Part 20 (1/2)

(_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 wors.h.i.+pped. 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 wors.h.i.+ppers 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.