v12n2 6priscillian of Avila

8/11/2019 v12n2 6priscillian of Avila

1/12

Priscillian of Avila:

Heretic or Early Reformer?

by Brian Wagner

Introduction

The Lord Jesus Christ said, For by your words you will be justified, and by

your words you will be condemned (Matthew 12:37).1 Though He was

speaking of the last judgment, the principle of letting someone be judged,even in this life, by his own testimony is a sound one. The Bible also speaks

of establishing ones testimony in the mouth of two or three witnesses

(1 Timothy 5:19), which is to be a safeguard against a false witness damaging

someones reputation.

History is a study of testimony. The primary source material written by an

individual is often the best evidence by which to judge what that person

believed and taught. Other contemporaries to that individual could also be

used to evaluate whether he was presenting a consistent and coherent message

at all times and whether his actions matched his words. As with all historical

judgment of this kind, the testimony by friends or foes must be weighed with

at least some suspicion of bias.

Priscillian of Avila, from the fourth century, has been designated by mostof history as a Christian heretic. This conclusion, made by many of his

contemporary foes, led to his beheading by the civil authorities. After his

death in A.D. 365, his writings were searched out for destruction, along with

anyone promoting his teaching. Copies of some of his writings still survive.

Very early ones, judged as possibly made within just a century of Priscillians

martyrdom, were recovered at the University of Wrzburg by Georg Schepss

in 1885. These still are without translation into English, and thus the

opportunity for Priscillian to defend himself in an unfiltered way before a

wider jury in Christendom remains unavailable. This paper is an attempt to

provide an overview of the historical testimony concerning Priscillian, along

with some of the more recent contributions that have taken Priscillians own

words into account. The hope is to provide help to the modern student as hereexamines whether Priscillian was indeed a heretic or possibly, instead, an

early reformer of Christianity.

Biographical Sketch of Priscillian

Almost all biographical sketches of the life of Priscillian rely exclusively

upon the account of Sulpitius Severus, a Roman Catholic historian who was in

his early twenties when Priscillian was executed. According to Severus,

Priscillian was . . . a man of noble birth, of great riches, bold, restless,

1New King James Version(Atlanta: Nelson, 1992).


2/12

CTS Journal12 (Fall 2006)88

eloquent, learned through much reading, very ready at debate and

discussionin fact, altogether a happy man, if he had not ruined an excellent

intellect by wicked studies.2 The wicked studies to which Severus was

referring supposedly concerned Gnosticism, which will be discussed below.

Not much else is known of Priscillians earlier years. His story picks up when

the conflict begins between some bishops of Spain who began following

Priscillians teachings and those bishops who opposed them. The principalcontestants were bishops Instantius and Salvianus, who sided with Priscillian,

and bishops Ithacius and Ydacius (sometimes spelled Idacius), who, togetherwith the council of Sargossa held in 380, excommunicated the Priscillian

party.

After the excommunication, Priscillian was appointed bishop of Avila.

This appointment was reportedly made by Instantius and Salvianus. Their

opponents appealed to Gratian, the Roman Emperor, and received from him adecree authorizing the banishment of the Priscillian party. Priscillian,

Instantius, and Salvianus then took a journey to Rome3 and then Milan to

appeal to Damasus and Ambrose, the powerful bishops of those cities, seeking

their help to have the decree removed. Both Damasus and Ambrose refused to

have an audience with them. However, the Priscillianists were then able tosecure, supposedly by large bribes, the overturn of the decree of their exile

and the return to them of their bishoprics.

Their opponent, Ithacius, was briefly forced to flee to Gaul, but under the

administration of the new Roman Emperor, Maximus, he was able to present

at Trier his petition that the Priscillianists once again be judged. Martin, the

famous monastic of that time, also bishop of Tours, though not agreeing with

what he knew of Priscillians teachings, did not cease to importune Ithacius,

that he should give up his accusations, or to implore Maximus that he should

not shed the blood of the unhappy persons in question.4The Ithacius party,

however, won the day. Priscillian lost his appeal and was interrogated by the

emperors prefect, Evodius, who concluded that Priscillian was guilty of

magic arts, a capital offense. Priscillian was beheaded along with four other

2 Sulpitius Severus The Sacred History of Sulpitius Severus, bk. 2, chap. 46, TheComplete Collection of Early Church Fathers Writings in WinHelp Format, ed.

