Priscillian of Avila: Heretic or Early Reformer?

By Brian Wagner

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 is presently 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 Jessica and Jeanette. His e-mail address is blwagner77@ netzero.net.

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, 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 Rome [3] 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 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 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 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 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]

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 Priscillian’s doctrine is still so exceptional in English-speaking circles that it bears reproducing in its entirety.

The style of Priscillian's writing is vivid and telling, he constantly quotes Scripture 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, and this 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 their objection 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 the true 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 anything might 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 for himself. 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 towards that 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 wholly consecrated 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 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 of knowledge, 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.” [18] R. E. Webber, in his article on Martin of Tours in Who’s Who in Christian History, [19] mentions Priscillian as a “Gnostic heretic.” And Peter Toon’s 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 as “seemingly 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 Priscillian’s own tractates, believes “the Würzburg 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 mask of the anathemas there lies a secret radical dualist putting up a smokescreen of verbiage to conceal his real beliefs.” [22] Chadwick 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 381–5, 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 connection between Priscillian and Manichaeism. In her recent book, The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority and the Priscillian Controversy, she critiques Chadwick’s work and thoroughly investigates the major texts relating to Priscillian, including his words in the Würzburg 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 altogether absent.” [24] Both Burrus and Chadwick rely heavily upon Priscillian’s 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 Würzburg. 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)
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 third tractate, Liber de fide et de Apocryphis, has been recently translated by Andrew S. Jacobs and is included in Christianity in Late Antiquity, 300–450 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, by Stephen 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 the English-speaking evangelical community the same confidence that Broadbent had of Priscillian’s 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 Priscillian’s 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 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 integrity before 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 Priscillian’s 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.” [29] It is commonly held that Priscillianism lasted in Spain and southern France late into the sixth century. Of course, like the label “Manichaeism” which 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, or made 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 their influence, such a testimony for at least two hundred years in Spain and southern France. And who knows what further investigation may reveal 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. Priscillian’s Latin text is the earliest witness to this much disputed portion of 1 John 5:7–8, which reads, “in heaven, the Father, 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 Latin scribe caught up Cyprian’s 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.” [31] The New Commentary on the Whole Bible states 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, found its 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 Priscillian’s first tractate, Liber apologeticus, reveals some interesting details. It reads, “As John has said, ‘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.’” [33] It 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.

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, Priscillian’s 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 Würzburg University Library in 1885, it has become possible, at least in academic circles, to challenge the heresy charges linked with Priscillian’s 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 Priscillian’s execution, or if Ithacius and Ydacius and the Council at Sargossa had united with Priscillian and the bishops supporting him. 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 he may make another baptism for salvation, contrary to the seat of Saint Peter, let him be Anathema.” This not only shows how threatened Roman Catholicism 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 early evangelical witnesses that have lain hidden in Latin texts or documents still untranslated from other ancient languages. There are probably many other testimonies 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 not evaluate 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 stand condemned. 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 Priscillian’s works will anyone be able to adequately judge whether Priscillian was indeed an evangelical reformer or just another heretic.

Notes

1. New King James Version (Atlanta: Nelson, 1992).
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.
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.
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. 1, ed. Philip Schaff, The Ages Digital Library Collection (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1997), 501.
11. Jerome, “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.
12. Vincent of Lerins, The Commonitory of Vincent of Lerins, for the Antiquity and Universality 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.
15. Augustus Neander, General History of the Christian Religion, trans. Joseph Torrey, (London: Bohn, 1850), 4:491–502. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 4 (Cedar Rapids, IA: Parsons Technology, 1999; electronic ed. STEP files, Omaha, NE: QuickVerse, 2003), bk. 1, chap. 9, para. 133.
16. E. H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church (Grand Rapids: Gospel Folio Press, 1999), 60–61.
17. Ibid.
18. Moyer, “Priscillian,” 334.
19. R. E. Webber, “Martin of Tours,” in Who’s 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 Christian Church, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978).
21. Ibid.
22. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila, 98.
23. Ibid., vii.
24. Virginia Burrus, The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority and the Priscillian Controversy (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995), 3.
25. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church, 60.
26. Andrew Jacobs provides a detailed discussion of this tractate in the article “The Disorder of Books: Priscillian’s Canonical Defense of the Apocrypha,” HTR 93 no. 2 (2000): 135–159. 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 fides—I guess ‘evangelical in the 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 gospels—close to ‘literal,’ even—I 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 sense—perhaps what Luther and his cohort meant by ‘evangelical’—I suppose a case could be made. But, again, my area of specialty is really early Christianity.”
27. Priscillian, Liber apologeticus, in Priscilliani Quae Supersunt, ed. Georg Schepss, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 18 (Vindobonae: Tempsky, 1889), 22.
28. Augustine 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.
29. Severus History, chap. 51.
30. Ibid., chap. 50.
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 John 5:7, 8.
33. Priscillian Liber apologeticus 6.
34. Severus History, chap. 51.
35. Stephen 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 a condemnation 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 any mention of baptism which is clearly pointed to in this curse.