(2) The stepping-stone from simple Patripassianism to what we shall presentl}' deal with as Sabellian mo- dalism constitutes the doctrine advanced by Beryllus of liostra, in Arabia. From him we have only a some- what obscure and verj^ variously interpreted passage in Euscbius (//. E. vi, 33). He denied the personal pre- existence ('l^i'n ovtriaQ inpiypa<pr], i. e. a circumscribed, limited, separate existence), and in general the inde- pendent divinity (Idia Stdr/jt-) of Christ, but at the same time asserted the indwelling of the divinity of the Father ('H TrarpiKO SrtoTijg) iu him during his earthly life.
(3) The Sabellian modalism had its starting-point in the views evolved by Sahellius ((j. v.), who flourished in the beginning of the 2d century, lie differed from the ortliodox standard mainly in denying the trinity of es- sence and the permanence of the trinity of manifesta- tion; making tlie Father, Son, and Holy Ghost only temporary phenomena, which fulfil their mission and return into the abstract monad, lie differed from the other jMonarchians by embracing the Holy Ghost in his speculation, and thereby reached a trinity; not a simul- taneous trinity of essence, however, but only a succes- sive trinity of revelation. He starts from a distinction of the monad and the triad in the divine nature. His fundamental thought is that the unity of God, without distinction in itself, unfolds or extends itself ('H no- vug TrXaTVV^iiaa -ytyovf Tptac) in the course of the world's development in three different forms and periods of revelation (Ovopara, irpoffunra — not in the ortho- dox sense of the term, however, but in the primarj-^ sense of mask, or part [in a play]), and, after the com- pletion of redemption, returns into unity. The Father reveals himself in the giving of the law or the Old-Tes- tament economy (not in the creation also; this, in his view, precedes the trinitarian revelation) ; the Son, in the incarnation ; the Holy Ghost, in inspiration. He illustrates the trinitarian relation by comparing the F'a- ther to the disk of the sun, the Son to its enlightening power, the Spirit to its warming influence. His view of the Logos, too, is peculiar. Tiie Logos is not identi- cal with the Son, but is the monad itself in its transi- tion to triad; that is, God conceived as vital motion and creating principle — the speaking God {^log \aXwi>), in distinction from the silent God {^eog ontnrwv). Each vpoffioTTov is another CiaXeyi(T^ai, and the three Trpoa- (J7r« together are onl}' successive evolutions of the Logos or the worldward aspect of the divine nature. As the Logos proceeded from God, so he returns at last into liim, and the process of trinitarian development (^leiXt^ig) closes (comp. Uaur, Gesc/i. d. Dreieiny/keits- lehre, on this point). Athanasius traced the doctrine of Sabellius to the Stoic philosophy; and it must be confessed that in the Pythagorean system also, in the Gospel of the Egyptians, and even in the pseudo-Clem- entine homilies, there are kindred ideas. Hut, notwith- standing these, it is now generally conceded that Sabel- lius was in all respects original in the propounding of his theory of the Trinitarian doctrine. Says Schaff {Ch. Hist, i, 293) : " Sabellius is by far the most original, ingenious, and profound of the Monarchians. His sys- tem is known to us only from a few fragments, and some of these not altogether consistent, in Athanasius and other fathers. It was very fully developed, and has been revived in modern times by Schleiermacher ( Uvbtr den Gef/ensatz dtr ISahtUianischai u. A l/iuiuisiun-
ischen Vorstellung v. d. Triniidt) in a peculiarly modified form." Since the writing of the above by Dr. Schaff, the general Jlonarchian view of the incaniation has been revived by the Kev. Henry Ward Beecher, who in his Lift of Christ (X. Y. 1871", 8vo), vol. i, denies the union of the human and divine nature in Christ, and asserts that he was God dwelling in and subject to the inlirmities and limitation of the human flesh— a view which he supports largely from ch. ii of Hebrews. See Arians ; Incarnation ; MoNornYsixES ; Patripas- siANS; Sabellians; Unitarians.
