Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The Heresy of Sabellius. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Chapter
VI.—The Heresy of
Sabellius.
He refers also in the same letter to the heretical teachings of
Sabellius,2183
2183 Of the life of Sabellius we know very little. He was at the head
of the Monarchian (modalistic) party in Rome during the episcopate of
Zephyrinus (198–217), and was there perhaps even earlier. He is,
and was already in the fourth century, commonly called a native of
Africa, but the first one directly to state this is Basil, and the
opinion seems to rest upon the fact that his views were especially
popular in Pentapolis as early as the middle of the third century, as
Dionysius says here. Hippolytus in speaking of him does not mention his
birthplace, which causes Stokes to incline to the opinion that he was a
native of Rome. The matter, in fact, cannot be decided. We are told by
Hippolytus that Callistus led Sabellius into heresy, but that after he
became pope he excommunicated him in order to gain a reputation for
orthodoxy. Of the later life of Sabellius we know nothing. His writings
are no longer extant, though there are apparently quotations from some
of them in Epiphanius, Hær. 62, and Athanasius, Contra
Arian. Oratio 4.
In the third century
those Monarchians (modalists) who were known as Patripassians in the
West were called Sabellians in the East. In the fourth and fifth
centuries the Fathers used the term Sabellianism in a general sense for
various forms of Monarchianism, all of which, however, tended in the
one direction, viz. toward the denial of any personal distinction in
the Godhead, and hence the identification of Father and Son. And so we
characterize every teaching which tends that way as Sabellianistic,
although this form of Monarchianism is really much older than
Sabellius. See Harnack’s article on Monarchianism in Herzog, 2d
ed. (abridged translation in Schaff-Herzog), and Stokes’ article
on Sabellius and Sabellianism in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.,
both of which give the literature, and Schaff’s Ch. Hist.
II. p. 580 sqq., which gives the sources in full. Neander’s
account deserves especial notice. Upon Eusebius’ attitude toward
Sabellianism, see above, p. 13 sq. | which were in his time becoming
prominent, and says:
“For concerning the
doctrine now agitated in Ptolemais of Pentapolis,—which is
impious and marked by great blasphemy against the Almighty God, the
Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, and contains much unbelief
respecting his Only Begotten Son and the first-born of every creature,
the Word which became man, and a want of perception of the Holy
Spirit,—as there came to me communications from both sides and
brethren discussing the matter, I wrote certain letters treating the
subject as instructively as, by the help. of God, I was able.2184
2184 ἐπέστειλ€
τινα ὡς
ἐδυνήθην,
παρασχόντος
τοῦ θεοῦ,
διδασκαλικώτερον
ὑφηγούμενος,
ὧν τὰ
ἀντίγραφα
žπεμψ€ σοι. Of these letters no fragments are extant. They are not to
be confounded with the four books against Sabellius, addressed to
Dionysius of Rome, and mentioned in chap. 26, below. It is possible, as
Dittrich suggests, that they included the letters on the same subject
to Ammon, Telesphorus, Euphranor, and others which Eusebius mentions in
that chapter. Upon Dionysius’ attitude toward Sabellianism, see
above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1. | Of these I send2185
2185 žπεμψα. The
epistolary aorist as used here does not refer to a past time, but to
the time of the writing of the letter, which is past when the person to
whom the letter is sent reads the words. The same word (žπεμψα) is used in
this sense in Acts xxiii. 30; 2 Cor. ix. 3, Eph. vi. 22, Col. iv.
8.
Cf. the remarks of Bishop Lightfoot in his Commentary on Galatians, VI.
11. | thee copies.”E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|