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.
No comments:
Post a Comment