講道與書信 第 214 章

1. Now, having pursued the order of events, we can by no means pass over in silence how, as the fourth century of the Church was slipping by, the Priscillian pestilence so spread abroad that not only common men of the crowd, but men formerly most illustrious in piety and dignity, were undermined by it. When the Catholic bishops were compelled to take heed of the evils of this heresy, their minds were so stirred that more than once they had to meet together. For first, they directed against this heresy and its followers a sentence in the form of a libellus, as they say. But where or when they met is difficult to judge. Yet that before the Council of Toledo which now exists the Spanish bishops held another council, the nineteen Fathers of Toledo themselves

in the preface of their synod plainly declare in these words: 「All these nineteen are the same who also in other proceedings against the followers of Priscillian, and against the heresy which he had constructed, directed a sentence in the form of a libellus.」 By the old formula of speech of the Latins the Fathers of Toledo perhaps used this to signify a sentence of condemnation brought forth not by words only, but published in writing and openly. To this manner of the Spanish bishops' proceeding in rendering judgments Tillemont, Sirmond, Pagi, Severinus Binius, Aguirre, and all the rest by no means adverted, who, treating of the Spanish and ecclesiastical judgments of the fourth century, have not a single word about that council which the Fathers of Toledo themselves

affirm they held shortly before. Nay, this above all, in the opinion of all, that most recent writer Cajetan Cenni ought indeed to have furnished, who proposed to himself to treat 「Of the Judgments of the Church of the Spains through the fourth century.」 Or Francisco Gervasio, presbyter of Urgel, who in the past year here at Rome committed to the press a two-part dissertation on the history of the Priscillianists. But both these most illustrious and most learned men, since they had assumed to themselves each a different scope of writing, could not have had so much leisure as to note down each particular. For D.

Cajetan Cenni, when he was engaged in the zeal of both asserting and defending the supreme authority of the Roman pontiffs over the Churches of the whole world, drawing his pen against Dupin and other theologians like him, was for this reason chiefly intent upon that aim, so that he either did not attend to the Acts of the first Council of Toledo, or altogether omitted to survey them. But the later writer wished only, in summary fashion, to indicate by a certain ordered method the origin, growth, and end of the Priscillianists, omitting the rest which he judged not to pertain to his subject. J 2.

Patruinus therefore, with the other eighteen Spanish bishops, taking into account the impious dogmas of Priscillian and of his followers, proscribed these same by a sentence written on tablets, as was fitting; and then, a few years having elapsed, as is credible, they wished to convene again in the city of Toledo, that they might define those things which seemed necessary for ecclesiastical discipline, for the removal of scandals, for the removal of schism, and finally for the confirming of the highest concord. Wherefore, the presbyters sitting, the deacons standing by, and the rest who were present at the council being gathered, bishop Patruinus said:

「Since we have each begun to do diverse things in our Churches, and thence arise so great scandals that they proceed even to schism, if it please you, let us by common council decree what is to be followed by all the bishops in ordaining clerics.」 But to me, reading the Acts and canons of this Synod of Toledo, and comparing them with the letter of pope Siricius given to Himerius of Tarragona and to the rest of the bishops of the Spains, it has been found that all these so agree among themselves, that those Fathers decreed nothing else to be followed, except those things which the supreme pontiff had already, by apostolic authority, enjoined upon them to observe, or those things which in the Nicene synod had long before been established concerning ordinations.

Since this fact intimates that the bishops of the Spains always consulted the Roman See in rendering the Church's judgments, and never dared to recoil from its rules, it deservedly draws us into admiration that the aforesaid preceding writers did not observe so great a consensus and likeness of these monuments, or neglected to note it. For it is not that we may reproachfully wound these—otherwise excellent writers and most deserving of literature—but that we might augment the force and weight of the arguments which they themselves adduce against the innovators, that we have had to relate these things. 3.

