My final analysis

Cape Finisterre, Galicia. Spain. "The end of the Earth"

After 1600 years it is almost impossible to come to any definitive conclusion about the theology of Priscillianism. Nearly all the information we have relating to that period comes from his critics and persecutors. If we cannot accept the first three Würzburg Tractates as being a true record of Priscillianist belief and practice, we are left with the judgemental values of outsiders, who had vested interests in the suppression of a more ascetic form of Christianity.

That many of the 'catholic' bishops and clergy of the Roman provinces in Spain felt threatened by the teaching and lifestyle of Priscillian and his followers, is an obvious conclusion. What I personally find hard to accept is that Priscillian and his followers were turned away by Damasus, bishop of Rome and Ambrose, bishop of Milan. That a brother in Christ could turn his back on his fellow bishops, after they had travelled hundreds of miles to request an audience, is to me inexcusable. At the time they must have had a strong reason for so doing but it has not been placed on historical record.

The recurring themes for criticism appear to have been:-
1) The involvement and 'equality' of women in the Priscillianist movement.
2) The ascetic teaching on vegetarianism and celibacy.
3) Organised retreats into the mountains and/or countryside.
4) Praying unshod and "blessing" crops and animals.
5) Reading apocryphal books.   

None of these would today be seen as anything unusual. They may in some cases appear to be rather extreme, but not definitively "unorthodox". Even the teaching on vegetarianism and celibacy can be supported from canonical scripture e.g. the Epistles of Paul.

The underlying reason for the vociferous condemnation of Priscillian appears to have been "fear". Fear of unauthorised teachers and teaching, fear of the influence of women, fear of the loss of authority and underlying all, perhaps the real fear of "false teaching", that is, "heresy"!

We are back to the constantly recurring theme of the condemnation of new forms of expression or outreach by the established church authorities. There is well documented history of this happening in more recent times. e.g. the Wesleys were restricted and then rejected by the Anglican church (1784), the Primitive Methodists rejected by the Wesleyan Methodist Church (1807) and the Booths (founders of the Salvation Army) restricted and then rejected by the Methodist church (1861) (1).

My final word would be that any organisation tends to become self-perpetuating. Unfortunately the Christian Church down the ages has not been, and is not, immune! Priscillian lived at a time of social unrest and change when the "orthodox" christian church was allied to the Imperial court of Rome. Anything which threatened that relationship needed to be dealt with, if possible by coercion, if not by punishment. There are lessons here for any church which is linked to, or dependent on the "Establishment". If we are not careful the cry "We have no king but Caesar" (John 19 v.15) will lead to the suppression of evangelism and the restriction of church membership.

Extremism can occur and is sometimes seen in some small sects and cults. Could this possibly be countered by a more open dialogue between leaders?  "House Church" groups are sometimes still condemned out of hand by the established church leadership. Diosesan authorities can still want to "exercise control" over forms of worship and are reluctant to recognise any form of indigenous church meeting or leadership - even in the English countryside!

A comment made by an Anglican priest in my hearing was:- "Father T. is alright, but he would want to run round the countryside ordaining a whole lot of farmers." Along with Priscillian, I would be in full agreement with that proposal!    

(1) The respective articles in Wikipedia along with their footnotes gives some background. 

A reminder that the two best books that I have found on Priscillian are:-
Henry Chadwick. Priscillian of Ávila, The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church. Oxford University Press 1976. ISBN 0 19 826643 X
Marco Conti. Priscillian of Ávila, The Complete Works. Oxford University Press. 2010. ISBN 978-0-19-956737-9

Look out for my next Blog on "Celtic Christianity in Britain and Spain."

Some Conclusions - 3

Monte Valiña near Cádabo. Still the site of an annual Christian pilgrimage from nearby Villabade. 

 The Council of Toledo in A.D.400 marked the beginning of the end of Priscillianism. Its object was to put pressure on the erring bishops and clergy of the Spanish province of Galicia to abandon the veneration of the martyrs of Trier and restore peace and harmony among the Iberian churches. It sought to follow the guidelines of Ambrose and of pope Siricius which gave the conditions under which the recanting Priscillianists could be received back into communion. It was the occasion of the introduction of the metropolitan system of authority into the Spanish provinces, with the metropolitan of the province having the right to consecrate other bishops and perhaps more important, the power of veto. It was one more stage in the eventual all encompassing power of Rome.

The canons of the council of Toledo appear to have re-affirmed many of those promulgated at Saragosa. That most of these would be anti-Priscillianist is apparent by comparing the list on page 174 in Chadwick, with the earlier list on page 14.(1) That these major on the possible offences of women, both married and consecrated virgins, says much about the mind set of the bishops at that time. I will return to this in my final summary.

The elderly Symposius recanted and was effectively put under house arrest with 'watchdogs' to see that he behaved! His son Dictinius 'assistant bishop' of Astorga was only conditionally pardoned and could not ordain.

Four bishops remained recalcitrant and refused to place Priscillian and his teachings under anathema. Chadwick lists their names but their sees are unknown. It was at this point that "one of Herenias' clergy cried out before the council, 'of his own accord, not under interrogation', that Priscillian was catholic and a holy martyr who had been orthodox to the end and had suffered persecution at the hands of the bishops".(2) Needless to say the four bishops and their clergy were promptly condemned for 'lying perjury'. Warning was given by the council to all orthodox bishops to beware that "those excommunicated should not hold private devotional meetings in women's houses and read apocrypha which have been condemned".(2)

From A.D. 407 onwards the secular imperial authorities made laws confiscating personal propery of any known Priscillianists. Slaves were declared free to abandon Priscillianist masters, and any estate where Priscillianist meetings were known to be held were declared forfeit to the treasury.

In A.D. 409  the Vandals, Alans and Sueves invaded the Spanish provinces through the undefended passes of the Pyrenees. The writ of Imperial Rome no longer ran in Galicia and other north-western provinces. The separation from the empire meant that the persecuted Priscillianists of Galicia were free to flourish without  interference from the the court of Honorius at Ravenna. The fulminations of Augustine (3) and Orosius (4) from Africa would have little effect, with Galicia isolated from the influence of the Roman church. Orosius explains that his reason for leaving Galicia was to seek out the true theology. Implying that the only theology available in  Galicia was Priscillianist!

With the tensions between Catholicism and Arianism in the north of Spain, the Priscillianists seem to have been largely ignored. There are occasional references to them up to the middle of the seventh century. A letter from Braulio, the bishop of Saragosa from A.D. 631 - 651, notes that a heresy capable of misleading Orosius until he was corrected by Augustine needs to be treated "with anxious respect". (5)

It would seem that by the end of the seventh century, Priscillianism was a spent force. The Galician country folk would no doubt retain a folk memory of his teaching. It may be that his name was remembered and used in invocations for crops and herds in the countryside in which he had lived and worked.


(1) see blog "Priscillian - The beginning of the Story" on Tuesday, 20 August 2013
(2) Chadwick. p. 185.
(3) Augustine of Hippo A.D. 354 –  430. especially "Liber ad Orosium contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas".
(4) Orosius  c. A.D. 375, died after 418. Consultatio sive commonitorium ad Augustinum de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum - usually shortened to "Commonitorium".
(5) Braulio. Ep.44. Quoted in Chadwick. p.230.

Some Conclusions - 2

The crypt, Santa Eulalia de Bóveda near Lugo, Galicia.

Murals from the time of Priscillian. Possibly a pagan temple later adapted for Christian worship?

The years around the time of Priscillian were a critical period for the Roman empire. This would account for some of the actions and reactions of various bishops as they sought 'to keep in with' the secular authorities. Ambrose as bishop of Milan was especially vulnerable to the machinations of Maximus! A brief summary of the changes of this period may be helpful.
  
After the death of the emperor Valentinian I in 375 the Roman empire was politically unstable! Eventually it was divided between Gratian (Gaul, Spain and Britain), Valentinian II aged 4 (Italy, part of Illyricum, and Africa) and Theodosius I (the Eastern empire). In reality Gratian still held overall responsibility.
In 383 the commander of Britain, Magnus Maximus (Macsen Wledig), was proclaimed emperor by his troops. He went to Gaul to pursue his imperial ambitions, taking a large number of the British garrison troops with him.

Following his landing in Gaul, Maximus went out to meet his main opponent, emperor Gratian, whom he defeated near Paris. Gratian, after fleeing, was killed at Lyon on August 25, 383. Continuing his campaign into Italy, Maximus was stopped from overthrowing Valentinian II, who was aged only twelve, when Theodosius I, the Eastern Roman Emperor, sent Flavius Bauto with a powerful force to stop him. Negotiations followed in 384 including the intervention of Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, leading to an accord with Valentinian II and Theodosius I in which Maximus was recognized as Augustus in the west.

