VIII. Heresies. — The false theories that have gathered around the doctrine of the incarnation are manifold, and deny (1) that Christ was truly God, (2) that he was truly man, or (3) that he is God-man in one undiAided and indivisible person. (See A\'angemann, Christ liche Glauhenslehre, p. 203 ; Ffoulkes, Christendom's Divisions, 2 vols. 8vo.) Compare Christology, III.
1. Ebiotiism. — This, the first heresy of importance, took its rise during the lifetime of the apostles, and re- 1 ceived its designation, a(H:ordiug to Origen, from 'p'^^X,
INCARNATION
535
INCARNATION
poor, thus sigiiifying, perhaps, the meagrencss of their religious system, or, more properly, the jwverty of its followers. They denied the divinity of Christ, but as- cribed to him a superior legal piety and the elevated wisdom of a prophet. Eusebius says {Hist. Ecclcs. iii, 7), "The common Ebionites themselves suppose that a higher power had united itself with the man Jesus at his baptism." The Ebionites, whose views are repre- sented by the Clementine Ifomilies, differed from the for- mer by asserting that Jesus had from the beginning been pervaded with the same power; in their opinion he ranks with Adam, Enoch, and Moses (Hagenbach, Hist, of Doctrines, i, 180). This error, which has been called, not improperly, the Socinianism of the age, re- vived and embodied the sentiments concerning the Messiah current among the Jews during his life. The views of the Xazarenes, who are generally regarded as a species of Eliionites, while they more nearly ap- proached the orthodox faith, agreed with them in re- garding Christ as only a superior man.
2. Gnosticism. — The Ebionitish heresy that rose with- in the infant Church, from its necessary association with Judaism, was paralleled by another (Gnosticism), which sprang from a similar contact with the pagan philoso- phy of the age. The assumption of a superior capacity for knowledge implied in the name the Gnostics bore (yvijJcnQ, 1 Cor. viii, 1 ; 1 Tim. vi, 20 ; Col. ii, 8), proba- bly self-assumed, indicated the transcendental specula- tions which they ingrafted on the tender plant of Chris- tianity. With respect to the nature of Christ, they held that the Deity had existed from all eternity in a state of absolute quiescence, but finally he begat certain beings or mon^ after his own likeness, of whom Christ was one ; and that he was allied to the lower angels and the AijuiovpyoQ, Demiurge, to whom this lower world was subject. Moreover, he had never in reality assumed a material body, but became united with the man Jesus at his baptism, and abode with him until the time of his death. (See Mosheim, Commentaries on the first three Centuries, sec. G2.) The tenets of Gnosticism can be traced even to the apostolical age. Simon Magus appears to have represented himself as an incarnation of the demiurgic power (Acts viii, 10). The ancient fathers regarded him as the father of the Gnostics (Ire- nasiis, adv. Hmr. i, 23). On the other hand, Tittmann (Z>e vestif/iis Gnosticoru/n, etc.) holds that nothing was known of the Gnostics until the 2d century. However, the opening chapter of St. John's Gospel seems to be di- rected against Gnostical perversions of the doctrine of the incarnation, which is not impossible if we admit the well-known tradition that Cermthus disputed with that evangelist. (See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, iii, ch. xxviii.)
3. Diicitism. — This was one of the forms of Gnosticism denying the reaUty of Christ's human nature, and repre- senting whatever appertained to his Iniman appearance to be a mere phantasm — duKi^mq. Jerome tells us that while the apostles were still living there were those who taught that his body was no more than a phantom. This particular form of Gnostical error was censured by Ignatius in his Epistles, and therefore unquestionably arose early in the Church. (See Lardner, iii, 441.) " If the Son of God (said the Docetist) has been crucified for me merely in appearance, then am I bound down by the chains of sin in appearance ; but those who speak are thLinsolves a mere show." For modern Docetism, as illustrated in the mythical treatment of the doctrines of saerc'd history by Schelling, and the RationaUsts gen- erall}-, see ^Martensen, Dogmatics, p. 244.
4. Monarchianisni (about A.D. 170), /novapxtc, so called either from its regard to the doctrine of the di- vine unity, or from a regard to Christ's dignity. (See Hase, sec. 90.) According to its teachings, Christ was a mere man, but born of the Virgin liy the power of the Holy Spirit, and exalted to be "the Lord of the whole Chiurch. A certain etHux from the divine essence dwelt in Christ, and this constituted his personaUty, while this
personality originated in the hypothesis oi a divine power. (See Neander, ii, 349, Clark's ed.)
5. Suhellianism (about 258) taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were one and the same — so many different manifestations of the same bemg— three de- nominations in one substance. (See Hagenbach, i, 263.) Thus the personaUty of the Son was denied. His per- sonality in the flesh did not exist prior to the incarna- tion, nor does it exist now, as the divine ray which had been incorporated in Christ has returned to its source. In the words of Bin-ton, " If we seek for a difference be- tween the theory of Sabellius and those of his predeces- sors, we are perhaps to say that Noetus supposed the whole divinity of the Father to be inherent m Jesus Christ, whereas Sabellius supposed it to be only a part, which was put forth like an emanation, and was again absorbed in the Deity. Noetus acknowledged only one divine Person ; Sabellius divided this one dignity into three ; but he supposed the Son and the Holy (ihost to have no distinct personal existence, except when they were put forth for a time by the Father." The views of Sabellius reappear in the dogmas of Schleiermacher (who regarded the eternal and absolute IMonas as unre- vealed; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God reveal- ed}, and ill a iiiodiiit il form in the Discourses on the In- carnatidii (lud MmiDnrnt by Dr. Bushnell.