writers. The Priscillianist system, already sufficiently dark and perplexed, has had new obscurity added by unstinted misrepresentation. The general outline may be made out of their opinions, fantastic allegories, daring cosmogonies, astrological fancies, combined with the severest asceticism. It is easier to compare the general resemblances of their doctrine to Cabalism, Syrian and Egyptian Gnosticism, Manicheism, Persian and Indian Orientalism, than to detect, analyse, and assign the differences.
There are no authentic extant records of the Priscillianist writers. A fragment of a letter of Priscillian himself has come down to us in quotation (Orosii Common. in Aug. Op.). There are allusions to a multitude of apocryphal scriptures which they used, thus differing from most heretical sects in accepting all apocryphal and canonical books as scripture, explaining and adapting them to their purpose in a mystical manner.
Our clearest account of their tenets is in the controversial correspondence slightly later than Priscillian, between Leo the Great and Turribius, bp. of Astorga. The latter summed up the doctrines in 16 articles. Leo replied in a lengthy epistle, commenting seriatim on each proposition (Leo, Ep. xv.).
(1) Their wild cosmical speculations were based on the bold Gnostic and Manichean conceptions of a primeval dualism. The two opposite realms of light and darkness, in eternal antagonism, were their basis.
(2) Their anti-materialism led them very far from the sublime simplicity of Scripture. Perplexed by the insoluble problem of the origin of sin, they indulged in most fantastic dreams and myths.
(3) The astrological fatalism which pope Leo condemned so sternly as subversive of all moral distinctions was a striking peculiarity (Leo, Ep. xv. 11–12). They believed the 12 signs of the Zodiac to have a mysterious supremacy over the members of the body.
(4) Their Christology is difficult to gather. If they held a Trinity at all, it was but a Trinity of names. Their adversaries accused them of Arianism and Sabellianism. Leo sharply criticizes their application and interpretation of the Scripture attributive of the Redeemer, "the Only-begotten."
(5) Their rigid asceticism resulted directly from their idea of the innate evil of matter. Marriage was proscribed; austerities of all sorts required.
(6) Their moral system plainly deserves the charge of dissimulation. Holding an esoteric and exoteric doctrine, they, with some other theosophic sects, affirmed falsehood allowable for a holy end; absolute veracity only binding between fellow-members. To the unenlightened they need not always and absolutely state the whole truth. This looseness of principle they supported by Scripture, distorting, e.g., Eph. iv. 25 in support of their practice. It was a Priscillianist habit to affect to agree with the multitude, making allowance for what they considered their fleshly notions, and to conceal from them what they regarded them as incapable of comprehending (Dictinnius in Libra). In the agitation of controversy some church ecclesiastics were in favour of fighting the Priscillianists with their own weapons. Augustine's treatise de Mendacio was expressly written against such laxity. It is easy to see how such practice arose from their principles. We may illustrate it by their Gnostic ideas about Scripture. The Christian Scripture was to them an imperfect revelation. What the Jewish religion was to Christianity, that the Priscillianists considered Christianity was with regard to their own speculations. As the O.T. was full of types and shadows of Christianity, so the N.T. in their hands became a figurative and symbolical exposition and veil of Priscillianism. The outer form was for the ignorant and profane; the inner truth for the wise and initiated. The grace of faith was fitted only for the rude mass of men; to know was the vocation of the privileged, the spiritual, the elect. A step further led the Priscillianist to disregard moral distinctions and believe himself entitled to prevaricate, which often led to things still worse, in his dealings with the common herd (cf. Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, lect. xii. p. 196; ix. p. 135; Neander, Ch. Hist. ii. p. 26). See Priscill. qua Supersunt, etc. accedit Orosii Commonitorum, etc. (Vienna, 1889), in Corpus Scr. Eccl. Lat. xviii.
[M.B.C.]
Priscus (11), St., 30th archbp. of Lyons, has been the subject of much controversy. Gregory of Tours, the historian, his contemporary, brings against him the gravest charges. According to the Hist. Franc. (iv. 36), he set himself, with his wife Susanna, to persecute and destroy those who had been the friends of his predecessor St. Nicetius, out of malice and jealousy, and never wearied of declaiming against his memory. The Vitae Patrum (viii. 5) also has an instance of his contempt for the same prelate, whose chaplain he is said to have been. On the other hand, he is numbered by the church among the saints. He was present at numerous councils, the 4th of Paris in 573, Châlons in 579, Mâcon in 581 or 583, 3rd of Lyons in 581, another at Lyons in 583, Valence in 584 or 585, and the 2nd of Mâcon in 585, at some of which he presided, and at the last was honoured in the preface with the dignified title, very rare in the West, of patriarcha (Mansi, ix. 949; Ceillier, xi. 896). For these and other reasons the Bollandists (Acta SS. Jun. vi. 120–127) refuse credence to Gregory's charges.
[S.A.B.]
Privatus (2), once bp. of the important but shortlived city of Lambaesis in Numidia, the present Tazzût or Tezzulot (Momms.). He was condemned for heresy and multa et gravia delicta, by 90 bishops at a council under Donatus, bp. of Carthage (Cypr. Ep. 59, xiii.; 10), and apparently under the Roman bishopric of Fabian (a.d. 240, Morcelli). Apparently the council was held at Lambaesis, and afterwards Donatus and Fabian issued letters condemnatory of Privatus and his opinions.
In 250 Privatus visited Rome, and Cyprian, apprehensive of his influence, warned the clergy against him. They replied (Ep. xxxvi. 4) that they had already detected him in an attempt to obtain litterae (communicatoriae) from them fraudulently.
He presented himself (vetus haereticus) and desired to be heard on behalf of the party who took the lax view as to the lapsi, at the 2nd council Id. Mai., 252, and, on being re-