Maximus made his capital at Augusta Treverorum (Treves, Trier) in Gaul, and ruled Britain, Gaul, Spain and Africa

In 387 Maximus managed to force the young emperor, Valentinian II, out of Milan, after which the boy fled to Theodosius I. Theodosius I and Valentinian II then invaded from the east and Maximus was defeated in the Battle of the Save, surrendered in Aquileia, and although he pleaded for mercy was executed.

The death of Maximus led to a change of fortune for the Priscillianists. They obtained permission to bring the bodies of the 'martyrs' back to Galicia, and for a time the relics were valued and oaths were sworn at Priscillian's shrine.(1) The ordinary folk of Galicia felt that their leaders "had been the victims of a judicial murder". (2)
Not only that but the panegyrist, Pacatus Drepanius, praised Theodosius for his victory over the 'wicked usurper' who was guilty of torturing and killing miserable men and women "on a charge of excessive religion and too diligent a worship of the divinity"(2).
In Galicia, Priscillianism seems to have been the dominant form of Christianity between A.D.388 and the Council of Toledo in A.D.400. Chadwick notes that:-  "Some time in the nineties perhaps about 396, the bishops of the Spanish provinces other than Galicia invited their colleagues of the north-west to come to a synod at Toledo there to give an undertaking no longer to commemorate the Priscillianists as martyrs."(3)

Needless to say, the Galicians refused. Even the elderly Symposius who was still the bishop of Astorga, and had always been quietly sympathetic to Priscillian, was unable to go against the popular feeling. Chadwick records that Symposius visited Milan to ask for communion with Ambrose. The conditions laid down by Ambrose were acceptable to Symposius but not to the clergy and laity back home in Galicia! (4)  They insisted on a continued commemoration of the Martyrs of Trier and at least one "orthodox" bishop (Ortygius of Aquis Celenis) was driven from his see by the synod of the province. Certainly up to the Council of Toledo in A.D.400, the province of Galicia was predominantly Priscillianist. (5)


(1) Sulpicius Severus. Chron. ii. 51. 5 - 8
(2) Chadwick. p. 150 - quoting Pacatus. Paneg. xii. 29
(3) Opp. cit. p. 152 see footnote.
(4) Opp. cit. p. 153
(5) Opp. cit. p. 157

Short notes on some of the historical characters involved in the Priscillianist controversy.

Ambrose
Bishop of Milan from A.D.374 - 4 April 397. Priscillian sought an audience with him in Milan in A.D.382 but Ambrose refused to see him. At the time of the synod of Bordeaux and the trial of Priscillian in Trier, Ambrose was acting as a 'go between' for the boy emperor Valentinian II at the court of Maximus. His dubious relationship with Maximus may explain his reticence in speaking out about the trial.
After the defeat and death of Maximus by Theodosius, the emperor of the east, Ambrose wrote a letter referring to "'the bloody triumphs of the bishops' as a cause of passionate division of opinion." (1)

Damasus I
Bishop of Rome from October 366 to his death in November 384.
His election was contested by Ursinus, and the two were elected simultaneously in two different basilicas in Rome followed by open fighting in the streets between their groups of supporters. The secular prefects of the city were called in to to restore order, and after a first setback, when they were driven to the suburbs and a massacre of 137 was perpetrated in the basilica of Sicininus (the modern Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore), the prefects banished Ursinus to Gaul, (2). According to M. Walsh, Damasus faced accusations of murder and adultery (despite having not been married]) in his early years as pope (3) .
As Pope he advised the synod which met at Saragosa (A.D.380) not to condemn "absent persons without a proper trial" (4). Priscillian took this to mean that he could look to Damasus for support. (5) As we have seen, the visit of Priscillian to  Rome met with rejection.
Damasus died at the time of the synod of Bordeaux aged 79 and was succeeded by pope Siricius.

Hydatius
Bishop and Metropolitan of Emerita Augusta (modern Mérida, regional capital of Extremadura in Spain)
He was alerted by Hyginus to the teaching of the layman Priscillian in his diocese. Hydatius looked to Ithacius of Ossonuba for support, and the two of them were the chief ecclesiastical prosecutors of the Priscillianists.
After the trial of Priscillian and the deposition of Ithacius, he resigned his see, was excommunicated and joined Ithacius in exile.

Ithacius
Bishop of Ossonuba (modern Estoi near Faro in the Algarve)
He was first approached by Hydatius of Mérida looking for support against Priscillian. Chadwick notes that :- His teachings were at odds with the lifestyle of many of the bishops of his day. as we have seen, even S. Severus in his condemnation of Priscillian, has to admit that Ithacius was a man "without weight, without any touch of holiness; talkative, impudent, given to high living, much enjoying the pleasures of the stomach and a gormandizer". (6)
He was the chief "witness for the prosecution" against Priscillian and his companions at the synod of Bordeaux and "prosecuting officer" at the first trial of the Priscillianists at Trier. The withdrawal of Ithacius as prosecutor necessitated a second hearing of the case when he was replaced by Patricius, a treasury advocate. There is a passing comment by Sulplicius Severus that Maximus wanted the heretics property.(7) Maximus was seeking funds for his war-chest!
After the fall of Maximus (A.D. 388) Ithacius was canonically deposed from his see (by the synod of Milan in 390?). The complaint against him was that of "bringing an accusation on a capital charge". He was excommunicated and exiled. (8)
The ancient writer Isidore of Seville (died A.D.636) summarised an "Apology" written by Ithacius showing -  "Priscillian's hateful doctrines and arts of sorcery and disgraceful lechery" . Chadwick notes that "The comparison of Isidore's summary of Ithacius' apologia with Sulplicius Severus' account of the origins of Priscillian's movement makes it as good as certain that Sulplicius Severus was drawing upon Ithacius' book as his main source." (9).

Martin
Bishop of Tours A.D. 371 - 8 November 397. He objected to the trial of Priscillian, a bishop, by a secular court. Arguing that the judgement made at the synod of Bordeaux of excommunication and deprevation was punishment enough. He was unavoidably absent on other business at the trial and execution in Trier. On his return he argued vehmently with the emperor Maximus against his decision to send tribunes to Spain to carry out an inquisition against the Priscillianists. He managed to persuade Maximus to recall them and in return Martin would support the election of Felix as bishop of Trier. This meant that he joined with Ithacius and Hydatius in the consecration of Felix. Afterwards he would "confess that since the day when he had felt forced to join with those polluted men in laying hands on Felix of Trier, he had suffered a loss of charismatic and healing powers". (10)



(1) Chadwick p.151
(2) Ammianus Marcellinus, 27.3.12; 27.9.9. Translated by J.C. Rolfe, Ammianus Marcellinus
    (Cambridge: Loeb Classical Library, 1939)
(3) M. Walsh. Butler's Lives of the Saints (Harper Collins Publishers: New York, 1991).
(4) Chadwick. p.25-26
(5) Tractate ii is subtitled - Priscillian's Book to Bishop Damasus, see Conti p.p. 70-71: 74-75: 76-77  etc.
(6) Sulplicius Severus quoted in Chadwick. p.149
(7) Sulplicius Severus Dial.iii.11. 10 - 11
(8) Prosper Chron. ad. ann. 389 (Chron. min.i.462) See Chadwick p.14
(9) Chadwick p. 21.
(10) Chadwick p. 147

Some conclusions - 1

Chao Samartín is a Castro located in the municipality of Grandas, (Grandas de Salime - Asturias).  It was founded in the Bronze Age, around the year 800 B.C. Taken over by the Romans, the settlement was suddenly abandoned after an earthquake taking place toward the 2nd century A.D. 

Other Castros were occupied well into the 5th century.

If we come to the conclusion that Priscillian was neither Manichean nor Gnostic (in the usual understanding of the word), then what can we say about his 'brand' of Christianity?

