Oneness Believers Contents: Grievous Wolves Christian Apologists Noetus: Oneness Adherent (Believer) Praxeas: Oneness Adherent (Believer)

Ancient Water Baptism Sabellius: Oneness Adherent (Believer) Beryllus: Oneness Adherent (Believer) Dynamic Monarchians The Origin of the Trinity Holy Spirit The Catholic Church Conclusions Notes Oneness Believers Introduction This one thing is for certain. That contrary to what the public has been led to believe, Oneness groups have continued to exist down through the centuries. They started with the apostles in 33 AD. So that is what this book is all about. Paul said that the apostolic church would survive as a body of believers until the coming of the Lord (I Thessalonians 4:15). And we have and will continue to do so. And the truth (John 8:32) that sets a person free from sin and Satan, will now be expounded upon. All Scriptures quoted herein comes from the King James Bible Version. Grievous Wolves "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:29-30). When the church was born into the world, there was only one church both inwardly and outwardly. There were no denominations. The men and women in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost were all with one accord in one place (Acts 2:1). The marvelous experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, with the evidence of speaking in other tongues (Acts 2:4), was the catalyst that would turn backward Galileans

into dynamic missionaries for Jesus Christ. Yet there was a long road of blood, sweat, and tears ahead for the apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ. They were constantly opposed by wicked people who attacked the apostolic church both within and without. After Paul's departure from this life, the apostle John actually faced a situation where an ungodly man had taken over an assembly: "I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not . . . neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church" (3 John 9-10). This incident apparently happened at the turn of the century. Jesus, through the pen of John (AD 96), warned the churches in Asia Minor to resist wicked men and women who were creeping into the churches (Revelation 2-3). The apostle Peter wrote of wicked men who despised the government of the church (2 Peter 2:10). He called them "presumptuous," self-willed, and not afraid to speak evil of church dignities. They were pretending to follow Holy Spirit, and sitting in Holy Spirit filled services. Such descriptions let us know that the apostolic church was under attack even in the first century. Paul described the false teachers as "grievous wolves," who attacked the church, and "perverse men," who drew away disciples from the church. Jude, brother of the Lord, stated that false teachers had "crept in unawares," that these people were "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness," and that they were "denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4). It seems that they were continuing to live in sin while claiming to be Christians, and further, that they were denying in some way the deity of the Lord. One Greek interlinear text says they denied "the only Master, God and our Lord, Jesus Christ." Peter also wrote about early dissidents that denied the Lord (2 Peter 2:1). We also know that troubles broke out in the apostolic churches in the last quarter of the first century from an early follower of the apostles, Clement of Rome (AD 96). Clement was identified by the third or fourth-century writers Origen and Eusebius as the disciple of Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3. Irenaeus of Lyons, another third-century writer, stated that Clement was the third successor of Peter in Rome as the bishop of the church there.1 Clement seems to have been an educated Roman of Jewish descent. Around AD 96 he learned of a tragic split in the district of Corinth and wrote a letter to the ministers at Corinth, encouraging them to heal the breach that had developed. From what we can conclude from Clement's letter to Corinth, it seems that a clique, or one or two young ministers, had promoted a rebellion against the leadership of the Corinthian church. Clement concluded that it was: "An injustice to eject from the sacred ministry the persons who were appointed either by [the apostles], or later, with the consent of the whole church, by other men of high repute, and have ministered to the flock of Christ faultlessly, humbly, quietly, and unselfishly,

and have moreover, over a long period of time, earned the esteem of all."2 These young ministers, according to Clement, were of no renown and of no reputation (I Clement 11:3). In his eyes, they were young and foolish and had lifted themselves up against honorable, respected, and aged men.3 Clement was concerned that this trouble in Corinth would not remain isolated. It would spread, and it had already "perverted and discouraged" many. The "sedition" continued (I Clement 29:21). The apostle John was probably still alive in AD 96, but he was the only one of the Twelve left. He was aged and ill at Ephesus and probably unable to handle such a grave situation in Corinth. About twelve years after the split in the great church (most likely a district of assemblies) in Corinth, trouble with heretics began to surface in the mother church at Jerusalem, according to Eusebius's sources.4 Another early witness is Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and a martyr. Ignatius (AD 115) was apparently converted by one of the Twelve or at least had sat under an apostle's ministry. Herbert Musurillo rightly concluded that, whatever one might think about Ignatius, his is a significant witness: "Like John and Paul, Ignatius was one of the first ecstatics of the early church; and that his few pages should arouse so much controversy and analysis is suggestive of his very importance as a witness to the mystery of Christianity."5 One modern writer speculated that Ignatius was one of the heretics that John, Peter, and Jude had written against earlier and that he held to an early form of trinitarianism. However, there is evidence that this is not so. Some testimony to the apostolicity of Ignatius exists. For example, Papias, a contemporary, who most likely knew Ignatius personally, tells us that Ignatius was brought up under the eyes of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul.6 Papias was a reputed disciple of the apostle John and was reportedly born AD 61. It is known that Eusebius had access to the five books that Papias wrote (The Sayings of the Lord). None of the early church writers questioned his credentials, although the later Catholic fathers suppressed his writings. His testimony of Ignatius is therefore a positive factor. It is known that some of Ignatius's writings have been either interpolated or forged. Caution is to be advised in reviewing them, but that does not mean that they do not contain valuable information on the close of the apostolic age. The quotations that follow are from letters that scholars consider to be genuine. Ignatius, in his long journey as a prisoner of the Romans to the city of Rome to be martyred, wrote to a number of the ancient churches. For example, he warned the church at Ephesus, "I have heard of certain persons from elsewhere passing through, whose doctrine was bad. These you did not permit to sow their seed among you; you stopped your ears, so as not to receive the seed sown by them."7 In another place, Ignatius urged Christians to be faithful in church attendance: "Let no one deceive himself: unless a man is within the sanctuary, he has to go without the Bread of God. . . . It follows then: he who absents himself from the common meetings, by that very fact shows pride and becomes sectarian."8

Virginia Corwin, a well-known scholar, stated that the deity of Jesus Christ was a point of issue during the time of Ignatius. She noted that Ignatius did not have any developed doctrine of the Logos.9 (The Logos is the Greek term for the "Word" in John 1, and a characteristic theme of early trinitarian thought was to identify the Logos as a different person from the Father.) In fact, Corwin apparently identified Ignatius as a monarchian, a term used for those who emphasized the oneness of God: "If one term must be chosen to indicate the tendency of his thought, Ignatius must be said to be monarchian."10 In his letter to the Magnesians, Ignatius described God in such a way as to emphasize the deity of Jesus Christ: "Everyone hasten to come together as to one temple of God, to one altar, to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from the one Father, abiding in the one, and returning to the one" (Magnesians 7:2).11 Corwin noted that in Magnesians 7:2 Ignatius did not achieve his emphasis by the word God but rather insisted on the unity of Christ and the Father.12 When we compare this statement of Ignatius with John 16:28, it seems to express Oneness thinking. Instead of speaking of Jesus as a second divine person, it describes the Word of the Father being made flesh and thus God the Father becoming incarnate in the flesh. According to Ignatius, strange teachings and ancient myths were being promulgated, which denied this unity (oneness).13 Ignatius is said to have been appointed bishop of Antioch in AD 67 by the apostle John. He reportedly succeeded Evodius, who had been appointed bishop by Peter in AD 40.14 It is possible, but not likely, that Ignatius changed his teaching on the Godhead forty years after the apostle John appointed him bishop. His letters show no evidence of any trinity (if we allow for one or two interpolations or changes). We do not find the words "trinity," "triad," "three persons," "God the Son," or any other characteristically trinitarian terms in his writings. After he was condemned by Trajan, Ignatius traveled from Antioch to Rome to die a martyr's death (AD 115). Some have criticized him for being vainglorious because he seemed to have "sought" death. However, it is important to realize that Ignatius was very elderly, and he could not have saved his life honorably. The apostle Paul expressed similar emotions (2 Timothy 4:6). Others have criticized Ignatius for allowing himself to be termed theophorus (God-bearer). But this was apparently a common term (similar to Paul's characterization of saints' bodies as "the temple of the Holy Ghost"). Ignatius wrote to the Ephesians: "Thus you all are fellow travellers, God-bearers, and temple-bearers, Christ-bearers and bearers of holiness, with the commandment of Jesus Christ for festal attire" (Ephesians 9:2).15 Apparently, in using the term theophorus Ignatius referred to having the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It became a loving nickname of his and even reached the ears of the Romans. As Ignatius, the old disciple, stood in the tumultuous Roman arena ready to die, the cruel Emperor Trajan cried out to him, "And who is Theophorus?" Ignatius replied, "He who has Christ within his breast."16

Ignatius was reportedly torn apart by four-legged beasts before the hateful eyes of a great sports crowd. During his life he seems to have stood against the even more dangerous two-legged beasts who sought to devour the church. Moreover, Ignatius, in his lifetime, had attempted to protect the sacred writings. He opposed those who were perverting them: "Unless I find it written in the originals, I will not believe it to be written in the Gospel. And when I said, `It is written,' they answered what lay before them in their corrupted copies" (Philadelphians 2:20).17 This does not sound like a man who was attempting to introduce a new teaching such as the trinitarian Logos doctrine! Rather, it appears that he was trying to conserve the apostolic doctrine. Let us examine another contemporary of Ignatius, Polycarp of Smyrna (AD 69-156). Polycarp was reputed to be John's disciple and a companion of Papias, another of John's disciples.18 Tradition has it that the apostle John designated Polycarp as the bishop of Smyrna; however, he is not noted as the bishop until at least AD 107. He was acquainted with Philip and his four daughters, who lived at Hierapolis for a while. Polycarp knew Ignatius and no doubt knew many who had sat directly under the teaching of the apostles, as he himself had. Like Ignatius, Polycarp fought against heresy in the church. In his letter to the Philippians, he stressed obedience to the presbyters and the deacons.19 As heresy was continuing to grow, Polycarp warned the faithful to keep aloof from "seducers, false brethren, and such as bear the Name of the Lord but for a mask."20 He echoed his teacher John and wrote that anyone who did not acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in human flesh is antichrist.21 (See 2 John 7.) His desire was to hold on to what he had heard from the apostles: "Therefore, let us leave untouched the senseless speculations of the masses, and the false doctrines, and turn to the teaching delivered to us at the beginning."22 On at least two occasions, Polycarp visited Rome. On the first recorded visit (AD 114), possibly in conjunction with the martyrdom of Ignatius, Polycarp undoubtedly met the Roman bishop Alexander. No mention is made of any heresy. On the second visit (AD 154), Polycarp had fellowship with Anicetus, the Roman bishop. He was reported to have been successful in showing certain heretics their errors.23 It is not likely that Polycarp and Ignatius would have differed in their doctrine. We know that they were in fellowship with one another. In a letter to Polycarp, Ignatius acknowledged Jesus Christ as God and demonstrated that he (Ignatius) was, like later monarchians, a patripassianist. (The word means "the Father suffered" and refers to the belief that God the Father was incarnate in the man Jesus and thus suffered for us in the flesh.) "Expect him, who is above all time, eternal, invisible, though for our sakes made visible: impalpable, and impassible, yet for us subjected to suf- ferings, enduring all manner of ways for our salvation" (To Polycarp 1:15).24 It is obvious from this passage and others that Ignatius held that it was God the Father, invisible and impassible (not able to suffer), who had become incarnate in the Son (the man Jesus) and had then suf- fered in the flesh for our salvation. What did Polycarp think of Ignatius? He stated that Ignatius was an example of holiness and endurance, and he urged the Philippians to follow his example.25

Some historians have called this Oneness teaching of Ignatius and Polycarp "Asiatic modalism." Smyrna and Antioch were in the geographical area known as Asia Minor; hence they styled it Asiatic. The term modalism refers to the belief that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are modes or manifestations of one God rather than different persons. We find this understanding in the Gospel of John, which teaches that the one God was revealed in the flesh, through the Incarnation, and in Paul's epistles, which teach that the one God was manifested in the flesh. Neither of these apostles ever spoke of a "second divine person." God was Father in creation, came in flesh as the Son in redemption, and is the Holy Spirit in the church. He revealed Himself in three different ways, but in each case He revealed Himself and not another. Loofs and Kroymann, for example, were historians who were convinced that Ignatius was a modalist.26 What is apparent, then, is that the great leaders of the sub- apostolic age (and whose roots go back into the close of the apostolic age) were not trinitarians but rather were modalists. To use modern terms, Ignatius was not a Roman Catholic, but he was a type of Oneness believer. Trinitarian writers have appropriated the word catholic (which means "universal") from the writings of Ignatius. But the man who used it was not a Catholic in the modern sense! He was apostolic. That is what it seems from his writings. Polycarp was thirty years old or more before the death of the apostle John. No doubt he had witnessed the battles that had raged in the last days of the beloved apostle. He had often heard the anointed and powerful preaching of John. Towards the end of his life, John was teaching that there were many false prophets and many deceivers Grievous Wolves (I John 4:1; 2 John 7). This situation must have increased in severity, for Polycarp was wont to say, when he heard of another heresy, "O good God, for what times hast thou kept me, that I should endure such things!"27 There are no trinitarian writers until after the death of Ignatius. In the latter part of Polycarp's life there were some writers who expressed early trinitarian ideas; however, we do not see them in fellowship with Polycarp. The earliest possible trinitarian writer, who used a trinitarian-type Logos doctrine, was Quadratus (AD 117-25) of Athens. He has sometimes been called the first Christian apologist, for he dedicated a defense (apology) of Christianity to the Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-38).28 Quadratus was a Greek philosopher, and in another probable work of his, The Epistle to Diognetus (c. AD 125), we get a glimpse of emerging Logos theory. Quadratus claimed to have been a disciple of the apostles and consequently a "teacher of the gentiles." The Logos was "the Eternal One who today is accounted a Son." He also called the Logos "He who glorifies the Father." He said there was no life without gnosis (knowledge, especially spiritual or esoteric knowledge), for gnosis is the avenue to life. He spoke of the true Gnosis and attaining full gnosis. He urged, "Let gnosis be in your heart." This language certainly sounds like there is a connection between the early heresy known as

Gnosticism and the beginnings of the trinitarian Logos teaching. We see an early type of trinitarian thought in Quadratus's idea of the Logos as a preexistent Son, planning creation together with the Father: "After He had already planned everything in union with the Son . . ."29 In another place, Quadratus separated God the Father from the Designer and the Architect of the universe: "No, He [God the Father] sent the Designer and Architect of the Universe in Person -- Him, by whom He created the heavens."30 This idea that there is a divine person different from God the Father who serves as the agent of creation does not comport with the Scriptures: "I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" (Isaiah 44:24). God said that He created the heavens and the earth alone. There was no other divine person with Him. He actually spoke the worlds into existence. He said, "Let there be light," and there was light (Genesis 1:3). Quadratus, therefore, was not in harmony with the clear teaching of the Scriptures. This kind of a construct is not seen in Polycarp. The idea of the Logos as a distinct divine person emanating from God the Father and operating as a creative Demiurge would have been foreign to Polycarp. The old patriarch, Polycarp, died a martyr's death on February 23, AD 156. He was captured by the authorities and brought into a public amphitheater at Smyrna. A great crowd of bloodthirsty pagans began to shout with uncontrolled fury and anger, "This is the teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians, the destroyer of our gods!" Polycarp and eleven Christians from Philadelphia were put to death. Polycarp was burnt at the stake since the "hunting sports" (the use of wild animals) was closed for the day. Before he died, Polycarp testified that he worshiped Christ alone. The description of his death, which is in some places somewhat fanciful and may contain interpolations, is in a manuscript entitled The Martyrdom of Polycarp. It was in the hands of Irenaeus in the second century AD.31 Polycarp was the last-known great Christian who had walked and talked with the apostles. Spiritual Babylon began to rise up to crush the true apostolic religion. The Montanist controversy, which seems to have been a charismatic vehicle used to thrust the trinitarian Logos teaching into the churches, began to spread like wildfire through Asia Minor, especially following the death of Polycarp. This does not seem to be coincidental, although there were earlier trinitarian assemblies. Athens, for example, had an assembly that early on began to advocate a trinitarian-type Logos doctrine, probably by AD 117. Other large cities in the Roman empire (Alexandria, Carthage, Antioch, and even Rome itself) had churches with similar teachings in the second century, although these are seen mostly from 140 on. In the first century, the apostles Paul and John were already seeing an increase in early Gnostic type of teaching. Paul, for example, warned Timothy (AD 66) about "oppositions of science [gnosis] falsely so called" (I Timothy 6:20). Moreover, it appears that Gnosticism contributed ideas that gave rise to the trinitarian theory.

Let us look at the Christian writers of the minority viewpoint in the second century, who, after the political triumph of the Catholic Church, were enshrined as the "Christian Apologists." Apologists "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:8). The Christian Apologists of the second century are the leading theological writers whose works remain from that time. They do not seem to have been in the mainstream of the Christianity of that century, however. The majority of Christians in the second century were modalistic Christians, yet we do not see their spokesmen making apologies (or "formal justifications") for Christianity to the pagans. The small group of apologists whose writings have been permitted to survive were all teachers of the Logos doctrine that was later used to support trinitarianism, namely, the idea that the Logos (Word) was a second person. If there were apologies for Christianity from modalistic Christians, they have been suppressed or destroyed. The second-century apologists have made a great impact upon the history of Catholic Christianity. Adolph Harnack, a recognized authority on church history, wrote that the apologists wrote the prolegomena (introduction) for "every future theological system in the church."1 The apologists were obviously influenced by Greek philosophy.2 It is contradictory on the surface, but while they opposed certain of the Gnostics, they themselves demonstrated Gnostic ideas in their philosophical brand of Christianity. Their indebtedness to Greek philosophy and Gnostic thought in the development of their doctrine of God can scarcely be denied, nor can one deny the influence of Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria. It is amazing that modern trinitarians try to deny the influence of philosophy on the trinity. Yet these early apologists believed in the power of God. The first known apologist, Quadratus of Athens (previously mentioned), referred to persons living in his day (AD 100-125), whom Jesus had healed or raised from the dead.3 Justin Martyr, the foremost Christian apologist, who was converted about AD 133, told of divine healings in about AD 150.4 He also related how demons were cast out: "For numberless demoniacs throughout the whole world, and in your city, many of our Christian men exorcising them in the name of Jesus Christ . . . have healed and do heal, rendering helpless and driving the possessing devils out of the men" (Second Apology).5 The apologists of the second century believed in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It appears also that they continued to preach the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But they held a different position on the Godhead. Jesus Christ was in the second place: " Jesus Christ . . . we reasonably worship Him, having learned He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third" (First Apology).6 Thus the apologists introduced the idea of subordinationism, the idea that Christ as God

must forever be subordinated to the second place. This faulty thinking is still prevalent in the common belief of trinitarianism. Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, by contrast, held that Jesus Christ was God Almighty manifest in the flesh, the first and the last.7 The teaching of Justin is not wholly derived from the Scriptures but rather from Greek philosophy and in some ways is descended from the religion of Babylon. Justin was born in Palestine, a native of Flavia Neopolis (modern Nablus), and was apparently of Roman and Samaritan descent. Justin Martyr Even after Justin's conversion to Christianity, he continued to wear the pallium (the philosopher's cloak). As Fairweather said, "His Platonism colored his thinking to the last."8 Justin wrote his First Apology AD 140. In this work, Justin promoted a concept of the Logos that is derived from Platonism and mythology with an admixture of Scripture. According to Justin's conception, the Logos is a divine person through whom God (another divine person) created and arranged all things.9 John Chapman indicated that Justin knew about contemporary Christians who taught the oneness of God.10 In First Apology 63, Justin referred to those who affirmed that the Son was the Father, and he condemned them. He repeated this condemnation of Oneness teachers in Dialogue with Trypho 128.11 These struggles with Oneness Christians occurred decades before the controversy over the modalists led by Noetus of Smyrna (AD 180), whom some trinitarian writers claim began the "heresy" of Oneness! Trinitarian scholars are well aware of the unorthodoxy (according to modern trinitarian standards) of Justin, yet they claim him as one of the architects of the trinity doc- trine. Philip Carrington, for example, pointed out his blatant subordinationism: "Justin himself is led away by the use of the words `Logos' and `Angelos' to represent the Second Person as a subordinate being, though, where he is not philosophising, his language is clear enough."12 This error remains today among those who identify the angel of the Lord with the second divine person of their trinity (in other words, misidentifying the Deity with one of His angelic beings). Some, however, consider the angel of the Lord to be a theophany (manifestation of God). By AD 180, we find the use of the word triados (triad) by Theophilus of Antioch in a possible effort to describe the concept of "three divine Persons."13 As we have already noted, the corollary of a preexistent Son as a distinct divine person probably occurred earlier with Quadratus (125 AD): "And He [God the Father] formed in His mind a great and unspeakable conception which He communicated to His Son alone."14 We have no indication as to why God the Father did not also communicate this "conception" to the third divine person! Justin was influenced by Albinus, a Middle Platonic philosopher ( in Smyrna AD 151 and earlier), and, to a lesser degree, by Philo Judaeus of Alexandria.15 Justin's enchantment with Greek philosophy led him to identify the different manifestations of God as different divine persons: "He who is said to have appeared to Abraham . . . and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will" (Dialogue with Trypho 61).16 Justin admitted that there were Christians in his day, whom he called "heretics," who did

not teach that the "us" in Genesis 3:22 (see also Genesis 1:26) meant more than one divine person: "For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy [sect] which is said to be among us is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that God spoke to angels."17 A common Oneness explanation of the plural passages in Genesis is that God spoke to the angels. (See Job 38:7, which demonstrates that the angels were present when God laid the foundations of the earth and undoubtedly at the creation of humans). And it is clear that Justin was not referring to Jews, but rather to a group of Christians. Justin maintained that normally "that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets [it]."18 But, as in Dialogue with Trypho 128, he referred to a modalistic argument against Christ as a separate power (person) from God: "Those who maintain that this power [Christ] is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens; as when it sinks, the light sinks along with it; as the Father, when He chooses, say they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself."19 This, of course, is reminiscent of the modalism that we see in John's Gospel. In John's Gospel, Jesus declared that He and the Father are one (John 10:30). He also said that He came forth from the Father (as the Word that was made flesh and not as a second divine person) and that He returned to the Father (John 16:28). Justin certainly had a farreaching influence. His stamp is seen upon the doctrines of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Novatian. At least Justin was willing to give his life for his Christian faith. He died a martyr at the age of fifty-one in Rome (AD 165). There are certain affinities between the apologists of the second century and Gnostics that cannot be denied. The Gnostics were spreading their doctrine all over the Roman Empire in the second century. Valentinus, a Platonic Christian philosopher from Alexandria, settled in Rome (AD 140), where Justin also taught (although we have no evidence of any fellowship between Justin and Valentinus). But, like Justin, it was the goal of Valentinus, with his elaborate Christian Gnostic system, to harmonize pagan philosophy with Christian doctrine.20 The Gnostics claimed personal instruction from the apostles. Valentinus, according to Clement of Alexandria, claimed one Theudas as a teacher, who was supposedly a disciple of Paul. Another Gnostic, Basilides, who appeared in Alexandria AD 133, claimed Glaucias, said to have been the apostle Peter's interpreter, as his master.21 While the Gnostic groups found themselves at odds with both the Oneness and early trinitarian groups, it is nevertheless true that both trinitarian and Gnostic groups had a common base in pagan philosophy. Marcion, a prominent heretic of this period, apparently continued to baptize in Jesus' name despite his erroneous views. He had an idea (which is Gnostic) of a good, unknowable God above the God Jehovah of the Old Testament, whom Marcion considered to be evil. The unknowable God (God the Father) was revealed through Jesus Christ. Marcion was probably raised as an apostolic Christian in Sinope. He became a wealthy shipmaster of Pontus (in Asia Minor) and relocated to Rome, at first becoming a zealous member of the apostolic assembly pastored by Hyginus and later by Pius. Marcion presented a gift to the Roman church of 200,000 sesterces (possibly 20,000 dollars), but then he fell into error under the influence of the Syrian Gnostic Cerdo, who

had recently arrived in Rome. The church returned his generous gift, and he left the church in AD 144, setting up his own church with Cerdo.22 Marcion retained the basic practice of baptizing his converts in the name of Jesus Christ.23 He would baptize none who were married, unless they were dying. He allowed a second or third baptism in case of sin after baptism, misconstruing Luke 12:50, where Jesus speaks of another baptism, to justify this.24 He was accused of docetism, teaching that Christ did not have a real flesh-and-blood body. He is also said to have denied the resurrection of the physical body.25 He accepted only portions of the New Testament.26 Tertullian, writing later, said that Marcion was the leader of a large group. For at least two hundred years, the Marcionites were rivals of the early Christians. Jocelyn Rhys said that Marcion considered himself to be the upholder of the pure primitive faith.27 He was said to have refused the Old Testament. His followers, Politus, Basilicus, and Apelles, continued the sect, which lasted for a number of centuries up to the Middle Ages.28 Some have speculated that Marcion was actually apostolic because of the reports that he baptized in Jesus' name. His teaching on the Godhead, however, was not apostolic. Moreover, he seems to have denied the genuine humanity of Christ. An early Christian writer of note was Irenaeus (AD 135-200) of Lyons (in France). It appears that Irenaeus was probably a Oneness Christian for many years who made a transition from apostolic Oneness doctrine to trinitarianism. He claimed to have been, in early youth, a disciple of Polycarp in Smyrna. There is no confirmation of this and no acknowledgment by Polycarp. Irenaeus claimed that the only succession that mattered was the succession of the bishops and presbyters, which could be directly traced back to the apostles.29 While this idea has some merit, we should point out that even though a church could trace a line of bishops back to the apostles, the important thing is whether or not it still taught the doctrine of the apostles in its fullness. In the second century, it was common throughout the empire for Christians to believe in the gifts of the Spirit. Even early trinitarians of this time believed, as many do today, in the gifts and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Irenaeus wrote that many brethren in the church possessed prophetic gifts and through the Spirit "spoke all kinds of tongues."30 While Irenaeus wrote about spiritual gifts in the period of an apparent alliance with the Montanists, it is likely that in AD 185 most Christians spoke with tongues and taught the baptism of the Spirit. The churches of that period cast out demons in the name of Jesus, prophesied, saw visions, and prayed for healing of the sick by laying on hands. Irenaeus wrote, "Yea, even the dead have been raised up."31 Certainly, tongues had not ceased throughout the Christian communities in AD 185. And this was nearly a century after the Bible was finished! But Irenaeus apparently allied himself with a group of Christians who had lost sight of the Almighty God manifest in the flesh. Jesus is both Lord (Father) and Christ (Son) (Acts 2:36). When Irenaeus saw Jesus, he no longer saw the Father (John 14:9). Instead, it seems that Irenaeus became a supporter of the new Logos doctrine and a supporter of the Montanists.

