Messalians

MESSALIANS. - An ascetic movement with heretical tendencies that arose in Syria. In Greek the M. are called Cuchi; but Timothy, a presbyter of Constantinople, also knows for them the designations of Markianists, Enthusiasts, Coreutae, Lampetians, Adelphians and Custazians (from Eustathius of Sebaste: PG 86, 45 ff.). Other names could still be added, because the M. have many connections also with the Audians and the Timotheanists (mentioned by Mārūtā of Majferqat). One cannot speak of a sect properly so called, since it is rather a question of an ascetic movement within the Syrian Church with erroneous spiritual doctrines.

The M. are mentioned for the first time (after the Cathars and the Audians) by Ephrem the Syrian in homily 22 against the heresies (see the German translation by Ad. Rücker, Des hl. Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen gegen die Irrlehren [Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, 61], Munich 1928, p. 81). The Saint gives no particular information. More extensive is the account of St. Epiphanius (Haer., 80, 3, 2 ff.), but he was not well informed on the theological problem that concerns Messalianism. He says that the M. are an undisciplined crowd of ascetics of both sexes, who sleep in the streets and in the squares (ibid., 80, 3, 4) and who beg for alms (loc. cit.), but on the other hand he also speaks of M. in Mesopotamia who live in monasteries (mandrai; ibid., 80, 6, 3). There existed therefore wandering ascetics who adhered to the doctrines of the M. and ascetics who had "stabilitas loci". The wandering ascetics and the common life of ascetics of both sexes are not a peculiarity of Syrian Messalianism. Even the habit of not cutting one's hair or not shaving one's beard and of wearing the penitential garment (sackcloth; ibid., 80, 6, 5) does not specifically characterize the M. More instructive are the reports of Epiphanius which say that the M. do not observe fasts (80, 3, 6; cf. Theodoret, Hist. eccl., IV, 11, 7), that they do not work (Epiphanius, Haer., 80, 4, 1) and that, when asked whether they are prophets, Christ, patriarchs or angels, they affirm that they are all of these (ibid., 80, 3, 5). These details have some relation to the ascetic and mystical doctrine of Messalianism. The most concrete reports on the doctrine of the M. go back ultimately to the acts of the Synods of Side (under the presidency of Amphilochius of Iconium) and of Antioch (under Flavian), which Photius had read (Bibl., cod. 52: PG 103, 88 ff.). The information of Theodoret (op. cit., IV, 11, and Haeret. fab., IV, 11: PG 83, 429 ff.), of Timothy the presbyter (see above), of John Damascene (De haeres.: PG 94, 729 ff.) and of Euthymius Zigabenus (PG 130, 1273 ff.) is based on this material, supplied by the synodal texts. In these synods criticism was directed against an "Asceticon" of the M. which according to Dörries could still be reconstructed from the homilies of Pseudo-Macarius or more precisely of Symeon of Mesopotamia. The principal points of this doctrine of the M. are the following: in every man who is born there is found a demon, the fatal consequence of Adam's fall. Baptism does not succeed in driving out this demon, because the Sacrament does not cut the roots of sins. Only prayer continued under the felt presence of the Holy Spirit can drive out the demon and lead man to "apatheia" (imperturbabilitas). The doctrine of the demon that is born with man is fundamentally a doctrine of the Jewish religion. It is a question of the evil inclination (jēzer ha-ra) that is born with every man, and which is sexual concupiscence. This more or less conscious identification of concupiscence with original sin was developed in the ancient Church on the basis of Jewish doctrines according to which the root (for the image of the root see H. Ch. Puech, Le Manichéisme, Paris 1949, p. 160) of evil would be "sealed" in the eschatological times (IV Esd. 3, 22) in the sense that Baptism or Confirmation would be the "seal" of the root of evil. But when the concept of seal (ἀφραγίς) was interpreted only in the sense of an eschatological sign, the cancellation of original sin in Baptism was denied and one arrived at the conclusion of the M., that the sacrament of Baptism is effective only in the manner of a razor, which cuts the hair, but does not uproot it (Theodoret, Haeret. fab., IV, 11). The uprooting of sin, that is, of concupiscence, thus becomes the work of the ascetic himself, who, renouncing completely every form of concupiscence, arrives at "apatheia". The consequence is Encratism and the affirmation of a presence of the Holy Spirit in the soul not in concomitance with the baptismal act, but with the coming of the Spirit upon the Apostles, at Pentecost. Hence results the interest of the Encratites and of the M. in the Apostles, who for them become models for the life of the perfect. The presence of the Spirit must be felt sensually, given that concupiscence too is a sensual fact, and thus the psychologism of the doctrine of the M. is explained. Everything else in the doctrine of the M. can be interpreted from these presuppositions: the sensual vision of the persons of the Most Holy Trinity, who are not distinct, prophetism, the divinization (purification) of the man who has reached "apatheia", the renunciation of work by the perfect and indifference toward the moral precepts that are valid only for the imperfect, as likewise also the ascetic precepts and the Sacraments. Although Messalianism is comprehensible in its general lines, it is nevertheless impossible for us to draw the lines of demarcation between ancient Encratism and Messalianism in Mesopotamia. It is very probable that Messalianism spread from Mesopotamia to Asia Minor and to western Syria (M. also existed in Egypt), but the individual phases of this historical development remain obscure today, as does also the activity of the individual persons who are mentioned: Adelphius, Lampetius, Eusebius of Edessa, Symeon of Mesopotamia, etc. Messalianism can be reconstructed up to a certain point by means of the homilies of Pseudo-Macarius or of the Liber graduum, but one must realize that here one is already dealing with an attenuation of the ascetic doctrine of the M. From the adversaries of Messalianism, moreover, such as Diadochus or Mark the Hermit, only a few elements can be drawn for the reconstruction of the ideas of the M. More useful would perhaps be the collection of the images used in the writings that underwent the influence of the M. One could perhaps ascertain that apart from the doctrine of sin there also exist contacts with Jewish mysticism (Merkābhāh-speculation of the homilies of Pseudo-Macarius. Technique of mysticism: holding the head down during meditation; see G. Scholem, Les grands courants de la mystique juive, Paris 1950, p. 63, and the κατακαραλλίται among the M. at Constantinople, see Chronique de Michel le Syrien, II, ed. Chabot, ibid. 1900-10, p. 261). In the images used in the homilies of Pseudo-Macarius one finds contacts with those of the pseudo-Clementine literature. It is certain that the M. made wide use of the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. Whether they really had a Christology of the Judeo-Christian type, as one of the texts of accusation supposes, is not certain. The influence of the spiritual movement of Messalianism was considerable. This must be said not only for the spirituality of the Byzantine Church, which even in the adversaries of the M. still reflects the psychologism of the M., nor only for the influence on Islamic mysticism, but also for European Pietism which, with the presupposition of Luther's doctrine on concupiscence, proved in figures such as Wesley or C. Arnold very sensitive to the spirituality of the M. as they knew it in the homilies of Pseudo-Macarius. With Manichaeism the M. have in common only the presuppositions of Encratism in Mesopotamia.

Erik Peterson