Letter 237: Augustine warns Ceretius against Priscillianist apocrypha and an alleged secret hymn attributed to Christ.

To Ceretius, most blessed and deservedly venerable brother and fellow bishop: Augustine sends greetings in the Lord. After reading the things Your Holiness sent, it seems to me that Argirius has either stumbled into the Priscillianists without knowing it, so that he did not understand at all whether they were Priscillianists, or that he is already entangled in the nets of that same heresy. I have no doubt that those writings are Priscillianist. Under the pressure of one necessity after another, without interruption, I barely had enough time to have even one of the two codices read through to me in full. Somehow the other went astray, and though it was sought very carefully among our people it could not be found, most blessed lord and deservedly venerable father. The hymn which they say belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ, the thing that especially disturbed Your Veneration, is usually found in apocryphal writings. These are not the special property of the Priscillianists. Other heretics too use them with the impious vanity of certain sects. They differ among themselves and have followed various heresies from those differences, but in their diversity they hold these writings in common. They are especially accustomed to frequent them when they do not accept the old Law and the canonical Prophets. They deny that these belong to the good God and to Christ his Son, as the Manichaeans do, and the Marcionites, and the others who have chosen this damnable blasphemy. Even in the canonical writings of the New Testament, that is, in the true evangelical and apostolic letters, they do not accept everything. They choose the books they want to accept and reject the others. Even within individual books they mark off places they think fit their errors; the rest they treat as false. Some Manichaeans reject the canonical book titled Acts of the Apostles. They fear the very clear truth there, where the Holy Spirit is shown to have been sent, the Spirit promised by the Lord Jesus Christ in the truth of the Gospel. Under the name of that Spirit, from whom they are entirely alien, they deceive untaught hearts with astonishing blindness, claiming that the Lord's promise was fulfilled in their heresiarch Mani. The heretics called Cataphrygians do the same when they say that through certain mad people, Montanus and Priscilla, whom they have as their own prophets, the Holy Spirit came whom the Lord promised he would send. The Priscillianists, however, accept everything, canonical and apocryphal together. Whatever stands against them, they twist into the sense of their own perversity, sometimes with clever and crafty explanation, sometimes with ridiculous and stupid explanation. And they do not even do this as though they believed that the very things they explain to people outside their sect are true. If they did, they would either be Catholics, or not very far from the truth, since they would find Catholic meanings even in apocryphal writings, or seem willing to find them. But while among themselves they think, teach, and learn other things, things they do not dare disclose because they are truly wicked and detestable, they preach the Catholic faith to those they fear, not the faith they hold, but the faith under which they hide. Perhaps some heretics can be found more unclean, but none are comparable to these in deceit. Other people lie, as human vices go, from the habit or weakness of this life. These people, however, are said to have as a precept in the very wicked teaching of their heresy that, for the sake of hiding their doctrines, they should lie even with false oaths. Those who have had experience of them, who had once belonged to them and were delivered from them by God's mercy, recall the very words of this precept: "Swear, perjure yourself, but do not betray the secret." To see without difficulty that they do not really think about apocryphal writings what they pretend to explain, one should consider the argument by which they seem to give those writings divine authority, and, worse, to prefer them even to the canonical writings. You have their words set down in that codex: "The hymn of the Lord, which he spoke secretly to his holy apostles and disciples, because it is written in the Gospel, 'After singing a hymn, he went up the mountain,' and which is not placed in the canon because of those who think according to themselves and not according to the Spirit and truth of God, since it is written, 'It is good to hide the king's secret, but honorable to reveal the works of God.'" This is their great reason why that hymn is not in the canon: the king's secret had to be hidden from those who think according to the flesh and not according to the Spirit and truth of God. So, according to them, the canonical Scriptures do not belong to the king's secret, which they think must be hidden; and they were written for those who think according to the flesh and not according to the Spirit and truth of God. What is this except saying that the holy canonical Scriptures neither understand according to the Spirit of God nor belong to the truth of God? Who can hear this? Who can bear the horror of such impiety? Or if canonical Scriptures are understood spiritually by spiritual people and carnally by carnal people, why is this hymn not also in the canon, if spiritual people understand it spiritually and carnal people carnally? Then what reason is there for them to try to explain the same hymn according to the canonical Scriptures? If it is not in the canonical Scriptures because those Scriptures were written for carnal people while this hymn was written for spiritual people, how is the hymn explained from Scriptures that belong to carnal people, when the hymn itself does not belong to the carnal? For example, if in this hymn the words are sung and said, "I want to loose, and I want to be loosed," because, as they explain these words, the Lord Christ looses us from the conduct of the age so that we not be bound in it again, we have learned this very thing in the canonical Scriptures: that the Lord looses us from the conduct of the age and that we must not be bound in it again. What else is "You have broken my bonds"? What else is "The Lord looses the chained"? And the apostle warns those already loosed: "Stand firm, and do not be held again by the yoke of slavery." The apostle Peter also says that if people escape the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in them and overcome, their later condition has become worse than the earlier. He shows that once we have been loosed, we must not be bound to the world again. Since these things are plainly read and preached without ceasing in the canon, whether from the testimonies I have recalled or from many others, why do these people say that this hymn, where, to speak according to them, the words are placed most obscurely, is not in the canon lest they be revealed to carnal people? We see instead that they are revealed in the canon and entirely veiled in this hymn, as they themselves assert. In fact, as is more credible, the hymn does not contain those things at all, but some other things which they veil much more deeply with this sort of explanation and fear to reveal. If those words mean what they say, namely that the Lord looses us from the conduct of the age and does not want us bound in it again, the hymn would not say, "I want to loose, and I want to be loosed," but "I want to loose, and I do not want those whom I loose to be bound." Or if he transforms his members, that is, his faithful ones, into himself, as when he says, "I was hungry, and you gave me food," then he should rather have said, "I want to be loosed, and I do not want to be bound." Or if he looses and is loosed because the head looses and the members are loosed, the members whom Saul was persecuting when Christ cried from heaven, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?", this was not what their interpreter said. But even if he had said it, we would answer him as we answered a little earlier: we read these things in the canonical Scriptures, understand them there, confirm them from there, and preach them daily from there. Why then is this hymn said to have been withheld from carnal people and not placed in the canon, when what is hidden in it is open in the canon? Are they so foolish, or rather so mad, that they dare say the king's secret is hidden for spiritual people in this hymn, while in the canon it is made clear for carnal people? The same can be said about the earlier words of the same hymn, where it says, "I want to save, and I want to be saved." If, as they explain, these words mean that we are saved by the Lord through baptism and that we save, that is, preserve in ourselves, the Spirit given to us through baptism, does not canonical Scripture shout this meaning where we read, "He saved us through the washing of regeneration," and where we are told, "Do not extinguish the Spirit"? How then is this hymn not in the canon so that carnal people may not know it, when what is obscure there shines in the canon? The answer is that under whatever explanation they put forward to outsiders, they are trying to hide what they themselves think. Yet they are so blind that they even bring in words from the canon itself to explain a hymn which, they say, is not in the canon lest the king's secret be revealed to carnal people. What then are clear things doing in the canon if they are used to open obscure things in the hymn? If, in the hymn, "I want to be generated" is to be understood from the canonical letter of the apostle Paul, "I am again in labor with you until Christ is formed in you"; if "I want to sing" is to be understood from the canonical psalm, "Sing to the Lord a new song"; if "Dance, all of you" is to be understood from the Gospel song, "We played the flute for you, and you did not dance"; if "I want to lament, beat yourselves, all of you" is to be understood from the Gospel song, "We wailed, and you did not mourn"; if "I want to adorn, and I want to be adorned" means what is written in the canon, "that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith," and "You are God's temple, and God's Spirit dwells in you"; if "I am a lamp to you, the one who sees me" means what is read in the canonical psalm, "In your light we will see light"; if "I am a door to you, whoever knocks on me" means what is read in the psalm, "Open to me the gates of righteousness; entering through them, I will confess the Lord," and in another psalm, "Lift up your gates, princes, and be lifted up, eternal gates, and the king of glory will enter"; if "You who see what I do, be silent about my works" means what is written in Tobit, "It is good to hide the king's secret," then why is this hymn said not to be in the canon so that the king's secret may be hidden from carnal people, when the things explained in this hymn are also read in the canon and found so plainly there that by them the obscurities of the hymn are explained? The reason is that they use these explanations to hide in; but in the words of that hymn, which they pretend to explain, they think something they are afraid to explain to outsiders. It would take too long to show everything by argument. From what we have said, it is very easy to consider the rest and to see that the good and honorable things they say in their explanation of this hymn are also found in the canon. Their claim, then, is not reason but evasion: that the hymn is separated from the canon because the king's secret had to be hidden from carnal people. From this they are rightly believed not to want to open what they read by these explanations, but rather to cover what they think. No wonder, since they believed that the Lord Jesus himself, speaking not by the mouths of prophets, apostles, or angels, but by his own mouth, was a deceiver rather than a teacher of truth. They give divine authority to this hymn, where some author of the hymn invented that Christ said, "With a word I deceived all things, and I was not deceived at all." Let these excellent spiritual people answer, if they can: where shall we go, to whom shall we open our ears, whose speech shall we in any way believe, in whose promise shall we place hope, if Christ deceived all things with a word, if the all-powerful teacher deceived all things with a word, if he who is the only-begotten Word of God the Father deceived all things with a word? What more should I say about ruined talkers of emptiness and seducers of minds, first their own and then of others, whom they have been able to join to themselves for eternal destruction? I have written back to Your Veneration both much later than I wished and at greater length than I intended. You do very well to keep watch carefully against wolves. But for the healing of sheep too, if perhaps they have been harmed, or even already wounded, labor with pastoral diligence, with the Lord of shepherds himself helping you.

EPISTOLA 237 Scripta post a. 395. A. Ceretio de scriptis quibusdam haeresim redolentibus (nn. 1-2), de Priscillianistarum fraude in Scripturis cum sacris tum apocryphis exponendis (nn. 3-4), deque hymno quodam quem a Christo dictum esse fingebant (nn. 5-8), illos denique haereticos notans ut vaniloquos et mendaces (n. 9). DOMINO BEATISSIMO, ET MERITO VENERABILI FRATRI ET COEPISCOPO CERETIO, AUGUSTINUS, IN DOMINO SALUTEM. Scripta quaedam Priscillianismum redolentia. 1. Lectis his quae misit Sanctitas tua, videtur mihi Argirius in Priscillianistas aut nesciens irruisse, ita ut omnino utrum ipsi essent Priscillianistae ignoraret, aut iam eiusdem haeresis retibus implicatus. Nam scripturas illas Priscillianistarum esse non dubito. Vix autem mihi vacare utcumque potuit, aliis atque aliis sine intermissione necessitatibus superantibus, ut unus mihi saltem totus ex duobus ipsis codicibus legeretur. Nescio quo enim modo alius aberravit, et diligentissime inter nostros requisitus nullo modo potuit inveniri, domine beatissime, et merito venerabilis pater. A multis haereticis solum accipi apocryphas Scripturas. 2. Hymnus sane quem dicunt esse Domini nostri Iesu Christi, qui maxime permovit Venerationem tuam, in scripturis solet apocryphis inveniri. Quae non propriae Priscillianistarum sunt, sed alii quoque haeretici eis nonnullarum sectarum impietate vanitatis utuntur; inter se quidem diversa sentientes, unde suas quisque varias haereses sunt secuti, sed scripturas istas habent in sua diversitate communes, easque illi praecipue frequentare assolent, qui Legem veterem et Prophetas canonicos non accipiunt. Negant enim haec ad Deum bonum, et ad Christum eius Filium pertinere; sicut Manichaei, sicut Marcionistae, et caeteri quibus haec blasphemia damnabilis placuit. Qui etiam in Scripturis canonicis Testamenti Novi, hoc est in veris evangelicis et apostolicis Litteris, non accipiunt omnia, sed quod volunt, et libros eligunt quos accipiant, aliis improbatis. Sed et in singulis quibusque libris loca distinguunt quae putant suis erroribus convenire: caetera in eis pro falsis habent. Nam quidam Manichaei canonicum librum, cuius titulus est Actus Apostolorum, repudiant. Timent enim evidentissimam veritatem, ubi apparet sanctus Spiritus missus, qui est a Domino Iesu Christo in evangelica veritate promissus 1. Sub eius quippe Spiritus nomine, a quo penitus alieni sunt, indocta hominum corda decipiunt, mira caecitate asserentes eamdem Domini promissionem in suo haeresiarcha Manichaeo esse completam. Quod et illi haeretici faciunt, qui vocantur Cataphryges, dicentes, per nescio quos insanos, Montanum scilicet et Priscillam, quos et proprios suos prophetas habent, venisse Spiritum sanctum, quem Dominus missurum se esse promisit 2. Scripturas canonicas et apocryphas fraudolenter exponi a Priscillianistis. 3. Priscillianistae vero accipiunt omnia, et canonica et apocrypha simul. Sed quaecumque quae contra eos sunt, in suae perversitatis sensus aliquando callida et astuta, aliquando ridicula et hebeti expositione pervertunt. Nec saltem ita ut ea ipsa, quae exponunt ab suae sectae hominibus alienis, vera esse credant; alioquin aut catholici essent, aut non multum a veritate alieni, qui et in ipsis scripturis apocryphis sensus catholicos invenirent, aut invenire velle viderentur: sed cum ipsi alia cum suis sentiant, atque inter suos doceant, sive discant, quae non audent prodere, quoniam re vera nefaria sunt et detestanda; tamen fidem catholicam eis quos timent, praedicant, non quam teneant, sed sub qua lateant. Possunt enim aliqui haeretici reperiri fortasse immundiores, sed nullus istis fallacia comparatur. Alii quippe, ut sunt hominum vitia, de huius vitae consuetudine vel infirmitate mentiuntur: isti autem in ipsa nefaria doctrina haeresis suae praeceptum habere perhibentur, ut occultandorum dogmatum suorum causa, etiam cum falsa iuratione mentiantur. Hi qui eos experti sunt, et ipsorum fuerant, atque ab eis Dei misericordia liberati sunt, etiam verba ipsa praecepti huius ista commemorant: Iura, periura, secretum prodere noli. Canonicas Scripturas Dei veritate carere secundum Priscillianistas. 4. Proinde ut sine ulla difficultate videatur quam non hoc sentiunt de scripturis apocryphis, quod se exponere simulant, ratio consideranda est quam reddere videntur, ut eisdem scripturis tamquam divina tribuatur auctoritas, ut quod scelestius est, etiam canonicis praeferant. Habes verba eorum in illo codice ita posita: "Hymnus Domini, quem dixit secrete sanctis Apostolis discipulis suis, quia scriptum est in Evangelio; Hymno dicto, ascendit in montem 3; et qui in canone non est positus, propter eos qui secundum se sentiunt, et non secundum spiritum et veritatem Dei, eo quod scriptum est: Sacramentum regis bonum est abscondere; opera autem Dei revelare honorificum est 4." Ista est magna eorum ratio cur iste hymnus non sit in canone, quia velut sacramentum regis abscondendum fuit his qui secundum carnem sentiunt, et non secundum spiritum et veritatem Dei 5. Ergo Scripturae canonicae non pertinent ad sacramentum regis, quod istis abscondendum videtur; et eis conscriptae sunt, qui secundum carnem sentiunt, et non secundum spiritum et veritatem Dei. Quod quid est aliud, quam dicere Scripturas sanctas canonicas nec secundum spiritum Dei sapere, nec pertinere ad veritatem Dei? Quis hoc audiat? quis valeat sustinere tantae impietatis horrorem? Aut si Scripturae canonicae spiritaliter a spiritalibus, carnaliter a carnalibus sentiuntur; cur non est et iste hymnus in canone, si et ipsum spiritales spiritaliter, carnales carnaliter sentiunt? Obscurissimus hymnus Christo adscriptus. 5. Deinde quid causae est ut eumdem hymnum isti secundum Scripturas canonicas conentur exponere? Si enim propterea non est in Scripturis canonicis, quia illae Scripturae carnalibus, hymnus autem iste spiritalibus scriptus est; quomodo de Scripturis ad carnales homines pertinentibus exponitur hymnus, qui non pertinet ad carnales? Si enim, verbi gratia, propterea in isto hymno cantatur et dicitur: Solvere volo, et solvi volo, quia, sicut isti haec verba exponunt, solvit nos Dominus Christus a conversatione saeculi, ut non iterum ligemur in eo; haec in Scripturis canonicis utique didicimus, quod solvat nos Dominus a conversatione saeculi, et quia in eo non debemus iterum colligari. Nam quid est aliud: Dirupisti vincula mea 6? quid est aliud: Dominus solvit compeditos 7? Iam solutos autem Apostolus admonet dicens: State ergo, et ne iterum servitutis iugo detineamini 8: et apostolus Petrus dicit: Si enim refugientes coinquinationes mundi in cognitione Domini nostri et Salvatoris Iesu Christi, his rursus impliciti superantur; facta sunt eis posteriora deteriora prioribus 9; sic ostendens, cum soluti fuerimus, alligari nos mundo iterum non debere. Cum itaque ista in canone, sive ex his testimoniis quae commemoravi, sive ex aliis plurimis manifesta sint, et legi et praedicari non cessent; quid est quod isti hunc hymnum, ubi, ut secundum ipsos loquar, verba obscurissime sunt posita, propterea dicunt in canone non esse, ne velarentur carnalibus? cum potius ea videamus in canone revelata, in hoc autem hymno omnino velata, sicut ipsi asserunt; nam sicut magis credendum est, prorsus non sunt ipsa, sed nescio quae alia, quae tali expositione multo amplius velant, et revelare formidant. Quam absurde hymnus ille explanetur ab haereticis. 6. Nam utique si hoc illis verbis significatur, quod nos solvit Dominus a conversatione saeculi, et ut non iterum ligemur in eo; non diceretur: "Solvere volo, et solvi volo", sed, "Solvere volo, et eos quos solvero, ligari nolo". Aut si membra sua, id est, fideles suos in se transfigurat, quemadmodum ait: Esurivi, et dedistis mihi manducare 10; diceret potius, Solvi volo, et ligari nolo. Aut si propterea ipse solvit, et ipse solvitur, quia solvit caput, membra solvuntur, quae persequebatur cui clamavit de coelo: Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris? 11 hoc quidem verborum istorum expositor iste non dixit; sed etiamsi dixisset, id ei responderemus quod paulo ante respondimus: quoniam haec in Scripturis canonicis legimus, ibi intellegimus, inde firmamus, inde quotidie praedicamus. Quid est igitur quod iste hymnus dicitur carnalibus fuisse subtractus, ut non poneretur in canone, cum quod in illo opertum est, in canone apertum sit? An usque adeo desipiunt, imo insaniunt, ut audeant dicere sacramentum regis in hoc hymno absconditum esse spiritalibus, in canone autem manifestum esse carnalibus? Hymni illius sententias apertissimas esse in canonicis Scripturis. 