Chapter M: Aurelius, Eleutherius, Commodus (12)

The Jesuit _Papebrok_ highly extols this Letter[N21.1], but, at the
same time, does not think it quite pure and genuine, because the Date,
says he, has been added to it; for the other Letters of _Syricius_,
and likewise those of his Predecessors, bear no Date. But can we
conclude from thence, that they never had any? Some of the Letters of
_Innocent_ I. are dated, and some without a Date, and he admits both.
The Transcribers contented themselves, for the most part, with copying
the Body of the Letter, and neglected the rest. _Papebrok_ adds, that
the Date ought to have been expressed thus: _Arcadio Aug. et Bautone
viro clar. Conss._ and not _Arcadio et Bautone viris clarissimis_, as
it is in that Letter. But might not this Mistake be owing to the
Ignorance of the Transcribers, who, finding, in the Original, only the
Two Letters, _V. C._ which are to be met with in many antient
Writings, set down _viris clarissimis_, instead of _viro clarissimo_?
_Papebrok_ must have observed the same Mistake in the Letter, which
Pope _Innocent_ I. writ to the Council of _Milevum_[N21.2], and which
he allows to be altogether genuine. For Slips or Oversights of this
Nature, hardly avoidable, no Piece ought to be condemned, or even
suspected.

Footnote N21.1:

Bolland. prop. p. 58.

Footnote N21.2:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1289.

-----

[Sidenote: _The Celibacy of the Clergy first proposed in the Council of_ Elvira.]

As Priests and Deacons are commanded, by the Seventh Article of this Letter, to abstain from Marriage, and this is the first Opportunity that has offered of mentioning the Celibacy of the Clergy, a short Digression on such a material Point of Discipline in the Church may not, perhaps, be unacceptable to the Reader. The laying of this heavy Burdens on the Shoulders of the Clergy, a Burden too heavy for most of them to bear, as Experience has shewn, was first moved in the Council of _Elvira_, held about the Year 300. according to the most probable Opinion; and, being warmly promoted by the celebrated _Osius_ of _Cordoua_, and _Felix_ of _Acci_, now _Guadix_ in _Andalusia_, who presided at that Assembly, it passed into a Law; and all Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, were commanded, on Pain of Deposition; _to abstain from Wives; and the begetting of Children_. These are the very Words of the 33d Canon of that Council[1238]. That, till this time, the Clergy were allowed to marry, even in _Spain_, is manifest from the 65th Canon of the same Council, excluding from the Communion of the Church, even at the Point of Death, such Ecclesiastics, as, knowing their Wives to be guilty of Adultery, should not, upon the first Notice of their Crime, immediately turn them out of Doors[1239]. How long the 33d Canon continued in Vigour, is uncertain; nay, it may be questioned whether it ever took place: if it ever did, it was out of Date, or at least not generally observed by the _Spanish_ Clergy, in the Time of _Syricius_, as evidently appears from the Words of his Letter, or Answer to _Himerius_ of _Tarragon_. I said, by the _Spanish_ Clergy, for no such Injunction had yet been laid on the Ecclesiastics of any other Country or Nation. About Fifteen Years after, was held the Council of _Ancyra_, in which it was decreed, That _if any Deacon did not declare at his Ordination, that he designed to marry, he ought not to be allowed to marry after but might, if he made such a Declaration, because, in that Case, the Bishop tacitly consented to it_. The Council of _Neocæfarea_, which assembled soon after that of _Ancyra_, and consisted, in great Part, of the same Bishops, commanded _such Presbyters as married after their Ordination to be degraded_. In the Year 325. was held the Council of _Nice_; and, in that great Assembly, it was moved, perhaps by _Osius_, who acted a chief Part there, that Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, should be debarred from all Commerce with the Wives they had married before their Ordination. But this Motion was warmly opposed by _Paphnutius_, who had himself ever led a chaste and single Life, and was one of the most eminent and illustrious Prelates, at that time, in the Church. He represented, that the Burden they proposed laying on the Clergy, was too heavy; that few had sufficient Strength to bear it; that the Women, thus abandoned by their Husbands, would be exposed to great Dangers; that Marriage was no Pollution, but, according to St. _Paul_, commendable; that those therefore, who were not married, when first admitted to the Sacerdotal Functions, should continue in that State; and such as were, should continue to live with their Wives. Thus _Sozomen_[1240], _Socrates_[1241], and _Suidas_[1242][N22].

