Sermons & Letters 222 part 2/3

And indeed Leo himself confirmed from this too that those severe penalties had been of assistance to the Church: namely, that bodily punishments and the executions of ecclesiastical laws, on account of the gravest vicissitudes of wars, had had to cease over the space of many years, nor could the priests of the provinces themselves any longer come together more frequently in one place, since it was no longer permitted. 'Secret perfidy (says the holy Pontiff) found liberty, and was incited to the subversion of many minds by the very evils by which it ought to have been corrected.' On which account he at once proceeds to bewail the wretched state of Galicia and the Spains, whose people not only, as he had learned from Turribius, were shaken by the deadly plague of the contagion;

but—what is more grievous—their priests themselves, seized by this lethal disease, were oppressing the truth with many errors, preferring the doctrine of Priscillian to the evangelical teachings, and setting these forth at last, corrupted by profane meanings, to 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, indeed, Turribius had proposed to St. Leo as needing to be reformed for the lamentable state of those Churches; to which he subjoined seventeen chapters, briefly comprising opinions once condemned, and which the holy Pontiff, in virtue of the supreme dignity of his apostolate, again refuted, lest any of those same blasphemies should thereafter seem tolerable or doubtful. 5.

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

But from this letter of Leo alone 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 duty of Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, reviews one by one those same chapters which Pervincus the deacon had brought from Galicia 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 refuted not only by the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, but also by theological arguments, which seem to smack of the formulas of speech of the Athanasian Creed.

Secondly, they fabricated certain 'virtues' as proceeding from God, which they asserted God had not always had in His own essence, but had begun at some time to have—as the Arians most wickedly reasoned. Thirdly, they contended that the Son of God is called 'only-begotten' for this reason: because He alone was born of the Virgin. Wherefore either they gave Christ a beginning from His mother, with Paul, Bishop of Samosata, and Photinus, or they believed that there is not one Son of God, but that others too were begotten of the supreme Father, of whom this one was born of a woman, who for this reason is called only-begotten, because no other of the sons of God underwent this condition of being born.

Fourthly, they did not believe that the Lord Christ 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 by this error, they spent the day of the Lord's Nativity and 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 in condition from the nature of its Creator. Sixthly, they said that the devil had never been good, nor had his nature been the work of God, but that he had emerged from darkness and chaos, because forsooth he has no author of himself, but is himself the beginning and substance of all evil.

Seventhly, they condemned the use of nuptials and matrimony, together with the Manichaeans, for this reason, namely, that they might abhor the procreation of lawful offspring, and more easily admit the licence of every kind of turpitude. To which error the eighth also had been most closely akin, since they said that human bodies are the fashionings of the devil, inasmuch as the seeds of conceptions are, they said, congealed in the wombs of women, and that these bodies could in no way be suited to the dignity of the soul, being formed by diabolical power. Hence they denied that a body once dissolved could and ought to come to life again through the mystery of the resurrection.

No less monstrous was the ninth of their assertions, by which they preached that the sons of promise are conceived not of the seed of the flesh but of the Holy Spirit, and that these are in no way subject to sin and to the 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, fallen from higher things to lower, had come under princes of diverse quality, and had been enclosed by aerial and starry powers—some in harder, some in gentler bodies—by a diverse lot and dissimilar condition, so that whatever occurs in this life variously and unequally may seem to happen from preceding causes.

The eleventh of their blasphemies: they opined that both the souls and the bodies of men are bound by the fatal stars, and therefore, with the pagans, they were eager either to worship the stars favourable to themselves or to appease the adverse ones. Twelfthly, they described the parts of the soul as under certain powers, the members of the body under others, and set the qualities of the interior governors—that is, of the virtues which they feigned to rule the soul—under the names of the patriarchs, to which they opposed on the other side the bodily signs, to whose power the bodies were 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 effect the reformation of the interior man were indicated in these names. Fourteenthly, they so subjected man to the power of the stars and signs that they contended that many things are found in the sacred books which pertain to the exterior man, so that in the Scriptures themselves a certain contrariety of adversity is at variance between the divine and the earthly nature, and that from one source come those things which the governors of the mind claim for themselves, and from another source those which the framers of the body claim. 6. Fifteenthly, having adulterated the true Scriptures, they introduced false ones, which they called canonical;

to which most grave evil, that the holy Pontiff might meet it, he laid down that general law by which he commanded the priests of the Churches to employ all diligence, lest either falsified codices be kept in use for reading, or apocryphal writings be preserved by anyone. And concerning these he wrote thus: 'Apocryphal writings, which under the names of the apostles contain a seed-bed of many falsities, are not only to be interdicted, but are to be utterly taken away and burned in the fire.' By no defence, therefore, are the heretics or innovators fenced round, who with many injuries assail the more recent Roman Pontiffs, because they proscribe their works and command them to be burned in the fire.

This kind of discipline in the Catholic Church is exceedingly ancient, nor is it to be traced only from Pope Gelasius, or from the council of seventy bishops held at that time, but from Leo the Great, who inculcates that it is to be observed by all Catholic bishops. Wherefore this manner of Leo's acting splendidly persuades and makes plain that, among other Catholics, Van Espen and Beausobre were mistaken.

For Van Espen, when in the earlier part of his Works, which is entitled 'On Universal Ecclesiastical Law,' he by no means adverted to this decree of Leo, and when he set about to treat of the discipline of the Church in prohibiting the books of heretics, insists only upon the Gelasian decree, from whose words he endeavours to take away all force and strength entirely, affirming as though from the pulpit that the Church wished to guard against only the public, not the private, reading of proscribed books. Splendidly, I say, does Van Espen go astray. That this may become known, there will be no need at all that, departing from our purpose, we should now begin to discuss the Gelasian decree. For that has come forth adorned with many learned notes, by the study and labour of Chifflet, Holstenius, and Father

Joseph Bianchini, in their study and labour, come forth so that it is altogether superfluous to enrich it with new observations. To forestall Van Espen's lapse, therefore, it will suffice to advert to those things which St. Leo subjoined. He accordingly interdicted, under the mark of heresy against the bishops who should permit it, not only the public use of corrupted, apocryphal, and false codices by Catholics, but also the giving of leisure to their private readings, or even the keeping of such copies in their houses. Wherefore he subjoined:

'Whence if any of the bishops shall not have forbidden apocryphal writings to be kept throughout the houses, or shall have permitted those codices, which are corrupted by Priscillian's emendation, to be read in the church under the name of the canonical books, let him know that he is to be judged a heretic; since he who does not recall others from error demonstrates that he himself errs.' A most ancient exemplar of the Palatine Vatican manuscript, after these words, exhibits to us a celebrated fragment of this letter, hitherto neither noted nor made public by the previous editors of the Works of St. Leo. Although this does not seem altogether to smack of a Leonine oration, nevertheless the antiquity and authority of the aforesaid codex, as well as the character of the argument, being closely in accord with the preceding sayings of the holy

Pontiff, lead us to this counsel, that in the second volume we should commit it to print, set within its own place. And as regards the antiquity of the codex, the appraisers of ancient characters have, along with us, judged it to reach the ninth century. The character of the argument plainly corresponds to St. Leo's aim in writing. For after the rejection of the apocryphal writings, it seemed to concern him to designate the canonical ones, and in what order they should be read in the church, so that in the greatest concord the ministers of the sacred altar might come together in singing the divine praises and celebrating the mysteries. Besides, by the accession of this fragment, the former parts are most fittingly joined to the latter; and in the codex we come upon this heading, namely:

'Here begins the sentence of Pope Leo concerning the apocryphal Scriptures.' This has its beginning from those words of the praised fifteenth chapter of this letter to Turribius: 'Care must therefore be taken, and provision made above all by priestly diligence, that falsified codices, etc.,' up to those words which in all the editions close this chapter, namely: 'Since he who does not recall others from error demonstrates that he himself errs.' 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 from the beginning of the year to the end in this order. 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 the son of Nun and of Judges, etc.'

Two things only, therefore, in this brief leisure, I shall not omit to advert to and note here. The one, that the order described in this fragment for reading all the Scriptures of the sacred canon throughout the course of the whole year does not differ from that distribution and arrangement which is even now seen in the Roman Breviary. For this proves the authority of this sacred rite to be derived from ancient times and from our forefathers, who took counsel to distribute and accommodate, to each of the four seasons of the year, the readings of the Scriptures more suited and more consonant to the divine mysteries to be celebrated in the church, so that they might the more provide and look to the dignity of the mysteries and the instruction of the peoples.

The other is that in the praised fragment all the books described in the Tridentine canon, session 4, are found described, if we except only one or another. Which two things will certainly furnish, to men studious of the sacred Liturgies—who deservedly in these times bestow labour upon this work with great benefit to sacred antiquity—material for learned dissertations. We do not here subjoin that whole piece, lest we should depart further than is fitting from our proposed aim. Nevertheless we shall make it public, just as it stands in the manuscript codex, in the second volume of all the Works of St. Leo the Pontiff, and shall adorn it with brief notes. Returning therefore to our matter, we reason thus.

If, then, considering the rigour of canonical discipline, already in the fifth century of the Church no one was permitted to keep in his house the sacred Scriptures vitiated and corrupted by heretics, how can it now come about that the heterodox complain so greatly, when they understand that they are forbidden by the Apostolic See to read to Catholics their own books under penalty of anathema? But to linger longer over this most thoroughly examined matter would be reckoned to me a fault, and therefore we make our step to the sixteenth chapter, in which the holy Pontiff spoke words concerning the other books composed by the zeal of the heretics. 7.

This sixteenth chapter, then, 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 truly rested in the sepulchre—therefore we have deservedly judged that the ancient common reading, namely sixteen, is to be expunged, and that, by the suffrage of the codices, as we have said, the 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 that same Turribius, namely the one which concerned Dictinius, formerly written and treated of in the See of Astorga, of his predecessor. That Dictinius consigned those books to writing when he was polluted with the taint of Priscillian, both the Acts of the Council of Toledo, and Augustine and other contemporary writers, as we have seen, and now St. Leo himself, have most fully attested. But many read those books with veneration, who ought rather to love his restoration than his lapse. 'They do not therefore read 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 those to be outside the ecclesiastical assembly who made use of his writings.

Assuredly the Supreme Pontiff excepted no one there, but, that he might comprehend men of every order and status, from the seat of the holy Apostle Peter he pronounces: 'But let no one presume this with impunity, nor let anyone be reckoned among Catholics who makes use of writings condemned not only by the Catholic Church but even by their own author.' After these things St. Leo enlarges upon the arts of the Priscillianists and the Manichaeans, by which they cunningly made use to guard against the severity of the imperial laws. Now the men of these sects, since they had their hearts in common with one another, professed the same sacrileges, although they were called by different names.

Wherefore, although the Old Testament, which the Priscillianists pretended to accept, the offspring of the Manichaeans would refute, nevertheless 'the intention of both (says the holy Pontiff) tends to one and the same end, since, what these attack by rejecting, the Priscillianists corrupt by receiving.' Moreover, that in execrable mysteries, in obscenities and every kind of turpitude, the Priscillianists agreed with the Manichaeans, I think has been proved from the whole series of this history. And Leo, inculcating this especially here to Turribius, appeals to that most solicitous inquisition held at Rome against the Manichaeans, of which judgement and Acts he sent copies to the same Bishop of Astorga. II.

There remains the last chapter, which Turribius had proposed to Leo for definition in the extreme part of his familiar letter, as we have already said: namely, whether the flesh of Christ truly rested in the sepulchre. For this mystery of our religion had come into doubt with very many even of the Catholics, from that fact that Christ had descended into hell. For by what reasoning those two things—namely the descent into hell and the repose of Christ's flesh in the sepulchre—might be joined together with true propriety, the peoples of the Spains were quite unable to understand. That these two dogmas of the Apostolic Symbol in no way conflict with 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, who 'with sacrilegious sense (says he) so feign to confess Christ that they take away the truth both of the incarnation, and of the death, and of the resurrection.' It is not, therefore, to be feared that in reviewing those chapters St. Leo did not perform the parts of a supreme judge and master. For that the trifles of the adversaries could have no place here, the holy Pontiff himself makes manifest. Who, that his own doctrine and canonical judgements might become known to every rank of clergy and to the several faithful, first commands encyclical letters to be held among the bishops, in order that a suitable place for holding a council might be designated.

He then commands the priests of the neighbouring provinces to come together to this, where, a most full examination being held, he especially wished and commanded to recall to scrutiny whether there were any among the bishops who were polluted by the contagion of the Priscillian heresy. And those whom the council should find stained with so great a taint, all the rules of these pontifical sanctions being observed, he decrees are without doubt to be separated from Catholic communion, if nevertheless they should have been unwilling to condemn the most nefarious sect through the depravities of all their opinions. But that these things, which pertain to the rights of the Apostolic See, might be carried into execution more fully and easily, 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 Carthaginian, the Lusitanian, and the Galician, to whom 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 manifest: 'It will pertain to the solicitude of your charity (says he) that the authority of our ordinance 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 of Galicia 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 by the injury of the times have perhaps already perished. 9. But now, if I might be permitted to inquire of the cavillers at the rights of the Roman See, why that great Turribius, being amid the greatest straits, directed his consultations to the one Apostolic See, and not indeed to the bishop of another see, what would Launoy, Blondel, Quesnel, and the others among them reply? Will they dare to contend that the whole business was remitted to a future council?

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

They would be acting with trifles who feign this, since those who are zealous for the truth understand that to the Fathers of the council was remitted only the examination whether there were any among the bishops who were polluted by the contagion of this heresy—who, according to these responses to the consultations of Turribius, 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 heresy to be condemned, which the earlier Fathers and Leo himself had already condemned; but concerning the heretics to be punished, whose cause had not yet been sufficiently explored by the Apostolic See.

Therefore our Leo, those things which pertained to law having now been sufficiently discussed, subjected to the judgement of a general council, or at least a provincial one, those things which could turn upon persons and fact. 10. And indeed, because the whole mind of the Pontiff was chiefly engaged in remedying the evils of Galicia, and in guarding against the Catholic religion's being led to complete ruin should they creep more widely in those regions, he judged it well to employ the following management.

Namely, if anything should have hindered a general council from being celebrated, he commanded that at least the priests of Galicia should come together into one; for whose gathering the care was committed to Idatius and Ceponius, as one distinguished by metropolitan right, to whom he also joined the solicitude of Turribius, 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 Galicia and Spain, and while he handed over to Pervincius, deacon of Astorga, the pontifical letters to be conveyed to the bishops of both kingdoms, Calipius and Ardabur were now holding the Roman consulship. That this happened in the year of Christ 447, the tablets of the Roman consuls now make plain.

If, however, those studious of theological matters and lovers of the truth desire to obtain anything more abundant there for refuting the errors of this most nefarious sect, let them consult the homilies of the same holy Pontiff. For scarcely had he learned of the impiety and sacrileges of these most wicked men when he could not restrain his zeal, but, even amid the performing of the sacred mysteries, he assailed and harried that profane religion and its dogmas. Of which manner of acting it is enough for us to have given indication, lest this our oration turn out longer than is just. 1. But now we must write of matters more obscure, and much more difficult than those which we have

already said, especially since, on account of the loss of ancient monuments, we lack those supports which could easily direct and conduct us to the knowledge of the truth of things. In the meantime, however, we shall not withdraw our hand from the undertaken proposal, until it becomes more clearly explored how 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 stock, dispositions, and religion of the diverse princes—they were unable to come together into one general council, the metropolitans of each kingdom convened their own synods.

For the Tarraconensian, Carthaginian, Lusitanian, and Baetican bishops, 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. Of which matter I am persuaded that celebrated testimony is that which the collectors of the general Councils supply therein. For after the canons of the First Council of Toledo, a certain rule of faith occurs to be read, which bears before it the following heading:

Here begins the rule of the Catholic faith against all heresies, and most especially against the Priscillianists, which the bishops of Tarragona, of Carthage, and of Baetica composed, and which, at the command of Leo, pope of the city of Rome, they transmitted to Balconius, bishop of Gallicia; these same bishops also established the twenty canonical chapters recorded above in the Council of Toledo. That the bishops of Spain therefore assembled at Toledo is shown by those closing words. But let no one persuade himself that the preceding chapters—as they are today preserved in the collection of the Councils—were issued in the age of Leo; for to these Patruinus first subscribed together with the rest, who had assembled in the year 400 concerning the case of Symphosius and Dictinius.

Moreover, Ortigius, bishop of Gallicia, also subscribed—concerning whom we have already discoursed abundantly and more than enough above. But that these men could still have been surviving in the year 447, or that Ortigius was free to come with the bishops of Spain to this assembly, is utterly improbable. Clearer than daylight, therefore, it appears that Harduin's annotation must 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 words are an argument that the rule of faith which follows in no way pertains to that council, but must be referred to a council convened at the command of Leo.

Assuredly it was judged no otherwise on this matter by Pagi, who, diligently and more maturely weighing with himself those things that seem to pertain to ecclesiastical sanctions and to the order of the records, in order to forestall confusion of the events, asserted that the profession of faith of which we treat was composed in the age of Leo. To the truth of this the great diversity of manuscripts and printed copies can in no way stand in the way—the diversity which meets our observation in these anathemas—inasmuch as some of the codices contain only twelve anathemas, the printed copies eighteen, while in the Works of Augustine their number is increased up to twenty-six.