A Source Book for Ancient Church History Part 20

(_b_) _The Little Labyrinth_, in Eusebius, _Hist. Ec._, V, 28. (MSG, 20:511.)

The author of _The Little Labyrinth_, a work from which Eusebius quotes at considerable length, is uncertain. It has been attributed to Hippolytus.

The Artemonites say that all early teachers and the Apostles themselves received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the preaching [_i.e._, the Gospel] was preserved until the time of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop in Rome after Peter, and that since his successor, Zephyrinus, the truth has been corrupted. What they say might be credible if first of all the divine Scriptures did not contradict them.

And there are writings of certain brethren which are older than the times of Victor, and which they wrote in behalf of the truth against the heathen and against heresies of their time. I refer to Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, and others. In all of their works Christ is spoken of as G.o.d. For who does not know the works of Irenus and of Melito and of others, which teach that Christ is G.o.d and man? And how many psalms and hymns, written by the faithful brethren from the beginning, celebrate Christ as the Word of G.o.d, speaking of Him as divine? How, then, since the Churchs present opinion has been preached for so many years, can its preaching have been delayed, as they affirm, until the times of Victor? And how is it that they are not ashamed to speak thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut off from communion Theodotus, the leather-worker, the leader and father of this G.o.d-denying apostasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere man.

There was a certain confessor, Natalius, not long ago, but in our day.

This man was deceived at one time by Asclepiodotus and another Theodotus, a certain money-changer. Both of them were disciples of Theodotus, the leather-worker, who, as I said, was the first person excommunicated by Victor, bishop at that time, on account of this senseless sentiment or, rather, senselessness. Natalius was persuaded by them to allow himself to be chosen bishop of this heresy with a salary, so that he was to receive from them one hundred and fifty _denarii_ a month.

They have treated the divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear; they have set aside the rule of ancient faith; and Christ they have not known, not endeavoring to learn what the divine Scriptures declare, but striving laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be found to suit their impiety. And if any one brings before them a pa.s.sage of divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or a disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it. And as being of the earth and speaking of the earth and as ignorant of Him that cometh from above, they devote themselves to geometry and forsake the holy writings of G.o.d. Euclid is at least laboriously measured by some of them; Aristotle and Theophrastus admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshipped. But that those who use the arts of unbelievers for their heretical opinion and adulterate the simple faith of the divine Scriptures by the craft of the G.o.dless are not near the faith, what need is there to say? Therefore, they have laid their hands boldly upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever wishes can learn.

For if any one will collect their respective copies and compare them with one another, he will find that they differ greatly.

(B) Modalistic Monarchianism

Additional source material: Hippolytus, _Adversus Noetum, Refutatio_, IX, 7 _ff._, X, 27; Tertullian, _Adversus Praxean_; Basil, _Ep._ 207, 210. (PNF, ser. II, vol. VIII.)

(_a_) Hippolytus, _Refut._, X, 27. (MSG, 16:3440.)

The following pa.s.sages from the great work of Hippolytus give the earlier form of Modalistic Monarchianism. They are also of importance as being a part of the foundation for the statement of Harnack and others, that this heresy was the official Roman doctrine for some years. See also IX, 12, of which the text may be found in Kirch, nn. 201-206. The whole question as to the position of Callistus, or Calixtus, as bishop of Rome and his relations to the Church as a whole is difficult and full of obscurity, due to a large extent to the fact that the princ.i.p.al source for his history is the work of Hippolytus, who, as may easily be seen, was bitterly opposed to him.

Noetus, a Smyrnan by birth, a reckless babbler and trickster, introduced this heresy, which originated with Epigonus, and was adopted by Cleomenes, and has thus continued to this day among his successors. Noetus a.s.serts that there is one Father and G.o.d of the universe, and that He who had made all things was, when He wished, invisible to those who existed, and when He wished He became visible; that He is invisible when He is not seen and visible when He is seen; that the Father is unbegotten when He is not generated, but begotten when He is born of a virgin; that He is not subject to suffering and is immortal when He does not suffer and die, but when His pa.s.sion came upon Him Noetus admits that the Father suffers and dies. The Noetians think that the Father is called the Son according to events at different times.