Scholars are unanimous that Priscillian himself was an ascetic. His teaching was that : 'None can be Christ's disciple if he loves anyone more than God'. His call to study the scriptures in depth and to go 'on retreat' into the mountains or countryside is on record. (1)

Priscillianism was basically a "house-church" movement:  All the evidence on the early development of the Priscillianists show it to be such, outside the control and supervision of the hierarchical leadership of the 'catholic' church. This  would, of necessity, be condemned by the diocesan bishops, who were concerned to  defend their positions of power.  (2)

Jorge says:- "In the second half of the 4th century, the established church hierarchy was worried at the sight of some of its faithful straying away and organizing themselves beyond the pale of episcopal authority. These bishops reacted to a religious experience that was escaping their administrative control (Escribano Paño 1988: 391)". (3)

The Nicene interpretation of the Christian faith was based on worship in cities. The Bishop, from his seat in the regional capital, leading the worship of his congregation in a dedicated building, a Basilica. This applied to Arianism as well as orthodox Catholicism, as was shown by the insistence of Justina's requests to Ambrose for a basilica dedicated to Arian worship in Milan. Christianity in the countryside may have been confined to an occasional meeting at a 'Preaching Cross' when an itinerant minister called in the village or hamlet. The ongoing pastoral needs of small communities could not be fulfilled by this means in the 4th and 5th centuries, anymore than they can in the 21st century. Priscillian's preaching and teaching may have 'scratched where it itched' and was more in line with the churches described in the New Testament Epistles. The fact that there were a number of 'bishops without recognised seats in 5th. century Galicia shows how Priscillian's teaching had developed.
Jorge notes that:- "Interpreting Priscillian’s doctrine continues to pose a great many problems, as do both his criticisms of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and his consecration of bishops and priests to serve small rural communities.  
As to the issue of episcopal ordinations, after Priscillian’s death, Hydatius of Chaves (1974: 104) tells us that at the beginning of the 5th century there was a very unusual situation in the neighboring province of Galicia: increasing numbers of bishops without specific seats, and conflict between an established hierarchy and an itinerant one – in other words, a confrontation between two different visions of the episcopate (see Díaz y Díaz 1983: 93)."  (4)

The Priscillianist model of ministry appears to have been well suited to the scattered rural communities of Galicia. That fact, along with the influence of women in a predominantly Celtic area, would account for the popularity and rapid spread of his teaching. As we have seen, the Priscillianist "House-church" would enable women to minister and lead worship within the home - their recognised sphere of influence (5). Again, this follows the example of the Churches in the Pauline Epistles. see Philippians 4, v.2: Romans 16, v.v. 3 - 5: and a woman on her own - Colossians 4,v.15.   

It only remains for us to look at briefly at the final years of the Priscillianist church, and to review the life stories of some of the main protagonists in the history of this breakaway Christian movement.




(1) See blog - Priscillian - The beginning of the Story
(2)  See blog - The Teaching of Priscillian - 2

(3)  In Romans 16, v.v. 1 - 2,  Phoebe is not only refered to as a "deacon" (diakonon) with a masculine ending, thus putting her on an equal footing with her male counterparts; she is also a "prostatis", often translated as "helper" but in reality it means something like "patron". Someone to whom Paul is indebted.
(4) Ana Maria C.M. Jorge (2006). Priscillian. A paper for Center for the Study of Religious History (CEHR)  Portuguese Catholic University (UCP)

(5) See blog - The Teaching of Priscillian - 3

Who is able to sit in Judgement?

 Capilla de La Santa Cruz, Cangas de Onis, Asturias, Spain.

Being built over a dolmen, it is an example of the Christianisation of a pagan site.

A comment by  Ana Maria C.M. Jorge perhaps points us in the right direction:-
"What was really at stake was the hierarchical model of the church that had been emphasized at Nicaea, which was opposed to any other concept of Christian life, and particularly to any organization of the church by the community (see Escribano Paño 1995: 271)". (1)

This being so, the denunciation sent to the Bishop of Rome by Ithacius and Hydatius would be given a high value by the hierarchy, and when Priscillian and his companions arrived in Rome they were ignored by Damasus. The same thing happened in Milan when they presented themselves at the residence of Bishop Ambrose. That both Ambrose and Damasus refused to meet the Priscillianist party must be seen as being of primary importance!

Why would the two senior bishops of the Catholic church refuse to greet their brother bishops who had travelled so far to meet them? It is this first rejection of the Priscillianists in Italy that sets the tone for all future developments.

Jorge again:-
"The Bishop of Milan always refused to support Priscillian’s cause and thought that the man himself was not entirely pure. He went further when he addressed himself to Treves, to the Emperor Maximus, to protest against this “party” (see Ambrose of Milan 1968: 214-215. See also Escribano Paño 1988: 314-315 and 395-399)." (2)

On the obtaining of a rescipt by Hydatius (Bishop of  Mérida) from the Emperor Gratian, Conti has a telling comment:-
 "It is extremely likely that 'Gratian's pronouncement authorised Hydatius to identify the guilty parties' (Burrus, The Making, 54), so that he could actually charge Priscillian and his supporters with being Manichaean and ask for their banishment. At the same time, Hydatius was able to gain the support of Ambrose by falsely accusing Priscillian and his followers." (3)

Here we have Conti expressing what an unbiased reader of the history of Priscillian and his Tractates should feel. False accusations by some of bishops of Lusitania (4) were accepted as the true picture by both Damasus of Rome and Ambrose of Milan. There does not seem to have been any questioning of the veracity of the denunciations, even at the trials of Priscillian and his companions. There may have been a number of reasons for this attitude:-

1) Ambrose in Milan, and to a lesser extent Damasus in Rome, were living in the province of a "Junior" emperor, Valentinian II, who held his position due to the goodwill of his half-brother Gratian. Once Gratian had shown his opposition to the Priscillianists at the request of Hydatius et el, then Ambrose would be reluctant to go against that decision. 
 
2) The Arian controversy was still giving the Catholic bishops grief! The mother of Valentinian II (and presumably the boy emperor himself) was a staunch Arian living in Milan. She made repeated requests to Ambrose to allow a basilica to be set aside for Arian worship. With this kind of pressure it is understandable that the news of a 'new heresy' in Spain was met with dismay.

3) It is likely that Priscillian was consecrated bishop by Instantius and Salvianus, two bishops only, acting without the authority of the Metropolitan. This was against the Nicene rulings regarding the consent of the Metropolitan and the requirement of a minimum of three bishops for  consecration. (4)

4) The complaint of the objectors seems to have been based on the fact that, when Priscillian was still a layman, Instantius and Salvianus had been condemned together with him by the judgement of the bishops (at Saragosa). (5)

5) The comment by Ambrose regarding the fact that he "thought the man himself was not entirely pure." may have been influenced by the women travelling in the entourage of Priscillian. Severus represents ". . . the ladies as an abandoned company of loose females".(6) This was probably the reaction of the orthodox Italian bishops when Priscillian sought audience.

Whatever the reason for this rejection of the Priscillianists by the bishops in Italy, it led to the eventual trial and death of Priscillian and his companions - lamented after the event by Ambrose!. (see next blog). I regard this as the saddest part of the whole saga. There was an opportunity for one of the recognised great "doctors" of the Church to meet with, and discuss possible developments, with the charismatic leader of a large number of Christian believers. This led to the development of a separatist church movement and schism in Northern Spain and Gaul for years to come.   


(1) Ana Maria C.M. Jorge.
(2) Opp. Cit. Quoting  "Ambrose of Milan (1968)". Epistula 30 (24). In Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, ed. O. Faller. Vol. 82 . Wien: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 214-215.
(3) Conti, p.272.     N.B. The whole of the 'Commentary' by Conti on Tractate II is well worth reading!
(4) South west Spain and Portugal with its capital at Mérida. Hydatius of Mérida and Ithacius of Ossonuba (modern Faro in Portugal) were the bitterest enemies of the Priscillianist movement.
(4) Chadwick. p. 33.
(5) Sulpicius Severus, Chron.ii.47.4. This was of course denied by Priscillian in Tractate II, see previous blog posts.
(6) Chadwick. p.37. giving Sulpicius Severus, Chron. ii 46.6 in his footnotes.

A summary of the Teaching of Priscillian

To recap on my thinking so far:-

Although Priscillian appears to have been unwise or naive in some of his actions and decisions - e.g. travelling to Italy in the company of women, he seems to have regarded the fact that "for us the Spirit of God is both in the males and in the females, . . .  'because there is no male and female, but we are all one in Jesus Christ ' " (1) as a scriptural belief that women and men are equal in the work of the Gospel.

He encouraged the development of the church in rural areas. This appears to have led to a form of "House-church" Christianity outside of the control of the Diocesan bishops!

There is no first-hand evidence that he was a Manichean or a Gnostic. In fact he denies it in his writings and anathematises them. (2)

He held some "dualist" beliefs, but these can be found in a more explicit form in the Canonical Scriptures.
e.g. John 14 v. 30: Galatians 5 v. 17: I John 5 v. 19 etc.

He appeared to hold a Monarchian view of the relationship of the Son to the Father. At the time of Priscillian, the doctrine around the Trinitarian relationship was not cut and dried! He lived at a time when Arianism was still strong in much of the Roman Empire.(3). The Definition of Chalcedon was not until A.D.451.


In the light of the above, the accusations made by Ithacius and Hydatius seem to have been for self justification, and to enable them to retain absolute control over the churches in their areas. It was the initial acceptance of these accusations by Ambrose and Pope Damasus that led to the trial and death of Priscillian, to which we can now turn.

(1) Tractate I, line 472 - 478 quoting Galatians 3, v.28: see Conti p.60 - 61
(2) Tractate I, line 357: Tractate II, line 103, 145 - 6 etc. see Conti p.p. 54 -55: 76 -77
(3) Justina, the mother of Valentinian II (Emperor 375 -392) was an avowed Arian.

The Teaching of Priscillian - 7 - and yet more Difficulties!

