IV. Suppression of Adoptionism in the East

1. Opponents of Logos-Christology in the East

It is plain from the writings of Origen that there were many in the East who rejected the Logos-Christology. The majority of these were modalists, but there were also those who ascribed to the Son merely a human nature, and others still who regarded Christ as a man 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 consid ered by some to be adoptionistic. Dynamistic Mo narchianism seems to have been taught by Beryllus of Bostra (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., vi. 33; Socrates, Hist. cad.

2. Paul of Samosata

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 East, began expressly to promulgate 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 Alex andrine theology of the third century had made the terms logos, ouzioa, pros", and the like cur rent 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 rea son 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 An tioch and to all the Catholic churches. Neverthe less, Paul remained in office with Zenobia for four years, while the church in Antioch was divided. Iii 272, however, Antioch was taken by Aurelian, who, when appealed to, decided that the church edifice should be given to him with whom the Chris tian 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

457

are one person; and though in God the Logos (Son) and "Wisdom" (Holy Ghost; elsewhere in Paul Logos is identical with " Wisdom ") may be distinguished, they nevertheless remain qualities of God. God sent forth the Logos from himself from eternity and even begat him, so that the Logos may be termed "Son" and have a being ascribed to him, though he remains an impersonal power. The Logos, which can not be made manifest, worked in the prophets, still more in Moses, and most of all in the son of David born of the Holy Ghost by the Virgin. The Redeemer is, therefore, human in essence and comes "from hence," while the Logos works in him "from above." The union of the Logos with the man Jesus is to be considered an indwelling (with an appeal by Paul to John xiv. 10), so that the Logos is in Jesus what the apostle called the "inner man" in the Christian. On the other hand, since the Logos does not dwell essentially in Jesus, the two are to be distinguished, the Logos being the greater. Mary did not give birth to the Logos, but to a man essentially like other men; and the man, not the Logos, was anointed with the Spirit in baptism. On the other hand, Jesus was made peculiarly worthy of the divine grace, and was correspondingly preserved from sin. In consequence of his mental endowment and his will, Jesus was like God and became one with him, not only being without sin himself, but also overcoming by his toil and struggle the sin of the first parent of mankind. As Jesus steadily progressed ethically, the Father endowed him with miraculous powers; so that he became the redeemer and savior of mankind, and finally became inseparably united with God forever, receiving as the reward of his love a "name which is above every name" and the power of judgment. He is, moreover, enthroned in divine honor, so that he may be termed " God from the Virgin." His preexistence may, therefore, be postulated on the basis of foreknowledge and prophecy; and in like manner he may be regarded as born through the grace of God. Doubtless Paul of Samosata, in his view of the baptism, recognized a special degree of the indwelling of the Logos in the man Jesus; and he seems to have held that Jesus did not become Christ until his baptism. In his polemics Paul sought to show that the belief that Jesus was by nature the son of God led to ditheism; he openly opposed the Alexandrine exegetes; and he banished from the liturgy all psalms of the Church in which the essential divinity of Christ was maintained. While the doctrines of Paul of Samosata clearly mark a continuation of those of Hermas and Theodotus, he not only adopted the current theological terminology of his time, but also gave a philosophical, ethical, and Biblical foundation to the old heterodox type of doctrine. While in certain respects he was foreshadowed by the complicated theology of Origen-and also perhaps by the Alogi of Asia Minor and the Theodotians of Rome -his development of the nature and the will in the persons, the character and power of love, and the recognizability of Christ's divinity solely from his activity as being one with the divine will-these stand almost alone in the entire dogmatic literature of the oriental churches of the first three centuries.

He is especially characterized, however, by his conscious substitution of history and ethics for metaphysics, as in his rejection of Platonizing dogmatics. While, moreover, he considered the peculiar divinity of Jesus to consist in his attitude and his will rather than in his nature, he held that the spirit and the grace of God rested in special measure (in accord with the divine promises) on Christ as the peculiar object of the predestination of God, Christ's activity and his life in and with God thus becoming unique. By this theory room was left for a human life.

