Introduction
A common theme in many Christadelphian writings, particularly in continuous-historic interpretations of Revelation, is a concept of the ‘faithful remnant’, i.e. the idea that throughout history there has been individuals and groups who have remained faithful to “the Truth”. Therefore there have many attempts to identify “proto-Christadelphian” groups in the pages of history. For instance, in Eureka J. Thomas refers to the Donatists,[1] the Novatians,[2] the Albigenses and the Waldenses,[3] the Aerians and the Paulicians,[4] the Petrobrusians,[5] the Arnoldists,[6] and the Leonists.[7] He also equates the death of the Two Witnesses with the fate of the Huguenots. Similar lists can be found within the works of other writers, often dependent upon Eureka.[8] Such groups are often identified by their dissension from the Church of Rome.
However these efforts to identify proto-Christadelphian groups present us with a problem, one ably recognized by R. Roberts:
Are we to consider, then, that the churches in Roman Africa in the fourth and fifth centuries, and the various dissenting bodies in Switzerland, France, and others parts, were the true brethren of Christ? If so, why is it that what we, the Christadelphians, consider the truth is not to be found in their writings?[9]
The problem is that, though these groups dissented from Catholicism, they were not Christadelphians. R. McHaffie took this problem to its logical conclusion and presented the following dilemma: either these groups are not “brethren in Christ” (or proto-Christadelphian) or our definition of “brethren in Christ” is too stringent.[10] McHaffie’s own conclusion is that Christadelphians are too dogmatic regarding those “outside” and regarding which beliefs are necessary for salvation. The other alternative is to acknowledge that these groups were not “brethren in Christ” at all.
One thoughtful solution is the proposition that, while these groups were not a “faithful remnant” themselves, they did provide an environment in which the “remnant” could be preserved.[11] Roberts writes:
Though these communions were not in the mass the body of Christ, they contained it: while the church ascendant – the Catholic sun-invested woman, contained it not at all.[12]
H. Barker and W. H. Boulton also comment:
One can well imagine that under the shadow of these greater forces of opposition there would also be that passive resistance exercised by the true believers in Christ.[13]
Yet there is, to the best of my knowledge,[14] no evidence that proto-Christadelphians did exist within these groups.
In this article, I intend to present a synopsis of the beliefs of these various “heretical” groups and examine whether proto-Christadelphians could have flourished, or at least found sanctuary, within them. For the purposes of this article I am defining Christadelphian beliefs according to the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (BASF). I have marked divergences from that statement, either with an ‘S’ (statements to be accepted) or an ‘R’ (doctrines to be rejected).
The Schisms of the 4th Century
1. The Donatists
Main Sources: Augustine, Letters; Optatus, On the Schism of the Donatists (both in Stevenson, New Eusebius)[15]
The Donatists are not technically a sect, but are a schism within the early church in North Africa. The schism arose when a group of churches in North Africa refused to recognize the authority of Caecilian, bishop of Carthage, because he had been a “traditor” during the Great Persecution. A traditor was someone who had compromised their faith under persecution, for example, by giving up copies of the Scriptures. The Donatists, as they would become known,[16] believed that such men were not worthy to hold office within the Church and therefore the sacraments and ordinations they performed were invalid.[17]
The Donatists were separated from the Church of Rome on a single issue; they were otherwise orthodox in their beliefs. G. and R. Walker write:
The Donatists … on investigation prove to be orthodox Trinitarians [S1, S2, R2, R3, and R6], holding immortal soulism [R7, R8], belief in the Devil [R11], and so on, and whose only claim to be heretics lay in a desire to appoint their own bishops.[18]
It has sometimes been suggested that the Donatists favoured the separation of Church and State, and opposed the increasing inference of Constantine. Yet they were prepared to appeal to the Emperor when it suited their purposes.[19]
A group of violent fanatics called the Circumcellions are often connected with the Donatists [R35].[20] However, very little is known about the Circumcellions and it is unlikely that their actions are indicative of the whole Donatist movement.[21]
2. Novatians
Main Source: Eusebius, The History of the Church, VI-VII (in Stevenson, New Eusebius)
The Novatians were another schism, which arose after the Decian persecution (3rd C.E.). They held a “rigorist attitude toward any form of compromise … [with] the Graeco-Roman outlook and culture”.[22] Nevertheless, they were orthodox in beliefs, except that the denied that lapsed Christians could be renewed to repentance [S14].[23]
3. The Manichaean Heresies
In this section we will examine a series of dissenting groups, who have in common that they are often accused of Manichaeism and Docetism. It will be useful to include a brief introduction to these concepts at this point.
We must proceed with a care since these terms not necessarily always applied fairly to the dissenters, as Thomas asserts:
The names of Arians and Manichaeans, although originally employed to designate sectaries of the class the apostle terms ‘false teachers privily bringing in damnable heresies’ (2 Peter 2:1), they were afterwards used by the ignorant and malicious to distinguish the inhabitants of the mountains and valleys of the other wing of the Great Eagle, in after times known by the general terms Albigenses and Waldenses.[24]
Much that is recorded about these dissenters comes for their Catholic decriers and so must be approached with caution. Roberts writes:
You cannot rely on the portraiture of ecclesiastical history. In after ages, Canon Bowlby, of Birmingham, would be accepted as a competent witness touching the Christadelphians: yet how little, as recent experience has shown us, could we recognize ourselves in his descriptions.[25]
Many articles in the tertiary literature (several cited here) reproduce uncritically the accusations of these Church historians. Nevertheless, it seems likely that many of these groups did hold beliefs in common with the Manichees and the Docetics, though we must proceed with this warning in mind.
i) Docetism
Docetism is the belief that Jesus did not actually live as a human being or actually die upon the cross, but only lived and died in appearance. It seems to be this belief that the apostle John was countering in his epistles, writing of those who denied Christ came in the flesh (2 John 7).[26]
This belief appears to have arisen from a metaphysical belief about the dualism of matter and spirit. Matter was considered to be evil and at war with “the realm of the spirit”. Therefore the idea that a being like Jesus could be contaminated by matter was repulsive, and so he was considered to be a purely spiritual being.[27]
Docetism is not only alien to the NT teaching of the humanity of Jesus but also undermines the power of the crucifixion. As this belief is clearly decried in the NT, no group that held such a belief could be considered “brethren in Christ”.
ii) Manichaeism
Mani (d. 272 C.E.) was a self-proclaimed prophet and teacher. He regarded Buddha, Zarathustra, Plato and Jesus all as messengers from God and himself as another of these messengers.[28] His teachings were combination of Christian and Persian religious ideas and manifested a Gnostic dualism.
The Manichaeism gnosis embodies a complex cosmic drama which centers on a primordial battle between the original principles of Light and Darkness. An initial invasion of Light by Darkness led to a counter-attack by Light, which was designed to fail, tricking the powers of Darkness into swallowing particles of Light. The universe was then created to redeem and purify this captured Light and to punish and imprison the archons of Darkness. […] The soul could be awakened by gnosis and made aware of its divine origins.[29]
This focus on gnosis (knowledge) led the Manichees to denigrate matter and the body. The Manichees were divided into two classes, the “Elders” who practiced asceticism and celibacy and the “Hearers” who were mere adherents.[30]
The Manichees were persecuted by the Sassanian Empire (Persia), which resulted in the diffusion of the religion throughout the Roman Empire. Following the outbreak of war between the Romans and Sassanians (296 C.E.), the Roman authorities outlawed the religion as a Persian sect.[31] After Christianity became the state religion of the Empire, the authorities continued to legislate against the Manichees. In the sixth century the death penalty was introduced for adherents and the religion was extinguished from Europe. Manichaesim survived in the east, and was influential upon later groups such as the Paulicians, the Bogomils and the Cathars.[32]
iii) Albigenes (or Cathars)[33]
Founded in Albania about the eighth century, the Albigenes become particularly popular in northern Italy and southern France during 11th and 12th centuries. Like the Manichees, they had believed in a strict duality between Light and Dark; they even believed that there were two gods, one of the Light and one of the Dark [S1]. Their understanding of Jesus was Docetic, believing that he was an angel with a phantom body. They also taught a form of reincarnationism, believing that the spirits were fallen from their original goodness (Light) and were imprisoned in human bodies (matter). These spirits must pass through a succession of reincarnations until they are purged of the Dark and return to the Light (or heaven) [S4, S5, S16, R10, R23, R30].
In terms of practice, the Albigenses were divided into the ‘Perfect’ and ‘Believers’. The Perfect adhered to the strict practices of the group, which included vegetarianism [R32], and asceticism, sometimes leading to suicide by starvation. They sought salvation through acquiring knowledge. The Believers lived normal lives but were assured salvation if they repented on their death beds. They rejected the sacraments of the Church and were cruelly persecuted.[34]
iv) Bogomils
The Bogomils (10th-11th C.E.), like the Albigenes, mirrored Manichean teaching. In particular, they took a Docetic view of Christ and his death. Also like the Albigenes, their taught reincarnation [S2, S9, S12, S13].[35] The Bogomils were divided into the ‘Perfect’ and the ‘Believers’; to become a Perfect, the initiate had to spend more than two years devoted to intensive study and ascetic practices. Among their stranger beliefs, the Bogomils believed that the Devil created the world and that he is the brother of Christ.[36]
v) Paulicians
The Paulicians arose in the 6th-7th centuries, expanding particularly in Bulgaria. Their beliefs shared affinities with the Manichees, and other Gnostic groups, professing a dualism between the material and the spiritual; they held that matter is evil [S4]. They believed in two gods, one who made the material world and one who made souls [S1]. Regarding Christ, they believed that he was an angel whose real mother was ‘the heavenly Jerusalem’ [S2, S9, R5]. He was not born the Son of God, but was adopted by God at his baptism. Because of Jesus’ obedience to God’s will, the Holy Spirit made known to him the mystery of the Godhead [S2, S9]. They did not acknowledge Jesus’ death as an atonement for sin, regarding him primarily as a good teacher [S6, S8, S12, S13]. They rejected the Old Testament and most of the New, saving only the writings of Luke and Paul [S8, S18, and R1].
Regarding practice, the Paulicians rejected infant baptism. Initiates were baptized aged 30 after being exorcised by one the “elect” leaders. They retained many traditional Catholic practices, such as the prayers for the dead and the belief that the Eucharist is the blood and body of the Lord. Though they dissented from Catholicism, they maintained that it was acceptable to deny or conceal their beliefs and live as Catholics to avoid persecution [R34, R35]. It is also recorded that the Paulicians had their own army, which was responsible for many brutalities [R35].[37] There also seems to be a similar group who more genuinely followed the teaching of Paul of Samosata, the Paulianists, “who repudiated the doctrine of the Trinity”.[38]
vi) Petro-Brusians
This group was founded by Peter Burys, who taught in Embrun, Die and Gap (c.1117 C.E.); he was later burnt for heresy. After his death, his teachings were spread by Henry of Lausanne, though in a modified form.
The Petro-Brusians dissented from the Catholic Church and decried many of its practices. They rejected infant baptism, requiring personal confession prior to baptism, which they regarded as necessary for salvation. They condemned all forms of ceremony and chant, and they rejected the Eucharist because, as Christ gave his flesh and blood, once this cannot be repeated. They also rejected the veneration of crosses and holy sites; the Petro-Brusians taught that crosses and church buildings should be destroyed. In additional they preached, and practiced, violence against priests and monks [R35].
The Petro-Brusians only accepted the authority of the Gospels, rejecting the Old Testament and most of the New [S7, S8, S18, and R1].[39]
4. Waldenses[40]
The Waldenses (or Vaudois) appeared in the second half of the twelfth century and have continued to this day (in a modified form). We know little of how they were formed. Traditionally, the Waldenses have been associated with Peter Waldo, though we know they predate him. We also know little about their beliefs and practice, or whether indeed the Waldenses were a united fellowship or disparate in both conviction and habitation. Alan Eyre writes, “it is not possible to ascertain with certainty the beliefs and practice of all the scattered Vaudois groups in the Middle Ages and after”.[41]
We do know, not least because of the persecution they received, that they Waldenses were dissenters from the Catholic Church. They rejected such doctrines as purgatory, indulgences and prayers for the dead. They also disowned shrines and other holy places, and orthodox rituals such as chanting. Eyre describes their beliefs as “an essentially pious yet commonsense approach to the Bible”.[42] There is some evidence that the Waldenses believed in the mortality of the soul and the resurrection, though it is not clear that this was universally believed among them.[43]
The Waldenses were divided into two classes. The ‘Perfect’ took vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. They did not engage in any form of manual labour and depended upon the ‘Friends’ for their subsistence. The Friends lived a normal life, marrying and owning property. The Friends also remained within the Catholic Church and received its sacraments, even though Catholic priests were regarded as unworthy [R34, R35]. The Waldenses denounced all forms of lying and refused to take oaths. Their only breaking of bread service was on Holy Thursday.[44]
The Waldenses were predominately differentiated from the Catholic Church by their ecclesiastical concerns rather than their objections to church dogma. A. Harnack observed that the, “Waldensians neither contested the Catholic worship, nor the sacraments and hierarchical constitution in themselves, but considered it a deadly sin that the Catholic ecclesiastics should exercise the rights of successors of the apostles, without taking upon themselves the apostolic life, and they protested against the extensive governing power of the pope and the bishops”.[45]
The Waldenses have continued to this day, though Eyre notes that “the ‘Valdensian’ church in Italy is indistinguishable from the generality of evangelical Protestant sects”.[46]
5. Nestorians or ‘Church of the East’
Nestorius and his teachings were condemned at the Council of Ephesus. He taught that the Son had two natures in one person, a human nature and a divine nature. For this reason he objected to calling Mary ‘the Mother of God’ as, he argued, she was the mother of the human Jesus, not the divine Son. Nestorianism, therefore, is a deviation regarding the second person of the Trinity; it is not a rejection of that doctrine [S1, S2, R2, and R3]. This is illustrated in an extract from the ‘Hymn of Praise’ by Mar Babai (c. 6th C.E):
One is Christ the Son of God, worshipped by all in two natures … with beginning before all time … as the Godhead is three substances in one nature, likewise the Sonship of the Son is in two natures, one person.[47]
The Nestorian Church continues to this day—see www.nestorian.org.
6. The Huguenots
The Huguenots were French Protestants. Their doctrines were largely those of Luther, adding a belief in absolute predestination [R26]. [48] The Huguenots, though dissenters from the Catholic Church, did not share the central beliefs of the Christadelphians.
Conclusions
This has only been a brief synopsis of some of the dissenting groups sometimes identified as “proto-Christadelphian” or a “faithful remnant”. However, despite the brevity, it should be apparent from this survey that these groups could not be called ‘Christadelphian’, as defined by the BASF. The schisms of the 4th C.E., the Donatists and the Novatians, were orthodox in belief and differed little from the Roman Church. Though the Huguenots were persecuted by the Catholic authorities, their beliefs were not Christadelphian. The fact that these dissenters are hallowed in Eureka is a consequence of the Protestant origins of the Continuous-Historic interpretation. The Nestorians do not constitute a superior alternative; while declared heretical, they were Trinitarian through-and-through.
Those dissenters embodying Manichaen principles can only be considered less “scriptural” than the Roman Church. These groups are characterized by a radical dualism, often leading to polytheistic thinking and a Docetic view of Christ that robs the cross of its atoning power. A rejection of most of the scriptures is also common to these groups; presumably the only way of reconciling their beliefs with scripture was to edit it. Reports of violence from these groups may have been exaggerated by their Catholic adversaries; nevertheless, both sides were guilty of bloodshed. These groups were proposed by Thomas because they were heretics, dissenting from the Catholic Church, yet, as the G. and R. Walker point out, “some ‘heretics’ prove, on investigation, to be worse than the orthodox”.[49]
None of these dissenters can be rightly identified as “proto-Christadelphians”. It also seems unlikely that any of these groups would have afforded much protection to any proto-Christadelphian that might have existed. The Donatists or the Nestorians were just as likely to reject and persecute a unitarian thinker as the Catholics, and a proto-Christadelphian would have been just as alien to the Cathars as were the Catholics. The Waldenses alone of all the groups we have considered had significant parallels with modern Christadelphians.
[1] J. Thomas, Eureka (3 vols; Birmingham: CMPA, 1868), 3:118.
[2] Thomas, Eureka, 3:122.
[3] Thomas, Eureka, 3:128.
[4] Thomas, Eureka, 3:134.
[5] Thomas, Eureka, 3:143.
[6] Thomas, Eureka, 3:146.
[7] Thomas, Eureka, 3:148.
[8] G. Pearce, The Revelation: Which Interpretation? (Torrens Park: Christadelphian Scripture Study Service, 1982), 50, 111; C. C. Walker, Notes on the Apocalypse (Birmingham: CMPA, 1982), 30, 36-37; H. P. Mansfield, The Apocalypse Epitomised (Findon: Logos Publications, 1977) ,139, 158. G. Walker and R. Walker accept the Paulicians and the Nestorian church, and perhaps others “like Pelagius the British monk who may have held correct beliefs”—G. Walker and R. Walker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Stoke: Bible Student Press, 1983), 69-70.
