Eusebius, EH.7.31: Against Manichaeism

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 7, chapter 31.

Notes and Commentary:

This short chapter briefly describes the gnostic Manichaean heresy which, Eusebius says, arose at this time (mid to late third century).

If we go back to EH 1.1 we see that Eusebius had stated at that time that his goal in this work was not only to present a history of the faithful orthodox teachers of the church, but also the heretical teachers who had ravaged the flock of Christ.

He begins his description of Mani, the leader of the Manichaeans, with a play on words, calling him a “madman” (maneis).

The language he uses in describing Mani is harsh and unsparing.

Mani is said to have had a “mental delusion, to have been “insane”, and to have been possessed by the devil. In mode of life, he was a “barbarian.”

Among his many doctrinal errors Mani is said to have attempted to pose as Christ, even choosing twelve disciples in imitation of Christ, while also making himself out to be the Paraclete, or Holy Spirit.

Eusebius notes that Mani “stitched together” his presumably dualistic false doctrine from the Persians and that he claimed to have “knowledge … falsely so called.” In closing he laments that the profane name of the Manichaeans was still on the lips of men in his day.

Conclusion:

This brief chapter continues Eusebius’s task in the EH of compiling a catalogue of the heretical movements of the early years of Christianity by introducing and highlighting that of the Manichaean sect. He uses harsh and unsparing language in order to set a contrast of this false teaching with orthodoxy and to offer a warning to those tempted by this heresy.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.7.30: Pastoral Letter Condemning Paul of Samosata

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History. Here is Book 7, chapter 30.

Notes and Commentary:

This chapter coveys the pastoral letter issued from the synod which condemned Paul of Samosata. It was directed to Dionysius of Rome and Maximus of Alexandria, a mark of the importance of these two churches, as well as to other churches throughout the provinces.

It denounces the “perverse heterodoxy” of Paul of Samosata.

It notes that input was sought from the respected bishops Dionysius of Alexandria and Firmilian of Cappodocia. Dionysius was unable to come but sent a letter addressed to the church at Antioch, since he did not deem Paul worthy of being addressed as their bishop. Firmilian, on the other hand, had visited twice and had initially been deceived by Paul’s claim to have changed his views. He had died while on a third journey to see into the matter.

In addition to his doctrinal errors, Paul’s character is also assailed in the letter. He is accused of having used his office for financial gain and of seeking worldly honors as a ducenarius (a procurator of high rank who had a salary of at least 200 sestaria). He liked to “strut” in the marketplaces, surrounded by a sycophantic entourage. In his pride he engaged in theatrical behavior. He removed psalms that addressed Christ as Lord but encouraged the singing of his own praises. Questions are raised about his interactions with a group of “spiritual sisters” known as the subintroductae. Finally, he is accused of partaking in the heresy of Artemas (Artemon; cf. EH.5.28).

The close of the letter is cited in which Paul is excommunicated and replaced as bishop by Domnus, the “son” (probably meaning his protégé) of the former orthodox bishop Demetrian.

Having been defrocked, however, Paul and his supporters held on to the church building in Antioch, until the orthodox appealed to the emperor Aurelian who sided with them against Paul and removed him.

It is noted by Eusebius that despite Aurelian’s favor in this particular episode, he later stirred up persecution against the Christians and was only held back by the providential hand of God. In reflection Eusebius notes that the rulers of this world never find it easy “to proceed against the churches of Christ” unless God permits this for their chastening.

Aurelius was succeeded by Probus, and Probus by Carus with his sons, Carinus and Numerianus. Next came Diocletian who brought about the great persecution and “destruction of the churches” in Eusebius’s own day.

The chapter ends by turning to succession in the church of Rome as Felix succeeded Dionysius as bishop.

Conclusion:

This chapter describes the church discipline enacted against Paul of Samosata. Not only his theology but also his ethics were attacked. It also anticipates the sufferings coming under Diocletian, by offering a theology of persecution. So, the orthodox were pressed from within and without, but they also continued to persevere from one bishop to another.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.7.7-9: Dionysius's Epistles on the (Re)Baptism Controversy

Image: Remains of a cross-shaped baptistery in ancient Laodicea, in modern day Turkey.

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 7, chapters 7-9. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

These chapters continue to report on the letters of Dionysius of Alexandria to various persons regarding the baptism controversy. Dionysius sided with Stephen in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage and his argument that the lapsed must be re-baptized.

Chapter 7 describes the third letter of Dionysius On Baptism to Philemon, a presbyter of Rome. In it he claims to have received a vision which affirmed the propriety of his reading the works of heretics so that he might be able to understand and refute them.

