Monarchianism, Sabellianism, Patripassionism, Modalism

Monarchianism is a Christian heretical doctrine of the 2nd and 3rd centuries opposed to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity; it strongly maintained the essential unity of the Deity and was intended to reinforce monotheism in Christianity. Monarchians were divided into two groups, the Adoptionists, or Dynamic Monarchians, and the Patripassians, or Modalistic Monarchians.

The Adoptionists taught that Christ, although of miraculous birth, was a mere man until his baptism when the Holy Spirit made him the Son of God by adoption. This doctrine was taught by Paul of Samosata, at one time bishop of Antioch. Adoptionism, or adoptianism, was revived in Spain about the end of the 8th century, when it was again condemned as heresy.

The Patripassians believed in the divinity of Christ, but regarded the Trinity as three manifestations, or modes, of a single divine being. They taught that the Father had come to earth and suffered and died under the appearance of the Son; hence their name (Latin pater; patris,"father"; passus,"to suffer"). This doctrine was taught by the Roman Christian prelate Sabellius and is thus sometimes referred to as Sabellianism.

Monarchianism, Sabellianism, Patripassionism, Modalism

In its most general sense monarchianism (also called patripassianism or Sabellianism) refers to the primarily Western attempts in the third century to defend monotheism against suspected tritheism by denying the personal distinctiveness of a divine Son and Holy Spirit in contrast to God the Father. The term is first used by Tertullian to describe those who desired to protect the monarchy (of the one God) from improper thoughts about the economy (of the three: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). There were two forms of monarchianism which were not only distinctly independent but even opposed to each other.

Dynamic, or adoptionistic, monarchianism proposed a monotheism of God the Father in relation to which Jesus was viewed as a mere man who was endowed with the Holy Spirit. This view was first put forward in Rome about 190 by Theodotus of Byzantium and continued by his successor, Artemon (also called Theodotus), who tried to argue that this teaching was the heir of the apostolic tradition. Artemon was refuted by Hippolytus, who condemned the teaching as an innovative attempt to rationalize the Scripture according to the systems of hellenic logic (most likely that taught by the physician and philosopher Galen).

Although there has been some disagreement on exactly how to classify him, it seems most likely that Paul of Samosata held to a more advanced form of this dynamic monarchianism. He depersonalized the Logos as simply the inherent rationality of God, which led him to formulate a doctrine of the homoousia of the Logos and the Father which necessarily denied the personal subsistence of the preincarnate Word. It was for this reason that both his teaching as a whole and the use of the word homoousia were condemned by the Synod of Antioch in 268. Also in working out the consistency of the dynamic monarchian position, Paul taught that the Holy Spirit was not a distant personal entity but simply a manifestation of the grace of the Father.

Although in basic agreement with dynamic monarchianism on the foundational issue of limiting the term theos to the person of the Father alone, modalistic monarchianism, also known simply as modalism, nevertheless attempted to speak of the full deity of the Son. The earlier modalists (operating between the second and third centuries), such as Noetus, Epigonus, and Praxeas, achieved this objective by identifying the Son as the Father himself. This led to the charge of patripassianism, which became another label for modalism. Patripassianism is the teaching that it was the Father who became incarnate, was born of a virgin, and who suffered and died on the cross. Praxeas attempted to soften this charge by making a distinction between the Christ who is the Father and the Son who was simply a man. In this way the Father cosuffers with the human Jesus.

A more sophisticated form of modalism was taught by Sabellius in Rome early in the third century and was given the name Sabellianism. Although much of his teaching has been confused historically with that of Marcellus of Ancyra (fourth century), some elements can be reconstructed. It seems that Sabellius taught the existence of a divine monad (which he named Huiopator), which by a process of expansion projected itself successively in revelation as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As Father it revealed itself as Creator and Lawgiver. As Son it revealed itself as Redeemer. As Spirit it revealed itself as the giver of grace. These were three different modes revealing the same divine person. Sabellius as well as the modalists preceding him shared the same view of the Logos as that of Paul of Samosata. This along with the fact that modalism was much more popular than dynamic monarchianism (so much so that it alone is sometimes simply called monarchianism) is perhaps why Paul is classified by later patristic writers as a modalist.

C A Blaising

Bibliography
Eusebius, Church History 5.25; 7.27 - 30; Hippolytus, Contra Noetum; Tertullian, Against Praxeas; R Seeberg, Text book of the History of Doctrines; J N D Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines.