Monarchians
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 as Dynamistic, or Adoptionist,
Monarchians from the Modalist Monarchians, or
Patripassians.
I. 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 Him God; but some of them said He was
God after His resurrection. It was reported that
Theodotus had been seized, with others, at Byzantium as
a Christian, 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 a sect 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 the Prophets", 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). (See MELCHISEDECHIANS). 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 the visions, 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 of Antioch 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 to Hippolytus. 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. f�r 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 (q. v.) 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
even Philanthropists, 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) were orthodox in their
Christology (see MONTANISTS).
II. MODALISTS
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
called Sabellians. 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 Roman Monarchians (see PRAXEAS).
A. History
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 incorrect theology of Hippolytus. The same writer
gives most ingenious and interesting (though hardly
convincing) reasons for identifying Praxeas with
Callistus; 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.
Hippolytus hoped to convert Sabellius to his own views,
and attributed his failure in this to the influence of
Callistus. That pope, however, excommunicated Sabellius
c. 220 ("fearing me", says Hippolytus). Hippolytus
accuses Callistus of now inventing a new heresy by
combing the views of Theodotus and those of Sabellius,
although he excommunicated them both (see CALLISTUS I,
POPE). Sabellius was apparently still in Rome when
Hippolytus wrote the Philosophumena (between 230 and
235). Of his earlier and later history nothing is
known. St. Basil and others call him a Libyan from
Pentapolis, 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 of Montanists
led by Aeschines became Modalists (unless Harnack is
right in making Modalism the original belief of the
Montanists and in regarding Aeschines as a
conservative). Sabellius (or at least his followers)
may have considerably amplified the original
Noetianism. There was still Sabellianism to be found in
the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra developed a
Monarchianism of his own, which was carried much
further by his disciple, 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 Dobsch�tz and P.
Corssen to a Roman author of the time of Callistus, but
they are almost certainly the work of Priscillian.
Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra, is vaguely said by Eusebius
(H. E., 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.
B. Theology
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 the Son 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 creation and
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 Alexandrians alone
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 theologians were 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 the
Monarchians 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;
"Dial.", cxxviii). 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 the Godhead 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 know in 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 into philosophical
language, it was seen to be no longer the old
Christianity. Ridicule was used; the heretics were told
that if the Father and the Son were 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.
Hippolytus declares that Callistus said that the Father
suffered with the Son, and Tertullian says the same of
the Monarchians whom he attacks. Hagemann thinks
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 God emphasized 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, one
substance), 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 the Word 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 Semi-
Arians professed to be much afraid of it, and indeed
the alliance of Pope Julius and 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.
JOHN CHAPMAN
Transcribed by Anthony A. Killeen Aeterna, non caduca
[New Advent Catholic Website]
http://www.knight.org/advent
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright � 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright �
1996 by New Advent, Inc., P.O. Box 281096, Denver,
Colorado, USA, 80228. (
[email protected])
If you would like to contribute to this worthwhile
project, please contact Kevin Knight by e-mail at
(knight.org/advent). For more information please
download the file cathen.txt/.zip.
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
FTP: ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
Email address: sysop@ ewtn.com
EWTN provides a Catholic online
information and service system.
-------------------------------------------------------
