The Antitrinitarian Heresies and Their Condemnation by the Church — Article 1: Crass Monarchianism

SECTION 1: THE ANTITRINITARIAN HERESIES AND THEIR CONDEMNATION BY THE CHURCH

There are two logical processes whereby the dogma of the Blessed Trinity can be essentially perverted; per defectum, i. e., by exaggerating the notion of unity and eliminating that of Trinity (Monarchianism); or per excessum, i. e., by exaggerating the concept of the Trinity, making it a Trinity of Divine Natures and thereby denying the unity of Persons (Tritheism). Tritheism will receive due consideration in the second part of this volume, in which we shall expound the doctrine of Unity in the Trinity (Unitas in Trinitate).

Monarchianism, or the doctrine of the Monarchia, as it is called by an assumption of exclusive orthodoxy like that which has led to the adoption of the term “Unitarianism” at the present day,¹ denies the distinction of Persons in the Divine Nature. It is threefold: (1) crass Monarchianism, in its present-day form called Unitarianism, which denies all distinction of persons in God. (2) Modalism, so-called, which admits a Trinity of Persons, but holds that the difference between them is not real, but merely nominal or modal; this heresy is called Sabellianism from its chief champion, Sabellius. (3) Subordinationism, which, while it readily grants that the three Divine Persons are really distinct, insists that they are not coequal, but subordinate one to the other (Arianism, Macedonianism). This logical division of Monarchianism substantially coincides with the successive phases of its historic development.

Readings

The various text-books of Church History, especially Alzog (Pabisch-Byrne’s translation), Vol. I, pp. 348 sqq., 8th ed., Cincinnati 1899; Funk-Cappadelta, A Manual of Church History, Vol. I, London 1910; Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, Vols. I sqq.; Oswald, Trinitätslehre, §§ 8–9, Paderborn 1888; H. Couget, La SS. Trinité et les Dogmes Antitrinitaires, Paris 1905; F. J. Hall, The Trinity, pp. 63 sqq., New York 1910.

ARTICLE 1: CRASS MONARCHIANISM

1. The Heresy of Monarchianism

This is an ancient heresy, the beginnings of which can be traced to the second century of the Christian era. It is either Dynamistic or Patripassian. Dynamistic Monarchianism asserts that the Father alone is true God, and that the divine element in Christ was merely a power (δύναμις) indwelling in Him as an impersonal divine spirit. Patripassian Monarchianism completely identifies the Son with the Father, asserting that the Person of the Father was made flesh and suffered on the Cross. The Patripassian form is superior to the Dynamistic form of Monarchianism in so far as it acknowledges Christ to be a manifestation of the Divine Essence.

a) Dynamistic Monarchianism was championed by the Ebionites, the Cerinthians, and the Carpocratians, who all held that Christ was a mere man, though endowed with divine powers or energies, after the manner of the Old Testament prophets or the pagan soothsayers. The chief representatives of this heresy were Theodotus of Byzantium (about A. D. 192), a tanner by trade, and his pupil Theodotus the Younger. The latter, surnamed the Money-Changer, asserted that a divine power had indeed descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism, but that the same Divine Power (Λόγος, υἱός) had appeared in Melchisedech, who had been mediator and intercessor for the angels in the same sense in which Christ was for men, and whose followers were therefore called Melchisedechians.² A somewhat later protagonist of this heresy was the notorious Paul of Samosata, an extremely clever man, who died as Bishop of Antioch, about A. D. 260. He taught that Christ, though supernaturally begotten and born of a virgin, was nevertheless a mere man, and that the Divine Logos (i. e., the impersonal wisdom of God) was not united to Him substantially, but simply as a quality or power; whence His deification was foreordained. Thus “the Logos was greater than Christ; the Logos was from above, Christ from below; Christ suffered in His nature and wrought miracles by grace.” It was only by means of divine grace and His own co-operation therewith, that Christ ultimately became God.³

A kindred heresy was that of Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium (d. 366), who “increased the scandal, by advocating, and with greater boldness, an almost Unitarian doctrine.”⁴ He taught that the Logos is the impersonal intellect, while the Holy Ghost is the impersonal power of God, in whom there is but one Person, viz., the Father. Hence θεός = Λογοπάτωρ. Christ, according to Photinus, was a simple man, in whom the Logos dwelt as efficient power (ἐνέργεια δραστική), and who earned for himself the name of “God” by his obedience.

