Part 34

The first Author of this Sect was one _Mark_, a Native of _Memphis_ in _Egypt_, a famous Magician, and once a Follower of the Doctrine of the _Manichees_[N24.1]. From _Egypt_ he travelled into _Spain_, where he had for his Disciples a Woman of Quality named _Agapa_, _Elpidius_ the Rhetorician, and _Agagius_[N24.2]. _Priscillian_, of whom I shall speak hereafter, was the Disciple and Successor of the Two latter. _Jerom_ tells us, upon the Authority of _Irenæus_, whom he quotes, that _Mark_ passed from the Banks of the _Rhone_ into _Aquitaine_,and from thence into _Spain_[N24.3]; which made _Baronius_ write, that he first infected _Gaul_[N24.4]. But no such thing was ever affirmed by _Irenæus_; and besides, _Jerom_ confounds the Sect of the _Marcosians_ with that of the _Priscillianists_, and the Author of the former, who was contemporary with _Irenæus_, with the Author of the latter, who lived in the Fourth Century.

The _Priscillianists_ broached no new Doctrine, but formed a new Sect, by adopting every impious Opinion that had been broached by others; whence their Sect is styled by _Austin_, the common Sink of all other Heresies[N24.5]. By their external Behaviour, which was extremely modest and composed, they gained many Followers, whom, by degrees, they let into the Abominations of their Sect; for there was no Lewdness which they did not encourage and practise, rejecting Matrimony for no other Reason, but because it confined a Man to one Woman, and a Woman to one Man[N24.6]. They held it no Crime to speak contrary to what they thought and believed, and to confirm with an Oath what they said when they were talking to People of a different Persuasion. This was one of their favourite Maxims, which above all others they took care to inculcate to their Proselytes, often repeating to them, and among themselves, the famous Verse;

_Jura, perjura, secretum prodere noli._

_Swear, forswear, but never betray a Secret[N24.7]._

Hence it was no easy Matter to discover them; for they mixed with the Orthodox at Divine Service, received the Sacraments of the Church, and disowned, with the most solemn Oaths, the Doctrine which they had been heard by many to utter and teach[N24.8]. To this Sect _Priscillian_, who gave Name to it, was gained by the above-mentioned _Elpidius_ and _Agagius_. He was a Man of Birth and Fortune, being descended of an antient and illustrious Family in _Spain_, and is said to have been endowed with extraordinary Parts, and well versed in every Branch of Learning; so that many were induced by his Example to embrace the new Sect, and more by his Eloquence; for he had a particular Gift of speaking well, and gaining the Affections of all who heard him[N24.9]. Among his Followers were several Persons of the first Rank, both Men and Women, and even some Bishops, namely, _Vegetinus_, _Symphosius_, _Instantius_, and _Salvianus_, of whom the Two latter entered into an indissoluble League and Alliance with him[N24.10].

Footnote N24.1:

Sulp. l. 2. p. 170. Isid. Hisp. de Scrip. Eccles. c. 2.

Footnote N24.2:

Id. ib.

Footnote N24.3:

Hier. ep. 29.

Footnote N24.4:

Bar. ad ann. 381. n. 113, 114.

Footnote N24.5:

Aug. hær. 70. p. 13.

Footnote N24.6:

Id. ib. & Leo, ep. 93.

Footnote N24.7:

Aug. ib. ep. 253. & ad Con. c. 2.

Footnote N24.8:

Id. ib.

Footnote N24.9:

Sulp. l. 2. p. 170. Hier. in Isai. 64. p. 240.

Footnote N24.10:

Sulp. ib. p. 171. Concil. t. 1. p. 741.

[Sidenote: _They are honoured by their Followers as Saints and Martyrs._]

But these Severities served only to increase the Evil which they were employed to cure. The Bodies of _Priscillian_ and of those who had suffered with him, were conveyed by their Friends and Adherents into _Spain_, and there interred with great Pomp and Solemnity;[Sidenote: _Many embrace their Doctrine._] their Names were added to those of other Saints and Martyrs, their Firmness and Constancy extolled, and their Doctrine embraced by such Numbers of Proselytes, that it spread in a short time over all the Provinces between the _Pyrenees_ and the Ocean[1256]. _Symphosius_, Metropolitan of _Galicia_, whom, after the Death of _Priscillian_, they looked upon as the chief Man and Head of their Sect, took care to fill all the vacant Sees in that Province with Bishops of his own Communion. _Dictinius_, whom he raised among the rest to that Dignity, is supposed by St. _Austin_[1257] to have been the Author of a Book, famous in those Times, styled _Libra_, or, the _Pound_[N25]. [Sidenote: _Two of their leading Men renounce their Errors_;] However, both he and _Symphosius_ were afterwards convinced of their Errors; and, desiring thereupon to be reconciled with the Church, they undertook a Journey to _Milan_, in order to engage St. _Ambrose_, Bishop of that City, in their Favour. He received them with the greatest Marks of Kindness and Affection; and being satisfied with the Terms of Reconciliation, which they themselves proposed, and promised to observe, he writ in their Behalf to the Bishops of _Spain_, who, at his Request, admitted them to their Communion[1258][N26].

Footnote N25:

It was so called because it contained Twelve Questions, as the _Roman_ Pound did Twelve Ounces. In that Piece the Author endeavoured to prove, from the Practice of the Patriarchs, of the Prophets, Apostles, Angels, and of _Christ_ himself, that a Lye could be no Crime, when uttered to conceal our Religion[N25.1].

Footnote N25.1:

Id. ib. c. 2, & 18.

Footnote N26:

That these two Bishops should have applied to St. _Ambrose_, and not to _Syricius_, is what _Baronius_ cannot brook; and therefore to bring in, right or wrong, the Bishop of _Rome_, he quotes a Passage of the Council of _Toledo_, where the Fathers of that Assembly, speaking of the Letter which St. _Ambrose_ had written in favour of _Symphosius_ and _Dictinius_, adds the following Words in a Parenthesis; _Which Things were likewise suggested by Pope Syricius, of holy Memory_[N26.1]. But as these Words have no manner of Connection with the rest, it is manifest they have been foisted in on Purpose to bring _Syricius_ upon the Stage; and were we to admit them as genuine, we could only conclude from thence, that _Syricius_ too had written to the Bishops of _Spain_ in behalf of _Symphosius_ and _Dictinius_. _Baronius_ indeed goes a great way farther; for he infers from the above-mentioned Words, that St. _Ambrose_ acted by the Advice and Direction of _Syricius_; and from thence by a second Inference, which could occur to none but himself, that both _Ambrose_, and _Simplicius_, who succeeded him in the See of _Milan_, were the Pope’s Legates[N26.2]. It is by such far-fetched Inferences and Deductions that he endeavours, throughout his voluminous Performance, to mislead his unwary Readers into a Belief of the Pope’s Supremacy.

Footnote N26.1:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1230.

Footnote N26.2:

Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 54.

[Sidenote: _and are admitted to the Communion of the Church by the Council of_ Toledo.]

In the Year 438. of the _Spanish_, and 400. of the common Æra, a Council was held at _Toledo_; and, in the Presence of that Assembly, _Symphosius_, _Dictinius_, and _Comasus_, one of _Symphosius_’s Presbyters, solemnly abjured the Errors of _Priscillian_, anathematized the Doctrine, Sect, and Books of that Heretic, and readily signed the Confession of Faith which the Council had drawn up. Their Example was followed by Three other Bishops, _viz._ _Paternus_, _Isonius_, and _Vegetinus_, who were all admitted to the Communion of the Church, and even allowed to keep their Sees, though unduly preferred, _on Condition the Bishops of_ Rome _and_ Milan _should consent thereto, and restore them to the Peace of the Church_[1259]. From these Words, which are the very Words of the Council, it is manifest, first, that the Fathers, who composed that Assembly, were Strangers to the Bishop of _Rome_’s universal Jurisdiction; and, secondly, that the Bishop of _Milan_ did not act, as _Baronius_ pretends, on that Occasion as the Pope’s Legate. Their requiring the Approbation of the Bishop of _Milan_, besides that of the Bishop of _Rome_, sufficiently proves the one; and their requiring the Approbation of the Bishop of _Rome_, besides that of the Bishop of _Milan_, the other.

Four other Bishops, _viz._ _Herenius_, _Donatus_, _Acurius_, and _Æmilius_, could by no means be induced to follow the Example of _Symphosius_ and _Dictinius_; and were thereupon deposed by the Council, and cut off from the Communion of the Catholic Church. [Sidenote: _The Acts of that Council confirmed by St._ Ambrose _and_ Syricius.] The Bishops of _Rome_ and _Milan_ not only confirmed the Acts of the Council with respect to _Symphosius_ and _Dictinius_, but separated themselves from the Communion of the Bishops of _Bætica_ and the _Carthagenese_, who, thinking the Council had dealt too favourably with them, refused to admit them to their Communion[1260]. [Sidenote: Dictinius _honoured as a Saint_.] _Dictinius_ died in 420. and is now honoured in _Spain_ as a Saint, though it may be justly questioned whether he deserves that Honour. _Idatius_ the Chronologist who was a Native of _Spain_, and raised there to the Episcopal Dignity about the Year 428. mentions him without saying any thing in his Praise, or taking the least Notice of his being honoured then as a Saint. St. _Austin_ speaks doubtfully even of his Conversion[1261], and at the same time tells us, that his Book was highly esteemed by the _Priscillianists_, and his Memory no less revered; which, notwithstanding the eminent Sanctity ascribed to him by _Baronius_[1262], gives us room to suspect, that the Honour now paid him is owing to a Tradition handed down by the _Priscillianists_. [Sidenote: Priscillian _honoured as a Saint and a Martyr_.] For thus was _Priscillian_ himself once revered both as a Saint and a Martyr. Nay, the Author of the Notes on _Sulpitius Severus_ assures us, that he has seen his Name in some, not very antient, Martyrologies; and _Petrus de Natalibus_ has allowed, both to him, and to _Latronianus_, who suffered with him, a Place among the Martyrs of the Church, pretending to be countenanced therein by the Authority of _Jerom_[1263]. And truly it must be owned, that _Jerom_, in the Year 392. writ very favourably of _Priscillian_. _He was executed_, says he, _by the Faction of_ Ithacius, _being accused by some as if he had embraced the Heresy of the_ Gnostics; _but others maintained, that he held not the Doctrine and Tenets with which he was charged_[1264]. But being afterwards better informed, he styles him _an execrable Man_[1265], and condemns his Doctrine as an _infamous Heresy_, as a _Plague_ and _Contagion_, that cruelly ravaged most of the _Spanish_ Provinces[1266]. It is not therefore without Reason that the Church of _Rome_ now anathematizes, as an Heretic, the Man she once revered as a Saint. Such has been the Fate of many others, judged by _Baronius_ himself unworthy of the Worship that was paid them, and therefore set aside, when, by the Command of _Gregory_ XIII. he revised and corrected the _Roman Martyrology_. As for _Dictinius_, he has not yet been driven out of Heaven, though nobody can well tell how he came in. 'Tis true, both he and _Symphosius_ are styled _Bishops of holy Memory_, in the Abstract of the Council of _Toledo_, which is supposed to have been done about the Year 447. This is all _Baronius_ can plead in favour of his _eminent Sanctity_. A poor Charter indeed to hold a Place in Heaven by, and claim the Worship and Honours attending it! For the Author of that Abstract is utterly unknown; and, besides, he canonizes alike _Symphosius_ and _Dictinius_, styling them both Bishops of holy Memory. Why then should his Authority have so much Weight with respect to the one, and none at all in regard of the other? If we bar Prescription, which surely can have no room here, _Dictinius_ can have no more Right to keep the Place he has, than _Symphosius_ to claim the Place he has not. Nay, the latter would have a far better Right, were it true, that _Dictinius_ relapsed into the Errors he had abjured, and was on that Account deposed with several other Bishops of his Sect. This I read in an Author of great Note[1267]; but as he advances it upon the Authority of another, _viz._ of _Idatius_ the Chronologist, and the Passage he quotes is not to be found in that Writer, at least in the Editions I have perused, it would be both unjust and ungenerous to deprive _Dictinius_ of, or disturb him in, the Possession of his Saintship upon such an Evidence.

[Sidenote: _The Doctrine of the_ Priscillianists _takes deep Root in_ Spain.]

_Syricius_ and _Ambrose_, in Conjunction with the Catholic Bishops of _Spain_, alarmed at the wonderful Progress the Doctrine of _Priscillian_ had made in so short a Time, left nothing unattempted they could think of to put a Stop to the growing Evil. But all to no Purpose; in spite of their utmost Efforts, in defiance of the most severe Laws, that were enacted against them, especially by the Emperors _Honorius_, and _Theodosius_ the younger, their Numbers increased daily, and their Doctrine grew daily more popular; the Severities that were practised against them, serving only to recommend those to the Esteem and Veneration of the Multitude, who suffered them, as many did, with Patience and Constancy. As they held it lawful to conceal their real Sentiments from the Catholics, by disowning them with the most solemn Oaths; the Catholics suffered themselves to be led by a mistaken Zeal into the same Error, disowning, in like manner, their Sentiments, the better to discover those of their Adversaries. But this pernicious Practice of _defending Truth by destroying it, and opposing Lyes by Lying_, was fully and unanswerably confuted by _Austin_, in his Answer to _Consentius_, who had writ to him at Length upon that Subject[1268][N27].