Callistus supported the heresy of these Noetians, but we have carefully described his life [see above, 19, _c_]. And Callistus himself likewise produced a heresy, taking his starting-point from these Noetians. And he acknowledges that there is one Father and G.o.d, and that He is the Creator of the universe, and that He is called and regarded as Son by name, yet that in substance He is one.(60) For the Spirit as Deity is not, he says, any being different from the Logos, or the Logos from Deity; therefore, this one person is divided by name, but not according to substance. He supposes this one Logos to be G.o.d and he says that He became flesh. He is disposed to maintain that He who was seen in the flesh and crucified is Son, but it is the Father who dwells in Him.

(_b_) Hippolytus, _Refut._, IX, 7, 11 _f._ (MSG, 16:3369.)

Ch. 7. There has appeared a certain one, Noetus by name, by birth a Smyrnan. This person introduced from the tenets of Herac.l.i.tus a heresy.

Now a certain Epigonus became his minister and pupil, and this person during his sojourn in Rome spread his G.o.dless opinion. But Zephyrinus himself was in course of time enticed away and hurried headlong into the same opinion; and he had Callistus as his adviser and fellow-champion of these wicked tenets. The school of these heretics continued in a succession of teachers to acquire strength and to grow because Zephyrinus and Callistus helped them to prevail.

Ch. 11. Now that Noetus affirms that the Son and the Father are the same, no one is ignorant. But he makes a statement as follows: When, indeed, at the time the Father was not yet born, He was justly styled the Father; and when it pleased Him to undergo generation and to be begotten, He himself became His own Son, not anothers. For in this manner he thinks he establishes the Monarchy, alleging that the Father and the Son, so called, are not from one another, but are one and the same, Himself from Himself, and that He is styled by the names Father and Son, according to the changes of times.

Ch. 12. Now Callistus brought forward Zephyrinus himself and induced him to avow publicly the following opinions: I know that there is one G.o.d, Jesus Christ; and that excepting Him I do not know another begotten and capable of suffering. When he said, The Father did not die but the Son, he would in this way continue to keep up ceaseless disturbance among the people. And we [_i.e._, Hippolytus], becoming aware of his opinions, did not give place to him, but reproved him and withstood him for the truths sake. He rushed into folly because all consented to his hypocrisy; we, however, did not do so, and he called us worshippers of two G.o.ds, disgorging freely the venom lurking within him.

(_c_) Hippolytus, _Adversus Noetum_. (MSG, 10:804.)

The following is from a fragment which seems to be the conclusion of an extended work against various heresies.

Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine who have become the disciples of a certain Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, and lived not very long ago. This man was greatly puffed up with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father himself, and that the Father himself was born and suffered and died. When the blessed presbyters heard these things they summoned him before the Church and examined him. But he denied at first that he held such opinions. Afterward, taking shelter among some and gathering round him some others who had been deceived in the same way, he wished to maintain his doctrine openly. And the blessed presbyters summoned him and examined him. But he resisted, saying, What evil, then, do I commit when I glorify Christ? And the presbyters replied to him, We, too, know in truth one G.o.d; we know Christ; we know that the Son suffered even as He suffered, and died even as He died, and rose again on the third day, and is at the right hand of the Father, and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And these things which we have learned we a.s.sert. Then, after refuting him, they expelled him from the Church. And he was carried to such a pitch of pride that he established a school.

Now they seek to exhibit the foundation of their dogma, alleging that it is said in the Law, I am the G.o.d of your fathers; ye shall have no other G.o.ds beside me [_i.e._, of Moses, _cf._ Ex. 3:6, 13; 20:3]; and again in another pa.s.sage, I am the first and the last and besides me there is none other [_cf._ Is. 44:6]. Thus they a.s.sert that G.o.d is one. And then they answer in this manner: If therefore I acknowledge Christ to be G.o.d, He is the Father himself, if He is indeed G.o.d; and Christ suffered, being Himself G.o.d, and consequently the Father suffered, for He was the Father himself.

(_d_) Tertullian, _Adv. Praxean_, 1, 2, 27, 29. (MSL, 2:177 _f._, 214.)

