3. Meaning of "Monarchian"

4. Relations to the Catholics

The Monarchians, arising, as implied above, after the establishment of the anti-Gnostic interpretation of the rule of faith in the Church, must be considered as Catholic. They accordingly were in harmony with their opponents except in the points in con troversy; and even had traces of pro Catholic (but not non-Catholic) characteristics, so that their deviations from the Catholic canon point to the period before the formation of this canon, while other " heresies,, of the older group must be referred to the formative age of the Catholic Church. The history of the movement is as obscure as its origin. Even the current distinction between dy namistie (or rather adoptian) and modalistic Mo narchianism the former regarding the power or Spirit of God as indwelling in the man Jesus, and the latter considering Jesus as the incarnation of the Godhead-is not free from objections. Though the common bond between the Monarchian systems was their concept of God, and their differences con cerned revelation, no strict classification is possible on the basis of the sources thus far known, which consist almost entirely of the accounts of oppo nents, who garbled, distorted, and misrepresented the doctrines of their antagonists. Both the history and the geography, moreover, of Monarchianism are uncertain, nor are definite dates yet determined for the Alogi, Artemas, Praxem, Sabellius, or the synods at Antioch against Paul of Samosata.

II. The Alogi (q.v.) of Asia Minor: Hippolytus (quoted by Epiphanius, Hist. eccl., li., and others) and Philaatrius (Hær., lx.) recognize the existence of a sect in Asia Minor to which the former applied the name Alogi (perhaps designedly ambiguous, meaning both "without the Logos" and " irrational "). Hippolytus also says that they rejected the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse, ascribing them to Cerinthus; of their views on the Johannine Epistles nothing is certainly known, although they probably rejected them also. Besides his Syntagma, Hippolytus wrote a work in defense of the Johannine writings, and apparently a special polemic against the Monarchians, probably in 204-205. It is clear, from the statements of Hippolytus and Irenaeus (Hist. eccl., III., xi. 9) that the sect existed in Asia Minor between 170 and 180. Belonging to the radical anti-Montanistic party, they sought to exclude all prophecy from the Church, thus proceeding to reject the Gospel of John (and consequently the Logos which it postulates-whence their name) as containing Christ's prophecy of the Paraclete, and the Apocalypse because of its prophetic revelations. They likewise alleged internal evidence, discrepancy with the other Gospels, absurdity, and untruthfulness against the two books; and they regarded the Gospel of John as tending to Docetism because of its abrupt transition from the Logos to the ministry of Jesus. They objected to the use of the term Logos, in which they saw Gnosticism, to denote Christ, and to the statement in John they opposed the natural origin given by Mark. Nevertheless, both Hippolytus and Irenaeus considered the Alogi schismatics rather than heretics, the former expressly emphasizing their orthodoxy, except on the points in controversy. Of their Christology nothing is known except that they rejected the concept of the Logos and the birth "from on high," and that, from their antipathy to Gnosticism, their chief interest lay in the human life of Christ. It is also probable that they laid special stress on the events at the baptism of Christ, though this can not be demonstrated. They seem to have been the first within the Church to apply historical criticism to Christian writings and tradition; but how long they existed, or when, how, or by whom they were excluded from the Church in Asia Minor, are all unknown.