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 one’s testimony in the mouth of two or three witnesses (1 Timothy 5:19), which is to be a safeguard against a false witness damaging someone’s 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 most of 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 Priscillian’s martyrdom, were recovered at the University of Würzburg 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 Priscillian’s own words into account. The hope is to provide help to the modern student as he reexamines 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, 1 New King James Version (Atlanta: Nelson, 1992). 88 CTS Journal 12 (Fall 2006) eloquent, learned through much reading, very ready at debate and discussion—in 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 Priscillian’s earlier years. His story picks up when the conflict begins between some bishops of Spain who began following Priscillian’s teachings and those bishops who opposed them. The principal contestants were bishops Instantius and Salvianus, who sided with Priscillian, and bishops Ithacius and Ydacius (sometimes spelled Idacius), who, together with 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 a decree 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 to secure, 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 Priscillian’s 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.”4 The Ithacius party, however, won the day. Priscillian lost his appeal and was interrogated by the emperor’s 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, The Complete 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 work of 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 an attempt to conceal the matter. 4 Severus History, bk. 2, chap. 51. 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 Priscillian’s body, along with those of the others, was transported back to Spain, where it received a martyr’s welcome. Opinion of Him by His Contemporaries At the time of Priscillian’s death, the soon-to-be ecclesiastical historian Sulpitius Severus was not yet converted to Christianity, but he was shortly thereafter. He considered “Martin of Tours as his spiritual father.”6 Most likely, Martin was the main source of information for Severus concerning Priscillian. Severus was closely associated with Martin and must have received firsthand information of Martin’s 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, when found, to deprive them of their life or goods.”7 Severus 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.”8 There is no doubt that Severus accepted Martin’s view of the Priscillians as “heretics.” As to what their heresy actually was, 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 of Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church, demonstrates that this accusation of Priscillian’s 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 5 Salvianus 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. 7 Sulpitius Severus, chap. 11 of “Dialogue III: The Virtues of Martin Continued,” in The 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. 8 Ibid. 90 CTS Journal 12 (Fall 2006) Sulpicius Severus was drawing upon Ithacius’ book as a main source.”9 Isidore’s account of Ithacius’ charges also associated Priscillianism’s 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 Priscillian’s death, Augustine, himself a convert from Manichaeism, boldly affirmed that Priscillianists were “a sect very like the Manichaeans.”10 And Jerome in 415 also linked the two with the same invectives, saying, “Then there is Priscillian in Spain, whose infamy makes him 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 12 Acts 8. 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 the Puritan 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.”14 Notable Lutheran historians, Augustus Neander and Philip Schaff, both held to the same view in their writings.15 9 Henry Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 21. 10 Augustine of Hippo, Letter 36: To Casulanus, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers First Series, vol.