Tertullian is especially bitter against Praxeas, because he prevented the recognition of the Montanists at Rome when it seemed likely that they would be treated favorably. The work _Adversus Praxean_ is the most important work of Western theology on the Trinity before the time of Augustine. It was corrected in some important points by Novatian, but its clear formul remained in Western theology permanently. The work belongs to the late Montanistic period of Tertullian.

Ch. 1. In various ways has the devil rivalled the truth. Sometimes his aim has been to destroy it by defending it. He maintains that there is one only Lord, the Almighty Creator of the world, that of this doctrine of the unity he may fabricate a heresy. He says that the Father himself came down into the Virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, indeed, was Himself Jesus Christ. He [Praxeas] was the first to import into Rome this sort of perversity, a man of restless disposition in other respects, and above all inflated with the pride of martyrdom [confessorship] simply and solely because of a short annoyance in prison; when, even if he had given his body to be burned, it would have profited him nothing, not having the love of G.o.d, whose very gifts he resisted and destroyed. For after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Monta.n.u.s, Priscilla, and Maximilla, and in consequence of the acknowledgment had bestowed his peace on the churches of Asia and Phrygia, Praxeas, by importunately urging false accusations against the prophets themselves and their churches, and insisting on the authority of the bishops predecessors in the see, compelled him to recall the letter of peace which he had issued, as well as to desist from his purpose of acknowledging the said gifts. Thus Praxeas did two pieces of the devils work in Rome: he drove out prophecy and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete and he crucified the Father.

Ch. 2. After a time, then, the Father was born, and the Father sufferedG.o.d himself, the Almighty, is preached as Jesus Christ.

Ch. 27. For, confuted on all sides by the distinction between the Father and the Son, which we make while their inseparable union remains as [by the examples] of the sun and the ray, and the fountain and the riveryet by help of their conceit of an indivisible number [with issues] of two and three, they endeavor to interpret this distinction in a way which shall nevertheless agree with their own opinions; so that, all in one person, they distinguish twoFather and Sonunderstanding the Son to be the flesh, that is the man, that is Jesus; and the Father to be the Spirit, that is G.o.d, that is Christ.

Ch. 29. Since we(61) teach in precisely the same terms that the Father died as you say the Son died, we are not guilty of blasphemy against the Lord G.o.d, for we do not say that He died after the divine nature, but only after the human. They [the heretics], indeed, fearing to incur blasphemy against the Father, hope to diminish it in this way, admitting that the Father and the Son are two; but if the Son, indeed, suffers, the Father is His fellow-sufferer.

(_e_) _Formula Macrostichos_, in Socrates. _Hist. Ec._, II, 19. (MSG, 67:229.)

In the Arian controversy several councils were held at Antioch in the endeavor to bring about a reconciliation of the parties. At the third council of Antioch, A. D. 345, the elaborate _Formula Macrostichos_ was put forth, in which the council attempted to steer a middle course between the Sabellians, who identified the Father and the Son, and the extreme Arians, who made the Son a creature. Text may also be found in Hahn, _op. cit._, 159.

Those who say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person, impiously understanding the three names to refer to one and the same person, we expel with good reason from the Church, because by the incarnation they subject the Father, who is infinite and incapable of suffering, to finitude and suffering in the incarnation. Such are those called Patripa.s.sianists by the Romans and Sabellians by us.

(_f_) Athanasius, _Orationes contra Arianos_, IV, 9, 25. (MSG, 26:480, 505.)

For Athanasius, _v. infra_, 65, _c_. Of the four _Orations against the Arians_, attributed to Athanasius and placed between the years 356 and 362, doubts have been raised against the genuineness of the fourth. The following quotations are, in any case, valuable as setting forth the Sabellian position. But the case against the fourth oration has not been conclusively proved.

In the pa.s.sage from ch. 25 the statement is that of the Sabellians, not of Athanasius.

Ch. 9. If, again, the One have two names, this is the expedient of Sabellius, who said that Son and Father were the same and did away with both, the Father when there is a Son, and the Son when there is a Father.

Ch. 25. As there are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit, so also the Father is the same, but is dilated into Son and Spirit.

(_g_) Athanasius, _Expositio fidei_. (MSG, 25:204.)

For the critical questions regarding this little work of uncertain date see PNF, ser. II, vol. VI, p. 83.

For neither do we hold a Son-father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son.