-----

Footnote N22:

I am not unapprised, that this Account is rejected by
_Baronius_[N22.1], and _Bellarmine_[N22.2], as fabulous; but,
notwithstanding the Pains they have both taken to make it appear
incredible, _F. Lupus_ allows it to be true[N22.3], though a no less
zealous Stickler for the Discipline of the Church of _Rome_ than
either of them. _Ruffinus_, I own, takes no Notice of this
Transaction, as _Valesius_ well observes. But has no true Transaction
been, either wilfully or ignorantly, omitted by that Writer?
_Valesius_ well knows, that many have; and had he perused that Author
with a little more Attention, he would not have so positively
affirmed, that no one ever named _Paphnutius_ among the Bishops of
_Egypt_, who assisted at the Council of _Nice_, since he is named
among them by _Ruffinus_, and with great Commendations[N22.4].

Footnote N22.1:

Bar. ad ann. 58. n. 21.

Footnote N22.2:

Bell. de cler. l. 1. c. 20.

Footnote N22.3:

Lup. in can. p. 114.

Footnote N22.4:

Ruf. l. 1. c. 4.

-----

_The Advice of_ Paphnutius _was applauded by the whole Assembly_, add the above-mentioned Historians, _and the Point in Dispute was left undecided_. In the Year 340. it was decreed, in the Council of _Arles_, that, _no Man, incumbered with a Wife, should be admitted to Holy Orders, unless he promised, with his Wife’s Approbation and Consent, to abstain for ever from the conjugal Duty_.

This is all I can find in the antient Records concerning the Continence or Celibacy of the Clergy, before the Time of _Syricius_. And hence it is manifest, that both _Crichtonæus_ and _Melanchthon_ were greatly mistaken; the former in affirming, which many have done after him, that Celibacy was first imposed upon the Clergy by _Syricius_[1243]; and the latter by confidently asserting, that Celibacy was not required of the Ministers of the Gospel by any Council, but by the Popes, in Opposition to all Councils and Synods[1244]. It must be owned, however, that this Law was not so generally observed before the Time of _Syricius_, as it was after. For it was not long after his Time before it became an established Point of Discipline in most of the Western Churches, not in virtue of his Letter, or of those which his Successors writ to the same Purpose, but because it was injoined by the Synods of each particular Nation. Thus it was established in _Africa_ by the Council of _Carthage_ in 390. in _Gaul_ by one held at _Orleans_, by Two at _Tours_, and one at _Agde_; in _Spain_, by Three held at _Toledo_; in _Germany_, by the Councils of _Aquisgranum_, or _Aix la Chapelle_, of _Worms_, and of _Mentz_. We know of none in _Britain_: and that it did not even begin to take place here till the Arrival of _Austin_, in the Sixth Century, may be sufficiently proved from the Letters of that Monk to _Gregory_, and _Gregory_’s Answer to him; but of that more hereafter[N23].

-----

Footnote N23:

I cannot forbear taking notice here of an inexcusable Mistake in the
_Ecclesiastical History of_ England, _by_ Nicolas Harpsfeld,
_Archdeacon of_ Canterbury, a Work in great Request abroad. That
Writer tells us, that _Restitutus_ Bishop of _London_ assisted at the
Council of _Arles_, and signed the above-mentioned Canon, forbidding a
Man incumbered with a Wife to be admitted to Orders, unless he
promised, with her Consent, to refrain from all Commerce with her
after his Ordination. He leaves us to infer from thence, that this
Canon was received in _Britain_[N23.1]. But surely _Harpsfeld_ must
never have seen either the Subscriptions, or the Acts of that Council.
Had he seen the Subscriptions, he had hardly omitted Two _British_
Bishops out of Three. For, besides the Name of _Restitutus_, I find
among the Subscriptions, the Names of _Adelphus de colonia
Londinensium_, that is, as is commonly believed, of _Colchester_, and
of _Hibernus_ of _Eboracum_, or _York_. Had he seen the Acts, he had
never been guilty of such a gross Mistake as to ascribe the
above-mentioned Canon to the Council of _Arles_, at which _Restitutus_
assisted, since that Council was held against the _Donatists_ of
_Africa_, in the Year 314. and not the least Mention was made there of
the Celibacy of the Clergy[N23.2]. The Second Council of _Arles_ was
held about Twenty-six Years after, and of that Council the said Canon
is the Second.