But meanwhile, as regards the time of this first Council of Toledo, the various questions raised in it, and its genuine Acts, there is by no means agreement among the writers of the Church. Baronius in the first place asserts that this council was gathered not until the fourth year of the pontificate of St. Innocent, which is the four hundred and fifth of Christ, being led forsooth by this persuasion, that Innocent himself wrote to the Fathers of this synod that letter which bears the following superscription: 「Innocent to the bishops of the Synod of Toledo.」 And although the very Acts of the Council of Toledo are repugnant to Baronius's conjectures, whose inscription is this:

「The Council of Toledo of nineteen bishops, held in the time of Anastasius, Honorius, and Arcadius, while Stilicho was making the attempt, in the era 438, in the year of the Lord 400, with bishop Patruinus presiding, on the seventh day before the Ides of September」—nevertheless he contends that an error crept into this, and that those Acts are to be referred not to the first but to the second consulship of Stilicho, which falls in the aforesaid year 405. Thus therefore Baronius insists upon that letter of Innocent, so that, the aforesaid title and inscription of the Synod of Toledo being neglected, he judged that neither the name of Patruinus the president, nor the Spanish era, nor the pontificate of Anastasius, nor the Christian epoch of the four-hundredth year, was to be approved.

But that the learned man was mistaken, not only do all the printed and manuscript copies make plain, but also the very letter of St. Innocent the pope. What of it? In it indeed the holy pontiff speaks of that synod in which Gregory of Emerita had been substituted in the place of Patruinus, and orders the complaints of that Gregory to be heard. But at the Synod of Toledo of which we are treating, Patruinus, still living, was present—nay, even presided—as the reader himself will understand from the whole series of the Acts. On the contrary, at the head of that letter Innocent wrote thus concerning Patruinus:

「Let the complaint also of Gregory, bishop of Emerita, who was ordained in the place of Patruinus of venerable memory, be heard, if there be any; and if he has suffered injury against his merit, let it be vindicated upon the enviers of another's honour, lest hereafter the spirit of faction rise up against any of the good.」 These words plainly convince many writers of Spain of error, of whom some reckoned Patronus, or Patruinus, the president of the Synod of Toledo, to have been bishop of Toledo, others of Braga; for from these words it appears what had not come into their mind, namely that he was bishop of Emerita, whom—already dead—Gregory succeeded five years after. A.

Far otherwise, then, ought our manner of discoursing to have been, since we judge that that Innocentian letter is to be referred not to the first Synod of Toledo, but to another. This long ago Sirmond, Pagi, Petavius, Severinus Binius, Tillemont, and other writers advised, although not led by the same reasons and conjectures; of whom some more reasonably taught that the first Synod of Toledo is to be assigned either to the year of Christ 399 or to the following, concerning which we forbear to discourse more fully, since there now remains for us something else more difficult and more obscure to be unravelled: namely, the inquiry into those matters which gave occasion to Patronus, or Patruinus, for the convening of this first Synod of Toledo.

That there were many and most grave causes, the monuments of that age which survive persuade us; and since the writers of the Church have hitherto neglected to recount them, we are compelled to run through them, lest we fall under the mark of drowsiness or of excessive connivance. We wish it therefore to be known and clearly perceived by all that the chief cause of holding that council in the city of Toledo was a certain most grave schism sprung from the Priscillian heresy. But whether it was that same one which the Ithacian faction had stirred up, or rather another, cannot be sufficiently clearly proven:

one thing only is most well-known and most certain: that the ecclesiastical affairs of the provinces of the Spains were, as regards dogma, as regards morals, as regards discipline, so disturbed and undermined by that Priscillian plague, that even the bishops and the other ministers of the clerical order, departing from the rules of the holy Fathers, would follow whatever favoured their own inclinations. For there was among them so great a discord of minds and so dissimilar a manner of acting, that without any discrimination whatever they received the penitent, promoted to the greater sacred orders men bound by the marriage bond, or having concubines and begetting children; they took into ecclesiastical ministries bigamists and men addicted to secular military service, and slaves bound to their masters.

Some freely communicated with the sacrilegious and those smitten with anathema; others, withdrawing from their own Churches whence they had gone forth, were not compelled to return under the penalty of deposition. Others finally abused either the familiarity of consecrated maidens or the sacred synaxis; they joined to themselves in marriage the surviving wives of deceased bishops and presbyters, and slid into so many and so great other crimes of no less moment, that not only the sanctions of the canons through the abuse of the wicked, but even the very divine and apostolic precepts were going to ruin. But that concerning these same matters another council had been held a little before by the Lusitanians, the sequel of that former chapter or canon most evidently indicates to us.

