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

Priscillian:- his trial, condemnation and death

The revolt against the unpopular emperor Gratian in 383 led to his capture and murder. The military commander from Britain, Magnus Maximus, acclaimed as Augustus by his troops, entered Trier as the emperor of the western provinces. The opportunity was quickly sized by Ithacius of Ossonuba, at that time a refugee in Trier, to present grave criminal charges against the Priscillianists. Maximus directed that these should be referred to a synod at Burdigala (Bordeaux).

The Synod of Bordeaux 

At the synod to which the Priscillianist bishops and their followers were ordered to attend, bishop Instantius was found guilty and deposed from his see (and later exiled). Priscillian, realising that he too would be found guily, appealed directly to the emperor at Trier. (1)

The Trials at Trier

The date of the trial of Priscillian before the secular court in Trier, and his subsequent death, has not been verified with any degree of certainty. Chadwick does not rule out the late autumn of 385, but feels that the summer of 386 is the most probable date (2). The initial trial took place with bishop Ithacius as chief prosecutor. When Priscillian and his companions were found guilty, the question of sentence was referred to the emperor. At this point Ithacius withdrew from the prosecution, necessitating a retrial. This took place under Patricius, a treasury official, pointing up the comment in S. Severus that Maximus "wanted the heretics property" (3)
In the usual procedure at a trial on the charge of malignant witchcraft, torture was used to extract a confession. It is likely that this was the case when Priscillian confessed under 'juridical examination' 'to his interest in magical studies, to having held nocturnal gatherings of (loose) women, and to having prayed naked'. (4)

The sentences of the Priscillianists

At the end of the second trial Priscillian was beheaded together with the priests Felicissimus and Armenius, Latronianus (a poet mentioned by St. Jerome) and the woman Euchrotia. In the 'inquisition' initiated in Spain by Maximus (5) the deacon Aurelius and Asarivus (or Asarbus) were beheaded. The layman Tiberianus lost all his property by confiscation and was exiled, along with the bishop Instantius to the Isles of Scilly. (6)
It is of interest that the condemned were found guilty and put to death for the practise of sorcery and magic and NOT for heresy, that being outside the remit of a secular court.

The reasons why Priscillian's teaching was so violently rejected by orthodox catholic bishops both at the time, and during the following years, needs further reflection.


(1) Sulpicius Severus Chron.ii.49. 5-6.
(2) Chadwick, Priscillian of Ávila. page132 - 138
(3) Sulpicius Severus Dial.iii.11. 10-11. quoted in Chadwick, op.cit. page 144
(4) Chadwick, op. cit. page 139
(5) Sulpicius Severus, Dial.iii.11.
(6) Chadwick op.cit. page 144

Priscillian - Bishop of Ávila A.D. 380/1 - 385 (1)

 

Ancient door lintel - Paradela, Toques, Spain

 

 

Ana Maria C.M. Jorge states:- 

"Priscillian helps us to achieve a better understanding of the Christianization process and the orthodox/heterodox debate in late antiquity. He also provides insight into the complexity of a period which precludes any arbitrary simplification and which, despite a search for unity, proves to be a time of opposition and confrontation." (2)

In spite of the Synod of Nicaea and their creed (A.D. 325), the years immediately following were a time of uncertainty. There were a number of attempts to overthrow the "orthodoxy" of the Nicene Formulas which were seen as the work of a minority in the Church. Arianism was still a force to be reckoned with. In 385, Justina, the mother of the boy Emperor of Rome, had asked Bishop Ambrose to give permission for an Arian basilica to be dedicated in Milan. As late as 585 the Visigoth conquerors of northern Spain were Arian Christians.

Questions were also being asked around the relationship of the Divinity and Humanity of Christ and answered in various ways. A form of Monarchianism seems to have been held by Priscillian without it being condemned as a heresy - i.e. it was an acceptable form of Christianity at that time. 
Priscillian's version of Christianity seems to have rapidly become popular with women and country folk, especially those in the upper classes of society. His rigorist teaching, along with an ascetic way of life can easily be understood as a challenge to the city dwelling bishops of the time. Sulpicius Severus was among those who "bitterly attacked the western bishops of his time whose principal care was either to maximize the return from their estates, or, if not landowners, to go about begging, so that in either case, whether rich or poor, their single obsession was money". (3)

When this is compared to the absoluteness of the Priscillian demand "None can be Christ's disciple if he loves anyone more than God", and the acceptance of baptism entails "a total abandonment of the foul darkness of secular activities" (4) it was inevitable that there would be a reaction from some of the more 'worldly' bishops of the time.

The following statement appears to summarise the situation!
Priscillianism was:-"One of the first protest movements against the corruption and vice of the orthodox catholic clerics" (5)

Opposition to the teaching

In a desire to prevent the “sect” from growing, Idacius of Mérida and Ithacius of Ossonuba, (modern Estoi near Faro in the Algarve) denounced the Priscillianist movement to Gratian in 381. The Emperor immediately published an edict ordering the Spanish bishops to expel the “heretics from their churches: "... (6)
In response the bishops Instantius, Salvianus and Priscillian travelled to Rome. On the way they passed through Aquitania where they were joined by the widow Euchrotia, her daughter Procula and other women. S. Severus represents these as "an abandoned company of loose females". Chadwick notes that "this feminine company with the three bishops was a serious imprudence" but with Priscillian's known opinion on the equality of women it is understandable.

The request for an audience with Damasus, the bishop of Rome fell on deaf ears.(7)  The bishops Instantius, Priscillian and Salvianus went on to Milan hoping to have an audience with bishop Ambrose. While they were there it seems that Salvianus died. Once again they were refused. They did however (by means of bribery?) obtain an imperial rescript restoring them to their churches. (8)

On the return of Priscillian and Instantius to Spain, bishop Ithacius repeatedly attempted to resist their restoration to their bishoprics, holding that they were heretical. At this point Priscillian and his party seem to have had the upper hand (or more influence in the right places!) as they obtained an order for the arrest of Ithacius as "perturbator ecclesiarum" (9) Ithacius fled to the imperial city of Trier in Gaul and found refuge with the bishop Brittanus.

In A.D. 383 the emperor Gratian was assassinated and Magnus Maximus took power and entered Trier as the new emperor.

                                               . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Notes
(1) Council of Burdigala (Bordeaux) at which Bishop Instantius was deposed was in A.D. 385. From there Priscillian appealed to the Emperor at Trier. (See next blog post)
(2) Ana Maria C.M. Jorge - Abstract
(3) Chadwick p.5 (1975 ed.) quoting Sulpicius Severus Chron l: 23 
(4) Wurzburg Tractates (Tract. ii pp.34 f. Schepss) The Tractates were a Priscillian statement of faith.
     See next post for more detail.
(5) "uno de los primeros movimientos de protesta contra la corrupción y el vicio del clero católico ortodoxo" La Historia con Mapas. Biografía de Priscilianismo (s. IV-VI) - (My translation)
(6) Sulpicius Severus Chron ll 47.2
(7) The petition addressed to Damasus appears as the second of the Wurzburg Tractates.
(8) Sulpicius Severus Chron ll 48.2
(9) Sulpicius Severus Chron ll 49.1