Maged Nabih Kamel (1996), http://www.reformedreader.org/history/ecfcollection

.htm. All biographical information for this paper has been synthesized from this workof Severus.3 Severus History, bk. 2, chap. 48. Severus reports that during this journey, the

Priscillian band spread the seeds of their heresy and had a great reception in

Aquitania (now southern France), but also that Priscillian supposedly had an illicit

affair with Procula, a woman in their party, who then procured an abortion in anattempt to conceal the matter.4SeverusHistory, bk. 2, chap. 51.


3/12

Priscillian of Avila 89

associates. His friend, bishop Instantius, was banished to the island of Sylina

(now called Scilly Isles, off the southwest coast of England).5 Priscillians

body, along with those of the others, was transported back to Spain, where it

received a martyrs welcome.

Opinion of Him by His Contemporaries

At the time of Priscillians death, the soon-to-be ecclesiastical historianSulpitius Severus was not yet converted to Christianity, but he was shortly

thereafter. He considered Martin of Tours as his spiritual father.6 Mostlikely, Martin was the main source of information for Severus concerning

Priscillian. Severus was closely associated with Martin and must have

received firsthand information of Martins successful persuasion of Emperor

Maximus to recall his forces, which, after the execution of Priscillian, were

being sent into Spain. These forces were to search out heretics, and, whenfound, to deprive them of their life or goods.7Severus said that Martin felt a

pious solicitude not only to save from danger the true Christians in these

regions, who were to be persecuted in connection with that expedition, but to

protect even heretics themselves.8There is no doubt that Severus accepted

Martins view of the Priscillians as heretics. As to what their heresy actuallywas, it appears that Severus, along with all of Catholicism outside of Spain,

believed Ithacius accusations of Manichaeism and Gnosticism as the

premiere heresies of Priscillian.

As mentioned above, Severus had introduced Priscillian in his history as

one who held to wicked studies. He continued in that section to reveal that

the mentors of Priscillian had been a noble woman named Agape and a

teacher named Helpidius, who had both been students of an Egyptian Gnostic

named Marcus. Henry Chadwick, a modern historian and author ofPriscillian

of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church , demonstrates

that this accusation of Priscillians connection with Marcus began with

Ithacius, the chief opponent to Priscillian. Comparing Severus account with

Ithacius accusations which were preserved by a seventh-century archbishop

Isidore of Seville, Chadwick concludes that it is as good as certain that

5Salvianus had died earlier on the return journey from Rome.6 Elgin Moyer, Severus Sulpicius, in Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the

Church, rev. Earle E. Cairns (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), 367.7Sulpitius Severus, chap. 11 of Dialogue III: The Virtues of Martin Continued, inThe Dialogues of Sulpitius Severus, The Complete Collection of Early Church

Fathers Writings in WinHelp Format, ed. Maged Nabih Kamel (1996),http://www.reformedreader.org/history/ecfcollection.htm.8Ibid.


4/12


Sulpicius Severus was drawing upon Ithacius book as a main source.9

Isidores account of Ithacius charges also associated Priscillianisms

progenitor, Mark of Memphis, with sorcery and Manichaeism. It is this

prominent label of Manichaeism that became linked with Priscillianism more

than any other indictment.

Ten short years after Priscillians death, Augustine, himself a convert

from Manichaeism, boldly affirmed that Priscillianists were a sect very likethe Manichaeans.10 And Jerome in 415 also linked the two with the same

invectives, saying, Then there is Priscillian in Spain, whose infamy makeshim as bad as Manichus.11 Vincent of Lerins in 434 chooses to recall the

charge of sorcery, and places Priscillian in the lineage of Simon Magus of

Acts 8.12

Opinion of Him by Other Voices in Church History

The charge of Manichaeism has remained with Priscillianism until the present

day. The official Roman Catholic opinion, as seen in the article on

Priscillianism in the Catholic Encyclopedia, maintains, A form of

Manichaean heresy, Priscillianism was introduced into Spain from Egypt in

the fourth century.

13

The reformed opinion has been the same, as seen in thePuritan divine John Owen. Owen utilized the Priscillian condemnation to

argue for religious freedom in his day. However, he still labeled Priscillian a

Manichee and a Gnostic.14Notable Lutheran historians, Augustus Neander

and Philip Schaff, both held to the same view in their writings.15

9Henry Chadwick,Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early

Church(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 21.10Augustine of Hippo,Letter 36: To Casulanus, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

First Series, vol. 1, ed. Philip Schaff, The Ages Digital Library Collection(Albany,

OR: Ages Software, 1997), 501.11Jerome, Letter 133: To Ctesiphon, in The Letters of St. Jerome: Letters CXXX to

CXLIII, The Complete Collection of Early Church Fathers Writings in WinHelp

Format, ed. Maged Nabih Kamel (1996), http://www.reformedreader.org/history/ecfcollection.htm.12Vincent of Lerins, The Commonitory of Vincent of Lerins, for the Antiquity andUniversality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies ,

trans. C. A. Heurtley, The Complete Collection of Early Church Fathers Writings in

WinHelp Format, ed. Maged Nabih Kamel (1996), http://www.reformedreader.org/history/ecfcollection.htm.13 Priscillianism, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. Robert C. Broderick (New

York: Nelson, 1987), 493.14 John Owen, Of Toleration, in The John Owen Collection, The Ages Digital

Library Collection (Rio, WI: Ages Software, 2004), 9:208.15Augustus Neander, General History of the Christian Religion, trans. Joseph Torrey,

(London: Bohn, 1850), 4:491502. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church,


5/12


However, in 1931 a Plymouth Brethren historian Edmund H. Broadbent,

after extensive personal research, including his own interpretation of the

previously uncovered Priscillian tractates in 1885 (discussed below),

concluded that Priscillian was an evangelical reformer, and not a Manichaean

heretic. He published his findings as part of an evangelical history

compendium titled The Pilgrim Church. What Broadbent discovered in the

Priscillian tractates concerning Priscillians doctrine is still so exceptional inEnglish-speaking circles that it bears reproducing in its entirety.

The style of Priscillian's writing is vivid and telling, he constantly quotesScripture in support of what he advances and shows an intimate

acquaintance with the whole of the Old and New Testaments. He

maintained, however, the right of the Christian to read other literature, andthis was made the occasion of accusing him of wishing to include the

Apocrypha in the Canon of Scripture, which he did not do.

He defends himself and his friends for their habit of holding Bible

readings in which laymen were active and women took part, also for theirobjection to taking the Lord's Supper with frivolous and worldly minded

persons. For Priscillian the theological disputations in the Church had little

value, for he knew the gift of God, and had accepted it by a living faith. He

would not dispute as to the Trinity, being content to know that in Christ thetrue One God is laid hold of by the help of the Divine Spirit.

He taught that the object of redemption is that we should be turned to God

and therefore an energetic turning from the world is needed, lest anythingmight hinder fellowship with God. This salvation is not a magical event

brought about by some sacrament, but a spiritual act. The Church indeed

publishes the confession, and baptises, and conveys the commands or Word

of God, to men, but each one must decide for himself and believe forhimself. If communion with Christ should be broken it is for each one to

restore it by personal repentance. There is no special official grace, laymen

have the Spirit as much as clergy.He exposes at length the evil and falsity of Manichaeism [emphasis

added], and his teaching, from the Scriptures, is entirely opposed to it.

Asceticism he regarded not as a chief thing in itself, but as a help towardsthat entire union of the whole person with God or Christ, from which the

body cannot be excepted, because of its being the habitation of the Spirit.This is rest in Christ, experience of Divine love and leading, incorruptible

blessing. Faith in God, who has revealed Himself, is a personal act which

involves the whole being in acknowledgment of dependence on God for life

and for all things. It brings with it the desire and the decision to be whollyconsecrated to Him. Moral works follow of themselves because in receiving

the new life the believer has received into himself that which contains the

very essence of morality. Scripture is not only historical truth, but is at the

vol. 4 (Cedar Rapids, IA: Parsons Technology, 1999; electronic ed. STEP files,

Omaha, NE: QuickVerse, 2003), bk. 1, chap. 9, para. 133.


