Gnostics and Transubstantiation

Gnostics and Transubstantiation

What is Transubstantiation?

Regarding transubstantiation, The Encyclopædia Britannica (9th Ed.) states: “The Church of Rome teaches that the whole substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist is converted by consecration into the Body and Blood of Christ, in such a manner that Christ in His entirety, including his human soul and His divine nature, is contained in the elements; and that with such a thorough transmutation that not only is the whole Christ contained in the wine as well as the bread, but with the same completeness in each particle of the bread, and in each drop of the wine.” The Council of Lateran of 1215 pronounced accursed any who would in any way doubt transubstantiation.

The Catholic Church glories in the mystery of transubstantiation, describing the elements in the moment of consecration as being "switched aside with the speed of a lightening flash, and its place is taken by what looks like a line of fire--a single thread of communication, reaching up, without division or alteration, to the Lord Christ Himself." This is ironic, since the formulation of the doctrine of transubstantiation is traditionally attributed to St. John and St. Ignatious for the sole purpose of keeping the idea of the union of God's spirit with flesh in Jesus before the minds (and eyes) of the early Christians in order to battle the heretical dualisms of the Doceticism.

Transubstantiation is completely unbiblical, being a doctrine that grew out of the Docetic controversies of the mid second century and gradually developing to full flower in the 4th century. Those who believed in Doceticism claimed that Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood, it only appeared that way. The early post-apostolic Christians countered that Jesus indeed had ordinary human flesh and blood and they began to emphasize this in the Lord's Supper.

Note not all Gnostics believed in Doceticism see the post  Non-Docetic Teachings in the Nag Hammadi Library

Some Gnostics sects refused to break bread altogether: 

Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 110): “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1).

Are there some Gnostic who reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Yes in the early Church, before 200AD, both Gnostics and the church took the same symbolic view of the bread and juice. But those Gnostics who did partake of the Table of the Lord, were openly criticized by the church as being inconsistent.

"How can they (Gnostics) be consistent with, themselves when they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood, if they do not say he is the Son of the Creator of the world? ... Let them either change their views or avoid offering the bread and wine. But our view is in harmony with the eucharist, and the eucharist confirms our view". (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)

Irenaeus refutes the Gnostics on the basis that the Lord would not use "evil material things" like bread and juice in the Lord's Supper. Had Irenaeus argued that the bread and juice Transubstantiated (changed) into something different from what they appear, the Gnostics would have agreed, saying this change was essential because Jesus did not have physical flesh either!

"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies-in reality, not in appearance-are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)

A generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160–225) used the same arguments against the Gnostic heretic Marcion. However, Tertullian provided more information into how the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian wrote:

“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).

From this it may be inferred that the Valentinians celebrated the Eucharist with bread and a cup. This conclusion is confirmed by the Gospel of Philip and the Eucharistic prayers in NHC XI, 43–44. The Gospel of Philip in particular shows that Valentinians could speak without difficulty about partaking of the flesh and the blood of the Savior in the Eucharist, because they gave a symbolic meaning to these words: thus, for instance, the “flesh” is the Logos and the “blood” is the Holy Spirit.

But what is this, too, which will inherit? It is that which belongs to Jesus and his blood. Because of this he said "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him" (Jn 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit. He who has received these has food and he has drink and clothing. (The Gospel of Philip)

What is the Blood of Christ? The Gospel of Philip

When they had said these things in the prayer, they embraced each other and they went to eat their holy food, which has no blood in it. (The Prayer of Thanksgiving, The Nag Hammadi Library)

The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, chapter 10). The long passage detailing the Lord's Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant.

The Cathars and Transubstantiation

Cathars & Bogomils the True Christians

[Talk Gnosis] The Lost Teachings of the Cathars

The Cathars a  proto-Protestant sect which denied transubstantiation, purgatory, prayers for the dead and the invocation of saints (prayers to saints) and also that the Cathars held to the unique authority of scripture. Cathars also read the Bible in and rejected most Catholic sacraments.[6] The Cathars also denied infant baptism, as they felt that infants are not able to understand the meaning of baptism

The Cathars are another famous sect in history that denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Cathars also refused the sacrament of the eucharist saying that it could not possibly be the body of Christ.

The term “transubstantiation” was used against the Cathars at the fourth Lateran Council in 1215. It was at this council that the teaching of the Cathars was formally condemned.

The doctrine of transubstantiation, first formally declared at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, looks suspiciously like a way of contradicting Cathar teaching on the impossibility of combining earthly and spiritual elements

Cathar teachings shared by the Waldensians became defining features of Protestant belief. Many of these teachings follow from the rejection of Roman Catholic "tradition" in favour of scripture. Protestants, like Cathars, rejected the medieval Roman doctrine of transubstantiation and infant baptism.

The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation was formally propounded in 1215 based on contemporary philosophical notions that were later discredited. The Cathar practise of blessing bread before meals by contrast is identical to the practice of the earliest Christians at communal meals called agapes (abandoned by mainstream churches in the second or third centuries when their own agapes degenerated into disreputable occasions)

Matthew records the words our Lord used at that  time: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and  blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples,  and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the  cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,  Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new  testament [ie covenant], which is shed for many for  the remission of sins” (Matt 26:26–28).

From their frequent use at the Memorial  Meeting these words are well known to us, as they  are to most church goers because they are frequently  quoted at Holy Communion or Mass services also.  The Roman Catholic Church claims that when the  priest quotes the words “this is my body” the wafer  of bread he is holding miraculously becomes the  flesh of Jesus, and that when he quotes the words  “this is my blood” the wine becomes the blood of  Jesus. A few moments thought should be sufficient  to realize that this is not what our Lord intended  when he used the words himself – after all, he was  actually present bodily with the disciples as he  spoke the words!

Bullinger makes this pithy statement about the  phrase “this is my body”:

“Few passages have been more perverted than  these simple words. Rome has insisted on the literal  or the figurative sense of words just as it suits her  own purposes, and not at all according to the laws of  philology and the true science of language.” (Figures of  Speech Used in the Bible, page 738)

The language used by the Lord is not unusual  nor is it overly cryptic. These phrases are simple  cases of metaphor. Exactly the same construction  is used in many places in the New Testament in  phrases which present no difficulty to understand.  For example:

• I am the door of the sheep (John 10:7)
• I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman (John 15:1)
• That Rock was Christ (1 Cor 10:4)
• The seven heads are seven mountains (Rev 17:9).

In each case no reader would assume that the words  are meant to be read as literally true – our Lord is not  a literal door, vine or rock, but he is all of these things  in a symbolic or figurative sense. The same linguistic  logic should be applied to the Lord’s statements in  Matthew 26 about the bread and the wine.

Whether transubstantiation is fact or fiction depends upon the meaning of Jesus’ words at Matthew 26:26, 28 (Cath. Confrat.), where he is quoted as saying, among other things, “This is my body,” “this is my blood of the new covenant.” Is it reasonable and consistent with the rest of the Bible to hold that these words indicate that an incomprehensible mysterious miracle of the greatest magnitude had taken place? No, it is not.

The fiction of transubstantiation is opposed to one of the most basic teachings of the Bible, the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as noted at Matthew 20:28 and 1 Timothy 2:5, 6. As the apostle Paul shows at Hebrews 9:22, “Unless blood is shed, there can be no remission of sins.” (Knox) Transubstantiation involves an admittedly “bloodless sacrifice” and therefore cannot wipe out sins as claimed.

Then too, Paul, at Hebrews chapters 9 and 10, repeatedly insists that Jesus Christ died only once, that only one sacrifice is needed. It is therefore a denying of Paul’s words to hold that other sacrifices are needed, and it is blasphemy to hold that imperfect men can create the divine Christ afresh daily and sacrifice him

And if Jesus, by saying, ‘this is my body, my blood,’ miraculously changed the bread and wine into his very flesh and blood, performing the most noteworthy miracle of his ministry, surely this would not only have been explicitly stated but made paramount throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures. But transubstantiation is not even mentioned, let alone discussed, because it is not a fact but only fiction. It is not taught in the Bible.

The Cathars .

The Cathars or Albigenses have been identified as proto-Protestant by people such as Jean Duvernoy and John Foxe[1][2] among others.[3] The debate over the relationship with Albigenses and Protestants has been a matter of theological interest and controversy in history.[3] The comparison of Protestantism and Albigensianism was mainly important among French Protestants while German Protestants rarely discussed the Cathars.[3] Affiliations with Catharism and Protestantism have been criticized by many historians, and those arguing for an affiliation between Protestants and Cathars have historically relied upon the presupposition that Cathar theology has been misinterpreted by the medieval Catholic church.[3]


John Foxe believed that the Albigenses were similar to reformed theology, he praised the Albigenses as martyrs.[4] Today the Cathars are still seen as protestant precursors by some Baptists, particularly those who adhere to the theory of Baptist successionism.[5]


What has appealed to some Protestants about the Albigenses was their rejection of transubstantiation, purgatory, crucifix, prayers for the dead, the invocation of saints and also that the Cathars held to the unique authority of scripture.[3] Cathars also read the Bible in the vernacular languages and rejected most Catholic sacraments.[6] The Cathars also denied infant baptism, as they felt that infants are not able to understand the meaning of baptism

The term “transubstantiation” was used against the Cathars at the fourth Lateran Council in 1215. It was at this council that the teaching of the Cathars was formally condemned.

The Cathars also refused the sacrament of the eucharist saying that it could not possibly be the body of Christ.

The following is a quote taken from the Inquisitor Bernard Gui's experiences with the Cathar practices and beliefs:

Then they attack and vituperate, in turn, all the sacraments of the Church, especially the sacrament of the eucharist, saying that it cannot contain the body of Christ, for had this been as great as the largest mountain Christians would have entirely consumed it before this. They assert that the host comes from straw, that it passes through the tails of horses, to wit, when the flour is cleaned by a sieve (of horse hair); that, moreover, it passes through the body and comes to a vile end, which, they say, could not happen if God were in it

"They spared their branches," says Gibbon, "over the face of Europe." United in common hatred of idolatry and Rome; they were connected by an ecclesiastical organization of over-seers and presbyteries, usually styled elders and pastors. The French called them "Bulgarians" by way of reproach, meaning thereby "unnatural sinners". Their catholic enemies also falsely styled them Manichaeans, and charged them with contempt of the Old Testament, and the denial of the body of Christ, either on the cross or in the bread and wine. They repudiated the catholic dogmas connected with the cross and eucharist; but they took both bread and wine, discerning by "the testimony of the anointed Jesus which they held," the representation therein of his broken body and blood, shed for remission of the sins of the many (Matt. 26:28). "A confession of simple worship and blameless manners," says Gibbon, "is extorted from their enemies; and so high was their standard of perfection, that the increasing congregations were divided into two classes of disciples, of those, who practised, and those who aspired. It was in the country of the Albigeois, in the southern provinces of France,

The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation was formally propounded in 1215 based on contemporary philosophical notions that were later discredited. The Cathar practise of blessing bread before meals by contrast is identical to the practice of the earliest Christians at communal meals called agapes (abandoned by mainstream churches in the second or third centuries when their own agapes degenerated into disreputable occasions)

The Lord's Supper

Matthew 26:27  And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28  for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

Luke 22:20  And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, [even] that which is poured out for you.

God's covenant with mankind, through His perfect expression, Christ Jesus. This contract was completed through Jesus Christ's breaking the bread and blessing the cup. The bread symbolizes the flesh or body that is spiritual knowlege, or the wisdom. The wine symbolizes the blood of Jesus Christ, or spiritual life .

By mentally eating the flesh and spiritually drinking the blood of Jesus Christ we install within our consciousness the eternal truth of the Gospel and drink of the waters of eternal life.

bread of life--The word of Truth that imparts new vitality to mind and body. "Thou shalt eat bread at my table continually" (2 Sam. 9:7).

blood of Christ--The life contained in God's Word

Who are the Quartodecimans?

Manmade Traditions Matthew 15:1-9

Manmade Traditions Matthew 15:1-9

Matthew 15:1-9

15:1Then there come to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying, 15:2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 15:3And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 15:4For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death. 15:5But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God; 15:6he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. 15:7Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,

15:8This people honoreth me with their lips;

But their heart is far from me.

15:9But in vain do they worship me,

Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.

TRADITION

What is Tradition?

Information, doctrines, or practices that have been handed down from parents to children or that have become the established way of thinking or acting. The Greek word pa·ra´do·sis means, literally, “a thing given beside” and hence “that which is transmitted by word of mouth or in writing.” (1Co 11:2, Int) The word as used in the Christian Greek Scriptures is applied to traditions that were proper or acceptable aspects of true worship, as well as to those that were in error or were followed or viewed in a way that made them harmful and objectionable

Manmade Tradition

Which is held in greater reverence, the divine law or manmade tradition? With the personal man, tradition holds the higher place, for back of it is the weight or authority of the race mind, and its hold on the race mind is unquestioned. The spiritual man has reverence for the divine law, not manmade tradition.

Which of the two does the Christ Consciousness observe? The divine law always. “I came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill.” Where tradition conflicts with the divine law, Jesus the Christ sets aside or disregards tradition. So should we as we follow Him.

Why should we not accept the wisdom of past ages, as handed down in tradition, as a guide to conduct? In following tradition we accept our beliefs and opinions ready-made instead of thinking things through and understanding them originally before accepting them. 

When we think things through for ourselves our mind lays hold of the formless stuff of divine substance and transforms it. By this thought process, which is the proper function of the mind in us, we discern the truth of the accumulated wisdom of mankind, and are enabled to discard what does not concern us.

Is defilement or infection primarily a physical or a mental phenomenon? It is first of all mental. Where faith in the protection of Divine Mind is absolute and complete, there is no fear and no infection. Perfect faith is the greatest prophylactic.

What evidence have we that tradition is not God-given? The fact that although tradition has the unquestioning acceptance of the race mind while the race believes it, every tradition sooner or later is superseded by something else. For example, the scientific truths of one age become the exploded superstitions of the next, and new so-called scientific truths take their place.

What is “the heart,” as used by Jesus in the text for today? The heart is the inner or emotional nature, which harbors will, desire, and the individual and personal thought.

Where should the chief cleansing of the individual take place? In the inner nature or the heart. We should learn to control our thought processes and think constructively. As we preserve the unity of the Spirit we lose our fear of contagion and become immune to outer contaminating influences. With the thought fixed on the purity and oneness of the Mind of God we become expressions of both purity and unity.

Do we make our life, or is it predestined without our volition? We make it by our habitual thought. Our security is also self-made. As we drill our soul in right principles we are ready to meet any emergency when it comes, with a stout, steadfast heart.

Christian Traditions

Viewing tradition in the sense of guidelines handed down orally or by example, the information that the apostle Paul received directly from Jesus could properly be passed on to the Christian congregations as acceptable Christian tradition. This was so, for example, regarding the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal. (1Co 11:2, 23) The teachings and example set by the apostles constituted valid tradition. Thus, Paul, who had personally toiled with his hands so as not to be a financial burden on his brothers (Ac 18:3; 20:34; 1Co 9:15; 1Th 2:9), could urge the Thessalonian Christians “to withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition [pa·ra´do·sin]” they had received. One who would not work was plainly not following the fine example or tradition of the apostles.—2Th 3:6-11.

The “traditions” that are necessary for worship of God that is clean and undefiled were in time included as part of the inspired Scriptures. Hence, the traditions or precepts that were transmitted by Jesus and the apostles and that were vital for life were not left in oral form to be distorted by the passage of time but were accurately recorded in the Bible for the benefit of Christians living at later periods.—Joh 20:30, 31; Re 22:18.

Is God a Holy Trinity?

Is God a Holy Trinity?

Is there a difference between emanations of the pleroma and the trinity?

Yes there is a difference between emanations of the pleroma and the catholic trinity

The Ogdoad is a group of 8 aeons which make up the primal emanations of the Pleroma or Godhead

The Trinity is a group of 3 divine beings or persons all claiming to be the same Person at the same time which makes up the Catholic Godhead

The emanations are all aspects of the One Deity 

The Deity has male and female aspects. However the 3 persons of the Catholic  Trinity are all male 

He existed before anything other than himself came into being. The Father is singular while being many, for he is the first one and the one who is only himself. (The Tripartite Tractate Einar Thomassen Translation)

It is not "One God in three Gods," and "Three Gods in One;" but one Deity in a countless multitude revealed in the memorial name, and set forth in the mystery of godliness.

This multitudinous manifestation of the one Deity - one in many, and many in one, by His spirit - was proclaimed to the Hebrew nation in the formula of Deut. 6:4, "Hear, O lsrael, YAHWEH our ELOHIM is the ONE YAHWEH;" that is, "He who shall be our Mighty Ones is the One who shall be."

There are not three Gods in the Godhead; nor are there but three in manifestation; nevertheless, the Father is God and Jesus is God; and we may add, so are all the brethren of Jesus gods; and "a multitude which no man can number." The Godhead is the homogeneous fountain of the Deity; these other gods are the many streams which form this fountain flow. The springhead of Deity is one, not many; the streams as numerous as the orbs of the universe, in which a manifestation of Deity may have hitherto occurred.

Is God a Holy Trinity?

No God is not Trinity the reason why it is called the Holy Trinity is because there are many pagan Trinitis

Valentinian tradition rejects the teaching of the trinity

Marcellus was a contemporary of the Church historian Eusebius and he was present with the latter at the Council of Nicea (c. 325). Marcellus claimed a connection between the Trinity and the teachings of the great Gnostic sage, Valentinus (c. 85–150 AD).

“Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons—father, son and holy spirit.” (B. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, pg. 232)

To understand the meaning of Marcellus’s statement it must be seen against the background of the time in which it was written. Both Marcellus and Eusebius lived in an age where the Catholic Church had achieved total dominance; and had received recognition and support from the Roman emperor. In this period the Church was split between two theological factions. One of these factions (the “orthodox”) believed that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were three distinct persons who shared one nature or essence (homoousion). This was the position of the majority of the Catholic clergy. In opposition was the heretical faction led by an Egyptian priest named Arius (c. 250–336), who led a rebellion against the bishop of Alexandria. Arius and his followers insisted that the Father and Son had separate natures [1]. (This controversy was probably based on the paradox between Matthew 19:17 and John 10:30.) In the fragment above Marcellus is crediting the notorious heretic Valentinus with being the originator of the separate natures position as taken by the followers of Arius. I believe Marcellus is basically twisting the facts in order to smear the followers of Arius [2]. (In a similar manner Arius claimed in his Confession of Faith that the doctrine of one nature originated from the teachings of Valentinus and the Manicheans.[3])

Ironically Marcellus was later condemned by the Catholic Church for going too far toward the Monarchian position (Sabellianism) in his fanatical opposition to the Arians. Thus while Marcellus affirmed the shared essence of the Trinity, he did so to the point of denying the reality of their separate persons. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09642a.htm

In extant ecclesiastical literature the first use of the word homoousion in theology first appears in the doctrine of Valentinus as reported by Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.5.1.; see B. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, pg. 290, footnote b. Of significance is that Irenaeus never used this word in his own doctrine, just as he never used the word “trinity.”

The problem here is that Marcellus is stretching the truth when he states that Valentinus’s concept of “Three Natures” is connected with the notion of “three subsistent entities and three persons—father, son and holy spirit.” The fact is, no other historical witness makes this claim about Valentinus; and there is no evidence in any Valentinian text that shows a connection of this sort. Valentinian texts do contain infrequent and obscure references to the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” as I have shown above. But again there is no evidence either in Catholic or Valentinian sources that there was a prevailing theological system in Valentinian tradition that revolved around the phrase “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Much to the contrary, the historic evidence available shows that the “trinity” of Valentinus, and of the Valentinians, referred to something entirely different and unique.

The report of Marcellus above may be compared with the reports of the early Latin Father, Tertullian of Carthage. Tertullian lived at least 50 years before Marcellus and his writings are especially important because they show the origin and development of the word “trinity” in early Christian thought [4].

4] In extant ecclesiastical literature the notion of a three-person Godhead first appears with Justin Martyr, Athenagorus, and Irenaeus (Justin, 1 Apology, 6, 60; Athenagorus, A Plea for the Christians, 12; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.20.4). These writers never use the word “trinity” but the three-fold idea is emerging in their thoughts. Most important is that these writers do not derive their three-fold ideas from any theological consensus in the NT. At best these writers refer to certain ideas that appear infrequently in certain NT passages, i.e. Mt. 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14. But again, there is no consensus in the NT that the Godhead is comprised of three persons. If there is any consensus at all in the NT, then the evidence most often shows that the Godhead is comprised of two figures, Father and Son (cf. Col. 2: 1–3, Jn. 1:1–3, 10:30). It is also notable that, in their polemics against heretics, neither Justin nor Irenaeus refer to any “trinity”; nor do they labor repeatedly on the notion that the godhead is ‘three-fold’ or is comprised of ‘three persons.’ This particular form of dogmatic opinion began with Tertullian (and the Montanists) and no one else (i.e. Tertullian, Against Praxeas).

Historically, Tertullian was the first Catholic writer to begin using the word “trinity” in reference to a systematic dogma.

The irony is that when Tertullian first used the word “trinity” in his earliest Catholic writings, this term was used in reference to Valentinian doctrine. Tertullian actually described this doctrine with the words “Valentinian trinity” (in Latin: trinitas Valentiniana [8]). Hence the first mention of the trinity in ecclesiastical literature actually refers to an idea that belonged to the Valentinians. Here is an example from Tertullian’s Treatise on the Soul:

“[The heretics] deny that nature is susceptible to any change, in order that they may be able to establish their three-fold theory, or ‘trinity,’ (“trinitas”) in all its characteristics as to the several natures, because ‘a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, nor a corrupt tree, good fruit; and nobody gathers figs of thorns, nor grapes of brambles’.” (Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, 21)

Tertullian’s description of the Valentinian “trinity” shows no connection with the three persons but instead refers to a doctrine of three natures. What Tertullian actually describes is a Valentinian doctrine which maintains that the universe is comprised of three fundamental substances or natures, which are identified as spirit, soul and matter (ibid., pg. 202; see below). Tertullian here accuses the Valentinians of teaching that the three natures are not subject to change, which he construes to mean that there is no hope for salvation, because the soul’s nature can’t change. Of course he has misstated the Valentinian doctrine; which maintains that the soul is in fact subject to change, i.e. redemption. It is the natures of spirit and matter which are not subject to change. Tertullian correctly reports this doctrine in his later treatise Against Valentinians, 25, where he admits that the soul (animal) “oscillates between the material and the spiritual, and is sure to fall at last on the side to which it has mainly gravitated.” (ibid., pg. 515f.) What Tertullian half-hazardly describes is the “trinity” which was the central tenet of ancient Valentinian tradition, and which provided the structure by which Valentinians defined their concepts of the universe, theology, christology and human nature

Photinus taught that Jesus was the sinless Messiah and redeemer, and the only perfect human son of God, but that he had no pre-human existence. They interpret verses such as John 1:1 to refer to God's "plan" existing in God's mind before Christ's birth;

Many Gnostic traditions held that the Christ is a heavenly Aeon but not one with the Father.

Nontrinitarianism was later renewed by Cathars in the 11th through 13th centuries:

Yet another movement got started in the 12th century in the south of France—the Albigenses (also known as Cathari), named after the town of Albi, where they had many followers. They had their own celibate clergy class, who expected to be greeted with reverence. They believed that Jesus spoke figuratively in his last supper when he said of the bread, “This is my body.” (Matthew 26:26, NAB) They rejected the doctrines of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, hellfire, and purgatory. Thus they actively put in doubt the teachings of Rome. Pope Innocent III gave instructions that the Albigenses be persecuted. “If necessary,” he said, “suppress them with the sword.” (mankind's search for god watchtower)

The Bogomils ("Friends of God") or Bulgars were a Gnostic Christian sect that flourished in Thrace and Bulgaria in the 10th Century. Their beliefs spread throughout Europe: to Italy, Northern Spain, the Languedoc, France, Germany, and Flanders. Bulgars rejected the Trinity and the sacraments, denied the Catholic Church's teachings on images, infant baptism, saints, and the virgin birth, and held that matter is inherently evil. A derivative sect which came to be known as Cathari flourished in the Languedoc (now Southern France) and Northern Italy . They followed a life of severe asceticism and found little difficulty in attracting the bulk of the population who were, according to Church records, sated with the corruption of the local clergy.

Those groups with early Unitarian or Socinian Christology such as Christadelphians and the Church of God General Conference identify the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament much as Jews do, simply as angels. Early Christadelphians, notably John Thomas (Phanerosis 1869) and C. C. Walker (1929 Theophany: The Bible doctrine of the manifestation of God upon earth in the angels, in the Lord Jesus Christ, and hereafter in
"the manifestation of sons of God" Birmingham 1929) integrated angelic theophanies and God as revealed in his various divine names into a doctrine of God Manifestation which carries on into a Unitarian understanding of God's theophany in Christ and God being manifested in resurrected believers.

The Coptic Church

The Coptic Church

Vast number of Jews spoke the Coptic language. It is claimed that about 40% of the population of the city of Alexandria, on the Egyptian coast, were Jews. It was in this country that Joseph and Mary sought refuge with their young child, Jesus (Mat. 2:13

The first Christian on record to preach in Africa was himself an African, the Ethiopian eunuch mentioned in the Bible at Acts chapter 8. A Jewish proselyte, he was on his way home from worshiping at the temple in Jerusalem when Philip converted him to Christianity. Without doubt, in keeping with the zeal of early Christians, this Ethiopian afterward actively preached the good news he had heard, becoming a missionary in his own land.

Historians fail to agree, however, on whether or not this was the way Christianity became established in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church appears to date back to the fourth century, when a Syrian student of philosophy named Frumentius was ordained as a bishop to Ethiopian “Christians” by Athanasius, a bishop of the Coptic Church of Alexandria.

The Coptic Church—Copt is derived from the Greek word for “Egyptian”—claims that its founder and first patriarch was Mark the Evangelist. According to tradition, he preached in Egypt just before the middle of the first century. At any rate, “Christianity” spread to North Africa at an early date, with men like Origen and Augustine rising to prominence. A catechetical school in Alexandria, Egypt, became a noted center of “Christian” scholarship with Pantaenus as its first president. But by the time of Pantaenus’ successor, Clement of Alexandria, apostasy had evidently already taken its toll. The Encyclopedia of Religion reveals that Clement “advocated the reconciliation of Christian doctrine and the Bible with Greek philosophy.”

The Coptic Church carried on an intensive missionary campaign, particularly in eastern Libya. Archaeological excavations in Nubia and lower Sudan also reveal Coptic influence

Gnostic Apostolic Succession

Gnostic apostolic succession

Clement of Alexandria records that Valentinus was instructed by Theudas, and that Theudas in turn was taught by Paul (Clement of Alexandria Stromata 7:17)

According to Hippolytus, the Naassenes, or serpent-worshippers, received secret matter through Mariamne—presumably Mary Magdalene—from James, the brother of the Lord.3 This claim fits very well with titles of several extant Gnostic works (two Apocalypses of James, the Pistis Sophia, and the Gospel of Mary, for example).

the valentinians possess the true apostolic succession

No one could’ve been revealed among those who’d been entrusted with salvation unless the book had appeared.(The Gospel of Truth)

Chrism is superior to baptism. We are called Christians from the word “chrism,” not from the word “baptism.” Christ also has his name from chrism, for the father anointed the son, the son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us. Whoever is anointed has everything: resurrection, light, cross, holy spirit. The father gave all this to the person in the bridal chamber, and the person accepted it. The father was in the son and the son was in the father. This is heaven’s kingdom. (Gospel of Philip)

These words I have received from the generosity of my lord, Jesus the Christ. I have taught you and your brothers and sisters, who are my children, about them, and have omitted nothing that may strengthen you. If there is anything among these written words that is obscure, ask and I will explain. (The Treatise on the Resurrection)

For, if God permit, you will later learn about their origin and generation, when you are judged worthy of the apostolic tradition which we too have received by succession. We too are able to prove all our points by the teaching of the Savior. (Ptolemy's Letter to Flora)

https://www.gnosticdoctrine.com/2020/08/gnostic-saints-or-fathers-of-christian.html

Jewish Origins of the Mandaean People

Jewish Origins of the Mandaean People 

who are the Mandaeans

Mandaeans derived from Aramaic, the word mandayye, from which they take their name, means “gnostic" Kurt Rudolph, Mandaeism (Lieden: Brill, 1978), 29.

They live in Persia and Arabia, especially at Bassora; and regard religion as consisting principally infrequent, solemn ablutions of the body, which their priests administer with certain ceremonies

The Europeans call them "Christians of Saint John", because they have some knowledge of Christ. By the Oriental writers they are called Sabbi or Sabians

The Clementina speak of John the Baptist as a Hemerobaptist, and the disciples of John are accordingly called "Hemerobaptists" ("Homilies," ii. 23; comp. "Recognitions," i. 54); similarly, Banus, the teacher of Josephus ("Vita," § 2), was a Hemerobaptist. Hegesippus (see Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iv. 22) mentions the Hemerobaptists as one of the seven Jewish sects or divisions opposed to the Christians. Justin ("Dial. cum Tryph." § 80) calls them simply "Baptists."

The proto-gnostic movement seems to have had a schism over the roles of John the Baptist and Jesus. The Mandaeans followed the teachings of John the Baptist and regarded him as a messianic figure, but they regarded Jesus as a "false messiah." The Mandaeans also rejected Moses and the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible). 

In Mandaeism, the laity are called mandaiia, "gnostics," while initiates into the priesthood are called naṣuraiia (naṣoreans).

Epiphanius in his Panarion, takes care to note that the heterodox Jewish group of Nasarenes were different than the Christian group of Nazorenes, whom he also describes. He states that they lived primarily on the east side of the Jordan, that they practiced circumcision, observed the Sabbath and the Jewish feasts, honored the patriarchs, but rejected the law of Moses (the Pentateuch).

The existence of the Nasarenes is significant, because the Mandaean version of that term, Nasoraean, is used often in the most ancient Mandaean literature.

In the texts, not only historical persons such as John the Baptist, but also heavenly beings such as Hibil, Sitil and Anos (Enos-Uthra), who symbolize the faith of the Mandaeans are called the Nasoraeans.

l am inclined to look upon these Christians of St. John, as descendants of those Hemerobaptists who were a Jewish sect about the time of Christ.

First, they profess to be Jews ; and say, their ancestors lived on the banks of the Jordan.

The early church writer Epiphanius mentions the Masobotheans and the Hemerobaptists. Besides the fact that they were part of the baptist movement, very little can be said for sure about them. It is likely, however, that at least the Hemerobaptists were very similar to the group of John the Baptist, as the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies refer to him as “one John, a hemerobaptist who was also . . . the forerunner of our Lord Jesus Christ

It is commonly supposed, that this John was John the Baptist, Christ's forerunner mentioned in the Scriptures.