Footnote N27:

The Doctrine of the Church of _Rome_, concerning Equivocations, mental Reservations, and the Lawfulness, or rather Obligation, of concealing, with the most solemn Oaths, what has been revealed under the Seal of Confession, has perhaps some Affinity with the Doctrine of the _Priscillianists_. What is only known under the Seal of Confession, say their Divines, is not known to Man, but to God alone, since it was not discovered to a Man, but to God represented by a Man, that is, to the Priest or Confessor; and therefore the Priest may, with a safe Conscience, affirm, even upon Oath, that he knows not what he thus knew. 'Tis by recurring to this Doctrine, that F. _Daniel Bartoli_, in his _History of_ England, or rather of the _Jesuits_ in _England_, endeavours to justify the Conduct of the _Jesuit Garnet_, in not discovering the _Gun-powder Plot_, to which he supposes him to have been privy: but as it was disclosed to him in Confession, or at least under the Seal of Confession, he had sinned grievously by discovering it, though by such a Discovery he might have saved a whole Nation from Destruction[N27.1]. So that the violating such a Seal is a far greater Evil than the Loss of so many Lives, than the utter Ruin of an intire Nation. A Doctrine evidently repugnant to the Dictates both of Reason and Humanity.

Footnote N27.1:

Bar. hist. d'Inghilterra.

The indefatigable Pains _Syricius_ took, together with the other Catholic Bishops, in suppressing the Heresy of the _Priscillianists_, proved quite unsuccessful, though seconded by the Secular Power, and the severest Laws that had yet been enacted against Heretics. Their Doctrine rather gained, than lost Ground; and we shall find them in the Sixth Century, that is, Two hundred Years hence, still a numerous Sect, and Councils assembling, to very little Purpose, against them. _Syricius_ was not so intent, as we are told, upon maintaining the Doctrine of the Church, as to neglect the Discipline. [Sidenote: _Council assembled by_ Syricius _at_ Rome.] In order to correct several Abuses, that had begun to prevail, and revive some antient Constitutions, that were grown out of Use, he convened a Council at _Rome_, which is said to have consisted of Eighty Bishops; and, with their Consent and Approbation, established the following Canons: 1. That no one should presume to ordain a Bishop, without the Knowlege of the _Apostolic See_. 2. That no Man should be admitted to the Ecclesiastical Order, who, after the Remission of his Sins, that is, perhaps, after his Baptism, had worn the Sword of worldly Warfare. 3. That no Clerk should marry a Widow. 4. That the _Novatians_ and _Montanists_, that is, _Donatists_, should be received into the Church by the Imposition of Hands; but that such as, abandoning the Catholic Faith, had been rebaptized by them, should not be re-admitted without performing a long Penance. 5. That the Priests and Deacons should live continent, being, by their Office, daily employed in the Divine Ministry[1269]. These Canons or Decrees, say the Roman Catholic Divines, are contained in a Letter, which _Syricius_ writ to the Bishops of _Africa_, and which was read, and received as a Law, by a Council held some Years after at _Tela_, in the Province of _Byzacene_, as appears from the Acts of that Council[1270]. _Ferrandus_, Deacon of _Carthage_, in his Abridgment of the Canons, done in the Sixth Century, often quotes the Letter of _Syricius_, and takes particular Notice of the Canons that were copied from it by the Council of _Tela_. The same Letter, together with the Acts of that Council, are to be found, Word for Word, in the antient Code of the Church of _Rome_. So that, upon the Whole, we cannot question, says _Baronius_, the Authenticity of that Piece, without rendering the Authority of every other Monument of Antiquity quite precarious, and leaving Men to their own wild and groundless Conjectures. But Men of Learning have, of late Years, been too much upon their Guard to admit, without the strictest Examination, any Piece, however authentic in Appearance, that seemed to countenance the extraordinary Power and Authority claimed by the Bishop of _Rome_. And not without Reason, since they well knew what Pains had been taken to banish Truth, by suppressing or adulterating the most authentic Records, and to establish Falshood, by substituting in their room fabulous Legends, spurious Letters, and Acts of Councils that never were held. As for the Letter ascribed to _Syricius_, it has been suspected ever since Criticism took place[1271], and lately rejected, as unquestionably supposititious, by F. _Quesnel_, who, in a learned Dissertation on that Subject, proves, in my Opinion, unanswerably, not only the Letter; but the Acts of the pretended Council of _Tela_, to have been forged, and inserted, in latter Times, into the Collection of _Ferrandus_, and the _Roman_ Code[1272][N28].

Footnote N28: