1. Having for a little while left Quesnel aside at these openings of our discussion, we have determined to bring forward certain other matters: namely, the Acts of the Council of Toledo, the sequence of the other things done in this same affair, and lastly that most grievous schism stirred up above all in the province of Galicia, after certain envious men — or men addicted with an untimely zeal to the preservation of ecclesiastical discipline — had learned that Symphosius, Dictinius, and other bishops and presbyters, once infected with the Priscillianist plague, had been received and absolved by the Fathers of Toledo.
And first, as concerns those Acts just mentioned: whoever casts his eyes upon them, in the form in which they have been published by the collectors of the councils, will judge that they are now preserved in a very mutilated and imperfect state — a thing which no one has hitherto observed. Let the following specimen, which we here subjoin, make this plain. Indeed, we suppose that no error has crept into the heading, unless perhaps that which is derived from the collectors, who call this the First Council of Toledo, whereas Patruinus in his own preface asserts that another was already held in that same place by these same nineteen bishops, as we have also noted in the foregoing pages.
For the rest, that this council was assembled under the pontificate of Anastasius, while Honorius and Arcadius were reigning — namely, when Stilicho was first proclaimed consul — Idatius has clearly indicated in his Chronicle, in the 294th Olympiad. This heading is then followed by the titles of the chapters, which contain only a brief summary of those things that were there enacted for the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline. But here an error has already crept in; for the aforesaid titles, marked also with Roman numerals, indicate that twenty-one chapters were confirmed; yet the last, which was «On the rules of the Catholic faith against the Priscillianists», is altogether wanting.
To these titles of the chapters is subjoined the preface of the council, in which are first described the names of those nineteen bishops assembling in the Church of Toledo, yet with no mention made of the Churches over which they presided. But when these had been faithfully described, Patruinus, bishop of Mérida, chosen president of that assembly, delivered a grave and brief address, in which he complained that ecclesiastical discipline had gone utterly to ruin in the provinces of Spain, and that the scandals of the clergy had so multiplied that a most grievous schism had broken out. Desiring to apply a remedy to these evils, Patruinus asked that it be defined by the common council what all the bishops ought to follow in ordaining clergy.
Then he himself, before all others, as president, burst forth into this opinion: «It pleases me that the things first established by the Council of Nicaea are to be kept forever, and that there is to be no departing from them.» To this opinion of Patruinus the other bishops assented to a man, judging moreover that those who dared to do otherwise than what was decreed should be visited with the penalty of anathema. 2. That preface, however, contains nothing beyond these things; and it is then followed by only twenty chapters, as we have said, or canons, most fitly suited to the affairs of those times — namely, both to purge the plague of evils growing more widespread day by day, and to bar its approach, lest it should creep more broadly and undermine the Churches and Catholics still unharmed.
But since the subscriptions of the bishops immediately follow the twentieth chapter, which is on the chrism to be prepared by the bishop alone, it must therefore be grievously lamented that the second portion of the Toledan proceedings has either perished, or at least has been torn from its original place, so that those things which pertain to the Priscillianist history we do not now possess whole, complete, and just as they were arranged by the Fathers. Now a loss of this kind could be repaired only in part from the Acts of another council, whose Fathers, after Symphosius had departed this life,
and Dictinius and the others who were being called to account concerning the Priscillianist heresy, meeting perchance at the city of Toledo, resolved solemnly among themselves that they would judge nothing rashly or with headlong mind concerning the past heresy and schism, but would trace the deeds of the Priscillianists further back and learn all things that had already occurred in that affair. On this occasion, therefore, they ordered that the definitions of the preceding synod of Toledo be excerpted from the full proceedings, and they gave command that these same be publicly recited, so that they might become known to that whole new assembly.
But in what year or on what occasion copies of proceedings of this kind, torn from their proper places, were recited in another and later council, cannot be determined with certainty, since the extant records of the Church do not disclose it. This much, at least, is beyond all hazard of doubt: that the excerpts were torn from the genuine Acts at a time when Symphosius and Dictinius the bishops, and Comasius the presbyter, had already passed from this light. This is sufficiently indicated by the following words of the later council: «After the council already held on the Kalends
on the third day before the Nones of September, after the various examinations then held, on the eighth day before the Ides of September there were excerpted from the full proceedings the professions of lord Symphosius and of lord Dictinius, bishops of holy memory, and of lord Comasius, of holy memory, then presbyter, which among others they made in the Council of Toledo concerning the condemnation of Priscillian and his sect.» Who, then, would persuade himself that those bishops and that presbyter would have been called «of holy memory» in the council, if they were still then surviving?
For neither the life nor the death of bishops could be unknown to their fellow-provincial bishops, or to the metropolitans or those of the nation; and therefore it must be believed that they had closed their final day when copies of professions of this kind were torn out and publicly recited in a council far later. 3. But Quesnel suspected that a fabrication lurked behind the copies of these documents, and we do not judge Étienne Baluze to be free from this same suspicion. Yet whence conjectures of fabrication can or ought to be drawn, no one has sufficiently indicated. For Quesnel, who in his notes to Letter 158
of Leo brought forward certain marks of the supposititiousness of those professions — wandered from the right aim of his reasoning and devised many things false and feeble. Of such a kind indeed is that first argument by which he objects that Symphosius and Dictinius are called «bishops of holy memory»; and if this were otherwise tolerable, yet in that profession by which they abjure their heresy it seems absurd. Are you so scrupulous, Quesnel, that when men once besmirched with the heretical stain afterwards turn penitent, abjure each of their errors, and, reconciled with the Church, at last fall asleep in peace, you should reckon it a sacrilege for them to be called men «of holy memory»?
Truly, the whole history of Christian affairs, the sacred diptychs, and the ancient records of the Churches would collapse, would go to ruin, and would have to be reckoned as teeming with fabrications. For in antiquity, just as now, that manner of speaking was employed to signify the ecclesiastical peace and communion in which those had died who have already departed from this light; nor were such men defrauded of the words «of holy memory» on account of the heresy or schism into which they had fallen, provided they died penitent and, being absolved before the end of life, were restored to their former communion. Nay rather, men of this kind, after obtaining the sacrament of reconciliation, were held in such honor that their names were offered to God at the altar, as is established from canon
29 of the Council of Elvira, in which it was decreed that the names of the possessed should not be recited in the sacred mysteries; or from canon 19 of the Council of Mérida, in which it is enjoined upon priests: «On each of the Lord's days let sacrifice be offered to God, and let the names of those by whom it is established that these Churches were built, or who are seen — or were seen — to have contributed something to these holy Churches, if they are living in the body, be recited before the altar at the time of the Mass; but if they have departed, or shall depart, this light, let their names be recited with the faithful departed in their due order.»
再者，這些名字的誦讀乃是公教共融之證據，此點由阿爾巴斯皮諾（Albaspinaeus）與費爾迪南多·德·門多薩（Ferdinand de Mendoza）在其對厄爾維拉會議的註釋與觀察中已博學地予以證明。四、但奎奈爾補充說，「聖善之記憶」這幾個字，縱使被認為尚可容忍，在他們藉以棄絕異端的那份認信中卻顯得荒謬。然而讀者啊，我懇求你在此留意我們的註釋者奎奈爾這一極其嚴重的疏忽昏睡之失，並與我們一同認真通讀在托雷多會議上為駁斥普里西利安宗派而刊行的那些認信副本，同時細加權衡那些關乎後次會議之事。
Moreover, that the recitation of these names was a proof of Catholic communion is learnedly demonstrated by Albaspinaeus and Ferdinand de Mendoza in their notes and observations on the Council of Elvira. 4. But Quesnel adds that the words «of holy memory», even if they be reckoned tolerable, seem absurd in that profession by which they abjure their heresy. Yet here, reader, I beg you, mark this most grievous lapse of the drowsiness of our annotator Quesnel, and run through seriously with us the copy of those professions which were published in the Council of Toledo against Priscillian's sect, and at the same time weigh well the things that pertain to the later council.
For the whole opening of that copy pertains to the Fathers of the later council, who, led by zeal for inquiring into the truth, say that they consulted the Acts of the synod of Toledo, and ordered to be excerpted from the full proceedings the professions of lord Symphosius and of lord Dictinius, bishops of holy memory. And so those two words are set altogether outside the professions, and were employed by the notaries of the later council, as by the Fathers, solely to signify that ecclesiastical peace and communion in which Symphosius and Dictinius had died. Moreover, let not Quesnel persuade himself that the notaries of this council transferred those professions here in their entirety, just as they were, from the autograph. That many things were passed over by them is sufficiently indicated by these words:
«After some things.... at the same time.... Dictinius the bishop said: Hear me.» From this it is gathered that from the full proceedings of the synod of Toledo they selected only those things which were said, both by Dictinius and Symphosius and by Comasius, for the attestation of the crimes and the execration of them. Since, therefore, the profession begins with these words: «Hear me, most excellent priests», there is no reason why Quesnel should charge it with fabrication, since all the preceding words (among which are these two, «of holy memory») ought to be ascribed to the notary, as will be plain to those who read. 5. Now, however, let us further weigh that other argument of fabrication which Quesnel adduces in the second place.
«Next» (he says) «he barely touched the errors of Priscillian and his followers, speaking only of the unbegottenness of the Son, and of two principles, and of the consubstantiality of the soul with the Father, which opinions they so condemn as to seem to be casting a smokescreen and reserving to themselves the faculty of explaining their own professions.» And that he might add strength and authority to this conjecture, he appeals to St. Leo, from whose words he intends to prove the fabrication of the profession. «For thirdly» (thus he immediately subjoins) «it is plain from St. Leo's chapter that they had in some sense called the Son begotten. From the fifth, that they had not contended in express words that the nature of God and man is one — which alone Dictinius reprehends in himself in that profession.»
On these things, therefore, and on other like arguments the learned critic insists, in order to lead the reader into bad faith — namely, to believe that all those professions were fraudulently fabricated. Thus indeed Quesnel reasons. But shall we suppose all these things to be so? Or rather ought we to fear that this over-subtle fellow was able, too licentiously, to devise certain fables, since he was inquiring too anxiously into the frauds and fabrications of others? That he shamefully went astray is shown by those first words: «Next he barely touched the errors of Priscillian and his followers.» For what then? Ought they perchance to have touched upon and confessed errors into which they had never fallen?
For the very document of which we treat does not contain a profession of faith made by the penitent bishops and presbyters in the Council of Toledo, but only a confession and abjuration of their crimes. In it, moreover, they had to express only those of Priscillian's errors to which they had adhered, and then to pronounce anathema upon Priscillian the author and upon his other blasphemies. Since, therefore, out of Priscillian's dogmas they had dared to profess these: that God is unbegotten, that the substance of God and man is one, or that there are two principles, it was therefore needful to confess and to execrate expressly only these, without making themselves guilty of those crimes which they had never committed. 6.
That that document contains a confession and abjuration of crimes, by no means a profession of faith, is disclosed by those words into which, first of all, Dictinius, doing penance, burst forth: «Hear me, most excellent priests, correct all things, for correction has been given you. For it is written: To you have been given the keys of the kingdom of heaven; but I ask of you that the keys of the kingdom, not the gates of hell, be opened to us.» Who will deny that these are the words of a man humbly doing penance, earnestly imploring pardon and absolution? After this, moreover, he discloses his crimes one by one: «These, if you deign, I set all before your eyes. This I reprehend in myself, that I said», etc. And by like reasoning he also retracted all that he had written, adding:
«But I also arraign and condemn all presumption of mine concerning my writings.» And, an oath being interposed, Dictinius professes that he spits out all things with his whole heart, and he condemned what he had written against the faith. These things, therefore, considered in themselves, savor of no supposititiousness, fraud, or fabrication — especially since those penitents, presenting themselves before the synod, recited from a written page the profession of faith received from those Fathers, and, anathema having been pronounced upon all the books and dogmas of the heretics, and of Priscillian above all, were absolved and received into communion, as we gather from the copy of the definitive sentence. 7. It is moreover most false that they wished to cast a smokescreen, or reserved to themselves the faculty of explaining their own professions.
Whence does the annotator conjecture this? The contrary is indeed intimated by these and similar words spoken to the Fathers of the council: «I arraign and condemn all presumption of mine concerning my writings.» Or those others: «God is my witness»; or these: «Whatever I have written, all of it I spit out with my whole heart; excepting the name of God, I anathematize all things; all that is found against the faith, together with its very author, I condemn.»
因此，那裡所論及的那些悔改者，並不像奎奈爾本人及其黨徒那樣狡猾滑溜——後者在我們這時代被傳召至宗座的審判並被定罪，卻仍屢屢過於大膽地違背一切公理而如此行——以致他們想要放煙幕、或為自己保留解釋違背信德之言的餘地。我們的註釋者奎奈爾終於精采地胡扯了一番：他訴諸聖大良（St. Leo the Great）的言論，援引之彷彿在為那偽造的認信作證。普里西利安派主張天主絕對是非受生的，並以聖良為證。「因為那成了肉身的道」（聖師良說），
Not so crafty and slippery, therefore, were those penitents of whom the discourse there treats, that they wished to cast a smokescreen, or reserved to themselves the faculty of explaining things uttered against the faith — as in this our age Quesnel himself and his followers, summoned to the judgment of the Apostolic See and condemned, have very often attempted, all too boldly, against all right. Splendidly at last has our annotator Quesnel trifled, when, appealing to the sayings of St. Leo the Great, he adduced them as if in testimony of that fabricated profession. That God is absolutely unbegotten, the Priscillianists asserted, Leo being their witness. «Because the Word made flesh» (says the
doctor) «they do not truly honor, but feign that they honor, fasting on the same day, just as also on the Lord's day, which is the day of Christ's Resurrection; and this indeed they do because they do not believe that Christ the Lord was born in the true nature of man, but by a certain illusion they wish those things to seem displayed which were not true.» And that in express words the Priscillianists contended that the substance and nature of God and man is one, St. Leo himself taught in chapter 5, saying: «In the fifth chapter it is reported that the soul of man is of divine substance, and that the nature of our condition is not distant from the nature of its Creator.»
When I had diligently observed these two things, I was easily led into this persuasion: either that Quesnel indulged his own studies too confidently, or that, in editing St. Leo's Works, he always so drowsily passed over these matters — as we have very often made plain in these dissertations of ours.