[9] R. Roberts, Thirteen Lectures on the Apocalypse (Birmingham: CMPA, 1977), 130.
[10] R. McHaffie, Brethren Indeed?: Christadelphians and ‘Outsiders’ (16th-21st Century) (Edinburgh: Published by the Author, 2001).
[11] Mansfield identifies the distinction between the ‘Woman’ and her ‘offspring’ (‘that keep the commandments of Christ’) as the distinction between ‘Protestantism’ and “the Ecclesia” (Mansfield, Apocalypse Epitomised, 158).
[12] Roberts, Thirteen Lectures, 103.
[13] W. H. Barker and W. H. Boulton, The Apocalypse and History (Birmingham: CMPA, 1977), 104.
[14] Pace Roberts: “there is evidence that the heretics as a class contained the brethren of Christ” (Thirteen Lectures, 103), and Barker and Boulton: “there are grounds for believing that the saints were grouped by their oppressors with those that openly and violently opposed the established systems”, Apocalypse and History, 106.
[15] For more on the Donatists, see W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952); B. D. Shaw, “African Christianity: Disputes, Definitions and ‘Donatists” in Rules, Nomads and Christians in Roman North Africa, (ed. B. D. Shaw; Aldershot: Variorum, 1995).
[16] It seems unlikely that the Donatists defined themselves as a schism. As Shaw writes, they “were artificially created by definitions used by a central power and that ‘they’ never existed as such”, Shaw, “African Christianity”, 13.
[17] G. Macgregor, Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy (New York: Paragon House, 1991) 195; also see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm [cited: 20 Jan 2009].
[18] Walker and Walker, Revelation, 70.
[19] J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337 (London: SPCK, 1993), 302.
[20] S. G. F. Brandon, “Donatists” in A Dictionary of Comparative Religion (ed. S. G. F. Brandon; London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970), 245.
[21] A. H. M. Jones, “Were Ancient Heresies National or Social Movements in Disguise?” JTS 10 (1959), 294.
[22] MacGregor, Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy, 442.
[23] For this reason Dionysius of Alexandria says that Novatian “falsely accuses our most compassionate Lord Jesus Christ of being without mercy”, Eusebius, The History of the Church, vii.8.
[24] Thomas, Eureka, 3:128.
[25] Roberts, Thirteen Lectures, 104.
[26] J. H. Broughton and P. J. Southgate, The Trinity: True or False? (Nottingham: Dawn Book Supply, 1995), 324.
[27] MacGregor, Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy, 192.
[28] Stevenson, A New Eusebius, 265.
[29] D. F. Wright, “Manichaeism” in New Dictionary of Theology (eds. D. F. Wright, S. B. Ferguson, J. I. Packer; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 410.
[30] Stevenson, A New Eusebius, 268; MacGregor, Religion and Philosophy, 396.
[31] See “Diocletian’s Edict against the Manichees” in Stevenson, A New Eusebius, 267-8).
[32] Wright, “Manichaeism”, 410.
[33] For more information on the Cathars (though a rather sympathetic treatment) see S. Martin, The Cathars: The Most Successful Heresy of the Middle Ages (Harpenden: Pocket Essentials, 2005).
[34] J. I. Packer, “Albigenses” in New Dictionary of Theology (eds. D. F. Wright, S. B. Ferguson, J. I. Packer; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 13; MacGregor, Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy, 15-16; and [cited: 20th January 2009] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01253a.htm.
[35] MacGregor, Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy, 70.
[36] Martin, The Cathars, 36-7.
[37] MacGregor, Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy, 471; and [cited: 20th January 2009] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11583.htm.
[38] MacGregor, Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy, 15-16.
[39] [Cited: 20th January 2009] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11781a.htm.
[40] See A. Eyre, The Protesters (Birmingham: CMPA, 1985), 12-17.
[41] Eyre, Protesters, 12.
[42] Eyre, Protesters, 13.
[43] Eyre, Protesters, 14.
[44] [Cited: 20th January 2009] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15527b.htm.
[45] A. Harnack, History of Dogma, (New York: Funk & Wagnalis; 1893), 449.
[46] Eyre, Protesters, 16.
[47] [Cited: 20th January 2009] the Home page of http://www.nestorian.org.
[48] [Cited: 20th January 2009] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07527b.htm.
[49] Walker and Walker, Revelation, 70.
The Kingdom of God has been a cornerstone of the gospel from the earliest church