Sermons & Letters 223 part 2/2

Sigebert in his Chronicle makes him bishop of the city of Lemica, on account of which—besides the metropolitan see of Lugo and the other of Braga—we would be compelled to admit a third also, namely that of Lemica. When Quesnel noticed the consequence of this, he wrote: 'Idatius therefore seems to have been the metropolitan of Lugo, although Sigebert makes him bishop of Lemica. But he seems to confuse two men named Idatius, one of whom lived in the time of Leo and was the author of the Chronicle, the other formerly the accuser of Priscillian, who was really the bishop of Lemica.' Wishing to give the cause of this error, he affirms that it was this: that the more recent Idatius, in the preface of his Chronicle, asserts that he was born in the city of Lemica.

'But if he had attained this bishopric, he would not have omitted to commemorate it in that passage.' And yet, the same Quesnel subjoins: 'He seems to indicate his metropolitan dignity, when in that same place he says that he was created a prelate of the highest office.' And at the end of the praised preface he thus, groaning, laments the deformed state of the ecclesiastical order in the province of Galicia, as if it especially pertained to him, as head of the province: 'By his office to meet and remedy the indiscriminate ordinations, and the almost universal decline in divine discipline.' Therefore, this matter is enveloped in the greatest darkness by these and other similar conjectures.

Quesnel, insisting upon these, does not dissemble that two synods were held in the province of Galicia for the destruction of the Priscillianists, one of which he affirms was assembled at Lugo, the other indeed in the city of Braga. Whether those two provincial councils, indicated by Leo's precept, had a happy and prosperous outcome, the ancient documents do not disclose, and from elsewhere their Acts have perished through the length and injury of time. But if from the records of the Church which survive it be permitted to reason, it must be believed that this heresy then remained in the kingdom of Galicia not utterly extinguished and abolished.

For although Turribius, Idatius, Ceponius, Balconius, and other bishops restrained it by synodal proceedings, so that, while they themselves were living in the flesh and Leo the Great survived, the Priscillianists did not dare to raise their head too boldly, nevertheless, with various years elapsing, it has been ascertained that their errors sprang up revived in those regions. The cause of which matter, before we remove our pen from the tablet, we shall soon complete in the following chapter, briefly setting forth what remains to be said concerning the Priscillian heresy. 1.

That the brood of the Priscillianists, though already harassed in so many and so various ways—both by the Roman Pontiffs and other most holy bishops, and by synods and the princes of the age—was not yet extinct, much less utterly abolished, in the five-hundredth year of Christ, the ancient monuments of Christian affairs make sufficiently clear. For the sacred and Catholic pastors could not, in a short span of time, either purge or heal the poisons of this impiety and shamelessness, which here and there in the kingdom of Spain and Galicia had corrupted the hearts, faith, and religion of many men and women.

Wherefore, although for some time those evil seeds of sacrileges and blasphemies, through the striving zeal of the bishops, seemed to lie hidden, nevertheless, in the course of the sixth century of the Church, especially in the kingdom of Galicia, they burst forth again into the light. This—with the greatest grief of his mind (as is credible)—Profuturus, bishop of the metropolis of the Church of Braga, came to know; who, having first delivered for execution the statutes of the Apostolic See and of the provincial synods, again in the year 558 consulted that same Apostolic See by his letters, on account of new occurring causes, which we shall soon disclose. 2.

Those, therefore, who in the kingdom of Galicia were still surviving, stained with the Priscillianist infection, under a feigned color of religious piety and Christian abstinence, shrank from the eating of flesh. Since bishop Profuturus knew very well that this was done by them not from a spirit of devotion, but of execration, he referred the matter to the Apostolic See, inquiring whether they were to be struck with the same penalties of anathema by which, for the same crime, action was formerly taken against the Manichaeans by the statutes of the holy Fathers. And at that time the Apostolic Roman See of St....