Church doorway Llanes, Asturias, Spain

First, a brief explanation of some of the basic tenets of Gnosticism.

Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Ancient Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) describes a collection of ancient religions which taught that the material world created by the demiurge should be shunned and the spiritual world should be embraced. Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions which teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as knowledge, enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with God') may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, sexual abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, completely for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others. (1)

Central Gnostic beliefs that differ from orthodox Christian teachings include: 
the creator as a lower being [‘Demiurge’] and not a Supreme Deity; 
the belief that all matter is evil and the body is a prison to be escaped from (versus the Nicene Creed teaching that there will be a physical resurrection of all people); 
scripture having a deep, hidden meaning whose true message could only be understood through “secret wisdom”; 
and Jesus as a spirit that “seemed” to be human, leading to a rejection of the incarnation (Docetism). (2)

Gnosticism can be seen as a syncretism between early Christian beliefs and Platonism / Neo-platonism.
In a footnote in the Wikipedia article it says:-

In Platonism the soul [psuchē] was self-moving, indivisible; degenerated and eternal, existing before the body which housed it, and longing to be free from its earthly imprisonment, leading to the Docetist-dualist concept of ‘good’ & ‘evil’ matter. Ed. Note.68  (2)

Looking at the text of the Priscillianist documents as a whole, there is room as, Conti says, for an in depth study of the influence of Platonism and Neo-platonism on the theology and thinking of Priscillian. (3).
Priscillian himself acknowledges that he has studied "their works as for the instruction of the mind." (4).

However, the specific dualism of Gnostic teaching is absent even from the later Tractates. e.g. Tractate V: 56  " . . know that God made all the things which were made, . . . . . " and V;67 - 71  "Therefore, because of all the things 'made according to their kind' which the life of this world possesses, 'God made man in his image and likeness' and by taking the mud of the earthly dwelling he gave life to our body, . . . " (5)  There is a clear statement here that God himself is the creator of all things, including man. The material world is not the creation of the 'Demiurge'

Anna Maria Jorge says:-
"Can one say that Priscillianism was based on Manichaeism or Gnosticism? This is a difficult question. The research that highlights these issues is generally based on Priscillianist writings – this is the case of the treatises that were compiled as part of the Würzburg corpus, most of which post-dated Priscillian’s death (see Schepss 1889: 1-106; Madoz1957: 72). We must bear the following in mind: while the theses contained in these texts are rooted in the ideas that Priscillian personally developed, they were written in other spatial/temporal contexts . . .

Perhaps one ought to distinguish between an initial phase of Priscillianism, which was restricted to his lifetime, and a second one following his death – (6)

What then could have been the driving force behind the theology and practical teaching of Priscillian?

Jorge again:-
. . . . . . . . . We know of the Bishop of Ávila’s predilection for the ascetic life, including penitential reclusion; we catch glimpses of his practices, all of which aimed at attaining a state of perfection or election (electi Deo), but if we are to interpret them correctly we must also gain an in-depth understanding of where they really came from. . . . ..
. He played the role of a catalyst among Lusitanian Christians and crystallized a variety of ascetic, monastic and intellectual aspirations that were either fairly, or even entirely, incompatible with Christianity as it was lived by the great majority of the bishops of the day. What Priscillian wanted was to reform the church. He thought that the separation of men and women was not inevitable and that the fundamental thing was to seek out the traditional practices of Christian asceticism . . . . . . . (6)

So, it would appear from the facts known to us that Priscillian was not a 'gnostic' in the usual definition of that word! However an in-depth study will need someone far more experienced in the writings and thoughts of ancient philosophers than myself. A thorough going comparison of the thoughts expressed in the Tractates and those of Plato would be of interest. As would a comparison between the teachings of Priscillian, Origen(184/185 – 253/254) and Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300 – c. 368) as all three appear to have been influenced by Platonism / Neoplatonism.
Plenty of material there for a PhD for someone!

In Tractate III, Priscillian gives an account of why he thought apocryphal writings ought to be read and accepted, providing they were held to the touchstone of the Canonical Scriptures.  

The question still remains:- why was Ithacius and others so opposed to the teaching and work of Priscillian?
Why did Pope Damacus and Ambrose of Milan refuse to even meet him? and ultimately -
Why was Priscillian condemned?



(1) From a long article on Gnosticism in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#Primary_sources
    This extract quotes passages from:-
    John Hinnel (1997). The Penguin Dictionary of Religion. Penguin Books UK. and
    Tobias Churton (2005). Gnostic Philosophy: From Ancient Persia to Modern Times. Inner Traditions, VA USA.
(2) Opp cit.
(3) Conti. p.11
(4) Opp cit. p. 44 - 45 .Tract I: 200
(5) Opp cit. p.111
(6) Ana Maria C.M. Jorge (2006). Priscillian. A paper for Center for the Study of Religious History (CEHR)    Portuguese Catholic University (UCP)

Some brief notes on Tractate III

Before looking in any detail at Priscillian's interest in Gnosticism, it may be helpful to review briefly the content of the third Tractate. This bears the title "Priscillian's Book on Faith and Apocryphal Writings (Priscilliani Liber de fide et de Apocryphis)". While Chadwick inclines towards a single authorship of all eleven Tractates (1), Conti by looking carefully at the style of writing comes to a different conclusion. For him, Tractates I - III and XI are by Priscillian himself. (2).

On the subject matter of the third Tractate, Conti states, it is "Priscillian's argument in support of a discerned use of apocryphal literature . . " this is quite straightforward - "how is it possible to impose on the faithful a rigid canon of Scriptures, when writings within the canon itself make reference to works outside the canon?" (3)

The text itself contains numerous examples of this type of reference, the most familiar of these is the one in the canonical Epistle of Jude verses 14 - 15. Enoch is recognised as a prophet by this apostolic writer, however the Book of Enoch is designated apocryphal by the Catholic Church. Priscillian asks "How can this be?" If Jude took the words of Enoch as a true prophecy, how come his apocryphal book is banned?

With most scholars, (including both Chadwick and Conti) agreeing that Priscillian himself is the author of the third Tractate; we can go on to consider the accusation that Priscillian was guilty of gnosticism.

(1) Chadwick, p.p. 63 - 69
(2) Conti, p. 15 and the Commentaries on p.p. 259 - 302
(3) Opp cit p. 274

The Teaching of Priscillian - 6 - More Difficulties!

Roman Bridge at Ferreiera on the Camino Primitivo, Galicia, Spain.

To try to understand the antipathy of the Christian heirarchy to Manichaeism it is worthwhile looking at some of its tenets.

Manichaeism (formerly spelt "Manichee" was named after Mani, the founder of the movement c. 216–276 AD). It taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness. It seems to have been based on Mesopotamian gnosticism. It became one of the greatest 'threats' to orthodox Christianity. So much so that the name "Manichaean" became synonymous with "heretic" in the 4th and 5th centuries.

 According to Mani, the unfolding of the universe takes place within three "creations". The spirit - "light" - is from the "world of light" and it is trapped in a material "earthly" body.

In the article in  the Encyclopædia Britannica Online, it says:-


"Originally, good and evil existed in two completely separate realms, one the World of Light, ruled by the Father of Greatness, and the other the World of Darkness, ruled by the King of Darkness. At a certain point, the Kingdom of Darkness notices the World of Light, becomes greedy for it and attacks it.
As part of his creation the Father of Greatness sends the Radiant Jesus to awaken the original Adam, and to enlighten him to the true source of the light that is trapped in his material body. Adam and Eve, however, eventually copulate, and produce more human beings, trapping the light in bodies of mankind throughout human history.
In this cosmology the appearance of the Prophet Mani was another attempt by the World of Light to reveal to mankind the true source of the spiritual light imprisoned within their material bodies."  (1)


As noted in a previous post (2), the Manicheans were condemned in both Tractates I and II. The question we must ask is "Why was the accusation of Manicheanism used so empatically against Priscillian and his followers?"


Virginia Burrus in her work - "The Making of a Heretic" says:-
"Priscillian's exegesis of canonical texts does support a mitigated dualism on both anthropological and cosmological fronts. Yet in spite of his ambiguous assessment of temporal and embodied existence, Priscillian distinguishes his understanding of the material cosmos sharply from that of the Manichaeans,[13] insisting not only on the ultimate goodness of the material and temporal creation[14] but also on the potential holiness of the human body as a dwelling place suitable for God.[15]" (3)

As Burrus notes, Priscillian explicitly denounces the Manichaeans in the first two Tractates. If, as Conti believes, Tractates IV - X  are not the work of Priscillian, and that they can be dated "to the first phase of Priscillianism (A.D. 380 - 430)" (4), then we cannot use them to define the actual belief of Priscillian himself. They most likely reflect teaching given by the master and developed by his followers.

