distinction of Persons in the Godhead ; but they used it ill the sense of simple oneness, from which oneness they argued that the Godhead is so simple a being as to be Hot'OTTpuawTToc — a solitary, single Hypostasis. That this was the meaning in which they used the term jxo- vnpxid is apparent on the very face of the controversy. Thus Tertullian goes on to assert that monarchia means nothing else than '• singulare et unicum imperium."
The Monarchians are generally credited as the ad- herents of Praxeas, a writer of the Grecian school. They were sometimes called rat)ip<us{cms,hecause theirviews led to the conclusion that, if the union between God the Father and his Son Jesus were so intimate as they af- firmed, then the former must be supposed to have suf- fered with the latter all the aflliciions of his life and death. Praxeas held that the Word of God (Jesus Christ) meant nothing more than the word of his mouth — the emissions of his voice, to which distinct agency had been metaphorically ascribed. These heretics con- sidered that the doctrine of the Church with respect to the ])ers(inalily of the Son was a disparaging represen- tation of Christ, whom they held to be the supreme God himself, and who, in a way he had never done besides, had revealed himself in human nature, and had appear- ed in a human body. They taught that God was to be considered in two different relations : 1, the hidden Being, as he was before the Creation — ike Father; and, 2, in so far as he revealed himself, the Son of the Logos ; and it was only in virtue of these considerations that Christ, as the most perfect revelation of God the Father, was called the Son of (Jod. They maintained that this doctrine was most eminently calculated to dignify Christ. (See, however, below.) The Monarchians re- ceived both the Old and New Testaments, and held doctrines somewhat resembling modern Unitarianism. This general class, however, comprehended many who differed more from each other than they did even from those reputed orthodox, and who, indeed, had nothing in common but a great zeal for ilonotheism. and a fear lest the unity of God should be endangered by the hy- postases of the Alexandrian fathers. Thus Theodotus, Arteraon, and I'aul of Samosata were placed by the side of Praxeas, Noetus, Beryllus of Bostra, and Sabcllius, between whom and themselves, on every essential point of Christian doctrine, there was an unmistakable oppo- sition.
Monarchianism is generally su[)posed to have origi- nated about the end of the 2d century. It seems to us, however, that this heresy may be traced to the very earliest times of Christianity. Justin Martyr expressly denounces it, and his notice guides us to its source, for he finds the heresy to exist both among Jews and Chris- tians. He condemns the Jews for thinking that, when God was said to have appeared to the patriarchs, it was (iod the Father who appeared. Such, he says, are just- ly convicted of knowing neither the Father nor the Son ; for the\- who say that the Son is the Father are con- victed of neither understanding the Father nor of know- ing that the Father of the universe has a Son, who, be- ing the first-born Logos of God, is likewise (iod (First Apol. eh. Ixiii). In the Dialogue with Trjplio he han- dles the same topic, and extends the charge to Chris- tians. " I am aware that there are some who wish to meet this by saying that the power which aiipeared from the Father of the universe to Jloses, or Aliraham, or Jacob, is called an Angel in his coming among men, since by this the will of the Father is made known to men ; he is also called (ilory, since he is sometimes seen in an unsubstantial appearance ; sometimes he is called a Man, since he ajipears under such forms as the Father pleases; and they call him the Word, since he is also the bearer of messages from the Father to men. But they say that this power is unseparatetl and luidivided from the Father, in the same manner that the light of tlie sun when on earth is unseparated aiul uiulividcd from the sim in heaven, and when the sun sets the light is removed with it , so the Father, thev sav, when he
MONARCHIANS
449
MONARCHIANS
wishes, makes his power go forth, and when he wishes he brings it back again to himself" (Dial. c. Tryph. cc. 127, 128). It appears, then, there were persons in Jus- tin's time who called themselves Christians, but who believed that the Son was merely an unsubstantial en- ergy or operation of the Father (see Bull, Lef. Fid. Nic. can. ii, qu. iv, 4 ; Burton, Bampt. Led. note 103). Now in this the Jews had deserted the better teachings of their earlier rabbins ; for these ascribed a divine per- sonalitv to the angel of the Presence, and the doctrine of the "holy and undivided Trinity subsisted, though in a less developed form, in the synagogue of old (see Mill, Panth. Prin. pt. ii, p. 92 sq.). The cause of this declen- sion in doctrine was, that opposition to the Incarnate Word, when he really appeared, seemed to have predis- posed them to accept a heathen philosophy, and to rep- resent the Logos as Philo did— as the manifest God not personally distinct from the concealed Deity. This er- ror found its way into Christianity through the Gnos- tics, who were largely indebted to the Platonic school of Alexandria. It appears as the foundation of the sys- tem of Simon Magus, who taught that the originating principle of all (which he assorted to be Fire, for "God is a consuming fire") is of a twofold nature, having a secret part and a manifest part, corresponding, as Hip- poly tus remarks, to the potentiality and energy of Aris- totle. If this be nothing else than Philo's representa- tion of the Logos, there is some sure ground for the no- tion that Simon held the heresy afterwards called Sa- bellian. Burton rejects the notion, inasmuch as the doctrine of emanations is not to be confounded with the theory of Sabellius ; but Hippolytus (whom Burton did not possess) shows that the Logos, in Simon's theory, employed certain portions of the divine fulness, which portions he called ^ons ; and that the Logos, although Simon uses the word Begotten, is really the manifest God not personally distinct from the concealed Deity (see Burton, Hampton Lect. note 46). Although, there- fore, the doctrine of emanations is not to be confounded with the doctrine of Sabellius, it had in its original form, as constructed by Simon, a foundation of Sabellianism. Traces of Sabellianism are found even in the later schools of Gnostics, and the later Sabellianism approach- ed to an emanation theory. A resemblance has been noticed between the tenets of Valentinus and those of Sabellius (Peturius, Dogm. Tlieol. II, i, 6; Wormius, Hist. Sabel. ii, 3), and Neander is inclined to think that Marcion may have adopted some of the Patripassiau doctrines in Asia Minor (Church Hist, i, 796 ; Burton, Hampton Lect. note 103). The leading tenet of the Monarchians thus appears to have been introduced into Christianity principally through the Alexandrian Jews and the Gnostics. It may also have been derived im- mediately from heathen philosophers, as in the case of Noetns it is ascribed by Hippolytus immediately to Herachtus (see NoiiTiANs).