8. But now observe how more tolerable in comparison with us is the lying of the Priscillianists, when they know that they speak deceitfully: whom by our own lying we think right to deliver from those false things in which they by erring are decayed. A Priscillianist saith, that the soul is a part of God, and of the same nature and substance with Him. This is a great and detestable blasphemy. For it follows that the nature of God may be taken captive, deceived, cheated, disturbed, and defiled, condemned and tortured. But if that man also saith this, who from so great an evil desires to deliver a man by a lie, let us see what is the difference between the one blasphemer and the other. “Very much,” sayest thou: “for this the Priscillianist saith, also believing it so: but the catholic not so believing, though so speaking.” The one, then, blasphemes without knowing, the other with knowledge: the one against science, the other against conscience; the one hath the blindness of thinking false things, but in them hath at least the will of saying true things; the other in secret seeth truth, and willingly speaketh false. “But the one;” thou wilt say, “teacheth this, that he may make men partakers of his error and madness: the latter saith it that from that error and madness he may deliver men.” Now I have already shown above how hurtful is this very thing which people believe will do good: but meanwhile if we weigh in these two the present evils, (for the future good which a catholic seeks from correcting a heretic is uncertain,) who sins worse? who deceives a man without knowing it, or he who blasphemes God, knowing it? Assuredly which is the worse, that man understands, who with solicitous piety preferreth God to man. Add to this, that, if God may be blasphemed in order that we may bring men to praise Him, without doubt we do by our example and doctrine invite men not only to praise, but also to blaspheme God: because they whom through blasphemies against God we plot to bring to the praises of God, verily, if we do bring them, will learn not only to praise, but also to blaspheme. These be the benefits we confer on them whom, by blaspheming not ignorantly but with knowledge, we deliver from heretics! And whereas the Apostle delivered men to Satan himself that they might learn not to blaspheme,9    1 Tim. i. 20 we endeavor to rescue men from Satan, that they may learn to blaspheme not with ignorance, but with knowledge. And upon ourselves, their masters, we bring this so great bane, that, for the sake of catching heretics, we first become, which is certain, blasphemers of God, in order that we may for the sake of delivering them, which is uncertain, be able to be teachers of His truth.

CAPUT V.

8. Priscillianistam tolerabilius mentiri occultando haeresim suam, quam catholicum occultando veritatem. Catholici si se mentiantur esse priscillianistas, pejus faciunt quam priscillianistae se catholicos esse mentientes. Sed nunc adverte quam tolerabilius Priscillianistae in nostra comparatione mentiantur, quando se fallaciter loqui sciunt, quos nostro mendacio liberandos putamus ab eis falsis in quibus errando falluntur. Priscillianista dicit quod anima sit pars Dei, et ejusdem cujus est ille naturae atque substantiae. Magna haec est et detestanda blasphemia. Sequitur enim ut Dei natura captivetur, decipiatur, fallatur, conturbetur atque turpetur, damnetur atque crucietur. At si hoc et ille dicit, qui de tanto malo liberare cupit hominem per mendacium, videamus quid intersit inter utrumque blasphemum. Plurimum, inquis: nam hoc priscillianista dicit ita etiam credens; catholicus autem non ita credens, quamvis ita loquens. 0524 Ille ergo blasphemat nesciens, iste autem sciens: ille contra scientiam, iste contra conscientiam: ille habet caecitatem falsa sentiendi, sed in eis habet saltem voluntatem vera dicendi; iste latens videt vera, et volens loquitur falsa. Sed ille, inquies, hoc docet, ut erroris sui faciat furorisque participes: iste autem hoc dicit, ut ab illo errore ac furore liberet homines. Jam quidem supra ostendi quantum et hoc noceat, quod creditur profuturum: verum interim si appendamus in his duobus mala praesentia (quoniam bona futura quae catholicus de corrigendo haeretico inquirit, incerta sunt), quis peccat gravius; utrum qui hominem decipit nesciens, an qui Deum blasphemat sciens? Profecto quid sit pejus intelligit, qui homini Deum sollicita pietate praeponit. Huc accedit, quia si blasphemandus est Deus, ut ad eum laudandum homines adducamus; procul dubio non solum ad laudandum, verum etiam ad blasphemandum Deum, exemplo et doctrina nostra homines invitamus: quoniam quos ad Dei laudes per Dei blasphemias molimur adducere, utique si adduxerimus, non solum laudare discent, verum etiam blasphemare. Haec illis beneficia conferimus, quos non ignoranter, sed scienter blasphemando ab haereticis liberamus. Et cum Apostolus homines tradiderit etiam ipsi satanae, ut discerent non blasphemare (I Tim. I, 20): nos conamur homines eruere satanae, ut discant non per ignorantiam, sed per scientiam blasphemare; nobisque ipsis magistris eorum hoc tam magnum importamus exitium, ut propter haereticos capiendos prius efficiamur, quod certum est, Dei blasphematores, quo possimus propter eos, quod incertum est, liberandos, veritatis ejus esse doctores.