Footnote N23.1:

Harp. Hist. Eccles. Anglican. p. 26.

Footnote N23.2:

Concil. t. 1. p. 1426-1429.

-----

[Sidenote: _The present Practice of the Church of_ Rome, _with respect
to this Point_.]

As to the present Practice and Doctrine of the Church of _Rome_, with respect to this, in their Opinion, most essential Point of Ecclesiastical Discipline, no Man is allowed, after his Ordination, to marry, or to cohabit with the Wife he had married before: nay, in order to prevent all possible means even of any clandestine Commerce between them, the Woman must, by a solemn Vow of Chastity, renounce all Claims on her Husband, and, retiring into a Monastery, bind herself by a second Vow to continue there, without ever once going out, on any Pretence whatsoever, so long as her Husband lives, who cannot be admitted so much as to the Rank of a Subdeacon, till she is secured by these TWO VOWS. Such is the present Practice of the Church of _Rome_, though Subdeacons were allowed to marry long after the Time of _Syricius_, who, in his Letter, mentions only Deacons and Presbyters, and does not even oblige them to part with their Wives, but only excludes them from rising to a higher Degree in the Church. Pope _Leo the Great_, chosen in 440. was the first who extended the Law of Celibacy to the Subdeacons, commanding them, in a Letter, which he writ about the Year 442. to _Rusticus_ Bishop of _Narbonne_, to abstain, as well as the Deacons, Presbyters, and Bishops, from all Commerce with their Wives. But this Law was observed by very few Churches. In the Time of Pope _Gregory the Great_, that is, in the Latter-end of the Sixth Century, it had not yet taken place, even in _Sicily_, though reckoned among the _Suburbicarian_ Provinces: it was first introduced into that Island by him; but he allowed those to cohabit with their Wives, who had been ordained without a previous Promise to live continent, though he would not suffer them to be raised to a higher Degree without such a Promise. _Bellarmine_[1245], and the other Divines of the Church of _Rome_, to soften the Odium, which the hard, and commonly impracticable Command she lays on her Clergy, must reflect on her, represent Continency as a Virtue to be easily acquired. Their Ascetics seem better acquainted with the Difficulties and Struggles attending the Practice of that Virtue, than their Divines; for they prescribe, as the sole Means of attaining it, constant Prayer, frequent Fasting, macerating the rebelling Flesh with all kinds of Austerities, and principally the avoiding of all Female Company. And, if these be the sole Means of attaining it, I leave the Reader to judge how few of their Clergy do attain it.

[Sidenote: _In the primitive Church, married and unmarried Men raised indiscriminately to Ecclesiastical Dignities._]

No one is so little versed in the History of the Church, as not to know, that in the Three first Centuries of the Christian Religion, married and unmarried Men were indiscriminately raised to the Episcopal, and every other Ecclesiastical Dignity; nay, _Jerom_ writes, that in his Time, that is, in the Fourth Century, the former were, the most part, preferred to the latter, not in regard of their greater Merit, but because, in such Elections, the unmarried Men were outnumbered by the married, who chose to be governed by one in their own Station of Life[1246]. It is hence manifest, that Marriage was not thought, in _Jerom_’s Time, inconsistent with, or any Bar to, the Episcopal Dignity. And why should it? since, excepting St. _John_, the Apostles themselves were all married, as we are told, in express Terms, by _Ignatius_ the Martyr[1247], who was their Contemporary and Disciple, and whose Authority ought, on that Consideration, to be of greater Weight than that of all the other Fathers together. _But such of the primitive Clergy_, says _Bellarmine_[1248], _as were married before their Ordination, abstained ever after from the Use of Matrimony: let our Adversaries produce, if they can, but a single Evidence of a Presbyter or Bishop’s having any Commerce with their Wives_. It lies upon him to shew they had not. We know nothing to the contrary, and therefore may well suppose, that, pursuant to the Advice given by the Apostle to all Husbands and Wives, _they came together_ after Ordination as they did before, _lest Satan should tempt them for their Incontinency_.

[Sidenote: _Celibacy recommended by the Fathers_:]

The Fathers, it is true, out of a mistaken Notion of an extraordinary Merit attending Celibacy in this Life, and an extraordinary Reward reserved for it in the other, began very early to recommend it to Persons of all Ranks and Stations, but more especially to the Clergy, as the principal Excellence and Perfection of a Christian. By their Exhortations, and the Praises they were constantly bestowing on Virginity, Celibacy, and Continence, many among the Clergy, and even some of the Laity, were wrought up to such a Pitch of Enthusiasm, as to mutilate themselves, thinking they could by no other means be sufficiently qualified for the unnatural, but meritorious, State of Celibacy. And, what is very surprising, this Practice became so common in the End of the Third, and the Beginning of the Fourth, Century, that the Fathers of _Nice_ were obliged to restrain it by a particular Canon. They enacted one accordingly, excluding for ever from the Priesthood, such _as should make themselves Eunuchs, the Preservation of their Life or Health not requiring such a Mutilation_. By the same Canon they deposed and degraded all, who should thus maim themselves after their Ordination[1249]. But tho’ the Fathers warmly recommended Celibacy to the unmarried Clergy, and Continence to the Married, neither was looked upon as an Obligation, till late in the Fourth Century, and not even then in all Places; for _Epiphanius_, who lived till the Beginning of the Fifth, writes, that though _Men still begetting Children_ were excluded by the Ecclesiastical Canons from every Dignity and Degree in the Church, yet they were in some Places admitted as Subdeacons, Deacons, and Presbyters, because those Canons were not yet universally observed[1250]; so that, according to _Epiphanius_, it was not by the Apostles [Sidenote: _never injoined by the Apostles_:] (as the Divines of the Church of _Rome_ pretend), but by the Ecclesiastical Canons, that this Obligation was laid on the Clergy; and, in his Time, those Canons were not yet universally complied with, nor indeed many Ages after: nay, in the _Greek_ Church, the Clergy are to this Day allowed to cohabit with the Wives they married before their Ordination; and, in this Kingdom, Celibacy was not universally established till after the Conquest, as I shall have Occasion to shew in the Sequel of the present History.

[Sidenote: _deemed by Pagans the highest Degree of Sanctity_.]

The abstaining from lawful, as well as unlawful Pleasures, was deemed, by the antient Pagans, especially in the East, the highest Degree of Sanctity and Perfection. Hence some of their Priests, in Compliance with this Notion, and to recommend themselves to the Esteem of the People, did not only profess, promise, and vow an eternal Abstinence from all Pleasures of that Nature, as those of the Church of _Rome_ do, but put it out of their Power ever to enjoy them. Thus the Priests of _Cybele by becoming Priests ceased to be Men_, to borrow the Expression of _Jerom_; and the _Hierophantes_, who were the first Ministers of Religion among the _Athenians_, rendered themselves equally incapable of transgressing the Vows they had made, by constantly drinking the cold Juice of Hemlock[1251]. A _Stoic_, called _Cheremon_, introduced by _Jerom_ to describe the Lives of the _Egyptian_ Priests, tells us, among other things, that, from the time they addicted themselves to the Service of the Gods, they renounced all Intercourse and Commerce with Women; and, the better to conquer their natural Inclinations, abstained altogether from Meat and Wine. Several other Instances might be alleged to shew, that Celibacy was embraced and practised by the Pagan Priests, long before the Birth of the Christian Religion; and, consequently, that it was not Religion, but Superstition, that first laid the Priesthood under such an Obligation. The Church of _Rome_ has borrowed, as is notorious, several Ceremonies, Customs, and Practices of the Pagans, and perhaps the Celibacy of the Priesthood among the rest: I say, _perhaps_, because it might have been suggested to her by the same Spirit of Superstition that suggested it to them: for where-ever the same Spirit prevails, it will ever operate in the same manner, and be attended with the same, or the like Effects. Thus we find the same Austerities practised by the Pagans in the _East-Indies_, and other idolatrous Nations, that are practised and recommended by the Church of _Rome_; and yet no Man can imagine those Austerities to have been by either borrowed of the other. There is almost an intire Conformity between the Laws, Discipline, and Hierarchy of the antient _Druids_, and the present _Roman-Catholic_ Clergy; nay, the latter claim the very same Privileges, Prerogatives, and Exemptions, as were claimed and enjoyed by the former[1252]: and yet we cannot well suppose them to have been guided therein by their Example. Celibacy was discountenanced by the _Romans_, who nevertheless had their _Vestals_, instituted by their Second King at a time when, the new City being yet thinly inhabited, Marriage ought in both Sexes to have been most encouraged: and the same Spirit, which suggested to that superstitious Prince the Institution of the _Vestals_, suggested the like Institutions to other Pagan Nations, and to the Church of _Rome_ that of so many different Orders of Nuns.

