way belongs to that council, but must be referred to a council convoked by the command of Leo. 2.

By no means otherwise, in truth, was the matter judged by Pagi, who, carefully and rather maturely weighing with himself those things which seem to pertain to ecclesiastical sanctions and to the ordering of the records—so as to guard against confusion of the events—asserted that the profession of faith of which we treat was composed in the age of Leo. And to the truth of this that great diversity of the manuscripts and printed copies can in no wise stand in the way, which meets our observation in those anathematisms; namely, while some of the codices contain only twelve anathematisms, the printed copies contain eighteen, and in the Works of Augustine their number is increased even to twenty-six.