many of the doctrines of the Montanists, directed their principal efforts against the divinity of the Word.

§ 75. Rationalistic Forms of Heresy-The Monarchians or Antitrinitarians.

Tillemont, T. II. and III. †Moehler, Athanasius the Great, 1st ed., Pt. I., p. 69 sq.; 2d ed., p. 62 sq. †Staudenmaier, Philosophy of Christianity, Pt. I., p. 469 sq. Döllinger, Hippolytus and Callistus, Ratisbon, 1843. Kuhn, Cath. Dogmatics. Vol. II., Tübg. 1857, p. 303 sq. Schwane, History of Dogmas in Ante-Nicene times, Münster, 1862, p. 142-156. Dorner, History of the Development of Christology, 2d ed., Pt. I., p. 497 sq.

Since, in the different systems of Gnosticism, and to a certain extent in Montanism also, a luxuriant imagination had usurped the place of sound reason, and, in many instances, denied the unity of God, it is not surprising that, when these theories ceased to excite interest, and their fantastic doctrines began to meet with opposition, reason should have asserted her legitimate rights with an energy and determination corresponding to the opposition with which she had met, and that the doctrine of the unity of God should have been set forth with special prominence and emphasis.

The first impulse was given to this movement by persons who, rejecting the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, aimed at putting a rationalistic interpretation upon those passages of Scripture which the Church regards as sanctioning and proving the mystery, and in which Christ is spoken of as the Son of God and the Logos, and the distinction of the three Persons of the Trinity-the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost-is mentioned; while others, adopting the Jewish doctrine, professed a belief in the abstract unity, or more properly oneness, of God (povaoxia), whom they regarded a single person, and, like Philo, called the Godhead, Monas.

The former of these two classes rejected the divinity of Christ, and declared that to believe in it would be equivalent to a relapse into Polytheism. Their boast was "Monarchiam tenemus." The fundamental doctrine of the Personality of Christ was threatened both by this school of thought and by

1 We hold Monotheism or the oneness of the Deity. Adv. Prax., c. 3.

those who, in turn, attempted to strike out new paths for themselves.

The most prominent of those who endeavored to reconcile the apparently contradictory doctrines of the divinity of Christ and the unity of God, may be grouped under three classes.

A.-EBIONITES OR DYNAMIC ANTI-TRINITARIANS.

These, like the earlier Ebionites, altogether rejected the divinity of Christ, and asserted that He was but a simple man. Notwithstanding this straightforward assertion, they made an attempt to construct a theory which would reconcile the divinity with the manhood of Christ, and this they did by assuming that the man Jesus was temporarily indued with divine powers (dúvajus), or energies working in Him; and cited, as examples of similar phenomena, the prophets of the Old Testament and the Pagan mantics. Desirous of appearing to support their assertions by Biblical proof, they appealed to the following passages: Luke ii. 52; Matt. xxvii. 46; John xiv. 28, and of the Old Testament, the passage from Isaias xlv. 5, "I am the Lord, and there is none besides Me."

The following persons may be numbered among those who held this doctrine:

1. The Alogi, mentioned above, denied the doctrine of St. John with regard to the Logos, as well as the active coöperation of the Holy Ghost in all gratuitous gifts, but particularly in that of prophecy. Not satisfied with unwarranted denials like these, they also changed the Biblical canon to suit their own purposes.

2. Theodotus of Byzantium (about A. D. 192), though a tanner by trade, was a man of some ability and learning. Having denied Christ to escape the consequences of a persecution, he defended his course, and answered his accusers, by asserting that the person whom he had denied was no better than any ordinary man. And having been asked who the person was, he replied, "Christ." Still he acknowledged that Christ was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, that through the power of the Holy Ghost He was miraculously born of a virgin, and that He received a divine power at His baptism. He was excommunicated by Pope Victor about A. D. 200, and

became the founder of an heretical sect, whose members confined their studies principally to mathematics and the dialectics of Aristotle, and dealt with the Scriptures as they would with any other book, even falsifying them in several places.1 3. Natalis, who had been a confessor of the faith, but by specious representations was led into error, became the leader of a considerable party, and, being a bishop, brought to it the dignity of his episcopal office. The sectaries paid him a salary of 150 denarii per month; but the poor deluded man, never at ease in his new position, and terrified by a vision, threw himself at the feet of Pope Zephyrinus (201-219), begging to be readmitted into the bosom of the Church. His prayer was finally heard, and he again enjoyed the blessings of which he had been deprived, by the false representations of others.

4. The leaders of this sect at Rome were Asclepiades and Theodotus the Younger, surnamed the Money-changer, who somewhat modified the errors of the Elder Theodotus. He asserted that a divine power, indeed, descended upon the man Jesus at His baptism in the Jordan; but that the supreme divine power (lóros, viós) had appeared in Melchisedech, who had been the mediator and intercessor for angels in the same sense in which Christ was the mediator for man. His followers were called Melchisedechites. Artemon, or Artemas, was also regarded as the chief of this heretical sect.

2

5. The most influential representative of these opinions was Paul, a native of Samosata, who became bishop of Antioch A. D. 260. He was a man of great talents and grasping ambition, of pompous manners and suspected morality, and preferred to go under the title derived from his secular office, namely, Ducenarius, the chief of the collectors of taxes in the service of Queen Zenobia, with a salary of 200 sesterces, rather than that of bishop. He taught that Christ, though super

3

1Euseb. V. 28; Tertull. de praescr., c. 53; Philosophum. X. 22; Epiphan, haer. 54 and 55; Theodoret. haeret. fabb. II. 5.

2 For sources, see the foregoing note and Philosophum. X. 24.

3 Euseb. VII. 27-30. Epiphan. haer. 65. Theodoret. haeret. fabb. II. 8. August. de haeresib., c. 44. Philastrius de haer., c. 50. Fragments in Leontius Byzant. in A. Maji vett. scriptor. nova collectio, T. VII. 1, and Routh, reliq. sacr. T. III. Ehrlich, de errorib. Pauli Samosat., Lps. 1745. Feuerlin,

naturally begotten (γεννηθεὶς ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου) and born of a virgin (ἐκ παρθένου), was nevertheless a mere man (ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος), and that the divine Logos was indeed united to Him, not however as a person, but simply as a quality or power (o'z ovσzwdwg ἀλλὰ κατὰ ποιότητα); whence he inferred that the deification of Christ was something foreordained. Paul expressed the qualified sense in which he believed in Christ, by calling Him dɛò̟5 ἐκ παρθένου, and more equivocally ὁμοούσιος τῷ θεῷ, or a Logos whose personality was in God, or who constituted but one person with the Father, and being, according to the language then in use, an attribute of the Godhead (2óros évdiádetos).1

2

The scope of Paul's teachings soon became evident, and three Synods, held at Antioch between A. D. 264 and 269, condemned his errors, which were said to be those of the "devourer of the flock of Christ." At the last of these synods, Malchion, a learned priest of Antioch, clearly exposed the animus and drift of these errors, after which Paul was deposed from his see and excommunicated. These proceedings were made known to the whole Church by a Synodal letter." Paul maintained himself for some time against the authority of the bishops by the power of Queen Zenobia, of Palmyra, into whose favor he had insinuated himself; but when an end was put to her rule by the emperor Aurelian (A. D. 272), he was obliged to resign his position, and vacate the episcopal palace. His followers, who went under the names of Paulianists and Samosatists, continued a distinct sect down to the fourth century.

B.-PATRIPASSIONISTS OR MODALISTS.

These, while acknowledging the Divinity of Christ, denied that the Father and Son are two distinct persons, which led

de haeresi Pauli Samosat., Goetting. 1741, 4to. †Schwab, de Pauli Samosat. vita atque doctrina, Herbipoli, 1839.

1The double meaning of ovcía substance and person favored this equivocation; Paul took óμoovσts applied to the Logos as one and the same person with the Father. This is also attested by Epiphanius, haer. 65, 3: πроσшπоν ἓν τὸν θεὸν ἅμα τῷ λόγῳ, ὡς ἄνθρωπον ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτοῦ λόγον.—That God, together with the Logos, were but one person, just as man and his reason are one.

Hefele, Hist. of Councils, Vol. I., p. 109–117; Engl. transl., Vol. I., p. 118126. Hagemann, The Church of Rome in the Three First Centuries, Freibg.

them to say that the One True God assumed in the womb of Mary a human body, though not possessing a human soul, and suffered in it, whence they were called Patripassionists. They referred, in proof of this, to St. John x. 30, "I and the Father are One," which they strengthened by parallel passages from the same Evangelist, xiv. 4-10.

Praxeas and Epigonus, a pupil of Noëtus, the first leaders of the Anti-Trinitarian heresy, came from Asia Minor to Rome, where the latter founded his own school of Patripassionists. This was continued by Cleomenes and by the famous Sabellius. Hippolytus at Rome, and Tertullian and Denys of Alexandria, vigorously opposed their tenets.

1. The earliest of these Monarchists who held the Patripassionist heresy, seems to have been Praxeas of Asia Minor. He enjoyed the distinction of having been a confessor during the persecution under Marcus Aurelius, and came to Rome in the pontificate of Pope Victor (192-202), with the purpose of exposing the dangerous errors of the Montanists. But having here broached and disseminated doctrines of his own. equally obnoxious, he was, it is supposed, requested to leave the city, whence he withdrew to Carthage, where he continued to preach his heresy. He held that there is in the Divine Substance but one Hypostasis; that the names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are used only to designate different manifestations of this Substance, or modes by which God acts externally; that God the Father having gone out from Himself, and on this account called the Son, descended into the Virgin Mary, in whom He assumed a human body, in which He suffered.1

Having met with a most determined opposition both at Rome and in Africa, he retracted his errors, and, according to Tertullian, gave a guaranty for his future orthodoxy. His

1 Tertull. adv. Prax., c. 1: Iste (Prax.) primus ex Asia hoc genus perversitatis intulit Romae et Patrem crucifixit. Ipsum dicit patrem descendisse in virginem, ipsum ex ea natum, ipsum passum. Denique ipsum esse Jesum Christum. Ipse se sibi filium fecit; Pater compassus est Filio, c. 29. Reiser, Praxeas and Callistus (Tübg. Quart. 1866, p. 349–404), against Hagemann's (Roman Church, etc., p. 206-252) very bold assumption of the identity of both persons, viz., Praxeas and Callistus.