...the See of Peter was governed by Pope Vigilius, who, at once meeting the consultations of Profuturus, first condemned the superstition of those who believed that any food was polluted by contact with flesh, because (he adds) 'of all those things which the mercy of God has bestowed for human sustenance, nothing is judged unclean for Catholics.' Wherefore, for the fuller instruction of this bishop of Braga, and to augment the strength of the decrees of the Apostolic See, he brings forward into the midst those fountains of the Scriptures by which we are taught that such errors are to be guarded against. Of which kind is that which Paul wrote to Titus: 'To the pure all things are pure,' etc.; or that other passage of the First Epistle to Timothy, namely:

'In the last times some shall depart from the faith,' etc.; or finally that which is found to be read in St. Matthew the Evangelist: 'Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a man, but the things which proceed out of the mouth, these are the things which defile a man.' Leaning therefore upon these and other similar testimonies of the Scriptures, the Fathers who preceded Vigilius judged that those especially were to be condemned who, abstaining from the eating of flesh, believed that those things also were to be avoided which seemed to have been mixed with flesh. But when Vigilius wrote these things, it came about by divine counsel that he used that formula of words which would snatch away all weapons from envious men and more recent sectaries.

Wherefore he by no means condemned abstinence for the curbing of the unbridled passions of our body, which the whole assembly of the holy Fathers affirms to be most pleasing to God. For which reason, it is evident that the Church, both in vigils and in the season of Lent, more reasonably prescribed a selection and discretion of foods; but he teaches that those are to be eliminated from the society of Catholics, because they wickedly and superstitiously shrank from the creatures of the Lord. Wherefore (he says) 'we neither condemn abstinence pleasing to God, nor do we receive into our society those who execrate the creature of the Lord.' 3.

But the sacrilegious mind of the Priscillianists had devised yet another new species of error against the mystery of the Trinity, even though the Fathers of Toledo, Braga, and Lugo had in preceding councils composed and promulgated a profession of faith, for preaching and confessing one substance, nature, power, and authority in the three divine Persons. Wherefore, in order that the Priscillianists and the offshoots of other heretics might overturn this dogma, they corrupted the hymn of glorification which the Catholic Church had anciently established to be sung at the end of the Psalms, by withdrawing one or another syllable of conjunction, saying: 'Glory to the Father, and to the Son, to the Holy Spirit.' That this was a new species of error, St....

the pontiff affirms in that same place; and at the same time he writes that this was the aim of those same heretics in acting as they did, namely that they wished to teach that there is only one person of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But to refute that error (says Vigilius) it suffices that the Lord Jesus Christ, in appointing that the baptism of believers ought to be celebrated in the invocation of the Trinity, said: 'Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' These words are proof that He commanded those three persons to be named with equal distinctions.

Besides these two questions, which concerned the errors of the Priscillianists, Profuturus also proposed to the Roman pontiff for discussion other matters: those pertaining to the baptism of the Arians, or to the founding and consecration of churches, or to the day appointed in that year for celebrating the Paschal feast and Pentecost. But truly famous is that consultation or question to which the Roman pontiff, addressing it in the fifth place, prescribes that the ancient order of ecclesiastical discipline concerning the divine prayers to be recited in the Masses must be preserved.

In this chapter indeed, since we encounter many and various things described which, concerning the canonical prayers and the festivals of the saints of God, expose the falsehoods of the more recent innovators and critics, I would gladly weigh all these things, were it not that the matters urged against me, which must be discussed, would break the thread of this history of the Priscillianist heresy too much. Yet meanwhile I judged that one thing at least must by no means be passed over:

namely, that the bishops of the more remote parts of the world were accustomed so to depend upon the mandates and institutions of the Apostolic See, that they referred to it not only matters of faith and the affairs of bishops to be decided, but even asked, with equal submission of mind, that those things which pertained to feasts, to the solemnities of the saints of God, and to the celebration of birthdays, be established and written down. And when I turned these matters over with myself, I was easily brought to the conviction that the rule of the canonical prayers was originally derived from the Apostolic See, at least in the West, from which no Church nor any minister of the ecclesiastical order dared to depart. As can most of all be confirmed from that very ancient fragment of the letter of St.

the letter of Leo to Turribius, which we indicated in the preceding pages, and which we have now resolved to make public. At length Pope Vigilius sent to Bishop Profuturus, together with this letter, the order of these canonical prayers, received from apostolic tradition, so that from it he might understand what was to be followed in the festivals: 'Wherefore (he says) we have also directed the text of the canonical prayer itself, added below, which (God being favourable) we have received from apostolic tradition. And that your charity may know in what places you may join together certain things suited to the festivals, we have likewise added the prayers of the Paschal day.'

But to make plain this reverence and subjection of all Churches and bishops, in whatever causes, toward the Apostolic See, I judge it superfluous to dwell upon these things. For Vigilius himself, without any ambiguity of words or fraud against the truth, as though briefly tracing the footsteps of his predecessors and the privileges of his own See, proclaims from the consent of all believers that the Roman Church is the foundation and the pattern of all Churches. For, although the election of all the apostles was equal, yet it was granted to blessed Peter that he should be preeminent over all. And, a few things being interposed, discoursing on the chief prerogatives of the Roman Church,

he asserts that it holds the primacy of all Churches on this ground, that to it—as to the head—must always be referred both the highest affairs of bishops, their judgments and complaints, and the greater questions of the Churches. Therefore the rights which they sanctioned as pertaining to the prerogative of the primacy, to the appeals made from the judgments of bishops to the Apostolic See, and finally those reserved to that same Apostolic See in the greater causes, Pope Vigilius reviewed both in the passage cited and in the remaining context of his letter. But since all these things are most well known to Catholic and most learned men, for the present I resolve to pass them over in silence, intending rather to state the reasons on account of which some might allege that there is something fictitious in that letter.

First of all, that which I might object from the inscription of the letter ought to be considered as lacking force. Namely, that even in the old printed copies it bears the name of Eucherius, or Eleutherius. This indeed Cardinal de Aguirre by no means denied, who taught that this letter should be inscribed to Profuturus of Braga, metropolitan bishop of Gallaecia. But from this objection, what follows? For by no reasoning could the slip and negligence of copyists prejudice a truth so thoroughly established. Wherefore the erudition of those who attempt to draw arguments of forgery and falsehood from the corrupted title and inscription of some document ought to be reckoned less than prudent and utterly futile.

For such a slip of copyists was too frequent and habitual—especially in transcribing the proper names of persons and places—as may be seen in manuscript copies of every age and language. But that which for the present bears upon our matter is this: namely, that in place of Eucherius, or Eleutherius, the name of Profuturus is to be read, as most manuscript codices of the best quality have it, as the catalogues of the bishops of Braga, and the tables of the Roman consuls, and finally the Acts of the Council of Braga celebrated a little afterward make plain without any ambiguity whatever. And indeed many manuscript codices—

namely the most ancient Lyons codex, two older Colbert codices marked with the best notes, from one of which the most illustrious Stephanus Baluzius transcribed this letter—have the name of Profuturus. But that this man was bishop of Braga, the first Acts of that council testify. Wherefore one can scarcely doubt that he consulted the Apostolic See, both concerning the Priscillianists and concerning those other questions, in the time of Pope Vigilius, and that the pontiff Vigilius directed to him the letters of which we treat. 'But concerning the day and year (says the most eminent Aguirre) on which it was given, I think it useless to dispute, since from the Colbert codex it is established that it was written in the year in which John was consul after Belisarius, that is, in the year 538.'

But if in the second place it is still objected that at least the last chapter of that letter smacks of interpolation and falsity—that chapter in which the primacy of the Roman Church is discussed—now I would press my point. For I could not find that it is missing in various codices of the Gauls, or that our adversaries assert it is found only in the pseudo-Isidorian collection. For in the first place this letter was written to the metropolitan of Gallaecia.

'And therefore far greater trust is to be placed in all the remaining most ancient manuscript codices of Spain, seen and collated by the most illustrious Loaysa, as well as in the printed editions, in which that chapter on the primacy of the Roman Church is contained, than in the single Colbert codex, concerning which there could be no slight suspicion that it was written in Gaul in those times when the causes of bishops appealing to the Apostolic See were being contested—especially toward the close of the ninth century, under Pope Nicholas I, and afterward in the cause of Gerbert of Rheims, near the end of the tenth.'

'For it could easily have come about that those who, against Hincmar of Laon and Rothad of Soissons—bishops appealing to the Apostolic See—were striving to snatch away from it the judgments of bishops, mutilated the letter of Vigilius by cutting off that chapter by which they themselves were being throttled.' Thus far Cardinal Aguirre, in the place cited above. Of such aids the most recent editors of the Councils made use in their notes to the aforesaid letter of Vigilius, vol. V, p. 1290. But neither ought we to be so unavenged in wresting away those two objections, if we should resolve to appeal to the authority of the Vatican manuscript copies.

There exist indeed in this apostolic library several copies of this letter which exhibit the genuine name of Profuturus and that chapter on the primacy of the Roman Church, which invincibly prove that the aforesaid letter suffered no wound whatever. 8. But if so many and so great supports did not come to the aid of this harassed truth, might someone still perhaps suspect the falsity and interpolation of this letter? Away with the fabrication! It vindicates for itself far greater sure arguments of truth from the suffrage of the Acts of Braga and the consent of those Fathers, to whom especially it was needful to adhere—rather than to Cardinal Aguirre, Baluzius, and the collectors of the Councils—and to unfold these Acts not merely cursorily, or to indicate them too lightly.

Those Fathers, therefore, as we saw in the preceding pages, in the year of Christ the Lord 563—when John III already held the helm of the Apostolic See, and Ariamirus, or Theodomirus, a king of the stock of the Suevi, was administering the civil affairs of Gallaecia and Lusitania—came together into one place. For long before they came together, they had it in their vows that a sacerdotal assembly ought to be held among themselves, in order that they might thoroughly purge the contagion of the Priscillianist heresy. Therefore they say:

'Now therefore, since our most glorious and most pious son—by the Lord's inspiration upon you—has by royal decree granted us the desired day of this assembly, and we sit placed together, first, if it please, let us inquire concerning the statutes of the Catholic faith.' That this assembly was begun on the first day of the month of May, the following note makes plain: 'The Council of Braga, celebrated in the third year of the reign of Ariamirus, on the day of the Kalends of May.'

But from what statutes of the Catholic faith that council took its beginnings, we have already most clearly stated in the preceding pages, in refuting Quesnel, who, too boldly, was attempting to snatch away the profession of faith set down by the Fathers of Tarragona, Carthage, Lusitania, and Baetica at the command of Pope Leo, so as to assert that it was of an utterly uncertain author. Therefore, lest we do again what has already been done, we take up for examination another part of that council, in which—both concerning Profuturus, prelate of the Church of Braga, and concerning the primacy and rights of the Roman pontiffs—the aforesaid Fathers spoke abundantly.

For the instruction, then, of the whole clerical order, Lucretius ordered them to recite those preceding canons of the Church which the general and provincial synods had drawn up for the safeguarding of ecclesiastical discipline and for the honour of the sacred rites and the ministers of the Church. And when all the other bishops at once seconded this suggestion, they judged it necessary and very useful first to appeal to those institutions which had been directed from the apostolic chair of St. Peter, in answer to the inquiry once made by their predecessor Profuturus of venerable memory. That Bishop Profuturus, therefore, had sat upon the throne of Braga before Lucretius, and had received from the apostolic

chair of Peter received rules for abolishing the surviving remnants of the Priscillianists—this the Fathers of this council confessed. But Lucretius, gladly desiring to adhere to their wishes, at once replied: 'Rightly has your fraternity called to mind the authority of the See.' And in the hearing of all: 'Let the authority of the Apostolic See directed to Profuturus, once bishop, be read again, which on account of its length has by no means been inserted into these acts.' That these things are to be referred to the apostolic constitution of Vigilius, it can be doubtful to no one. For the twenty-two chapters there subjoined and defined rest equally upon this, just as the preceding canons and anathemas were borrowed from the letter of St. Leo to Turribius, which they cited.