6/12


same time a means of grace. The spirit feeds upon it and finds that every

portion of it contains revelation, instruction, and guidance for daily life. To

see the allegorical meaning of Scripture requires no technical training, but

faith. The Messianic-typical meaning of the Old Testament and the historical

progress of the New are pointed out, and this not only for the sake ofknowledge, but as showing that not some only, but all the saints are called to

complete sanctification.16

Broadbent concluded that the reading of these, Priscillian's own writings,

shows that the account handed down of him was wholly untrue.17

But one only has to open any modern reference work on church history,

even those from evangelical circles, to see that the label of Manichaeism is

still associated with Priscillianism. The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of

the Church, for instance, states that Priscillian, combining various elements

of Gnosticism and Manichaeism and other esoteric teachings with

Christianity, developed a sect of his own.18R. E. Webber, in his article on

Martin of Tours in Whos Who in Christian History,19mentions Priscillian as

a Gnostic heretic. And Peter Toons article in The New International

Dictionary of the Christian Church follows closely the outline given by

Severus account, but allows a little room for doubt, describing Priscillian asseemingly influenced by Gnostic doctrines brought to Spain by an Egyptian

named Marcus.20 He also concludes his article by noting that modern

scholarship is divided on the question of whether Priscillian was a heretic or

merely an eccentric enthusiast.21

Two modern scholars have concurred with the opinion that Priscillian was

not a heretic, or at least not Manichaean, though some of his habits may have

vaguely resembled those of the Manichaean faith. Henry Chadwick, with

some literary flair, after his own investigation of the usual historical evidence,

but also including Priscillians own tractates, believes the Wrzburg tractates

leave no doubt that Priscillian, although he has a sombre view of the

earthbound fallen condition of man, disclaims Manicheism with great

vehemence; and there is not the slightest hint to suggest that behind the maskof the anathemas there lies a secret radical dualist putting up a smokescreen of

16E. H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church(Grand Rapids: Gospel Folio Press, 1999),

6061.17Ibid.18Moyer, Priscillian, 334.19R. E. Webber, Martin of Tours, in Whos Who in Christian History, ed. J. D.

Douglas and Philip W. Comfort (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1992).20 Peter Toon, Priscillian, in The New International Dictionary of the ChristianChurch, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978).21Ibid.


7/12


verbiage to conceal his real beliefs.22Chadwick also believed that Priscillian

had an evangelical bent, summing up such a view of him in the opening

statement in the Preface of his book, Priscillian, bishop of Avila 3815, led

an evangelical[emphasis added] ascetic movement in the Spanish churches,

which encouraged charismatic prophecy among both men and women, with

the study of heretical apocrypha.23

Virginia Burrus is another modern scholar who denies a connectionbetween Priscillian and Manichaeism. In her recent book,The Making of a

Heretic: Gender, Authority and the Priscillian Controversy, she critiquesChadwicks work and thoroughly investigates the major texts relating to

Priscillian, including his words in the Wrzburg tractates. She agrees with

Chadwick, saying that the tractates disrupt the heresiological tradition

transmitted by Severus and others: the anticipated indications of blatant

gnostic, Manichaean, or monarchian errors are elusive, if not altogetherabsent.24 Both Burrus and Chadwick rely heavily upon Priscillians own

words as proof positive that he and his teachings have been falsely maligned

by the majority report of history.

His Orthodoxy in His Own Words

It was thought that Priscillian had written voluminously but that all his

writings had been summarily destroyed. Providentially, in 1886 Georg

Schepss recovered eleven of Priscillian's works in the library of the University

of Wrzburg. The Latin used in writing these texts is very old, and the codex

containing them is one of the oldest Latin manuscripts in existence, being

perhaps from the mid- to late fifth century. Of the eleven tracts found, the first

three contain a defense of his teachings, and the last seven cover some of that

teaching. Broadbent protests that these tractates prove concerning Priscillian

that he was a man of saintly character, sound in doctrine, and an energetic

reformer, and that those associated with him were companies of men and

women who were true and devoted followers of Christ.25

The titles of the eleven tractates are as follows:

1.

