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