Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81 Vigiliae

Christianae
brill.com/vc

Marcellus of Ancyra and Priscillian of Avila:

Their Theologies and Creeds

Tarmo Toom
9666 Motley Lane, Vienna VA, 22181, USA
toom@cua.edu

Abstract

This article studies the two earliest witnesses to the Apostles’ Creed which have often
been regarded with suspicion because they were written by “heretical” bishop-theolo-
gians Marcellus of Ancyra and Priscillian of Avila. Assessing the thought of Marcellus
and Priscillian in the light of their authentic treatises, it is contended that their respec-
tive understandings of Trinitarian theology cannot be identified with modalist monar-
chianism. Consequently, their creeds should not be regarded as smoke screen for their
allegedly deviant doctrines. Rather, these should be regarded as the first extant evidence
for the declaratory Apostles’ Creed.

Keywords

Apostles’ Creed – Marcellus – Priscillian – Trinitarian controversy – modalist monar-

chianism – Sabellianism

The Old Roman Creed,1 which can be reconstructed, to a great extent, with the
help of Rufinus of Aquileia’s Expositio symboli Apostolorum, is often considered
the first legitimate witness to the declaratory Apostles’ Creed.2 Rufinus’ trea-
tise was written in 404 CE, but the creeds that he compared—that of Aquileia
and Rome—were not recent, fifth century phenomena. They were secundum

1 The conventional designation of the Old Roman Creed is “R.”

2 For the modern distinction between interrogatory and declaratory creeds, see L.H. Westra,
The Apostles’ Creed: Origin, History, and Some Early Commentaries, in Instrumenta Patristica
et Mediaevalia (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002) 56-60.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi 10.1163/15700720-12341159

Marcellus of Ancyra and Priscillian of Avila 61

traditionis . . . regulam and thus considerably older than the given date.3

However, there were other declaratory creeds, rather similar to R, which were
written down before the beginning of the fifth century. Among these were the
creeds of Marcellus of Ancyra and Priscillian of Avila. Marcellus’ creed was
written in 340 or 341 CE, and Priscillian’s creed in 381 or 382 CE. These creeds
were traditional as well. Marcellus maintained that the very statement of faith
that he subscribed to had “been taught [to him] by godly parents (παρὰ τῶν
κατὰ θεὸν προγόνων διδαχθεὶς).”4 Priscillian was convinced that his symbolum
was something that Christ had “handed over to his apostles (qui apostolis suis
symbolum tradens)”5 and which he, Priscillian, had received rather than invent-
ed.6 Using traditional material, creeds—including those mentioned above—
were hardly ever original compositions put together by a single author at the
time of their writing.7
The trouble is, though, that the theologically non-problematic traditional
creeds of Marcellus and Priscillian were written by bishop-theologians who
were repeatedly considered unorthodox. Mostly for that reason, the impor-
tance of their creeds—and especially that of Priscillian8—has not been
sufficiently acknowledged by creedal scholars even in modern times.9

3 Rufinus, Expositio 46.

4 Marcellus, Epistula ad Iulium (Epiphanius, Panarion 72.3.4 [GCS 3 (1933)]; English translation
is from The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis/Book II and III [Sections 47-80, De Fide], ed.
F. Williams, in Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 36 [Leiden: Brill, 1994]).
5 Priscillian, Tractatus III.101 (Priscillian of Avila: The Complete Works, ed. and trans. M. Conti,
in Oxford Early Christian Texts [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010]).
6 Prisc. Tract. II.47.
7 W. Kinzig and M. Vinzent, “Recent Research on the Origin of the Creed,” Journal of Theological
Studies 50/2 (1999) 534-59, at 556. Thus, the designation “private creed,” which is commonly
used to speak about the creeds by which both theologically suspect and even quite orthodox
individuals confessed their faith, is somewhat misleading. For “private creeds,” see G.L. Hahn,
Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche [Breslau: E. Morgenstern, 1897
(Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1962)] 253-363. However, Hahn does not list the creeds of Marcellus
and Priscillian under Privat-Symbole, but rightly under Das Symbolum Apostolicum des
Abendlandes.
8 E.g., the omission of Priscillian’s creed in Denzinger-Schönmetzer, par. 23. In addition to its
suspect authorship, the differences between the creed of Priscillian and the reconstructed
Old Roman Creed do not allow the assertion that the former was the source of the latter.
Evidently because of this, when Westra considers the existing witnesses to the Old Roman
Creed, he mentions the creeds of Rufinus, Marcellus, and four later manuscripts, but not the
creed of Priscillian (Westra, The Apostles’ Creed 28, 68).
9 Knowing all too well what the situation is, Kelly assesses, “The Roman creed is such a key
document in the history of creeds that absolute assurance as to its credentials is desirable”

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

62 toom

Encountering prevalent skepticism about the creeds of Marcellus and

Priscillian, this article contends that the proper theological context for evaluat-
ing their creeds is not modalist monarchianism,10 but rather anti-subordina-
tionism. Accordingly, these creeds should not be dismissed as clever forgeries
of “heretics,” but acknowledged instead as legitimate earliest witnesses to the
would-be declaratory Apostles’ Creed.11
In addition to the fact that Marcellus and Priscillian provide the earliest wit-
nesses to the non-interrogatory text of the Old Roman Creed, there are certain
similarities between the circumstances in which the respective creeds were
written down. It might be beneficial to study these together as independent
but somewhat parallel cases.12
First, bishops Marcellus and Priscillian shared a strong anti-“Arian” stance
and considered it their holy duty to refute any Trinitarian heresy of a subordi-
nationist sort. Marcellus had been a participant at the Council of Nicaea13 and

( J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3d ed. [New York: Longman, 1972] 104). A significant
exception is Markus Vinzent’s study of Marcellus’ creed (see n. 51).
10 “Modalist monarchianism” is a modern designation for what the ancients often called
“Sabellianism.”
11 In ep. 69.7 and 75.11, Cyprian refers to symbolum (i.e., to the Apostles’ Creed), but he does
not provide the full text of this symbolum (see L.H. Westra, “Cyprian, the Mystery Religions
and the Apostles’ Creed—An Unexpected Link,” in Cyprian of Carthage: Studies in His Life,
Language, and Thought, ed. H. Bakker et al. [Leuven: Peeters, 2010]: 115-25).
12 It is not to deny the significant temporal and geographic differences between Marcellus
and Priscillian. Perhaps the most significant difference is that Marcellus was pronounced
orthodox at least by two Latin councils: the council of Rome (341 CE) (Athanasius,
Apologia contra Arianos 27, 32) and the (western) council of Sardica (342 or 343 CE)
(Hilary, Collectanea Antiariana B II 9.1.10-11), which also approved the “written declaration
of his faith” (Athanasius, Historia Arianorum 6). Hilary adds that Marcellus was never
condemned again by any council (Coll. Antiar. B II 9.2.19-22). Thus, while Marcellus died
in communion with the church, Priscillian lost his life after torture as an alleged Manichee
and sorcerer.
13 Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 32. In the extant fragments of his Contra Asterium, Marcellus never men-
tions Arius, but he does mention, among others, subordinationist Asterius (e.g. Frgs. 17-18,
76, 115) and Eusebius of Caesarea (e.g. Frgs. 2, 9, 122). In this article, the numbering of the
extant fragments of Marcellus’ treatise follows K. Seibt, Die Theologie des Markell von
Ankyra, in Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 59 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994) 249-459, and
M. Vinzent, Markell von Ankyra: Die Fragmente und der Brief an Julius von Rom, in
Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 39 (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 2-121. English translations are
from M.J. Dowling, “Marcellus of Ancyra: Problems of Christology and the Doctrine of the
Trinity,” Ph.D. diss. (Belfast: Queen’s University, 1987) 286-362.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

Marcellus of Ancyra and Priscillian of Avila 63

purportedly, he was one of the post-Nicene inventors of “Arianism.”14 Priscillian

did not have first-hand knowledge of the theology of Arius, but he learned his
anti-“Arian” bias primarily from Hilary of Poitier’s De Trinitate.15
Second, both Marcellus and Priscillian travelled to Rome after they had
been condemned by hostile councils. Apparently Marcellus was dubbed a her-
etic at two Councils of Constantinople (336 and 338-39 CE),16 and at the east-
ern Council of Sardica (Philippopolis), which called him “a more abominable
plague than all the other heretics (haereticorum omnium execrabilior pestis).”17
Priscillian was condemned at the council of Bordeaux (384[?] CE),18 and then
tried again by Prefect Evodius and found guilty—not for his theology or spe-
cific doctrines, but for holding nightly gatherings of “vile women (turpium
feminarum)” (i.e. immorality) and praying “in state of nudity (nudum)” (i.e.
magic).19 Nonetheless, both bishops were reinstated to their sees for a short
time. Marcellus was briefly restored to his see in 337 CE20 and Priscillian in 383
CE by Macedonius, Emperor Gratian’s senior administrative official.21 Hence,
in order to refute fresh charges and be acknowledged as orthodox bishops,

14 S. Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325-345, in Oxford
Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 180-81.
15 Priscilliani quae supersunt maximam partem nuper detexit adiectisque commentariis criti-
cis et indicibus primus, ed. G. Schepss (CSEL 18 [1889]) 168; M. Veronese, “Le citazioni del
‘De Trinitate’ di Ilario nella raccolta attributa a Priscilliano,” Vetera  Christianorum 40/1
(2003) 133-57 and a revised index on pages 155-57; H. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila: The
Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976) 65. For
understanding the Priscillianist controversy as a consequence of the Arian crisis, see
V. Escribano, “Heresy and Orthodoxy in Fourth-Century Hispania: Arianism and
Priscillianism,” in Hispania in Late Antiquity, ed. and trans. K. Bowes and M. Kulikowski,
in The Medieval and Early Modern Iberian World 24, ed. L.J. Simon et al. (Leiden: Brill,
2005) 121-49.
16 Hilary, Coll. Antiar. A IV.1.3; Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 1.36.
17 Hil. Coll. Antiar. A IV.1.1.23 (CSEL 65 [1916]); English translations are from L.R. Wickham,
Hilary of Poitiers: Conflicts of Conscience and Law in the Fourth-Century Church. Against
Valens and Ursacius: the extant fragments, together with his Letter to the Emperor
Constantius, in Translated Texts for Historians, ed. G. Clark et al., vol. 25 (Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press, 1997).
18 Since the acta of the council of Bordeaux have not survived, one has to rely, critically, on
Sulpicius Severus, Chronica 2.49.
19 Ibid. 2.50. See S.J.G. Sanchez, Priscillien, un chrétien non conformiste: doctrine et pratique
du Priscillianisme du IVe au VIe siècle, in Théologie Historique 120 (Paris: Beauchesne,
2009) 29-38, 42-9.
20 Soc. Hist. eccl. 1.36; Soz. Hist. eccl. 2.33.
21 Sulp. Sev. Chron. 2.48.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

64 toom

Marcellus and Priscillian each submitted a creed to the bishop of Rome,

respectively, to Julius I and to Damasus I.
Third, the creeds that they submitted were part of the letters which
Marcellus and Priscillian wrote specifically for those occasions as sort of theo-
logical manifestos. Marcellus composed Epistula ad Iulium22 and Priscillian
Liber ad Damasum Episcopum (Tractatus II).23 Although many treatises have
been attributed to Marcellus,24 only the fragments found in the writings of
Eusebius and Acacius, and his Epistula ad Iulium are considered authentic.
Among the extant works attributed to Priscillian, some treatises in Würzburg
Manuscript (i.e. Tractatus I-III and XI), his Canones in a “purified” version,25
and an obscure fragment of his letter in Orosius’ Commonitorium are genu-
ine.26 It is of paramount importance that the creeds of Marcellus and Priscillian
are to be found in the few works which are definitely authentic and that these
are, in turn, interpreted in the light of the other extant authentic works of
Marcellus and Priscillian, rather than in the light of the polemical refutations
of their opponents.27
The above-mentioned letters of Marcellus and Priscillian proceed in a simi-
lar manner. To begin with, they both differentiate their respective positions
from various heresies by condemning several false teachings. The precise
“-isms” in the list of heresies, which often tended to be conventional, matter
less than the fact that both Marcellus and Priscillian focus on condemning the
Trinitarian views which divide or separate the Son from the Father. Marcellus
denounces his opponents who think that the Word is “another hypostasis
(ἄλλην ὑπόστασιν)” than the Father, detached from and posterior to him, and “a
creature and a product of creation (κτίσμα αὐτὸν καὶ ποίημα)” of the Father.28 In
fact, the unfortunate alternatives that subordinationists inevitably faced were
either postulating “two Gods (δύο θεοὺς)” or teaching that “the Word is not God
22 Epiph. Pan. 72.2.1-3.4; cf. Ath. Hist. Arian. 6. For introduction, see Vinzent, Markell von
Ankyra lxxiii-lxxv, lxxxi-xcii.
23 This letter is part of the fifth-sixth century Würzburg Manuscript which was discovered in
1886. The Latin and English texts can be found in Conti, Priscillian of Avila 69-81, and com-
ments on pages 268-73.
24 Dowling, “Marcellus of Ancyra” 3-44; J.T. Lienhard, Contra Marcellum: Marcellus of Ancyra
and Fourth-Century Theology (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press,
1999) 19-27; Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra 246-47.
25 The Preface says that the Canones were “restored to the right doctrine (quod sanae doctri-
nae redditum est)” by a certain Peregrinus.
26 Conti, Priscillian of Avila 12-21.
27 The polemical character of the authentic works of Marcellus and Priscillian is thereby not
denied.
28 Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.2.4-5); cf. Marc. Frgs. 85, 91, 124.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

Marcellus of Ancyra and Priscillian of Avila 65

(τὸν λόγον μὴ εἶναι θεὸν).”29 The Creed of Sardica, too, which is extant in two
independent versions30 and was either written by Marcellus or under his
direction,31 denounces those who teach that “the substances (τὰς ὑποστάσεις)
of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are different (διαφόρους)” and
“separate (κεχωρισμένας).”32 In a similar manner, Priscillian condemns “Arians”
who defile the scriptural testimony “by dividing what is one and by desiring
many gods (diuidentes quod unum est et et plures uolentes deos).”33 In Tract.
I.31-2 and III.103, he also condemns certain Binionites whose crime is to “divide
the substance united in the power of God and break up the venerable great-
ness of Christ in the tripartite fountain of the church (diuidunt unitam in dei
virtute substantiam et magnitudinem Christi tripertito ecclesiae fonte
uenerabilem . . .partiuntur).”
Next, the letters of Marcellus and Priscillian make a scriptural case for their
respective Trinitarian theologies. Marcellus declares four times that he has
learned his faith and creed “from the divine scriptures (ἔκ . . . τῶν θείων
γραφῶν).”34 Priscillian, in turn, finds it hard to come to his main point because
of the sheer volume of his Scripture citing. He asserts that everything in
Scripture “is and always was at our heart (nobis cordi est et semper fuit).”35
Indeed and as it has been generally recognized, to a great extent the patristic
Trinitarian debates were exegetical debates.36

29 Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.3.2). These alternatives are also pointed out in connection
with the theologies of Eusebius (Marc. Frgs. 116-17, 120) and Asterius (Marc. Frgs. 48, 85-6).
30 Theodoret, Hist. eccl. 2.6 (Greek) and Verona Codex (Latin) (C.H. Turner, Ecclesiae
Occidentalis Monumenta 1/2:651-53). For a critical Greek text, see M. Tetz, “Ante omnia de
sancta fide et de integritate veritatis. Glaubensfragen auf der Synode von Serdika (342),”
Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 76 (1985) 243-69, at 252-54. Whether the
Creed of Sardica is an authentic document of the council of Sardica or not is debated,
because in Athanasius’ Apol. c. Ar. 1.41-50 and Hilary’s Coll. Antiar. B II 1.1-8, the encyclical
letter appears without the creed. But see Soz. Hist. eccl. 3.12.
31 Seibt, Die Theologie des Markell von Ankyra 143-44 n. 133.
32 English translation is taken from S.G. Hall, “The Creed of Sardica,” SP 19 (1989) 173-84, at
175. The text of the letter of the council of Sardica, too, says that the eastern bishops, the
“Eusebians,” “separate the Son and alienate the Word from the Father (separantes enim
filium et alienantes uerbum a patre) (Hil. Coll. Antiar. B II 1.8.5-6).
33 Prisc. Tract. II.82.
34 Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.2.3, 2.6, 3.2, 3.4).
35 Prisc. Tract. II.161-62.
36 E.g. S. Parvis, “Christology in the Early Arian Controversy: The Exegetical War,” in
Christology and Scripture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. A.T. Lincoln and A. Paddison,
Library of New Testament Studies 348 (London: T&T Clark, 2007) 120-37.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

66 toom

Last but not least, the letters of Marcellus and Priscillian provide the creeds
which have a Trinitarian structure and basically the same form.37 Augustine
later maintained that a creed was “something by which Christians can recog-
nize each other.”38 Sure enough, Pope Julius, to whom Marcellus’ creed was
submitted, recognized him (and Athanasius) as “our dear brothers and fellow
bishops (de dilectissimis fratribus nostris et coepiscopis).”39 The curious thing,
however, is that the Council of Sardica did not consider Marcellus’ creed, but
investigated his book instead.40 A plausible reason could be that creeds, which
consist of compressed traditional statements, are just much less telling about
someone’s theology than specific treatises. We have no evidence of Pope
Damasus’ reaction to Priscillian’s creed,41 unless a few condemnations in
Tomus Damasi have something to do with Priscillian (and/or Marcellus).42
The fourth contextual similarity is that, in the case of both Marcellus and
Priscillian, later authors have often chosen to believe Marcellus’ and Priscillian’s
opponents rather than learn their theology from their authentic treatises.
Much of what we know about Marcellus’ theology comes from his arch-rivals
Eusebius of Caesarea (Contra Marcellum and Ecclesiastica theologia), Basil of
Caesarea (among other letters, ep. 69, 125, and 263), and Acacius of Caesarea
(Contra Marcellum).43 Likewise, much of what we know of Priscillian comes
from men who orchestrated his execution, from Ithacius of Ossonuba and
Hydatius of Mérida.44 Although the writings of these Spanish bishops are no
longer extant, the toxic information from their lost works has spread into the

37 These creeds can be found in Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.3.1) and Prisc. Tract. II.47-67.
38 Augustine, s. 213.2; cf. 214.12; cf. Ruf. exp. 2.
39 Hil. Coll. Antiar. B II 1.1.2-3.
40 This is pointed out by L.W. Barnard, “Pope Julius, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Council of
Sardica,” Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale 38 (1971) 669-79, at 674.
41 What is known, however, is that in 385, the successor of Damasus, Pope Siricius, responded
cautiously to the inquiry of Himerius of Tarragona which was about the repenting Arian/
Homoean bishops and the practices of Priscillianists (ep. 1).
42 See condemnations 1-2, 8, and 21 in Denzinger-Schönmetzer, par. 153-54, 160, 173 (Damasus,
epistula 4; Theod. Hist. eccl. 5.11). Escribano contends that Pope Damasus never “clearly
admitted the heretical character of the Priscillianists” (“Heresy and Orthodoxy in Fourth-
Century Hispania” 122). Ferreiro, in turn, points out how Priscillian’s acknowledgement of
the Petrine primacy complicated the matters (A. Ferreiro, “Petrine Primacy, Conciliar
Authority, and Priscillian,” in” I concili della cristianità occidentale, secoli III-V: XXX Incontro
dell’antichità Cristiana. Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 78 [2002] 631-45, at 637-38).
43 For an in-depth analysis, see Lienhard, Contra Marcellum 104-35, 182-240.
44 E.Ch. Babut, Priscillien et le Priscillianisme (Paris: H. Champion, 1909) 33-56, and the quali-
fications made by V. Burrus, The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist
Controversy, in The Transformation of the Classical Heritage, ed. P. Brown (Berkeley:

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

Marcellus of Ancyra and Priscillian of Avila 67

patristic anti-Priscillian works and heresiologies.45 As a result, Marcellus was

coupled with Sabellius and his “generic” modalist monarchian teaching was
considered “dangerous, harmful, and hostile to the true faith.”46 Priscillian, too
and among his many other faults, was believed to follow the sabellianam
sectam.47
So, here is the root of the matter: next to all kind of other accusations, the
dominating adversaries of Marcellus and Priscillian managed to declare them
modalist monarchians; heretics who were teaching “Sabellius’ nonsense,” as
Epiphanius put it.48 Consequently, the unattested assumption of modalist
monarchianism started to cloud the judgment of many so that fewer and fewer
people bothered to read (and copy) their authentic writings and to figure out
their actual teachings.49
In modern times, the difficulty in reconciling a near universal conviction
that Marcellus and Priscillian were heretics and that they nevertheless penned
“orthodox” creeds has led to a reappearance of conspiracy theories. Already
Epiphanius suggested that Marcellus “may have dressed his words up with the
document [i.e. Epistula ad Iulium] to hide what he had said (ἵνα παρακρύψῃ τὰ
ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ῥηθέντα).”50 Taking the same tone, in 1647, James Ussher suggested
that Marcellus cleverly cited the declaratory creed of the pope in order to come
across as orthodox.51 Consequently, it is often assumed that Marcellus’ “real”

University of California Press, 1995) 126-59. See also Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila 51-6. Cf.
Prisc. Tract. I. 382; II.117, 147-48, 161, 190-91, and Jerome, De viris inlustribus 121.
45 A. Olivares Guillem, Prisciliano a través del tiempo: historia de los estudios sobre el priscil-
ianismo, in Galicia histórica (Madrid: Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza, 2004) 38-71;
Sanchez, Priscillien 88-131.
46 Basil, ep. 69; cf. ep. 207, 265; hom. 24; Eus. c. Marc. 1.1.
47 Augustine, De haeresibus 70.2. Most recently, the self-perpetuating accusation of monar-
chian modalism is repeated in a relatively subdued manner by Conti, Priscillian of Avila
270-71. However, one should keep in mind that pro-Nicenes were often called modalists/
Sabellians. See W.A. Bienert, “Sabellius und Sabellianismus als historisches Problem,” in
Logos: Festschrift für Luise Abramowski zum 8. Juli 1993, ed. H.C. Brennecke et al. (Berlin:
W. de Gruyter, 1993) 124-39.
48 Epiph. Pan. 72.1.1.
49 For example, referring to the writings of Priscillian, Hydatius said at the council of
Saragossa, “May what must be condemned be condemned; may useless texts not be read”
(Prisc. Tract. II.174).
50 Epiph. Pan. 72.4.3; cf. 1.4, 4.1 and the letter of eastern bishops at Sardica (Philippopolis) in
Hil. Coll. Antiar. A IV 1.4.
51 J. Ussher, De Romanae ecclesiae symbolo apostolico vetere . . . diatriba (Londini: Excudebant
T. Ratcliffe et E. Mottershed, 1647). Ussher’s suggestion was repeated by a famous creedal
scholar F. Kattenbusch, Das apostolische Symbol, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1894-1900