Liber apologeticus(Book of Apology)

2. Liber ad Damasum Episcopum (Letter to Bishop Damasus)

3. Liber de fide et de Apocryphis (Book about the Faith and about the

Apocrypha)

4. Tractatus Paschae (Tract concerning Passover)

22Chadwick,Priscillian of Avila, 98.23Ibid., vii.24Virginia Burrus, The Making of a Heretic:Gender, Authority and the PriscillianControversy(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995), 3.25Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church, 60.


8/12


5. Tractatus Genesis(Tract concerning Genesis)

6. Tractatus Exodi(Tract concerning Exodus)

7. Tractatus Primi Psalmi (Tract concerning the First Psalm)

8. Tractatus Psalmi Terti(Tract concerning the Third Psalm)

9.

Tractatus ad populum I (First Tract to the People)

10.Tractatus ad populum II (Second Tract to the People)

11.

Benedictio super fideles (Blessing upon the Faithful)

They have not yet been translated into English in one volume. The thirdtractate, Liber de fide et de Apocryphis, has been recently translated by

Andrew S. Jacobs and is included in Christianity in Late Antiquity, 300450

C.E.: A Reader, by Bart D. Ehrman and Andrew S. Jacobs, published in 2004

by Oxford University Press.26 A translation of the eleventh tractate into

English is available in The Eucharistic Prayer in the Orthodox West, byStephen Combs, published by Poundbury Press in 1987.

Of course, the works of Chadwick and Burrus mentioned above provide

translations for numerous phrases and sentences from a number of the

Priscillian tractates, plus a good synopsis of what they felt Priscillian was

teaching in them. Yet their worthy contributions still cannot give to theEnglish-speaking evangelical community the same confidence that Broadbent

had of Priscillians orthodoxy. This confidence, perhaps, can only be gained

after a full English translation of all his works. Such a translation could very

well clear Priscillian of the charge of Manichaeism in the wider Christian

community.

As a demonstration of what one may find to that end, here is one very

interesting sentence from the first tractate, Liber apologeticus. It declares

clearly Priscillians position concerning Manichaeism. Priscillian writes,

Anathema sit qui Manetem et opera eius doctrinas adque instituta non

damnat; cuis peculiariter turpitudines persequentes gladio, si fieri posset, ad

26Andrew Jacobs provides a detailed discussion of this tractate in the article The

Disorder of Books: Priscillians Canonical Defense of the Apocrypha,HTR93 no. 2(2000): 135159. This writer asked Professor Jacobs if he thought Priscillian could be

considered an evangelical in the modern sense. He replied in an e-mail dated

November 28, 2005, As for Priscillian's orthodox bona fidesI guess evangelical inthe modern sense could mean a lot of things, none of which are my area of expertise.

If in the most modern sense you mean an interpretation of Christian life based on a

fairly straightforward reading of the gospelsclose to literal, evenI think I'd say

no; but then again, I don't think many fourth-century Christians, canonical or

otherwise, would fit that bill. But in an older senseperhaps what Luther and hiscohort meant by evangelicalI suppose a case could be made. But, again, my area

of specialty is really early Christianity.


9/12


inferos mitteremus ac si quid est deterius gehennae tormentoque peruigili, ubi

neque ignis extinguitur neque uermis emoritur.27

The following is a loose translation: Let Manes be Anathema and his

works of doctrine, though (his) custom is not damnable, whose baseness

pursue with the sword. Hopefully he might come nearby, so that we might

send (him) below, that he might go down into hell and be tortured always,

where neither the fire is being quenched nor the worm is dying.This brief statement by Priscillian either fairly represents his stand against

Manichaeism, or as a false profession, it would truly undercut his integritybefore his own followers, if they were indeed Manichaean.

His Influence on Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism

Augustine and others may have thought that Priscillian was lying about his

orthodoxy,28 but the Priscillian tractates stand as a testimony to that

orthodoxy, according to Broadbent and others. Severus says that after

Priscillians death not only was the heresy not suppressed, which, under him,

as its author, had burst forth, but acquiring strength, it became more widely

spread.29It is commonly held that Priscillianism lasted in Spain and southern

France late into the sixth century. Of course, like the label Manichaeismwhich was falsely attached to Priscillianists, the label Priscillian was falsely

attached to any in that region who were meeting apart from the Catholics.