Even if we do wish to take the teaching as that of Priscillian, there is precedence for it in Canonical Scripture!
The Gospel of John has within it a "mitigated dualism" to use Burrus' phrase, especially in the teaching at the 'Last Supper' on "the ruler of this world". John 14 v. 30: 15 v. 18: 16 v.v. 11: 20: 33: 17 v.v. 14 - 16. This is made explicit in 1 John 5 v. 19. "We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one."

Where we can perhaps see something of Manichaean teaching / practice in the first Tractates, is in Priscillian's practice of dividing his followers into those who can keep to a full ascetic way of life, and those who marry and seemingly are regarded as 'second class'!

"Only a portion of the faithful followed the strict ascetic life advocated in Manichaeism. The community was divided into the elect, who felt able to embrace a rigorous rule, and the hearers who supported the elect with works and alms." (1)  (5)


The text of Tractate II. 34 - 46 explicitly deals with -
"those who . . . . , preferred to love God so far with their dignity and their soul rather than the world, and that we must not take the hope of forgiveness away from those who, if they are not able to [attain] those things which are first, are still staying on the second and the third, because 'many dwelling places were set up by God, . . . . [therefore] they must retain the hope offered to us in Christ, even though 'they have no ability to accomplish the perfect work' . . " (6)

If we read the Epistles of Paul carefully we will find that he too, does in actual fact, teach something along these lines! e.g. on marriage - I Corinthians 7 v.v. 32 - 40.  especially verse 38  "So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage does better". !!!

So far, I have not found anything in the writings of definite Priscillian authorship which would label him as a Manichaean rather than an orthodox Christian.

We will let  Ana Maria C.M. Jorge have the final word on this subject and look at Gnosticism in the next post.

"Can one say that Priscillianism was based on Manichaeism  . . . . . . . ? This is a difficult question. The research that highlights these issues is generally based on Priscillianist writings – this is the case of the treatises that were compiled as part of the Würzburg corpus, most of which post-dated Priscillian’s death. . . . . . . We must bear the following in mind: while the theses contained in these texts are rooted in the ideas that Priscillian personally developed, they were written in other spatial/temporal contexts – such as Galicia – and concern practices that were observed by other Priscillianists . . . . . Perhaps one ought to distinguish between an initial phase of Priscillianism, which was restricted to his lifetime, and a second one following his death – i.e. the period in which his ideas developed in the neighboring ecclesiastical province."  Her emphasis. (7)



(1) "Manichaeism" Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 

<http://search.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=51774&sctn=1&pm=1>
[Accessed October 2 2000].

(2) Wednesday, 6 November 2013  The Teaching of Priscillian - 4 - His statement of belief.

(3)  Burrus. Virginia . The Making of a Heretic - Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS,  Berkeley · Los Angeles · Oxford
N.B. Her footnotes [13], [14], [15] refer to Tractates 5 and 6. Priscillian's "mitigated dualism" cannot be proved from the Tractates (1 -3) ascribed to him by most scholars.

(4) Conti. pp. 15 - 17

(5) Augustine of Hippo was a Manichaean "Hearer" for some 10 years before his conversion to Christianity in A.D.386 / 7

(6) Opp cit pp. 71

(7) Jorge. Ana Maria C.M. . Center for the Study of Religious History (CEHR). Portuguese Catholic University (UCP) 2006

Information on the "Fragment quoted in Orosius' Commonitorium"

Before we look at the accusation that Priscillian was a Manichaean, perhaps a brief study of the document known as the "Fragment quoted in Orosius' Commonitorium" (1) would be helpful!

.This is a supposed quote from a lost letter of Priscillian contained in the "Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum" (2)  which was sent by Orosius from Spain, to Augustine in Hippo, in the year 416 A.D.  According to Orosius this clearly shows the heretical doctrine of Priscillian.
Both Chadwick and Conti draw attention to the number of words which are common to both the Fragment and the Tractates and that the style of writing can be regarded as corresponding to that of the earlier tracts.

Chadwick, in his thorough discussion of this document (2) suggests that there are three questions to be asked about the supposed fragment.
" From what source did he (Orosius) derive his information? Is his fragment of Priscillian taken from an authentic letter? and is his picture of Priscillianist doctrine a true representation of the group's beliefs?" (3)

With regard to question one, Chadwick believes that Orosius is drawing on the apologetic work of Ithacius. (4). If this is so then it is to be expected that the text would condemn Priscillian without any regard to proving his sources!

With regard to questions two and three, there are scholars who deny the authenticity of the fragment, and suggest that it is a forgery, written in the years after the death of Priscillian in an attempt blacken the reputation of the "Martyrs of Trier". However, as Chadwick points out, it is possible that it is a fragment of a genuine letter in which Priscillian is warning his readers against Manichaean speculations! There is also the possibility that this is a quote from a pseudographical work written after the master's death in his name, in order to develop a gnostic tendency in the Priscillianist movement. In any of these cases the quoted extract would not necessarily represent either the teaching of Priscillian or his followers.

To summarise - While this "Fragment" may point to a degree of Manichaean belief at the time that it was written (up to 30 years after the death of Priscillian), it cannot be taken with any certainty to condemn Priscillian or the movement as Manichaean or Gnostic.

(1) Conti p. 210
(2) Chadwick pp. 190 - 206
(3) Opp cit. p. 201 - 202
(4) Opp cit. p. 145 (esp. footnote 2)

The Teaching of Priscillian - 5 - Some Difficulties!

Moura Pena Furada;  Coirós, Coruña - from Wikipedia Commons

The second Tractate referred to in the last post is a 'personal' letter to Damasus, Bishop of Rome, (Priscilliani Liber ad Damasum Episcopum). The first Tractate is written as an 'Apology' (Priscilliani Liber Apologeticus) and the recipients are an un-named group of clergy (beatissimi sacerdotes) (1)


In Tractate I there is a list of anathemas against heresy (2). The first three being against the Patripassians, Novatians and the Nicolaitans.(3)  These are followed by a condemnation of those who "elected griffins, eagles, donkeys, elephants, serpents and vile beasts and arranged them as the mystery of a divine religion." (4)

This is followed by a passage that is not easy to understand out of context. We need to remember that this document was written to a group of clerics (beatissimi sacerdotes), refuting certain allegations made against the writer. Taken in context "they" who "produced images of idols, Saturn, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Mars and all the other gods of the Gentiles" were his accusers before one of the Councils, possibly Saragossa in October 380. Where did they obtain these "idols"? Had Priscillian retained his Roman "household gods" after he was converted? Did they belong to one of his followers / servants and were confiscated by his accusers? Wherever they came from they were obviously used to make a case against Priscillian as the leader of the group.

Later in the Tractate,  Ithacius is named as his accuser. Here it is an specific accusation of using "magic enchantments" during a ritualistic eating of first fruits. (5)   If this Tractate is indeed an answer to accusations being made against Priscillian at the Council of Saragossa, then Canon 4. of that Council banning the "walking with unshod feet" could be a counter to the making of magic spells, for which it was thought necessary to pray with bare feet so as to touch the earth. Again, there seems to be a certain naivety on the part of Priscillian. The practise of 'magic' (sorcery) was an offence which carried the death sentence in the Roman Empire. As he himself says "this not only 'must be anathema maranatha', but is also to be persecuted with a sword, because it is written: 'You shall not permit sorcerers to live."' (6).  Priscillian, here as elsewhere, seems unable to visualise the dangers ahead!

Although any practising of magic is not only emphatically denied but also condemned by Priscillian, it was the accusation made against him at his final trial and the reason why he was condemned to death.

In the next post we need to look further at Priscillian's relationship with the Manichees.


(1) Conti. p. 44. 194
(2) opp cit. p. 36. 56
(3) See Rev. 2 v. 6 and v. 15.
   The Nicolaitans are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.  Irenaeus, Ad. haer. i. 26
(4) Conti. p. 36. 80.
(5) opp cit. p. 54. 380
(6) opp cit. p. 54. 385.

The Teaching of Priscillian - 4 - His statement of belief.

Cristo Pantocrator on doorway of Lugo Cathedral

The "Creed" of Priscillian is outlined in the second of the Würzburg Tractates, paragraphs 45 to 65. This is introduced by the statement:-
 "Indeed as we received the faith, so we keep it and transmit it"  
  it continues:-
"believing in one God, . . and in one Lord Jesus Christ, . . . . who was born of the Virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit, . . . . who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified . . . . . was buried, on the third day rose again,  . . . . ascended into the heavens, is seated at the right hand of God, the Father almighty, . . . . whence he will come and judge the living and the dead, . . . . we believe in the Holy Church, the Holy Spirit, the saving baptism,  . . . . we believe in the remission of sins,  . . . . we believe in the resurrection of the flesh, . . . .  " (1)

In the Tractate, this credal statement is interspersed with supporting Biblical verses. If this is genuinely the sum total of the Priscillianist belief, then we must say that it is completely orthodox in every respect!  Indeed the Tractate goes on to condemn unequivocally a wide range of contemporary heresies including the Arians (2), Patripassians (3), Photinus (4), the Ophites (5), the Novatians (6), and the Manichaeans (7).