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

68 toom

teaching is to be found in his earlier Contra Asterium rather than in his Epistula
ad Iulium.52 The possibility that Marcellus may have ever modified his teaching
by giving up some of his more controversial beliefs is not even considered.53
Moreover, it is believed that, in his Contra Marcellum, Eusebius offered basi-
cally a fair and undistorted picture of his theology. Yet should a deliberate, par-
tial, and context-free selection of Marcellus’ utterances by a refuting opponent
really be considered more definitive for his theology than his Epistula ad
Iulium? Perhaps not! One must keep in mind that what Marcellus’ foes (as well
as friends) provided were interpretations of the texts of Marcellus, and not the
undisputable X-rays of his thought.54 The paradoxical result was that while
Marcellus’ book was self-evidently heretical to the bishops at Philippopolis, it
was found free from doctrinal error by the bishops at Sardica.55 Anyhow, if the
above-mentioned three premises are accepted, then what Marcellus says in his
Epistula ad Iulium, including his creed, just has to be misleading.
Something similar is true about Priscillian. Those who suspect that
Priscillian’s creed merely disguised his nasty secret heresies and believe that
Ithacius, his worst enemy, provided the best summary of what Priscillian actu-
ally taught, dismiss his creed on the suspicion that it just cannot be anything
but deceitful. For example, at the request of Consentius, Augustine composed
[reprint, Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1962]) 1:73 and, after him, numerous more recent authors
have rather uncritically reiterated it (e.g. L. Barnard, “Marcellus of Ancyra and the
Eusebians,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 25 [1980] 63-76, at 64; Kelly, Early Christian
Creeds 109-10). An impressive counter-proposal has been made by Vinzent’s “Die
Entstehung des ‘Römischen Glaubensbekenntnises’,” in W. Kinzig, C. Markschies, and
M. Vinzent, Tauffragen und Bekenntnis: Studien zur sogenannten ‘Traditio apostolica’ zu
den ‘Interrogationes de fide’ und zum ‘Römischen Glaubensbekenntnis,’ Arbeiten zur
Kirchengeschichte 74 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999) 185-410, at 240-382, 408-9; cf. Kinzig
and Vinzent, “Recent Research on the Origin of the Creed”, 550-59. For a critical analysis
of this counter-proposal, see Westra, The Apostles’ Creed, 23-37, 40-46.
52 As pointed out by Lienhard, Contra Marcellum 26, 137; J.T. Lienhard, “Basil of Caesarea,
Marcellus of Ancyra, and ‘Sabellius’,” Church History 58 (1989) 157-67, at 159; and S. Parvis,
“Joseph Lienhard, Marcellus of Anyra, and Marcellus’ Rule of Faith,” in Tradition & the
Rule of Faith in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Joseph Lienhard, S.J., ed. R.J. Rombs and
A.Y. Hwang (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010) 89-108, at
93.
53 This possibility is suggested, among others, by R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian
Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988) 231. Alternatively, Pope Julius confirmed
that Marcellus’ beliefs had not been recently adopted (Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 1.32) and Hilary
suggested that, in time, Marcellus came up with new blunders (Coll. Antiar. B II 9.1.11-12).
54 It is not to contend that Marcellus’ own writings would offer objective X-rays of his
thought. The relation between one’s thought and writing is much more complicated. See
Cicero, De inventione 2.42.122; 2.48.142; Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 7.6.1.
55 Hil. Coll. Antiar. A IV 1.15.19-20 and B II 1.6; cf. 9.2.1-5.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

Marcellus of Ancyra and Priscillian of Avila 69

his Contra mendacium against Priscillianists(!) and stated elsewhere that “they
preach the catholic faith—not because they hold it, but in order to hide under
it (tamen fidem catholicam . . . praedicant, non quam teneant, sed sub qua
lateant).”56 In addition, often the later writings of Priscillianists, as well as their
condemnations,57 are considered the hermeneutical key to the authentic writ-
ings of Priscillian.
One should notice here that the self-pronounced goal of Marcellus’ Epistula
ad Iulium is to prove that what his opponents have written against him is
“untrue (ψευδῆ)” and thus, their writings should not even be read and
believed.58 In his letter to “Eusebians,” Pope Julius, too, testified to the fact that
Marcellus had declared “that what you had written concerning him was not
true (μὴ εἶναι ἀλῃθῆ).”59 Marcellus himself vows, of course, that his written
statement is submitted “with all sincerity (μετὰ πάσης ἀληθείας).”60 Priscillian,
in turn, explicitly repudiates the idea that his confession is anything else than
what he actually believes by citing Rom 10:10 (“[We] confirm with our mouth
what we believed with our heart”).61 Well, if one is deeply convinced from the
start that “heretics” Marcellus and Priscillian were about to pull the wool over
the eyes of bishops Julius and Damasus, such rhetoric only confirms their dark
suspicion.
Therefore and to further the argument that the creeds of Marcellus and
Priscillian are not attempts to hide their allegedly deviant doctrines, it needs to
be shown first that the theology found in Epistula ad Iulium and Liber ad
Damasum Episcopum matches with the beliefs confessed in the respective (tra-
ditional) creeds, and that the theology found in these letters is not modalist
monarchianism.
To begin with, while affirming the divinity of the Son, Marcellus and
Priscillian steadfastly defended the oneness of God, yet differently than the
so-called modalists did.

56 Aug. ep. 237.3. However, the bishop of Hippo learned his attitude from an anti-
Priscillianist Orosius. “Now that I hear from you what they hold . . .” (Aug. Contra
Priscillianistas 1.1).
57 E.g. the council of Toledo (400) (Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila, Appendix 234-39); Leo,
ep. 15.
58 Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.2.1); cf. the letter of the (western) council of Sardica in Hil.
Coll. Antiar. B II 1.4.4.
59 The letter is preserved in Ath. Apol. c. Ar. 1.32. The council of Sardica added that
Marcellus’ inquisitive inquiry was mistakenly taken as his professed view (Hil. Coll. Antiar.
B II.1.6).
60 Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.2.3).
61 Prisc. Tract. II.10; cf. I.14-15, (49); III.14-5, 236-37.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

70 toom

First, Marcellus. Eusebius points out that Marcellus’ Contra Asterium was
written for the purpose of “making it known that God is one (διὰ τὸ ἕνα γνωρίζειν
θεόν).”62 In Epistula ad Iulium, too, Marcellus states explicitly that “there is one
God (ὅτι εἷς θεός).”63 He also argues that the Son/Word is “inseparable
(ἀδιαίρετος) from God” and that “the Godhead of the Father and of the Son can-
not be differentiated (ἀδιαίρετον εἶναι τὴν θεότητα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ).”64
After that Marcellus cites John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”) and John 10:38
(“The Father is in me and I am in the Father”).
But how does the Son of God exactly fit into Marcellus’ concept of one God?
He asserted that the Son was not “another hypostasis (ἄλλην ὑπόστασιν)” next
to the Father.65 Contrary to Asterius,66 Marcellus categorically refused to pro-
fess the plurality of ὑποστάσεις in the Godhead, because this would have
destroyed the oneness of God. For him, the word ὑπόστασις was evidently syn-
onymous with οὐσία and it meant God’s “being” or “nature” (cf. Wisd 16:21, Heb
1:3) rather than “person.”67 In the same way, the Creed of Sardica, arguably fol-
lowing the ambiguous language of the Nicene condemnation ὑποστάσεως ἢ
οὐσίας,68 confessed, “There is one substance (μίαν . . . ὑπόστασιν) which the her-
etics themselves call ‘being’ (οὐσίαν), of the Father, the Son and the Holy
62 Frg. 128 in Eusebius Werke, IV. Gegen Marcell, Über die kirchliche Theologie, Die Fragmente
Marcells, ed. E. Klostermann, in GCS (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1972) 214; Vinzent has it as
“Fragment Pr.” (Markell von Ankyra 2-3).
63 Cf. Marc. Frgs. 91-2, 97.
64 Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.2.7, 3.2). The word “to differentiate” cannot mean that there
is absolutely no distinction whatsoever between the Father and the Son/Word, for it
would contradict what Marcellus says elsewhere in his letter. Instead, it should be taken
to mean that the Father and the Son/Word are one God (cf. Marc. Frgs. 70, 74, 86). The
emphatic point is that the Father and the Son are one in a substantial sense and not only
in a moral sense. In Frgs. 125, Marcellus explicitly rejects Asterius’ idea that the Father and
Son are one in the sense of harmony (συμφωνία) of words and works.
65 Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.2.4); cf. Frgs. 20, 86-7, 97, 116. For δύο ὑποστάσεις, see Frgs. 75,
85 and for τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, Frgs. 47, 50.
66 For the refuted positions of Asterius, see M. Vinzent, “Die Gegner im Schreiben Markells
von Ankyra an Julius von Rom,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 105 (1994) 285-328, at 290-
312, and Dowling, “Marcellus of Ancyra” 45-51.
67 Marcellus’ weighty opponent Basil of Caesarea argued, however, that the conciliar bish-
ops would have not used two different words in the creedal condemnation if these words
had been synonymous (ep. 125.1; cf. 210.5). Turcescu has shown that initially Basil used the
word ὑπόστασις as a synonym of οὐσία (Contra Eunomium 1.20.11), but later he preferred to
use it in the sense of a person (c. Eun. 3.3.2-5; cf. ep. 125.1; 236.6) (L. Turcescu, “Prosōpon
and Hypostasis in Basil of Caesarea’s Against Eunomius and the Epistles,” Vigiliae
Christianae 51 [1997] 374-95).
68 See C. Stead, Divine Substance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977) 233-42, 248-49.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

Marcellus of Ancyra and Priscillian of Avila 71

Spirit.”69 Because of its wide semantic realm, μία ὑπόστασις could and did mean
different things for different people.
To complicate the picture even more, Marcellus safeguarded God’s unity
with his famous but ultimately problematic phrase ἓν πρόσωπον.70 Again, at
question is the meaning of this phrase. By using the word πρόσωπον, Marcellus
allegedly attempted to protect the unity of God, the one source of the divine
action. One may also observe here that, in 375 CE, the Marcellian clergy in
Ancyra sent a letter to eleven Egyptian bishops in which they indicated their
readiness to accept the expression “three πρόσωπα,” but not “three ὑποστάσεις.”71
In Basil’s interpretation, however, the one divine ὑπόστασις, which had several
πρόσωπα (here: “masks” or “faces”), was nothing but Sabellianism.72 Eusebius,
too, contended that the confused Marcellus taught “one hypostasis and three
prosopa (μίαν . . . ὑποστάσιν τριπρόσωπον).”73 However, Basil’s and Eusebius’ use
of terms was not Marcellus’ use of terms.
Next, Priscillian. In Liber ad Damasum Episcopum and before Priscillian
confesses his creed, he asserts twice that God is one, but never insists on using
a particular term to denote this oneness.74 After that he utters (Credo) unum
Deum Patrem and quotes 1 Cor 8:6 (“There is but one God . . .”).75 This is fol-
lowed by an explanation of the one name in the baptismal formula of Matt
28:19,76 the condemnation of “Arians” who foolishly divide the one God, and a
citation of Deut 6:4 (“The Lord is our God, the only God”).77
The nagging problem is, obviously, that allegedly the “real” modalist monar-
chians, too, defended the oneness of God.78 Therefore, it is absolutely crucial to
see the difference between the theologies of the third century Sabellians and
of the fourth century theologians Marcellus and Priscillian.

69 Latin reads quam ipsi graecisian appelant, but it has been edited into quam ipsi graeci
usian appellant.
70 Marc. Frgs. 92 and 97.
71 Marcellians condemned those “who deny that the Holy Trinity consists of three infinite,
subsistent, co-essential, co-eternal and absolute Persons (τοὺς μὴ λέγοντας τὴν ἁγίαν
τριάδα τριά πρόσωπα ἀπερίγραφα καὶ ἐνυπόστατα καὶ ὁμοούσια καὶ συναΐδια καὶ αὐτοτελῆ)”
(Epiph. Pan. 72.11.5); cf. Lienhard, Contra Marcellum 160-63.
72 Basil, ep. 52.3; 236.6.
73 Eus. eccl. theol. 3.6.4-5.
74 Prisc. Tract. II.12, 23-4; cf. III.104-5.
75 Tract. II.47-9.
76 Tract. II.70-72, 108-9; cf. III.102-3.
77 Tract. II.72, 82 and 84; cf. the eight scriptural proof-texts which emphasize the oneness of
God in I.29-40 and III.99, 104-5.
78 E.g. Hippolytus(?), Contra haeresim Noeti 1-3, 7-8; haer. 9.7; Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 11.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

72 toom

The Creed of Marcellus The Creed of Priscillian The Old Roman Creed (R)
of Ancyra of Avila according to Rufinus
(340 or 341 CE) (381-82 CE) of Aquileia (404 CE)

1 Πιστεύω οὖν εἰς θεὸν (Credentes) unum deum Credo in deum

— Patrem Patrem
παντοκράτορα omnipotentem omnipotentem
2 et unum dominum
καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ιησοῦν Iesum Christum et in Christum Iesum
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ — filium eius
τὸν μονογενῆ τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν unicum dominum nostrum
3 τὸν γεννηθέντα natum qui natus est
ex Maria virgine
ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου ex Spiritu sancto de Spiritu sancto
καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου et Maria virgine
4 — passum —
τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου sub Pontio Pilato qui sub Pontio Pilato
σταυρωθέντα crucifixum crucifixus est
καὶ ταφέντα sepultum et sepultus
5 καὶ τῇ τριτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα tertia die resurrexisse tertia die resurrexit
ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν — a mortuis
6 ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς ascendisse in caelos ascendit in caelos
7 καὶ καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ sedere ad dexteram sedet ad dexteram
τοῦ πατρός dei patris patris
— omnipotentis —
8 ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρίνειν inde venturum et iudicaturum unde venturus est iudicare
ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς de vivis et mortuis vivos et mortuos
9 (line 11) (credentes) in sanctam (line 11)
ecclesiam
10 καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα sanctum Spiritum et in Spiritum sanctum
11 ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν (line 9) sanctam ecclesiam
12 — baptismum salutare —

13 ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (credentes) remissionem remissionem peccatorum

peccatorum

14 σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν (credentes) carnis resurrectionem

in resurrectionem carnis

15 ζωὴν αἰώνιον — —

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

Marcellus of Ancyra and Priscillian of Avila 73

To begin with, one should take notice of the fact that bishops Marcellus and
Priscillian explicitly condemned modalist monarchianism/Sabellianism/patri-
passianism. This indicates that at least in their own minds, they were not
teaching what Sabellius or any other monarchian was teaching. Marcellus does
not mention Sabellius in his Epistula ad Iulium, but he does denounce him in
Frg. 69. True, Marcellus evidently refused to denounce his student, a “modalist”
Photinus.79 Yet, this is not necessarily a sure indication that therefore both
were “closet” modalist monarchians or even dynamic monarchians.80
Marcellus’ reasons for not condemning Photinus may well have been personal
or strategic. Priscillian, however, decidedly condemned both patripassians and
Photinus.81
In order to see the difference between modalist monarchians/Sabellians/
patripassians on one hand, and Marcellus and Priscillian on the other more
clearly, a few other things should be pointed out.
First, Marcellus and Priscillian are not modalist monarchians, because they
never assert that the Father is the Word/Son.82 They do assert that the Father
and the Word/Son are one God, but that is a very different assertion.
True, it is not easy to reconstruct how exactly Marcellus perceived the dis-
tinction between the Father and the Word/Son, but he seemed to believe that
there was a distinction, even if it could not be the distinction between the two
eternal ὑποστάσεις. In fact, Marcellus’ understanding of the Word seems to be
somewhat similar to the pre-Christian Jewish understanding of Wisdom,83
which was always perceived as an activity of the one God rather than a second

79 But see D.H. Williams, “Monarchianism and Photinus of Sirmium as the Persistent
Heretical Face of the Fourth Century,” HTR 99/2 (2006) 187-206.
80 These were the “Eusebians” at Sardica who claimed that Marcellus was “mingling his own
assertions with certain foulness (sometimes with Sabellius’ falsehoods, sometimes with
Paul of Samosata’s mischief) (quique assertiones suas quibusdam squaloribus miscens,
nunc falsitatibus Sabelii, nunc malitiae Pauli Samosatensis)” (Hil. Coll. Antiar. A IV.1.2.10-11;
cf. 4.11-12). Later Marcellians, while writing to African bishops, condemned Arians,
Sabellians, Photinians, and the followers of Paul of Samosata indeed (Epiph. Pan. 72.11.5;
cf. Marc. Frgs. 7 and 29).
81 Prisc. Tract. II.86-94; cf. I.56-67; and II.85-89. In Tract. I.375, Priscillian also condemns
Homuncionites which means Adoptionists/Photinians.
82 E.g. Hipp.(?), c. Noet. 2, if Christ, the Son of God, is God, “He is the Father Himself
(αὐτὸς . . . ἐστὶν ὁ Πατήρ).” At times, Marcellus used the words “Son” and “Word” synony-
mously. For an explanation, see below.
83 For Basil, Marcellus’ teaching is indeed “corrupted Judaism” (ep. 263.5); cf. the decree of
the eastern bishops of Sardica (Philippopolis) in Hil. Coll. Antiar. A IV 1.28.15.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

74 toom

God—distinct from God, but not as another being.84 Marcellus deliberates

that the Word can exit either as “being in dynamis” (δυνάμει εἶναι)85 or “being in
energeia” (ἐνεργείᾳ εἶναι),86 yet so that neither the dynamis nor energeia is iden-
tified with the Father whose dynamis and energeia the Word is.87 “Being in
energeia,” which pertains to the incarnation, to the “second economy, accord-
ing to the flesh (τὴν δευτέραν κατὰ σάρκα οἰκονομίαν),”88 concerns the Word’s
being perceptible89 and hypostatic. “Only as an efficient force, and on account
of the flesh, does he [i.e. the Word] appear to be separate from the Father
(οὐκοῦν ἐνεργείᾳ μόνῃ διὰ τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς πρόφασιν ἄχρι τοσούτου κεχωρίσθαι τοῦ
πατρὸς φαίνεται).”90 Once again, taking the incarnation into consideration,
Marcellus writes, “it seems that the Godhead expanded in energy alone, so that
it was rightly [said to be] a monad which is indeed undivided (ἐνεργείᾳ ἡ θεότης
μόνῃ πλατύνεσθαι δοκεῖ ὥστε εἰκότως μονὰς ὄντως ἐστὶν ἀδιαίρετος).”91
To explicate his ideas, Marcellus employs the traditional but notorious anal-
ogy of λόγος ἐνδιάθετος/λόγος προφορικός, the analogy of the internal and
expressed word, without using these precise terms.92 Only the expressed word

84 J.D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the
Doctrine of Incarnation, 2d ed. (London: SCM, 1980) 176, 182, 209-12; M. Wiles, “Person or
Personification? A Patristic Debate about Logos,” in The Glory of Christ in the New
Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird, ed. L.D. Hurst and
N.T. Wright (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987) 281-89.
85 For the Word/Son as δύναμις, see Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.2.4, 7, 3.3).
86 Marc. Frg. 70. Lienhard proposes that the designations dynamis and energeia should be
translated as “power” and “active power”—the first pertaining the Word’s eternal exis-
tence and the second to its creational activity and incarnational existence (Contra
Marcellum 54-5); cf. Dowling, “Marcellus of Ancyra” 118-22.
87 Marc. Frgs. 73, 104, 106, 109.
88 Frg. 26.
89 Marcellus maintains that the expression “image” must apply to the incarnated Word,
because an image is not the same as the prototype and an image has to be visible (Acacius
in Epiph. Pan. 72.6.3, 9.1; Marc. Frgs. 53-5, 113-14; cf. John 1:14 [“seeing the glory”]).
90 Marc. Frg. 104.
91 Frg. 73. Here I have used the English translation of L. Ayres, Nicea and Its Legacy: An
Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
66; cf. Marc. Frgs. 7 and 48. Marcellus’ Epistula ad Iulium, however, never mentions the
idea of expanding and contracting monad, and later Marcellians explicitly condemned it
(Epiph. Pan. 72.11.6).
92 E.g. Frgs. 74, 87, 110. Likewise, later Priscillianist tried to make sense of the Father and the
Son being one God by employing the analogy of the internal and the expressed word
(Trin. f. cath. 24-50), but in his authentic treatises, Priscillian does not employ this poten-
tially modalist monarchian analogy. Cf. Dowling, “Marcellus of Ancyra” 105-18.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

Marcellus of Ancyra and Priscillian of Avila 75

has its own hypostatic reality. The internal word, however, does not exist apart
from the mind.

It is impossible for anyone to separate the discourse of a human being as

a faculty and as a reality; for the discourse is the same with the human
being, and is separated in nothing other than only in the performance of
the deed (οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου λόγον δυνάμει καὶ ὑποστάσει χωρίσαι
τινὶ δυνατόν· ἓν γάρ ἐστιν καὶ ταὐτὸν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ὁ λόγος, καὶ οὐδενὶ
χωριζόμενος ἑτέρῳ ἢ μόνῃ τῇ τῆς πράξεως ἐνεργείᾳ).93

The implications of this assertion are not unambiguous. On one hand, it can be
understood in the sense that the word is denied a real existence before its
utterance, before its taking on a sensible form (i.e. voice or writing). Therefore,
the Fourth Creed of Antioch (341 CE) and First Creed of Sirmium (351 CE)
rejected this analogy, for it could imply the prior non-existence of the word as
well as the posterior cessation of the uttered word.94 This is precisely how
Eusebius understood the Christological implications of Marcellus’ anthropo-
logical analogy.95
On the other hand, the analogy suggests, primarily, that the status of the
word is different before and after its utterance. It does not necessarily hold that
the word is non-existent in the mind, even if it is hypostatically inseparable
from the mind before its utterance. The bishop of Ancyra seems to believe that
this analogy secures the uncompromisable unity of God, the eternity of the
Word, and the eternal distinction between the Father and the Word. Put differ-
ently, Marcellus’ telling phrase “the Godhead of the Father and of the Son can-
not be differentiated (ἀδιαίρετον εἶναι τὴν θεότητα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ)
(emphasis added)”96 does not say that there is no distinction whatsoever
between the Father and the Son, but rather that they are equally divine (co-
essential). The creed of Sardica seconds, “We confess that God is one; we con-
fess one Godhead of Father and Son (ὁμολογοῦμεν ἕνα εἶναι θεόν· ὁμολογοῦμεν
μίαν πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ θεότητα).”97 This entails that the one Godhead is somehow
comprised of the Father and the Son.
What helps to see that Marcellus indeed makes a distinction between the
Father and the Word/Son is his affirmation that this distinction is eternal and not
a result of their allegedly temporal and sequential existence. In a paragraph
93 Marc. Frg. 87.
94 Ath. syn. 26 (anathema 5); Hil. syn. 38 (anathema 8), 46.
95 Eus. c. Marc. 1.1.4; eccl. theol. 2.15.
96 Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.3.2).
97 Theod. Hist. eccl. 2.6.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