Severus pointed out that this smear tactic was bishop Ithacius habit, saying,

I certainly hold that Ithacius had no worth or holiness about him. For he was

a bold, loquacious, impudent, and extravagant man; excessively devoted to

the pleasures of sensuality. He proceeded even to such a pitch of folly as to

charge all those men, however holy, who either took delight in reading, ormade it their object to vie with each other in the practice of fasting, with being

friends or disciples of Priscillian.30

Yet for those who desire to trace a nonmagisterial, nonsacramental, free

church testimony down through the ages since Pentecost, it appears the

Priscillianists provided in themselves, or at least under the cover of theirinfluence, such a testimony for at least two hundred years in Spain and

southern France. And who knows what further investigation may reveal

27Priscillian,Liber apologeticus, inPriscilliani Quae Supersunt, ed. Georg Schepss,

in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 18 (Vindobonae: Tempsky,1889), 22.28Augustine wrote his largest treatise against Priscillian, Contra mendicum(Against

Lying), based on his acceptance of the charge that was made against the

Priscillianists, i.e., that they feigned orthodoxy to win adherents away from

Catholicism.29SeverusHistory, chap. 51.30Ibid., chap. 50.


10/12


concerning the influence of Priscillianists like bishop Instantius upon the

western shores of Britain as a result of him being exiled on the isles of Scilly,

which were close by those shores.

Another fascinating fact pertaining to the effect that Priscillian has had on

evangelicalism concerns the importance of his testimony to what has been

called the Johannine Comma. Priscillians Latin text is the earliest witness to

this much disputed portion of 1 John 5:78, which reads, in heaven, theFather, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are

three that bear witness on earth. A. T. Robertson suggests that some Latinscribe caught up Cyprians exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and

so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity

of Erasmus.31The New Commentary on the Whole Biblestates it this way: It

came from a gloss on 1 John 5:8 which explained that the three elements

(water, blood, and Spirit) symbolized the Trinity. This gloss, evidently, foundits way into the text in the form quoted above. The passage has a Latin origin.

Its first appearance was in the work of Priscillian, a fourth-century Spanish

heretic.32

A rough translation of this passage as found in Priscillians first tractate,

Liber apologeticus, reveals some interesting details. It reads, As John hassaid, There are three who give testimony upon the earth: the water, the flesh,

and the blood and these three are in one; and there are three who give

testimony in heaven: the father, the word, and the spirit, and these three are

one in Christ Jesus.33It is noticeable that Priscillian had placed what is now

the disputed phrase after the location where it is presently found in Erasmus

Greek Text and the King James Version. Also, Priscillian has added the

concluding phrase in Christ Jesus to the Trinitarian formula and has the

word flesh instead of spirit in the earthly triune witness.

Whatever Latin or Greek manuscript evidence of 1 John 5:7, 8 Priscillian

may have had available to him in his day, it is certain in the context of this

tractate that he was truly professing his faith in the trinity and in the divinity

of Christ. Those are two prime doctrines usually used to delineate Christian

orthodoxy. By that standard, Priscillian was certainly protesting in his

writings that he was indeed an orthodox Christian.

31 A. T. Robertson, General Epistles and Revelation, Word Pictures in the New

Testament, vol. 6 (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1933; electronic ed. STEP files, Omaha,

NE: QuickVerse, 2003), 1 John 5:7.32 1 John, in The New Commentary on the Whole Bible, ed. J. D. Douglas

(Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1990; electronic ed., Cedar Rapids, IA: Parsons 1998), 1 John5:7, 8.33PriscillianLiber apologeticus6.


11/12


Conclusion

Priscillian has been held in bondage to the label of heretic, and more

specifically, to the label of Manichaeism for over fifteen hundred years.

Ever since the day of his wrongful execution in 365, Priscillians name has

not been able to be universally rid of that association. For a relatively brief

time his name did have some positive connection, for to swear by Priscillian

became an esteemed religious act among his harassed followers. However,that only lasted for a couple of centuries and was used as an affirmation of

faith only within a few hundred miles of Avila, the city where he had

ministered.34 At least since the discovery of his works in the Wrzburg

University Library in 1885, it has become possible, at least in academic

circles, to challenge the heresy charges linked with Priscillians name.

It is evident that Priscillian was at first united with catholic orthodoxy and

desired to remain connected with such, as seen in his appeals to Damasus of

Rome and Ambrose of Milan. One can only conjecture what may have been

the outcome for evangelicalism in fifth-century Spain, if the more favorable

Emperor Gratian had not died, if Martin of Tours petitions had been

successful in staying Priscillians execution, or if Ithacius and Ydacius and

the Council at Sargossa had united with Priscillian and the bishops supportinghim. Spain may have perhaps become an evangelical nation, an independent

witness of biblical Christianity, separate from the sacramental gospel of

Rome.

And yet, perhaps it became just that, for two hundred years at least.

Though the founder of the movement had been martyred and the other main

leaders either executed or exiled, Priscillianism, and the independent

evangelicalism that it may have represented, spread throughout Spain. The

council of Toledo issued its last anathema specifically against the

Priscillianists in 447. It read, Si quis in his erroribus, Priscilliani sectam

sequitur vel profitetur, ut aliud in salutare baptismi contra sedem sancti Petri

faciat, Anathema sit.35 This is roughly translated as follows: Whoever

follows the path in these errors of Priscillian, or professes to, in order that hemay make another baptism for salvation, contrary to the seat of Saint Peter, let

him be Anathema. This not only shows how threatened Roman Catholicism

34SeverusHistory, chap. 51.35Stephen McKenna, Paganism and Pagan Survivals in Spain up to the Fall of the

Visigothic Kingdom (The Library of Iberian Resources Online),

http://libro.uca.edu/mckenna/pagan3.htm. Stephen McKenna paraphrases this as acondemnation of those who follow the teaching of Priscillian and who seek for

salvation in opposition to the chair of St. Peter. However, he leaves out anymention of baptism which is clearly pointed to in this curse.


12/12


in Spain felt by the still young Priscillianist movement, but it also shows that

the Priscillianists were most likely baptizing converts from Catholicism. Such

baptisms may point to the Priscillianists as spiritual forefathers of modern

Baptists, Brethren, Pentecostals and other nonsacramental congregations

within Christendom.

Much more waits to be translated, edited, and published for the

encouragement of Christian laymen concerning the testimonies of other earlyevangelical witnesses that have lain hidden in Latin texts or documents still

untranslated from other ancient languages. There are probably many othertestimonies which have been scandalously misrepresented through the

centuries. Unscrupulous and often unregenerate historians did not recognize

true Biblical evangelical faith but labeled it as heresy in the same way that

the Sadducees of Jesus day did not recognize the orthodoxy of His teachings

and called him a blasphemer. Even believing historians too often do notevaluate carefully enough the evidence which has been passed on to them by

the magisterium of Roman Catholicism.

Lord willing, more will take up this task of allowing those previously

labeled as heretics to speak for themselves to the modern world. By his own

words, Priscillian will stand justified, or by his own words he will standcondemned. The results of the survey produced above can aid the jury to lean

in the direction of declaring Priscillian an early evangelical reformer, much

like Tertullian. But the decision is still not final. Only with a more complete

translation of Priscillians works will anyone be able to adequately judge

whether Priscillian was indeed an evangelical reformer or just another heretic.

Brian Wagner was ordained at Limerick Chapel, Limerick, PA, in 1983. He has

served as a church planter in Ireland with Biblical Ministries Worldwide and ispresently pastoring at Mt. Carmel Baptist, Haywood, VA. He is also presently a

fulltime instructor of Church History and Theology at Virginia Baptist College. Brian

recently received a Th.M. in Church History at Liberty Baptist Seminary and is

currently working on a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies at Piedmont Baptist Graduate

School. His wife of thirty years is Lori, and their two grown daughters are Jessicaand Jeanette. His e-mail address is [email protected].

Documents

v12n2 6priscillian of Avila