However there is an underlying sense of an unorthodox belief. This is apparent in the consistent use of the title "Christ God" (Christus deus) and even "God Christ" (deus Christus) throughout the Tractates. The orthodox creed is taken to mean that there is one God with threefold power and that one is Christ. (8)
Chadwick says "It does not occur to Priscillian that there might be controversy in his own interpretation of the creed. . . . . The oneness of the Father in the son and of the Son in the Father means one God, 'transcent and immanent, enfolding and pervading'. . . ." (9)
The wording in the Priscillianist writings certainly show that they held a Monarchian view of the Godhead - an emphasis (over emphasis?) on the unity of God. In spite of his denunciation of the Patripassians in the first Tractate, Priscillian does not appear to be able to refute their doctrine. The proof texts he uses establish the unity of the Father and the Son, rather than explain why the Patripassians are wrong! (10)

In reading and trying to interpret Tractate II, it is necessary to keep reminding ourselves that Priscillian was writing to Bishop Damasus of Rome. In doing so he would presenting his beliefs as favourably as possible and in the recognised form of an 'Apologia'. In his interpretation of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, Priscillian seems unsure of his definitions. Remembering that Arianism was still a force and that Tractates I and II predate Augustine's definitions of the Trinity (11) we should perhaps not be surprised by this uncertainty. However it did give some grounds for the later condemnation of Priscillianists as heretics.



(1) For the full text see Marco Conti. Priscillian of Ávila,The Complete Works. Oxford University Press 2010 pp.71 - 72.
(2) The Arians regarded Christ as a created being. "There was a time when the Son was not".
(3) The Patripassians suggested that ". . . the Father himself descended into the virgin, was himself born of her, himself suffered; in fact that he himself was Jesus Christ"  Tertullian. Adv. Praxean.1. Quoted in Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church.
(4)  Photinus held a determinedly monothestic doctrine of God. The Logos for him was simply a mode of manifestation of the Father, a power or aspect of him, not in any serious sense distinct from him.
(5) Psuedo-Tertullian (possibly quoting Hippolytus c.220 A.D.) says of the Ophites:- "Christ did not exist in the flesh; that they extolled the serpent and preferred it to Christ; and that Christ imitated Moses' serpent's sacred power"  (Num 21:6-9) saying, "And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up" (John 3:14)" (Haer. 2:1). In addition, Eve is said to have believed the serpent, as if it had been God the Son.
(6) The Novatians held that lapsed Christians, who had not maintained their confession of faith under persecution, may not be received again into communion with the church, unless they repented and were re-baptised and that second marriages are unlawful.
(7) Manichaeism taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness. It seems to have been based on Mesopotamian gnosticism. There is a long article in Wikipedia!
(8) See Conti. opp cit. p.73
(9) Chadwick. Priscillian of Ávila. p.89
(10) Conti. opp cit p.37
(11) The Quicunque Vult (Athanasian Creed) uses the terminology of Augustine's "On the Trinity" (published 415 AD)

A summary of questions 1 - 4

Question 1 - "Were Tractates I and II written by Priscillian ?"

The answer to this as we have seen is an (almost) unequivocal "yes". The chief dissenter among scholars is G. Morin who would attribute all the Tractates to Bishop Instantius, the main supporter of Priscillian. (1)

Question 2 - "Was Priscillian telling the truth about his beliefs or was he lying in his teeth?"

There is general agreement among scholars that "Priscillian was telling the truth". Although most would feel that he is leaving some things unsaid. He concentrates on justifying himself and his followers by attacking the obvious heretical beliefs of others, rather than straightforward statements of the creed of the Priscillianists. However we will look at Tractate ll: 45 - 65 in the next post.

Question 3 - "On what basis were the Priscillianist churches organised? Hierarchical or Familial?"

The basis on which the Priscillianist churches were organised would appear to be on a Familial - 'House church', basis. This would enable women to take on leadership roles, as they would be operating within the private sphere rather than in public.


Question 4 - "What was Priscillian's attitude to ordaining clergy (bishops) with an itinerant ministry?"

With the evidence we have, it would appear that either Priscillian himself, or his followers soon after his martyrdom, ordained clergy to an itinerant ministry in the countryside. This would be in keeping with what we have already learned of his beliefs and practices, and would be necessary for the independence of the Priscillianist churches.

(1) Dom G. Morin. Pro Instantio. 1913

The Teaching of Priscillian - 3

The Roman Walls of Lugo (Galicia)  



The Porta do Carme (Puerta Mina) - One of the Roman gateways through the walls of Lugo

Question 4 - "What was Priscillian's attitude to ordaining clergy (bishops) with an itinerant ministry?" (i.e. not having a defined 'See')

Ana Maria C.M. Jorge (1) says "As to the issue of episcopal ordinations, after Priscillian’s death, Hydatius of Chaves (2) tells us that at the beginning of the 5th century there was a very unusual situation in the neighboring province of Galicia: increasing numbers of bishops without specific seats, and conflict between an established hierarchy and an itinerant one – in other words, a confrontation between two different visions of the episcopate [see Díaz y Díaz 1983: 93  - (3)]".

The answer to Question 3 (see previous post) has a direct bearing on the issue of ordinations. If the small rural community churches were to be fully self-contained within the 'Catholic Church' and have a regular celebration of the Eucharist, then an ordained 'local' ministry would be needful. As we saw in the previous blog, the trend within the 'orthodox' church seems to have been for a concentration of church ministry within towns and cities. Small rural communities appear to have been left outside any heirarchical organisation.

This has been a problem for the Christian church down the ages! The evangelisation of remote areas, even today, often depends on lay evangelists. The 'control' and 'organisation' of such churches by the bishop / priest in the nearest town, often many miles distant, appears to leave a lot to be desired. The ethos of these small village churches is based on meetings within the home of one of the leading Christian families, with worship being led by the 'elder of the household'.
                               
A 'familial based church' still does not fit easily into our western, european based, church order!

In the Priscillianist churches the answer to the oversight of small rural Christian communities would seem to have been a proliferation of intinerant bishops / priests. They appear to have been independent of the heirachical structure and not answerable to the diocesan bishop based in the city. 

Again -  Ana Maria C. M. Jorge says:-
"The Council of Toledo in 400 sufficed in its own right to reveal the problems from which the Hispanian churches were suffering at around the turn of the century. We should recall that in general terms the Council sought to ensure orthodoxy in Hispania by admitting the credo and discipline established by the Council of Nicaea. . . . . . What was really at stake was the hierarchical model of the church that had been emphasized at Nicaea, which was opposed to any other concept of Christian life, and particularly to any organization of the church by the community. [see Escribano Paño 1995: 271 - ]."(4)

Priscillian's teachings and practices seem to have been incompatible with the organization of the heirachical church as it was then established. His teachings were at odds with the lifestyle of many of the bishops of his day. As we have seen, even S. Severus in his condemnation of Priscillian, has to admit that Ithacius was a man "without weight, without any touch of holiness; talkative, impudent, given to high living, much enjoying the pleasures of the stomach and a gormandizer". (5) If this was an example of the standard of life in the leadership of the Church at that time, then Priscillian would have had widespread support among the ordinary people of his day.

"What Priscillian wanted was to reform the church. He thought that the separation of men and women was not inevitable and that the fundamental thing was to seek out the traditional practices of Christian asceticism" (Mayeur 1995: 415 et seq.).(6)

And finally :-  "We should note that the confrontation between town and country also became a part of the process by which Priscillian and his entourage made Christianity an established part of culture. The fact is that it seems that, thanks to Priscillianist practices, Christianity spread out into the rural areas, which were still within the towns’ sphere of influence." (7)

With the evidence we have, it would appear that either Priscillian himself, or his followers soon after his martyrdom, ordained clergy to an itinerant ministry in the countryside. This would be in keeping with what we have already learned of his beliefs and practices and would be necessary for the independence of the Priscillianist churches.


After a brief summary we will move on to a consideration of the theological beliefs of Priscillian, as revealed in his writings.


(1) Ana Maria C.M. Jorge. The Lusitanian Episcopate in the 4th Century: Priscillian of Ávila and the Tensions Between Bishops.  Center for the Study of Religious History (CEHR). Portuguese Catholic University (UCP)

(2) Hydatius of Chaves (Chronicle 1974: 104)

(3) - This quote is from - Díaz y Díaz, M. C. (1983). L'expansion du christianisme et les tensions épiscopales dans la Péninsule ibérique. Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique, 6: 84-94.