76 toom

which precedes his creed in Epistula ad Iulium, Marcellus writes, “There is one
God and his only-begotten Son, the Word, who is always (ἀεὶ) with
the Father and has never ever (μηδεπώποτε) had a beginning of being, but is
truly God—. . . forever (ἀεὶ) existent, forever (ἀεὶ) reigning with God and his
Father.”98 Marcellus is not modalistically identifying the Father and the Word/
Son, but maintaining the eternal distinction between them. In the same way,
the creed of Sardica explicitly rejected the accusation of identifying the Father
and the Son. “We do not say that the Father is Son or again that the Son is
Father; but the Father is Father, and the Son is the Father’s Son (οὐ λέγομεν τὸν
πατέρα υἱὸν εἶναι οὐδέ πάλιν τὸν υἱὸν πατέρα εἶναι· ἀλλ’ ὁ πατὴρ πατήρ ἐστι καὶ ὁ
υἱὸς πατρὸς υἱός).”99 Later Marcellians, in turn, declared, “If anyone says that the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same (τις τόν αὐτὸν), let him be
anathema.”100
Priscillian does not identify the Father as Son, but says instead “because you
are Father to the Son (quod pater filio).”101 Worshipping one God means wor-
shipping “the true Father and the Christ God,102 Son of God (uerum patrem et
Christum deum dei filium).”103 Priscillian also contends that the Word was and
is “from eternity (a saeculis).”104 Thus, neither Marcellus nor Priscillian teaches
that the Father is the Son.
Second, neither Marcellus nor Priscillian asserts that the distinction
between the Father and the Word/Son is a mere nominal distinction. For
Marcellus, this accusation is made by Eusebius (c. Marc. 1.1.4; eccl. theol. 1.1),
Basil (ep. 125.1), and Acacius (Epiphanius, Pan. 72.9.5); and for Priscillian
by Orosius (Comm. 2). One should notice, however, that no quotations of
Marcellus or Priscillian are given by their opponents to prove this accusation
and that in the extant authentic works of Marcellus and Priscillian such an
assertion cannot be found.
Third, Marcellus and Priscillian do not teach that the Father became incar-
nated and suffered for the sins of the humankind.105 Instead, the creeds of

98 Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.2.6).

99 Theod. Hist. eccl. 2.6.
100 Epiph. Pan. 72.12.1.
101 Prisc. Tract. XI.4. Sanchez apprises, La confession de foi de Tract. II . . . est catholique et il
distingue bien les trois personnes (Priscillien 158).
102 Priscillian’s favorite phrase Christus deus is found throughout his authentic tractates
(Sanchez, Priscillien 162-66).
103 Prisc. Tract. I.247-48.
104 Tract. I.41.
105 E.g. Tert. adv. Prax. 1, “[Praxeas] says that the Father himself came down into the
Virgin, was himself born of her, himself suffered, indeed was himself Jesus Christ (Ipsum

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

Marcellus of Ancyra and Priscillian of Avila 77

both Marcellus and Priscillian mention the incarnation and suffering in con-
nection with the Son (the second creedal clause)—and by Son they do not
think of a mode of the Father. Marcellus writes that Jesus Christ (and not God
the Father), “descended for our salvation, was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
and assumed humanity (κατελθὼν . . . σωτηρίαν καὶ ἐκ τῆς παρθένου Μαρίας
γεννηθεὶς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἔλαβε).106 Once more, he calls not God the Father, but
Jesus Christ “our Savior.”107 Although Priscillian does not elaborate on this
point in his Liber ad Damasum Episcopum, in Tract. I.535-40, he offers a
Christological variation on Deut 6:4/Isa 45:21 and makes a clearly anti-modalist/
patripassian statement: “There is no other God but Christ God, Son of God,
who was crucified for us (nullum alium deum esse . . . nisi Christum deum dei
filium qui pro nobis crucifixum).”108
The bottom line is that on the basis of the letters of Marcellus and Priscillian,
as well as on the basis of other extant authentic fragments, neither author ever
claims 1) that the Father is the Son although both are God, 2) that the distinc-
tion between them was only nominal, or 3) that it was the Father who became
incarnate. To use Gregory of Nazianzus’ phrase, Marcellus and Priscillian were
perhaps among the promoters of “theories that honor the unity of God more
than is appropriate,”109 yet they should not be called modalist monarchians or
Sabellians, because this would obscure the important differences.110
Obviously, what matters for the history of the Apostles’ Creed is the mere
fact that Marcellus and Priscillian (modalists or not) cited the variants of the
Old Roman Creed years before Rufinus. Yet, assessing Marcellus’ and Priscillian’s
views on the Father and the Son as well as how these were perceived by their
opponents has proved necessary for understanding the reasons why their
creeds have not found the attention that they actually deserve.
Finally, I propose to take a synoptic look at three early declaratory creeds—
those of Marcellus, Priscillian, and the Old Roman Creed—, to focus on a few

dicit patrem descendisse in uirginem, ipsum ex ea natum, ipsum passum, denique ipsum
esse iesum christum).”
106 Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.2.9); cf. Frg. 74.
107 Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.3.3).
108 Cf. Prisc. Tract. I.25-8, 40-44, where the subject is “the Word,” and I.347-48, 465-70, 535-36;
III.100-1, where the subject is “the Son, Jesus Christ.”
109 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 20.10.
110 “It is not helpful to speak of Marcellus as Sabellian” (Dowling, “Marcellus of Ancyra 196).
Priscillian’s theology manque de précision, mais il est difficile d’y voir un monarchianisme
déviant (Sanchez, Priscillien 160).

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

78 toom

idiosyncrasies, and to maintain that these creeds are, in fact, alternative forms
of one and the same “thing.”111
The creeds of Marcellus, Priscillian and the Old Roman Creed are very much
alike indeed. All three of these are declaratory rather than interrogatory creeds.
All three have a Trinitarian structure with an extended section on economy,
and follow, with slight variations, the same sequence of clauses. Such unmis-
takable similarities strongly suggest that one is dealing with early variants of
the would-be Apostles’ Creed.112
The most obvious difference is that Marcellus’ creed is in Greek, and
Priscillian’s creed and R in Latin, but this is definitely not a major obstacle. Still
in 370s and 380s, Ambrosiaster complained about the Roman practice of sing-
ing hymns and confessing creed(s) in Greek, a language which congregants did
not understand.113 After all, many of the creedal clauses are ultimately coming
from the (Greek) Scripture, or from the interrogatory creed in Hippolytus’(?)
Traditio apostolica, which was originally written in Greek. In addition,
Marcellus’ creed is not the only witness to the Greek form of the Old Roman
Creed. There is also a ninth century curiosity—a Greek creed in Anglo-Saxon
characters—in a manuscript of liturgical material called Psalter of Aethelstan.114
As far as the major, theologically “suspicious” differences between R and the
creeds of Marcellus and Priscillian are concerned, it perhaps suffices to look at
the first two clauses.
In the creed of Marcellus, Denzinger-Schönmetzer, par. 11 marks the alleged
omission of the word ὁ πατήρ with an exclamation mark (—!).115 However,
I tend to agree with those who argue that the omission of the word “Father” is
not theologically significant.116 Since Marcellus uses the titles “Father” and
“Son” in other places of his letter, the absence of the word ὁ πατήρ should not
be taken as an indication of the supposed doctrine that the one God became
the Father and the Son only in the creation and the incarnation. Marcellus’

111 Unlike many creedal scholars, Westra at least allows the creed of Priscillian to be a
“Western echo” of R (Westra, Apostles’ Creed 34).
112 For example, all three creeds confess resurrection of flesh (carnis, σαρκὸς) rather than
resurrection of the dead (ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν) which is preferred by the New Testament and
confessed by the Creed of Nicaea.
113 Ambrosiaster, Ad Corinthios prima (1 Cor 14:14 and 19).
114 Kelly, Early Christian Creeds 104.
115 Westra concurs that the absence of the word πατήρ is “deliberate” and corresponds to
“Marcellus’ theological interests” (Apostles’ Creed 32 n. 50, 36-7).
116 E.g. Lienhard, Contra Marcellum 143. After all, the use of the designation “son” presup-
poses a father. Tertullian, too, omits the word “father” in his regula fidei and no one
accuses him of modalism (De praescriptione 13, De virginibus velandis 1, adv. Prax. 16).

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

Marcellus of Ancyra and Priscillian of Avila 79

wording of the first clause is problematic only if it is read in the light of a deeply
rooted assumption that it has to be about the first divine Person, i.e. about the
Father, rather than about the one God. It should be remembered that in the
light of Epistula ad Iulium, for Marcellus, God is not the Father alone, but
inseparably the Father and the Word/Son.117 Thus, it is the Triune God who is
Almighty. Furthermore, in order to explain the absence of the word ὁ πατήρ,
one can surmise that, for his creed, Marcellus preferred the scriptural usage
of the phrase “God Almighty,” which occurs twice in his Epistula ad Iulium,118
to the expression “Father Almighty” which cannot be found in Scripture.119
In the second clause, Marcellus expresses his belief εἰς Χριστὸν Ιησοῦν τὸν
υἱὸν. Eusebius contended that while Marcellus used the title “Word” for the
eternal God, he used the title “Son” (as well as Jesus Christ) only for God incar-
nated.120 However, this is not exactly the case.121 Marcellus does not list the
title “son” among the post-incarnation titles,122 but rather uses it as a synonym
for the pre-incarnate Word, at least occasionally.123 The creed of Sardica, too,
stated that “neither has Father ever existed without Son, nor Son without
[Father?] (μηδέ ποτε πατέρα χωρὶς υἱοῦ μηδὲ υἱὸν χωρὶς π[ατρ]ὸς124 γεγενῆσθαι).”125
Then, the letter sent by the (“western”) bishops at Sardica further affirmed that
the accusation that the Son had his beginning from Mary was not what
Marcellus was teaching.126
The beginning of Priscillian’s creed is heavily influenced by the wording of
1 Cor 8:6 (unus deus pater . . . et unus dominus Iesus Christus).127 He adapts
the beginnings of the independent clauses of 1 Cor 8:6 as the first two
articles of his creed, inserts the phrase sicut scribtum est, and then quotes the
endings of the clauses of the same passage. Thus, this Scripture explains
the absence of the sub-clause filium eius and, together with the earliest Latin

117 Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.2.6, 3.2); Frg. 90.
118 Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan., 72.2.4, 3.1); cf. Frgs. 37, 59, 106, 110.
119 Kelly, Early Christian Creeds 132-33.
120 Eus. c. Marc. 2.2.41.
121 Dowling, “Marcellus of Ancyra” 158-66; Parvis, “Joseph Lienhard, Marcellus of Ancyra, and
Marcellus’ Rule of Faith” 93-4; cf. Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.2.7-9, 3.2).
122 Marc. Frgs. 3 and 7.
123 Marc. ep. Iul. (Epiph. Pan. 72.2.7-9, 3.2); Frgs. 38 and 69.
124 Tetz proposes the emendation π[νεύματ]ος (“Ante omnia de sancta fide” 253). Latin has
neque Filius sine Patre (Turner, Monumenta 1/2:651).
125 Theod. Hist. eccl. 2.6.
126 Hil. Coll. Antiar. B II 1.6. For this particular accusation, see Ath. syn. 26.5.
127 Cited in Prisc. Tract. I.65-7; II.48-50.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

80 toom

translation of the Nicene Creed,128 it also explains the absence of the words
unicum . . . nostrum and does so satisfactorily.129
In connection with this, Marcellus’ usage of the title “only-begotten”
(μονογενής) may deserve a note as well. Lienhard contends that, in his creed,
Marcellus reserves it not for the eternal generation but for the
incarnation130—evidently because John 1:14 and 18 connect it with the incar-
nated Son and 1 John 4:9 with the economical sending of the Son. This may be
the case in the light of Marcellus’ Frgs. 33 and 71.131 Yet, in the light of Epistula
ad Iulium,132 this does not seem to be the case. The creed of Sardica, too, links
the title “only-begotten” with the Word/Son’s eternal existence: “the Logos is
only-begotten, who always was and is in the Father (μονογενῆ τὸν λόγον, ὅτι
πάντοτε ἦν καὶ ἔστιν ἐν τῷ πατρί).”133 The words “only-begotten” and “begotten”
in lines two and three of Marcellus’ creed would be somewhat redundant if no
distinction between eternal and temporal birth were intended. The Nicene
γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μονογενῆ certainly links the title “only-begotten” with
eternal generation of the Son, and Marcellus may have had his hand in the
composition of the Creed of Nicaea.134
This investigation has shown that if the charge of modalist monarchianism
is eliminated with the help of the authentic treatises of Marcellus and
Priscillian, there is really no need to take their creeds as fake PR compositions,

128 The earliest Latin translation of the Nicene Creed, which is found in Hil. Coll. Antiar.
B II 9.11.1, says, Credimus in unum deum patrem omnipotentem, uisibilium et inuisibilium
factorem. Et in unum dominum Iesum Christum filium dei, natum de patre. In syn. 84, how-
ever, Hilary correctly inserts the word unigenitum after natum ex patre.
129 The word unicum is absent in some Gallic and African variants of the creeds as well
(Westra, Apostles’ Creed 225-27).
130 Lienhard, Contra Marcellum 142.
131 Reserving the notion of “birth” for the Word’s assumption of humanity could have been
one of Marcellus’ devices to counter the subordinationists’ distinction between the unbe-
gotten nature of the Father and the begotten nature of the Son (Frgs. 9, 123).
132 Epiph. Pan. 72.2.6; cf. Marc. Frgs. 10, 57, 66.
133 Theod. Hist. eccl. 2.6.
134 A.B. Logan, “Marcellus of Ancyra and the Councils of A.D. 325: Antioch, Ancyra, and
Nicaea,” JTS 43 (1992) 428-46, at 434, 442-46; M. Tetz, “Die Kirchweihsynode von Antiochien
(341) und Marcellus von Ancyra. Zu der Glaubenserklärung des Theophorinus von Tyana
und ihren Folgen,” in Oecumanica et Patristica: Festschrift für Wilhelm Schneemelcher zum
75. Geburtstag, ed. D. Papandreou et al. (Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer) 19-217, at 213.
However, in his authentic works, Marcellus never appeals to the Council of Nicaea or
promotes its creed.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81

Marcellus of Ancyra and Priscillian of Avila 81
and the little idiosyncrasies of their creeds as indicative of their allegedly devi-
ant doctrines. Put differently, if “Sabellianism” is no longer the template for
interpreting their creeds, these creeds can be taken for what they really are—
the earliest variants of the declaratory creed which eventually came to be the
Apostles’ Creed.

Vigiliae Christianae 68 (2014) 60-81