Hence many conclude, that the Sabians are descended from the disciples of John the Baptist.

The Sabians as they are called by the Orientals, or the Mandaeans (mandayye), i. e., Disciples of St. John, as they call themselves, or the Christians of St. John as they are called by Europeans, though they perhaps have some imperfect knowledge of Christ, seem to be a Jewish sect, and the descendants of the ancient Hemerobaptists mentioned by the early Christian writers. At least, that John whom they call the founder of their sect, was altogether unlike John the Baptist, and bore a far stronger resemblance to the John whom the ancients represented as the father of the Jewish Hemerohaptists

Those who believe (in the Qur'an), And those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), And the Christians, and the Sabians—Any who believe in Allah, And the Last Day, And work righteousness, Shall have their reward With their Lord."

The Donatists

The Donatists

The Donatists were a very numerous body in the Roman Africa, and, indeed, seem to have been almost as multitudinous there as the catholics themselves, which, considering the strictness of their discipline and their firm adhesion to the laws of Christ’s house, is gratifying to contemplate. There was scarcely a city or town in the Roman Africa in which there was not an ecclesia of these believers. A public conference was held at Carthage, A.D. 411, at which 286 bishops belonging to the catholics were present, and of the Donatists 279; and when we take into account, not only their rigid discipline, but also that they were a proscribed sect, and frequently the subjects of severe and sanguinary persecution from the catholic rulers, there is good reason to conclude that we have before us in the Donatists the very people foreshadowed in the servants to be sealed. They must have been energized by an enlightened faith, which gave them an intellectual and moral superiority over the imbecile and drowsy sacramentalists of the time. Their increasing numbers attracted the attention of the authorities, who were anxious, if possible, to conciliate them, and form a union between them and the catholics. 

The emperor Constans, A.D. 348, ten or a dozen years after the death of his father, Constantine, deputed two persons of rank to try to bring about a reconciliation between the two parties. When it was urged upon them that it was their duty to study the peace of the church and to avoid schism, they urged the unscriptural nature of the alliance which had recently taken place between church and state. "Quid est imperatori cum ecclesia?" said they -- in plain English, "What hath the emperor to do with the church?" A more important and pertinent question could not have been propounded. Had civil rulers known their proper sphere, they would have accorded protection to citizens in all their rights, and have left them to their own convictions in matters of faith and practice. The civil powers would then have restrained all ecclesiastics within the spheres of their own pales; and we should have had no "Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots, and Abominations of the earth." The atrocities of the Roman Church would not have soaked the soil with the blood of the saints and witnesses of Jesus for hundreds of years, until she became drunk with their gore. Little was Constantine aware of the consequences that would follow his conferring wealth, and honour, and power upon the bishops, presbyters, and so forth, of the Laodicean Apostasy, which, in the ignorance of all concerned, was mistaken for the Spouse of Christ. Could he have foreseen the racks, the fires, the massacres, the butcheries, that were to follow his misplaced liberality, he would, doubtless, have thrilled with horror and disgust at the iniquity he had unwittingly evoked.

from Eureka: An Exposition of the Apocalypse by Dr john thomas

Novatian

Novatian

The latter class was favorable to the readmittance of the deserters, or "lapsed;" the minority was determinedly opposed to it. The head of the majority was Cornelius the bishop of the ecclesia in Rome; and the leader of the "few names" in the Sardian state, was Novatian, who was elected bishop in Rome in opposition to him about A.D. 251. He is acknowledged by his opponents to have been no heretic; and to have excelled in genius, learning, and eloquence. No immoralities have been proved against him, though he did not escape the evil speeches and maledictions of the majority; though it is certain, that while he continued a presbyter of the ecclesia in Rome, his fame was not only without a blot, but very fair in the camp. He was put to death for the faith in the reign of Valerian.

It will be well here to sound in the ears of the reader the voice of history concerning the state of the majority which the Spirit says had a name that it was living, while it was really dead; and the division of which is charged upon Novatius as a crime.

"The most respectable writers of that age," says Mosheim, "have put it out of the power of an historian to spread a veil over the enormities of ecclesiastical rulers. For, though several yet continued to exhibit to the world illustrious examples of primitive piety and Christian virtue (these were "the few names even in Sardis"), yet many were sunk in luxury and voluptuousness; puffed up with vanity, arrogance, and ambition; possessed with a spirit of contention and discord, and addicted to many other vices that cast an undeserved reproach upon the holy religion of which they were the unworthy professors and ministers. In many places the bishops assumed a princely authority, particularly those who had the greatest number of churches under their inspection, and who presided over the most opulent assemblies. They appropriated to their evangelical functions the splendid ensigns of temporal majesty. A throne, surrounded with ministers, exalted above his equals the servant of the meek and lowly Jesus; and sumptuous garments dazzled the eyes and the minds of the multitude into an ignorant veneration for their arrogated authority. Presbyters followed their example, neglected their duties, and abandoned themselves to the indolence and delicacy of an effeminate and luxurious life. Deacons imitated their superiors, and the effects of a corrupt ambition were spread through every rank of the sacred order."

In support of this statement, we have the testimony of Eusebius, who was contemporary with what he describes. "Through too much liberty," says he, "the Christians grew negligent and slothful, envying and reproaching one another -- waging, as it were, civil wars among themselves, bishops quarrelling with bishops, and the people divided into parties. Hypocrisy and deceit were grown to the highest pitch of wickedness. They were become so insensible, as not to think of appeasing the divine anger, but, like atheists, they thought the world destitute of any providential government or care, thus adding one crime to another. The bishops themselves had cast off almost all concern about religion; they were perpetually contending with one another, and did nothing but quarrel, and threaten, and envy, and hate one another; they were full of ambition and tyrannically used their power."

Such was the state into which the ecclesias had fallen in the second half of the third century, against which Novatian protested. Many, in all the Roman empire -- the brethren, in contrast to "Christians," a name disgraced then as now -- united with him in bearing a noble testimony against the prevailing corruption in the camp; and by so doing acquired the name of Novatianists. They were also termed Puritans, or in Greek, Cathari -- a name bestowed on them by their adversaries, who reproached them for what they considered their excessive severity of discipline and exclusiveness.

The ecclesiastical historian, Socrates, says that "Novatius separated from the Roman Church because Cornelius the bishop received into communion believers who had sacrificed during the persecution which the emperor Decius had raised against the ecclesia. Having seceded on this account, on being afterwards elevated to the episcopacy by such prelates as entertained similar sentiments, he wrote to all the ecclesias insisting that they should not admit to the sacred mysteries those who had sacrificed; but exhorting them to repentance, leave the pardoning of their offence to God, who has the power to forgive all sin. These letters made different impressions on the parties in the various provinces to whom they were addressed, according to their several dispositions and judgments. The exclusion from participation in the mysteries (Lord’s Supper) of those who after baptism had committed any sin ‘unto death,’ appeared to some a cruel and merciless course; but others thought it just and necessary for the maintenance of discipline, and the promotion of greater devotedness of life. In the midst of the agitation of this important question, letters arrived from Cornelius the bishop, promising indulgence to delinquents after baptism. On these two persons writing thus contrary to one another, and each confirming his own procedure by the testimony of the divine word, as it usually happens every one identified himself with that view which favored his previous habits and inclinations. Those who had pleasure in sin, encouraged by the license thus granted, took occasion from it to revel in every species of criminality. The Phrygians, however, appear to be more temperate than other nations, and are seldom guilty of swearing. The Scythians and Thracians are naturally of a very irritable disposition, while the inhabitants of the East are addicted to sensual pleasures. But the Paphlagonians and Phrygians are prone to neither of these vices; nor are the sports of the circus nor theatrical exhibitions in much estimation among them even to the present day (A.D. 445). And this will account, as I conceive, for these people, as well as others of a similar temperament and habit in the West, so readily assenting to the letters written by Novatius. Fornication and adultery are regarded among the Paphlagonians and Phrygians as the grossest enormities; and it is well known that there is no race of men upon the face of the earth who more rigidly govern their passions in this respect."

This testimony of Socrates shows that morality and virtue were on the side of the Novatians; and even their catholic adversaries did not accuse them of unsoundness in the faith. Cornelius, the bishop of the church in Rome, styles Novatius, "that artful and malicious beast;" and denounces him in his letters for his artifice and duplicity, his perjuries and falsehoods, his dissocial and savage character. But this proves nothing against Novatius or his friends, and is prima facie evidence that the spirit in him, Cornelius, was the spirit of the flesh, which afterwards became so rampant in his successors the Popes. From Eusebius’ account, Novatius and his adherents appear to have been excommunicated by a council assembled in Rome; and the course pursued against him there evinces more of party malignity than of zeal for the truth in faith and discipline. But it did not succeed in suppressing the Novatians, who prospered in Rome considerably. Socrates says, that A.D. 421, Cornelius’ representative was one Celestinus. "This prelate," says he, "took away the churches from the Novatians at Rome also, and obliged Rusticula their bishop to hold his meetings secretly in private houses. Until this time that sect had flourished exceedingly in the imperial city of the West, possessing many churches there, which were attended by large congregations. But envy attacked them also, as soon as the Roman episcopate, like that of Alexandria, extended itself beyond the limits of the jurisdiction of priesthood, and degenerated into the present state of secular domination. For thenceforth the Roman bishops would not suffer even those who perfectly agreed with them in matters of faith, and whose purity of doctrine they extolled, to enjoy the privilege of assembling in peace, but stripped them of all they possessed. From such tyrannical bigotry the Constantinopolitan prelates kept themselves free, inasmuch as they not only permitted the Novatians to hold their assemblies within the city, but treated them with every mark of Christian regard."

The position assumed by the Novatians was perfectly scriptural. Sins unto death disqualify for inheritance in the kingdom of the Deity, and therefore for fellowship with those who are "the Heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to them who love him," or obey him; which is the same thing, for "love is the fulfilling of law." There can be no sin more deadly than that of a christian sacrificing to other gods, and cursing Christ, for the sake of present ease and comfort. Paul settles this clearly enough to the minds of all who receive the word as the end of all controversy. "If they who were once enlightened," says he, "shall fall away, it is impossible to renew them again unto a change of mind eis metanoian, seeing they crucify again for themselves the Son of the Deity, and expose him to public shame." This is bearing thorns and briars; and such, Paul saith, "is rejected, and nigh to cursing; whose end is to be burned" (Heb. vi. 4-8). For an enlightened man to sacrifice to the gods of Greece and Rome, was for him to "sin wilfully" -- a sin for which no sacrifice is provided in the system of righteousness devised by the Deity. It is therefore "a sin unto death;" and for that -- for pardon of that, John discountenanced all petition: "there is a sin unto death; I say not that ye shall pray for it" (1 John v. 16). Of sins of this sort, Paul says: "If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of the Deity, and hath counted the Blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace" (Heb. x. 26). The christian who sacrificed to the gods of the Gentiles, in so doing, "trod under foot the Son of the Deity, and counted the Blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing." The gospel of the kingdom has no good news for such. They have denied Christ; and Paul saith again, "If we deny him, he also will deny us" (2 Tim. ii. 12); and Jesus himself says, "Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven" (Mat. x. 33).

It is clear, then, in relation to "the lapsed," apostates, or deserters from the Heavenly Camp, the Novatians were in the right, though they were in the minority. Cornelius and his Council who excommunicated them, in so doing, turned the truth into the streets a houseless wanderer. Having ejected Christ, who, when on earth, said, "I am the truth," the Spirit who spoke to the ecclesias, forsook them, and left them to their own waywardness. Having things now all their own way, they received again into the bosom of what they called "Mother Church," apostates, adulterers, drunkards, lovers of pleasures, &c., upon profession of sorrow, but without amendment of life. Well might the Spirit say to such "churches:" "Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead." The institutions and worship of such a dead body could be of no worth. The "few names in Sardis," called Novatians, were satisfied of that, and therefore they rejected the baptism, and ordination of the so-called "Mother." They repudiated Jezebel and all her ordinances; so that they reimmersed and reordained all who came over to them from the majority, which now began to designate itself the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Here then were two leading and rival divisions in antipagan society, both claiming the christian name, with the addition of Catholic and Puritan, as the names distinguishing their several hosts in the long warfare waged between them. These antagonist camps were in active conflict during the fifth seal; how then could the Four Living Ones, who symbolized the undivided heavenly camp, be introduced into the imagery of the fifth seal, inasmuch as in that and the sixth seal period, the original organization of the camp no longer obtained? The time was rapidly advancing after the close of the fourth seal, when the Spirit would fulfil his threat of spuing them out of his mouth; and of organizing a new advocacy of the truth -- a protest, not so much against paganism, as against Laodiceanism incorporated in the Synagogue of Satan, styled in the language of the Apostasy, THE HOLY APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC CHURCH -- Mother and Mistress of all the churches of Antichristendom.

Thirdly, the unity of the Heavenly Camp having been broken by this great schism, the blame of which before the Lamb would rest on them who sympathized with the deserters who denied him, and who excommunicated the friends of purity and good morals, the Deity could no longer reside in it by his Spirit; the symbol of the four living ones consequently could not be introduced into the imagery of the fifth seal. But though as a community they were dead, yet we learn from the epistle to Sardis, that "even" in that dead community there were a few living ones who had not defiled their garments. These were the brethren or true believers. The Deity walked in these. His spirit was in them, because Christ was in them by faith. "Know ye not," saith the apostle, "that Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates," or without judgment. "I am the truth," saith Jesus. "Let Christ dwell in your hearts by faith," saith Paul: from all which it is manifest that every real christian has Christ in him; and that he has Christ in him when he intelligently believes the truth, and by obeying that truth, puts on Christ, and walks in him by walking in the truth. Now, as "the spirit is the truth," and "my words are spirit and life," it follows that the spirit of the Deity resides in all in whom the truth and His words influentially resides. In this sense, the spirit may have dwelt in a few among the Sardian dead, who did not actually separate themselves with the Novatians. As the Spirit had not till the sixth seal-period spued the ecclesias out of his mouth, there would till then continue to be some living among the dead; and according to the proportion and quality of these living, would be the spirit-possession of each ecclesia. The Sardian state under the fifth seal merged into the Philadelphian; and the "few names" of the former, became the "little strength" of the latter. This little strength was derived from the truth believed, as before explained. For there to be a little strength in the Philadelphian state was for there to be a little spirit still; for there is no christian, spiritual, or moral strength where there is no spirit or power. The gospel is the power of the Deity for salvation; but it is not power to numb or deaden the pain of torment inflicted upon the bodies of the saints when tortured by the cruel pagans, and afterwards by the more savage Laodiceans. It is probable that with the "little strength" there was also a little physical power still possessed by the subjects of that little strength by which the torture they were called on to endure was deadened. The only evidence of the spirit being possessed in the fifth seal-period in any other than a doctrinal sense as before explained, is the question and answer it contains. Had the four living ones been in the imagery, we should have known that the Spirit, or "the Lamb," still occupied the camp, plaguing from thence the Roman Horse, and fortifying the bodies of his servants to the patient endurance of the most cruel torments inflicted upon them in the good fight. But they are not there; so that we can only infer that His "grace" was not entirely withdrawn, and was still sufficient for the emergencies of the few, who, in the fifth seal period "kept his word, and denied not his name" (cf. ch. VI, sec.iii, 1).

I may remark here, that in the first four seals, the four living ones were all present in the arrangements of each, though only one is specially indicated by ordinal number. This presence of all the four in each seal is intimated in the first verse, "I heard from one out of the four living ones, saying:" and though only one is named in the second seal, yet in the third a voice is said to be sounded in the midst of the four about the taxation of wheat and barley. They were all four present in reality; and the Lamb, or Spirit, was in the midst of them, attacking the Roman people and empire with sword, taxation, famine, pestilence, and beasts of the earth. And the pagans were not altogether unaware of this, for they charged the miseries of the times upon the christians. And they had unquestionably to do with them as being associated with the Lamb who opened and supervised the seals. Cyprian, in his letter to Demetrian, a heathen, endeavored to persuade him of the unreasonableness of the charge. But there was more reason in it than Cyprian knew; and if he had known, he might have made a powerful argument in favor of christianity, on account of so reasonable a fact.

Treating of the first eighteen years of Diocletian’s reign, and therefore the eighteen concluding years of the fourth seal-period, Milner says, after Eusebius: "During this period he was extremely indulgent to the christians. His wife Prisca and his daughter Valeria, were christians in some sense secretly. The eunuchs of his palace and his most important officers were christians; and their wives and families openly professed the gospel. Christians held honourable offices in various parts of the empire; innumerable crowds attended christian worship; the old buildings could no longer receive them; and in all cities wide and large edifices were erected."

The rider of the first seal was still "conquering" paganism; and a state of things had obtained indicating that the time was not far off when the coronal wreath or stephan, would adorn his brow. If the strength and beauty of christianity were to be measured by secular prosperity, here might be fixed the era of its greatness. "But, on the contrary, the era of its actual declension must be dated in the pacific part of Diocletian’s reign. During the whole third century the work of God, in purity and power, had been tending to decay. The connection with philosophers was one of the principal causes. Outward peace, and secular advantage completed the corruption. Ecclesiastical discipline was now relaxed exceedingly. Bishops and people were in a state of malice. Endless quarrels were fomented among contending parties; and ambition and covetousness had in general gained the ascendancy in the christian church. Some there were who mourned in secret, and strove in vain to stop the abounding torrent of the evil." These were the "little strength," and "the brethren" of the fifth seal. For the space of thirty years no bishop, or priest, among the catholics appeared eminent for piety, zeal, or labor. Eusebius, indeed, mentions the names and characters of several bishops; but he extols only their learning and philosophy, or their moral qualities. "Notwithstanding this decline, both of zeal and of principle; still christian worship was constantly attended; and the number of nominal converts was increasing after the fashion of our time; but the faith of Christ itself appeared a mere ordinary affair. And "here terminated," says Milner, "or nearly so, as far as appears, that great first effusion of the Spirit of God which began at the day of Pentecost. Human depravity effected throughout a general decay of godliness; and one generation of men elapsed with very slender proofs of the spiritual presence of Christ with the church."

from Eureka: An Exposition of the Apocalypse by Dr john thomas

Novatian's strict views existed before him and may be found in The Shepherd of Hermas.^[4] After his death, the Novatianist sect spread rapidly and could be found in every province, and were very numerous in some places.^[2]