He claims that in his practice he was following “the rule and pattern” of Heraclas of Alexandria, called here papa or “pope”, who did not require those who had drifted into false teaching to be re-baptized when restored.

He also notes that the African practice extended back to previous bishops.

He next cites the fourth letter of Dionysius On Baptism directed to Dionysius of Rome, at this time a presbyter but later the bishop.

Chapter 8 continues to describe this fourth letter as dealing with Novatian, whom he says falsely accused “our most compassionate Lord Jesus Christ of being without mercy.”

Chapter 9 describes a fifth letter of Dionysius to Xystus, bishop of Rome. Here he describes a brother in Alexandria who had received a disorderly baptism at the hands of heretics and with a tender conscience desired rebaptism, but this was refused by Dionysius.

Beyond these letters of Dionysius, two others are mentioned, a second to Xystus and the church at Rome, and another to Dionysius of Rome.

Conclusion:

These chapters expand upon the (re)baptism controversy and Dionysius’s role as an advocate through his letters in opposition to the position of Cyprian of Carthage and others who were promoting the necessity of baptism for the lapsed. He appeals to the leaders of the Roman church, noting, in particular his agreement with Heraclas of Alexandria.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.5.14-17: Against Heresies: Montanism

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: Book 5, chapters 14-17. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

These chapters survey the Montanist or Phrygian (or Kataphyrgian) heresy.

Chapter 14 introduces this Montanist heresy and its adherents who “like poisonous reptiles crawled over Asia and Phrygia.” Its leader Montanus was called the Paraclete (of the “Comforter” the term for the Holy Spirit in John’s Gospel) and two women of the sect, Priscilla and Maximilla, were considered to be his prophetesses.

Chapter 15 notes two other heterodox men who had been turned out of the church at Rome, Florinus and Blastus..

Chapter 16 describes Apolinarius of Hierapolis as a “powerful and invincible weapon” against Montanism. He and other “learned men” opposed the heresy.

Eusebius cites several passages from a work by one of these men [perhaps Asterius Urbanus to whom reference is made] addressed to a certain Abercius Marcellus. The Montanists are called the sect of Miltiades, one of their early teachers.

The writer expresses his hesitancy to write, since he did not want to add to or take away from the gospel (canonical Scripture?).

What the Montanists claimed to be prophecy, he called “false prophecy.”

He says the movement began in the village of Ardabav in Phrygian Misia where Montanus had been a Christian convert led astray by an unbounded lust for leadership control. He had ecstatic experiences, spoke strangely and prophesied contrary to church tradition. Some assumed he was led by the devil or a spirit of error. The two women were then raised up who were also possessed by the same “bastard spirit” and spoke madly, improperly and strangely, like Montanus.

When this arrogant spirit blasphemed the universal (catholic) church, the Montanists were drive our and excommunicated.

This author reports the miserable end of these “prophets”, relaying a tradition that Montanus and Maximilla, like Judas, committed suicide.

Another Montanist teacher named Theodotus is also said to have come to a miserable end.

He reports that faithful bishops attempted to refute Maximilla, while she lived, but were muzzled by the Montanists.

He also cites prophecies made by Maximilla about the end of the world, but 13 years later these prophesies had proven false.

Finally, he cites a report that the Montanists, like the followers of Marcion, claimed to have martyrs, as did the orthodox. The martyrs of the true faith, like Gaius and Alexander of Eumeneia, however, separated themselves from those in these sects, so as not even to die with them.

Chapter 17 continues this survey of the anti-Montanist work, citing another anti-Montanist author named Miltiades [not to be confused with the Montanist teacher of the same name] who described Montanist attacks against the orthodox teacher Alcibiades. The Christians pointed to the prophets of the OT and of those with prophetic gifts in the NT (Agabus, Judas, Silas, and the daughters of Philip) as well as early Christian prophets Ammia and Quadratus. It is noted that the Montanist prophets had not one to succeed them when they passed.

Finally, other writings of this Miltiades are mentioned including works against Gentiles and against Jews and an Apology to the secular rulers.

Conclusion:

These chapters are important for understanding the Montanist heresy, which was something like a “charismatic” sect, relying on ecstatic experiences and utterances. The Romans in their persecutions lumped those of this sect in among the orthodox Christians but, according to Eusebius, the martyrs from the heretical sects were not authentic. Against the Montanists, there were also raised up orthodox writers and teachers to oppose them.

JTR

Esuebius, EH.4.10-13: Against Heresies: Valentinus, Cerdo, Marcion, & Marcus

Image: Marble portrait of the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius, c. 138-161, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History. Here is Book 4, chapters 10-13. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

In chapter 10 Eusebius here marks the transition in Roman imperial leadership from Hadrian to Antoninus Pius. As has been his custom, he likewise traces the transitions of the bishops in the most important cities of early Christianity, focusing especially on Rome and Alexandria.

In Rome, Telesphorus was succeeded by Hyginus.

He notes that according to Irenaeus Telesphorus died as a martyr.

He adds also from Irenaeus that at this time at Rome the heretic Valentinus was active as was Cerdo, the founder of the “Marcionite error.”

Chapter 11 provides an extended citation from Irenaeus on the heresies originating at Rome.

He notes that Cerdo came from the circle of Simon Magus, and that he taught that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of Christ. He adds: “Marcion of Pontus succeeded him and increased the school, blaspheming unblushingly.”

Eusebius says that Irenaeus exposed the “bottomless pit” of Valentinus’s errors, as well those of another man named Marcus, “most experienced in the magical arts,” who conducted a mysterious “bed-chamber” rite for his initiates.

In Rome, Hyginus was succeeded as bishop by Pius (not the emperor, of course), and Pius by Anicetus, and Anicetus by Eleutherus.

While in Alexandria, Eumenes was succeeded as bishop by Marcus (not the magician, of course), and Marcus by Celadion.

Eusebius describes the ministry of Justin Martyr whom he describes as dressed “in the garb of a philosopher” while serving as “an ambassador of the Word of God.”

Eusebius cites Justin’s description of the arch-heretic Marcion of Pontus.

Eusebius relays an interesting observation here from Justin regarding those who called themselves Christians. He says there are many who are called Christians “just as the name of philosophy is common to philosophers though their doctrines vary.”

He further notes that Justin offered an apology or defense of the faith to the emperor Antoninus Pius.

In chapter 12 Eusebius cites from that apology.

In chapter 13 he cites a supposed decree sent by the emperor to his provincial “Council of Asia.” Lake notes in a footnote that this decree is usually considered to be spurious. The decree chastens the council for their harshness in dealing with the Christians, noting their being charged as being atheists, and expressed admiration for the Christians who were willing to die for their faith. The decree also notes several providential earthquakes related to these persecutions.

Conclusion:

Eusebius parallels changes in leadership within the Roman Empire through the succession of the emperors and changes within the churches through the succession of bishops.

He notes the rise of heresies, like that of Marcion, but also the resistance to these heresies by apologists and defenders of the faith like Justin.

JTR

Eusebius, EH.3.26-27: Against Heresies: Menander the Samaritan & the Ebionites

Image: Closeup image of Simon Magus relief from the Basilica of Saint-Sernin, Toulouse, France.

A new episode is posted in our series on Eusebius of Caesarea’s The Ecclesiastical History: book 3, chapter 26-27. Listen here.

Notes and Commentary:

In these two chapters Eusebius traces two early heresies:

First, in chapter 26 he describes the heresy of the sorcerer Menander the Samaritan. Menander followed after Simon Magus and appeared in Antioch where he “deceived many by magical arts.” Menander’s teaching reflects some sort of Gnosticism, with Eusebius suggesting Menander presented himself as a savior “sent from above for the salvation of men from invisible aeons.” Eusebius notes that Menander’s heresy was described by both Irenaeus and Justin. He also rejected the orthodox view of the resurrection and the Christian hope.

Second, in chapter 27, he describes the Jewish sect known as the Ebionites. Eusebius makes much of the fact that their name comes from the Hebrew word meaning “poor”, reflecting their low view of Christ. These saw Jesus as “a plain and ordinary man who had achieved righteousness by the progress of his character and had been born naturally from Mary and her husband.”

He makes a distinction between some Ebionites who deny Christ’s eternal pre-existence as the Logos and his Virgin Birth, while others deny the former but affirm the latter.

This group thus had an “adoptionistic” or “subordinationist” Christology, reflected in their denial of the eternal pre-existence of the Son of God and the Virgin Birth of Jesus. They also urged complete observance of the OT law. They also rejected the canonical Gospels in favor of the Gospel of the Hebrews and rejected the letters of Paul. They kept the Jewish sabbath but also commemorated the resurrection on Sundays.

Conclusion: These descriptions are of interest in that they demonstrate the emergence of orthodox stands against unorthodox teaching. Gnosticism is rejected. Low Christology is also rejected, while cardinal doctrines are also affirmed, like the deity of Christ, the eternal pre-existence of the Son of God, and the virginal conception. The denunciation of the Ebionites also demonstrates the importance of an orthodox canon. The Ebionites are misguided in that they reject the teaching of NT Scripture (the canonical Gospels and Pauline epistles).

JTR