(4) Escribano Paño, M. V. (1995). Cristianización y lideranzo en la Lusitania tardía. In IV Reunió de Arqueología (Paleo)Cristiana Hispànica. Barcelona: Ed. Institut d’Estudis Catalans, 267-275. Quoted in Jorge. opp.cit.

(5) Sulplicius Severus quoted in Chadwick opp.cit. p.149

(6) Mayeur, J. M. dir. (1995). Histoire du christianisme: Naisssance d’une chrétienté (415 ff.). Vol. 2. Desclée. Quoted in Jorge. opp.cit.

(7) Jorge. opp.cit.

The Teaching of Priscillian - 2

Wayside shrine at La Vega, Asturias; on the Camino de Santiago  (The Way of St. James)

Question 3 - "On what basis were the Priscillianist churches organised? Hierarchical or Familial?" (1)

The relationship between Jesus and His followers is portrayed in the Gospels as 'familial'. "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother". (2) And the instruction given by Jesus to Mary Magdalene after the resurrection -  " go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (3)

The early records of the Christian Church as shown in the letters of St. Paul (4) give an outline of the development of an incipient hierarchical order. Over a period of some 150 years, this moved the infant church from being a series of meetings held in the homes of 'patrons' e.g. Prisca and Aquila (Romans 16 vv.3-5) and Nympha at Laodicea (Colossians 4 v.15) to an organised structure with presbyter / bishops and deacons.

It would seem that there was a fairly rapid transition from small groups meeting for prayer and teaching in the homes of individuals, to a form modeled along the lines of the Jewish Synagogue or the Roman 'school hall'. This would inevitably lead to a more centralised organisation with one 'bishop' having oversight of the church groups in a town or city.
It is suggested that this move away from the 'church in the household' to the 'church of the area', from a 'religion of the private space of a household' to the 'religion of the public sphere of a temple', (5) led to the exclusion of women from leadership. The traditional role and influence of women in Greek and Roman culture was within the household. This meant that she could (and did) have a responsibility and role in the church meetings 'in her house'.
When the church meetings moved into the public sphere there were tensions regarding the role of women - see l Corinthians chapter 11. Toriesen summarises this as "The good woman who stayed at home was chaste; the public woman was, by definition, loose." (6) 

With this background, we can look again at the accusations brought against the Priscillianists, recorded in the canons of the Council of Saragossa A.D.380 (7):-
(i) Women attending Bible-readings in the houses of men to whom they are unrelated.
(ii) Fasting on Sundays and withdrawal from the worship of the church during Lent and Advent.
(iv) Recession into cells and mountain retreats.
(viii) The title of 'teacher' being granted to unauthorised persons. (presumably laymen).

Along with the comment about Priscillian's women companions  as  "an abandoned company of loose females" (8) it would appear that the customary worship of the Priscillianists was in the private sphere. Within the Familial security of a 'house-church' women could, and did, play a full part. - There is the possibility that (viii) above was a condemnation, not only of 'lay-teachers and preachers' but also of women taking that role!
In the paper by Ana Maria C.M. Jorge, she says :- "One of the accusations leveled at Priscillian was that he led the Christians of the towns to go to isolated villae in the country. "(9)

To summarise:- All the evidence on the early development of the Priscillianists show it to be a house-church movement, outside the control and supervision of the hierarchical leadership of the 'catholic' church. This  would, of necessity, be condemned by the diocesan bishops, who were concerned to  defend their positions of power.

The basis on which the Priscillianist churches were organised would appear to be Familial.
               

(1) This question is asked byVirginia Burrus:-  "Was the church a "political" community in which relationships between individuals were sharply delineated by the hierarchical ranks of office and gender? Or was it a "familiar" social body in which relationships were ordered by the more fluid hierarchies of birth, material resources, experience, education, or personal gifts of insight or eloquence?"
 Virginia Burrus. "The Making of a Heretic. Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy". University of California Press 1995.
(2) Matthew 12, verses 46 -50
(3) John 20, verse 17
(4) e.g. 1 Thessalonians is usually dated to about A.D.52 through to 2 Timothy dated to about A.D.67
(5) Karen Jo Toriesen "When women were priests" Harper Collins 1995. p. 37
(6) Toriesen. p. 143
(7) C.H.Turner Eccles. occid.momument iuris antiqu. i. 417 - 24 
(8)  Sulpicius Severus. Chron ll 48.1
(9) Ana Maria C.M. Jorge. The Lusitanian Episcopate in the 4th Century: Priscillian of Ávila and the Tensions Between Bishops
     Center for the Study of Religious History (CEHR). Portuguese Catholic University (UCP)

The Teaching of Priscillian -1

The Chi-Rho symbol of Christ, carved in one of the stones at the Roman Villa at Chedworth in Gloucestershire U.K. Dating back to the 4th Century A.D.

My first  two "Homework" questions are essential to everything that follows:

Question 1 - "Were Tractates I and II written by Priscillian ?"

Question 2 - "Was Priscillian telling the truth about his beliefs or was he lying in his teeth?"

In trying to give an answer to these and other questions, I depend on the translations from the original Latin texts and some comments from the following authors. These are well known and respected theologians and, while differing on some details, agree on the importance and reliability of the documents in question.

Henry Chadwick (died 2008) was a leading academic and researcher on the early Church and its relation to ancient society.  His monograph "Priscillian of Ávila, The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church" (1) is still the definitive text on the history of Priscillian.

Marco Conti is Professor and Lecturer on Latin Literature, Patristics and History of Religion at three Universities in Rome.   

Question 1- "Were Tractates I and II written by Priscillian ?"
Although there are some who would question (or even deny) Priscillian's authorship of Tractates I and II, both Conti and Chadwick are in little doubt that the Apology (Tractate I) and the Letter to Damasus (Tractate II) are the work of the Bishop of Ávila. There is some debate about the context and dating of the Apology (Tractate I), which do not in fact detract in any way from the importance of this summary of Priscillianist belief.
In fact the Apology places far more emphasis on what the Priscillianists do NOT believe, than on stating details of what they do. It was written to the "most blessed priests" (para. 5, 75, 195, etc.). One of the Councils of Bishops who had met to consider the teachings of Priscillian being the obvious recipient.

V. Burrus says:- The most likely context for the Apology is, however, the conflict at Merida after the Council of Saragossa and before Priscillian's ordination, and the most likely author is Priscillian himself. The treatise was therefore probably composed earlier than the Letter to Damasus and may be the work referred to at the end of that letter. (2)

The internal evidence in Tractate I is quite clear that the author is a well born citizen of good social standing (para. 15 - 20 and 194 - 200). He has been accused by Ithacius of "magic enchantments" (para. 380)

Tractate II is the petition addressed by Priscillian, as leader of his group, to Pope Damasus. This effectively dates it to the period between the rescript of Gratian (an Imperial edict obtained by bishop Hydatius stating that the heretics must not only leave their churches and cities but be banished from all countries) and Priscillian's visit to Rome A.D.381 -382. (3)

Taking the internal evidence and the historical details given by Severus and the Canons of the Council of Saragossa, the conclusion reached by Conti and Chadwick would appear to be correct. The author of Tractates I and II is Priscillian, one-time Bishop of Ávila. 

Question 2 - "Was Priscillian telling the truth about his beliefs or was he lying in his teeth?"
The answer to this may depend more on pre-conceived ideas and 'gut feeling' than on written evidence!
That there can be no "half-way house" between our total rejection of the Tractates as the truth about Priscillianist belief, and their being a false presentation built on lies with intent to deceive, is obvious. There are however some testimonies on which we can call.
The quality and loyalty of the friends of Priscillian must say something about his integrity and the deep impression his teaching, and lifestyle, had on his close associates. The fact that, included among those condemned with him, were Bishops of long time good standing within their own dioceses speaks for itself. They would have known the basis of the Priscillianist teachings, and would certainly have known if they were heretical.
The bishops Instantius and Salvianus (whose sees are not recorded) were the consecrating bishops at Ávila in 381 A.D. According to Severus they had "bound themselves to Priscillian by an oath".(4) Bishop Instantius was exiled to the Isles of Scilley at the trial in Trier, where Priscillian and others were subject to questioning by torture. (As already noted, Bishop Salvianus died during the visit to Rome and Milan).

Bishop Hyginus of Cordoba had quietly remained in the background but was accused of being sympathetic to the heretics and was also exiled. Remember, the loyalty of these and others to their leader is probably best expressed by that un-named cleric at the Council of Toledo (A.D.400) where he cried out '"of his own accord, not under interrogation" that Priscillian was catholic and a holy martyr who had been orthodox to the end and had suffered persecution at the hands of the Bishops'.(5)

If Priscillian was deliberately lying about his beliefs and those of his group, then those standing trial with him, his long term friends and fellow clergy would have known. It seems far more likely that they were firm in their belief, seeing in it nothing unacceptable to the "faith once delivered to the saints".

