Messalianism or anti-messalianism?

A Fresh Look at the 'Macarian' Problem

John Meyendorff, Kyriakon, Festschrift Johannes Quasten,
vol. II , Aschendorff, Mnster, Westfalen, 1970, pp. 585- 590
In modern patristic scholarship rehabilitation of old time heretics is a more frequent
exercise than posthumous condemnation of authors who won the respect of generations. Origen,
Evagrius Ponticus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius and even Arius are often being shown
worthy of our admiration, and the sentence passed against them by early councils is attributed to
either misunderstanding or to inappropriate vindictiveness of their ideological opponents. An
opposite fate fell upon the corpus of writings attributed to the fourth century Egyptian ascetic
known as " Macarius the Great": it was in the last decades the object of a doctrinal damnatio
memoriae. The author - certainly different from St. Macarius himself - does not reveal his name.
Like the Corpus Dionysiacum, the Macarian writings are a pseudepigraphon. Their influence,
however, in both East and West, is almost as great as that of Pseudo-Dionysius. Generations of
Greek spiritual leaders have recommended the writings of Macarius to their disciples and have
made them a classic of Eastern Christian spirituality. In the West as well, the Spiritual
Homilieswere known in monastic circles. They were also singled out by John Wesley to be translated into English as an early witness of Christian experience of the Holy Spirit (1).
However, since a short article by L. Villecourt, published in 1920 (2), a majority of
patristic scholars accept the view that " Macarius" belonged to the "Messalian" sect. Since the
monograph dedicated to the subject by H. Dorries (3), he is even more precisely identified as
Symeon of Mesopotamia, mentioned by Theodoret among the leaders of Messalianism. The
consensus favoring the "Messalian" interpretation of Macarius, however, was met with
scepticism by some historians who view the Macarian texts in the wider context of Eastern
Christian spirituality, where these historians often find, as commonly accepted, the ideas which
Dorries and his school consider as characteristically "Messalian". The " Messalian" theory was
further shattered by the parallelism established by Werner Jaeger between the De institute
Christiano of Gregory of Nyssa and the so-called "Great Letter" of Macarius (5).
It is not our intention in this brief essay to examine all the aspects of the " "Macarian"
problem (6), but only to point out where - textually and theologically - the issue really lies. For it
seems to us that too often sweeping judgments and firm convictions are expressed about
Macarius without direct references to either textual evidence or theological problematics. The
discussion of the textual evidence is greatly facilitated today by the recent critical editions of
"Macarian" texts by E. Klostermann and H. Dorries (7), helpfully replacing and substantially
enlarging the old edition by Johannes Picus (1559), which was reprinted in Migne after it had
been improved by H. J. Floss.
The theological issue lies in the fact that the identification of Macarius with a
"Messalian" author does imply a basic judgment upon the entire tradition of Eastern Christian
spirituality. For indeed, if "Macarius" is a Messalian, this entire tradition is Messalian as well.
This is recognized by Irenee Hausherr when he writes: The great spiritual heresy of the
Christian East is Messalianism (8). The problem is, in fact, parallel and, in some respects,

identical with the issue of "semi-pelagianism", of which the monks of Eastern tradition, headed
by John Cassian, were accused in the Augustinian West.
1. The textual evidence.
The main difficulty for a sure identification of "Macarius" as a Messalian lies in the fact
that it is not easy to know exactly what "Messalianism" really means. With the probable
exception of a Syrian work, known as Liber Graduum, no Messalian literature has been
preserved and the major source of information about it is to be found in polemical writings of
Orthodox authors.
The most detailed descriptions of the Messalian doctrines at our disposal are those of
Timothy, a priest of Constantinople (sixth century), and of St. John of Damascus. They reflect
previous condemnations of the sect by the council of Side, around 390, presided over by
Amphilochius of Iconium, a disciple and friend of St. Basil. It is essentially on the basis of the
lists of Messalian heresies found in Timothy and John of Damascus that Hermann Dorries
thought he could identify some of the MacarianHomilies with the Messalian Asceticon (9).
The parallelism, almost verbal, of several quotations from the Asceticon, found in St.
John of Damascus, with passages from the Homilies, are indeed striking. Here are three
examples:
(I) John of Damascus (Kmosko, op. cit., pp. CCXXXI ff.)
(II) Macarius
Homn. 28, 19, PG 34, col. 708 A = ed. Dorries, Horn. 27, 19, p. 228 lines 277-279.
(I) 2. (The Messalians affirm that)

( ) ,

(I) 12.

( ) Hom. 43,7, col. 776 D - ed. Dorries, p. 289, lines 103-104: ...
,
( I ) 18.
'

( ) Hom. 8,3, col. 529 AC - ed. Dorries, p. 78, lines 26-28: ,

, ,
'
Such parallelisms are obviously inconceivable without Macarius having either used
the Asceticon of the Messalians, or having been closely connected with circles where these
expressions, considered by John of Damascus as characteristic of the sect, were widely used. The
argument in favor of the Messalian character of the entire Macarian corpus would be strong if the
description of Messalian doctrines given by the same John of Damascus and Timothy was not in
quite obvious contradiction in other ways with the main emphasis of Macarius' thought.
The Messalians condemned manual labor (Tim. 13; John 17), fasting and asceticism
(Tim. 9,17; John 17); scorned marriage, the Church's sacraments and hierarchy (John 17);
considered good works, and in particular alms to the poor, as useless, since prayer alone brings
salvation (Tim. 15; John 17). They professed Sabellian (Tim. 6) and Docetic (Tim. 8) tendencies,
as well as curious beliefs about fire being creative (John 11). There is nothing of all that in
Macarius, who, on the contrary, protested against these various deviations from monastic
spirituality. For example, his condemnation of the monk who, under pretext of prayer, would
neglect his other duties, in particular the care and service of his brothers, can and must be
interpreted as a direct attack on Messalianism (10). The refusal to practice any manual labor was
in fact the distinctive trait of Messalianism wherever it appeared (11).
The problem of dualism, i. e., the ontological coexistence of grace and the forces of evil
in the soul, is another Messalian heresy inherited from Manicheism and noted by the Orthodox
polemicists (John 1, 2, 3, 13; Tim. 1). The struggle between good and evil in the heart of man
after baptism is indeed a frequent theme in Macarius, but, as Louis Bouyer points out, the latter
in no way considers this condition as being normal; for him, while grace always finds sin present
ahead of it in the spiritual man, it never ceases to fight against it (12). In fact, all the Macarian
texts quoted by Dorries, as implying ontological dualism of good and evil in the soul, are only
developments of the Pauline theme of the "old" and the "new" Adam: both dynamically coexist
in man as long as he does not yet participate in the eschatological plenitude.
Finally, an area where the thought of Macarius and that of the Messalians is indeed in
open contrast is the issue of the sacraments and, in particular, baptism. All sources confirm that,
for the Messalians, baptism conferred neither purification nor incorruptibility and was in
consequence useless (John 4, 5, 6, 17; Tim. 2, 3, 12). This anti-sacramentalism of the
Messalians must have made them popular among those Christian monks of the fourth century
who found the essential inspiration of religious life in personal asceticism and organized
themselves away from the Christian ecclesia- the sacramental community of the city, headed by
the bishop. The temptation of breaking entirely with the institutional and sacramental Church
was, in fact, the major temptation of early monasticism as a whole. The other great fourth
century ideologist of monasticism Evagrius Ponticus, would never even think of mentioning
baptism as a real means of grace, and there would hardly be any place for the sacraments in his
conception of pure prayer .

 Macarius , on this point, stands in obvious and radical contrast to both Evagrius and
the Messalians. His numerous references to the grace of baptism, as well as to the reality of
eucharistic communion, especially if one understands these references in the context of
discussions which were taking place with the Messalians on this precise issue, must be
understood as direct polemics against the sect.
The divine Spirit, the Comforter, given to the Apostles and through them to the one and
true Church of God, bestowed, from the hour of baptism according to the analogy of faith,
accompanies in various and diverse ways each man who came to baptism with a pure faith.
Comparing the spiritual birth of baptism with ordinary human birth, which leads to growth and
development, he continues: " In the same manner, when one is born from above (John 3,3) from
water and the Spirit, one does not remain for ever in the infancy of spiritual age, but one
progresses and grows in a daily fight and effort, using much patience in the struggle against the
adversary" (13). The Messalians must have objected against sacramentalism, understanding it as
magic: Macarius opposes to the Messalian anti-baptismal polemics a dynamic concept of the
sacraments, which implies human free response and human effort. Thus the following passage of
Macarius is also to be understood in an apologetic anti-Messalian context: "If you say that
through the coming of Christ sin was condemned and that, after baptism, evil cannot spread in
the heart, you ignore the fact that, since the coming of the Lord up to now, many baptised people
devised evil..." (14) u. But the sin of the baptised does not make baptism itself "useless" because
Christian life is dynamic progress, and not a static gift: "Since the coming of Christ, men are
progressing through the power of baptism, towards the original stature of Adam and become the
masters of demons and passions" (15).
This last passage obviously eliminates the possibility of ontological dualism, and
recognizes in baptism the basis for Christian life and development. In the context of other
passages directly referring not only to baptism, but also to the eucharist (16), the true aim and
significance of the Macarian writings are clearly revealed to provide the monastic movement
with an alternative to Messalianism, by assuming some of the Messalian vocabulary and ideas,
replacing them in a sacramental and biblical context, and thus changing their original meaning.
The parallelism established by Werner Jaeger between the "Great Letter" of Macarius and
the De Instituto Christiano of St. Gregory of Nyssa confirms this character and this intention of
the Macarian Corpus and replaces it in the monastic circles of Eastern Asia Minor, where it
probably originated. St. Basil, the codifier of monastic rules, as well as his disciples and friends,
Gregory of Nyssa and Amphilochius of Iconium, had to face in Asia Minor perverted forms of
Christian asceticism. The origins of the monastic movement in the region is connected with the
name of Eustathius of Sebaste, whom St. Basil venerated as his teacher (17), but whose other
disciples despised marriage and rejected the sacraments and the Church. There are undoubtedly
close connections between these "Eustathians" and the "Messalians".
The Council of Gangra (around 341) condemned the Eustathians, while the Messalians
were anathematized at the council of Side (around 390). Among the monks of Eastern Asia
Minor there was therefore, in the fourth century, a continuous tradition of ascetic extremism. But
while Councils like Gangra and Side issued formal condemnations of these extreme groups, the
major spokesmen of orthodox "erudite" monasticism-Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and "Macarius" -

were attempting to channel monastic spirituality away from the sectarian danger into the
mainstream of Christian tradition.
Thus, as it has recently been shown (18), many passages from the Rules of St. Basil can
be interpreted as reflecting some of the attitudes of the Eustathians condemned in Gangra. This
coincidence cannot be explained simply by the fact that Gangra was a council of Arian bishops
presided over by Eusebius of Nicomedia and that Basil consciously challenged its authority. He
certainly would not have subscribed to formal rejection of marriage, and he was not the man to
challenge, in principle, the authority of the episcopate. But he also adopted a positive approach to
the monastic movement as such, and this implied, around 360 when he was writing his Rules, an
integration of elements and attitudes which were common to orthodox and to Messalian (or
"Eustathian") monks. Internal evidence does not permit to draw any substantial distinction
between St. Basil the Great and the anonymous author of the Macarian writings in their attitude
towards Messalianism (19).
If J. Gribomont is right in considering the De Instituto Christiano of St. Gregory of Nyssa
as inspired by the Great Letter of Macarius (against Werner Jaeger who stood for the reverse),
the acceptance of the latter in Basilian circles as a respectable spokesman of monastic spirituality
is also clearly demonstrated. J. Gribomont's vestigial adherence to the Villecourt-Dorries
identification of Macarius with Symeon of Mesopotamia leads him to consider Gregory's treatise
as a correction of Macarius (20). He does not show, however, the points on which this
"correction" took place. Between Gregory and Macarius the difference lies mainly in general
metaphysical presuppositions, and Gregory's dependence, on this point, upon Origen and,
possibly, Evagrius does not give him, from the point of view of Christian orthodoxy, any
substantial advantage over Macarius.
In fact, early Christian monasticism was exposed to the two temptations of
"Messalianism" and platonic intellectualism. Both implied anti-social individualism, rejection of
the Church as a sacramental institution, and flight from responsibility in the visible world. But
they were opposed to each other in their understanding of man: naive materialism, on the one
hand, and intellectual spiritualism, on the other, were both inadequate for a balanced Christian
spirituality. Confronted with these temptations, the Cappadocian fathers started a long process of
integration, without succeeding fully at the first try, but defining the general direction which will
later become in the East the accepted pattern. "Macarius" also stands at the very heart of this
process: his explicit sacramentalism, his conception of man as a single psycho-somatic whole,
his obvious insight into the most authentic neo-testamental concepts of christology and
pneumatology contributed greatly to prevent the monastic movement from slipping into sectarian
individualism.
Disagreeing in their understanding of man, the Origenistic and the "Messalian" options
coincide in their affirmation that communion with God - the goal of Christian existence - does
not destroy freedom to choose and that the gift of the Spirit is proportionate to man's free effort
to meet God's grace. Later Greek patristic tradition, having integrated the thought of both
Macarius and Evagrius, will always take for granted this free and dynamic relationship between
human nature and divine grace - a relationship best expressed by the term ,
"cooperation" between God and man in the conscious act of man's personal salvation. That this

concept was understood as "semi-Pelagianism" in the West is a well-known fact. I wonder

whether the same implicit fear of "Pelagianism" is not the psychological impulse which leads
contemporary theologians and historians to read "Messalianism" into works of "Macarius" and,
through him, into the whole tradition which he represents. The definition of Messalianism as, in
essence, a form of Pelagianism, has been frequently made (21). But would it not be more fruitful
to interpret the spiritual authors of the Christian East without judging them by the categories of
the post-Augustinian Latin West, which were certainly not adequate for the understanding of
such writings as Pseudo-Macarius?

NOTES
(1) John Wesley, A Christian Library, I, Bristol, 1749; on Wesley's use of and admiration
for Macarius, see Albert C. Outler, ed., John Wesley, New York, Oxford University Press, 1964,
p. 9, note 26, and pp. 274-275.
(2) "La date et l'origine des homlies spirituelles attribues Macaire , inComptesrendus de I'Acadmie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1920, pp. 250-258; the identification of
the author of the Spiritual Homilies, as a Messalian author, Symeon, was, however, proposed
already in the eighteenth century by the Greek monk, Neophytos Kavsokalivites, (cf. B. S.
Psevtogas, " " in in honor of
P. Khrestou, Thessaloniki, 1967, pp. 191-214.
(3) Symeon von Mesopotamien. Die Uberlieferung der Messalianischen MakariosSchriften, Texte u. Unter-suchungen, 95, 1, Leipzig, 1941.
(4) W. Volker, Neue Urkunden des Messalianismus? in Theologische
Literaturzeitung, 68, 1943, pp. 129-136; L. Bouyer, The Spirituality of the New Testament and
the Fathers, New York, Desclee, 1963, pp. 370-380.
(5) Two rediscovered works of Ancient Christian Literature: Gregory of Nyssa and
Macarius, Leiden, Brill, 1954.
(6) For the very rich Western European and American bibliography of the subject see J.
Quasten, Patrology, III, Westminster, Md., Newman Press, pp. 165-166; there are also several
important Russian studies on Macarius, including A Bronzov, Prep. Makary Egipetsky, I, St.
Petersburg, 1899; I. V. Popov, "Misticheskoe opravdanie asketizma v tvoreniakh prep. Makaria
Egipetskago" in Bogoslovsky Vestnik, Moscow, 1904, III, pp. 537-565; 1905, I, pp. 27-59; II, pp.
237-278; B. A. Turaev, "Efiopskoe asketicheskoe poslanie, pripisyvaemoeprep. Makariu
Egipetskomu", in Khristiansky Vostok, IV, Petrograd, 1916, pp. 141 154; Kiprian Kern, olotoi
vek sviatootecheskoi pis'men-nosti (Chapter Macariana), Paris, 1967, pp. 150-177, etc.
(7)Neue Homilien des Makarius/Symeon, herausgegeben von Erich Klostermann und
Heinz Berthold, Texte und Untersuchungen, 12, Berlin, 1961; Die 50 Geistlichen Homilien des

Makarios, herausgegeben und erlautert von Hermann Dorries, Erich Klostermann, Matthias
Kroeger, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1964.
(8)L'erreur fontamentale et la logique du messalianisme" in Orientalia Christiana
Periodica, I, 1935, p. 328.
(9) Symeon v. Mesopotamien, pp. 425-450. All the necessary texts are conveniently
gathered together by M. Kmosko, in his introduction to the text of the Liber
Graduum in Patrologia Syriaca, 3, Paris, 1926.
(10) Epistula magna, ed., W. Jaeger, Two rediscovered works, p. 282; cf. also p. 288
(interpretation of the Gospel story of Martha and Mary).
(11)Cf., for instance G. Folliet, " Des moines euchites
a Carthage en 400-401". in Studia Patristica 2, Texte
und Untersuchungen, 65, 1957, pp. 386-399.
(12) Op. cit., p. 379.
(13) Epistula magna, ed. cit., p. 236.
(14) Hom. 15,15, ed. Dorries, pp. 135-136 (PG 34, col. 384 D- 385 A).
(15) Hom. I in Neue Homilien, ed. cit., p. 3.
(16)For example, Hom. 13 in H. Dorries, ed. cit.,
pp. 120-121 (= Hom. 14,4, in PG 34, col. 572 CD).
(17)On the influence of Eustathius on Basil, see Amand
de Mendietta, L'ascse monastique de saint Basile. Essai
historique, Maredsous, 1948, pp. 52-61.
(18)J. Gribomont, "Le monachisme au IVe sicle en
Asie Mineure: de Gangres au Messalianisme', in
Studia Patristica II, Berlin, 1957, pp. 404-407.
(19)J. Gribomont, whose research on the period throws
much light on the true character of 'Macarius',
recognizes that there are 'many forms of Messalianism', that Macarius never considered himself
a
Messalian and that he even opposed 'gross Messa lianism'. However, this author finds it
impossible to reject the thesis that the author of the Homilies is identical with Symeon of
Mesopotamia, condemned at Side. 'Le De Instituto Christiano et le Messalianisme de Gregoire
de Nysse', in Studia Patristica V, Berlin, 1962, pp. 320-321. There is here an obvious and
unnecessary contradiction, which can be removed only be the rejection of the identification

between Macarius and Symeon of Mesopotamia an identification which, as we have seen

previously, is impossible to hold on the evidence of Timothy and John of Damascus.
(20) Ibid., p. 521. Further discussion of the issue in R. Staats, Gregor von Nyssa und die
Messalianer, Berlin, 1968, and A. Baker, 'Syriac and the Scriptural Quotations of PseudoMacarius', in Journal of Theological Studies, XX, 1, April 1969, pp. 133-149.
(21) Cf. for example, I. Hausherr, 'L'erreur fondamentale et la logique du messalianisme',
in Orientalia Christiana Periodica I, 1935, p. 358.