When Quesnel observed so great a diversity, he judged that it could serve his own studies and his own party. And therefore now he adjudges it to Leo, from whose Roman codex of canons he suspects it was torn away; now he attempts to conjecture that it must be ascribed to Augustine—as though (he says) at some time either he sent it to the bishops of the Spains, or it was carried off from Africa by Leo, when the latter, while still an acolyte, brought Zosimus's decree against the Pelagians, and so forth. Shall we suppose that Quesnel reasons rightly and wisely in this place and in those that follow? That both suppositions are frivolous and without foundation Harduin long ago noted.
But that this Parisian editor of Leo's Works wished, according to his custom, to fabricate and to trifle, those will clearly understand who cast their eyes both upon the profession of faith and upon those eighteen anathematisms subjoined to it. For who will flatter himself that this rule of faith, together with the subjoined anathematisms, had already long been composed and woven together before all the errors of the Priscillianists, their devices, and the sources from which these flowed, were more fully made known?—if we imagine that this profession of faith was inserted into the codex of the Roman canons before the bishops of Tarraconensis, Carthaginensis, Lusitania and Baetica had assembled, or before Turribius consulted the Apostolic See, and the holy…
…pontiff answered the consultations—that Augustine, or anyone else, published it: let Quesnel, pray, say, could it have lain hidden from Turribius and from Leo? To suspect this is by no means permissible. For both had to be well-informed about the things done in the Church, and above all the Roman pontiff would have known it, if he had either carried off that document with himself from Africa to Rome, or if his predecessors, or even he himself, had inserted it into the codex of the Roman canons. Why then did the holy pontiff never appeal to this profession of faith? Why does he not, one by one, set the subjoined anathematisms against the articles of the Priscillianists?
Why, finally, did Turribius himself consult the Apostolic See, if the bishops of the Spains had already long since received the token of faith from Augustine? This therefore is my conviction: namely, that Quesnel trifled altogether cunningly in adjudging that profession of faith to Augustine. For the bishops of Tarraconensis and the rest of the Fathers who assembled in council, had they borrowed it from his Works, would not have kept silent his name; nay, they would not even have omitted to indicate the canons and statutes of the Roman and Apostolic See, if they had taken the rule of faith from that codex. And yet in that heading nothing other than the name of Leo is found to be read: for it has:
「Here begins the rule of the Catholic faith against all heresies, and most especially against the Priscillianists, which the bishops of Tarraconensis…composed, and by the command of Leo, the pope of the city of Rome, transmitted to Balconius, bishop of Gallicia.」 5. Nor is it permissible to charge the copyist with error or negligence; for the Fathers of the Council of Braga, in the year of Christ 563, sincerely acknowledged this, when, namely, Lucretius, the bishop presiding over that sacred assembly, addressing the other bishops, appeals to the Synod of Toledo held in the age and by the command of Leo, in which, composing a rule of faith against the Priscillianist heresy together with certain chapters, they directed it to Balconius, then prelate of the Church of Braga.
Therefore, if the bishops of Tarraconensis, Carthaginensis, Lusitania and Baetica in the year of Christ 447 composed that profession of faith together with the subjoined anathematisms, or chapters, then it could not have come to light through the labor of Augustine, since the holy bishop had already closed his last day at his see of Hippo in the year 430. If, finally, those Fathers had borrowed it from the Works of Augustine, or from the collection of the Roman canons, Lucretius would by no means have said, 「composing a rule of faith against the Priscillianist heresy together with certain chapters,」 but rather, using another familiar form of speech, he would have said, 「Either the profession of faith was recited;」
「or they read the profession of faith from a codex, together with the subjoined chapters, or had it transcribed.」 But those who have run through the Acts and histories of the councils know full well that we by no means dwell upon slight guesses. Yet this too Quesnel would have known, had he not, drawn overmuch by the interests of his own studies, neglected to unroll or to understand the acts of that same Council of Braga to which he appeals. Did not the same bishop Lucretius, after those words praised by us and transcribed by Quesnel himself, immediately subjoin these other words? 「Wherefore, since we have here at hand the very copy of the prescribed faith with its chapters, for the instruction of the ignorant, if it please your reverences, let it be recited.」
But then all the bishops said: 「Very necessary is the reading of those chapters.」 Nor do they adduce any other reason than this: that the simpler folk—to whom, namely, the ancient statutes of the holy Fathers were being laid open—might come to know the fabrications of the Priscillianist heresy, long since abhorred and condemned by the See of the most blessed apostle Peter. But whether these things cut Quesnel's throat, let the reader, I pray, take note. Those ancient statutes of the holy Fathers, by which the monstrosities of the Priscillianist heresy were condemned, are indeed attributed to the Apostolic See of the most blessed Peter. Not therefore is Augustine to be called the author of that profession of faith and of those chapters;
for he, although illustrious by merits, labors, and honors, when ever did he attain the apostolic throne of Peter? 4. Nor, next, does that so great diversity in the number of the anathematisms, so much sung of by Quesnel, cast darkness over this truth. For, in the first place, the manuscript copies from which chiefly that diversity is drawn were sometimes corrupted, or enlarged, by the carelessness and negligence of copyists; or because, other causes arising, the Fathers themselves, appealing to the preceding statutes of the Church, brought forward into the midst only those things which seemed to pertain to the new questions stirred up; or else they added other things which they judged to accord better with the matters they were treating.
What wonder therefore if sometimes, in unrolling the writings of the ancients, one and the same document should meet us, now interpolated and diminished, now indeed more prolix and enlarged? For in matters of this kind, which depend upon the will of writers and users, unless their intention becomes known, it cannot without difficulty be judged, especially when the autograph copies are lacking. 5. In this business, however, I think that not much labor had to be spent by Quesnel. For the same Fathers of the aforesaid Council of Braga had at hand, contained in a genuine codex, the Acts of those who had taken part in the Synod of Toledo convoked in the year 447.
For that reason, once the copy of the faith with its subjoined chapters had been read, they deemed it necessary, after 116 years, to set forth those same chapters more simply and more evidently, so that it might be made known even to the less learned what things had once been condemned, under the sentence of anathema, from the dogmas of Priscillian by the apostolic See of the divine Peter. Although (say the Fathers of Braga) the reading of these chapters has been reckoned necessary, nevertheless let those things which are execrable be now more evidently and simply declared—the chapters being thus prefixed—so that he who is less learned may understand, and so that under the sentence of anathema the fabrications of Priscillian's error, long since exploded, may be condemned, and so forth.
We therefore ought to congratulate ourselves that those Fathers revised those same chapters; for they prepared for us a broad and open way, so that we might more surely arrive at our knowledge of how many and what sort of anathematisms the Fathers of Tarraconensis, Carthaginensis, Lusitania and Baetica published in the year 447, by the command of Leo the Great, for utterly extinguishing the noxious poison of the Priscillianist heresy. Moreover these anathematisms, if we cast our eyes upon them, correspond entirely to Leo's letter to Turribius. It cannot therefore come about that, led by any reasonable foundation, we should either adjudge them to Augustine alone, or fabricate that they were entered into the codex of the Roman canons before St. Leo.
In this matter, lest among the admirers of Quesnel we be brought under suspicion of invention or falsehood, it is needful for us to relate the reason why those Fathers of Braga revised those very same chapters and wished to explain them more clearly: 「That whatever cleric or monk or layman shall have been detected still holding or defending any such thing (understand: with Priscillian) shall, like a truly rotten member, be forthwith cut off from the body of the Catholic Church, lest either by fellowship or by the stain of his depravity any reproach against right believers be reckoned as orthodox on account of the toleration of such persons.」 And a judgment of this kind, approved by bishop Lucretius—
which the Fathers of that council approved, contained the chapters formerly established against the Priscillianist heresy, as the following words seem to indicate: 「The chapters set forth against the Priscillianist heresy, and re-read, are contained herewith.」
But since seventeen anathematisms immediately follow that heading—anathematisms which, as we have said, both answer excellently to the consultations of Turribius and accord entirely with the responses of Leo, as their reading makes sufficiently plain—for that reason I judge it placed beyond every hazard of doubt that the Fathers of Tarraconensis, together with the bishops of the other three provinces of Spain, wishing to obey the commands of Leo, then for the first time, namely in the year 447, published and promulgated both the rule of faith and the anathematisms of which we treat. If Quesnel deny this, he will need to affirm one or the other of two things:
namely, either that Turribius's consultations to the Apostolic See had already, before Leo's pontificate, been discussed and settled, or that the letter to Turribius is to be adjudged to some other Roman pontiff than Leo—two things which savor of nothing but pure and unmixed fabrications. 6. Now indeed it behooves us to forestall and to snatch away the refuge which Quesnel had prepared for himself: that refuge, namely, which he supposed was supplied to him from the heading of that profession of faith, which the collectors of the Councils exhibited as stitched, together with eighteen anathematisms, to the First Council of Toledo. For it is read: 「Here begins the rule of the Catholic faith against all heresies, and most especially against the Priscillianists, which the bishops of Tarraconensis, etc.」
If, then, this profession of faith unbinds and rejects all heresies, it did not first come forth at that time when those bishops of the Spains assembled into one. It will therefore be permissible rather to infer that these Fathers of Spain transferred it to their own use, because they knew it fitted marvelously against the Priscillianists. Thus indeed could he prate who adjudges this document to Augustine, or who has fabricated that it was borrowed from the Roman codex of canons published before Leo. But that such a one labors under the greatest ignorance chiefly of ecclesiastical history and of Leo's Works, would be a proof. For what did this holy pontiff preach and write concerning this Priscillianist heresy?
