Priscillian

Spanish bishop

• Born: c. 340
• Birthplace: Spain
• Died: 385
• Place of death: Trier (now in Germany)

Priscillian provides an example not only of the popularity of ascetic practices in the Christian church but also of what can happen when such activities are carried to extremes and challenge established Church beliefs and lines of authority.

Early Life

The latter half of the fourth century was a great age of Christian ascetics. These individuals withdrew from the secular world and practiced a life of fasting, deprivation, nightly vigils, and spiritual contemplation. Churchmen such as Saint Antony of Egypt, Saint Martin of Tours in Gaul, Saint Jerome in Italy and Palestine, and many others popularized this style of asceticism. In theory, these practices were merely part of the ideal Christian life. Groups of ascetics could become very influential; their members often were chosen as bishops. Extreme forms of ascetism, however, especially those that rejected established church practices and teachings, were looked on with less favor.

Priscillian (prihs-SIHL-yahn) was a well-educated Spanish nobleman said to have been versed in secular and Christian literature as well as in astrology and the occult. He was possessed of a keen intellect and was an eloquent speaker. After his conversion to Christianity, he, like many others of his day, adopted an ascetic life. He also claimed to have prophetic powers. He became a wandering lay preacher and assumed the title “doctor.” During the 370’s, he began to teach his own peculiar brand of Christianity.

Life’s Work

Insight into just what Priscillian’s teachings were can be gained not only from his contemporary detractors but also from eleven treatises that were first published in 1889. Although only a few of them may have been written by Priscillian himself, or by his supporter Instantius, they do reflect Priscillian’s teachings. The Priscillianists were very ascetic, recommending vegetarianism and abstinence from wine. On Sundays, they fasted. They generally walked barefoot. They also were opposed to marriage and to other aspects of the organized Church. They preferred, for example, to meet in secret, either in their own country villas or in mountain retreats. They held Communion outside the established Church. At some times of the year, such as during Lent and in the days before Epiphany, which was then recognized as the day of Christ’s birth, they seemed simply to disappear from sight.

As to their theological beliefs, the Priscillianists had a marked preference for the New Testament and for some of the apocryphal writings, such as the lives of the Apostles Peter, John, Andrew, and Thomas. They also believed in direct, divine inspiration. Aspects of Priscillian’s works to reflect a Manichaean dualism: He distinguished, for example, between darkness and light and saw Satan not as a fallen angel but as having an independent existence. His denial of the preexistence of Christ could have been tinged with Arianism. As a result, great controversy soon arose over Priscillian’s teachings and practices. The contemporary Gallic writer Sulpicius Severus, in his chronicle, noted, “there followed portentious and dangerous times of our age, in which the churches were defiled and everything was disturbed by an unaccustomed evil.”

Priscillian soon gained a large following in Galicia and Lusitania (the northern and western parts of Spain). A large number of women were attracted to him; they held meetings of their own apart from the regular church services. He also was joined by two western Spanish bishops, Instantius and Salvianus. He initially was opposed, however, by more worldly bishops such as Hyginus of Cordova and, in particular, Hydatius of Emerita. Some of his detractors accused him of Manichaeanism. It also was rumored that two of his followers, the noblewoman Agape and the rhetorician Helpidius, had infected him with the Gnostic teachings of Mark of Memphis, an Egyptian who had moved to Spain. The Priscillianists soon were joined by another bishop, Symphosius of Astorga in Lusitania (modern Portugal). Hyginus of Cordova also changed his mind and withdrew his initial objections.

In 380, a council was assembled at Saragossa to consider Priscillian’s case. Ten Spanish bishops attended as well as two Gallic bishops, Delphinus of Bordeaux and Phoebadius of Agen, the latter presiding over the meeting. Priscillian himself, however, did not attend, although he did submit a written reply. The council declined to condemn him by name, although it did denounce some Priscillianist practices, such as the speaking and teaching of women in religious “conventicles” (gatherings), the activities of lay preachers, and the absence from church during Lent. Perhaps in response to the second of these, Priscillian was consecrated shortly thereafter as bishop of Avila in Lusitania by Salvianus and Instantius. The Priscillianists then made scandalous accusations of their own against Hydatius. In 381 Priscillian’s opponents, who had been joined by Bishop Ithacius of Ossonoba, appealed to the Emperor Gratian with the help of Bishop Ambrose of Milan. Gratian then issued a decree condemning “false bishops and Manichees.”

Priscillian himself realized the efficacy of such a tactic, noting, “with our names disguised [Hydatius] sought a rescript against pseudobishops and Manichees, and of course obtained it, because there is no one who does not feel hatred when he hears about pseudobishops and Manichees.” The Italian writer on heresies Philastrius of Brescia made similar connections, referring to the “so-to-speak ascetics in Gaul, Spain, and Aquitania, who likewise follow the most pernicious belief of the Gnostics and Manichees,” despite Priscillian’s own explicit anathematization of Manichaeanism.

It was a popular tactic in ecclesiastical debates of this time, however, to attempt to associate one’s opponents with some other universally detested heresy. Priscillianism was related to Origenism, for example, by the Spanish writer Paulus Orosius in his Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum (c. 414; reminder about the error of the Priscillianists and Origenists). Other heresies by which the Priscillianists also were accused of being influenced included Gnosticism, Montanism, Novatianism, Ophitism, Patripassianism, Photinianism, and Sabellianism.

Priscillian, Instantius, and Salvianus, though the Imperial edict had not specifically named them, left Spain seeking additional support. At Eauze in southwestern Gaul, they made many converts. After being expelled from Bordeaux by Bishop Delphinus, they were received by the noblewoman Euchrotia and Procula, the widow and daughter of the professor Attius Tiro Delphidius. They then continued on to Italy. At Rome, where Salvianus died, they were rebuffed by Pope Damasus. Thereafter, they received a similar response from Ambrose of Milan. They were successful, however, in gaining the help of Ambrose’s enemies at the Imperial court, and they obtained an Imperial rescript of their own, authorizing them to reclaim their sees, which they then did. Ithacius even was forced to go into exile in Trier.

Soon thereafter, however in 383, Gratian was murdered by the usurper Magnus Maximus, who subsequently was baptized as an orthodox Christian. Ithacius proceeded to place his case before the new emperor, with whom the Priscillianists had no influence. Maximus, desiring to conciliate the established Gallic and Spanish clergy, ordered a council to be convened in 384 or 385 at Bordeaux under the presidency of Priscillian’s enemy Delphinus. Instantius, whose case was heard first, was declared deposed, but before Priscillian could be tried, he appealed to Maximus himself.

A hearing was therefore convened before the praetorian prefect of Gaul at Trier. Priscillian’s principal accuser, Ithacius, took the lead in the prosecution. Priscillian was accused, according to Sulpicius Severus, “of witchcraft, of studying obscene teachings, of organizing nocturnal gatherings of shameful women, and of praying in the nude.” Some of these crimes were capital offenses. Two other influential bishops who coincidentally happened to be in the city at the time, Martin of Tours and Ambrose of Milan, refused to take part and argued that a bishop should be tried before his fellow bishops. Other bishops, however, supported the proceedings.

In the end, Priscillian and six of his followers, including Euchrotia and the Spanish nobleman Latronianus, were condemned to death and executed. Others, such as Instantius, were sent into exile. Martin was able to prevent the sending of an Imperial commission to root out the Spanish Priscillianists, but purges did take place. The aged Hyginus, for example, was sent into exile, and ascetics in general continued to be harassed.

The role of Maximus is seen especially in his letter to Bishop Siricius of Rome informing him of the affair: “Our arrival found certain matters so contaminated and polluted by the sins of the wicked that, unless foresight and attention had quickly brought aid, great disturbance and ruin immediately would have arisen, . . . but it was then disclosed how great a crime the Manichees recently had committed, not by doubtful or uncertain rhetoric or suspicions, but by their own confession.” According to the emperor, the Priscillianists were Manichees: In fact, he never referred to Priscillian or Priscillianists by name at all. He may have seen no need to try to define a new heresy when Manichaeanism, a perfectly good, universally detested one, was available. An accusation of Manichaeanism would have allowed Priscillian to be tried under the statutes that made it a capital crime.

This heavy-handed secular interference in church activities led to a split in the Gallic church. Bishops such as Felix of Trier, who associated themselves with Priscillian’s accusers, were seen as responsible for his execution by others, such as Martin, who had declined to participate. Thus arose the so-called Felician controversy, in which bishops of the two sides excommunicated each other.

The anti-Felicians, who had opposed the executions, came back into Imperial favor in 388, when Maximus was defeated and Valentinian II, Gratian’s younger brother, was restored to the throne. Both Ithacius and Hydatius were exiled and imprisoned at Naples. The remains of Priscillian and his followers were returned to Spain and buried with great ceremony. Priscillian was venerated as a martyr and saint, and his teachings continued to have many followers. Subsequently, a number of Priscillianists were chosen as bishops in Galicia, with Symphosius as one of their leaders.

The Council of Toledo in 400 was able to reconcile some of the Priscillianists, such as Symphosius, but Priscillianism continued to have many adherents. Outbreaks are attested in the 440’s, in the mid-530’s, and as late as the Councils of Braga in 561 and 572, when seventeen supposed Priscillianist teachings were condemned. Some Priscillianist practices were reflected even later in those of the medieval Albigensians (c. 1200), southern French ascetic, anticlerical dualists, and Adamites, who practiced nudity. The Priscillianist preference for clerical continence, moreover, did eventually become standard Catholic practice.

Significance

The Priscillianist controversy did not concern ecclesiastical dogma as much as it did church authority. Even in the modern day, scholars have a difficult time finding obvious heresy in Priscillian’s writings. Nevertheless, his advocacy of uncontrolled scriptural interpretation, lay ministry, the participation of women, and the carrying out of the sacraments outside the established structure excited much opposition from the existing church hierarchy. His and his followers’ acquisition of episcopal office, and their attempts to take over the church hierarchy themselves, only served to arouse more opposition against them. The result was a power struggle in which both sides sought assistance from the secular government. Priscillian was the loser and paid with his life. In the future, the state would become more and more intimately involved in church activities and controversies.

Bibliography

Birley, A. R. “Magnus Maximus and the Persecution of Heresy.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 66 (1983): 13-43. A detailed discussion of the part played by the emperor Magnus Maximus in the Priscillianist controversy. This incident illustrates the increasing interference of the Imperial government in the operation of the Church. Includes references to recent scholarship on Priscillian and notes.

Burrus, Virginia. The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Explores the concept of heresy from the point of view of the followers of Priscillian. Reevaluates the reliability of the historical record. Burrus’s analysis includes the concepts of gender, authority, and public and private space that informed established religion’s response to this early Christian movement.

Chadwick, Henry. Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1976. The standard English-language biography of Priscillian. Concentrates on the religious and theological aspects of Priscillian’s teaching. Includes thorough documentation and bibliography, with references to many other sources, especially in foreign languages.

De Clercq, V. C. “Ossius of Cordova and the Origins of Priscillianism.” Studia patristica 1 (1957): 601-606. A brief discussion of the background of the Priscillianist controversy; De Clercq seeks to identify possible forerunners of Priscillian’s beliefs and theology in earlier Christian teachings, especially those of Ossius of Cordova.