Yet Paul taught an eternal son of God, and an indwelling of that son in Jesus; he proclaimed the

divinity of Christ, held the doctrine 3. Paul's of two persons (God and Jesus); and,

Homoousi- like the Alexandrine theologians, reanism and jected Sabellianism. The very synod Influence. of Antioch which condemned him ap-

parently rejected the term homoousios in deference to him, on the ground that (according to the conjecture of Athanasius), if Christ was of the same nature as the Father, the latter was not the ultimate source of divinity, but both the Father and the Son must be derived from a primordial substance, and thus be in the relation of brothers. The possibility must also be borne in mind, however, that, as Hilary says, the synod rejected the term homoousios because Paul himself had declared God and the (impersonal) Logos (the Son) to be of the same substance. At all events, the majority of the synod considered the doctrines of Paul extremely heterodox, and, with ail their own uncertainty on the precise character of the essentially divine element in Christ, they picked a very real flaw in Paul's Christology-his practical teaching of two sons of God, though the actual difference between the two parties lay in the problem of the divine nature of the Redeemer. With the deposition of Paul of Samosata it was no longer possible to gain a hearing for a Christology which denied the personal, independent preexistence of the Redeemer. It was no longer sufficient to interpret his theanthropic life from his deeds, but it was necessary to believe in his divine nature. Nevertheless Paul's school lingered on for a time, giving inspiration to the tenets of Lucian of Samosata (q.v.) and his followers, who ultimately developed into the Arians. In the fourth century Photinus approximated the teachings of Paul, whose affinity with the great Antiochian theologians is also clear, independent though the tenets of the latter school were in their origin. Among the great Antiochians Paul of Samorata was again condemned, and his name was used a third time in the Monothelite controversy (see Monothelites). Even in the early fourth century the Acts Archelai show that in easternmost Christendom there was a Christology untouched by Alexandrine teachings and to be ranked with Adoptionism. Here it is clearly evident that as late as this period the Logos-Christology had not overpassed the boundaries of the Christianity confederated in the empire.

[The influence of Paul of Samosata was probably perpetuated in the Paulicians of Armenia (q.v.), and his name appears in their denominational

458

epithet. It is highly probable that adoptionist Christology widely prevailed in Armenia until the triumph of Greek influence and continued to be zealously maintained by a persecuted minority until its adherents crystallized into the Paulicianism the chief peculiarities of which were the uncompromising rejection of infant baptism and the maintenance of adoptionist Chnstology. " The Key of Truth " (edited and translated by F. C. Conybea,re, Oxford, 1896), probably written in the ninth century, but representing the doctrines and practises of a much earlier time, is outspoken in its adoptionism. In the section on the baptism of Christ it is said: " So then it was in the season of his maturity that he received baptism; then it was that he received authority, received the high-priesthood, received the kingdom and the office of chief shepherd. Moreover he was then chosen, then he won lordship, then he became resplendent, then he was strengthened, then he was revered, then he was appointed to guard us, then he was glorified, then he was praised, then be was made glad, then he shone forth, then he was pleased, end then he rejoiced.

. It was then he became chief of beings heavenly and earthly, then he became light of the world, then he became the way, the truth, and the life. Then he became the door of heaven, then he became the rock impregnable at the gate of hell; then he became the foundation of our faith; then he became savior of us sinners; then he was filled with the Godhead . . . . Furthermore, he then put on the primal raiment of light which Adam lost in the garden. Then accordingly it was that he was invited by the Spirit of God to converse with the heavenly Father," etc. A. a. x.]

V. Modalistic Monarchianiem in Asia Minor, Rome, and Carthage: The real peril to the LogosChristology between 180 and 240 was not the dynamistic Monarchianism thus far disc. Wide cussed, but the view which regarded Popularity Christ as God in person, and as the of Modal- Father incarnate. Called Monarchiiatic Mon- ans and Patripassians in the West, ambianism. and Sabellians in the East, they were combated by Tertullian, Origen, Novatian,, and, above all, Hippolytus. According to the latter, the Monarchian controversy disturbed the entire Church; while Tertullian and Origen declare that in their day the "economic" Trinity and the application of the concept of the Logos to Christ were regarded with suspicion by the majority of Christians. The popularity of modalism, especially in the East, is reflected in the multitude of apocryphal acts of the apostles (see Apocrypha, B, II.), which almost invariably represent or approximate modalistic Christology. Here, too, falls the Christology of Irenæus, with its strange attempt to blend the Logos-Christology with modalism. In Rome Monarchianism had been the official teaching for nearly a generation; apd that it was no new thing in the Church is clear from the presence of a Monarchian faction among the Montanists and Marcionites. The predominance of Monarchianism in the Church was due primarily to the struggle with Gnosticism; and though its adherents were mostly not professed theologians, adherents of scientific training were not lacking. The modalists claimed by their doctrines to obviate ditheism, to assert the complete divinity of Christ, and to cut the ground from under Gnosticism. But the weakness of its cardinal hypothesis was too evident, and it was lost as soon as it saw itself obliged to assume either the defensive or offensive. Its contest with orthodoxy was strikingly reminiscent of the controversy between the genuine and the Platonizing Stoics on the concept of God. As the latter subordinated Plato's transcendental, dispassionate God to the Logos (God) of Heraclitus and the Stoics, so Origen reproached the Monarchians with remaining content with the visible God operating in the world, instead of proceeding to the "ultimate" God. It is not surprising, therefore, that when once modalistic Monarchianism had invoked the aid of science (i.e., of Stoicism), it was on the road to a pantheistic concept of God. Nevertheless, the earliest literary representatives of Monarchianism had a distinctly monotheistic interest which centered in Biblical Christianity.

As dynamistic Monarchianism first gained vogue in Asia Minor, the Church of this same region seems to have been the scene of the earliest Patripamian controversy; and in both instances s. Rise Asia Minor may be regarded as having of Patri- transplanted the strife to Rome. Noopasaianism tus, who seems to have been excom- at Rome. municated about 230, doubtless first attracted attention as a Monarchian, probably in the last fifth of the second century, either at his native city Smyrna, or at Ephesus. His excommunication in Asia Minor seems to have taken place after the entire controversy had been settled at Rome. Epigonus (d. 200), a pupil of Noetus, came to Rome during the pontificate of Zephyrinus, and is said there to have promulgated the teachings of his master and to have founded a separate Patripassian party. The first head of the faction was Cleomenes, the pupil of Epigonus, and in 215 he was succeeded by Sabellius. Although they were opposed at Rome especially by Hippoly. tus, the sympathy of the majority of the Roman Christians was Monarchian. Even Zephyrinus, like his predecessor Victor, was inclined toward modalism, though his chief endeavor seems to have been to avoid schism at any cost. His policy was fol lowed by his successor Calixtus (217-222); but when the struggle only became intensified, he re solved to excommunicate both Sabellius and Hip polytus, though it is not impossible that Hippolytus and his minority had already broken with Calix tus. The moderates of both parties seem to have been satisfied with the Christological formula pro posed by Calixtus, and formed the bridge by which the Roman Christians passed from Monarchian to hypostatic Christology. The small faction of Hip polytus maintained an existence in Rome for some fifteen years; the Sabellians survived still longer. The scantiness of the sources for the history of Monarcbianism in Rome-to say nothing of other cities-despite the discovery of the Philosophu mend, is exemplified in the fact that Tertullian never mentions Noetus, Epigonus, Cleomenes, or Calixtus, but mentions a monarchian in Rome

459

ignored entirely by Hippolytus, Praxem. He probably came to Rome during the pontificate of Victor, but remained there only a short time. Fifteen years later, when the controversy was in full course at Rome and Carthage, his name was forgotten. Notwithstanding this, Tertullian polemized against him as the first to arouse controversy in Carthage, although in his attacks he regarded the conditions of about 210, with reference, apparently, to the Roman Monarchians. Praxeas was a confessor of Asia Minor, the first to bring the Christological controversy to Rome, and a man filled with zeal against the rising prophetic school. Not only did he find no opposition at Rome, but he even induced the pontiff (either Eleutherus or Victor) to retract the "letters of peace" which he had bestowed on the new prophets and their communities in Asia. But the presence of Praxeas in Rome caused no lasting strife. From Rome he went to Carthage, where he opposed the hypostatic Christology, only to be silenced and forced to a written retraction by Tertullian. Thus ended the first phase of the controversy, and the name of Praxeas vanished; nor is anything certainly known of the downfall of Monarchianism in Carthage.

The sources are too scanty for a complete presentment of the tenets of the earlier modalistic Monarchianism. Yet the sources are not alone to blame; for the theory that in Christ 3. Doctrines God himself had become incarnate of might lead to wild hypotheses of trans- the Early formation or approximate dynamistic Modalists. Monarchianism. Again, so soon as the indwelling of the "divinity of the Fa ther" in Jesus was not regarded strictly as an in carnation, the way was open for the Artemonite heresy (see Artemon). In the wtitings of Origen are many passages which may refer to either mod alists or Artemonites, especially as the two were united by their opposition to the Logos-Christology. The best account of the older modalists is contained in the polemic of Hippolytus against Noetus. His followers held that Christ was the Father, and that the Father himself had been born, had suffered, and died. If Christ is God, he is surely the Father, or else not God; and therefore, if Christ suffered, then God suffered. Yet it was not only their de cided monotheism, which made them term their opponents ditheists, that led them on; they were impelled, besides this, by their interest in the divinity of Jesus, which, in their opinion, could be main tained solely by their teachings, in support of which they appealed to such passages as Ex. iii. 6, xx. 2-3; Isa. xliv. 6, xlv. 5, 14-15; Bar. iii. 36; John x. 30, xiv. 8-9; Rom. ix. 5. While they thus reo ognized the Gospel of John, they explained away its allusions to the Logos allegorically. In his Phi losophumena Hippolytus asserts that the Noetians maintained that the distinction between the Father and the Son was merely nominal (except in so far as it was redemptorial), since the one God, when born as man, appeared as the Son. God is invisible when he will, and visible when he will (this being based on an appeal to the Old-Testament the ophanies); and in like manner he is both incom prehensible and comprehensible, unconquerable and conquerable, unbegotten and begotten, immortal and mortal. In so far as the Father suffered himself to be born of the virgin, he is the son of himself, and not of another, and he who suffered the passion and rose on the third day was the God and Father of all. While Stoic influence can not be denied in the Noetian system, the basis is certain ancient quasiliturgical formulas as used by Ignatius, the author of II Clement, and Melito, and of similar purport with the views just cited.

The concept and importance of the human "flesh" of Jesus, according to these Monarchians, is uncertain (see Flesh). More complicated are the Monarchianistic formulas attacked by Tertullian in the Advemus Praxeam and as- 4. Later cribed by Hippolytus to Calixtus. Modalism Tertullian's Monarchians maintain the and Catho- complete identity of the Father and lic Com- the Son, and had no place for the Logos promise. in their Christology, regarding the word as empty sound. Like the Noe tians, they were intensely monotheistic and feared the recrudescence of Gnosticism in hypostatic Christology. Obliged to explain the Biblical pas sages in which the Son appears as distinct from the Father, they asserted that the flesh made the Fa ther the Son, or that in the person of the Redeemer the flesh (the man, Jesus) was the Son, and the spirit (God, Christ) was the Father, appealing, in support of their view, to Luke i. 35. Since God is spirit only, he could not suffer; but by assuming human flesh, he could be a fellow sufferer. It is at once evident that as soon as the distinction between flesh (the Son) and spirit (the Father) was taken seriously,, the doctrine approached the Artem onite teaching. Yet such a distinction could not satisfy the advocates of the Logos Christology, since it maintained the identity of the Father with the spirit in Christ. Any attempt to recognize the Logos Christology on the basis of modalism neces sarily led to dynamistic Monarchianism; yet the formulas of both Zephyrinus and Calixtus had arisen from efforts at compromise. In the formula of the latter-that God (the Logos, both Father and Son) was an indivisible spirit filling all things, the incarnate spirit being identical with the Fa ther, so that the human manifestation was the Son and the indwelling spirit the Father, the Father suffering with the Son-Origen rightly recognized a mixture of Sabellian and Theodotian views. The adoption of this formula in Rome, except by a few extremists of either party, was due not only to its admission of the Logos-concept, but to its declaration that, at the incarnation, God had deified the flesh; and that the Son, as representing the essen tially deified flesh, should be regarded as a second person, though truly one with God. The formula. was, moreover, admirably adapted, by its ambigu ity, to establish among the faithful the mystery under whose protection bypostatie Christology gradually gained entrance.

Hypostatic Christology, as opposed to modalism, was evolved between 200 and 250 on the basis of the theology of the apologists. It easily refuted, by arguments from the Bible, the Monarchian identification of the Father with the Son, and rejected

460

as an innovation the Patripassian doctrine. In their concept of God, on the other hand, the Mon archians were generally supported by 5. Struggle the earliest Christian tradition. Their between opponents, well aware of the difficul Hypostat- ties confronting them, plunged into ism and speculation, even at the risk of ap Modalism. proximating Gnosticism. Yet in their Christology Tertullian and his disciples were unable either to satisfy the Christian views or to silence their opponents; for though their Logos was essentially one with God, yet in origin he is an inferior divine being. This view, moreover, conflicted with liturgical tradition, which taught that God himself must be seen in Christ; while the attempt to deduce the appellation of Son of God for Christ from an act before the creation of the world, instead of from his miraculous birth, was opposed by dogmatic tradition. The final conquest of Monarchianism, impossible for Tertullian and Hippolytus, was achieved by Origen and the Alex andrine theologians. In the Logos-doctrine of the third century, there was no positive answer to the problem whether the divine which was manifest on earth in Christ was identical with the Godhead. Athanasius was the first to make certain reply on the basis of the Logos-doctrine; but until his time the modalistic Monarchians represented a primi tive and valuable movement in the Church. After Calixtus' formula of compromise and the excom munication of Sabellius (see Calixtus I.), aggressive modalism, as well as Hippolytus' sect, declined in the West. Nevertheless, sporadic modalistic tendencies, formulas, and doctrines still survived, as assailed by the Creed of Aquileia, by Cyprian, and by Dionysius of Rome, and as shown by nu merous passages in the writings of Commodian. There were Sabellians at Rome as late as the fourth century. The true cause of the downfall of western modalism lay in the firm attitude assumed by the West in the Roman struggle, in the energetic de fense of the homoouma, and in the rejection of the formula of three hypostases. VL Modalistic Monarchians in the East; Sabel liariism: The term "Sabellians" was applied in the East, after the beginning of the third century, to the modalistic Monarehians, and i. Sabellius; occurs sporadically in the West in the Obscurity fourth and fifth centuries. The data of the concerning the teaching of Sabellius Sources. himself and of his immediate succes sors, however, is very confused. Not only have the doctrines of Marcellus of Ancyra (q.v.) been confounded with those of Sabellius especially as Monarehianism assumed various forms in the century between Hippolytus and Athana, sius-but philosophical speculation also entered in, and Kenotic (see KENosis) and transformation theories were developed; besides which, deductions were drawn and consequent tenets assigned by the sources which probably never existed in the form described. It is, therefore, impossible to write a history of Monarchianism from Calixtus to Marcel lus, no matter how carefully all available material be studied. Nevertheless, it is clear that, at least between 220 and 270, the battle against Monarchi-

anism must have been bitter in the East, and that the development of the Logos Christology was there directly influenced by this opposition. The very fact that in the East Monarchianism was almost exclusively known as " Sabellianism "shows that schisms first arose there through the activity of Sabellius, that is, after the fourth decade of the third century. Apparently during the pontificate of Zephyrinus, Sabellius, who was probably born in the Pentapolis in Libya, became the successor of Cleomenes as the head of the Monarehians at Rome. With his excommunication by Calixtus, he became the leader of a Monarehian sect ~ which branded Calixtus as an apostate. He was still in Rome when Hippolytus wrote the Philosophumena, and there developed far-reaching relations, especially with the East. His doctrines, which were evidently unknown to Origen, were closely akin to those of Noetus, from which they differed, however; both in their more exact theology and in their recognition of the Holy Ghost. The cardinal tenet of Sabellius was that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are identical, but with three names. Ever inspired by a rigid monotheism, Sabellius also termed the one God the "Son-Father," evidently to avoid all suspicion of ditheism, meaning hereby the final designation of God himself, and not any manifestations of a monad remaining in the background. At the same time, he taught that God is not the Father and the Son simultaneously; but that he became operative in three successive energies: first, as the person (" manifestation," not " hypostasis ") of the Father, the creator and legislator; then as the person of the Son as the Redeemer (this period extending from the incarnation to the assumption); and finally as the person of the Holy Ghost as the maker and giver of life. It is improbable, however, that he was able to make a strict delimitation of these successive persons, for he can scarcely have avoided the recognition of the continuous activity of God the Father in nature.

While both Sabellius and his followers acknowledged the catholic canon, Epiphanius states that they derived their entire heresy from certain apocryphal books, especially from the Gospel of the Egyptians. It is thus evident that the Sabellian

Christology was not essentially differs. Relations ent from the older Patripassian sys-

and Decay ten. The only noteworthy points of of Sabef- divergence were the attempt to dem lianism. onstrate the succession of the per sons; the recognition of the Holy Ghost; and the formal parallelization of the per son of the Father with the two other persons. The first point may be regarded as a harking back to rigid modalism, while the second was in keeping with the new theological school. The most impor tant point was the third, since by paralleling the person and the energy of the Father with the other two persons, not only was cosmology introduced into modalism as a parallel to soteriology, but the preeminence of the Father over the Son and the Holy Ghost was broken. Thus the way was pre pared for Athanasian and Augustinian Christology --Sabellius was the forerunner of the exclusive

461

homoottsim. The doctrines of Sabellius were rejected by Marcellus of Ancyra (q.v.), who found no recognition of the Logos in Sabellianism, and con sequently deemed that his fellow Monarchian had formed an incorrect concept of God. But his Mon archianism won few adherents. The times had changed; the consubstantiality of the Father and the Logos had been enunciated; and Monarchianism had become superfluous in the Church. The controversy of the two Dionysii, though properly a preliminary to Arianism, must be mentioned here, since the Sabellian tendencies in the Pentapolis led Dionysius of Alexandria to a rigid statement of his doctrine. The ambiguity of Origen's Christological terminology, however, is revealed in the formulas of his disciples Dionysius and Gregory Thaumatur gus, which contain passages susceptible of Mon archianistic interpretation, though, like Origen, both were bitter opponents of the Monarchian sys tem. It must be borne in mind, however, that in the period between 250 and 320 there was a fre quent tendency toward tritheism, while, on the other hand, there was a deep-seated mistrust of the Logos Christology as imperiling Monarchianism, so that Origen's followers felt themselves obliged to emphasize Monarchianistic tenets. In the second half of the third century the fluidity of all dogmatic concepts thus led to a condition of theological confusion. What Athanasius and later writers called Sabellianiem was a comprehensive term for various doctrinal systems, modified by philosophical concepts and the influence of Alexandrine theology. The bold attempt of Paul of Samosata to return to primitive tradition came too late; and the same judgment holds of the effort of Marcellus of Ancyra to abandon Alexandrine speculation as a whole and to solve the Christological problem by again taking up Biblical concepts and the theology of Irenaeus. The problem remained confined to the limits of Origen's theology, and here it met its fate. See Antitrinitarianism, § 2.

(Adolf Harnack.)

Bibliography: Consult the literature under Anoal, and 5nder the sketches of the leaders named in the text, especially Epiphsnius, Hippolytus, Trengeus, and Philaeter. Important ere the works on the history of doctrine, cape. cially: Harnack, Dogma, i. 198, 331 ii. passim, iii. S-B8, 93; K. R. Hagenbach, History of Christian Doctrines, i. 74, 180, 178, Edinburgh, 1880; I. A. Dorner, Die Lshra von der Parson Christi, 4 vols. Stuttgart, 1848-58, Eng trend., History of the Development of as Doctrine of the Parson of Christ, b vols., Edinburgh, 1881-1883. Also the works on the church history of the period, eg., Schaff, Christian Church, ii. 571-583; and Neander, Christian Church, i, 575 sqq., ii. passim. Consult also: L. Lange, Geschichte und Lehrleprily' der Unitarier vor der nicdnierhen Syaode, Leipsic, 1831; F. D. E. Schleiermacher, SBmmh licks Wer)re-Zur Theotop9e, vol. ii., 30 vols., Berlin, 183b1884; J. Schwane, Dogmengeschichte der roorreicSniachan Zait, pp 142-158, 199-203, Münster, 1882; H. Hegemann, Die römische ICsrchs in den araten dre's Jahrhundertan, Freiburg, 1884; J. Bornemsnn, Die Taufa Christi, Leipsic, 1898; Hefele, Concii%enpeachicTUa, vols. i.-ii., Eng. transl., vols. i.-iii.