Jaroslav Pelikan, a well known modern historian, stated that Irenaeus was "acquainted" with the apologetic doctrine of the Logos, but he did not make much use of it.32 It is true that there are statements in Irenaeus's writings that appear to be compatible with Oneness doctrine. For example, he wrote, "The Father is that which is invisible about the Son, [and] the Son is that which is visible about the Father."33 And we have this striking phrase: "The Father is God revealing Himself, and the Son is God revealed."34 The first statement is supportive of Oneness since we may see the human Christ as the image of the invisible God and not a second divine person. (See 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3.) And the second statement is reminiscent of John 1:18. But Irenaeus revealed a trinitarian type of thinking by holding that the Son of God was begotten before creation and that it was the Son of God (and not God the Father) who was incarnated: "Son of God, pre-existing with the Father, begotten before all creation of the world, and at the end of times appearing to all the world as man."35 In this manner, supporters of the trinitarian Logos doctrine have robbed God the Father of His eternal glory, which He Himself revealed at Calvary, since it was He Himself (and not another) who took on the robes of flesh and came in flesh as the Son of God, born of the virgin Mary when the fullness of time was come (Galatians 4:4). For they have said that another divine person besides God the Father (a divine person who was begotten before the creation) was the one who was incarnated. Irenaeus wrote that the Son of God existed before He appeared in the world and before the world was made.36 He wrote, "The Son of God became Son of Man."37 These statements were written c. AD 190, later in his life. Irenaeus attempted to influence the bishop of Rome (who was apostolic Oneness, according to our information) to recognize the trinitarian Montanists in Asia Minor, from AD 170-180. He was undoubtedly indebted to Justin, and not to Polycarp, for the following trinitarian teaching: One of the three angels who appeared to Abraham at Mamre was the Son of God.38 In his Apostolic Preaching, Irenaeus quoted Genesis 19:24, "And the LORD rained . . . from the LORD out of heaven," stating that this means two Lords and that the Son (one Lord) received power to punish Sodom from the Father (another Lord).39 This is a common trinitarian misconception. God Almighty is omnipresent (Jeremiah 23:24). Why should it seem strange that God the Father could simultaneously be on earth and in heaven? There are not two Lords, but there is only one Lord (Ephesians 4:5). The immediate origin of the idea of Christ as a separate power or person from God the Father was, of course, Gnosticism. As Larson wrote, "The Gnostic heresy had its roots in the concept that Christ had existed as a separate power since the creation of the world." In effect, he identified the Catholic concept of Christology as something that was modeled after the Greek mystery religious idea of soter (savior).40 In other words, the apologists borrowed from the pagan mystery religions descended from Babylon. The new half-breed of Greek philosopher and Christian (such as Justin Martyr) had made this possible, as Fairweather wrote: "Hitherto it had been customary to regard philosophy as subversive of Gospel teaching (Colossians 2:8), and it was a new

departure when a professed philosopher came forward to defend Christianity as a philosophy."41 These second-century apologists were on the fringes of Christianity. They were not apparently endorsed by the apostle's church. Yet to the victor belongs the spoils, and since the Catholic Church became the state church of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, these men became the heroes of the Catholic movement and trinitarianism. What is ironic is that modern "heroes" of trinitarianism today unashamedly appeal to the apologists for verification of their own "orthodoxy," and yet they themselves would be considered "heretics" by the second-century apologists! Besides Quadratus, Justin, and Irenaeus, Athenagoras (AD 110-80) was an important writer of the second century whose works have been preserved. Athenagoras was a Greek philosopher from Athens who became a Christian. Late in his life (AD 177), he presented his Apology to the Emperor Aurelius (reigned AD 161-80). In this Apology, we find the use of the unscriptural trinitarian term "God the Son" in the following phrase: "God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order."42 He did not use the term "God the Holy Spirit," since the second-century apologists had not really developed the status of the Holy Spirit as the "third person." This elevation of the Holy Spirit as a coequal "third person" seems to have begun with Tertullian and the later Montanists. Nonetheless, Athenagoras gave a somewhat greater position to the Son: The Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason is the Son of God.43 This understanding of the Logos is, of course, a philosophical understanding with Greek origin. Athenagoras was an Athenian philosopher, and this is how he viewed the Logos, after the pagan manner of a philosopher's interpretation of the Logos. It is certainly not the Jewish view of the Messiah that we see in the Scriptures. The biblical view of the Son of God is somewhat different. In the Scriptures, the Son of God is actually God Himself (the Father) manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16), and He was made of a woman when the fullness of time was come (not in eternity) (Galatians 4:4). The Son was that "holy thing" born of Mary (Luke 1:35) and "the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14), which refers to the virgin birth and not to eternity! The Son did not preexist as a separate or distinct divine hypostasis (person, being), for there is only one divine hypostasis, who is a Spirit (John 4:24; Hebrews 1:3). Jesus Christ preexisted as God the Father, and that is who was incarnated. We cannot say that the Son was incarnated, but the One who was incarnated and born of Mary is called the Son of God. In other words, the Son is God manifest in the flesh. Philip of Side said that Athenagoras was the head of the famous catechetical school of

Alexandria. If so, Athenagoras had the distinction of being an instructor of a noted early trinitarian, Clement of Alexandria. He was succeeded by Pantaenus as head of the school.44 The Alexandrian school played an important role in developing the trinitarian doctrine and preparing the way for the Council of Nicea some 145 years later. The doctrinal change of church districts in the Roman Empire was, in some cases, quite rapid. For example, it appears that the Antioch district fell from apostolic Oneness doctrine to incipient trinitarianism in less than fifty years. The central problem was a misidentification of Jesus. Earl Morse Wilbur, a Unitarian historian, discussed the process by which early Christian writers began to identify the biblical Messiah with the Greek Logos: "For Christianity encountered in the world of Greek thought the conception of a personified Logos or Word, a kind of world soul intermediate between . . . deity and . . . sinful man; . . . the critical step was taken when the Jewish Messiah . . . came gradually to be identified with the Greek Logos."45 When Christians accepted the Greek Logos as the Messiah, in effect they accepted another Jesus, theologically speaking. Unfortunately, untold millions have been led down this primrose lane. The Jesus of the Greek Logos tradition does not accurately reflect the Jesus of the Bible.46 In the next chapter, we shall look at one of the Oneness champions, who withstood the introduction of the second-century Logos doctrine. Noetus: "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). Noetus was born in Smyrna in Asia Minor, possibly as early as AD 130.1 Some sources have Noetus residing in Ephesus and teaching as late as AD 220-45. This, if true, would make his birth somewhat later; however, these late dates for his death seem to be based on a misinterpreta- tion of the ancient Catholic writer Epiphanius.2 Hippolytus, in his polemic Contra Noetum, attempted to make Noetus the "founder" of the monar- chian "heresy," but most scholars now recognize that Noetus was simply holding on to an earlier faith, the Asiatic modalism of Ignatius and Polycarp. At least, he was not the originator of Oneness doctrine. One might speculate that Noetus sat under the ministry of Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp remained alive until AD 156. Moreover, unlike Irenaeus in his later life, Noetus taught the oneness of God, as indeed Polycarp had. And LeBreton has pointed out that the doctrine of Noetus was similar to that of Ignatius.3 We have already shown that Ignatius and Polycarp were in fellowship with one another. Therefore, it is logical to place Noetus in the same genre of theology as these two worthy men. Smyrna, a commercial port city, lies within modern Turkey. It is located on the river Meles at the eastern end of the ancient Sinus Smyrnaeus, whose depth allowed the largest ships to anchor at the very walls of the city. Smyrna was at the lower end of the great

valley of the Hermus, in which lay the rich city of Sardis, of which Smyrna served as the principal seaport. The city itself stood partly on the seashore and partly on Mastusia Hill, and it had streets paved with stone.4 Smyrna's location was important. Certainly, the city was a concern of the Lord, and He sent an anointed message (through John, AD 96) to the church in Smyrna (Revelation 2:8-10). Apparently the church at Smyrna was struggling then with economic poverty but was spiritually on fire. The church was warned of a future trial, which would last for ten years (a period that probably came to pass during the reign of Emperor Trajan, AD 98-117). The church was troubled also by a group that the Lord called "the synagogue of Satan." Polycarp became the bishop of Smyrna AD 107 (or perhaps earlier) and served until his martyrdom AD 156. Following the death of Polycarp, tradition tells us that Papirius succeeded him as bishop and that Papirius, upon his death, was succeeded by Camerius.5 Somewhere between AD 156 and 180, the church at Smyrna began to allow early trinitarian teaching to come in. Asiatic modalism was challenged. The man who attempted to stop the introduction of the trinitarian Logos doctrine was none other than Noetus. Hippolytus, an enemy of the original Oneness teaching, is the primary source for what happened at Smyrna. Noetus was called on the carpet by the presbyters for preaching his Oneness doctrine. On the first confrontation with the presbyters, Noetus and his unnamed brother minister were accused of put- ting themselves out as some kind of "Moses" and "Aaron."6 They denied the charge. Whether they were preaching something about the soon return of the Lord, we just do not know. A second confrontation with the presbyters in Smyrna occurred about AD 180 concerning their teaching on the Godhead. After some discussion, Noetus asked the presbyters, "What evil, then, am I doing in glorifying Christ?" The presbyters could not answer Noetus's question but stated what has been put forward as one of the first creeds to indicate a plurality of divine persons: "We, too, know in truth one God; we know Christ, we know that the Son suffered even as He suffered, and died even as He died, and rose again on the third day, and is at the right hand of the Father, and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And these things we have learned and we allege."7 While these presbyters acknowledged that they believed in one God, they added a phrase, in apposition to this, stating that they also believed in Christ. They said, "We, too, know in truth one God," which indicates that Noetus was accusing them of no longer believing in one God, since they had seemingly added the divine Logos as a second person. There also seems to have been some question of who was incarnated. The presbyters affirmed that the Son suffered (which normally would not be a matter of contention unless, perhaps, Noetus had asserted that God the Father was incarnated). This might have been the presbyters' way of asserting that it was the Son who was incarnated, thinking that this was the only way for salvation to come. Noetus, on the other hand, apparently maintained that it was indeed the Father who had suffered vicariously, that is, through the flesh. Hippolytus stated that the presbyters expelled Noetus from the church and that he established a school.8 Hippolytus accused Noetus of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (no proof was given of this), and of being puffed up with pride, and of being "inspired by

the conceit of a strange spirit."9 But we are grateful to Hippolytus for his polemic against Noetus, since we are permitted to view a portion of Noetus's teaching: "There exists one and the same Being, called Father and Son, not one derived from the other, but Himself from Himself, nominally called Father and Son according to the changing of the times; and that this One is He that appeared to the patriarchs, and submitted to birth from a virgin, and conversed as man among men. On account of His birth that had taken place, He confessed Himselfto be the Son to those who saw Him, while to those who could receive it, He did not hide the fact that He was the Father."10 This explanation of the Incarnation and the Godhead seems to have been well thought out. Noetus attacked the idea of derivation, which implies subordination and has plagued the trinitarian model since it was introduced. Noetus also upheld the passibility of the Father in the same manner that Ignatius had in Epistle to Polycarp 1:15. It was the Father who had appeared to the patriarchs, and it was the Father who submitted to birth from a virgin (in the flesh). The one who was impassible (not able to suffer) became passible (able to suffer through the Incarnation) for our sakes. Hippolytus would have us believe that this type of Asiatic modalism was something "new," but even he admitted, "Now that [Noetus] affirms that the Son and the Father are the same, no one is ignorant."11 In other words, his teaching was not new after all! What was new about Noetus was that he was resisting the new Logos doctrine. Hippolytus attacked Noetus's explanation of the Incarnation by attempting to make it look ridiculous that God Himself had appeared as His own Son: "When indeed, then [according to Noetus], the Father had not been born, He was justly styled `Father'; and when it pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begot- ten, He Himself became His own Son, not another's."12 It is in this manner, said Hippolytus, that Noetus "thinks to establish the sovereignty [of God], alleging that Father and Son, [so] called, are one and the same [substance], but Himself from Himself."13 Of course, Noetus, if he used the phrase "Himself from Himself," referred to the Incarnation and not to some eternal "begetting." It is interesting that this seems to be the first use of the Greek word homoousios ("same substance"). It was used by a modalist! Later, in the third century, Paul of Samosata would use homoousios against the trinitarians. Then it was appropriated by the trinitarians at Nicea to clumsily attempt to rectify the inherent built in subordinationism in their trinitarian model. In this manner, they hoped to maintain Christ's deity while continuing to hold Him forth as a distinct, second divine person. The Noetians appealed to a number of passages in the Old Testament that exhibit the oneness of God: "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God" (Exodus 3:6).

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3). "Thus said the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6). Hippolytus noted: Thus they say they prove that God is one. And then they answer in this manner: "If therefore I acknowledge Christ to be God, He is the Father Himself, if He is indeed God; and Christ suffered, being Himself God; and consequently the Father suffered, for He [Christ] was the Father Himself."14 They employed a basic logic: (a) If Christ is God, and (b) if God is the Father, then (c) Christ is the Father, if He is indeed God. It is clear from later information on modalist doctrine that they agreed that God was manifest in the flesh when they spoke of the Father suffering. It was the mystery of the Incarnation (not the mystery of the trinity) that made it possible for God the Father to be able to suffer. Ignatius taught that God the Father became able to suffer for our sakes through the Incarnation. The Christian Platonic philosophers, however, taught that the unknown Father remained forever impassible (unable to suffer) and so sent another who could. The Noetians rightly concluded that this view was ditheism (belief in two gods). The Noetians also made use of Isaiah 45:14: "Surely, God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God." In the New Testament, the Noetians leaned heavily upon the Gospel of John (John 2:19; 10:30; 14:9). These are well-known Oneness passages. They also quoted Romans 9:5, another passage that uplifts the deity of Christ "over all."15 Noetus left Smyrna and went to Ephesus AD 180.16 There was coincidentally a series of devastating earth- quakes that hit the Smyrna area AD 180.17 It seems that Noetus held the rank of bishop and continued his ministry in the area of Ephesus.18 Ephesus was a key city. It was the capital of Asia Minor and a focal point for the valleys of the Cayster, Meander, Hermus, and Caicus Rivers. It was a beehive of Christian missionary activity.19 Cities in this region are well-known from the Epistles of Paul and the writings of Ignatius: Colossae, Laodicea, Hierapolis, Philadelphia, Magnesia, Tralles, and Troas. Ephesus was the home base of the apostle John in his final years. Clement of Alexandria wrote that it was in Ephesus that John appointed pastors in Asia Minor, reconciled whole churches, and ordained men pointed out to him by the Spirit.20 When Ignatius wrote to the church of Ephesus AD 110, the district seemed to be maintaining apostolic tradition.21 Seventy years later, a church split occurred, and two groups each claimed apostolic succession. The last quarter of the second century saw the growth of the new Logos movement (which became Catholic trinitarianism), energized as it was by the Montanists, the charismatics of their day. It would reach a crescendo in the third century. The teachers of the new Logos doctrine made much of John's use of the term Logos (the Word) in the Gospel of John. John purposely wrote that the Logos (the Word) was pros ton theon ("pertaining to God") in John 1:1 and then proceeded to demolish the false Logos theory by adding that the Logos "was God" (identifying the Logos as God the Father).

Nevertheless, the supporters of the new Logos theory claimed the Gospel of John as their Gospel and attempted to say that Oneness Christians did not accept John.22 Stewart McDowall wrote that elsewhere in the New Testament, the same phrase John used in John 1:1, pros ton theon, means "pertaining" or "relating" to God (Hebrews 2:17; 5:1). McDowall further stated that pros seldom means "with" and that the normal Greek word meaning "with" is an entirely different preposition. Thus, an accurate understanding of John's terminology would reveal that the Word was in the beginning and it pertained to God. The term Logos thus refers to God, like His "hand" or His "arm." McDowall asked, "God is Love. . . . Would `Love' be another `Person' in the Godhead?"23 Is God's Word a different person from God Himself? Is a human being's word a separate person from that individual? Many, upon hearing the voice of someone speaking, will exclaim, "That's Johnny!" or "That's Susie!" But it was actually the word of the individual that they heard. Larson expressed the contradiction of maintaining that Christ is truly God but denying that He could be God the Father--perhaps unwittingly--when he wrote about the consternation of philosophically minded Christians over the patripassianism of Noetus: "The horror aroused among the orthodox by the thought that God the Father had been nailed to a tree, approached hysteria: and this, we believe, resulted from the fact that no one ever quite accepted the doctrine that Jesus was truly God. For were He actually so, why was it less horrible for Him to suffer crucifixion?"24 If early trinitarians really believed that Jesus was a genuine human being, then they should have had no trouble with the crucifixion. But the new Logos teachers believed that the Son had been made flesh. This left no room for the incarnation of the Father. With their Greek philosophy of the unknown God, who was impassible, trinitarians could not believe that God the Father was incarnate. Noetus, on the other hand, taught that Christ was God because He was indeed God the Father manifest in the flesh: "I am under necessity since one God is acknowledged, to make this one [God] the subject of suffering. For Christ was God, and suffered on account of us, being Himself the Father, that He might be able to save us."25 This is not much different from the teaching of Ignatius some seventy years earlier. Ignatius had written to the Ephesians that "God was manifest as man." These early Oneness teachers did not conceive of God as a second divine person. The author of the Second Epistle of Clement had warned against thinking any less of Jesus: "Brethren, we must think of Jesus Christ as of God."26 John Chapman said that Noetus and his school were the first to come out and "deny categorically that the unity of the Godhead is compatible with a distinction of Person."27 This time period is the roughly the time of the Alogi ("those against the Logos"). However, the opposition of Noetus was not the introduction of Oneness teaching, which was 150 years old by this time, but rather a reaction to the rising popularity and spread of the second-century Logos doctrine that made the Logos a second person. Chapman also stated that the Noetians were modalists (although he misinterpreted their teaching) and against the Logos doctrine. (In effect, he called them Alogi.) "They seem to have regarded the Logos as a mere name, or faculty, or attribute, and to have made the Son and the Holy Ghost merely aspects or modes of existence of the Father, thus emphatically

identifying Christ with the one God."28 It is certainly incorrect of Chapman to state that Noetus made the Son merely an "aspect or mode of existence" of the Father. For one thing, Noetus stated that the Son (as to His deity) was the Father, "not one derived from the other," but Noetus did not deny the existence of the Son of God (the human being). In other words, he upheld the genuine humanity of the Son ("a man among men"). "Modes of existence" sounds like something Karl Barth would say. But if mode of existence is restricted to the explanation of the Incarnation, this might be a more accurate description. There are some indications that Noetus, as so many other prominent Christians, spent some time in Rome.29 If so, it could possibly have been after the Smyrna encounter (AD 180) sometime between AD 180-89, during the episcopate of Eleutherus (AD 174-89). G. T. Stokes said that Noetus also got into trouble with the Roman church, but there is no evidence of this; Stokes apparently confused Rome and Smyrna. Bishop Noetus also had a deacon named Epigonus. Epigonus came to Rome during the episcopate of Victor (AD 189-98). Epigonus taught in Rome and founded a school (or Bible college), which was endorsed by the church at Rome.30 This was the same school that Sabellius was later to attend some thirty years later. All of this time, the Roman church was officially Oneness! Moreover, the teaching of Noetus was highly popular at this time, contrary to what his detractors have written. Those who condemned him as a "heretic" were themselves in the minority and not accepted by the general Christian population or leadership.31 Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote that Hippolytus and, later, Epiphanius could not reply against Noetus's use of John 2:19, where Jesus declared that He would raise His own body from the grave. Schleiermacher remarked, "Even [Noetus's] opponents felt themselves obliged to concede, that the raising from the dead is a thing that must be accomplished by a peculiar power, and that such [a] power has claims to unity of subject."32 Jesus had said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19). In verse 21, the apostle John explained that Jesus was referring to the resurrection of His body. This is a powerful argument in favor of the identification of Jesus as God the Father incarnate, for the Scriptures are clear that it was God the Father who raised up the man Jesus. J. Z. Mozley stated that Noetus was "the most crudely patripassian . . . of all the modalist teachers."33 The Noetians, according to Mozley, were anxious to assert "as emphatically as possible the full deity of Jesus Christ." They could see no other way of doing it than "by distin- guishing Fatherhood and Sonship in the one God only as the invisible and the manifested."34 The Noetians made it clear that "the element of passibility in the divine nature was wholly dependent upon God's free resolve to enter the world for the salvation of men."35 And, as Isaak A. Dorner noted about Noetus' doctrine: "[God's] essence cannot be a check on his will, but remains subject thereto, and on that account [He] can be made passible, mortal, and so forth."36 In other words, why could not God the Father be manifested in the flesh as Jesus Christ, if He so desired? Why did He have to send another divine person? We should note that Mozley used the word "Sonship" to describe God manifest in the

flesh. Noetus argued for two natures (divine and human) rather than two divine persons. The Incarnation did not produce a second divine person. There is no other biblical event that would produce a Son other than the Incarnation. Unfortunately, the writings of Noetus and his adher- ents have been destroyed. We have only trinitarian accounts. If one day these writings are found, they may shed much light upon the subject. It does not appear that Noetus was a "heretic" or that he introduced some new teaching. Rather it is likely that he attempted to counter the spread of the new Logos teaching in the last quarter of the second century. This Logos teaching appeared early in the metropolitan centers of Athens and Alexandria and was, at the beginning of the second century, only a minor problem in the Christian church. However, this early form of trinitarian doctrine began to gain outward ascendancy in Asia Minor toward the end of the second century. (By this we mean that enough trinitarian ministers and churches existed within a district that they controlled the district of churches.) This controversy reached a crisis stage in the West at Rome in the beginning of the third century. The third century saw a great struggle between trinitarianism and Oneness teaching throughout the Roman Empire. (This was the century of Sabellius.) It was only at the beginning of the fourth century that the trinitarians gained an upper hand by forming an alliance with Caesar (Constantine) so that they could drive Oneness Christians underground. Noetus died AD 200, possibly in Ephesus, along with his brother.37 The importance of Noetus is that he was a link with Asia Minor and the old Asiatic modalism of the sub-apostolic fathers (such as Ignatius and Polycarp). His modalism also serves as a link between these fathers and Sabellius. He was a champion of Oneness. Now let us look at an unnamed minister from Asia Minor who played a definite role in preventing an earlier conquest of Rome by the new Logos doctrine and who also exposed the danger of the Montanist teaching. Praxeas "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). The Montanist controversy, in the greater context of the history of the second-century church, has been largely misunderstood. First of all, it is easy to demonstrate that the Montanist controversy was intricately interwoven with the controversy on the Godhead (such as the debate over whether the second century Logos doctrine or the Oneness doctrine was correct). There are a number of popular misconceptions about Montanism. For example, it does not appear to be a controversy between tongues speakers and those who did not speak in tongues. No one in the second century challenged the basic validity of the gifts of the Spirit or maintained that they had vanished away. The majority of Christians in the second century spoke in tongues. It was the manner of prophesying and operating spiritual gifts that got the Montanists in trouble. They split assemblies and took over assemblies. Moreover, it appears that they introduced the new Logos doctrine along with the excitement of their prophesying and use of spiritual gifts. From later evidence, it appears the leader of the movement, Montanus, along with the majority of his followers, were early trinitarians.1 Montanus started his movement as a result of "new prophecy," which he believed he had received, and also as a protest against what he considered lax standards of holiness.2 According to his opponents, Montanus believed that his new prophecy was different from all preceding prophecy. He allegedly construed it to be the

coming of the Paraclete (Holy Spirit or Prophetic Spirit) promised in John 14:12-18. He further believed that the apostles did not have the "perfection" of the Holy Ghost according to I Corinthians 13:8-10, and this was reserved for "new prophets" promised by Christ.3 Montanus established his headquarters church at Pepuza, not far from the Phrygian Pentapolis, and named it Jerusalem, as he apparently believed that Christ would return to that spot.4 The Montanists had a unique manner of coming into a church and prophesying, which created a great deal of strife and confusion, according to critics. They split many assemblies and took control of many. A few congregations accepted Montanism but maintained their Oneness doc- trine; however, most of them accepted the new Logos doctrine along with Montanism. The movement spread like wildfire throughout Asia Minor, into Western Europe, and down into northern Africa. Praxeas (AD 150-220) came from somewhere in Asia Minor--perhaps Smyrna, Ephesus, or Byzantium, but we do not know. He arrived in Rome during Victor's episcopate (AD 189-98).5 There are no details on his origin or youth. His very name is an alias provided in deri- sion by an enemy named Tertullian (a trinitarian Montanist). Praxeas means "busybody." Why Tertullian apparently did not wish to name "Praxeas" is unclear. It is certain that Praxeas, whoever he was, was an important church official with a great deal of influence, for he was able to convince the Roman bishop to reinstate a ban on the churches in Asia Minor that had been taken over by the Montanists. Who was this famous minister? Some have suggested that it was Epigonus, the deacon of Noetus, who had also come to Rome from Asia Minor about this time.6 Another noted visitor to Rome about this same period was Theodotus of Byzantium, who was said by Hippolytus to have been a member of the Alogi. What little information we have on Praxeas, we have from one of his enemies, Tertullian. Tertullian did state that Praxeas was noted among the brethren for having been imprisoned for his faith in Christ: "Praxeas was the first to import into Rome from Asia [Minor] this kind of heretical depravity, a man in other respects of a restless disposition, and above all inflated with the pride of confessorship simply and solely because he had to bear for a short time the annoyance of a prison."7 We are not told how long the "short time" was that Praxeas was in prison for his faith. We should note also that Tertullian, like his fellow polemical writer Hippolytus, accused his opponent of "introducing" a new heresy without adducing any evidence to support such a statement. A close examination of Praxeas's reported teaching reveals that it was definitely not new, nor did Praxeas introduce it to the church in Rome, which already held such views on the Godhead! The bishop of Rome, Victor (189-98 AD), who might be styled a district superintendent today, seems to have received Praxeas as a dignified visitor and esteemed his advice very highly. This is doubtless true because both Victor and Praxeas were Oneness ministers in a Roman district of churches that had been Oneness apostles Paul was there in AD 67. Historical tradition points to the apostle Paul as the founder of the Roman church as early as AD 42.8 Paul probably was executed in Rome during the Reign of Nero in 64 AD. He designated Linus as the next bishop.

Listed below are Oneness apostolic bishops from the apostle Paul to the last bishop of Rome known to have taught Oneness. The dates are approximate. 1.) Paul, AD 42-67 2.) Linus, AD 67-79 3.) Anacletus, AD 79-90 4.) Clement, AD 90-99 5.) Evaristus, AD 99-107 6.) Alexander, AD 107-16 7.) Sixtus, AD 116-25 8.) Telesphorus, AD 125-36 9.) Hyginus, AD 136-40 10.) Clement of Rome Pius, AD 14054 11.) Anicetus, AD 154-65 12.) Soter, AD 165-74 13.) Eleutherus, AD 174-89 14.) Victor, AD 189-98 15.) Zephyrinus, AD 198-217 16.) Callistus, AD 217-22 We have the writings of Clement, the fourth bishop following the apostle Paul. He probably sat personally under the teaching of Peter and Paul. We see no trinity in his writings. Polycarp quoted from I Clement. Polycarp also had fellowship with the sixth and the eleventh bishop of Rome. It is also likely that Ignatius was in fellowship with the sixth bishop, Alexander, at the time of Ignatius's martyrdom. The tenth bishop, Pius, was the half-brother of the famous Hermas, who wrote The Shepherd, a monarchian piece of literature. We also know that Soter, Eleutherus, and Victor stood against the Montanists and the second-century Logos doctrine. Victor was in fellowship with Praxeas, a known modalistic monarchian. Zephyrinus and Callistus were known modalistic monarchians (or one God with three primary functions or modes). We have the writings of Callistus (quoted by his enemies) to prove this. Therefore, we see no reason not to believe that the first fourteen bishops of Rome were all Oneness Christians and not trinitarians, as has been com- monly believed in Catholic history. Clement himself has been accused by some Catholic writers of "not honoring" the trinity.9 The early monarchian doctrine of the ancient Roman church is known but is glossed over by Catholic and Protestant writers. Ignatius praised the Roman church in AD 115 (when Alexander was the bishop), calling it a church "worthy of God, and a bearer of the Father's name."10 This probably refers to the practice of baptizing converts in the name of Jesus Christ. Neither Ignatius or Polycarp (who was said to have been present on a visit in Rome at this time) raised any issue of heresy in the Roman church. It is likely that the church at Rome continued to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ up through at least AD 222 (and most likely continued for some years after this), because of the Oneness doctrine. The practice of baptism in the name of Jesus seems to have continued even after Logos supporters took control of the district, and it continued alongside the introduction of water baptism in the three titles. This is demonstrated in the time of Stephen, bishop of Rome, and Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (AD 258). Praxeas did not come to a church where Montanism was popular. Indeed, the Roman church had opposed Montanism from its very inception. Soter (AD 166) opposed the Montanist uprising, refusing to recognize them. His successor, Eleutherus (AD 174-89), was visited by a delegation led by Irenaeus of Lyons (in modern France), urging him to recognize the Montanists. He refused to do so. Adolph Harnack held that Eleutherus, Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus were all modalists.11 Without a doubt, it was a Oneness church at Rome which Praxeas visited. It held to the orthodox Christian faith. Under the urgings of Logos supporters such as Irenaeus, the district was under great pressure to have fellowship with the Montanists. Victor, the bishop of Rome (AD 189-98) when Praxeas arrived (probably around AD 190), had not been superintendent long and had been persuaded to issue a letter of

fellowship to the Montanist churches in Asia Minor. We do not know much about Victor. He was said to have been of North African origin.12 We also know that at about this time there was a widespread controversy between the churches of the West and the churches of Asia Minor. We are told in the official Catholic version of history that this only involved a petty dispute over the date of celebrating Easter (Paschal). Victor is blamed because of his "African disposition" and his desire "to maintain Rome's preeminent position."13 To resolve the controversy, a church council was held at Rome in AD 190. It is not coincidental that this is about the time that Praxeas arrived in Rome to consult with Victor about the Montanist situation. Praxeas convinced Victor to recall the letter of peace he had sent to the Montanist churches.14 This enraged Tertullian, a Roman Christian, who openly joined the Montanists. He denounced Praxeas (but would not name him): [Praxeas] by . . . urging false accusations against the [Montanist] prophets . . . and their churches, and insisting on the authority of the bishop's predecessors in the see [district], compelled [Victor] to recall the letter of peace which he had issued, as well as to desist from his purpose of acknowledging the gifts. By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father."15 Now, Tertullian cannot have been unaware (he was an educated lawyer) of the stand of the Roman bishops from the time of Soter (AD 166) and probably even from the time of his predecessor, Anicetus, against Montanism. Moreover, he would have been extremely ignorant not to know that the Roman district had an official doctrine of modalism. Yet he made the outrageous and untrue state- ments that we read above, brazenly claiming that it was "Praxeas" who brought in "heresy"! This man, Tertullian, is one of the architects of the trinity doctrine! We note, though, that there is generally an element of truth in such propaganda. Tertullian admitted that Praxeas "insisted" on "the authority of the bishop's pred- ecessors in the see." Possibly this means that Praxeas reminded Victor of the solid opposition of previous Roman bishops such as Soter and Eleutherus to the Montanists. While we can demonstrate that the Roman leadership (the elders) in the Roman church remained solidly monarchian or Oneness, it cannot be denied that changes were taking place in the district. Eusebius, in writing on this period (reign of Emperor Commodus, AD 180-93), stated, "A large number of people from Rome, distinguished for wealth or birth, turned unto salvation, together with all their households and families."16 The wealth and influence of the Roman church was beginning to grow tremendously. Bishop Victor supposedly developed an inside line to the court of the Emperor Commodus through Marcia (the concubine of the emperor), whose foster father, Hyacinthus, was a Christian.17 With the help of Marcia, Bishop Victor was able to procure the release of a number of Christians sent to the Sardinian mines. But while the district was becoming increased with goods and gaining some secular influence, no one accused Bishop Victor of departing from the Oneness teaching of his predecessors. In fact, Tertullian was angry over the corroboration of the teaching of Praxeas by Victor.18 And a monarchian leader, Artemon of Rome, writing some thirty or forty years after

Victor, maintained that Victor had upheld the teaching of the apostles.19 What, then, was the doctrine of Praxeas (and therefore by extension the doctrine of Victor)? PseudoTertullian (not Tertullian), in his Against All Heresies, wrote about Praxeas: "He (Praxeas) asserts that Jesus Christ is God and Father Almighty. Him he contends to have been crucified, and suffered and died; beside which, with a profane and sacrilegious temerity, he maintains that He is Himself sitting at His own right hand."20 And Pseudo (false) Tertullian, whoever he was, also mentioned that bishop Victor (whom he mistakenly called "Victorinus") "corroborated" the doctrine of Praxeas. Clearly, Praxeas, according to this ancient writer, identified Christ as God the Father incarnate. Most of our information about Praxeas comes from Tertullian himself. As is standard with trinitarian thinking and theology, Tertullian expressed great incredulity about God, in any manner, communicating with Himself. He also greatly emphasized the "impossibilities" of God acting in multiple roles. Praxeas, for example, "would have it that the Father came out of Himself and then departed to Himself."21 This aspect of modalism seemed very puzzling to Tertullian. But if God were manifest in the flesh (the Incarnation) and yet remained God in heaven, this supposed impossibility would have to be part of the miracle of the Incarnation or manifestation of God in the flesh. Even as Jesus said, "I and my Father are one," and He also identified Himself as the Father incarnate (John 14:7-9). Yet again, Jesus said, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father" (John 16:28). If we identify Christ as God (the Father), then we must admit that it is God who came forth and it was God who returned. This is the essence of modalism. What necessitated the "coming forth" and the "returning"? The Incarnation. The Word was made flesh (John 1:14), and a human being (God manifested in the flesh) walked among us. That glorified human being (after the resurrection), ascended into heaven (God manifested in the flesh). Psalm 47:5 states, "God is gone up with a shout, the LORD with the sound of a trumpet." If we admit that Jesus Christ is God (the Father), then we must agree with Praxeas. Tertullian attempted to marginalize the teaching of Praxeas by alleging that he clung to just two or three passages of Scripture: As in respect to the [Old Testament], they hold to nothing else but "I am God and there is none other beside me"; so in respect to the gospel, they defend the response of the Lord to Philip, "I and the Father are one; he who seeth me seeth also the Father"; and again, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." To these three summaries of doctrine, they would that the whole of both the Old and New Testaments should give place.22 It is obvious to the intelligent reader that Praxeas used more than just one passage in Isaiah and two passages in John. Raising the Greek philosopher's horror of the participation of the unknown Father (the unknowable God) in His own creation, Tertullian professed outrage at the patri- passianism of Praxeas: "In the course of time, then, they say the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered -- God Himself, the Lord, the Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ."23 Tertullian could not believe that it was God the Father who was incarnate in the virgin. Only another divine person could possibly do this! Therefore, the Incarnation required

two divine persons. Praxeas, however, taught that it was the Father who was incarnate, although, like the later Sabellius, Praxeas did not teach that the Father suffered directly, but rather in the flesh (that is, as the Son). Praxeas was careful to uphold the dual nature of Christ: "So that, all in one person, they [the Praxeans] distinguish two, Father and Son, understanding the Son to be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; and the Father to be Spirit, that is God, that is Christ."24 The Praxeans answered, "Since we find two and one, therefore both are one and the same, both Father and Son."25 This is reminiscent of what John wrote: "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son" (II John 9). Christ is both the Father and the Son. Tertullian admitted that Praxeas and his followers (and by implication, the bishop of Rome and the majority of the Roman Christians!) considered themselves to pos-ess the "pure truth." They thought that one could not believe "in only one God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person."26 Tertullian, a disciple of Justin, could not accept that. He maintained a doctrine of derivation and subordination concerning the Son and the Holy Ghost: "The Son I derive from no other source but from the substance of the Father. The Spirit is third from God and the Son."27 Interestingly, in this statement, not only did Tertullian saddle the Son with derivation and subordination, but he apparently upheld the "procession" (although he did not use such language) of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. It was later to become a bone of contention between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, as to whether the Spirit proceeded from the Father alone (the Eastern Orthodox position) or from both the Father and the Son (the Roman position). Friedrich Schleiermacher pointed out that Tertullian was driven to the idea of the "derivation" of the Son in order to refute the simple scriptural logic of Praxeas. Tertullian wrote: "The Father is the whole substance; the Son, the derivation and apportionment of the whole." Thus Schleiermacher observed, "We may readily say that [Tertullian] Arianizes."28 That is, Tertullian anticipated the error of Arius, a teacher in the fourth century who made the Son inferior to the Father. Trinitarians unsuccessfully attempted to correct this idea of subordination and derivation of the Son in the fourth century. Tertullian accused Praxeas of holding to a "Jewish faith": "But this is a Jewish faith, so to believe in one God, that you are unwilling to comprise the Son with Him, and after the Son, also the Spirit."29 Obviously, Tertullian was playing upon the anti- Semitic feelings of some of his Gentile readers. He possibly forgot that Jesus, the twelve apostles, and the apostle Paul were all Jews! We should note again that Tertullian, who was a Montanist, emphasized the "Spirit" as being in the third place. He acknowledged in Against Praxeas that modalist preachers constantly accused him and others of preaching two gods and three gods. "While they," said Tertullian, "take to themselves preeminently the credit of being worshippers of one God."30 It is interesting that both the phrases "two gods" and "three gods" were used as accu- sations against the trinitarians. This lets us know that the doctrine of the third divine person, the Holy Spirit, was not yet universally accepted by all supporters of the new Logos doctrine. Tertullian indicated that some modalistic Christians were, like Noetus, bold patripassians, while others were more circumspect. "The most conceited monarchians maintain that He Himself made Himself a Son to

Himself!"31 Tertullian was obviously exasperated. He exclaimed, "A father cannot be his own son!" His opponents replied by quoting Matthew 19:26 and Luke 18:27 (that with God nothing is impossible) and I Corinthians 1:27 (God uses foolish things to confound the wise). One can almost hear the sigh of Tertullian across the centuries as he concluded, "We have read it all." Tertullian agreed with his opponents that God can do anything, even to have "extinguished Praxeas and all other heretics at once." He compared Praxeas to a troublesome bird, a "kite," and mocking Praxeas he added, "It was necessary also that the Father should be crucified!" And he challenged, "Prove Tertullian to us that He [God] actually did it."32 Tertullian maintained (incorrectly) that the teaching of the trinity actually preceded Oneness doctrine. He tried to emphasize this by accusing Praxeas of being "a pretender of yesterday."33 From the biographical information that we have, it appears that Tertullian was a fairly new Christian when Praxeas came to Rome. He was said to have been born AD 145 as the son of a Roman army officer, educated as a lawyer, and converted at about the age of forty.34 A. C. Coxe and others have estimated that he turned to Montanism AD 199. Certainly, he became an architect of the trinity doctrine as a Montanist. He was highly influenced also by Justin. Tertullian admitted that his doctrine of the trinity was not popular among the Christian people of his day. He stated that the "majority of the faithful," whom he termed "simple people," were reluctant to accept "the economy" (i.e., the distinction of divine persons).35 This is an important admission. It lets us know that the trinitarian teaching was not the orthodox teaching of the majority of Christians even as late as the latter part of the second century and the early part of the third century. It was accepted only by a (growing) minority of Christian ministers. How long did Praxeas remain in Rome? Bishop Victor died in AD 198, and Zephyrinus became bishop of Rome. Praxeas remained in Rome until about AD 208, when he departed for Carthage (in northern Africa, near modern Tunis). Tertullian also, after converting to Montanism AD 199, had gone to Carthage. There he challenged Praxeas, and he claimed to have "stopped" him by exposing his "errors." He stated that Praxeas even signed a statement admitting his errors in the presence of Catholic officials at Carthage. Schleiermacher opined that the report was false, for Tertullian himself admitted that Praxeas continued to preach vigorously in the entire area of Carthage and beyond, making many converts.36 The dubious episode of the statement signed by Praxeas supposedly occurred during a church split in Carthage (AD 210- 12). By AD 213, the trinitarians had gathered enough churches in Carthage to elect Agrippinus as bishop. He chaired a conference of ministers that year, who decided that all "heretics" (modalists) had to be rebaptized into the trinity.37 Praxeas played an important role in keeping the great Roman district from becoming entangled in Montanist and trinitarian doctrine for some thirty-two years. He then sailed to Carthage and preached there, standing for the truth of the Oneness message. While Praxeas was in North Africa preaching the Oneness message, a young man from Libya was in Rome preparing himself in the Oneness doctrine. He would set the religious world aflame with his great stand for the truth of the oneness of God. But before we examine the teaching of Sabellius, let us first look at the history of baptism in the name of Jesus

Christ. Water Baptism "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38). The apostolic church has been baptizing converts in the name of Jesus Christ for over nineteen hundred years, according to Acts 2:38 and the other passages of Scripture pertaining to water baptism. There has always been a church down through the centuries that has refused to compromise the truth. (Read Romans 11:5.) And although the apostolic church was scattered, especially after the Roman Catholic Church became the state sponsored church in the fourth century, there have always been assemblies of Jesus Name Pentecostals worshiping somewhere on the planet. Perhaps they were hidden in the mountains of Eastern Europe or somewhere in the backwoods of Western Europe. Rest assured, they were there, preaching Acts 2:38 and the apostolic message. This is borne out in our review of history. On the birthday of the church, Peter preached the first sermon, and in Acts 2:38 he gave the New Testament plan of salvation as he had been carefully instructed by Jesus: 1. Repent of all your sins. 2. Be baptized by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission (forgiveness) of your sins. 3. Receive the heaven sent gift of the Holy Ghost. We note that in Acts 2:38 (as in Acts 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) the saving name to be used in water baptism is Jesus. No verse of Scripture says the name must be pronounced or written in Hebrew, but it is sufficient to invoke that name in the language of the people. In the New Testament, the apostolic writers recorded that name in Greek. G. B. Rossi, in 1868, wrote that in the catacombs (subterranean cemeteries under Rome), a representation of Peter was found, which shows him striking a rock, out of which flow waters of cleansing "through baptism in the name of Jesus Christ."1 Clement of Rome, a fellow worker with Paul and most likely a disciple of Peter, wrote AD 96: "And now may the all-seeing God and Master of spirits, and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ and us through Him to be His own people, grant to every soul over whom His magnificent and holy name has been invoked. . . ."2 The "invoking," or calling out, of a name most likely would occur at water baptism. In James 2:7, the phrase "worthy name by the which ye are called," is a similar phrase, for the Greek word translated "called," epikaliomai, has the meaning of "invoke." It is the use of the divine name in water baptism that is important. Clement was obviously referring to the name of Jesus in the phrase "His magnificent and holy name."

