THE NEW SCHAPF-HERZOG
a wide divergency between the Theodotians and Hennas in that the former designed their speculations to discard the historic Jesus in favor of the metaphysical. Views closely resembling those of the Theodotians are repeated by Origen in elevating the eternal Son of God above the crucified; while a like tendency is found with Hieracas and his monks, as well as among the Origenistic monks in Egypt in the fourth and fifth centuries. It is evident, therefore, that these theologians retained the old Roman Christology, though they revised its theology and changed its purport.
The question arises whether the doctrine of the Theodotians was really Monarchian, since a special and apparently independent place was given the
Holy Ghost beside the Father. Al-
5. Theodo- though it is not clear how the hypo-
tian Con- stasis of the Holy Ghost was reconciled
cept of with the unity of the Godhead, it is at
Christ. least certain that in the Theodotian
Christology the Spirit was regarded merely as a " power." They differed from their opponents not in their concept of God, but in their views of Christ. For if an eternal Son of God, or anything resembling that Son, appeared in the Old Testament, then the traditional estimate of Jesus could no longer be retained; nor would the theory of the Man anointed by the Spirit suffice to establish the preeminent magnitude of the revelation of God in Christ. It thus becomes clear why, under the spur of theological speculation, the old Christology gave place at a comparatively early date to the complete and essential apotheosis of Jesus.
Twenty or thirty years later another attempt was made by Artemas to revive the early Christology, apparently at Rome. The sources here are scanty, for Eusebius confined his excerpts from the work against Artemas and its appendix, the " Little
Labyrinth," almost exclusively to the
6. Artemas; Theodotians. It is plain, however,
Decay of that the followers of Artemas claimed
Western that the ancient Christology which
Dynamistic they defended had been distorted by
Monarchi- Zephyrinus. Wherein they differed
anism. from the Theodotians is uncertain,
and they clearly agreed with them in denying the epithet " God " to Jesus. Artemas was still living in excommunication at Rome about 270, as is shown by the condemnation of Paul of Samosata by the Synod of Antioch (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., vii. 30). It is evident, moreover, that he must be considered a dynamistic Monarchian; while by his association with Paul of Samosata he eclipsed the fame of Theodotus in the East. In him dynamistic Monarchianism exhausted itself at Rome without ever gaining importance in the Church. The adherents of Artemas are probably implied by Novatian when, in his De trinitate, he speaks of those who considered Jesus simply as a man, and he is also mentioned by Methodius {Symposium, viii. 10). Hilary of Poitiers, in his De trinitate (especially x. 18 sqq., 50 sqq.), shows how various were the Christologies existing in the West in the middle of the fourth century. Even as late as the beginning of the fifth a certain Marcus was expelled from Rome for maintaining Photinian views and founded a
community in Dalmatia. Though there is no evidence that Photinus' doctrines ever gained much following in the West, it is noteworthy that Augustine, even when preparing to enter the Catholic Church, entertained a Christology essentially Photinian (Conf., vii. 19 [25]).
IV. Suppression of Adoptionism in the East: It is plain from the writings of Origen that there were many in the East who rejected the 1. Oppo- Logos-Christology. The majority of nents of these were modalists, but there were Logos- also those who ascribed to the Son Christology merely a human nature, and others in the still who regarded Christ as a man East. filled with the Godhead but not specifically different from the prophets. Origen did not brand those who held these tenets as heretics, but considered them misguided or simple, reclaimable by a friendly attitude. Origen's own complicated Christology was unjustly considered by some to be adoptionistic. Dynamistic Monarchianism seems to have been taught by Beryllus of Bostra (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., vi. 33; Socrates, Hist, eccl., iii. 7), who, probably in 244, was convinced of his error in a disputation by Eusebius, who had been sent to Arabia for that purpose.
The wide dissemination of dynamistic Christology in the Semitic and Hellenistic East is shown by the fact that Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, the most important see of the 2. Paul of East, began expressly to promulgate Samosata. it about 260 and opposed the doctrine of the essential divinity of Christ. The result was the great Eastern controversy which ended with the downfall of adoptionism. The Alexandrine theology of the third century had made the terms logos, ousios, prosopon, and the like current and indispensable in dogmatics; and at the same time the belief had become widely prevalent that the original nature of the Redeemer was not human but divine, and that he did not first come into existence with his birth on earth. These tenets were opposed by Paul, and — though little is known of the beginning of the controversy — there is reason to suppose that he, as the viceroy of Zenobia, was opposed by the Roman party in Syria. His fall, therefore, meant their triumph, and behind the theological controversy there lay political strife. But Paul proved a doughty antagonist. A great synod was convened at Antioch in 264, attended by bishops from the most various parts of the East, but their debates, like those of a second synod, came to no result. It was not until a third synod, held at Antioch between 266 and 269 (probably in 268), that the metropolitan was excommunicated and succeeded by Domnus. The proceedings of the synod were sent by its members to Rome and Antioch and to all the Catholic churches. Nevertheless, Paul remained in office with Zenobia for four years, while the church in Antioch was divided. In 272, however, Antioch was taken by Aurelian, who, when appealed to, decided that the church edifice should be given to him with whom the Christian bishops of Italy and the city of Rome were in correspondence. The teaching of Paul of Samosata was as follows: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost