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.