certain. It is only known that they were opponents of the Logos teaching of John, and rejected his Gospel, as also the Apocalypse. Two or three decades after their appearance, came the schools of Theodotus and Artemon at Rome, both of whom were excommunicated by the Roman bishop not far from the year 200.1 Finally, as the culmination of this class, came Paul of Samosata, and his followers at Antioch. The second class, which found more sympathy in the Church than the first, had in Praxeas its first prominent representative. Praxeas taught in Rome in the last part of the second century. Noëtus of Smyrna followed with similar views, which his disciples imported to Rome. According to Hippolytus, the Roman Bishop Callistus was deeply implicated in the heresy of Noëtus, into which also he had previously seduced his weak predecessor, Zephyrinus.2 Then came the teachings of Sabellius, as the culminating product of this class of Monarchians. Beryllus of Bostra, who was converted from his theories by Origen, has been placed by some in the first class, by others in the second. The data for a decision are very scanty.3 Neander places Beryllus among those who confessed the Divine nature of Christ. As Paul of Samosata, and Sabellius were the most significant representatives of their respective classes, we may most fitly select them for special consideration.

Paul of Samosata became Bishop of Antioch in 260. Ere long he fell under suspicion of entertaining heretical views on the nature of Christ. His plan seems to

1 Euseb., Hist. Eccl., v. 28; Epiphanius, Hær., liv.; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., ii. 8; Hippolytus, Philos., vii. 23.

2 Philos., ix. 6, 7; x. 23.

3 Euseb., vi. 33.

have been by cautious and gradual methods to induct the Church, over which he presided, into his own way of thinking. One expedient adopted was a remodelling of the hymns, so as to make them suit his own theology. In 269 a council of bishops pronounced his deposition; but on account of the patronage which he received from Zenobia, queen of the temporary kingdom of Palmyra, the decree could not be carried into execution till 272. In character, if the unanimous representations of early writers can be trusted, Paul was a man of vain, worldly, diplomatic turn, who loved the incense of flattery and the patronage of power. The main points of his teaching were the following: There are no personal distinctions in the Godhead. The Word and the Spirit simply denote God under different aspects, are to God what man's reason and spirit are to him. Christ had no existence prior to His earthly conception and birth. God was to some extent in Christ, but not as any factor of His person; He was in Christ only in the sense of giving to Him a superior endowment of wisdom and power. In virtue of this endowment, and the high mission with which He was intrusted, Christ attained to a species of divine dignity. Thus Paul, like the Socinians of later times, reversed the Scriptural representation that God descended to the estate of man, and taught that Christ from man became God, not indeed in essence, but in relative position and dignity.1

Sabellius, the most able and ingenious in the whole list of Monarchians, appeared as an advocate of antitrinitarian views at Rome in the early part of the third

1 Euseb., vii. 27-30; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., ii. 8; Epiphanius, Hær., lxv.

century, and was excommunicated in Alexandria in 261. In his teaching, the Trinity is regarded as purely modal, a Trinity of manifestations. Viewed in His original estate, God appears as the Monad, solitary and in rest. But this rest and isolation come to an end: God moves, speaks, becomes revealed by and in creation. As the outward-moving Spirit, the Creator and Ruler of the world at large, the revealed One, God is the Logos. Within the compass of His general revelation, there ensues a special revelation, in connection with the preparation and accomplishment of redemption. The revealed God became still further distinguished as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In the law, God revealed himself as Father; in the redemptive work of Christ on earth, as Son; in the sanctifying of believers, He reveals himself as Holy Spirit. These three titles are indicative, not of distinctions in the divine nature, but of stages in the divine economy; they denote the same divine Person under successive forms of manifestation.1 This theory, it will be seen, provides rather for a theophany than for a divine incarnation in the proper sense. It teaches a transient abiding of God in the flesh, instead of a permanent union of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ.

VI. THE CATHOLIC THEOLOGIANS AND THEOLOGY.

Great as was the in-rushing flood of heresies, the Church found against it a good defence. That defence consisted in the self-evidencing power of divine truth,

1 Euseb., vii. 6; Epiphanius, Hær., lxii; Theodoret, Hær. Fab.,

propagating itself in the twofold channel of the written word and of tradition. At that time tradition was comparatively pure and vital: it embraced substantially the same contents as the New Testament, and indeed frequently served as a safeguard against arbitrary and capricious interpretations.

The Catholic writers of the period form several pretty clearly defined groups. First come the apostolic Fathers, including Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Hermas, Papias, a certain Barnabas, the author of the epistle to Diognetus, and perhaps also the author of the recently discovered treatise, entitled "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles." These writers were rather practical than speculative, more directly concerned with conduct than with dogma. Still, their productions are of no small doctrinal worth. Clement of Rome claims our special interest, as having written very near the apostolic age, if not indeed within its bounds. According to Eusebius, he presided over the Church of Rome from A.D. 92 to 101.1 His proximity to the apostles, as well as his distinguished position as head of the Roman Church, explains the fact that his name was so largely employed for the recommending of heretical and spurious writings. But we have from him one writing, a somewhat lengthy epistle to the Corinthians, which is undoubtedly genuine. The identity of Clement with the Flavius Clemens who was put to death by Domitian is not at all probable, since early writers could hardly have failed to note the fact had it existed. More may be said in favor of the theory that he was the fellow-laborer mentioned by Paul (Phil. iv.

1 Hist. Eccl., iii. 34.

3); but there is no adequate ground for a positive verdict. The epistle of Clement breathes a fine spirit, and gives excellent advice to the Corinthian brethren for the healing of their party strifes. Ignatius, who has already been introduced to us in the history of martyrdom, was the author of seven epistles, which are noteworthy, among other things, for the emphatic view of the episcopal dignity which they inculcate. The fact that the epistles appear in different versions, a longer and a shorter Greek, and also a Syriac version of three of them, has given occasion to a prolonged canvassing of the Ignatian literature. The weight of authority seems finally to be decidedly in favor of the shorter Greek version. The spuriousness of the other epistles, eight in number, attributed to Ignatius, is matter of common consent. Polycarp, who has also been brought to our notice in the records of martyrdom, wrote an epistle to the Philippians. Barnabas, whose name is attached to an epistle, was an early writer; but his fanciful allegorizing of the Old Testament, and headlong dealing with the law, forbid the supposition that he was Paul's distinguished companion of the same name. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, a friend and contemporary of Polycarp, is introduced to us chiefly by a few fragments quoted by early writers from his work entitled "Explanation of the Lord's Discourses." Hermas, the supposed author of "The Pastor of Hermas," a work that enjoyed great esteem in the early Church, is mentioned by the Canon of Muratori as the brother of the Roman bishop Pius, who entered upon his office toward the middle of the second century. Beyond this, history offers no definite testimony. Some, indeed, have concluded, from the ref