You are on page 1of 17

Monarchianism, a Christian heresy that developed during the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

It opposed the doctrine of an independent, personal subsistence of the Logos, affirmed the sole deity of God the Father, and thus represented the extreme monotheistic view. Though it regarded Christ as Redeemer, it clung to the numerical unity of the Deity. Two types of Monarchianism developed: the Dynamic (or Adoptionist) and the Modalistic (or Sabellian). Dynamic Monarchianism held that Christ was a mere man, miraculously conceived, but constituted the Son of God simply by the infinitely high degree in which he had been filled with divine wisdom and power. This view was taught at Rome about the end of the 2nd century by Theodotus, who was excommunicated by Pope Victor, and taught somewhat later by Artemon, who was excommunicated by Pope Zephyrinus. About 260 it was again taught by Paul of Samosata. It is the belief of many modern Unitarians. Modalistic Monarchianism took exception to the subordinationism of some of the Church Fathers and maintained that the names Father and Son were only different designations of the same subject, the one God, who with reference to the relations in which He had previously stood to the world is called the Father, but in reference to His appearance in humanity is called the Son. It was taught byPraxeas, a priest from Asia Minor, in Rome c. 206 and was opposed by Tertullian in the tractAdversus Praxean (c. 213), an important contribution to the doctrine of the Trinity. See alsoSabellianism; Adoptionism.

Sabellianism, Christian heresy that was a more developed and less naive form of ModalisticMonarchianism (see Monarchianism); it was propounded by Sabellius (fl. c. 217 c. 220), who was possibly a presbyter in Rome. Little is actually known of his life because the most detailed information about him was contained in the prejudiced reports of his contemporary, Hippolytus, an anti-Monarchian Roman theologian. In Rome there was an active struggle between the Monarchians, or Modalists, and those who affirmed permanent distinctions (Persons) within theGodhead. The Monarchians, in their concern for the divine monarchy (the absolute unity and indivisibility of God), denied that such distinctions were ultimate or permanent. Sabellius evidently taught that the Godhead is a monad, expressing itself in three operations: as Father, in creation; as Son, in redemption; and as Holy Spirit, in sanctification. Pope Calixtus was at first inclined to be sympathetic to Sabellius teaching but later condemned it and excommunicated Sabellius. The heresy broke out again 30 years later in Libya and was opposed by Dionysius of Alexandria. In the 4th century, Arius accused his bishop of Sabellianism, and throughout the Arian controversy this charge was levelled at the supporters of Nicene orthodoxy (those who accepted the doctrine of the Trinity set forth in the Nicene Creed), whose emphasis on the unity of substance of Father and Son was interpreted by Arians to mean that the orthodox denied any personal distinctions within the Godhead. About 375 the heresy was renewed at Neocaesarea and was attacked by Basil the Great. In Spain Priscillian seems to have enunciated a doctrine of the divine unity in Sabellian terms.

At the time of the Reformation, Sabellianism was reformulated by Michael Servetus, a Spanish theologian and physician, to the effect that Christ and the Holy Spirit are merely representative forms of the one Godhead, the Father. In the 18th century, Emanuel Swedenborg, a Swedish mystical philosopher and scientist, also taught this doctrine, as did his disciples, who founded the New Church. Adoptionism, either of two Christian heresies: one developed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and is also known as Dynamic Monarchianism (see Monarchianism); the other began in the 8th century in Spain and was concerned with the teaching of Elipandus, archbishop of Toledo. Wishing to distinguish in Christ the operations of each of his natures, human and divine, Elipandus referred to Christ in his humanity as adopted son in contradistinction to Christ in his divinity, who is the Son of God by nature. The son of Mary, assumed by the Word, thus was not the Son of God by nature but only by adoption. Opposition to this view of Christ was expressed, which led Pope Adrian I to intervene and condemn the teaching. Elipandus gained the support of Felix, bishop of Urgel, who eventually engaged in a literary duel with Alcuin of York over the doctrine. In 798 Pope Leo III held a council in Rome that condemned the Adoptionism of Felix and anathematized him. Felix was forced to recant in 799 and was placed under surveillance. Elipandus remained unrepentant, however, and continued as archbishop of Toledo, but the Adoptionist view was almost universally abandoned after his death. It was temporarily revived in the 12th century in the teachings of Peter Abelard and his followers.

MONARCHIANISM. Down to the end of The second century, not only the Logos doctrine, but also the conception of Christ as the Son of God, pre-existing before the creation of the world, was the exclusive possession of a few theologians. Though it was generally recognized that there should be spoken of Christ, (" in the same manner as of God," II. Clem. ad Cor., 1.), hardly any one, with the exception of the philosophically trained apologists, was thereby led to speculate on the idea of God. All that was developed and defined concerning the personality of the Redeemer during the period between 140 and 180 was based upon the short formula of Matt. xxviii. 19. The acknowledgment of the supernatural conception of Jesus, by which his preexistence was vaguely but indubitably presupposed, was considered sufficient to distinguish the true Christian from the strict Jewish-Christians and those who in Christ admired only a second Socrates; while, on the other hand, the acknowledgment of a real birth by a woman, and a real human life in accordance with the prefigurations of the prophets, formed a bar against Gnosticism. During this state of incipiency, a multitude of various christological views began to germinate, co-existing, at least for a time, peacefully side by side. In spite of their multitudinousness, however, they may all be reduced to two formulas, - either Christ was considered a man in whom the Deity, or the Spirit of God, had dwelt; or he was considered the Divine Spirit, who himself had assumed flesh, and appeared

in the world. For both formulas, Scripture might be quoted. Proofs of the former were taken from the synoptical Gospels; of the latter, from a series of apostolical writings which also claimed absolute authority. Nevertheless, there existed a radical difference between them; and though, for a long time, that difference may have been visible to the theological reflection only, without touching the religious instinct, there came a time when it could not fail to attract the attention even of the masses. In the contest which then arose, the latter formula had one decided advantage: it combined more easily with those cosmological and theological propositions which were borrowed from the religious philosophy of the time, and applied as foundation for a rational Christian theology. He who was conversant with the idea of a divine Logos as the explanation of the origin of the world, and the motive power in the history of mankind, found in that very idea an easy means by which to define the divine dignity and Sonship of the Redeemer. There seemed to be no danger to monotheism in this expedient; for was not the infinite substance behind the created world capable of developing into various subjects without exhausting itself, and splitting? Nor did the idea itself - the idea of an incarnate Logos seem insufficient to explain the Godhead of Christ. On the contrary, the more energetically it was handled, the more fertile it proved, able to correspond to any depth of religious feeling and to any height of religious speculation. Nevertheless, in spite of this great advantage, as long as the idea of a divine Logos had not reached beyond such definitions as "the fundamental type of the universe," "the rational system of the laws of nature," etc., the second formula could not help rousing a certain suspicion among those who in the Saviour wanted to see the Godhead itself, and nothing less. It was, however, not an anxiety with respect to the divine dignity of Christ, which, in the second century, called forth the first direct opposition to the Logoschristology: it was an anxiety with respect to monotheism. For was it not open ditheism, when worship was claimed for two divine beings? Not only uneducated laymen were forced to think so, but also those theologians who knew nothing of the Platonic and Stoic philosophy, and would hear nothing of its applicability in Christian dogmatics. How the controversy began, and who made the first attack, is not known; but the contest lasted for more than a hundred and fifty years, and presents some aspects of the highest interest. It denotes the victory of Plato over Zeno and Aristotle in Christian science; it denotes the substitution, in Christian dogmatics, of the pre-existent Christ for the historical, of the ideal Christ for the living, of the mystery of personality for the real person; it denotes the first successful attempt at subjecting the religious faith of the laity to the authority of a theological formula unintelligible to them. The party which was defeated in the contest, the representatives of that severe monotheism in the ancient Church which retained the office of the Redeemer in the character of Christ, but clung with obstinate tenacity to the numerical unity in the

personality of the Deity, are generally called "Monarchians," - a term brought into circulation by Tertullian, but not perfectly adequate. In order to fully appreciate the position which this party occupies in the history of Christian dogmatics, it must be remembered that it originated within the pale of Catholicism itself, and had a common basis with its very adversaries. In its deviations from what has afterwards been defined as true Catholicism, it is pre-catholic, not a-catholic. Thus, for instance, with respect to the canon of the New Testament. The deviations of several Monarchian groups on this point are simply due to the circumstance that the true canon of the New Testament had not yet been established. Nor should it he overlooked, that, with the exception of a few fragments, the writings of the Monarchians have perished. The party is known only through the representations of its adversaries. The history of Monarchianism is consequently very obscure: indeed, it cannot be written with any continuity. Only the various groups can be pointed out and described. Even the old and generally accepted division into dynamic and [1549] modalistic Monarchianism cannot be carried through without straining the texts on which it is based. I. THE ALOGIANS. - The first opponents to the Logos-christology, the so-called Alogians" in Asia Minor, were undisputed members of the Church, and were treated as such by Hippolytus and Irenus. It was only by comparing their tenets with a later development of Catholicism, that Epiphanius found out they were heretics: it was also lie who gave them their name. The starting-point of their opposition was the Montanist prophecy. which they rejected. They rejected, indeed, all prophecy as a still existing charisma; but in doing so they were only more catholic than the Church itself. Their disbelief, however, in an age of the Paraclete, led them into a criticism of the writings of St. John; and the result was, that they rejected both his Gospel and the Apocalypse, probably, also, his Epistles. The Gospel, they ascribed to Cerinthus: the Apocalypse, they ridiculed. But, rejecting the Gospel of St. John, they also rejected the doctrine of the Logos; and thus they came into conflict with the new christological issue. Hippolytus, however, who knew them only from their writings, and Irenus, treated them with much circumspection: they regretted their opinions, and warned against the inferences which might be drawn from their tenets; but they did not condemn them. LIT. - The principal sources are EPIPHANIUS (Hr., 51) and PHILASTRIUS (Hr., 60), both of whom have derived their information from the Syntayma of HIPPOLYTUS. On Epiphanius depend Augustine, Isidore, Paulinus, Honorius, and John of Damascus. See also MERKEL: Aufklrung der Streitigkeiten der Aloger, 1782; HEINICHEN: De Alogis,1829; and the respective chapters in SCHWEGLER Montanismus;

VOLKMAR: Hippolytus; DLLINGER: Hippolytus und Kallistus; LIPSIUS: Quellenkritik d. Epiphanius and Quellen der altesten Ketzergeschichte; SOYRES; Montanism; JWANZOW-PLATONOW; Haresien und Schismen d. 3 ersten Jahrhund., etc. II. THEODOTUS THE LEATHER-DEALER, HIS PARTY IN ROME (Asclepiadotus, Hermophilus, Apollonides, Theodotus the Money-Broker, Natalias), AND THE ARTEMONITES. - Towards the close of the episcopate of Eleutherus, or in the beginning of that of Victor, about 190, Theodotus, a leatherdealer from Byzantium, came to Rome, and began to expound his christological views, which he probably had developed under the influence of the Alogians of Asia Minor. Orthodox in other points, he taught, with respect to the personality of Christ, that Jesus was not a heavenly being, which had assumed flesh in the womb of the Virgin, but a human being, which had been borne by a virgin, in accordance with a special providence and under the concurrence of the Holy Spirit; that, having proved himself worthy by a pious life, he had received in the baptism the Holy Spirit, and thereby the powers ( ) necessary to fill his office, etc. Theodotus was thus a representative of the dynamic Monarchianism, which held that the divinity of Christ was only a power communicated to him. It is not known how many adherents he found in Rome, but the number was probably small. Nevertheless, he was excommunicated by Victor between 189 and 199. Under Victors successor, however, Zephyrinus (199-218) his pupil, Theodotus the money-broker, probably also a Greek, attempted, in connection with Asclepiadotus, to form an independent congregation, and found an independent church, in Rome. A certain Natalius, a native of Rome, and a confessor, was, for a monthly salary of a hundred and seventy dinari, induced to become the bishop of the new church; but he was afterwards, by visions of "holy angels," who whipped him while he was sleeping, forced back into the bosom of the great Church. Twenty or thirty years later on, a new attempt at reviving the old Monarchian christology was made by Artemas; but lie seems not to have identified himself with the Theodotians. Very little is known of him, however. He was still living about 270, as proven by the decision of the synod of Antioch against Paulus of Samosata. Generally speaking, the dynamic Monarchians of Rome present the same realistic character as their brethren, the Alogians of Asia Minor. They studied Aristotle and Theophrastus, Euclid and Galen; but they neglected Plato and Zeno. They substituted the grammatico-historical method for the allegorical in the interpretation of Scripture; and, as foundation for their Bible study, they employed a very sharp text-criticism. With respect to the canon they were perfectly orthodox. They accepted the writings of St. John, which, however, simply means that the canon of the New Testament in which those writings were contained had now been firmly and finally established. But they remained an army of officers, without any rank and file. For their text-criticism, their grammar, their historical researches, the mass had no sense. Their church in Rome waned away, leaving behind no traces of itself; and it took about seventy years before the school of

Autioch was strong enough to throw the dogmatics of the church into one of the most violent crises it ever has had to go through. LIT. - The principal sources are the Syntaynza of HIPPOLYTUS, represented by EPIPHANIUS (54), PHILASTRIUS (50), and PSEUDO-TERTULLLAN (28); hisPhilosophumena (vii. 35, x. 23); his fragment against Notus (c. 3); and, most important of all, the so-called Little Labyrinth, an excerpt preserved by EUSEBIUS (Hist. Eccl., V. 28), dating back to the fourth decade of the third century, and by many ascribed to Hippolytus. See also KAPP: Hist. Artemonis, 1737, and the literature given at the end of the first division. III. PAULUS OF SAMOSATA. - By the Alexandrian theology of the third century, the dogmatical use of such ideas as , etc., was not only made legitimate, but indispensable; and, at the same time, the view of the essential nature of the Saviour, as being not human, but divine, became more and more prevalent. Though Ebionitic elements were still found in the intricate christology of Origen, they were present only in a latent and ineffective state; and though he himself taught a Godhead in Christ, to which it was not allowed to address prayers, he directly attacked all those teachers who attempted to establish such a difference between the personality of the Son and that of the Father as seemed likely to destroy the essential Godhead of the former. A few years, however, [1550] after his death, Paulus of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, that is, occupant of the most illustrious episcopal chair of the Orient, undertook once more to emphasize the old view of the human personality of the Saviour, in opposition to the prevailing doctrine. The next occasion of the controversy is not known; but it is worth noticing, that, at that time, Antioch did not belong to the Roman Empire, but to Palmyra. Paulus was vicegerent of the realm of Zenobia. To reach such a man was no easy task. Through a common provincial synod, over which he presided himself, it could not be done. But, during the Novatian controversy, the experiment of a general Oriental council had been successfully tried, and it was now repeated. The two first councils, however, failed to accomplish the condemnation of Paulus: at the third, probably in 268, he was excommunicated, and Dommus chosen his successor. But, by the support of Zenobia, he continued in possession of his see until 272. In that year, Antioch was reconquered by Aurelian. An appeal was made to the emperor; and he decided that the church-building should be surrendered to those who maintained communication with the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome. The deposition, however, and removal of Paulus, did not at once destroy his influence. On the contrary, under the three following bishops of Antioch, Lucian stood at the head of the rising Antiochian school of theology, and lie taught in the spirit of Paulus. Yea, in the persons of the great Antiochian Fathers, Paulus may, indeed, be said to have been condemued a second time; and how long the dynamic

Monarchianisni lived on in Asia Minor may be seen from the christology of the author of the Acta Archelai. The christology of Paulus is characterized by the total absence of all metaphysical speculation, instead of which he employs only the historical research and the ethical reflection. Essentially it is simply a development of the christology of Hermas and Theodotus, only modified in its form by accommodation to the prevailing terminology. The unity of the personality of God is most severely vindicated. Father, Son, and Spirit are the one God; and, when a Logos or Sophia can be distinguished in God, they are only qualities or attributes. From eternity, God has brought forth the Logos in such a way that the latter may justly be called his Son; but that Son remains, nevertheless, an impersonal power, and can never become a concrete manifestation. In the prophets, the Logos was active; also in Moses, and in many others, more especially in the son of David, born by the Virgin. But Marydid not bear the Logos: she bore only a man, who in the baptism was anointed with the Logos. LIT. - The principal sources are the acts of the Antiochian synod of 268; that is, the report of the disputation between Paulus amid the presbyter Malchian, and the final decision of the synod. In the sixth century those documents were still extant in extenso; but only fragments of them have come down to us, in EUSEBIUS: Hist. Eccl., VII. 27-30; JUSTINIAN:Tract. e. Monophysit.; Contestatio ad Clerum C. P.; the acts of the Council of Ephesus; LEONTIUS BYZANTIUS: Adv. Nestor et Eutych., etc., - all gathered together by Routh, in Eel. Sacr., iii. Important are also the testimonies of the great Fathers of the fourth century, - Athanasius, Hilary, Ephraem, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, etc. See FEUERLIN:De haeresi P. S., 1741; EHRLICH: De erroribus P. 8., 1745; SCHWAR: Diss. de P. 8., 1839. IV. THE MODALISTIC MONARCHIAN5 IN ROME AND CARTHAGE (Notus, Epigonus, Kleomenes, Praxeas, Victorinus, Zephyrinus, Kallistus). - In the period between 180 and 240, the most dangerous opponents to the Logos-christologv were not the dynamic, but the modalistic Monarchians, known in the West as Monarchiani orPatripassiani; in the East, as Sabelliani; though the name Patripassiani was used there too. They taught that Christ was God himself incarnate, the Father who had assumed flesh, a mere modus of the Godhead: hence their name. Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, and Hippolytus wrote against them. Like the dynamic Monarchians, the modalistic arose in Asia Minor; and thence they brought the controversy to Rome, where, for a whole generation, their doctrines formed the official teachings of the Church. Notus was the first of this group of Monarchians who attracted attention. lie was a native of Smyrna, taught there, or in Ephesus, and was excommunicated about 230. Epigonus, a pupil of his, came to Rome iii time times of Zephyrinus, about 200, amid founded there a

Patripassian party. At the head of that party stood, afterwards, Kleomenes, and then, after 21 5. Sabellius. The latter was vehemently attacked by Hippolytus, but had the sympathy of the great majority of the Christians in Rome: even among the clergy Hippolytus was in the minority. Bishop Zephyrinus tried to temporize, in order to prevent a schism from taking place; and his successor, Kallixtus, or Callistus (217-222), adopted the same policy. But the controversy grew so hot, that the Pope was compelled to interfere. Kallistus chose to excommunicate both Sabellius and Hippolytus, and draw up a formula of reconciliation, as the expression of tIme views of the true Catholic Church; and, indeed, the formula of Callixtus became the bridge across which the Roman congregation was led towards the hypostasis-christology. It is a curious circumstance, that Tertullian, in his polemics against the Monarchians, never mentions the names of Notus, Epigonus, Kleomenes, and Kallistus; while, on the other hand, the name of Praxeas, against whom lie chiefly directs his attack, does not occur in the numerous writings of Hippolytus. The explanation seems to be, that, when the controversy was at its highest in Rome, Praxeas had been forgotten there, while Tertullian might still find it proper to start from him, because he had been the first to bring the controversy to Carthage. Praxeas was a confessor from Asia Minor. In Rome he met with mo resistance; but when, in Carthage, he began to expound his Patripassian views, in opposition to the Logos-christology, he was by Tertullian compelled, not only to keep silent, but even to retract. A representation of the individual system of Praxeas cannot be given, on account of the scarcity of the sources. It is, nevertheless, evident that a development had taken place from the Notians to those Monarchians against whom Hippolytus amid Tertullian wrote. The Notians said, "If Christ is God, he must certainly be the [1551] Father; for, if he is not the Father, he is not God." And this very same passionate vindication of pure monotheism is also found among the later Monarchians. But when the Notians went further, and declared, that, if Christ had suffered, the Father had suffered, because Christ was the Father, the later Monarchians avoided this Patripassian proposition by recognizing a difference of subjectivity between the Father and the Son. LIT. - HIPPOLYTUS: Philosophumena; TERTULLIAN: Adu. Praxeain; PSEUDO-TERTULLIAN (30), EPIPHANIUS (57), PHILASTRIUS (53-54), and the literature given after the art. CALIXTUS I. See also LANGEN: Geschichte der rom. Kirche, Bonn, 1881, pp. 192-216. V. SABELLIANISM AND THE LATER MONARCHIANISM. - During the period between Hippolytus and Athanasius, Monarchianism certainly developed several different forms; but this whole various development was, by the writers of

the fourth and fifth centuries, comprehended under the one term, "Sabellianism." The consequence is, that it would be very difficult to point out in details the propositions which actually made up the individual system of Sabellius. He was probably a Libyan by birth, and stood, even in the time of Zephyrinus, at the head of the Monarchian party in Rome. By Kallistus he was excommunicated, but the excommunication produced only a schism. His party was too strong to be at once suppressed: it lived on in Rome until the fourth century. Of the latter part of his personal life nothing is known. It seems that he was still living in Rome when Hippolytus wrote hisPhilosophumena. A dim but characteristic reflex falls on him - or, rather, on the Monarchians in Rome - from the works of Origen. The latter came to Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, and sided, as was natural, with Hippolytus. But that circumstance had, no doubt, something to do with his condemnation by Pontianus in 231 or 232; and the hints which he himself throws out, about bishops who can make no difference between the Father and the Son, are, no doubt, aimed at the bishops of Rome. It was, however, in another direction, Origen had to encounter the Monarchians. In Bostra in Arabia, Bishop Beryllus openly taught Monarchianism. His brother-bishops of the province remonstrated with him, but in vain. Then Origen was invited, in 244, to hold a public disputation with him in Bostra, and he succeeded in converting him. Unfortunately, the acts of that synod have perished. The principal tenet of Sabellius says, that the Father is the same as the Son, and the Son the same as the Spirit: there are three names, hut only one being. That being he often designates as , - an expression which he had no doubt chosen in order to prevent any misunderstanding with respect to the strict nionotheism of the system. Nevertheless, Sabellius taught that God was not Father and Son at the same time; that he had been active under three successive forms of energy ( , - as the Father, from the creation of the world; as the Son, from time incarnation in Christ; and as the Spirit, from the day of the ascension. How far Sabellius was able to keep those three forms of energy distinct from each other cannot be ascertained. It is probable that he could not help ascribing a continuous energy (in nature) to God as the Father, even while the energy was active as the Son or as the Spirit. However that may be, the doctrine of three successive forms of energy was at all events a step towards that formula, the Athanasian , which finally made Monarchianism superfluous, and founded Trinitarianism. LIT. - Besides some sporadic but very important notices in the works of Origen and Athanasius, the principal sources are HIPPOLYTUS (Philosophumena), EPIPHANIUS (51), and PHILASTRIUS (54). See also ULLMANN: De Beryllo, 1835; FOCK: De Christol. Berylli, 1843; ZAHN: Marcellus, 1867.

Adolf, Harnack, "Monarchianism," Philip Schaff, ed., A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 3rd edn, Vol. 3. Toronto, New York & London: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1894. pp.1548-1551.

Also spelled: Monarchism In Christianity, sectarian doctrines (see heresy) dealing with the unity and nature of God, belonging to the 2nd through 4th centuries. Monarchianism opposes the concept of Trinity, the divine unity of God, the Holy Sprit and Jesus Christ. Monarchianism also was a rejection of the doctrine of the Logos as an independent, personal subsistence (as defined in Gospel of John). Monarchianism represents an ultimate monotheism. In Monarchianism, only God was the deity. But as Monarchianism did not reject the existence of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ, it faced the similar problems of definition as the advocates of Trinity did. Monarchianism was represented in two orientations, Sabellianism and Adoptionism. Sabellianism, or Modal Monarchianism as it often is called, defined God to be a single unity appearing in three modes. Adoptionism, or Dynamic Monarchianism as it often is called, also declared God to be a single unity, but explained Jesus Christ to be of divine nature only temporarily, only for as long as his mission lasted.


This entire website is available on CD-ROM.Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more... SALE: 50% off if you buy now... FREE Shipping Worldwide...

Click here...

Heretics of the second and third centuries. The word, Monarchiani, was first used by Tertullian as a nickname for the Patripassian group (adv.Prax., x), and was seldom used by the ancients. In modern times it has been extended to an earlier group of heretics, who are distinguished asDynamistic, or Adoptionist, Monarchians from the Modalist Monarchians, or Patripassians [Sabellians].

Dynamists, or Adoptionists
All Christians hold the unity (monarchia) of God as a fundamental doctrine. By the Patripassians this first principle was used to deny the Trinity, and they are with some reason called Monarchians. But the Adoptionists, or Dynamists, have no claim to the title, for they did not start from the monarchy of God, and their error is strictly Christological. An account of them must, however, be given here simply because the name Monarchian has adhered to them in spite of the repeated protests of historians of dogma. But their ancient and accurate name was Theodotians. The founder of the sect was a leather-seller of Byzantium named Theodotus. He came to Rome under Pope Victor (c. 190-200) or earlier. He taught (Philosophumena, VII, xxxv) that Jesus was a man born of a virgin according to the counsel of the Father, that He lived like other men, and was most pious; that at His baptism in the Jordan the Christ came down upon Him in the likeness of a dove, and therefore wonders (dynameis) were not wrought in Him until the Spirit (which Theodotus called Christ) came down and was manifested in Him. They did not admit that this made HimGod; but some of them said He was God after His resurrection. It was reported that Theodotus had been seized, with others, at Byzantium as aChristian, and that he had denied Christ, whereas his companions had been martyred; he had fled to Rome, and had invented his heresy in order to excuse his fall, saying that it was but a man and not God that he had denied. Pope Victor excommunicated him, and he gathered together asect in which we are told much secular study was carried on. Hippolytus says that they argued on Holy Scripture in syllogistic form. Euclid,Aristotle, and Theophrastus were their admiration, and Galen they even adored. We should probably assume, with Harnack, that Hippolytus would have had less objection to the study of Plato or the Stoics, and that he disliked their purely literal exegesis, which neglected the allegorical sense. They also emended the text of Scripture, but their versions differed, that of Asclepiodotus was different from that of Theodotus, and again from that of Hermophilus; and the copies of Apolloniades did not even tally with one another. Some of them "denied the law and theProphets", that is to say, they followed Marcion in rejecting the Old Testament. The only disciple of the leather-seller of whom we know anything definite is his namesake Theodotus the banker (ho trapezites). He added to his master's doctrine the view that Melchisedech was a celestial power, who was the advocate for the angels in heaven, as Jesus Christ was for men upon earth (a view found among later sects). (SeeMELCHISEDECHIANS). This teaching was of course grounded on Hebrews, vii, 3, and it is refuted at length by St. Epiphanius as Heresy 55,"Melchisedechians", after he has attacked the leather-seller under Heresy 54, "Theodotians". As he meets a series of arguments of both heretics, it is probable that some writings of the sect had been before Hippolytus, whose lost "Syntagma against

all heresies" supplied St. Epiphanius with all his information. After the death of Pope Victor, Theodotus, the banker, and Asclepiodotus designed to raise their sect from the position of a mere school like those of the Gnostics to the rank of a Church like that of Marcion. They got hold of a certain confessor named Natalius, and persuaded him to be called their bishop at a salary of 150 denarii (24 dollars) a month. Natalius thus became the first antipope. But after he had joined them, he was frequently warned in visions by the Lord, Who did not wish His martyr to be lost outside the Church. He neglected thevisions, for the sake of the honour and gain, but finally was scourged all night by the holy angels, so that in the morning with haste and tears he betook himself in sackcloth and ashes to Pope Zephyrinus and cast himself at the feet of the clergy, and even of the laity, showing the weals of the blows, and was after some difficulty restored to communion. This story is quoted by Eusebius II (VI, xxviii) from the "Little Labyrinth" of the contemporary Hippolytus, a work composed against Artemon, a late leader of the sect (perhaps c. 225-30), whom he did not mention in the "Syntagma" or the "Philosophumena". Our knowledge of Artemon, or Artemas, is limited to the reference to him made at the end of the Council ofAntioch against Paul of Samosata (about 266-268), where that heretic was said to have followed Artemon, and in fact the teaching of Paul is but a more learned and theological development of Theodotianism (see Paul of Samosata). The sect probably died out about the middle of the third century, and can never have been numerous. All our knowledge of it goes back toHippolytus. His "Syntagma" (c.205) is epitomized in Pseudo-Tertullian (Praescript., lii) and Philastrius, and is developed by Epiphanius (Haer., liv. lv); his "Little Labyrinth" (written 139-5, cited by Eusebius, V, 28) and his "Philosophumena" are still extant. See also his "Contra Noetum" 3, and a fragment "On the Melchisedechians and Theodotians and Athingani", published by Caspari (Tidskr. fr der Evangel. Luth. Kirke, Ny Raekke, VIII, 3, p. 307). But the Athingani are a later sect, for which see MEDCHISEDECHIANS. The Monarchianism of Photinus seems to have been akin to that of the Theodotians. All speculations as to the origin of the theories of Theodotus are fanciful. At any rate he is not connected with the Ebionites. The Alogi have sometimes been classed with the Monarchians. Lipsius in his "Quelenkritik des Epiphanius" supposed them to be evenPhilanthropists, on account of their denial of the Logos, and Epiphanius in fact calls Theodotus an apopasma of the Alogi; but this is only a guess, and is not derived by him from Hippolytus. As a fact, Epiphanius assures us (Haer. 51) that the Alogi (that is, Gaius and his party) wereorthodox in their Christology (see MONTANISTS).

The Monarchians properly so-called (Modalists) exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son so as to make them but one Person; thus the distinctions in the Holy Trinity are energies or modes, not Persons: God the Father appears on earth as Son; hence it seemed to their opponents that Monarchians made the Father suffer and die. In the West they were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are usually calledSabellians. The first to visit Rome was probably Praxeas, who went on to Carthage some time before 206-208; but he was apparently not in reality a heresiarch, and the arguments refuted by Tertullian somewhat later in his book "Adversus Praxean" are doubtless those of the RomanMonarchians (see PRAXEAS).

Noetus (from whom the Noetians) was a Smyrnaean (Epiphanius, by a slip, says an Ephesian). He called himself Moses, and his brother Aaron. When accused before the presbyterate of teaching that the Father suffered, he denied it; but after having made a few disciples he was again interrogated, and expelled from the Church. He died soon after, and did not receive Christian burial. Hippolytus mockingly declares him to have been a follower of Heraclitus, on account of the union of the opposites which he taught when he called God both visible and invisible, passible and impassible. His pupil Epigonus came to Rome. As he was not mentioned in the "Syntagma" of Hippolytus, which was written in one of the first five years of the third century, he was not then well known in Rome, or had not yet arrived. According to Hippolytus (Philos., IX, 7), Cleomenes, a follower of Epigonus, was allowed by Pope Zephyrinus to establish a school, which flourished under his approbation and that of Callistus.Hagemann urges that we should conclude that Cleomenes was not a Noetian at all, and that he was an orthodox opponent of the incorrecttheology of Hippolytus. The same writer gives most ingenious and interesting (though hardly convincing) reasons for identifying Praxeas withCallistus; he proves that the Monarchians attacked in Tertullian's "Contra Praxean" and in the "Philosophumena" had identical tenets which were not necessarily heretical; he denies that Tertullian means us to understand that Praxeas came to Carthage, and he explains the nameless refuter of Praxeas to be, not Tertullian himself, but Hippolytus. It is true that it is easy to suppose Tertullian and Hippolytus to have misrepresented the opinions of their opponents, but it cannot be proved that Cleomenes was not a follower of the heretical Noetus, and that Sabellius did not issue from his school; further, it is not obvious that Tertullian would attack Callistus under a nickname.

Sabellius soon became the leader of the Monarchians in Rome, perhaps even before the death of Zephyrinus (c. 218). He is said by Epiphanius to have founded his views on the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and the fragments of that apocryphon support this statement. Hippolytushoped to convert Sabellius to his own views, and attributed his failure in this to the influence of Callistus. That pope, however, excommunicatedSabellius c. 220 ("fearing me", says Hippolytus). Hippolytus accuses Callistus of now inventing a new heresy by combining the views of Theodotusand those of Sabellius, although he excommunicated them both (see POPE CALLISTUS I). Sabellius was apparently still in Rome when Hippolytuswrote the Philosophumena (between 230 and 235). Of his earlier and later history nothing is known. St. Basil and others call him a Libyan fromPentapolis, but this seems to rest on the fact that Pentapolis was found to be full of Sabellianism by Dionysius of Alexandria, c. 260. A number ofMontanists led by Aeschines became Modalists (unless Harnack is right in making Modalism the original belief of the Montanists and in regardingAeschines as a conservative). Sabellius (or at least his followers) may have considerably amplified the original Noetianism. There was stillSabellianism to be found in the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra developed a Monarchianism of his own, which was carried much further by hisdisciple, Photinus. Priscillian was an extreme Monarchian and so was Commodian ("Carmen Apol.", 89, 277, 771). The "Monarchian Prologues" to the Gospels found in most old manuscripts of the Vulgate, were attributed by von Dobschtz and P. Corssen to a Roman author of the time ofCallistus, but they are almost certainly the work of Priscillian. Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra, is vaguely said by Eusebius (Church History VI.33) to have taught that the Saviour had no distinct pre-existence before the Incarnation, and had no Divinity of His own, but that the Divinity of the Father dwelt in Him. Origen disputed with him in a council and convinced him of his error. The minutes of the disputation were known to Eusebius. It is not clear whether Beryllus was a Modalist or a Dynamist.

There was much that was unsatisfactory in the theology of the Trinity and in the Christology of the orthodox writers of the Ante-Nicene period. The simple teaching of tradition was explained by philosophical ideas, which tended to obscure as well as to elucidate it. The distinction of theSon from the Father was so spoken of that the Son appeared to have functions of His own, apart from the Father, with regard to the creationand preservation of the world, and thus to be a derivative and secondary God. The unity of the Divinity was commonly guarded by a reference to a unity of origin. It was said that God from eternity was alone, with His Word, one with Him (as Reason, in vulca cordis, logos endiathetos), before the Word was spoken (ex ore Patris, logos prophorikos), or was

generated and became Son for the purpose of creation. The Alexandriansalone insisted rightly on the generation of the Son from all eternity; but thus the Unity of God was even less manifest. The writers who thus theologize may often expressly teach the traditional Unity in Trinity, but it hardly squares with the Platonism of their philosophy. The theologianswere thus defending the doctrine of the Logos at the expense of the two fundamental doctrines of Christianity, the Unity of God, and the Divinity of Christ. They seemed to make the Unity of the Godhead split into two or even three, and to make Jesus Christ something less than the supreme God the Father. This is eminently true of the chief opponents of the Monarchians, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Novatian. (See Newman, "The Causes of Arianism", in "Tracts theol. and eccles.") Monarchianism was the protest against this learned philosophizing, which to the simplicity of the faithful looked too much like a mythology or a Gnostic emanationism. The Monarchians emphatically declared that God is one, wholly and perfectly one, and that Jesus Christ is God, wholly and perfectly God. This was right, and even most necessary, and whilst it is easy to see why the theologians like Tertullian and Hippolytus opposed them (for their protest was precisely against the Platonism which these theologians had inherited from Justin and the Apologists), it is equally comprehensible that guardians of the Faith should have welcomed at first the return of theMonarchians to the simplicity of the Faith, "ne videantur deos dicere, neque rursum negare salvatoris deitatem" ("Lest they seem to be asserting two Gods or, on the other hand, denying the Saviour's Godhead". - Origen, "On Titus", frag. II). Tertullian in opposing them acknowledges that the uninstructed were against him; they could not understand the magic word oikonomia with which he conceived he had saved the situation; they declared that he taught two or three Gods, and cried "Monarchiam tenemus." So Callistus reproached Hippolytus, and not without reason, with teaching two Gods. Already St. Justin knew of Christians who taught the identity of the Father and the Son ("Apol.", I, 63; Dialogue with Trypho 128). In Hermas, as in Theodotus, the Son and the Holy Ghost are confused. But it was reserved for Noetus and his school to deny categorically that the unity of theGodhead is compatible with a distinction of Persons. They seem to have regarded the Logos as a mere name, or faculty, or attribute, and to have made the Son and the Holy Ghost merely aspects of modes of existence of the Father, thus emphatically identifying Christ with the one God. "What harm am I doing", was the reply made by Noetus to the presbyters who interrogated him, "in glorifying Christ?" They replied: "We too knowin truth one God; we know Christ; we know that the Son suffered even as He suffered, and died even as He died, and rose again on the third day, and is at the right hand of the Father, and cometh

to judge the living and the dead; and what we have learned we declare" (Hippol.; "Contra Noetum", 1). Thus they refuted Noetus with tradition the Apostles' Creed is enough; for the Creed and the New Testament indeed make the distinction of Persons clear, and the traditional formulas and prayers were equally unmistakable. Once the Monarchian system was put intophilosophical language, it was seen to be no longer the old Christianity. Ridicule was used; the heretics were told that if the Father and the Sonwere really identified, then no denial on their part could prevent the conclusion that the Father suffered and died, and sat at His own right hand.Hippolytus tells us that Pope Zephyrinus, whom he represents as a stupid old man, declared at the instance of Callistus: "I know one God Christ Jesus, and besides Him no other Who was born and Who suffered"; but he added: "Not the Father died, but the Son". The reporter is an unsympathetic adversary; but we can see why the aged pope was viewing the simple assertions of Sabellius in a favorable light. Hippolytusdeclares that Callistus said that the Father suffered with the Son, and Tertullian says the same of the Monarchians whom he attacks. Hagemannthinks Callistus-Praxeas especially attacked the doctrine of the Apologists and of Hippolytus and Tertullian, which assigned all such attributes as impassibility and invisibility to the Father and made the Son alone capable of becoming passible and visible, ascribing to Him the work of creation, and all operations ad extra. It is true that the Monarchians opposed this Platonizing in general, but it is not evident that they had grasped the principle that all the works of God ad extra are common to the Three Persons as proceeding form the Divine Nature; and they seem to have said simply that God as Father is invisible and impassible, but becomes visible and passible as Son. This explanation brings them curiously into line with their adversaries. Both parties represented God as one and alone in His eternity. Both made the generation of the Son a subsequent development; only Tertullian and Hippolytus date it before the creation, and the Monarchians perhaps not until the Incarnation. Further, their identification of the Father and the Son was not favourable to a true view of the Incarnation. The very insistence on the unity of Godemphasized also the distance of God from man, and was likely to end in making the union of God with man a mere indwelling or external union, after the fashion of that which was attributed to Nestorius. They spoke of the Father as "Spirit" and the Son as "flesh", and it is scarcely surprising that the similar Monarchianism of Marcellus should have issued in the Theodotianism of Photinus. It is impossible to arrive at the philosophical views of Sabellius. Hagemann thought that he started from the Stoic system as surely as his adversaries did from the Platonic. Dorner has drawn too much upon his imagination for the doctrine of Sabellius; Harnack is too fanciful with regard to its origin. In fact we know little of him but that he said the Son was the Father (so Novatian, "De. Trin." 12, and Pope

Dionysius relate).St. Athanasius tells us that he said the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, one is hypostasis, but two in name (so Epiphanius): "As there are divisions of gifts, but the same Spirit, so the Father is the same, but is developed [platynetai] into Son and Spirit" (Orat., IV, c. Ar., xxv). Theodoret says he spoke of one hypostasis and a threefold prosopa, whereas St. Basil says he willingly admitted three prosopa in one hypostasis. This is, so far as words go, exactly the famous formulation of Tertullian, "tres personae, una substantia" (three persons, onesubstance), but Sabellius seems to have meant "three modes or characters of one person". The Father is the Monad of whom the Son is a kind of manifestation: for the Father is in Himself silent, inactive (siopon, hanenerletos), and speaks, creates, works, as Son (Athan., 1. c., 11). Here again we have a parallel to the teaching of the Apologists about the Word as Reason and the Word spoken, the latter alone being called Son. It would seem that the difference between Sabellius and his opponents lay mainly in his insisting on the unity of hypostasis after the emission of theWord as Son. It does not seem clear that he regarded the Son as beginning at the Incarnation; according to the passage of St. Athanasius just referred to, he may have agreed with the Apologists to date Sonship from the creative action of God. But we have few texts to go upon, and it is quite uncertain whether Sabellius left any writings. Monarchianism is frequently combated by Origen. Dionysius of Alexandria fought Sabellianism with some imprudence. In the fourth century the Arians and SemiArians professed to be much afraid of it, and indeed the alliance of Pope Juliusand Arhanasius with Marcellus gave some colour to accusations against the Nicene formulas as opening the way to Sabellianism. The Fathers of the fourth century (as, for instance, St. Gregory of Nyssa, "Contra Sabellium", ed. Mai) seem to contemplate a more developed form than that known to Hippolytus ("Contra Noetum" and "Philosophumena") and through him, to Epiphanius: the consummation of creation is to consist in the return of the Logos from the humanity of Christ to the Father, so that the original unity of the Divine Nature is after all held to have been temporally compromised, and only in the end will it be restored, that God may be all in all. Our chief original authorities for early Monarchianism of the Modalist type are Tertullian, "Adversus Praxean", and Hippolytus, "Contra Noetum" (fragment) and "Philosophumena". The "Contra Noetum" and the lost "Syntagma" were used by Epiphanius, Haer. 57 (Noetians), but the sources of Epiphanius's Haer. 62 (Sabellians) are less certain. The references by Origen, Novatian, and later Fathers are somewhat indefinite.