7. Hoc de superioribus eiusdem hymni verbis dici potest, ubi ait: "Salvare volo, et salvari volo". Si enim, sicut ipsi exponunt, hoc ista verba significant, quod salvamur a Domino per Baptismum, et salvamus, id est custodimus in nobis Spiritum datum nobis per Baptismum; nonne istum sensum Scriptura canonica clamat, ubi legimus: Salvos nos fecit per lavacrum regenerationis 12? et ubi nobis dicitur: Spiritum nolite exstinguere 13? Quomodo ergo iste hymnus in canone ideo non est, ne carnalibus innotescat, cum id quod in illo obscurum est, in canone luceat; nisi quia sub hac qualicumque expositione, quam quibuslibet aliis obtendunt, illud quod hic ipsi sapiunt, occultare conantur? qui tamen usque adeo caeci sunt, ut etiam quaedam verba de ipso canone adhibeant ad exponendum hymnum, quem propterea dicunt in canone non esse, ne sacramentum regis carnalibus proderetur. Quid ergo faciunt in canone clarius posita, per quae in isto hymno aperiantur obscura? Alia illius hymni vana stultaque. 8. Nam si hoc, ut dicunt, intellegendum est in isto hymno, ubi ait: "Generari volo", quod in canonica Epistola Pauli apostoli scriptum est: Quos iterum parturio donec Christus formetur in vobis 14: si hoc intellegendum est in isto hymno ubi ait: "Cantare volo", quod in Psalmo canonico scriptum est: Cantate Domino canticum novum 15: si hoc intellegendum est in isto hymno, ubi ait: "Saltate cuncti", quod scriptum est in cantico evangelico: Cantavimus vobis, et non saltastis 16; si hoc intellegendum est in isto hymno: "Plangere volo, tundite vos omnes", quod scriptum est in cantico evangelico: Planximus vobis, et non luxistis 17; si: Ornare volo, et ornari volo, hoc significat in isto hymno, quod scriptum est in canone: Habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris 18; et: Vos estis templum Dei, et Spiritus Dei habitat in vobis 19; si quod ait in isto hymno: Lucerna sum tibi, ille qui me vides, hoc significat, quod scriptum est in Psalmo canonico: In lumine tuo videbimus lumen 20; si quod ait in isto hymno: "Ianua sum tibi quicumque me pulsas", hoc significat quod in Psalmo canonico legitur: Aperite mihi portas iustitiae; ingressus in eis, confitebor Domino 21; et in alio psalmo: Tollite portas principes vestri, et elevamini portae aeternales, et introibit rex gloriae 22: si quod ait in isto hymno: "Qui vides quod ago, tace opera mea", hoc significat quod scriptum est in libro Tobiae: Sacramentum regis bonum est abscondere 23: cur iste hymnus non esse in canone propterea dicitur, ut sacramentum regis abscondatur carnalibus; cum ea quae in isto hymno exponuntur, etiam in canone legantur, et sic ibi reperiantur manifesta, ut per haec illa exponantur obscura: nisi quia istas expositiones habent in quibus lateant; in verbis vero illius hymni, quem exponere se simulant, hoc sapiunt quod alienis exponere timeant? Priscillianistae vaniloqui mentium seductores. 9. Longum est cuncta disputando monstrare. Verum ex his quae diximus, caetera considerare facillimum est, et videre ea quae in expositione huius hymni bona et honesta dicunt, etiam in canone reperiri. Unde illa eorum non ratio, sed tergiversatio est, ideo illum esse a canone separatum, quia carnalibus hominibus abscondendum regis fuerat sacramentum. Unde non immerito creduntur istis expositionibus non aperire velle quod legunt, sed potius operire quod sentiunt. Nec mirum, quandoquidem ipsum Dominum Iesum loquentem, non per ora Prophetarum, vel Apostolorum, vel Angelorum, sed per os proprium, illusorem potius quam veritatis doctorem fuisse crediderunt. Huic utique hymno divinam tribuentes auctoritatem, ubi eum dixisse nescio quis eiusdem hymni conditor finxit: Verbo illusi cuncta, et non sum illusus in totum; respondeant, si possunt, egregii spiritales, quo eamus, cui aures aperiamus, cui loquenti utcumque credamus, in cuius promissione spem ponamus, si verbo cuncta Christus illusit, si verbo cuncta omnipotens magister illusit, si verbo cuncta ille qui est Unigenitus Verbum Dei Patris illusit. Quid ulterius loquar de perditis vaniloquis, et mentis seductoribus, primum suae, deinde caeterorum, quos sibi ad interitum praedestinatos aeternum consociare potuerunt? Rescripsi Venerationi tuae, et multo serius quam volueram, et plura quam disposueram. Optime facitis vigilanter lupos cavere; sed etiam pro sanandis ovibus, si quas forte violaverint, sive iam vulneraverint, pastorali diligentia, ipso adiuvante pastorum Domino, laborate.