How much better had the Church of _Rome_ consulted her own Reputation, had she either, in Opposition to the Pagan Priesthood, allowed her Clergy the Use of Matrimony, or, by a more perfect Imitation of their Discipline, with the Law of Celibacy, prescribed the like Methods of observing it! How many Enormities had been prevented by either of these Means, the World knows. But none of her Clergy have the Observance of their Vows so much at Heart as to imitate either the _Athenian_ or the _Egyptian_ Priests: and as for those of _Cybele_, they are so far from conforming to their Practice, that a Law subjecting them to it has kept them out of Protestant Kingdoms, when the Fear of Death could not.

[Sidenote: _The Celibacy of the Clergy a bad Institution._]

If every Law or Institution is to be judged good or evil, according to the Good and Evil attending them, it is by daily Experience but too manifest, that the forced Celibacy of the Clergy ought to be deemed of all Institutions the very worst. Indeed all sensible Men of that Church know and lament the innumerable Evils which the Celibacy of her Clergy occasions, and must always occasion, in spite of all Remedies that can be applied to it. But she finds one Advantage in it, which, in her Eyes, makes more than sufficient Amends for all those Evils, _viz._ her ingrossing by that means to herself all the Thoughts and Attention of her Clergy, which, were they allowed to marry, would be divided between her and their Families, and each of them would have a separate Interest from that of the Church. Several Customs and Practices, once warmly espoused by that Church, have, in Process of Time, been abrogated, and quite laid aside, on account of the Inconveniences attending them; and this, which long Experience has shewn to be attended with more pernicious Consequences than any other, had, but for that political View, been likewise abolished.

[Sidenote: _Another Letter of_ Syricius.]

Another Letter, universally ascribed to _Syricius_, has reached our Times. It is written in a very perplexed and obscure Style; bears no Date; is not to be found either in _Dionysius Exiguus_, or any antient Code; and is addressed to _all the Orthodox dwelling in different Provinces_[1253]: which is manifestly a Mistake, since _Syricius_ desires those, to whom it is addressed, to confirm it with their Subscriptions, which cannot be understood but of _Bishops_. However, as it is received by all as genuine, I shall not take upon me to reject it as spurious. The Subject of this Letter is the Ordination of the Ministers of the Church; and the First Article is against those who pretend to pass from the Vanities of the World to the Episcopal Dignity. _Syricius_ writes, that they came often to him, attended with numerous Retinues, begging him to ordain them; but that they had never been able to prevail upon him to grant them their Request. In the Second Article he complains of the Monks, who were constantly wandering about the Country, and on whom the Bishops chose rather to confer holy Orders, and the Episcopal Dignity itself, than to relieve them with Alms. The Third and last Article forbids a Layman or Neophyte to be ordained either Deacon or Presbyter. If this Letter be genuine, _Syricius_ was the first Bishop of _Rome_ who styled himself _Pope_, as _Papebrok_ well observes[1254]; for the Title of his Letter, as transmitted to us, runs thus; _Pope Syricius to the Orthodox_, &c. The Word imports no more than Father, and it was antiently given, out of Respect, to all Bishops, as I have observed elsewhere; but I have found none before _Syricius_ who distinguished themselves with that Title.

[Sidenote: Jerom _retires from_ Rome.]

