The capital doctrine of Christianity is the belief in One God in Three Persons, A Triune God: Father, Son (Logos), and Holy Spirit.
The oldest patristic writings do not speak clearly of the relation of the three persons, especially of the Son to the Father. It was believed that the Redeemer is God and Son of God, but they had never studied His nature and the essence of His relationship with God the Father. Theological reflection started only when in the second century the heresies of the Judaizers and Gnostics put in danger the Christian doctrine.
How can the divinity of the Son be reconciled with the Unity of God? From its origin, this double point of the Trinitarian dogma was accepted as general doctrine and belief of the Church, that is:
a) That there is only one God – as the Jews professed too;
b) That the Father, the Creator – the Son, Redeemer – and the Holy Spirit, Sanctifier – must be loved and adored as three divine individualities; that distinguishes the Christian faith from the Jewish religion.
The problem then was to solve this which seemed to be contradictory. The heretics of the first three centuries in their attempt to defend the monotheistic idea exaggerated the divine unity to the point of suppressing the Trinity of persons. So some of them defended that the Redeemer, although born supernaturally from the Virgin Mary by the work of the Holy Spirit, was a simple man, whom the power of God (dynamis) had invested with an exceptional intensity. Others saw in Him the Father, attributing to the same and only person different ways of revealing Himself. Naturally, either the divinity of the Son or the personal distinction between the Father and the Son was sacrificed. This, again, is the Judeo-Christian line of thought.
The followers of this heresy took the name of Monarchians, from their characteristic formula “Monarchiam tenemus”.[1] And they are divided into two groups: Dynamic or Ebionites and Modalists or Patripassians, according to the way of solving the problem. The fight against them was mainly carried out by Rome.
Dynamic Monarchianism or Adoptionism
According to all probability, the founder of Dynamic Monarchianism was Theodotus or Theodorus, a tanner from Byzantium, a man of more than ordinary knowledge. He spread his doctrine in Rome, where he was excluded from the community by Pope Victor (189-198), about 198; his disciples continued their propaganda in Rome. This school of thought held that Christ was a pure man, especially chosen by God, who filled Him with His spirit in Baptism. Christ was adopted as Son at his baptism, hence Adoptionism.
But after the middle of the third century, the most conspicuous follower was the illustrious Paul of Samosata. In the synodal decision which condemned him,[2] he is described as an avaricious and worldly man, who cared more for his high position as viceroy of Queen Zenobia of Palmyra than for his bishopric.
He defended a rigid unity of the nature and person of God and saw in Christ Jesus only a pure man, born of the Virgin Mary, in whom had lived, “as in a temple”, the impersonal logos, that is, the wisdom of God, which in a more reduced measure, had operated in Moses and the other prophets. For Paul of Samosata, the union of the Redeemer with God is not a union of nature, but a union of will. He was twice condemned by the bishops, 264 and 268, convicted of heresy and excommunicated, and finally expelled from his see. But this happened only in 272, when Aurelian defeated Queen Zenobia and conquered Antioch. Domnus was chosen to succeed Paul as bishop of Antioch.
Probably one of his disciples was the famous Lucian of Antioch, founder of the Biblical School of Antioch. He spoke of the Logos in a Subordinationistic sense, based on scriptural texts, and as a follower of Paul of Samosata, he was, for some time, excluded from the orthodox community of Antioch.[3] It seems that during the persecution of Diocletian he was again reconciled. He died a martyr in 312. We must note, however, that we do not have clear information about him. There are some scholars (Loofs, Bardy, and others) who see in the excommunicated Lucian, follower and successor of Paul of Samosata, a different person from the exegete and martyr Lucian. From this school, there came out many bishops and the heretic Arius.
Modal Monarchianism or Sabellianism
The first exponent of Modalist Monarchianism was Noetus of Smyrna, very likely the bishop from a provincial city of Asia Minor. In 190 he was condemned in a synod of Smyrna.
After his excommunication, Noetus came to Rome with one of his disciples Epigonus, somewhere between 198 and 210. If we are to believe Hippolytus (170-235), he was received sympathetically by the Bishop of Rome, Victor I (189-198), and especially by Zephyrinus (199-217). A party was formed in Rome under Cleomenes and Sabellius and great discussion beset the Roman Church.