「It has pleased us (say the Fathers of Toledo) that deacons, if they be not whole, or chaste, and of a continent life, even though they have wives, be established in the ministry; yet so, that if any, even before the interdict which was established by the Lusitanian bishops, have lived incontinently with their wives, they be not heaped with the honour of the presbyterate.」 But let us pass over the decrees or interdicts of this Lusitanian council. Its Acts are desired by the learned, nor could cardinal Aguirre, the most diligent collector of Spanish affairs, describe anything more explicitly concerning them. 5. Let us therefore expedite the other cause of that Council of Toledo.

Concerning it indeed the more celebrated writers have spoken, among whom Tillemont and Paschasius Quesnel hold a place; who especially cause trouble for us who now undertake to treat of the affair of bishop Symphosius, of Dictinius, and of other men of the clerical order, who, returning from the Priscillian heresy—Ambrose and the Roman pontiff dealing with the matter—were received into communion by the Fathers of the first Synod of Toledo. And first indeed, since we find that the whole knot of the controversy is situated in many things, that we may the more easily separate the doubtful from the certain and the false from the authentic, it is necessary that we set forth various matters beforehand.

First, namely, that Symphosius with eleven other bishops in the year of the Lord 381 subscribed to the Council of Caesaraugusta, and pronounced anathema against Priscillian and his dogmas, as is understood from the Acts of this council. Although in truth, if we say that only a single council was gathered at Caesaraugusta, it must be believed that he withdrew himself from the communion of those other Fathers, as we shall say in its place. Not then by that abominable plague could Symphosius as yet be undermined. Nor concerning this heresy, at least openly, was he impeached in the year of Christ 385, when namely Priscillian and his associates, by the decree of Maximus the tyrant, were punished either with the penalty of death or of exile. For Severus Sulpicius, who in book II of his History

describes the whole matter, gathered into a catalogue the names of the author of the heresy and of his associates, no mention at all being made of Symphosius. Which kind of argument, as drawn from the writer's silence, although in other matters weak and to be reckoned of little value, yet here obtains the greatest strength, lest we should think that Severus Sulpicius is to be impeached of the fault of carelessness or drowsiness. Would he have kept silent the name of this most celebrated bishop, who recounted the names of others of this sacred order, who noted the lapse of Iginus, or Idiginus, of Cordova after the Synod of Toledo, and who, for the full knowledge of these matters, expressly named even other men and women of the lowest common people?

From which that third point follows: namely, that not until after the killing of Priscillian, and the Ithacian schism now growing worse, and the affairs of the Spains being changed upon the death of Maximus the tyrant, did Symphosius break out into open heresy. Not therefore before the year of Christ 388 could Symphosius himself be reckoned a Priscillianist; for indeed he would not have escaped the due penalties of the body, which here and there throughout the provinces of Spain the tyranny, lust, and avarice of the imperial tribunes strictly exercised against the Priscillian offspring, even with the capital penalty being applied.

Lest therefore we should think that Symphosius escaped the inquisition of the imperial tribunes by a miracle, we must without doubt confess that he and his son Dictinius, while Maximus the tyrant was still surviving among the living, at least outwardly feigned the Catholic faith. But when they had understood that Maximus had died at Aquileia, Symphosius and Dictinius now shook off their preconceived fear of undergoing death, and began to teach openly, by words and writings, those Priscillian dogmas which perhaps hitherto they had pursued in secret, that they might propagate them more widely. 6. Concerning the works of Dictinius, moreover, among others Augustine too treats, in his book Against Lying to Consentius, in which everywhere, the Priscillianists being brought forward, he describes that book of Dictinius.

He describes it—whose name is 「The Balance」 (Libra)—for the reason that, twelve questions being handled, it is explained as by ounces; and (Dictinius, that is, is understood) he extolled it with such great praises that he testifies such a Balance, in which horrendous blasphemies are contained, to be more precious than many thousands of pounds of gold. In that book, then, Dictinius dogmatized: that in order to conceal religion, religious men ought to lie. And since the author contended that this kind of argument could be deduced from the Sacred Scriptures and from their examples, Augustine himself, that he might have regard to the sanctity and authority of the divine Scriptures, applied all the sinews of his lofty wisdom to refuting and destroying that book most injurious to Catholic piety.

But that Dictinius also published other treatises in defence and protection of the Priscillian heresy, our Leo, among others, asserts, as we ourselves shall say in its place. 7. Meanwhile, however, lest we depart too far from our proposed design, we most certainly judge that the open lapse of Symphosius and Dictinius is to be recalled to no earlier than the fifth or sixth year of Siricius's pontificate; and indeed, when their impiety had been recognized by the other bishops of Spain and Lusitania, and had been the more confirmed from the works of Dictinius, which were held in everyone's hands, the Catholics began to abstain from their communion, and, as I suppose, they were proscribed with anathema in some assembly of bishops.

But concerning a matter so obscure, of which the ancient writers kept deep silence, lest we should slip into divination, we altogether forbear to speak. But turning our discourse to the Chronicle of Idatius, we shall in few words explain when Symphosius and Dictinius returned to the communion of the Catholics. 8. Idatius therefore, the most accurate writer of Spanish affairs, asserts that under the pontificate of Anastasius a certain Council of Toledo was held, and that in it both Symphosius and Dictinius, and other bishops of the province of Gallaecia, abjured the Priscillian heresy, and, a profession of faith having been subscribed by their own hand, condemned it. In the Roman Church the 37th is held to be bishop Anastasius.

「In the province of Carthaginensis, in the city of Toledo, a synod of bishops is convened, in whose acts it is contained that Symphosius, and Dictinius, and others with them, the bishops of the province of Gallaecia, followers of Priscillian, condemn his most blasphemous heresy, together with its very author, by the subscription of their own profession.」 He adds moreover: 「Certain things also are established to be observed concerning the discipline of the Church, bishop Ortygius communicating in the same council, who had been ordained for Celenae. But, the Priscillianists working against him, having been driven out for the Catholic faith, he was in exile by their proceedings.」

One must indeed marvel that neither the older nor the more recent writers have taken notice of so celebrated a testimony, but that some of them, in regard to the causes of the council, in regard to its date, and in regard to its acts, have gone over into one opinion, and others into another. Nay, one's astonishment is increased by the fact that the champions of this or that opinion do not rest upon the same principles, since each of them either indulges his own particular pursuits, or, as though he employed guesswork, strays further than is right from the truth in a matter of no slight importance. For here I do not contend with Baronius or with the collectors of the councils;

I mean those who, expending their time and labour upon so vast a store of sacred records and upon the furniture of Christian learning, gathered together, arranged, and adorned all things, yet not in such a way that they could always survey the same materials with their own eyes and reduce them to the best rules of criticism. But our discourse rather touches and presses upon those who published commentaries either on Baronius or on the councils themselves. For Pagi, Severinus Bini, Cardinal Aguirre, Sirmond, Baluze, and other learned writers zealous for antiquity have determined the legitimate date of the Council of Toledo, yet have passed over in silence the other acts transacted there.

Then this same writer descends to examining the causes for which the council was convened, and fabricates much concerning Symphosius and Dictinius, when he appeals to the fifty-second and fifty-sixth letters of the divine Ambrose, in which not a single word is uttered either about the Priscillianists or about those two bishops. Gaetano Cenni undertook to illustrate the ecclesiastical history of the first eight centuries, and proposed to himself in particular to speak of the forms of ecclesiastical judgment observed in the Spanish Church.

But the learned man, having barely tasted those matters that pertain to the date of the Council of Toledo, passes over all the rest in utter silence, leaving to us and to others a most ample field, which the very cause of Dictinius and Symphosius had opened up to him—namely, that of both asserting and defending the authority of the pontifical Apostolic See. That in this he has by no means fallen short of the aim he set himself, those will surely judge who have run through the preface of the same Cenni.