From this cursory glance at the history of Monarch- ianism, there is apparent an endeavor (o escape from the revolting tenet of Patripassianism, and to retain or sup- ply that which the nature of man almost instinctively requires— a superhuman mediation and atonement. The working of these two motives, as the llonarchian adopted either the Arian or the Patripassian alternative, is very remarkable; inasmuch as the return to catholicity ap- pears to be much easier in the school which adopted the former alternative. Where Patripassianism was at once and decisively rejected, it was open to the !Monarchian to satisfy the need for a mediator by magnifying the di- vine element in our Lord, which at first he considered to be only the highest degree of prophetic grace, and passing through stages of Arianism and semi-Arianism to approach nearer and nearer to the truth. Whereas, when Patripassianism had been adopted, and the need was felt for freeing the mind from a tenet at which one shudders, it was only done by diminishing the divine nat- ure in Christ, through the stages of supposing it to be a portion of the divine fulness, then an emanation from the Godhead. The result was a deliberate Psilanthropism. Regarding the heresy itself of pseudo-Monarchianism, the main points for consideration are the following: First, an eternal mind must needs have in it from eter- nity an tvvoia or \oyoc, a notion or conception of itself, which the schools term verbum mentis: nor can it be conceived without it. " This Word iu God cannot be, as it is in us, a transient, vanishing accident, for then the divine nature would indeed be compounded of sub- stance and accident, which would be repugnant to its simplicity ; but it must be a substantial, subsisting Word" (IJull, Cath. Doct. concerning the blessed Trinity), The Monarchians denied this (TtXnoTUTov Kai tCovra Ka'i avTOv Toi' Trpwrov voii Xuyou t/iiZ-fYor). Deny- ing this, they denied also that substantial i-inculum cari- tdtis in which the Father and the Son are one ivonjn IlviviJiaTog. Secondly, thus is destroyed that avrap- Ktia which we attribute to God, i. e. his self-sufficiency and most perfect bliss and happiness in himself alone, before and without all created beings. For this we cannot well conceive without acknowledging a distinc- tion of persons in the Godhead. The Monarchians, it is clear, denied this individual society of the Trinity (comp. Plinit, Diet, of Sects, Heresies, etc., p. 332). See Mcihler, Athanasius der Giosse (Mainz, 1827), bk. i {Der Gluube der Kirche der drei ersten Jahrh. in L'etrejf'der Trinitdt, etc.), p. 1-1 IC ; Baur, Die christl. Lehre ron der Dreieinii/keit u. Menschtrerdung Gottes in ihrer geschickt- lichen Kntu-ickelung (Tilb. 1841-43, 3 vols.), i, 129-341 ; ^leier, Die Lehre von der Trinitdt in ihrer hist. Etttwicke- lung (Hamb. 1844, 2 vols.), i, 45-134 ; Dorner, Entwicke- lungsqeschichte der Lehre ron der Person Christi (1839; 2d ed. Stuttg. u. Berl, 1845-56, 2 vols.), i, 122-747; Lange, Gesch. d. Lehrbegriffes der Unilarier tor der nicd- nisciien Si/node (Leips. 1831); Schleiermacher, Weike, i, 2, p. 485-574 ; Vogt, Leh?e des Alhcntasitis ion Alex- andrius (Bremen, 1801) ; Ua(Xcnhach,JJist. of Doctrines, i, G2 sq., IIG sq., 131 sq.; Moshcim, Comment. Eccles. Hist, (sec Index) ; Jlilman, Hist, of Christianitij, and Latin ChrUlidiiity, i, 70-73 ; Pressense, Ear/i/ Years of Christianity, Ih nsy, and Christian Doctrine (N. Y. 1873, 12mo). ch. v; ^vaudvr. Hist. Dot/mas (see Index in voL ii), and Ch. Hist. vol. i ; UeberAveg, Hist. Phi/os. ii, 306- 1 1 ; Ebrard, Dogmtngi sch. vol. i ; I lase, Ch. Hist. p. 98 sq, 196,704; iidiaff,Ch'.Hist.\ul.i, §81 and 83.