The main argument of all these heretics was this. If the Father were other than the Son, and each were nevertheless true God, it would be necessary to assume the existence of two Gods (Ditheism). Consequently Christ, though endowed with divine power (δύναμις), is a mere man. Paul of Samosata quoted in support of his heresy John XVII, 3; XIV, 28; Matth. XI, 27; Luke II, 52.

b) The Patripassian form of Monarchianism, according to the Philosophoumena,⁵ seems to have had for its author Noetus of Smyrna, a philosopher of the school of Heraclitus. He denied the distinction of Persons in the Godhead and taught that the Father was born, suffered, and died in Christ.⁶ Another leader of the Patripassian heretics was Praxeas (about A. D. 192), a contemporary of Tertullian, by whom he was denounced as one of the “vanissimi Monarchiani” who boasted, “Monarchiam habemus.”⁷ Regardless of the distinction between Nature and Person, Praxeas taught that the Divine Substance has but one Hypostasis. As Father, God is a spirit, but He is called Son in so far as He has assumed human flesh (without a soul): “Ipse se filium sibi fecit.” Consequently Christ is indeed true God, but He is not the Son of God; and inasmuch as Christ was the Father incarnate, it was the Father who suffered and died on the Cross. In confirmation of his error Praxeas quoted John X, 30: “Ego et Pater unum sumus — I and the Father are one”; and John XIV, 9: “Philippe, qui videt me, videt et Patrem — Philip, he that seeth me, seeth the Father also.” Praxeas and his adherents were therefore also called υἱοπάτορες.⁸

2. Attitude of the Church Towards Monarchianism

The Church strenuously opposed all these heresies even before she began to hold ecumenical councils.

The iniquitous Theodotus of Byzantium was excommunicated by Pope Victor I (189–198). Paul of Samosata was called to account by several synods,⁹ but, clever sophist that he was, escaped conviction until Malchion, a learned presbyter of Antioch, was able to expose the drift of his errors and tore the mask from his face at a council held in Antioch A. D. 269.¹⁰ Paul was deposed and excommunicated, but tenaciously held on to his see until the Emperor Aurelian put an end to the reign of Queen Zenobia, into whose favor he had insinuated himself.¹¹

Noetus, when cited before a council in Asia Minor, sought to conceal his Patripassian leanings by emphasizing his monotheism, and pathetically exclaimed: “What wrong have I done? I adore the One God, I know but One God, and none beside Him, who was born, suffered, and died!”¹² The assembled bishops (called presbyteri) did not reply that they were Ditheists. They simply declared: “We, too, adore the One God, but in a manner in which we know that He is adored rightly. And we likewise possess the One Christ, … the Son of God, who suffered and died.”¹³ Noetus was excommunicated A. D. 170. Praxeas had to recant his errors in writing. He went to Africa, where he found a staunch opponent in Tertullian, who employed the Apostles’ Creed as the most effective weapon against the Patripassian heresy.¹⁴

Against the later “Unitarianism” of the Socinians, who also denied the Blessed Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and taught a sort of abstract monotheism, Pope Paul IV (A. D. 1555) issued his dogmatic Constitution “Cum quorundam.”¹⁵

Readings

Hagemann, Die römische Kirche und ihr Einfluss auf Disziplin und Dogma in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten, Freiburg 1864; Hergenröther-Kirsch, Kirchengeschichte, 4th ed., Vol. I, pp. 245 sqq., Freiburg 1902; Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, 2nd ed., Vol. I, Freiburg 1892; A. Harnack, art. “Monarchianism” in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VII, pp. 453–461, New York 1910; J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas, English tr., Vol. I, 290 sqq., St. Louis 1910; J. Chapman, O. S. B., art. “Monarchians” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X, pp. 448 sqq.