trine the view that Melchisedech was a celestial power, who was the advocate for the angels in heaven, as Jesus Christ was for men upon earth (a view found among later sects. — See Melchisedechians). This teaching was of course grounded on Hebrews, vii, 3, and it is refuted at length by St. Epiphanius as Heresy 55, "Melchisedechians", after he has attacked the leather-seller under Heresy 54, "Theodotians". As he nieets a series of arguments of both heretics, it is prob- able that some writings of the sect had been before Hippolytus, whose lost "Syntagma against all here- sies" supplied St. Epiphanius with all his information. After tlie death of Pope Victor, Theodotus, the banker, and Asclepiodotus designed to raise their sect from tlie position of a mere school like those of the Gnostics to the rank of a Church like that of Marcion. They got hold of a certain confessor named Natalius, and persuaded him to be called their bishop at a salary of 150 denarii (24 dollars) a month. Natalius thus became the first antipope. But after he had joined them, he was frequently warned in visions by the Lord, Who did not wish His martyr to be lost outside the Church. He neglected the visions, for the sake of the honour and gain, but finally was scourged all night by the holy angels, so that in the morning with haste and tears he betook himself in sackcloth and ashes to Pope Zephyrinus and cast himself at the feet of the clergy, and even of the laity, showing the weals of the blows, and was after some difficulty restored to com- munion. This story is quoted by Eusebius II (VI, xxviii) from the "Little Labyrinth" of the contempo- rary Hippolytus, a work composed against Artemon, a late leader of the sect (perhaps c. 225-30), whom he did not mention in the "Syntagma" or the "Philoso- phumena". Our knowledge of Artemon, or Artemas, is limited to the reference to him made at the end of the Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata (about 266-268), where that heretic was said to have followed Artemon, and in fact the teaching of Paul is but a more learned and theological development of Theodo- tianism (see Paul of Samosata).
The sect probably died out about the middle of the third century, and can never have been numerous. AH our knowledge of it goes back to Hippolytus. His "Syntagma" (c. 205) is epitomized in Pseudo-Tertul- lian (Praescript., lii) and Philastrius, and is developed by Epiphanius (H»r., liv. Iv) ; his " Little Labyrinth" (written 139-5, cited by Eusebius, V, 28) and his " Philosophumena " are still extant. See also his "Contra Noetum "3, and a fragment " On the Melchis- edechians and Theodotians and Athingani", pub- lished by Caspari (Tidskr. fiir der Evangel. Luth. Kirke, Ny Raekke, VIII, 3, p. 307). But the Athin- gani are a later sect, for which see Melchisedech- ians. The Monarchianism of Photinus (q. v.) seems to have been akin to that of the Theodotians. All speculations as to the origin of the theories of Theodo- tus are fanciful. At any rate he is not connected with the Ebionites. The Alogi have sometimes been clas.sed with the Monarchians. Lipsius in his "Quel- lenkritik des Epiphanius" supposed them to be even Philanthropists, on account of their denial of the Logos, and Epiphanius in fact calls Theodotus an i.ir6<nia(Tixa of the Alogi; but this is only a guess, and is not derived by him from Hippolytus. As a fact, Epiphanius assures us (Hajr., 51) that the Alogi (that is, Gaius and his party) were orthodox in their Christ- ology (see Montanists).
II. MoDALisTs. — The Monarchians properly so- called (Modalists) exaggerated the oneness of the PV ther and the Son so as to make them but one Person; thus the distinctions in the Holy Trinity are energies or modes, not Persons: God the Father appears on earth as Son; hence it seemed to their opponents that Monarchians made the Father suffer and die. In the West they were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are usually called SabeUians. The first X.— 29
to visit Rome was probably Praxeas, who went on to Carthage some time before 206-08; but he was appar- ently not in reality a heresiarch, and the arguments refuted by TertuUian somewhat later in his book " Ad- versus Praxean" are doubtless those of the Roman Monarchians (see Praxeas).
A. History. — Noetus (from whom the Noetians) was a Smyrna^an (Epiphanius, by a slip, says an Ephe- sian). He called himself Moses, and his brother Aaron. When accused before the presbyterate of teaching that the Father suffered, he denied it; but after having made a few disciples he was again inter- rogated, and I'xprlled from the Church. He died soon after, and did not receive Christain burial. Hippoly- tus mockingly declares him to have been a follower of Heraclitus, on account of the union of opposites which he taught when he called God both visible and invisible, passible and impassible. His pupil Epigonus came to Rome. As he was not mentioned in the "Syntagma" of Hippolytus, which was written in one of the first five years of the third century, he was not then well known in Rome, or had not yet ar- rived. According to Hippolytus (Philos., IX, 7), Cle- omenes, a follower of Epigonus, was allowed by Pope Zephyrinus to establish a school, which flourished under his approbation and that of Callistus. Hage- mann urges that we should conclude that Cleomenes was not a Noetian at all, and that he was an orthodox opponent of the incorrect theology of Hippolytus. The same writer gives most ingenious and interesting (though hardly convincing) reasons for identifying Praxeas with Callistus; he proves that the Monar- chians attacked in TertuUian's " Contra Praxean" and in the "Philosophumena" had identical tenets which were not necessarily heretical; he denies that Tertul- lian means us to understand that Praxeas came to Carthage, and he explains the nameless refuter of Praxeas to be, not TertuUian himself, but Hippolytus. It is true that it is easy to suppose TertuUian and Hip- polytus to have misrepresented the opinions of their opponents, but it cannot be proved that Cleomenes was not a follower of the heretical Noetus, and that Sabellius did not issue from his school; further, it is not obvious that TertuUian would attack Callistus under a nickname.
Sabellius soon became the leader of the Monarchians in Rome, perhaps even before the death of Zephy- rinus (c. 218). He is said by Epiphanius to have founded his views on the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and the fragments of that apocryphon sup- port this statement. Hippolytus hoped to convert Sabellius to his own views, and attributed his failure in this to the influence of Callistus. That pope, how- ever, excommunicated Sabellius c. 220 ("fearing me", says Hippolytus). Hippolytus accuses Callistus of now inventing a new heresy by combining the views of Theodotus with those of Sabellius, although he excom- municated them both (see Callistus I, Pope). Sa- bellius was apparently still in Rome when Hippolytus wrote the Philosophumena (between 230 and 235). Of his earlier and later history nothing is known. St. Basil and others call him a Libyan from Pentapolis, but this seems to rest on the fact that Pentapolis was found to be full of Sabellianism by Dionysius of Alex- andria, c. 260. A number of Montanists led by jEs- chines became Modalists (unless Harnack is right in making Modalism the original belief of the Monta^ nists and in regarding ^schines as a conservative). Sabellius (or at least his followers) may have consider- ably amplified the original Noetianism. There was still Sabellianism to be found in the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra developed a Monarchianism of his own, which was carried much further by his disci- ple, Photinus. Priscillian was an cxtreriic ^I(>Ilarchiaa and so was Commodian ("Carmen Apul.", 89, 277, 771). The "Monarchian Prologues" to the Gospels found in most old MSS. of the Vulgate, were attrib-