_Jerom_ continued at _Rome_ some Months after the Death of his great Patron _Damasus_. But, finding himself obnoxious to the _Roman_ Clergy, for the Liberty he had taken in some of his Writings to censure their effeminate and licentious Lives, and, on the other hand, not being countenanced and supported by _Syricius_, as he had been by his Predecessor, he thought it adviseable to abandon that City, and return to _Palæstine_. Some pretend, but without sufficient Authority, that _Syricius_ joined the rest in reviling and persecuting him.

[Sidenote: _The Usurper_ Maximus _writs to_ Syricius.]

_Baronius_ has inserted, in his Annals[1255], a Letter from the Usurper _Maximus_, who reigned in _Gaul_; from which we learn, that _Syricius_ had writ first to him, exhorting him to continue steady in the Catholic Faith, being, perhaps, apprehensive lest he should suffer himself to be imposed upon by the _Priscillianists_, who were very numerous in _Gaul_; and complaining to him of the undue Ordination of a Presbyter named _Agricius_. _Maximus_, in his Answer, pretends great Zeal for the true Faith, and promises to assemble the Bishops of _Gaul_, and of the Five Provinces, meaning _Gallia Narbonensis_, to examine the Affair of _Agricius_. He assures _Syricius_, that he has nothing so much at Heart as to maintain the Catholic Faith pure and uncorrupted; to see a perfect Harmony established among the Prelates of the Church, and to suppress the many Disorders which had prevailed at the Time of his Accession to the Empire, and would have soon proved incurable, had they been neglected. He adds, that many shocking Abominations of the _Manichees_, meaning no doubt the _Priscillianists_, had been discovered, not by groundless Conjectures and Surmises, but by their own Confession before the Magistrates, as _Syricius_ might learn from the Acts. For _Maximus_ caused the Ringleaders of that Sect to be put to Death this very Year, convicted before the Magistrates of the grossest Immoralities[N24]. These were _Priscillian_ himself, _Felicissimus_, and _Armenus_, Two Ecclesiastics, who had but very lately embraced his Doctrine; _Asarinus_ and _Aurelius_, Two Deacons; _Latronianus_, or, as _Jerom_ calls him, _Matronianus_, a Layman; and _Enchrocia_, the Widow of the Orator _Delphidius_, who had professed Eloquence in the City of _Bourdeaux_ a few Years before. These were, by the Order of _Maximus_, all beheaded this Year at _Treves_. The rest of _Priscillian_’s Followers, whom they could discover and apprehend, were either banished or confined.

-----

Footnote N24:

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:

To convince the Reader of this double Forgery, I need not refer him to
that judicious Writer. The many groundless, perplexed, and
contradictory Arguments, or rather Conjectures, alleged by those who
have taken most Pains to prove both the above-mentioned Pieces
genuine, _viz._ by _Chifflerus_, _Papebrok_, and Cardinal _Noris_,
are, perhaps, a more convincing Proof of their being forged, than any
that can be alleged against them. There is so palpable a Difference,
in point of Style, between this Letter, and that which _Syricius_ writ
to _Himerius_, and which is on all Hands allowed to be genuine, that
no one can possibly suppose both to have been penned by one and the
same Person. Besides, in the former Letter _Syricius_ absolutely
commands, and in this only advises, exhorts, and intreats the Priests
and Deacons to live continent. Of those Two Difficulties none of the
Writers I have just quoted have thought fit to take the least Notice,
though they could hardly escape their Observation. The very first
Canon or Article of this Letter, for the sake of which both the Letter
itself, and the Acts of the Council, were most probably forged,
sufficiently betrays the Forgery. For it is absolutely unintelligible,
and therefore pointed, construed, altered, _&c._ in Twenty different
Manners, by those who maintain it to be genuine. Some read it thus:
_Ut sine conscientia sedis Apostolicæ Primatis nemo audeat ordinare_;
_That no one should presume to ordain without the Knowlege of the
Primate of the Apostolic See_. I do not find the Bishops of _Rome_ to
have ever styled themselves, in their Letters, _Primates of the
Apostolic See_; nay, the humble Title of _Primate of the Apostolic
See_ (humble with respect to the Bishop of _Rome_, Primate, Prince,
and Monarch of the whole Church), so soured _Labbé_, that he fairly
owned the Truth, chusing rather to give up the Letter, than to admit a
Title that seemed to detract from the _Supremacy_. Besides, it is very
certain, that, in the Time of _Syricius_ the Bishops of _Rome_ were
not yet so lost to all Modesty as to pretend, in open Defiance of the
Canons, that no Bishop should be ordained without their Knowlege.
Others read that Article thus: _Ut extra conscientiam sedis
Apostolicæ, hoc est, Primatis_, &c. _That none should presume to
ordain without the Knowlege of the Apostolic See, that is, of their
Primate._ Now, is it probable, that the Bishop of _Rome_ would have
given the Title of _Apostolic See_ to all the Metropolitan Churches; a
Title which Pope _Leo the Great_ would not allow even to the Bishop of
_Constantinople_[N28.1]? I might add, that the Author of this Letter
writes, and I think very ridiculously, that the _African_ Bishops
would have come to _Rome_ to assist at the Council, had they not been
prevented by their Infirmities, or old Age; which is supposing them
all to have been old or infirm; that the Subscription of this Letter
is very singular, _Data Romæ in Concilio Episcoporum octoginta_, which
in all other Synodal Letters is placed at the Beginning; that neither
this Letter, nor the Council of _Tela_; by which it is supposed to
have been quoted, are ever mentioned or taken notice of by any of the
Councils, that were afterwards held in _Africa_; to establish the
Celibacy of the Clergy. Some will have this Letter to have been
written only for the Bishops of the Vicariate of _Rome_, of which
_Syricius_ was Primate, and to have been sent by him to the Bishops of
_Africa_, and perhaps to those of the other Provinces, with a Design
to try whether they might not be prompted to receive the Canons it
contained, as general Rules, though made for the Vicariate only. This
had been attempting to establish at once, and in a manner by Surprize,
an universal Jurisdiction. But I can hardly believe, that, in the Days
of _Syricius_, when the Ambition of the Bishops of _Rome_ was yet in
its Infancy, they should have aspired to, or entertained any Notion
of, such a Jurisdiction. As to the Council, I shall only observe here,
that it is said in all the printed Copies of the Councils, all the
antient Manuscripts, but one, to have been held at _Tela_, in the
Province of _Byzacene_, whereas _Tela_ is allowed, even by those who
defend this Council as genuine, to have belonged to the
_Proconsularis_. They have therefore nothing else to recur to but the
Ignorance of the Transcribers, the usual Refuge in such Cases, whom
they all agree to have been mistaken, though all equally at a Loss,
and at Variance among themselves, how to correct the supposed Mistake.
For, instead of _Tela_, some read _Zela_ or _Zella_, others _Tena_,
_Teneptis_, _Teleptus_, &c. In short, there is not a single Town in
the whole Province of _Byzacene_, bearing the least Resemblance in
Name with _Tela_, that has not been substituted in its room; nay, some
have bestowed that Honour on the smallest Villages, as if it were
probable, that, in a Province, filled, as _Byzacene_ was, with
considerable Cities, and Episcopal Sees, Bishops should chuse to
assemble in a Village. To read _Proconsularis_ instead of _Byzacene_,
as some have done, is contradicting, and consequently giving up, the
Acts of that Council; for the Thirty-three Bishops named there, as
composing it, were all of the latter Province, and _Vincentius_ and
_Fortunatianus_ are said to have assisted as Deputies from the
former[N28.2]. It would be needless to dwell any longer on this
Subject, and point out the many Absurdities and Contradictions that
occur in the supposed Acts of that Council, since the very Title must
convince every impartial Reader, that no such Council was ever held. I
cannot, however, help taking Notice of a very extraordinary Canon,
quoted by _Ferrandus_, from the Letter of _Syricius_, and approved, as
is said there, by the Council of _Tela_; _viz._ That _no Bishop should
be ordained by a single Bishop, the Church of_ Rome _excepted_. This
Exception is not to be found in the Letter ascribed to _Syricius_,
from which they make _Ferrandus_ quote it; and, besides, the Bishops
of _Rome_ were never ordained by a single Bishop, nor did they ever
take upon them to ordain Bishops alone.

Footnote N28.1:

Leo, ep. 78.

Footnote N28.2:

Concil. t. 1. p. 1577.

-----