Did he not himself write that this heresy was derived from the sources and authors of all the preceding heresies, so that in his responses to Turribius he clearly shows that the Priscillianists had admitted and championed the errors of the Gnostics, of Cerdo, of Photinus, of Apollinaris, of Sabellius, of the Patripassians, of Arius, of Manichaeus, and of other wicked men? The bishops of the Spains, therefore, if they desired to follow Leo's doctrine and letter, had to use these words: 「against all heresies, and most especially against the Priscillianists.」 For the holy pontiff, in various places, but chiefly in the opening of his letter to Turribius, discoursing of this heresy, writes:
「For there is nothing of the filth in the perceptions of any of the impious whatsoever that has not flowed together into this dogma; since out of every mire of earthly opinions they have mingled for themselves a manifold sediment, so that they alone (the Priscillianists, that is) might drink down whole whatever the others had tasted only in part.」 But to these words he immediately subjoined these others also, which serve our purpose marvelously: 「In short, if all the heresies which arose before Priscillian's time be more diligently reviewed, hardly any error is found from which this impiety has not drawn contagion.」 Nor indeed let anyone flatter himself that the holy pontiff wished to indicate these things only in a general way.
For since in those same consultations and questions of Turribius there occurred to him occasion, one by one he designates the sources and authors whence he had derived the errors which he refutes in the seventeen, or in the eighteen, chapters of his letter. This mode of proceeding both the bishops of the Spains who assembled at that council, and the Fathers of Braga—who, as we have seen, handled anew the aforesaid heads of the heresy—imitated excellently. And concerning the Fathers of Braga, Quesnel sincerely acknowledged this, who moreover, in his notes on the fifteenth letter, remarks that the anathematisms, or chapters, of this council were published according to the norm of the responses which our Leo once directed to Turribius.
Moreover he recognized that they have so great an affinity between themselves that he wrote: 「For there is scarcely a word that the Fathers have not borrowed from Leo, nor any chapters of Leo which they have not comprised in their own. The first five articles of the council correspond to Leo's first five chapters; the others agree entirely with the others, though neither the same order nor the same number be preserved.」 But who does not see that here Quesnel cuts his own throat with his own sword? For he confesses along with us that the Fathers of Braga fashioned their chapters and anathematisms from the opinions and words of Leo. And the aforesaid Fathers of Braga say that they followed up the chapters long since published and composed in the council of Spain by the Fathers of Tarraconensis and Carthaginensis.
Therefore the Fathers of both councils, adhering to the instructions and definitions of the Apostolic See, published and composed entirely the same chapters. There is no need, therefore, that we should adjudge that profession of faith with the subjoined chapters either to Augustine, or to an uncertain author of the Roman canons. 7. But that that profession of faith is not free of every blemish, both Quesnel and Harduin contend. For they judge that it is now exhibited fuller than it once first came to light from its authors; since, namely, mention is made of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (Filioque)—words which no one can doubt betray a later hand.
That I might indeed grant this soundly, weighing with myself thereupon one by one the dissensions which, by reason of the Photian schism, befell between the Catholic Romans and the Greeks in the eighth century of the Church and those following. But that I might not subscribe to the censures of the two critics, not only the readings of Leo's Works, but also the antiquity of the manuscripts against which we have tested the copies of that same holy pontiff's Works, hinder and forbid it. For, as I inquire concerning this dogma from Leo's writings, various testimonies present themselves to me which resolve the question afterwards stirred up. And among these I am persuaded that the chief place is held by those things which he wrote against the Priscillianist heresy of which we treat.
For, describing to Turribius and to the other bishops of Gallicia and of the Spains what things are to be believed concerning the mystery of the Trinity, without any wrapping or ambiguity of words at all, he taught and defined that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Thus in the first chapter it is shown how impiously they think concerning the divine Trinity who assert that of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit there is one and the same Person—as though the same God should now be named the Father, now the Son, now the Holy Spirit; nor should there be one who begot, another who was begotten, another who proceeded from both. But that this passage not only signifies, but also expresses, the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I judge that no one can deny.
For since he affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, His procession must be equally derived from the Father and the Son. Thus indeed, moved by this testimony of Leo, Theodulph reasoned in his book on the Holy Spirit, who, in place of the past-tense word 「proceeded,」 used this other of the present tense, namely 「proceeds.」 Moreover those words did not in the least smell of a later hand to theologians of more distinguished mark, who, in order to prove against the Greeks the perpetuity of this dogma in the Church, appeal not only to the testimony of Leo, but also to that profession of faith which the Fathers adjudged to the First Council of Toledo.
220:105
Verumenimverndogma 268 istudprocessionisSprtussanctiaPatreeiFiliojaminRomanaEcclesiasalisprovulgalumfuisse, produntduoaliaS. pontificistestimonia, sermonibusdePentecosteexpressa, quæhiciudicassesufficiat. Dequibusaliquadicemusinnotisadeosdemsermones, quosnoVistypissequentitomoadornabimus. C
But in very truth, that this dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son had already been sufficiently promulgated in the Roman Church, two other testimonies of the holy pontiff, expressed in his sermons on Pentecost, make manifest—which here it will suffice to have indicated. Concerning these we shall say something in the notes to those same sermons, which we shall furnish with new type in the following volume.