In writing these new chapters, therefore, they set before themselves chiefly this aim: namely, to abolish the rites, ceremonies, and every profane discipline, and the rules derived from the depravity of the Priscillianists. For those impious and sacrilegious men had not only corrupted and undermined the Catholic dogmas, but had also perverted the order of the divine offices and of the canonical hours; on the more solemn days too, and in the vigils, they recited peculiar lessons in the celebration of the Masses. For they had departed from that apostolic tradition which prescribes the formula for saluting the people while the sacred mysteries are being performed. They did not observe the same order and form in completing the sacrifice and in administering baptism.

They publicly chanted in the Church other psalms and other poetically composed writings, besides those which are contained in the New and Old Testament; nor, in fine, did all the ministers even of the clerical order make use of the food of flesh-meat. Wherefore in the fourteenth chapter they decreed: 'For the removal of suspicion of the Priscillianist heresy, let them be compelled at least to taste beforehand vegetables cooked with meats; and if they shall despise this' (they add), 'according to what the holy Fathers of old decreed concerning such persons, it is necessary that they, on account of suspicion of this heresy, being excommunicated from their office, be removed in every way.'

These things are truly too plain, and others of the same kind which I could subjoin to make manifest the primacy and prerogatives of the Apostolic See, or to prove that submission of mind and obedience which the bishops of the more remote part of the world fulfilled toward the Roman pontiffs in words and deeds. 10. Of this obedience indeed, and of the sacred covenant of union with the Roman Church, the Spaniards themselves have gloried at every time—as, after the cardinals Baronius and Aguirre, the most illustrious and eminent cultivator of the best sciences, Don Ildephonsus Clemente de Arostegui, has most recently testified, being now in this nourishing city one of the twelve jurisconsults, judges of causes at the Roman court, on behalf of the kingdom of Castile.

For he, to enlarge and adorn the history of the Spanish Church, composed at Rome, on the twelfth day before the Kalends of September, 1747, an exhortation to the Spaniards, with this design: that he might rouse them to the studies of letters for the honour and benefit of their fatherland. Among the other things, moreover, which he recalls to the minds of the men of his own nation, this is one: 'Since from the earliest age of the Roman Church and of Spain there was a very great union and fellowship of both, hence it was to me a most certain thing that in this city there are preserved the memorials and chief monuments which pertain to our history.' And a little below he subjoins: 'Here therefore I judged that there could easily be found the origins and dignity of the individual Churches; here their union, divisions, and translation;

here the Acts of the councils, the appeals of bishops, and the decrees of the holy Pontiffs.' When I had attended to his words, I was led to this hope: that neither to him, nor to any others whatsoever who are engaged in the studies of the Christian cause, would this present labour of mine, such as it is, prove unwelcome—since in composing these Exercitations I have already treated one thing after another which most certainly make manifest that most strict covenant, union, and fellowship with the Roman Church, and others which can furnish arguments—not feeble and doubtful—for coming to know the ancient state, dignities, and prerogatives of those Churches, according as the order of matters and the very method of writing demanded, I have explained.

Since, therefore, I have at last brought to a conclusion those things which seemed to pertain to the cause, errors, and councils gathered against the Priscillianists, and which in this matter of the greatest moment could vindicate the rights and authority of the Apostolic See from the calumnies of the envious, I shall attempt, in the following and last chapter only, to remove two very slight difficulties which have been drawn from the text and narratives of this council, and which have stirred up the greatest itch for disputing in the minds of Paschasius Quesnel and others, as we shall presently see.