Tertullian attributes this doctrine to Praxeas, who was the first to bring this theory to Rome and then passed to Carthage where, if we are to follow Tertullian (Adversus Praxeam) he routed Praxeas, and better still, converted him. But this seems to be a mistake because Praxeas had suffered for the faith and seems to belong to a group violently opposed to Montanism; hence, the enmity of the Montanist Tertullian.
The principal adversary of the Modalists or Sabellians was the learned and pugnacious Roman presbyter Hippolytus [4] who sometimes spoke in a subordinationistic way of the Logos.[5] He now attacked Sabellius as he had attacked Theodotus and when Pope Zephyrinus refused to endorse the letter of his attacks and to make his own the learned theories of Hippolytus, he turned to attack the Pope. Zephyrinus however, contented himself with a steady re-affirmation of what had always been believed:
I only know one God who suffered and died, Jesus Christ, and beyond Him no other. It is not the Father who died but the Son.[6]
The fight still continued when the “power behind the throne”, the deacon Callistus, became Pope (217-222). Because of the election of his opponent, Hippolytus seceded and set up his sect as the true Church in opposition to the “Monarchist” Callistus. Meanwhile, Callistus had acted. He condemned Sabellius and excommunicated him as an innovator in the traditional belief, but he did not, in so doing, make his own subtle reasoning, by which Hippolytus exposed the heresy.
The schism, however, still continued after the death of Callistus (222) and of his successor Urban I (222-230) although Hippolytus was never thrown out of the Church, but left it himself. During the persecution of Maximinus Thrax (235-238), directed against the heads of the Church, Pope Pontianus (230-235) and his adversary Hippolytus, reconciled. Hippolytus died a martyr. He is honored as a saint and martyr by the Church.
The Modalists or Patripassians, so-called because they believed the Son was a manifestation, a modus of the Father and it was really the Father who was crucified in Calvary – still continued to exist, especially in Asia Minor and Egypt.
The above-mentioned Sabellius, the head of the sect, who came from Libya, admitted three relations of God as Father in creation and legislation, as Son in Redemption, and as Holy Spirit in the work of sanctification. He deceived many people because he used the word “prosopon” (prosopon – theatrical masks, in Latin – persona) to show those different modes of God’s manifestation.
The heresy was named after him and its effects were felt for a long time. From the end of the third century, Sabellianism is the name to designate, in the East, Modalist Monarchianism.
Excursus: Rome’s Position in these Disputes
A remarkable fact is apparent at the end of our consideration of these various groups: the presence at Rome of the representatives of all the different opinions. Marcion came to Rome; Valentine was there at the same period; Marcelianus spread the doctrine of Carpocrates (a Gnostic of Alexandria, whose son Epiphanes taught the common property of goods and women) under Pope Anicetus (c. 154-166) Justin, the martyr-philosopher founded his school at Rome, having the Assyrian Tatian as his disciple. Hegesippus the historian came to Rome about 160. Praxeas, Epigonus, and Theodotus went there. At the end of the second century, we have a swarm of schools at Rome: Justin’s disciples, Marcionites, Valentinians, Montanists, Adoptionists, Monarchianists, etc. The majority of these teachers came from Asia, but their battlefield was Rome.
We may note that nearly all these men were foreigners. They came from Asia, Syria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. That was the reflection, at the ecclesiastical level, of Rome’s extraordinary influence under the Antonines. The city had changed since Augustus (31 BC – 14 AD) and Nero (54-68): it was now a great cosmopolitan center where all races and religions met. Greek was spoken there as much as Latin. True, they already had close links with leading Roman families. They buried their dead in estates belonging to the Caecilii and Aurelii, but most of them were Easterners. Rome was the center where Asiatics and Syrians of all opinions spoke openly. This important role which Rome played in the life of the Church marks the end of the second century. It was linked to the city’s influence as a civilizing force, but it also bears witness to the eminent position of the see of Rome in the whole body of Christianity.[7]
[1] Tertullian, Adv. Praxeam, 3.
[2] Eusebius, H.E., VII, 30
[3] Theodoret, H.E., I,3
[4] Contra haeresim Noeti; Philosophoumena IX, 7-10; X,27
[5] Phil, IX, 12; X,33
[6] cf. Philip Hughes, A History of the Church, I, 102
[7] cf. Danielou-Marrou, The Christian Centuries, A New History of
the Church, vol I: The First Six Hudnred Years, p. 107-108