Taking as the answer "yes" to Question 1 and the answer that "Priscillian was telling the truth" (with a certain reticence) to Question  2, we can now move on in the next blog to the second set of questions on the beliefs and practices of the Priscillianists.

(1) Oxford Press 1976
(2) Burrus Virginia  The Making of a Heretic. Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy
University of California Press, Berkeley · Los Angeles · Oxford
© 1995 The Regents of the University of California.    p. 56.
(3) Chadwick p.35 and Severus. Chron.ii.47.6
(4) Chadwick p. 20 - quoting Severus Chron.ii.46.1 ff
(5) Chadwick p. 184 - 5 citing the Acts of the Council of Toledo.

The Texts attributed to Priscillian

Most scholars are agreed that Priscillian is the author of some writings which are still extant. Among these are:-
A codex (Mp. th. Q.3) now in the library of the University of Würzburg.
Usually known as The Würzburg Tractates. (1)

Canons on the 14 Pauline Epistles which are included in 22 different manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate with an introduction by Priscillian himself. Unfortunately we only have a version expurgated and reworked by an unknown bishop calling himself 'Peregrinus'. He clearly states in his introduction, preceding that of Priscillian, that he has removed all possible heretical content and ideas, and that the "work [is] restored to the right doctrine". (2) 

A Fragment quoted in Orosius. This is a supposed quote from the teaching of Priscillian quoted in the Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum which was sent by Orosius from Spain to Augustine in Hippo in the year 416 A.D. (3). Chadwick gives a good exposition of this in Priscillian pp.191 - 4

There are two other documents which reflect Priscillianist teaching and theology but their style and inelegant phraseology set them apart from the elegance of the Tractates and most scholars accept that their author(s) were other than Priscillian.
 These are "On the Trinity of the Catholic Faith" extant in a single document in the Bibliotheque de Laon (4) and the "Prologues of the Monarchians" found in a number of manuscripts of Jerome's Vulgate.(5)

We are fortunate that Marco Conti has given us an excellent translation of all these works in the form of a diglot with the English translation facing the original Latin text. with this we are able to read the words of Priscillian himself, and perhaps form our own judgement on the heretical nature of his teaching and practice.
 
(1) Marco Conti. Priscillian of Ávila - The Complete Works. Oxford Early Christian Texts 2010 (1st Edition) pp. 14 - 17 and pp. 32 - 163
(2) Conti. p. 17 - 19 and p.165 - ff.
(3) Conti. p. 19 and pp. 210 - 211
(4) Conti. pp. 19 - 20 and pp. 212 - 249
(5) Conti. pp. 20 -21 and pp. 250 - 257

The Martyrs of Trier

 

A 'Cruciero'. One of the Stations of the Cross on Mount Pedrouso, Santiago de Compostela.

Before we look at the "Homework Questions" and the possible teachings of Priscillian, we need to give a brief account of the after effects of his trial and execution.

The final sentence on Priscillian was confirmed by the Emperor Maximus while St. Martin was absent from Trier on other business -Severus does not give the reason. However, on the return of Martin, Maximus rescinded the order for the "witch- hunt" in Northern Spain and recalled his tribunes. This was apparently a "quid pro quo" to persuade Martin to take part in the consecration of Felix.(1)

Martin, along with Ambrose and other bishops condemned Ithacius for taking what was essentially a church matter to a secular court. This condemnation went as far as declaring illegal the consecration of Felix as bishop of Trier in 387A.D., because Ithacius was one of the consecrating bishops! The schism caused by this division sadly affected the Christian Church in Gaul for years to come, with Christians taking sides and supporting rival groups. (2)

Upon the defeat and execution of Maximus by the Emperor of the East, Theodosius, the Pricillianist church in Galicia found a new freedom. They obtained permission to bring back the mortal remains of 'The Martyrs of Trier', and there was a resurgence in the teachings of the founder of the movement, 'Saint Priscillian'. (3) Chadwick speculates that Santiago de Compostela (4) may have been the site of Priscillian's shrine which was certainly somewhere in Galicia. (5)

At a synod in c. 390, Ithacius was canonically deposed from his see for the bringing of an accusation on a capital charge. Hydatius of Mérida resigned before sentence could be given and both he and Ithacius shared excommunication and a sentence of exile.(6)

In parts of Spain, especially in Galicia, Priscillian was celebrated as a martyr. However at the Council of Toledo (A.D. 400) the four priscillianist bishops who would not recant were excommunicated and deprived of their sees. At the Council one of the clergy of the recalcitrant bishops cried out ' "of his own accord, not under interrogation", that Priscillian was a catholic and a holy martyr who had been orthodox to the end and had suffered perscution at the hands of the bishops'. (7)

By the time of the second Council of Bracara (Braga) in 572, Arianism in the Sueve kingdom of northern Spain was a thing of the past. There is little reference to Priscillianism in the canons of the Council. One of the few late references to the heresy is in a letter of Braulio, bishop of Saragossa from A.D.631 - 651. (8).  By this time Priscillianism was a spent force probably only surviving as a folk memory in the rural population in Galicia.


(1) S. Severus. Chron ii.50.4 in Chadwick - p. 146
(2) Babut. Martin of Tours pp.163-4 and the letter of Maximus to Pope Siricius in Avell. XL (CSEL 35)
(3) S. Severus. Chron. ii.51. 5-8 and Prosper. Chron. min.i.460
(4) Chadwick - p.233
(5) Prosper. Chron.min.i.460
(6) Prosper. Chron. ad ann 389 (Chron. min. i.462)
(7) Chadwick - p.184
(8) Braulio. Ep.44 (PL 80.693D)

Questions for 'Homework'

Priscillian's teaching on "Prophesying"

As I remarked in an earlier post, there is a similarity between the reaction to Priscillian and his teaching and the early teaching of John Wesley. I have traced the 'famous' comment by the Bishop of Bristol to John Wesley - usually reported as "enthusiasm Mr. Wesley is a nasty, nasty thing".
In fact during   " a series of meetings between Butler and John Wesley in August 1739, at one of which Butler said to Wesley, ‘Sir, the pretending to extraordinary revelations and gifts of the Holy Ghost is a horrid thing, a very horrid thing’  " (1)


This makes it all the more pertinent to the story of Priscillian who insisted that  "we do not despair of speaking about him either, because without preventing or stopping the spirit of anybody he concluded with the certain end of prophecy, but in order that all those who believe in him might speak of him freely,  . . . . " and  . . " he who trusts in Christ God may have no despair of prophesying about God, in what he had promised his faithful." (2)

The Questions

 There is a general recognition, amongst scholars and writers on Priscillian, that the Würzburg Tractates contain nothing that could be described as 'heretical'. However, those who have condemned him as a heretic have been definite that either the Tractates were not written by him - naming Bishop Instantius as the author, or that Priscillian was lying - a habitual occurrence in a Manichee!

Question 1- "Were Tractates I and II written by Priscillian ?"

Question 2 - "Was Priscillian telling the truth about his beliefs or was he lying in his teeth?"

The answers to these two questions would indicate to us whether or no Priscillan was a heresiarch. (the instigator or leader of a heresy)

Other questions are based around the practical out-workings of Priscillianism.

Question 3 - "On what basis were the Priscillianist churches organised? Hierarchical or Familial?" (3)

Question 4 - "What was Priscillian's attitude to ordaining clergy (bishops?) with an itinerant ministry?" (i.e. not having a defined 'See') (4)


I am taking a short time off from blogging to catch up on reading, so leave the questions with you as "homework"!

Footnotes
(1) H. Rack, Reasonable Enthusiast, 2nd edn, 1992, 209. Quoted in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
(2)  Tractate I . 545 and 555: Marco Conti. Priscillian of Ávila - The Complete Works. Oxford Early Christian Texts 2010 (1st Edition) pp. 65 - 66 This new book (2010) contains the Latin text of the Würzburg Tractates I - XI : the Canons on the Letters of the Apostle Paul : the Fragment Quoted in Orosius' Commonitorium and spurious works attributed to Priscillian. There is a translation into English on facing pages and at the end a commentary by Conti.

(3) This question is asked byVirginia Burrus:-  "Was the church a "political" community in which relationships between individuals were sharply delineated by the hierarchical ranks of office and gender? Or was it a "familiar" social body in which relationships were ordered by the more fluid hierarchies of birth, material resources, experience, education, or personal gifts of insight or eloquence?" 
 Virginia Burrus. "The Making of a Heretic. Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy". UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS 1995. available here:-

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft009nb09t;brand=ucpress

(4) By the time of the Council of Toledo (A.D. 400) there appears to have been a number of Galician 'bishops' ordained by Priscillianists who have no recorded sees. - See for example - Chadwick pp.170 - 188

For those interested in primary sources see Amazon link below. There is the opportunity to look inside the book.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Priscillian-Avila-Complete-Oxford-Christian/dp/0199567379/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1379769289&sr=1-5&keywords=Marco+Conti