We also read in The Shepherd of Hermas (AD 120) of water baptism in the name of Jesus. The author, Hermas, was reportedly the half-brother of Bishop Pius of Rome. Hermas is held by tradition to have been a disciple of Paul. However, if he lived up to the time of the episcopate of Pius (AD 140-154), he would have been extremely young (a boy) under the ministry of Paul.3 Dates for the Shepherd have gone all the way from AD 100 to 145. The majority seem to favor an earlier date such as AD 99-100 due to references to Bishop Clement and the monarchianism seen in Hermas. Hermas enjoyed great popularity and respect, with The Shepherd being read alongside Scripture in many churches. Irenaeus accepted Hermas, but Tertullian did not. Hermas, as did the Roman church, believed in baptism in the name of Jesus: "They are such as have heard the word, and were willing to be baptized in the name of the Lord; but considering the great holiness which the truth requires, have withdrawn themselves, and walked again after their wicked lusts."4 And for Hermas, who made no mention of a trinity, there was only one God: "First of all believe that God is one, who created all things and put them in order."5 The apocryphal work The Acts of Paul and Thecla (c. AD 160), written in Asia Minor, uses the words "in the name of Jesus Christ" as a formula for water baptism. This use indicates that this formula was accepted during this period, and the Greek pronunciation of Iesous was used.6 Scholars are aware that the shorter formula "in the name of Jesus Christ" was the older, and therefore the apostolic, formula. A Basel professor, K. R. Hagenbuch, wrote in 1883: "As to the words used at baptism, baptism in the name of Christ alone seems to be more ancient than in the name of the three persons of the Trinity."7 There is no question as to the use of a spoken formula. The noted historian, Arthur C. McGiffert wrote in 1899: Of the trinitarian formula into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which later became universal in the church, we have no trace in the New Testament, except in a single passage, Matthew 28:19. . . . When and how such a formula arose, we do not know. . . . It was in common use in the middle of the second century."8 McGiffert acknowledged that the formula using the three titles is later than the earlier, shorter formula using the name of Jesus. He claimed that the trinitarian formula was in common use "in the middle of the second century." It is true that Justin mentioned this formula (more or less) AD 150. We have seen, however, that Oneness or modalism was the majority doctrine in the second century. And we do not yet see the trinitarian baptismal formula usurping the more common shorter formula in the second century. University of Chicago Professor George Gilbert noted in 1907: "It is to be noticed that Peter speaks of baptism into the name of Jesus Christ, not, as in Matthew 28:19, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Baptism into the name of Jesus is the only form mentioned in the book of Acts and the New Testament epistles.9 Again, he did not question the use of a formula, and he noted the exclusive use of the name of Jesus in water baptism in the Book of Acts and in the Epistles. In recent times (1972), Edmund Schlink, a German scholar, tied the change in the baptismal formula to changes in creeds:

"Most probably baptism was originally performed upon (in) the name of Christ and this was later expanded, as in the expansion of the Christological confession into the tripartite creeds. In that case, the baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form cannot be the historical origin of Christian baptism. And this is the truth that we hope all of Christianity will soon see. The ancient baptismal formula was changed because of changes in creeds or dogmas."10 The baptismal command, as it is understood today, cannot be, as Schlink said "the historical origin of Christian baptism." The original church simply did not understand Matthew 28:19 to direct the use of a formula using the three titles. But the original church baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, actually using the name in the formula. There should really be no conflict between the single passage of Matthew 28:19 and the rest of the Scriptures on water baptism. Matthew 28:19 actually calls for the use of a single name as do the other baptismal passages. The name, of course, is Jesus Christ. There is "none other name" (Acts 4:12). Matthew 28:19, as a single passage, has caused much trouble for many scholars and Christians. James Martineau said that Matthew 28:19 "betrays itself by speaking in the trinitarian language of the next century." Adolph Harnack went so far as to say that it was "no word of the Lord." Armitage Robinson said that it was not the exact words of Jesus "but transfers to Him the familiar language of the church."11 Fred Coneybeare, noted nineteenth-century scholar, went even further in trying to prove the invalidity of Matthew 28:19. Believing that Eusebius of Caesarea had access to the greatest Christian library of the fourth century, he researched Eusebius's work and found eighteen instances of Eusebius citing Matthew 28:19 as follows: "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I command you." The commentary of Eusebius on this passage said that "in my name" meant the name of Jesus. Thus, Coneybeare felt that Eusebius knew nothing of any other form of Matthew 28:19 until he attended the Council of Nicea (AD 325). Then, after Nicea, Eusebius used the trinitarian interpretation of Matthew 28:19.12 However, there is no difficulty with the present reading of Matthew 28:19 when one understands that this passage requires the use of only one name in water baptism. "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" are titles. The name that the Lord described in this passage is the only saving name of Jesus. As we have already seen, this is the name that the apostles used in the Book of Acts and in the Epistles. J. E. C. Schmidt concluded that the strong dissension on the Godhead was heightened by the introduction of the trinitarian formula of baptism and also by the consequent predominance of the hypostatical views (i.e., seeing God as three divine persons) over the earlier view.13 No apostle ever used the trinitarian formula. When, then, did the first use of the trinitarian formula appear? We might speculate sometime between AD 110-40. Trinitarianism, as an offshoot of Gnosticism, was germinating in the last years of Paul. The trinitarian Logos doctrine was probably in an infancy stage during the latter part of John's life. But we cannot imagine that heretics would dare to trifle with the baptismal formula while John was alive. The Lord commended the Philadelphian church AD 96

because they had kept His word and had not "denied my name" (Revelation 3:8). One way to deny the name of the Lord would be to take it out of the baptismal formula. The first historical reference to a probable trinitarian baptismal formula is AD 140 in Justin. Conybeare, however, was convinced that Justin only knew Matthew 28:19 as "in His name."14 However, the quotation we have from Justin reads: "For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water."15 We should note that this is a "trinitarian formula," but it is only similar to, and not identical with, Matthew 28:19. It uses the invocation form "in the name of," but it does not strictly adhere to the structure of Matthew 28:19. Moreover, Justin required the phrase "God the Father" because, he maintained, no one can utter the name of the ineffable God. Moreover, if anyone dares to say that there is a name, "he raves with a hopeless madness."16 There may have been a dispute over the name of God the Father. The use of such expressions as "ineffable God" identifies Justin as a Greek philosopher. It is not coincidental that the (invented) Roman baptismal symbol arose AD 140-50.17 This is about the time that Justin came to Rome and was teaching. As we have seen, the main congregations of Rome retained baptism in the name of Jesus Christ under Pius (bishop, AD 140-54). His half-brother, Hermas, mentioned baptism in Jesus' name. There were a number of Christian congregations in Rome during this period. Justin admitted this. (See Acts of Martyrdom 3.) On his second visit to Rome, he was only aware of one meeting place above a certain Martinus at the baths of Timotinus.18 Justin seems to have had no relations with the Roman bishops of this period. Irenaeus taught a form of trinitarian baptism in about AD 180: "We have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and rose again, and in [the name of] the Holy Spirit of God."19 We should note that Irenaeus taught water baptism for the remission of sins. He would have considered all modern trinitarians today as heretics unless they baptized for the remission of sins. Again, we note that there is no solid structure as in Matthew 28:19 but rather a paraphrase of this passage. This makes one wonder whether Justin and Irenaeus based their baptismal formula on a strict reading of Matthew 28:19. Another error readily apparent in this passage by Irenaeus is his view that "the Son of God" was "incarnate." The Scriptures do not teach that the "Son" was incarnate but that God was incarnate (as the Son). Another view of the formula presented by Justin and Irenaeus (AD 140-80) is that it might be a compromise formula. The so-called Roman baptismal symbol or creed was identified with supporters of the new Logos. Altaner, although he placed its introduction a little later, also identified the formula with trinitarian architects: "The Roman baptismal liturgy of about AD 200 . . . [as] attested by Tertullian and Hippolytus of Rome . . . has certainly been the basis of all other Western baptismal creeds."20 This comment is interesting, because we have shown that the trinitarian formula arose among a minority. It was not accepted by the majority of Christians in the second century, and yet this formula today has become "the basis of all

other Western baptismal creeds"! Something obviously went wrong. Tertullian defended trinitarian water baptism in Against Praxeas (AD 214, clearly when he was a Montanist): "He [Jesus] commands them to baptize into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, not into one . . . and it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of their names."21 With Tertullian, who is later than Justin and Irenaeus, we have a clear correlation with the Matthew 28:19 passage, using the trinitarian interpretation of three divine persons. Obviously, he was countering the one immersion in the name of Jesus Christ used by modalists such as Praxeas. In countering Oneness water baptism, Tertullian used the trinitarian model of which he is said to be an architect. In his treatise On Baptism (AD 206), he confirmed that trinitarian baptism is based on the trinitarian model of three divine persons: "Thus . . . does the angel, the witness of baptism "make the paths straight" for the Holy Spirit, who is about to come upon us, by the washing away of sins which faith sealed [in the name of] the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit obtains. For in the mouth of three witnesses every word shall stand."22 Tertullian's point was that he baptized with the formula "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" because he believed in three divine persons (the trinity). Thus, he tied the trinitarian formula to the trinitarian model. We should also notice that Tertullian emphasized the "washing away of sins" in water baptism. (See Acts 22:16.) The ancient Catholic writers would consider many modern trinitarians to be heretics, because the modern trinitarians, in many cases, do not believe in baptism for the remission, forgivness or the washing away of sins. As trinitarian churches began to grow and to insist on water baptism in the name of the trinity, the issue of rebaptism came to the fore. G. Quispel believed that Catholicism was a newcomer to North Africa when Tertullian went there at the beginning of the third century. Before that time, the Christians there were modalists. It is his opinion that Minucius Felix, a well known Christian writer, was a modalist.23 We have seen that Praxeas went to North Africa (AD 208) in response to problems with trinitarians. Water baptism became an issue by at least AD 213. In that year, a group of trinitarian ministers, led by a trinitarian pastor in Carthage named Agrippinus, decided that "heretics" (most likely modalists and Marcionites) needed to be rebaptized in the name of the trinity.24 By AD 220, there were at least seventy-one trinitarian pastors in the African province of Carthage.25 Cyprian (AD 200-58) became the Catholic bishop of Carthage in AD 248, having been converted two years earlier by Caecilius, a Carthaginian presbyter. The Catholics indeed had made great gains in this area, but Cyprian still listed the "patripassians" (modalist Christians) as his greatest enemy.26 Since Oneness believers and Marcionites continued to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, Cyprian found himself fighting against the name of Jesus in water baptism. In one place, he attempted to argue that water baptism in the name of Jesus was for Jews only: "The [Jews], because they had already gained the most ancient baptism of the law and Moses, were to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, in conformity with what Peter

tells them in the Acts of the Apostles [2:38], saying, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."2 It is interesting to see Acts 2:38 quoted in the third century basically as we now have it. But Cyprian went on to say that Jesus told the apostles to baptize the nations "in the full and united Trinity."28 This interpretation of Cyprian's, however, fails upon further examination of the Scriptures. For example, in the Book of Acts, Peter baptized the Italians in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 10:48); Philip baptized the Samaritans in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16); and Paul baptized the Ephesians in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:5). Moreover, Jesus commanded the use of His name for "remission of sins" (connected with water baptism in Acts 2:38) for all nations (Luke 24:47). Nowhere did any of these teachers say anything about a "full and united Trinity." Obviously, in light of these other passages on baptism, Cyprian misinterpreted or did not understand the meaning of Matthew 28:19. As Matthew himself baptized into the name of Jesus at Jerusalem in 33 AD, along with the other apostles present there on the day of Pentecost. The trinitarians of North Africa (Carthage and Alexandria) found themselves pitted against a fellow Catholic bishop on the subject of rebaptism. Bishop Stephen of Rome (AD 254-57) still permitted the use of the name of Jesus in water baptism, stating that the shorter form was the more ancient. Cyprian disagreed with him and required rebaptism of all who had been baptized in the name of Jesus, when they came into the Catholic Church. The bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius (AD 200-65), former head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, wrote a strong letter to bishop Stephen, asserting the right to rebaptize: "Those who were baptized in the name of the three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, though they were baptized by heretics who confess the three Persons, shall not be rebaptized. But those who are converted from other heresies shall be perfected by the baptism of the Holy Church."29 Dionysius, it seems, did not care who baptized a person--as long as it was not in the name of Jesus! Trinitarian pastors held councils on matters pertaining to water baptism in the third century. About AD 230, two such councils were held, one at Iconium (in Phrygia), and the other at Synnada, which confirmed the opinion that "heretical" baptism was invalid.30 Trinitarian churches increased in number in the third century, but there was also much activity among monarchians. Sabellius returned to North Africa around AD 235 and began to evangelize extensively. Artemon continued to preach a monarchian message in Rome, while Beryllus worked in Arabia, and Paul of Samosata preached in Syria. (We discuss these other men in chapters 7 and 8.) However, the emerging Catholic Church began to acquire a new ally in the closing decades of the third century. Her ally was Caesar himself! In AD 272, the Catholics had obtained imperial assistance to oust the monarchian leader Paul of Samosata illegally from his bishopric. In AD 312, Emperor Constantine became a Catholic of sorts (he never accepted baptism until on his deathbed), and suddenly the prestige and power of the Catholic Church skyrocketed. In AD 314, Caesar called the Council of Arles on the

subject of the Donatists (a Catholic reform movement in North Africa). Among other things, this council decreed that persons baptized in the trinitarian titles by heretics ought not to be rebaptized: "If they answer that they were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it shall be enough that they be confirmed in order to receive the Holy Ghost."31 Confirmation meant that the Catholic priest placed his hands upon the supplicant's head, who was then said to have automatically received the Holy Ghost. Emperor Constantine backed up this ecclesiastical decision with the imperial power by decreeing that congregations who would not go along with this decision would lose their property and their civil rights!32 The Council of Nicea (AD 325) passed a canon dealing with rebaptism of monarchian Christians. The council decreed that the Paulinians (a group founded by Paul of Samosata) must be rebaptized into the trinity. The Paulinian clergy could be reordained only if the Catholic bishop over their area approved. Christians who were baptized in the name of Jesus were ordered to be rebaptized. Their ministers were ordered to report to the near- est Catholic bishop by order of the emperor.33 The alternative was confiscation of all church property and loss of civil rights. This unlawful assault upon those who baptized in Jesus' name caused many of them to go under- ground as persecution became even more severe through out the Roman Empire. In the fourth century, Jesus Name baptism became a symbol of heresy in the eyes of the Roman state church (the Catholic Church). At the Council of Laodicea (AD 326-29), a document mentions "heretics" having to be rebaptized, "especially those who fell into Sabellianism [modalism]. . . . Their baptism was decidedly invalid."34 One wonders how many Christians gave up under the imperial and Catholic Church pressure and recanted their faith, or at least nominally became Catholics. In AD 381, the Council of Constantinople specifically stated in its seventh canon that Sabellian baptism was invalid. It described the sect of Sabellians [modalists] as numerous in Galatia (the region around present Ankara, Turkey).35 Some trinitarian scholars have attempted to belittle the imprecations by these councils against Oneness Christians by terming them as ritualistic repetitions of historical "heresies" that no longer existed. This is certainly not true. Catholic councils addressed real problems. Around AD 450, more trouble occurred with Oneness church assemblies in the Antioch area (modern Antakya of Turkey on the Orontes River, at the foot of Mt. Silpius). In ancient times, Antioch was a large world trade center with a large population. In response to an inquiry, the Catholic church at Constantinople sent a letter to Martyrius, the Catholic bishop of Antioch, declaring the baptism of the Sabellians invalid.36 About eight years later (AD 458), Catholics experienced difficulties with "heretical" baptism, which was possibly Jesus Name baptism, in northeastern Italy, in the Aquileia area. Nicetas, the bishop of Aquileia, wrote Pope Leo about some who were forced by "fear" or led by "erroneous thinking" into "repeating" their baptism. Leo, in a return letter of March 21, 458, advised a mild course of penance for those who wanted to "return" to the Catholic Church.3But the pressure on baptism in the name of Jesus became greater. In AD 529, the harsh Justinian Code declared death for two "heresies": (1) antitrinitarianism, and (2) rebaptism. Justinian, the Eastern Roman emperor, was extremely intolerant of heresies during his long reign (AD 527-65).

A second Catholic council at Constantinople (AD 553) declared Sabellian baptism invalid.38 The Catholic Church in the East thus seemed to assure that water baptism in Jesus' name would be considered "rebaptism" and hence worthy of the death penalty. The fact that a general council of the Catholic Church took the trouble to discuss and construct a canon on the subject of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ demonstrates the widespread existence of Oneness assemblies, which were still regarded as dangerous to the Catholic Church. Jesus Name baptism was still known also in the West in the sixth century. Martin Dumium (died AD 579), Catholic bishop of Braga (in the Minho province of Portugal today), wrote in a letter to Bishop Boniface (probably somewhere in Visigoth Spain) between AD 561-79: "For if there is a single immersion under a single name, then only the unity of the Deity in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost is demonstrated, but no difference of Persons is shown."39 Martin went on to write that "the Sabellian heresy, . . . in retaining single immersion under a single name, claims that the Father is the same as the Son and the Holy Ghost is the same as the Father."40 We should notice that Martin referred to "the Sabellian heresy" as though it was currently active. Martin claimed that he himself used the Roman baptismal liturgy of trinitarian formula with triple immersion. In a possible veiled reference to other baptismal formula in the seventh century, Spanish Bishop Braulio of Saragossa wrote to Bishop Eugene of Toledo in AD 647: "It is manifest that baptisms given in the name of the Trinity should not be repeated, but we are not forbidden to anoint with chrism heretics whom we find not to have shared the true chrism."41 The "chrism" Braulio mentioned seems to have been the anointing of olive oil mixed with balm at baptism. The "heretics" who would need rebaptism were those who were not baptized in the name of the Trinity, or those who had been baptized in the name of Jesus. Jesus Name baptism continued to exist down through the centuries. It appeared among many "heretics" in the Middle Ages in eastern Europe. It cropped up in Europe with the Protestant Reformation. It probably existed up through the nineteenth century in Armenia. It is certainly seen in The Key of Truth, the so-called Paulician manual discovered by Conybeare in Armenia in the nineteenth century.42 Jesus Name baptism retained its appeal even for some trinitarian groups. After all, it was Jesus who died for our sins, was buried for us, and rose from the grave. When we are baptized in His powerful, saving name, we are buried with Him (Colossians 2:12). We are not buried with "three persons" but rather with Him! We have mentioned how that the Roman district (even for many years after they had embraced the trinitarian doctrine) defended Jesus Name baptism as being valid. Conybeare stated that in the seventh century the entire "Celtic church," which was already trinitarian, was ex- communicated by the Roman papacy because they retained Jesus Name baptism!43 For the most part however, Jesus Name baptism has been associated with the Oneness doctrine, whereas trinitarian baptism has been associated with the trinitarian doctrine of the Godhead.

Sabellius "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29). Sabellius was born AD 180, probably in the ancient Libyan city of Ptolemais.1 Ptolemais was one of five Greek cities or colonies called the Pentapolis, located along the coastal area of North Africa between Tripoli and the western desert of Egypt. Ptolemais (modern Tolmeta) was part of an area that formed the terminal stations of the caravans coming from Alexandria in Egypt. It was highly settled by Greeks and Jews.2 Although Sabellius seems to have been well-educated, the term "Libyan" applied to him by ancient trinitarian writers has a contemptuous connotation of "country folk" or "lower class." It is possible that he was of Jewish or Greek extraction and may well have been a Roman by birth, since the Romans had conquered this area and lived there also. The Libyans, the native inhabitants of the area, were a proud and fierce nomadic people. However, they had been assimilated to a degree by the conquering peoples-Carthaginians (Phoenician colonists), Greeks, and Romans.3 We do not really know, then, the ancestry of Sabellius. Most likely he spoke both Greek and Latin. When Sabellius was possibly a teenager, Septimius Severus, a fellow African from Leptis Magna, a seaport west of the Pentapolis area, became emperor of Rome in AD 193. This event marked the rise of Romans of African descent. It is perhaps not coincidental that Victor, bishop of Rome, AD 189-98, was also of African descent. The African emperors Severus, Caracalla, and Alexander Severus in the period of AD 193-235 served while Sabellius was in Rome. Too much cannot be made of this, and we are not suggesting any personal connection with these pagan men, but certainly the times were conducive for North African leaders such as Victor and Sabellius. Sabellius possibly arrived in Rome as early as AD 197 or 198 (at about the age of seventeen or eighteen), when his fellow countryman, Victor, was still the bishop of Rome. He came to attend the district-endorsed Bible college. R. B. Tollinton believed that Praxeas, who had come to Rome AD 190 from Asia Minor and who was an ally of Victor, was a teacher of Sabellius.4 The ancient trinitarian writers Augustine and Philaster held that Sabellius was taught by Noetus.5 If Noetus died AD 200, it is unlikely that he personally taught Sabellius, although he could possibly have preached or taught in Rome shortly before his death. Certainly, the unnamed "Praxeas" could have taught Sabellius, since he was in Rome from AD 190-208. Epigonus, Noetus's deacon, has been identified by some with Praxeas. But it is Cleomenes, a "deacon" to Epigonus, who is said to have been the president of the Bible college in Rome at this time. According to Hippolytus, a contemporary Roman minister who should have known, Cleomenes and Bishop Callistus were the instructors of Sabellius.6 All of these connections are very interesting, since we have speculated that Noetus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a reputed disciple of the apostle John! In other words, these lines of discipleship would actually link modalistic monarchianism indirectly to the apostle John. Victor

Bishop Victor may have been responsible for establishing the monarchian Bible college in Rome. It is possible that he had seen the success of trinitarian schools. History tells us also that Epigonus, if not Noetus himself, came to Rome during the episcopate of Victor. Hippolytus noted that when Epigonus did arrive in Rome, he "sowed broadcast the godless doctrine."7 He referred, of course, to the Oneness understanding of the Godhead. Hippolytus was well aware, as he admitted in his writings, that the Roman bishops of that period agreed with the Oneness teaching. Victor took no reported action against Epigonus. If Epigonus was indeed the famous "Praxeas," then it might seem natural that Victor would permit Epigonus to start a Bible college in Rome. Epigonus was gone from the Roman scene by AD 211. This coincides with the approximate time that "Praxeas" left Rome to go to Carthage. We next hear that Cleomenes, a disciple of Epigonus, was the president of the Roman Bible college. Hippolytus stated that the school of Cleomenes attracted many adherents but that one man stood out as bolder than all the others. His name was Sabellius.8 But it is also true that the Roman district now contained a number of congregations who were apostolic in name only. Many of their pastors apparently entertained the trinitarian Logos teaching. Hippolytus, the bishop of Portus, a community not far from Rome, was a leader of this group. Problems were developing in the great Roman district. Trinitarian forces were attempting to pull Bishop Victor into a more lenient approach to those who basically held a trinitarian view, such as the Montanists. We might speculate that part of this turmoil was responsible for the split between Bishop Victor and Theodotus of Byzantium, who seems to have been a Roman district pastor. Theodotus, apparently in his attempt to combat the Logos supporters, emphasized the humanity of Christ as opposed to the Logos supporters' contentions that Christ was a second divine person. Zephyrinus When Bishop Victor died in AD 198, a new presiding bishop was chosen by the Roman district pastors. Zephyrinus (bishop, AD 198-217), according to his enemies, was not suited to the task of leading the Roman district. Hippolytus described Zephyrinus as "ignorant and unlearned" and unskilled in the church's rules.9 Moreover, he accused Zephyrinus, without supporting evidence, of being a lover of money who took bribes and who was manipulated by gifts and extravagant demands from his assistant, Callistus.10 According to Hippolytus, a man who himself had personal designs on the Roman episcopate, Callistus, while assisting Bishop Zephyrinus, actually ran the Roman district. He accused Callistus of playing a double game, that is, of catering to ministers in the district who were con- vinced of, or interested in, the trinitarian Logos doctrine while at the same time appearing to be staunchly loyal to the old-line Oneness leaders.11 The Logos faction of Hippolytus grew in the district, but Hippolytus found himself stymied by Zephyrinus. While it is difficult to know, it seems likely that a more vigorous bishop might have successfully challenged the trinitarian faction, since they were in the minority at that time.12 However, it seems that Zephyrinus did not wish to rock the boat. Hippolytus began to sow dissension. He raised the "patripassian" issue. He accused the

modalist ministers of, in effect, "crucifying the Father." Zephyrinus issued a clarifying statement: "The Father did not die, but the Son [died]." He added, "I know one God, Christ Jesus, begotten and susceptible of suffering, and beside Him I know no other [God]."13 Thus, Zephyrinus avoided the extreme patripassian view but refused to accept a second divine person. Hippolytus admitted that nearly everyone concurred with Zephyrinus and Callistus at the time. He wrote that Callistus accused him of being a "ditheist" (a worshiper of two gods). This is contemporary evidence that the Roman district was not trinitarian. The majority of the Christians were modalists, or Oneness believers. J. P Kirsch stated, "The Christian common people held firmly, above all, to the unity of God, and at the time, to the true Godhead of Jesus Christ. Originally, no distrust of this doctrine was felt among them."14 Hippolytus was part of a clique of ministers who were trying to change the Oneness doctrine of the Roman district to trinitarianism. Sabellius, by this time, had graduated from the Roman Bible college and was probably a pastor in Rome. Hippolytus, who personally knew Sabellius, approached him to recruit him into the trinitarian cause: "When we exhorted him [Sabellius], he did not harden his heart; but when he found himself once more alone with Callistus, he allowed himself to be led away into the doctrine of Cleomenes, as Callistus told him that he also held this."15 Clearly, during these few climactic years in Rome, there was a tremendous doctrinal battle going on. Men were struggling over the issue of who Jesus was and the proper understanding of the Godhead. The relationship of Sabellius and Callistus is perplexing. Perhaps they actually agreed on the Godhead but had other misunderstandings. Hippolytus accused Callistus of deceiving Sabellius: "[Sabellius] did not then understand his [Callistus's] trickery, but knew it afterwards."16 What "trickery"? Was it doctrinal? Was it something to do with the district? Hippolytus also claimed that Sabellius later accused Callistus of straying from his first faith.17 What does this mean? Did Callistus compromise the doctrine? Callistus When Bishop Zephyrinus died in AD 217, Callistus was elected the next bishop. Hippolytus, in disgust, caused a split in the Roman district and made himself a rival bishop.18 Thus, one of the architects of the doctrine of the trinity became the first "antipope" in history (unless we count Theodotus of Byzantium)! The reader may well ask: How could the architects of the trinitarian doctrine possess the credentials needed to establish the "orthodoxy" of their doctrine? Tertullian embraced Montanism and issued his theory of the trinity when he was deemed a heretic by the mainstream church. Justin had no ministerial credentials from his contemporaries--not even from the Roman bishops when he lived and taught in the city of Rome. Hippolytus was a rebel minister and an "anti- pope." How can trinitarians today consider these men to be "fathers of the church"? Apparently, when the split between trinitarians and Oneness believers occurred, the "moderates" in the Roman district looked with some disfavor on both fac- tions.

Hippolytus said that at this time Bishop Callistus "ex-communicated" Sabellius as "one who does not hold right opinions."19 But this does not mean that Callistus was now a trinitarian and therefore excommunicated Sabellius for holding modalistic views. According to Hippolytus, Sabellius set up his own Bible college after he was forced out of the district. He apparently also kept the pastorate of a Oneness congregation.20 Callistus probably remained a modalist in his views. J. N. D. Kelly stated: "Zephyrinus and Callistus were . . . conservatives holding fast to a monarchian tradition which antedated the whole movement of thought inaugu- rated by the Apologists."21 And while Kelly might not agree, this comment suggests that the trinitarian thought "inaugurated" by the apologists was a later tradition and hence not the teaching of the apostles. Hippolytus quoted an actual doctrinal statement by Callistus, after he became bishop in AD 217: "The Word [Logos] is the Son Himself, the Father Himself. There is only one and the same indivisible Spirit, except in name. The Father is not one thing, and the Son another: they are one and the same thing, the divine Spirit which fills all things above and below. The Spirit, made flesh in the virgin, is not other than the Father, but one and the same thing, hence Scripture says: "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?" (John 14:10). The visible element, the Man, is the Son; and the Spirit which dwells in the Son is the Father. I will not speak of two gods, the Father and the Son, but of one alone. For the Father who rested in the Son, having assumed flesh, divinized it in uniting it to Himself, and made it one with Himself, so that the names of Father and Son apply to one and the same God. The personality of the Son cannot be duplicated; consequently, the Father suffered with the Son."22 This statement has been translated from Greek. When the English says that the Father and the Son are "one and the same thing," Callistus used the neuter word hen, meaning "one," and the translators added the English word "thing" to show the gender. Since pneuma, the Greek word for "Spirit," is a neuter noun, we see that Callistus meant that the Father and the Son are "one and the same Spirit." (See John 10:30, which also uses the neuter form hen for "one.") Callistus maintained that "Father," "Word," and "Son" are titles (descriptive "names") referring to the one indivisible Spirit, who is God. He made abundantly clear that the Father (not the Son) was manifest in the flesh. The Son is the man ("the visible element"). The Spirit that dwells in the Son is the Father. It was the Father who "rested" in the Son, "having assumed flesh" and "divinizing" the flesh; He "united it to Himself" and "made it one with Himself." The names or titles of Father and Son apply to one and the same God. Finally he stated, "The personality of God cannot be duplicated." This means that the Father "suffered with [or in] the Son." Callistus, then, followed Praxeas in avoiding the "cruder" form of patripassianism ascribed to Noetus. Yet he plainly identified the Father and the Son as one indi- vidual. He emphasized that the Son was the result of the Incarnation and did not have preincarnate separate divine existence. Concerning the Incarnation (the enfleshment) Callistus spoke of "the Spirit, made flesh in the virgin," instead of using the phrase in John 1:14: "The Word was made flesh." He also identified the Spirit as the Father. It is the Father (not the Son, as trinitarianism teaches) who "assumed flesh." The Son is the Spirit (or the Word) made flesh in the virgin. The

Father "divinized" (glorified) the flesh by uniting it "to Himself" and "made it one with Himself." This discussion is reminiscent of statements in Acts and Hebrews concerning the glorification of Jesus Christ, but it does not deny the virgin birth and shows no sign of "adoptionism" (such as God selecting a member of the human race who was not virgin born). Obviously, Callistus was speaking against the trinitarian Logos doctrine. He said, "I will not speak of two gods, the Father and the Son, but of one alone." He reaffirmed this position by stating, "The personality [prosopon] of God cannot be duplicated," eliminating the possibility of a second divine person. Christ, therefore, can only be the visible image of the invisible God as to His humanity. (See II Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3.) In other words, there cannot be another divine person who is the image of God, for God's divine person cannot be duplicated. This statement strikes at the very heart of trinitarianism. The position of Callistus must have greatly disturbed Tertullian, with his doctrine of "three persons." Tertullian had no love for Callistus. He branded him as the "pontifex maximus" ("high priest"), or the "bishop of bishops."23 Callistus was a great organizer. He arranged a system of neighborhood churches in Rome, known as "titular" churches, which contained dwellings for the pastor and offices for the administration of charity.24 There were perhaps a total of fourteen such churches in the city of Rome alone.25 Callistus served as bishop during AD 217-22. Hippolytus accused him of permitting divorce and remarriage among the ministry and of attracting large crowds because he would not preach against sin. Both Hippolytus and Tertullian reported that Callistus claimed that he himself was empowered to remit sins26 (probably in reference to John 20:23, but in what context we do not know). Bishop Callistus personally pastored a "titular" church in the section of Rome called the Trastevere, an area of artisans and shopkeepers. Reportedly, he was murdered by an angry mob on October 14, 222, and his body was cast into a well on the church property.27 After casting Sabellius out of the district (or at least causing him to withdraw from district fellowship), Callistus apparently tried to heal the divisions that existed concerning the disputes over the Godhead. He himself did not espouse trinitarianism, but it is probable that he allowed the doctrine to exist in the Roman district. Unfortunately, with the demise of Callistus, a new bishop, Urban (AD 222-30), was elected who was a trinitarian. A staggering doctrinal change had occurred in the church at Rome. The Roman popes today can claim to trace their chair back to the apostle Peter, but they can- not trace their trinitarian doctrine back any further than Bishop Urban. Callistus was the last modalist or Oneness Roman bishop. What happened to Sabellius? He remained in Rome up to AD 235.28 We are sure that there were numerous Oneness adherents in Rome. We cannot say that the Sabellians, as they came to be called, had fellowship with another nontrinitarian group at the time, called Theodotians, whom historians call dynamic monarchians. Kirsch, without apparently any real ancient authority, said that the Sabellians were rigid opponents of the Theodotians.29 But Epiphanius stated that Sabellians were still numerous in Rome over 140 years later.30 Sabellius returned to Libya c. AD 235.31 He is said to have pastored a church at Ptolemais.32 He became a district leader of some sort and preached throughout the area. Sabellius must have been a dynamic preacher. Schleiermacher stated that "many bishops

in the neigh- boring countries of [Cyrenaica] and Egypt received his opinions."33 Fairweather acknowledged that "Sabellianism . . . found favor with the bishops of Egypt."34 The writings of Sabellius were extant up through at least the fifth century.35 Hilary of Poitiers (AD 315-67), a French Catholic bishop, apparently quoted directly from the writings of Sabellius: "Nothing except the nature of God produces the miracles which have been performed. From God alone comes the forgiveness of sins, the cure of diseases, the walking of paralytics, the sight of the blind, the dead coming to life. No other Nature, except that which is conscious of what it is, would say, 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30). Why do you force me into another substance? Why do you endeavor to make me another God? The one God has performed the deeds which are characteristic of God."36 In other words, Sabellius held the Father and the Son to be the same divine individual (God manifested in the flesh). He considered the trinitarian Logos teaching to require "another substance" and "another God." He held Jesus to be God the Father incarnate. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, in his Against Heresies (AD 375), held that the opinions of Sabellius coincided with those of Noetus "with some significant differences."37 According to him, Sabellius's "doctrine is [that] the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same Being in the sense that three names are attached to one substance."38 A trinitarian contemporary of Sabellius, Gregory Thaumaturgus (AD 213-75), had access to the writings of Sabellius and wrote the following in AD 250, when Sabellius was still alive: "But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three Persons. . . . Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says the Father and the Son are the same. For he holds that the Father is He who speaks and that the Son is the Word that abides in the Father, and becomes manifest at the time of creation, and thereafter reverts to God on the fulfilling of all things."39 He accused Sabellius of identifying the Son with the Father. Sabellius clearly believed that God the Father was in Christ. He did not consider the Word to be a different divine person from God the Father but must have thought of the Word of the Father much like the operative word of a man (that is, not a separate person). We see this under- standing of God's Word in such scriptural passages as Genesis 1:3 and Psalm 33:6, 9. The phrase "thereafter reverts to God on the fulfilling of all things" probably refers to an interpretation of I Corinthians 15:24-28. Athanasius (AD 298-373) could not have known Sabellius, who had died some decades earlier, but he certainly knew his teaching. He wrote that Sabellians were "patripassians": "And those who affirm that the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit are the same, impiously giving out three names for one and the same thing and person . . . these are called Patripassians among the Romans, and Sabellians with us."40 After Sabellius returned to North Africa he founded a Bible school, and his "doctrines became influential in Cyrenaica."41 This return to North Africa occurred c. AD 235, and so Sabellius worked in this area and in the East (possibly even as far as Syria) for about

twenty-three years. It is very likely that Sabellius also preached in Egypt.42 Adolph Harnack said that he preached and taught in the East (Egypt, Syria, and more) in AD 23040.43 It is not too far fetched to speculate, then, that he may have influenced Paul of Samosata, a leading preacher in Antioch whom we discuss in chapter 8. Sabellius died around AD 257-261, but his followers continued his work in North Africa and elsewhere. Ammonius, pastor of the church at Berenice (modern Benghazi, a port on the Mediterranean), was a follower of Sabellius. So was Euphranor, a pastor in the Libyan Pentapolis area of Cyrene, as well as Telephorus and Euporus.44 Of those Christian ministers who rose to defend the oneness of God in the second and third centuries, we can scarcely think of a greater champion than Sabellius. His name has been smeared by trinitarians down through the centuries and even to this day as an "arch (or great) heretic," but as we have shown, he was connected with the message of the apostles, which was handed down to the faithful in Asia Minor and in Rome. Beryllus "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my ser- vant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me" (Isaiah 43:10). About the same time that Sabellius was preaching in North Africa and in the Middle East, another probable ancient champion of Oneness was active in Arabia. He was a pastor named Beryllus of Bostra (the Old Testament "Bosrah"), or Busrah, an Arabian city located south of Damascus, Syria.1 Beryllus was active in ministry between AD 230-44. Friedrich Schleiermacher said that he was a man of learning and wrote works on the oneness of God. Eusebius inspected Beryllus's writings in the Jerusalem library. He stated in Ecclesiastical History 6:33 that Beryllus taught that the Lord and Savior did not exist as a distinct person before the Incarnation and that the divinity of the Father dwelt in Him.2 In other words, Beryllus held that God the Father was incarnate in the man Jesus and that Jesus did not exist as a distinct divine person before the Incarnation, but rather He simply existed as God the Father. In the context of this period, we might remember that the church at Rome had become nominally trinitarian in AD 222. It was possibly the last large metropolitan center of the Roman empire to turn trinitarian. This story is told in William Chalfant, The Fall of the Apostolic Church (revised 1998). Thus Beryllus was surrounded by trinitarian pastors who resented his continued insistence on apostolic doctrine. They disputed with him and finally brought in a well-known debater named Origen of Alexandria. Earlier, Origen had gone to Rome during the church crisis there, at the behest of Hippolytus, and had possibly disputed with Sabellius. We know that he preached for Hippolytus, and Photius wrote that he defended against the Sabellians.3 Jerome (AD 331-420), a Catholic writer, asserted in his Lives of Illustrious Men that Origen won the debate with Beryllus, and Eusebius made the same claim. Jerome even stated that, among the letters of Beryllus, there is one thanking Origen for "correcting" his erroneous views! Friedrich Schleiermacher, however, believed such a letter from Beryllus was not genuine, if it ever existed. Origen, a profuse writer, would surely have mentioned such a signal victory over an opponent, and he never did. Moreover, he never mentioned any personal clashes with Sabellius or Sabellians in Rome--a sure sign that he was not victorious over Oneness

debaters.4 Schleiermacher considered Beryllus to have been either a modalist or some other type of monarchian: "Person, therefore, as [Beryllus] defined it, could be predicated only of the man Jesus; and still, at the same time, he viewed the dwelling and acting of the Godhead in Jesus as something appropriate only to the one and undivided Being."5 Oulton and Chadwick also asserted that Beryllus taught just one hypostasis (person, being): "[His] monotheistic theology led him to deny the pre-existence and the independent hypostasis of the Son."6 Schleiermacher explained Beryllus's denial of the pre-existence of the Son in this manner: "Beryllus regarded as substantially equivalent, the assertion that the Godhead simply which dwelt in the Redeemer was not to be distinguished from that of the Father, and the assertion that the Godhead dwelling in the Redeemer did not subsist [exist] before the incarnation in a peculiar [circumscription or limitation] of the divine Being, but previously to this [as the Incarnation] was from eternity simply Godhead."7 In other words, Beryllus saw no personal distinctions within the eternal Godhead, and he maintained that God the Father Himself (not a being called God the Son) was incarnate. He did not regard the Son as a distinct divine person but rather as God manifest in the flesh. Jerome stated, "[Beryllus] at last lapsed into the heresy which denies that Christ had an existence before the incarnation."8 We have seen repeatedly that such trinitarian accusations are simply not true. Oneness doctrine does not deny that Christ had an existence before the Incarnation but simply denies that the Son existed as a different person. Gennadius of Marseilles (died in AD 496) followed Jerome's analysis. Incorrectly assuming that there are two divine persons, he also misunderstood Beryllus: "Neither was [Christ] so born of a virgin, that the man by birth received the beginning of divinity, as if, before He was born of a virgin, He was not God; as Artemon, Beryllus, and Marcellus taught."9 This association by Gennadius of Beryllus with Artemon might cause us to consider that Beryllus was a dynamic monarchian. (We discuss this group in chapter 8.) In the comments of Gennadius, we may see the abysmal ignorance of the teaching of the dynamic monar- chians: Gennadius falsely accused Beryllus of teaching that (1) Christ "received the beginning of divinity" from the virgin birth and (2) before Christ was born of the virgin, "He was not God." A monarchian would, of course, say that the man was not God, but he would in no case say that He did not preexist as God (Spirit). Any preexis- tence belongs to the Spirit and not to the flesh. It is possible that Beryllus used the term "Christ" ("the anointed one") only to refer to the man in a narrow sense. When was the debate between Origen and Beryllus? Gabriel Oussani conjectured that the debate took place about AD 244.10 Oussani noted that Bostra was located in Syro-Arabia, which was known then by trinitarians as "the mother of heresies," and that there were many churches south of the Hauran (a district of southwestern Syria, east of the Jordan River). The trinitarians in this area, however, were well organized, and they greatly admired the trinitarian philosopher Origen.11 Oulton and Chadwick noted that Beryllus was succeeded by a trinitarian bishop named Maximus, who later "took part in the Origenist synod at Antioch in AD

268, which condemned Paul of Samosata."12 The subsequent fate of Beryllus is unknown. Sometime between AD 244 and 268 he was replaced by Maximus. Another possibility is that he died during this time or that there was a church split, with Maximus being recognized by other trinitarians as the bishop of Bostra. Questions remain as to whether Beryllus had fellowship or contact with Paul of Samosata in Antioch, which was not far away. Did he know Sabellius, who possibly preached in the area during this time? One thing is certain: there were people who believed in the oneness of God during this period of the third century. In the Hypnomesikon of Joseppus, written in the Middle Ages, a group of "heretics" are called the "Berylliani."13 This reference may indicate the continued existence of monarchian believers who had access to the writings of Beryllus or who perhaps were in some way identified with Beryllus. Thomas J. Shahan, however, ascribed (from Eusebius) other errors to Beryllus. He maintained that there was a council at Bostra AD 246 or 247 against Beryllus and others, and that, in addition to their errors on the Godhead, they taught that the soul perished and arose again with the body. Shahan referred to Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History 6:19, 39, but there seem to be no such references to the doctrine of soul sleep there. The debate between Origen and Beryllus was apparently held at a synod or council in Bostra, however. Eusebius, in his history, 6:33, did mention a number of writings by Beryllus, which are not now extant.14 Gennadius of Marseilles (died AD 505) said that the dialogue between Origen and Beryllus, as well as other letters, were still in existence during his time.15 Augustus Neander, possibly influenced by the reports that Beryllus started as a Catholic and was converted once again to Catholicism, maintained that Beryllus con- stituted "a third class of monarchians" who held a more "conciliatory monarchianism."16 While the evidence avail- able does seem to indicate that Beryllus was converted to monarchianism from trinitarianism, it is not as convinc- ing that he was brought back to Catholicism. If the ancient Catholic historians and writers had possessed such evidence, they would most likely have quoted from it extensively or preserved it. Origen, as mentioned previously, made no open reference at all to Beryllus. Dynamic Monarchians "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (I Corinthians 15:47). There are groups of Christians in history who, while rejecting the doctrine of the trinity and reportedly baptizing their converts in the name of Jesus Christ, are suspected of denying the deity of Christ and His virgin birth. It was the German scholar Friedrich Loofs who classified the monarchian groups of Christians with two different designations: modalistic and dynamic. Adolph Harnack, another scholar, preferred to call the "dynamic" monarchians by the term "adoptionists"--under the theory, we presume, that they did not believe in the virgin birth but held Jesus to be a mere human being born of human parents who, because of His superb qualities and goodness, was later "adopted" by the Father. The modalistic monarchians, on the other hand, such as Noetus and Sabellius, were

known to hold to the "high monarchian" teaching, or the Asiatic modalism, such as Ignatius of Antioch had taught. There is no question that they held to the virgin birth and the deity of Jesus Christ. However, while there are certainly differences in the teaching of the two groups of monarchians, which need to be examined much more thoroughly, there are many similarities. Moreover, these groups are not at all separated by all ancients, nor by all historians, to the extent that we might think. There are some important things to remember about the dynamic monarchians: (1) They provide a link back in history to Jewish Christians (certain groups called Ebionites, who may be related to early Jewish Christians of the first century), while modalistic monarchians have less clear links to the first century. (2) They also provide strong links through the Middle Ages in Eastern Europe to the nineteenth-century church, while the existence in the Middle Ages of modalistic monarchians is much less evident. If the dynamic monarchians did not accept the virgin birth, then they were obviously heretical and have no claim to apostolicity. Moreover, if they held that Jesus was just an ordinary human being, born of human parents, who was later "adopted" to become the Son of God, this also is a view that apostolic Oneness believers cannot accept. Finally, if they held that Jesus Christ was not fully God, to the extent of being God the Father Himself incarnate (or in the flesh), then that is unacceptable also. But we know that many untrue things have been said of Oneness believers down through the centuries and especially today. For example, Oneness believers have erroneously (falsely) been called Unitarians. They have been accused of denying the Father. They have been called "Jesus Only." It is profitable, therefore, to examine all monarchian Christians in history in order to determine what they really believed and taught. That is our only purpose in looking at the dynamic monarchians. Did they deny the deity of Jesus Christ, or did they actually embrace a form of Oneness theology, which upholds the true deity of Jesus Christ? Besides the earlier Ebionites, the first mention of dynamic monarchians (as they are now called) occurred at Rome during the episcopate of Victor (AD 189-98). Three enemies of Oneness teaching, Caius, Tertullian, and Hippolytus, stated that there were differences in doctrine between Bishop Victor and Theodotus, the leader of the dynamic monarchians at the time (AD 140-210). Adolph Harnack noted that both men were "monar- chians."1 Many trinitarian historians would have us believe that Bishop Victor defended "orthodox" trinitarianism when he opposed Theodotus, who was supposedly the first dynamic monarchian. But, as we have already noted, and as Harnack stated, Victor was not a defender of trinitarian Logos Christology.2 The followers of Theodotus claimed to be apostolic and maintained that the church at Rome had followed the teachings of the apostles up to the time of Zephyrinus (AD 198217).3 Artemon, the third bishop of the dynamic monarchians after Theodotus of Byzantium, and a subse- quent Theodotus (termed "the Banker") made this claim. They pointed a finger at Bishop Callistus of Rome (AD 217- 22) as the man who compromised the apostolic teaching. If the statements of the Theodotians are true, then we could understand the differences between Victor and Theodotus if their writings had been preserved or if their contemporaries had recorded enough doctrinal substance in support

of their condemnation. Let us examine what evidence is available. Theodotus was a contemporary of Noetus. He came to Rome from Byzantium (the European side of modern Istanbul, Turkey) about AD 190 (the presumed date of the Council of Rome, which concerned such issues as water baptism, the date of Easter, possibly the Godhead, and the Montanists).4 He was in fellowship with Bishop Victor for at least four years after his arrival. His enemies (the trinitarians Hippolytus and Tertullian) accused him of denying Christ during a persecution at Byzantium and fleeing to Rome in order to save his life.5 No evidence has been produced to substantiate such a charge, and it is unlikely that Victor would have received Theodotus in the first place had such evidence been in existence. J. N. D. Kelly, although trinitarian, was fair to Theodotus and remarked: "Malicious critics explained [Theodotus's] position as a makeshift device to cover up a previous act of apostasy at Byzantium, but it is in fact carefully worked out and shows no signs of improvisation."6 The trinitarians accused Theodotus of holding that Christ was a "mere man." They said that for this reason Bishop Victor expelled Theodotus and his church from fellowship AD 194. It is more likely, however, that Victor and Theodotus had other differences, or perhaps they disagreed on the terminology related to the charge of patripassianism. The latter is probable since there were extreme patripassians --those who stated bluntly that "God died"-- in Rome at the time. It is not true, however, that Theodotus held Jesus to be "a mere man" or that he denied the virgin birth. We must be careful in evaluating this charge. It may have arisen because Theodotus emphasized the genuine and complete humanity of Christ in contrast to the teaching of many trinitarians that Jesus was a lesser divine being --in effect, sounding as if they believed Jesus to be a part (God) divine and part human -- thus a demigod. Theodotus apparently taught that Jesus was God manifested in the flesh but he differed on the beginning of the Incarnation. He seems to have held, as some earlier Ebionites did, that the Incarnation did not take place in the womb of the virgin, nor at birth, but actually at Christ's baptism in the Jordan. Some other Theodotians, according to Hippolytus, did not believe that Jesus was actually God incarnate until His resurrection. These views are certainly not the standard Oneness teaching on the Incarnation, since Oneness believers hold that Jesus was God manifested in the womb of the virgin. (See, for example, Hebrews 1:6, which states that the angels worshiped the first (or unique and only) begotten when He came into the world, namely, at the virgin birth.) But while Theodotus apparently had a faulty teaching on the timing of the Incarnation, he nevertheless embraced the true deity of Christ, baptized in the name of Jesus, and accepted the virgin birth. He maintained that Christ (as Spirit) was always God from eternity. Adolph Harnack and Fred Conybeare identified the theology of Theodotus as being akin to that of Hermas in The Shepherd (AD 140). The Shepherd was highly respected in the churches and often read alongside Scripture up through the time of Tertullian, at least. What are we to make of this? Did the teaching of the dynamic monarchians coexist with that of the modalistic monarchians for some time in the second century until AD 190? Was it then labeled "heretical" Theodotus's critics contemptuously called him "Theodotus the tanner" or "the leather seller."7 Kelly surmised that he was actually an educated man.8 Possibly, he was a Jewish Christian. A number of ancient writers made little or no dis- tinction between dynamic and modalistic monarchians. Gennadius placed Artemon

(a disciple of Theodotus the Banker, a dynamic monarchian) in the Praxean or Sabellian group.9 Theodoret (AD 450) said that Artemon preserved the doctrine of monarchianism "pure and unadulterated."10 And Pseudo-Athanasius wrote that Paul of Samosata (held to be a disciple of Artemon) and Sabellius disclosed the same views.11 The Council of Antioch in Encaeniis in AD 341 pronounced a curse against three teachers: "Marcellus of Ancyra, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, and all who take part with them."12 Some modern scholars have also classed dynamic and modalistic monarchians together. Friedrich Schleiermacher classified Paul of Samosata, Artemon, and Theodotus together.13 Charles Feltoe stated, "Paul of Samosata's views were similar to Sabellius'."14 T. H. Bindley wrote that "Paul [of Samosata] was a Sabellianist."15 Certainly, then, there is some justification for considering the dynamic monarchians to be some type of Oneness Christians. They definitely were not trinitarians. We cannot classify them as Unitarians (Socinians). Oneness Christians today might justly state that the dynamic monarchians were not "orthodox" Oneness believers, but since these people baptized in Jesus' name, accepted the virgin birth, and held Jesus to be God incarnate, it is feasible to classify them as some sort of Oneness people.16 Hippolytus admitted that the Theodotians believed in the virgin birth. But, like the earlier Melito of Sardis (AD 130-90), they denied that Jesus performed any miracles until He became a man of about thirty and was baptized. The Theodotians rejected the spurious infancy gospels making the rounds during the second century, such as the Gospel of Thomas, in which the boy Jesus worked many fanciful and ridiculous wonders.17 They identified Christ in His deity as the Holy Spirit.18 They did not identify the man Jesus as the Holy Spirit but rather taught that God (a Spirit) dwelt in the man. Despite the label of "dynamic monarchian" that has been given to them, they did not believe that an "impersonal" power (dynamis) dwelt in Jesus. This theory comes about from a misunderstanding of their position concerning the baptism of Jesus. This view would represent a denial of the Incarnation, which they did not do. As we have noted, some believed that Jesus, the Son of God, was not actually incarnated by God the Father until His baptism, when the Spirit descended upon Him, while others felt that He should not be considered as God until after the resurrection, when He received "all power."19 But it seems that the majority held that the Word was made flesh in the womb of the virgin and that God was revealed in Him at the baptism. Charles Bigg disagreed that Theodotus held Christ to be "a mere man."20 He argued that Theodotus should be classified as an "Ebionite."21 The term "Ebionite," from a Hebrew word meaning "the poor," was originally a broad term denoting Jewish Christians. (See Galatians 2:10.) Unfortunately, "Ebionite" Christians were found in many varieties, from Judaizers to Gnostics and even, no doubt, apostolic Oneness believers.22 Beveridge wrote, "Some Ebionites were hardly distinguishable from men like Peter and James."23 Beveridge proposed a way in which some of the early Ebionites became "heretical": "When the Church discards a belief which it has outgrown [!], the tendency of those who retain that belief is to become heretical."24 Could we perhaps imagine that this indeed might have happened in the case of Jewish and Gentile Christian congregations who drifted apart during the second century? "Heretical" teachings developed. Justin, in Dialogue with Trypho 47, wrote about Christians of the Jewish race

who believed that Jesus was the "Christ, while holding Him to be a man among men."25 These may have been Ebionites. Origen (AD 250) wrote that "those Jews who receive Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites."26 And Jerome later knew of Jewish Christians in Perea, whom he classed as "Ebionites," and he said that they taught the virgin birth and the divine Sonship.27 Of course, other Jewish Christians who were termed Ebionites clearly embraced Gnostic beliefs. It is not out of the realm of possibility, then, that Theodotus was a Jewish Christian (or an Ebionite) who came to Rome AD 190 and found after four years that there were some irreconcilable differences between himself and the Roman district. We really do not know. Novatian (AD 250) said that the Theodotians argued as follows: "If the Father is one and the Son another, and if the Father is God and Christ God, then there is not one God, but two Gods are simultaneously brought forward, the Father and the Son."28 We do not know the outworking of this dynamic monarchian argument. There are at least two ways to address their concern that the Father and the Son not be viewed as two Gods: (1) by identifying the Father with the Son, or (2) by limiting the use of the term "Son" to the humanity of the Incarnation. Either way, the notion of a second divine person would be thwarted. The Theodotians possibly took the latter approach. But if they said that "Son" relates to humanity only, trinitarians could have easily misunderstood them as denying that Christ is God--especially if they taught a delayed Incarnation. Such a view would thwart the efforts of the trinitarians to find a second divine person in the Incarnation, but, on the other hand, it would hamper the recognition of who Jesus really was. Scripture, however, is clear that Jesus was God manifested in the flesh from conception. For example, the angel identified Him as "Christ the Lord" at His birth (Luke 2:11). Moreover, at His birth, He was Emmanuel, "God with us" (Matthew 1:23). Christ did not receive divinity from someone else; He is divine because He is God. Deity cannot be inherited. There was no God formed before Him, and neither shall there be after Him! Leighton Pullan said that Theodotus was probably influenced by the Alogi from Asia Minor, and Hippolytus called Theodotus a remnant of the Alogi.29 But likewise, Noetus, a modalistic monarchian of the high monarchian theology of Ignatius, was associated with the Alogi, since he rejected the trinitarian Logos doctrine and insisted that it was a misinterpretation of the prologue of the Gospel of John.30 It was the Alogi of Asia Minor who sounded the alarm against the charismatic practices of the Montanists, who were predominantly teachers of the new Logos doctrine. Apparently, the modalistic monarchians and the dynamic monarchians did not consider that there were great doctrinal differences between them. (We emphasize, however, that the ancient modalists did not accept the idea of an Incarnation later than the conception and birth of Jesus, and neither do Oneness believers today.) We know, for example, that the Roman bishop Zephyrinus, who followed Victor, reconciled most of the followers of Theodotus to the Roman church.31 This could not have happened if great differences had existed. The Theodotians identified Melchizedek as a theo- phany of God Himself. (See Genesis 14; Hebrews 7.) Fred Horton wrote that Epiphanius knew of some groups of monarchians who were called "Melchizedekians" in AD 377.32 And in AD 420, some monarchians taught that "Melchizedek is the Word . . . before entering the womb of the virgin."33 Mark the Hermit, a trinitarian writer, related these people to the Theodotians of earlier

times.34 Epiphanius quoted the Melchizedekians as follows: "And Christ was chosen that He might call us from many ways to this one knowledge, having been anointed by God, and chosen, when He turned us away from idols and showed us the way. And the apostle [Paul] having been sent by Him, revealed to us that Melchizedek is great and remains a priest forever. And behold how great He is! And because the less is blessed by the greater, therefore he says that He, as being greater, blessed Abraham the patriarch; of whom we are initiated that we may obtain from Him the blessing."35 Horton commented on a fragmentary document c. AD 50 found in the Qumran caves that designates Melchizedek as Elohim (God), and he said that it speaks of God as a singular Being.36 Whatever one's opinion of Melchizedek (whether a theophany or an ordinary human being), this idea is associated with Oneness rather than trinitarian theology. Unfortunately, the writings of the Theodotians and other dynamic monarchians have been (conveniently) lost or destroyed. We cannot read what their ideas and thoughts were from their own writings. We only see them through the eyes of their enemies. The Theodotians themselves said that they taught what had been received from and taught by the apostles.37 Trinitarian writers such as Roy Deferrari state that the Christology of Artemon, a Theodotian, was the same as that of Hermas and that it was popular in the second century.38 Hermas was a half-brother of a bishop of Rome, Pius (AD 140-54), some thirty years before Victor. Are we to believe that the Roman church changed its doctrine from dynamic monarchianism to modalistic monarchianism in thirty-five years? Was The Shepherd of Hermas, which had such a wide acceptance among the Christian churches in the second century, suddenly "heretical" when Theodotus came to Rome in AD 190? These are perplexing questions that we should not be afraid to consider unless we are afraid of the truth. Could it be that the differences between the dynamic monarchians and the modalistic monarchians were not as great as their trinitarian enemies have made them out to be? Adolph Harnack, the German historian, even compared the teaching of Paul of Samosata (a reputed disciple of Artemon) with that of Hermas in The Shepherd. Paul's shadow fell across dynamic monarchianism for centuries. Following the apparent death of Theodotus of Byzantium, another Theodotus pastored or led the dynamic monarchians in Rome, one Theodotus the Banker. The Theodotians seem to have grown during this time, despite the fact that some were reconciled to Bishop Zephyrinus between AD 198-217. Several Theodotian leaders were mentioned from this period: Asclepiodotus, Asclepiades, Hermophilus, and Apollonius. Artemon became the leader of the dynamic monarchians 230 (about the same time that Sabellius left Rome for North Africa), and he continued his leadership through AD 270. He was reportedly the teacher of Paul of Samosata.39 These dynamic monarchians were still mentioned in the fifth century. Pope Innocent I warned against the doctrine of the Theodotians in a letter to churches in Asia Minor and the East.40 The Origin of the Trinity "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me" (Isaiah 45:21).

The doctrine of the trinity supposes that there is a Lord (Jehovah or Yahweh) who is God; there is also a Son, Jesus, who is likewise God; and there is yet another who is also God, the Holy Ghost, whom the proponents of this doctrine call the "third person" of their divine trinity. All three of these divine persons, they say, constitute one God, so that there is only one God, but yet there are three distinct divine persons facing one another. Webster's New International Dictionary defines the trinity in this way: "1. The condition of being three; threeness. 2. Theological: the union of three persons or hypostases (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all three are one God as to substance, but three persons or hypostases as to individuality."1 R. V Sellers, an English Christian leader and a devout trinitarian, was quite frank about the doctrine of the trinity, stating that many sincere Christians "are finding the church's traditional presentation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, a source of real difficulty and perplexity."2 Adolph Harnack, the church historian, was prompted to write that the "dogmatic" teaching on the trinity built "a theory of legal fictions with no more foundation in fact than the conscienceless personality of a joint stock com- pany created by lawyers for legal purposes."3 In other words, the trinity exists only on paper and not in reality. What is the origin of the trinity? Certainly, it was not taught in the Old Testament, although trinitarian theologians must wrestle the Scriptures to find it there. No Jewish writer of the New Testament ever espoused such a theory. None of the reputed disciples of the apostles (Clement, Ignatius, Hermas, or Polycarp) taught such a doctrine, despite attempts by trinitarian scholars to stretch meager triadic references into a full blown trinitarian model. There is some evidence that the idea of a trinity sprang from the ancient Babylonian religion. Trinities abound in the ancient pagan religions. Numenius of Apamea (AD 175), a pagan Syrian philosopher who had great influence upon the Alexandrian Catholics, boasted that he had gone back to "the fountainhead of Plato, Socrates, and Pythagoras, to the ancient tradition of the Brahmins, Magi, Egyptians, and Jews, and had restored to the schools the forgotten doctrine of Three Gods."4 Numenius probably was active before AD 175, which would be just about the time that the architects of the trinity were developing their model of the Godhead. Charles Bigg called Numenius a co-founder (along with the Catholic father Clement of Alexandria) of "Neo-Platonism." Moreover, Numenius was not only a well-read philosopher, but he reportedly knew the Gospels and the Epistles.5 Apamea, in Syria, where Numenius taught, was a center of Neo-Platonism. Bigg noted that the philosopher Amelius taught there also and quoted from the apostle John's Gospel in support of the philosophical doctrine of the Logos.6 We should not doubt that early architects of the trinity doctrine were familiar with philosophy concerning the Logos and were influenced by it. The idea of the Logos as a different divine person from God the Father was not taken from the Scriptures, but rather from philosophy and ancient pagan religions. According to Charles Bigg, "Numenius first personified the Arch-Idea (Logos) of Plato and spoke of it as God."7 Numenius wrote concerning his doctrine of three Gods that the first divine person was "Mind" (nous), simple and changeless, good and wise.8 Being

changeless, "Mind" cannot create, and so a second God was derived from Him, called the "Creator" (Demiurge). This Son ("Creator") is no longer simple like "Mind" (the Father), but is twofold. A part of the Son ("Creator") is incorporated in the things he made and became the third God, the "World Spirit."9 This is the type of second-century philosophy that influenced the architects of the trinity doctrine. Obviously, Numenius was not the originator of this kind of thinking. Zeller concluded that Numenius derived his doctrine of the "Son-creator" from the Gnostics, who were active in the second century.10 A century earlier, a Jewish priest turned philosopher, Philo Judaeus (20 BC-AD 50), had already outlined much of the Logos theory in his attempts to harmonize Greek philosophy with the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament). Henry Malter noted that Philo had anticipated the Alexandrian Catholics by more than a century in developing "an elaborate and often fantastic system of allegorization of the Bible, whereby the text could be made to mean anything desired."11 And truly the flagrant use of allego- rization by the architects of the trinity is amazing. It is the belief of Malter and many other scholars that "Philo's influence was an important factor in the construction of the Christian dogma by the Church fathers."12 There is no doubt that the grafting of the doctrine of the trinity onto Christian theology could not have been accomplished without the philosophy of such men as Philo and Numenius. Philo had a form of the Logos doctrine ready-made for the trinitarians who were to spring up later. He taught, "All beings between the perfection of God and the imperfect, finite matter have their unity in, and proceed from, the divine Logos."13 It is amazing that a Jewish philosopher was laying the groundwork for the trinity doctrine even as the apostle Paul was evangelizing the Greek and Roman world! Historian Philip Carrington wrote that the apologists "already had the theology of Philo to guide them."14 One cannot underestimate the power of Philo's use of allegory to interpret Scriptures in a philosophical manner. This was actually a Gnostic approach of giving hidden or "higher" meanings to Scripture. To allegorize means "to speak figuratively" and to use "symbolic fictional figures" and "generalizations." It is a departure from the ancient biblical "literalism" and set the Gentile Catholics upon a sea of delusion, which has even bound the modern Protestant literalists of today. Clement of Alexandria (AD 153-220) adopted the allegorical method of Philo. George Gilbert said that to him "the Bible was a book of enigmas, and the one key to it was allegory. Clement's method of interpretation survived in power until the Reformation."15 Much allegory is still used in biblical interpretation among Catholics and Protestants today. The "literalism" of many staunch Protestants has never seemingly permitted them to see the impossibility of the trinity teaching, which is steeped in allegory. Many of the apologists of the second century (such as Quadratus, Justin, Athenagoras) were associated with Athens, a great center of Greek philosophy and worldly wisdom. But Alexandria rivaled Athens as a center of philosophy and learning. Alexandria, located in Egypt, was a seaport long held to be the second-greatest city in the Roman Empire. At one time, the church at Alexandria must have been apostolic. Tradition says that John Mark, the evangelist and nephew of Barnabas, established a church in Alexandria AD 55-61. The first bishop was a convert of Mark's, a shoe cobbler named

Anianus. By the time of Mark's reported death AD 68, the believers had built "a considerable church in the suburban district of Baucalis, where cattle grazed by the seashore."16 Charles Bigg said the church grew in the second century and actually consisted of twelve assemblies. (In other words, it was a small district.) Some of these congregations, moreover, were of "high social standing and intelligence."17 Then, in some of the congregations, Bigg noted a lowering of "piety and morals" among the members. The ministers actually seemed to encourage this, because they had participated in the process. And Bigg painted a picture of a church in the second century that is not pretty: "[It was] a large and rich community existing in the bosom of a great university town. . . . Their most promising young men attended the lectures of the heathen professors. Some, like Ammonius (Saccas), relapsed into Hellenism, some drifted into Gnosticism, like Ambrosius, some like Heraclas passed safely through the ordeal, and as Christian priests still wore the pallium, or philosopher's cloak, the doctor's gown we may call it of the pagan academy."18 As the church became lukewarm, they sent their young men to be taught by the heathen professors. What a horrible harvest they reaped! How terrible to send young Christian minds into the pagan camps of learning and then to lose them! Surely, this was not the intention, but the end result was that the district of Alexandria lost its apostolic doctrine. In the second century, Alexandria set up its infamous catechetical school, which would become a trinitarian college infected with Greek philosophy and paganism. Similar schools existed by then at Athens, Antioch, Edessa (modern Urfa, Turkey), and Nisibis.19 We have seen how that Justin set up a school at Rome that taught the new Logos doctrine. Bigg said that the school at Alexandria taught geometry, physiology, and astronomy in the first year. Then, the instructors taught philosophy and "looked up to the great masterminds of the Hellenic schools with a generous admiration, and infused the same spirit into their disciples."20 The first presidents of the Alexandrian school were Athenagoras from Athens, Pantaenus, a converted Stoic philosopher, and then Titus Flavius Clemens (Clement of Alexandria), who made the first attempt to build up a system of theology.21 Clement was greatly influenced by Philo. According to Harnack, he quoted from Philo often and even "plagiarized" him. He equated Clement to the Gnostic leader Valentinus.22 And it is true that Clement spoke much of gnosis in his writings. The word gnosis can be translated as "science" or "knowledge." Harnack went so far as to indicate that Origen, Clement's student, had a system that was opposed by the "ecclesiastical enemies of science," that is, the Jews and the monarchians. According to Harnack, Origen's system bore "the unmistakable marks of Neo- Platonism and Gnosticism."23 Clement himself strongly asserted the merits of philosophy and its continuous necessity in the church. Bigg noted that the Alexandrians agreed that Scripture was Clement of Alexandria inspired, but they had a great Platonic maxim that "nothing is to be believed which is unworthy of God" and held that "their own reason would be the judge of what the Scriptures revealed."24 These "biblical scholars" had gone beyond their own assemblies! According to Bigg, this system produced two classes of Christians, and these scholars were forced to develop a "doctrine of reserve": such as the belief of the "enlightened" philosopher-Christian

understands "mysteries" that may not be revealed to the simpler Christian brother.25 We still clearly see this division among the ranks of trinitarian Christians today, in which the "scholars" must correctly explain the trinity, while the simpler trinitarians do not have such a full "revelation." Origen (AD 185-254), a contemporary of Sabellius, was said by some to be the greatest trinitarian teacher of the ancient world. He was a powerful enemy of the Oneness message. George Fisher wrote of him: "The decisive blow against Monarchianism was struck by the Alexandrian school through its great representative Origen."26 Origen may bear some responsibility for the modern textual revision that began twisting the Word of God in the nineteenth century. Harold Bell said that the Vatican Codex (fourth century), upon which Westcott and Hort based their "great" edition, "seems to have been an Alexandrian recension."27 In his Commentary on Titus, Origen remarked on the attraction that monarchianism might have had for the "simple": "They do not wish to seem to affirm two gods; they do not wish to deny the divinity of the Savior; then they end by admitting merely two names and one single person."28 We have mentioned the famous visit of Origen to Rome c. AD 211, where he preached for Hippolytus. His alliance with Hippolytus, a fellow trinitarian, against the modalistic Roman bishops Zephyrinus and Callistus apparently caused him problems with the later Roman trinitarian bishop Pontian (AD 230-35), who was a trinitarian rival of Hippolytus, because a Roman council con- demned Origen in AD 231. After both Hippolytus and Pontian were dead, Origen attempted to mend fences with the new Roman bishop, Fabian (AD 236-50).29 In his Commentary on John, Origen stated, "We believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three essences, or substances."30 Jean Danielou believed that Origen was the originator of the doctrine of the "eternal generation of the Son" and that this was perhaps his "main contribution" to trinitarian theology. He said that Origen was "the first writer in whose works modalism is entirely excluded."31 The teaching of the eternal generation of the Son does not appear in the Scriptures, but one can already see an intimation of this teaching in Irenaeus in the second century. Danielou stated that Origen taught against modalism as follows: "One basic affirmation [of Origen's] against modalism [was] namely that the Word [Logos] has His own substantial reality. . . . The Son has His own ousia, hypostasis, and hypokeimenon [substantial reality]. This is in direct opposition to modalism."32 In this way, Origen attempted to establish Christ as a distinct divine person from God the Father. Modalism did not hold that Christ was a different divine person but rather that Christ is God Almighty Himself. Rufus M. Jones said that Origen was a fellow student with Plotinus, the philosopher, of the pagan teacher Ammonius Saccas and that Origen "made a thorough study of Plato and Numenius, and was in all his thinking profoundly influenced by the contemporary Neo-Platonic movement."33 As Jones also noted, Origen held that Christ is simply theos, while God the Father is ho theos ("the God"). This was from his interpretation of John 1:1. The same argument appears today in the interpretation of some groups who teach that Christ is merely "a god" (a lesser deity). This idea was from Philo. It indicates the

idea of subordination found in the ancient trinity doctrine. In his popular apology Against Celsus, Origen called the Logos (that is, Christ) "a second God" in three places.34 He also made an obvious reference to monarchians as those "who reject the existence of two persons [hypostases], the Father and the Son."35 It is obvious that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as a full-blown, equal third person was not yet developed, although the threeness of God had been asserted by Tertullian. The influence of Origen on the development of the doctrine of the trinity cannot be denied. Bigg said of Origen and of his teacher, Clement of Alexandria: "It was [Origen], and his predecessor [Clement of Alexandria], more than any others, who saved the church . . . from Noetianism."36 We cannot say, however, that Origen and Clement "saved the church" from anything, unless we were to say that they "saved" many Christians of that day from considering the truth of God's oneness. Yet we know from the statements of Origen and others that they were locked in a doctrinal struggle with many champions of Oneness. Adolph Harnack noted that by the beginning of the fourth century the "theology of the Apologists had triumphed and all thinkers stood under the influence of Origen."37 Trinitarianism began to grow in the Roman Empire, and its apologists expressed their doctrine in a way that appealed to the pagan mind. Harnack remarked on the serious consequence of the rejection of modalism and the embracing of a Christianized philosophy: "The rejection of modalism and the recognition of Christ as the Logos forced upon the West the necessity of rising from faith to a philosophical and, in fact, a distinctively Neo-Platonic dogmatic."38 The doctrine of the impassibility ("inability to suffer") of God the Father had a tremendous impact upon the development of trinitarian teaching. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-22 BC) had taught: "The Deity stands in lonely self-contemplation outside the world. . . . His intellect [nous] is the only thing through which He stands in immediate contact with it."39 And Plato (428-328 BC) had taught that gods, by definition, "are exalted above pleasure and pain, and are untouched of all evils."40 And then we come to Philo, who taught that God the Father was, in this manner of impassibility, above the world, and that there was, in addition, an impersonal aspect of God known as Logos, archangel, demiurge, or creator. Here we see some of the components of the doc- trine of the trinity. The trinitarian Christian philosophers conceived of a Father who was impassible (incapable of suffering or feeling pain), and then they established a second divine person, the Logos, who became passible (capable of suffering and feeling pain). There was One who could not suffer, and He sent another divine person who could suffer. But this doctrine was never taught by the apostles. And even later, after the death of the apostles, we read in Ignatius, as we have mentioned, of one God who was "impassible, yet for us subjected to suffering."41 Impassibility is involved in the foundation of the doctrine of subordinationism, which was attached to trinitar- ianism in the beginning. It is interesting to note that this doctrine is still indirectly advocated by trinitarians today. Brumback, in his book God in Three Persons, said of the Son, whom he considered to have made the Old Testament appearances of God, "He was the member of the Godhead who was selected to appear; undoubtedly, in anticipation of His incarnation."42 Christ, in their view, is a different divine person, selected to suffer. Why? Because He is the Son! A few trinitarians, such as Adam Clarke (died 1832), have recognized the nonbiblical

nature of "the eternal Son" doctrine and have rejected it.43 A modern trinitarian, Robert M. Bowman Jr., acknowledged the role of the ancient Catholic fathers in developing the doctrine of the trinity, but he has selectively appealed to their "orthodoxy" in order to suit his own pur- poses. For example, he stated, "Origen was in fact labeled a heretic for some of his views (though not for his views on the Trinity)."44 So, then, he has appealed to a "heretic" for vindication. E. Calvin Beisner, in his God in Three Persons, upheld the Catholic fathers Tertullian and Hippolytus, calling them "great defenders of trinitarian faith," despite the fact that Tertullian wrote his great defense of the trinity while a member of the heretical Montanists, and Hippolytus was a rebel pastor who withdrew from the Roman district and fought against the legally elected Christian bishop of Rome, as did Tertullian. Beisner also made a lengthy apology for Origen, especially for his teaching on the trinity, even though Origen was con- demned by the Catholic Church as a heretic.45 David Bernard noted, "Origen taught a number of strange doctrines derived from speculation and Greek philosophy, such as the preexistence of souls, universalism, the ultimate salvation of Satan, and eternal creation."46 Apparently, it does not mean much to Bowman and Beisner what these Catholic fathers believed overall; they are qualified to be arbiters of orthodoxy if they endorsed the trinity doctrine in some way or other! And let there be no mistake about the importance of the Catholic fathers in the scheme of modern trinitarians. As Bernard noted, "[Jaroslav] Pelikan identified [Origen] as the primary developer of the trinitarian Logos/Son doctrine, with Tertullian and Novatian being next in importance."47 And what of Novatian? Novatian (AD 210-80), possibly a Phrygian by birth, was a trinitarian presbyter in Rome who rebelled against the election of the trinitarian Cornelius as bishop of Rome after Bishop Fabian died in AD 250. He reportedly wrote On the Trinity AD 256 while he was an "antipope" in Rome (AD 251-58). H. J. Carpenter said that Novatian's treatise On the Trinity is "far more in line with the teaching of Tertullian and Hippolytus than with the utterances of contemporary Roman bishops."48 His work was primarily an effort to refute dynamic and modalistic monarchians (who were probably in Rome). Novatian is merely another example, as Justin, Tertullian, and Hippolytus before him, of "Catholic fathers" who are considered as "architects" of the trinity doctrine and yet who were in their lifetimes either on the periphery of the church or in open rebellion against the leadership of the church. This is a sad commentary on the historical credentials of the trinitarian roots. Would this doctrine have survived in church history if it had not been the selected "orthodoxy" of the Roman imperial state church? Gregory Boyd, in his polemic against Oneness Pentecostalism, fell into the same trap of appealing to such questionable credentials. He wrote, "One finds in such figures as Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus, an unqualified trinitarianism that structured everything about their faith."49 We have already seen that Origen was condemned as a bonafide "heretic," and Tertullian designed his trinitarianism as a heretical Montanist. Irenaeus clashed with the Roman bishops in defense of Montanism, and Hippolytus was a rebel pastor, fighting against the orthodox modal- ism of the duly elected Christian bishop of Rome! We sim- ply cannot accept such men as representatives of the true historical teaching of the apostolic church.

What is ironic is that writers today such as Gregory Boyd, E. Calvin Beisner, and others like them, would be branded as "heretics" by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus, because these modern heralds of "orthodoxy" do not, for example, believe in water baptism for the remission of sins. Many churches in the metropolitan districts of the Roman Empire in the third century that had embraced the trinitarian Logos doctrine actually altered their creeds to proclaim the "invisibility" and "impassibility" of the Father as a distinct person from the Son.50 The doctrine of the trinity was refined in the third century, but it was never completely divorced from its pagan and philosophical connections. Augustine (AD 354-430), the theologian whose shadow would fall across the Middle Ages, was born at Thagaste in Numidia (modern Algeria). He was originally a pagan, although his mother was a devout Catholic. He was converted through the efforts of Ambrose of Milan in AD 386 and became the Catholic bishop of Hippo (modern Bone, Algeria). George F. Thomas said that Neo-Platonism had a profound effect on Augustine.51 Augustine himself admitted that he had read in the books of the Platonists that the Logos was God, and Thomas noted that "doubtless [Augustine] is referring to the divine Mind (nous) of Plotinus."52 Plotinus utilized the Platonic triad, which "consists of the One, Intellect (nous), and Soul."53 Martin Larson has written that "Augustine found his ultimate demonstration of the Trinity in pagan philosophy."54 It would be difficult to name a Catholic father who did not pattern his model of the Godhead, in some way, after the pagan model! And Larson attributed Platonic influences also to Augustine's theology on the Godhead: "[Augustine], like Origen . . . based his reasoning on the metaphysics of Plato, who declared that man is a trichotomy consisting of body, mind, and soul. Using this as a point of departure, Augustine found it a reflection of the trinal unity of the godhead."55 But although a human being consists of body, soul, and spirit (I Thessalonians 5:23), we should point out that he is just one individual or one person. Henry Chadwick wrote of Augustine, "The Greek thinker whose work most deeply entered [Augustine's] bloodstream was Plato."56 But then Chadwick added, "The form of Platonic philosophy which eventually captured his mind was . . . Neoplatonism."57 And when we think of "Neo-Platonism," we think of such philosophers as Plotinus (AD 20570) and Porphyry of Tyre (AD 250-305). We have also mentioned Numenius and Clement. Levi Paine wrote that Augustine's On the Trinity "contains some of the wildest specimens of theological metaphysics that can be found anywhere in the whole range of historical theology."58 Max Fisher wrote that Augustine, in his City of God, called Plato a "demigod," and "to the end of his days he remained a Platonist."59 Augustine reportedly accepted monarchian Christianity as "orthodox" until he was converted to Catholicism.60 Some even thought that he might have dallied with Photinism before he became a Catholic, but this does not seem likely. Trinitarian dogma came to prominence in Augustine. For example, he wrote, "The Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent, and yet there are not three omnipotents, but one omnipotent."61 By the time of Augustine, the Middle Ages loomed into view. With the help of the Roman Empire, Catholic teaching, including trinitarianism, stood triumphant on the known world scene at that time. No one doubts the antiquity of the trinity doctrine. This

teaching began in the ancient pagan world and has taken millennia to develop, even with its Christian trappings. Franz Cumont stated that the Neo-Platonic school was "heavily indebted" to the Chaldeans (or Babylonians) for their ideas. Triads (or trinities) existed throughout the ancient world.62 The concept of the trinity did not originate in the Bible. The trinitarian concept of "three divine persons" was present in various triads of the ancient pantheons of Babylon, Egypt, India, and Greece. Using the idea of a messenger god, or a "logos," it was no great feat for theologians to attach the basic concepts of a trinity to the Christian faith. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" (I Corinthians 12:13). The new birth of water (baptism) and the (Holy) Spirit is essential to New Testament salvation. Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:5, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." We can only receive this new birth through faith in Jesus Christ. In Mark 16:16, Jesus commanded, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." There is only one baptism, as we read in Ephesians 4:5, and it consists of water and Spirit. We have already considered the apostolic water baptism, and found that the New Testament teaches immersion in the saving name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now we wish to consider the "Spirit" part of the one baptism, the "Spirit" part of the new birth. It consists of receiving the Holy Spirit, as we see in the Book of Acts. It is the Spirit baptism, which places one in the body of Christ (I Corinthians 12:13). Each and every Christian obtains the Holy Spirit after obedience to Acts 2:38. But we can go further into receiving more gifts from the God above. There is also the baptism of the Spirit, as was promised by Jesus (John 7:38). It is the earnest of our inheritance (Ephesians 1:13-14). In the actual examples of many of the men and women being saved in the Book of Acts, the Bible records that they also received the gift of the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of unknown tongues. In fact, the only biblical examples of people being saved in the New Testament church age are recorded in the Book of Acts. We do not see anyone actually receiving salvation in the Epistles, for they are letters written to those who have already received salvation. Looking for the presence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit in church history is somewhat difficult, since writers of the surviving doctrinal works often did not describe their experience or the experience of others in their age. We can set forth certain criteria in looking for the work of the Spirit: (1) speaking in tongues, since we read in the Book of Acts that men and women spoke in tongues when they actually received the Spirit; (2) the supernatural gifts of the Spirit; (3) an emphasis on holiness (although legalism can operate externally without the presence of the Spirit), and (4) doctrinal truth, including the oneness of God and baptism in Jesus' name, since the Spirit leads people into the truth of the Word. However, as we see in the modern-day outpouring of the Spirit, God will give the Holy Ghost to some who do not always go on to embrace more truth, since He is gracious, not desiring that any should perish. Many in the early twentieth century were baptized with the Spirit but stubbornly clung to their Protestant traditions to the detriment of themselves and the advancement of the truth. Generally speaking, however, we are not

ignorant of telltale signs of the Spirit at work. As the Book of Acts describes and as modern witnesses can attest, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a wonderful, emotional experience that brings joy, peace, and righteousness (Romans 14:17). The Spirit-filled life flows from the initial experience seen in the Book of Acts. There is no historical question about the gifts of the Spirit until well into the latter half of the second century AD, when the Montanist abuses became prevalent. Even those who fell into the trinitarian error continued to preach the baptism of the Spirit for a century or more in certain areas of the Roman Empire. Justin Martyr, in his writings (AD 140-50), spoke unabashedly of the gifts of the Spirit throughout the Christian churches. In Dialogue with Trypho, Justin, who claimed the Holy Spirit, wrote, "Today you can see among us both men and women who have gifts of charismata from the Spirit of God."1 In his Second Apology, he wrote of healings and casting out of demons in the name of Jesus Christ by Christians "throughout the whole world."2 He did not try to defend the spiritual gifts but simply reported them as though they were common and expected among Christians. Irenaeus, a bishop of Lyons (France), wrote c. AD 185 about many brethren in the church who had prophetic gifts and "who through the Spirit speak all kinds of tongues."3 Others performed miracles in Jesus' name, cast out demons, had foreknowledge of things to come, saw visions, uttered prophetic expressions, healed the sick by laying hands upon them, and even raised the dead!4 These were not isolated incidents of an extraordinary nature, but he reported them as "commonplace" throughout the whole world among Christians. This was about ninety years after the apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation, completing the New Testament. Christians everywhere believed in the miraculous power of God, which is associated with the presence of His Spirit. Papias (AD 80-163), was a reputed disciple of the apostle John, a fellow minister of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, and the pastor of a church at Hierapolis, in Asia Minor. It was said that he knew Philip the Evangelist and his four daughters and that they lived at Hierapolis for a while. (See Acts 21:8-9.) Philip's daughters related to Papias a marvelous incident in which a dead man had been raised in their own time. They also told him of another incident in which the disciple Justus Barsabas, the runner-up replacement candidate for Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:23), had been forced to drink a deadly snake poison by unbelievers but miraculously had not been harmed.5 There were apparently many other wonderful events associated with the Lord and the apostles of the early church, reported in Papias's work The Sayings of the Lord. Papias suffered martyrdom at Pergamos AD 163. Unfortunately, his writings were either lost or destroyed. They were in the hands of Catholic writers, but apparently they did not like Papias's doctrine.6 Hermas of Rome (AD 120 or later) emphasized the Spirit, along with repentance and holiness, in his famous work, The Shepherd: "And first try the man who hath the Spirit of God; because the Spirit which is from above

is humble, and quiet; and departs from all wickedness; and from the vain desires of the present world; and makes himself more humble than all men; and answers to none when he is asked; nor to every one singly: for the Spirit of God doth not speak to man when he will, but when God pleases."7 Hermas spoke with authority on the working of the Spirit, indicating an understanding of the baptism of the Spirit. He wrote of anointed preaching in The Shepherd: "When therefore a man who hath the Spirit of God shall come into the church of the righteous, who have the faith of God, and they pray unto the Lord; then the holy angel of God fills that man with the blessed Spirit, and he speaks in the congregation as he is moved of God."8 Those who have received the Spirit are familiar with this description of the operation of the anointing. We might be surprised at the phrase "the holy angel of God," since we do not consider that an angel would need to be involved in this process at all. But we are very familiar with the idea of anointed preaching. In The Shepherd, Hermas taught the importance of holiness of life and water baptism in the name of Jesus: "They are such as have heard the word, and were willing to be baptized in the name of the Lord; but considering the great holiness which the truth requires, have withdrawn themselves, and walked again after their wicked lusts."9 Two aspects of the foregoing statement are closely connected to the baptism of the Holy Spirit: (1) The Book of Acts consistently associates water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ with the Spirit baptism. (2) "Great holiness which the truth requires" is the lasting result of Spirit baptism. In short, it is probable that Hermas preached the Acts 2:38 message: (1) repentance through faith in Christ Jesus, (2) water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and (3) the filling of the Holy Ghost. Another early document, possibly contemporary with The Shepherd, although "interpolations" (alterations or corruptions in copies) have been noted in it, is The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles). There is great controversy over the dating of the original, with some saying it is as early as AD 50-90, while others say AD 150-200 or even later. The confusion probably comes from the interpolations, which seem to have been inserted much later. In Didache 7:1, it appears that the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was inserted in place of the older "in the name of Jesus Christ." This is because we read later in 9:5, "Let no one eat and drink of your eucharist [communion], but those baptized in the name of the Lord." It seems that the editor or interpolator (the one who changed the verses) altered 7:1 but failed to alter 9:5. And probably 7:3, which permits pouring water on the head three times "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was added by the same scribe who changed 7:1, since we know that trine immersion or affusion (pouring) was a later innovation. Most reputable scholars admit that baptism in the name of Jesus (which they call the shorter form) is the earlier formula.

It seems likely also that the original Didache emphasized the baptism of the Spirit in view of the following statement at 11:7-8: "Moreover, if any prophet speaks in the Spirit, do not test him or entertain any doubts; for any sin may be forgiven but this sin cannot be forgiven. However, not everyone speaking in ecstasy is a prophet except he has the ways of the Lord about him."10 The phrases "speaks in the Spirit" and "speaking in ecstasy" indicate a belief in the baptism of the Spirit. We note, however, that Hermas used simply the phrase "a man who hath the Spirit" and the minister speaking "as he is moved of God," while The Didache uses the term "prophet." This, along with possible later interpolations concerning standardized or set fasts and the injunction to repeat the Lord's prayer "three times a day," possibly connects this writing to the Montanists of the latter half of the second century.11 The Montanist controversy, which some scholars believe arose as early as c. AD 130 in Phrygia, was not really a controversy over the gifts of the Spirit or speak- ing in tongues. It was actually a complex movement, emphasizing what the Montanists called the "new prophecy" and a reaction to the laxity on a number of matters (such as the remarriage and the admission of lapsed members) in the churches. One overlooked contention, of the utmost importance, is the advocacy of the Logos doctrine with an emphasis upon a "third divine person," the Holy Spirit. The Montanists were "orthodox" Logos supporters. There was no question about the existence of the gifts of the Spirit, but the Montanist methods in operating the gifts, especially with their prophetesses, became a widespread issue. In general, the Christians of the second century did not consider that the spiritual gifts would cease before Christ returned. An anonymous minister who wrote (c. AD 170) to Abercius Marcellus, a pastor of Hieropolis in Phrygia Salutaris, made this point concerning the gifts: "For the apostle [Paul] held that the gift of prophecy must exist in all the church until the final coming."12 He was undoubtedly referring to I Corinthians 1:7 and 13:10, where Paul encouraged believers to "come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," which would be "when that which is perfect is come." Tertullian likewise understood that I Corinthians 13:10- 12 would occur at some future time.13 Those modern Christians who insist that the gifts of the Spirit were done away with when the New Testament was completed are not familiar with church history in the second century! There is some evidence of a cooling of the fervency of spirit, however. In the beginning of the third century, Tertullian wrote that it was still necessary to check "the tumultuous loquacity of persons praying aloud when we assemble the brethren and celebrate the divine sacrifices with the priest of God."14 Apparently, some of the members would start shouting and worshiping and would get carried away. The church at Rome taught the gifts of the Spirit through the middle of the third century.15 We have little doubt that the Oneness Christians of the earlier days also spoke in tongues and taught about the gifts of the Spirit. Sabellius, for example, who was a product of the Roman church AD 197-235, taught regeneration by the Holy Spirit and the quickening power of the Spirit.16 Moreover, he taught on the spiritual gifts of I Corinthians 12.17

Paul of Samosata (AD 222-72), the monarchian leader at Antioch, was a fiery preacher from all accounts. It is possible that he was a former trinitarian converted to monarchianism. He either already was, or soon became, the bishop of Antioch and caused a great deal of consternation to the trinitarian pastors of the area. In the trumped-up charges leveled against Paul, we find ample indications that he was a Spirit-filled preacher: (1) He was accused of striking his thigh with his hand and stamping with his foot when he preached. (2) Those in his congregation frequently clapped their hands and shook or waved handkerchiefs as he preached. (3) Members of his congregation shouted and danced, or leaped about, as he preached!18 This type of fervent preaching and worship is commonly associated with Spirit-filled groups. If this type of preaching and worship was characteristic of the dynamic monarchians, then that is another reason to consider that they accorded full deity to Christ. We are fairly sure that they baptized their converts in the name of Jesus. But we cannot accept their views on the timing and mechanics of the Incarnation, if they are correctly reported. Stagg, Hinson, and Oates place the "demise" of tongues speaking (among the trinitarians in general) in the period AD 250-350.19 But we must point out that the Oneness groups were separated from the trinitarian groups before or during this period, so we believe that they continued to speak in tongues. The earliest examples showing the loss of tongues speaking all come from trinitarian writers. For instance, while not denying tongues, neither Cyprian nor Origen seemed to have comprehended the scriptural reasons for speaking in tongues. About a century and a half later, the trinitarian Augustine asked in On Baptism, "For who expects in these days that those on whom hands are laid that they may receive the Holy Spirit should forthwith begin to speak with tongues?"20 By this time the Dark Ages were upon the Catholic Church. The expectation of the move of the Spirit and the spiritual gifts had grown cold. The Spirit no longer seemed to move in the dark cathedrals of the state church of imperial Rome. But in the vast reaches of the empire, if one searched well enough and long enough, could still be heard the shouts of joy, the speaking in tongues, and the victory cry of those still believing God for the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Somewhere up in the mountains of Eastern Europe, somewhere in the wilderness of Persia and Armenia, people continued to worship God, secretly if necessary, in the power of the Spirit. The fire that was lit in the upper room has never gone out! "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" (2 Thessalonians 2:11). An exciting new age began in AD 313 for trinitarians with the announced conversion to the Catholic faith of the Roman emperor Constantine (AD 274-337).1 Constantine, who was already interested in Catholicism, reportedly saw a flaming cross in the sky, indicating that he would conquer, just before his important victory at Milvian Bridge (AD 312). The next year, he and his co-ruler, Licinius, proclaimed the Edict of Milan. Toleration was official for Christians, and it was backed up by legislation. Catholic clergy were exempted from state burdens and local civic duties. The churches were allowed to receive bequests and gifts. Jews as well as pagans were forbidden to interfere with the Catholic

churches. Catholic bishops could hold their own courts and have their decrees enforced by the police power of the state. Death by crucifixion, long a Roman practice, was abolished, and the branding of the faces of criminals was discontinued.2 Nearly two hundred years before, the apologists had begun making overtures to the Caesars. In AD 272, trinitarians had personally appealed to the Roman emperor Aurelian to force the monarchian pastor, Paul of Samosata, to vacate the church at Antioch. And now, in the fourth century, a love affair that was nearly two hundred years old was about to be consummated in a marriage of convenience. As early as AD 300, trinitarian Christians were allowed by their bishops to hold the pagan imperial priesthood and to perform the civil duties of the office. They were not allowed by the church, however, to conduct sacrifices in honor of the emperor or to preside at the gladiatorial games.3 Catholics began to bear arms in the imperial armies, contrary to the original practice of the church. Gradually, Catholics mixed with the state. Constantine recognized this and saw that he could weld his empire closer together if he had one state religion. Catholic Christianity had become one of the predom- inant religions in the empire. Oneness or monarchian churches had been fairly well isolated as "heretics," at least over much of the western part of the Roman Empire.4 Adolph Harnack contended that the struggle in the eastern part of the empire was more "violent" and lasted longer.5 There is no evidence that any Oneness Christians participated in any type of physical violence, however, nor did the majority of trinitarian Christians condone the use of violence. In AD 314, Constantine called a council at Arles (in southeastern France)in order to deal with the schismatic Donatists and the question of baptism by "heretics." Constantine backed the bishops' decision that the only "valid" baptism was trinitarian baptism (such as the titles "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"). It was Constantine's decision that all who would not abide by the Catholic bishops' decision would lose their property and their civil rights!6 Things had indeed changed! Two centuries earlier, the trinitarian church was a minority sect, with no recognition even from the apostolic bishops. Now, in the early part of the fourth century, trinitarian ministers found themselves in the driver's seat, backed up by the power of imperial Rome. Increasingly, throughout the Roman Empire, the apostolic Oneness Christians were threatened with the power of the state and the state religion. However, there were still large numbers of Oneness, or monarchian, Christians. But even though the trinitarian religion was favored, we should not think that there was an overnight change. A number of circumstances seem to have protected Oneness Christians: (1) There was a great deal of strug- gle between the followers of Arius, who denied the full deity of Jesus Christ, and the "orthodox" trinitarian followers of Athanasius. (2) The Roman authorities were slow to begin widespread, massive persecution of their own citizens. (3) The empire was so far-flung, with poor communications and lack of centralization by modern standards, that many Oneness Christians lived undisturbed, especially in the remote areas of the empire. The man-made doctrine of the trinity underwent many changes from the second century to the fourth century. Trinitarians in the West were shocked in the third century when they learned that the Alexandrians were teaching three hypostases ("beings" or

"subsistences"). In the East, however, the Alexandrians had arbitrarily given hypostasis the meaning of "person" (prosopon).7 The Romans thought at that time that the Alexandrians were virtual "tritheists"!8 Later in the fourth century, almost all trinitarians con- demned anyone who would dare to "undermine" the distinct personal "subsistence" (hypostasis) of the Son of God.9 Thus, the word games went on. Athanasius (AD 295373), the "hero" of Nicea, stated dogmatically: "Hypostasis is ousia [substance] and means nothing else but simply being."10 Nevertheless, contrary to his wishes, "orthodox" trinitarians eventually adopted that very word to distinguish the three persons of their trinity. Charles Bigg noted that the theological distinction between the two terms ousia and hypostasis is purely arbitrary.11 Surely, the Oneness believers of that period must have noted that if one has three "beings" then one has three gods! Noetus, Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata had apparently all insisted on one ousia. They used the term homoousios ("same substance"). Although Irenaeus may have used the term earlier, Athanasius borrowed it from the monarchian theologians in a desperate attempt to thwart the Arians. It caused some embarrassment to the Athanasians because of its monarchian connotations. The "heretic" Origen's terminology, which he primarily borrowed from philosophers, did much to shape the emergent "orthodox" position at the Council of Nicea.12 Origen apparently developed his trinitarian dogma in opposition to Oneness or monarchian teaching. In fact, much of basic trinitarian theology (such as Tertullian in Against Praxeas) was a reaction to the original Oneness teaching of the apostles. Friedrich Schleiermacher went so far as to claim that it was opposition to Sabellianism that split the trinitarian Alexandrian school into the Arian and Athanasian par- ties.13 This hypothesis has a ring of truth, for F. C. Baur commented that Origen's doctrine contained the germs of both the Athanasian and Arian doctrines.14 The Athanasian-Arian controversy is important to the understanding of the Council of Nicea. Arius (AD 256- 336), who was probably poisoned by his Catholic opponents, claimed that he had been taught by Lucian of Antioch. Lucian, an obscure teacher and translator of this period, may at one time have been a monarchian Christian. He was reportedly a former friend and disciple of Paul of Samosata.15 Paul of Samosata strongly opposed the trinitarian Logos teaching; however, Arius's exaggerated Logos doctrine shows little influence of monarchian- ism. But Lucian came under the spell of Origen's teaching and took up the trinitarian Logos doctrine. He altered it somewhat, however, by making the Logos a preexistent, subordinate creature.16 Concerning his work as a "translator," Lucian apparently worked under the auspices of the school of Origen. He is believed to be responsible for the Alexandrian New Testament text called "the Syrian text."17 We have mentioned this text earlier in reference to Origen, who may have corroborated on it. It is this Alexandrian recension that Westcott and Hort, the fathers of most modern revisions, relied upon.18 The so-called variant readings that the modern revisionists have chosen apparently come from this time, when trinitarians made alterations in many ancient texts.19 Many conservative Bible scholars believe that the Majority Text, from which the King James Version is translated, is the most faithful New Testament text that we have. It is interesting that Arius was born in Cyrenaica (east of Tripoli). He was a man of position. Nothing is known of his youth. Since Cyrenaica was

a known Sabellian stronghold at that time, one might speculate that Arius knew the Oneness doctrine. Arius later came to Alexandria, Egypt, and became a disciple of Lucian. By AD 318, he was presiding over the church of Bucalis, a suburb of Alexandria, and he was at that time in the good graces of the trinitarian bishop of Alexandria, named Alexander.20 But his doctrine soon deviated from the "orthodox" Catholic teaching. Philip Hughes says that Arius taught the following: "[Christ] is a pure creature, made out of nothing, liable to fall, the Son of God by adoption, not by nature, and called "God" in Scripture, not as being really such, but only in name. . . . The Son and the Holy Ghost [are] creatures transcendentally near to God [the Father], and immeasurably distant from the rest of creation."21 It is clear that Arius denied the full deity of Jesus Christ. To him the Logos was something like some of the early apologists had taught: a preexistent creature who was some kind of a glorified archangel and who could only generically be called a "god." We see this teaching today in a number of Christian groups who do not believe that Jesus is God Almighty. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God the Father incarnate, insofar as His deity is concerned. Jesus is fully God and genuinely human. Colossians 2:9 tells us that "all the fullness of the Godhead" dwells in Jesus bodily. We are "complete in Him" (verse 10). There is no other divine person. Arius went from Egypt to Caesarea in Palestine, spreading his ideas, and some of the eastern bishops began to agree with him.22 Hillaire Belloc wrote that, as the movement grew in the empire, its strength lay in the Roman army, which was solidly Arian.23 Moreover, the heathen Emperor Licinius (in the East) protected the Arians as long as he lived. Athanasius, the eloquent opponent of Arius, was a highly esteemed deacon (minister) of the Catholic church of Alexandria. He later became the bishop of Alexandria, after his triumph at Nicea, in AD 328. He objected to Arius's assertion that there was a time when the Son of God did not exist.24 This assertion was possibly monarchian in origin, but Lucian and Arius had perverted it. The Oneness doctrine holds that, as to His deity, Jesus simply existed prior to Bethlehem as God the Father, as the eternal Spirit of God. He did not exist prior to Bethlehem as the Son of God, except in Old Testament prophecies and in the mind of God. In other words, the title of Son relates to the Incarnation, not to the eternal existence of God. Thus, both dynamic and modalistic monarchians identified Jesus as God the Father incarnate. But Arius contended that before the creation of the world, God the Father had created and begotten a Son, the firstborn creature, who was actually neither eternal nor equal with the Father.25 In some sense, He was the image of God and His first-begotten. Athanasius, on the other hand, maintained that "the Son of God is eternal; genuinely God . . . as the Father is God."26 By this argument, Athanasius denied the incarnation of God the Father. He denied that Jesus was God the Father incarnate, instead being content to say that Jesus is God only as the Father is God. The extreme subordination of the Logos put forth by Arius forced the trinitarians to reexamine their own subordinated Logos and their own derived God (the Son). They had once again to come back and consider the oneness of God. Their answer was to dogmatically establish the coeternity and the coequality of their three divine persons. They were nevertheless still forced to use some notion of

subordination of the Son and the Holy Ghost to distinguish their persons. In effect, they robbed Jesus of His full deity to keep their trinity. Bishop Alexander excommunicated Arius in AD 321. The co-emperor Licinius, who had protected Arius, died in AD 325. Arius and his followers appealed to Emperor Constantine that same year.27 Constantine, naturally upset that a theological quarrel could wreck his plans for a unifying state religion, decided that a general church council should be held to smooth matters over. For the conference, Constantine chose Nicea, a city in Asia Minor (in modern Turkey) on the Asiatic side of Lake Iznik, about twentyfive miles south of the imperial court of Nicomedia and about sixty miles from Constantinople. Nicea was the location of Constantine's spacious summer palace.28 The emperor sent invitations to the bishops, with an offer of free passage in the imperial transportation service.29 The bishops throughout the entire empire were invited.30 The Council of Nicea opened in the fabulous imperial summer palace on a spring day (May 20) in AD 325. Over three hundred bishops were in attendance, no doubt overawed by the splendor of the imperial facilities. Philip Hughes wrote of the grand entrance of Emperor Constantine as recalled by Eusebius, who was present: "The bishops [were] all assembled in the great hall of the palace, some of them lame and blind from the tortures undergone in the persecutions, [and] the Christian master of the whole world entered, robed in scarlet and gold, and before taking his place at the throne, bade them be seated."31 Hughes went on to tell about the special dilemma that faced the bishops meeting with Constantine: "One section of the bishops was anxious that no terms should be used which were not already used in Scripture. But the Scriptures had not been written for the purpose of confuting philosophically minded heretics. . . . The technique must be adopted of coining a special word for [this] purpose."32 As a Catholic, Philip Hughes described the Athanasians as "orthodox" and the other side, the Arians, as "philosophically minded heretics." In truth, both sides were "philosophically minded." And so the word games continued! The Athanasians were looking for a special word that would enable them to equate Christ with God and yet maintain that He was a distinct divine person. The Gospel of John has already informed us concerning the true meaning of such "equality." Jesus "said . . . that God was his Father, making himself equal with God" (John 5:18). Likewise, Paul stated that Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Philippians 2:6). This equality stems from His status as God incarnate, the Son of God, and not as a second divine person. The trinitarian phrase "one substance with three persons" could not be used unless Jesus had the very same substance (ousia) as the Father. Therefore the trinitarians were forced to use a word that had been formerly a "heretical" catchword: homoousios ("same substance"). As Philip Hughes pointed out, "Sabellianism, the denial that there is a Trinity, was the great scare heresy of the east to the generation upon which Arianism came, and

homoousios had been the heresy's shibboleth in eastern ears."33 We might well ask why "Sabellianism" (a form of Oneness theology) was "the great scare heresy" of the East. Clearly, there must have been great numbers of Oneness people during this time. It is ironic that trinitarians were forced to use a Oneness term, homoousios, associated with Noetus, Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, to establish the deity of Christ against Arius! We have seen how the Greek-speaking trinitarians of the East misapplied the term hypostasis (which means "being"), using it in the place of the Western term prospon ("person"). Essentially, they said that God was one "substance" (ousia) but three "beings." Using the Latin language of Tertullian, the Western trinitarians said that God was one "substance" (substantia) and three "persons" (personae). The Eastern trinitarians at the Council of Alexandria (AD 361) brazenly criticized the writer of the Book of Hebrews (whom they decided was the apostle Paul) for "misapplying" the term hypostasis in Hebrews 1:3, which says the Son is "the express image of his [God's] person [hypostasis]." They said the inspired writer attempted to describe "what is ineffable [inexpressible]."34 It is obvious, however, that Hebrews here uses the term "image" to refer to the man Christ Jesus and not a second divine person. It is the Incarnation that has supplied the "image." It no doubt disturbed these trinitarians that there could be an "image" of God the Father, whom they, with their philosophical background and teaching, considered to be "ineffable" or inexpressible! But the use of homoousios, stolen, as it were, from the monarchians, proved to be a horrible curse to the trinitarians. Martin Larson described the terrible, ecclesiastical civil war that broke out following the Council of Nicea: "This homoousion let loose a fury among mankind that has rarely been paralleled. Millions suffered violence or death in the pursuant wars and persecutions. Hundreds of bishops were exiled or murdered at the command of other bishops who, when the tide turned, visited the same treatment upon their rivals."35 This is the heritage of the Catholic Church and her marriage with Rome. One does not find apostolic Oneness Christians involved in this type of carnage. At the Council of Nicea, monarchian churches were officially declared illegal. The Catholic bishops took steps against them by declaring that the Paulinians (followers of the monarchian teacher Paul of Samosata) must be rebaptized in the name of the trinity. They also ordered that the monarchian ministers must report to the local Catholic bishop, who would reordain them (or not) as he thought fit.36 One year later (AD 326), Constantine moved to officially restrict clerical privileges to Catholic ministers only. He stated, "It is our will, moreover, that heretics and schismatics shall not only be alien from these privileges, but also shall be bound and subjected to various public services."37 Six years after Nicea (AD 331), the Roman emperor issued an imperial edict ordering that public houses of prayer maintained by "heretics" were to be transferred to the Catholic church, and private meeting places were to be confiscated by the state.38 In this edict, Constantine specifically mentioned monarchian groups. The historian Jean Danielou said that the Catholics established "a common antiSabellian" front after Nicea, which became quite powerful. It was first led by Eusebius of

Caesarea (the writer of the famous Ecclesiastical History and a confidant of the emperor) and then later by another Eusebius of Nicomedia. They formed a coalition that "undertook systematically to eliminate from the whole of the east those who considered not that orthodoxy had been defined by the formula of Nicea."39 Friedrich Schleiermacher noted that the "frequent and vehement" opposition to Oneness belief in the fourth century shows beyond all question that "Sabellianism had spread far and wide, and that it was considered as being fraught with danger in respect to the Nicene Creed."40 The fear of Oneness theology is reflected in the calumniation of all the famous Catholic authors of the fourth century: Hilary in Phrygia, Basil in Asia Minor, Nicetas in Yugoslavia, Ambrose and Paulinus of Nola in Italy, Augustine in North Africa, and Jerome and Cyril in Palestine. All of them attacked the "Sabellians." In AD 351, Athanasius felt the need to defend the use of homoousios in his Epistle on the Decrees of the Council of Nicea, and he wrote this explanation: "That the Son is not only like to the Father, but that, as his Image, he is the same as the Father; that he is of the Father; and that the resemblance of the Son to the Father, and his immutability, are different from ours: for in us they are something acquired, and arise from our fulfilling the divine commands. Moreover, they [the bishops] wished to indicate by this that his generation is different from that of human nature; that the Son is not only like to the Father, but inseparable from the substance of the Father, that he and the Father are one and the same [substance], as the Son himself said: "The Logos is always in the Father, and, the Father always in the Logos," as the sun and it's splendour are inseparable."41 The reader will notice the scriptural errors here. Athanasius held the Son to be a preexistent divine image of the Father, instead of realizing that the image of the invisible God was the human Jesus, the Son of God. Moreover, Athanasius indirectly undermined the virgin birth by maintaining that the generation (birth) of the Son was "different from that of human nature." Galatians 4:4 teaches that the Son was "made of a woman." Jesus had a miraculous birth in that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35), but Athanasius spoke of a precreational birth, which the Scriptures do not teach. Athanasius also referred to John 14:10, where Jesus said, as a human being, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." Athanasius, however, took this passage out of the incarnational sphere and attempted to place it in the sphere of the eternal Godhead, as trinitarians attempt to do with many passages of Scripture that describe the Incarnation. The Catholic Church was to find some difficulties in its marriage of convenience to the emperor. The state got involved in the deliberations of the church! At the Council of Antioch (AD 341), held at the dedication of the cathedral built by the emperors, canon 11 forbade church officials to go to the Roman emperor without the approval of church superiors. Canon 12 threatened those who had gone to the emperor with the loss of any chance of "restoration."42 Apparently, many bishops were "appealing to Caesar." But, then again, the marriage was convenient for the Catholic Church. Bishop Ambrose of Milan (Italy) wrote a letter in AD 381 to Emperor Gratian, complaining about the dynamic monarchians called Photinians: "There is also the matter of the Photinians. By an earlier law you decreed that they should

not assemble together, and by the law governing the episcopal council, you forbade them to join us. We now learn that they are still attempting to meet inside the city of Sirmium, and ask your Grace to forbid their meetings and to order due respect to be shown first to the Catholic church, and secondly to your own laws, so that, under God's protection, by your care for the peace and quiet of the church, you may reign in triumph."43 Thus, a fruitful alliance had been formed, which allowed the Catholic Church to forcefully destroy those Christians ("followers of Christ") of whom it did not approve, no matter where they might reside in the Roman Empire. Paul Goodman, a Jewish writer, described some of the results of the bloody marriage of the Catholic Church and the Roman state: "The Nicene doctrine of the Trinity was not accepted by Christendom at large. The fierceness with which the quarrel was continued, the calumnies, intrigues and base means with which it was endeavoured to crush the opponent are hardly to be matched in secu-ar warfare."44 This spirit of death and violence continued. The Second Council of Ephesus (AD 449) was, as Goodman said, "disgraced by so much violence it became known as the Council of Robbers." The Catholic bishop of Constantinople was trampled to death by the Catholic bishop of Alexandria during the council. Goodman noted the damage that this contention did to Christianity: "The personality of Christ is the centre of Christian life and faith. By making him the cause of division and hatred, not merely between Christendom and the rest of mankind, but between Christian and Christian, the streams of Christian life and faith were poisoned at the sources."45 But thankfully those Christians who embraced the oneness of God and who disavowed violence were kept from this type of bloody activity. At the Council of Caesarea (AD 333), Athanasius was suddenly confronted with a severed hand, alleged to be that of Bishop Arsenius, whom he stood accused of having mutilated and slain. But to "the consternation of the Arian party . . . Athanasius, who had meanwhile gained Arsenius' friendship, was able to produce him in the midst of the assembly, alive, in sound health, and with members whole."46 This spirit of violence and death to those who dis- agreed was a deadly pattern that would besmirch the name of Catholic-Protestant Christianity throughout the centuries. A similar spirit of animosity for those who do not hold the same views is evident today in the attitude of self-appointed cult hunters who have made themselves the arbiters of orthodoxy. A Catholic priest, Joseph Lecler, stated that much fury was expended upon those who especially were "anti-trini- tarian" or did not hold a view concerning the deity of Christ that was acceptable. Lecler noted that the execu- tion of Michael Servetus in 1552 by Protestants was no isolated case. (Servetus denied the trinity and apparently held some type of Oneness belief.) Other nontrinitarians faced similar fates. Valentine Gentile was beheaded at Berne, Switzerland, in 1566. The corpse of David Joris was tried and burned at Basle, Switzerland, in 1559. Eighty years after the death of Servetus, the Protestant

minister Nicholas Antoine was burned at Geneva, Switzerland. Towards the end of the sixteenth century, anti-trini- tarians were executed in the German states of Saxony, Baden, and Bavaria, as well as in the Netherlands. In England, Anabaptists, some of whom may have held Oneness views, were burned at the stake under Elizabeth I in 1575, and other anti-trinitarians were similarly exe- cuted under James I in 1612.47 Both Catholic and Protestant Christians have been extremely defensive about the philosophical doctrine of the trinity, many times in a very unchristian manner. It is time to reexamine such dogmatic teachings. Athanasius wrote in Epistle to Serapion that "the Lord founded the faith of the Catholic church on the Trinity," citing Matthew 28:19 as authority.48 But surely the Lord does not approve of burning men and women at the stake if they do not believe in this trinity. Surely, He does not approve of mocking them and calling them names. The marriage of the Catholic church to the Roman state produced disastrous results in turning what should have been a harmless dove into a prowling wolf. Of course, not every trinitarian approved of persecuting those who did not believe the same way. Karl Barth, a twentieth-century theologian, wrote in his Evangelical Theology (1963): "What we need . . . is not Thomism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, orthodoxy, religionism, existentialism, nor is it a return to Harnack and Troeltsch, but . . . a theology of freedom."49 While we cannot agree with Barth's theology, we can agree with his desire for a "theology of freedom," in which individuals are not burned at the stake--or called "cultists"--for expressing their doubts about the philosophical concoctions of Nicea and the other six "ecumenical councils." Barth said, "Theology is not simply exegesis [interpretation of texts], church history, and dogmatics--it is ethics as well."50 The Catholic-Protestant dogma of the trinity cannot be supported by the destruction and persecution (as promoted by the modern cult hunters) of those who cannot agree to such an interpretation. The marriage of the Catholic church and the state, along with some Protestant daughters, has produced a sad state of ethics. David Bernard posed an interesting question: "What if the bishops had rejected the merger of church and state and so protected the church from pollution by pagan thought, lifestyle, and politics?"51 In other words, what if there had been no marriage at Nicea? Just perhaps the doctrine of the Godhead and the teaching on water baptism would eventually have been reexamined by many Christians in an open exchange of discussion. Karl Barth commented, "Only the Spirit Himself can rescue theology."52 It will take in these end times a mighty move of the Spirit to restore apostolic teaching. It may be too late for the "bride" of Nicea. A one world church is coming who will "reconsecrate" her vows with the Antichrist, or the world ruler. But it is not too late for Christians trapped in the historical environment of bloodshed and persecution. There is a theology of freedom. We see it in the Book of Acts, and we find it being preached in many Oneness churches today. Conclusions "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip" (Hebrews 2:1).

From this brief history, we conclude that the apostolic church handed down the true doctrine of the Godhead to others in history, who became champions of the oneness of God. None of the apostles taught anything remotely resembling a doctrine of the trinity. They never used the words "triad," "trinity," "three persons," "three in one," or "distinct divine person." In fact, none of the language used in building the doctrine of the trinity appears in the New Testament. The few "triads" that we see in the New Testament are simply titles for the one true God (such as "Father," "Son," and "Holy Ghost" in Matthew 28:19). This is the same approach the sub-apostolic fathers (Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp) took. They used the titles "Son" and "Holy Spirit" to describe God incarnate and God as active Spirit. Concerning God in relation to the man Jesus, Jesus Himself, the apostles, and the sub-apostolic fathers spoke of "God the Father," who was incarnate in Jesus. In using these terms, there was no attempt to modify the doctrine of one God or to deceive or confuse anyone. Rather, the exigencies and circumstances of the Incarnation (the enfleshment) required such descriptive terminology in order to properly give God the glory for what He did for us in the flesh and to ever remind us of His sacrifice for us at Calvary, without which we are not able to approach Him. For this reason, the apostle Paul constantly used phrases such as "God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 1:7) and "the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ" (I Corinthians 1:4). These phrases linking "God the Father" and "the Lord Jesus Christ" do not indicate two distinct divine persons, but rather they describe the Incarnation, the Spirit and the flesh. What God has done for us through the Incarnation can never be forgotten! Oneness people throughout the centuries have insisted upon identifying Jesus Christ as God the Father incarnate. God's person cannot be duplicated, multiplied, or divided. When Jesus came on the scene, a second divine person did not arrive, but the only divine person (the Spirit), who has always existed, did arrive in the flesh. Through the polemical charges of "heresy" cast against Oneness Christians in the early centuries, we are able to see the basics of their doctrine, even though their writings have been destroyed or lost. Some of the early Jewish Christians, following the deaths of the apostles, must have held on to the apostolic teaching. Unfortunately, their teaching is obscured by unsupported charges of "adoptionism." We know that there were a number of early Jewish sects, all called Ebionites. We suspect that in the midst of these sects there were true Jewish Christians, such as those who were forced to flee from Jerusalem in AD 70 and were not allowed to return home from Pella. We also suspect that as the Jewish apostles died and Judea became a hot spot of rebellion (AD 70-135), there was a divergence between Jewish and Gentile churches. Within the Gentile churches, especially in the cosmopolitan centers such as Athens and Alexandria, where philosophy was taught in the universities, the doctrine of the Logos as a second person first arose. The pivotal passage of Scripture used to promote this Logos doctrine was John 1, erroneously interpreted by Greek Christian philosophers. The introduction of this Logos teaching (which was actually a modification of Gnostic thought, as Adolph Harnack pointed out) was relatively quiescent, making minor headway, until the explosive appearance of the Montanists in the middle of the second century. This is especially the case following the death of the last great sub-apostolic

father, Polycarp (AD 156). The Oneness opponents of the new Logos doctrine and of the Montanists seem to have been those contemptuously called the Alogi (meaning "against the Logos"). Their time frame is concurrent with the dramatic increase in the popularity of the new Logos teaching, apparently through the rapid spread of Montanism in the churches. Montanism seems to have been a vehicle for the popularization of the trinity doctrine. Montanism emphasized the role of the third person or the "prophetic Spirit" or the "Holy Spirit." Most of the architects of the trinity doctrine were either favorable to the Montanists or, in the case of Tertullian, actually were Montanists. These early trinitarians (such as Tertullian and later Origen) admitted that in their day the Oneness believers were in the majority. Most Christians were not trinitarians. So a very unusual thing happened. A doctrine that the apostles had not taught, and that was embraced by only a minority of Christians in the second and third centuries following Jesus, eventually became the "orthodox" teaching of the Christian world in the Roman Empire. Those who held the original majority teaching of the oneness of God were then vilified and tarbrushed with such epithets as "heretic" and "antitrinitarian." Adolph Harnack has well written: "The [Catholic] Church historians have attempted to bury or to distort the true history of Monarchians to as great extent as they passed over and obscured that of so-called Montanism."1 Perhaps the greatest perpetrator of this coverup was the Catholic historian Eusebius. Other Catholic historians or writers, such as Jerome, who had access to Bishop Victor's writings and declined to reveal them, are just as guilty. Harnack was being fair to use the words "bury" and "distort," for he was well aware of the number of monarchian writings (such as those of Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, and the early Roman bishops) that have been conveniently "lost" or "destroyed." We know from Catholic writers that they had these writings in their hands. We can be thankful that some distorted portions of the monarchian writings have been preserved by trinitarian writers such as Tertullian who were attempting to refute the monarchian teachers. The Oneness people of the early centuries were no more monolithic than Oneness groups (or, for that matter, trinitarian groups) are today. From what we can discern through comparisons of doctrine, obscured as it is by trinitarian detractors, it seems that the modalistic monarchians (such as Noetus, Praxeas, and Sabellius) of the period AD 150250 were very similar to many Oneness people today in their belief on the Godhead and the Incarnation. There are also indications that some of the dynamic monarchians (such as Theodotus, Artemon, Paul of Samosata), in roughly the same time period, held Oneness beliefs, although the dynamic monarchians have been falsely accused of denying the deity of Christ and denying the virgin birth. Their views on the time and manner of the Incarnation do not seem to be accurate, however. The dynamic monarchians were Oneness people, then, in the sense that they did indeed, contrary to the erroneous charges made against them, uphold the deity of Christ, baptism in the name of Jesus, and belief in the virgin birth. We should clear them of the charge of "adoptionism" (the belief that Jesus was a human being without a miraculous birth who was simply later "adopted" by God the Father to be the "Son of God" and then somehow raised to the status of "deity" through His own virtue). However, their views on specifics of the Incarnation are not acceptable to Oneness believers today, since they do not

comport with the Scriptures. The Council of Nicea in AD 325 represented the legitimatization of the union between the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church. From the fourth century on, the trinity doctrine reigned in the secular world, after a brief struggle between the Athanasian and Arian Catholics, through the power of the Roman state. Thereafter, both dynamic and modalistic monarchians were slowly forced underground and suffered great persecution. Nevertheless, there are indications that Oneness people continued to thrive in spite of the Catholic persecution. It is not in the scope of this history, which basically covers the time from Pentecost to Nicea, to track the later monarchians. The most visible thread of monarchians in subsequent history is that of the dynamic monarchians (the Paulinians, or followers of Paul of Samosata, as they are called) in the Eastern Roman Empire. They can be traced down through the centuries in such places as Armenia all the way to the beginning of the twentieth century. It is likely that dynamic monarchians, coming from Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, helped spark the Reformation. There are a number of connections between early Protestants and Eastern Europe. The popular leaders of the Reformation rejected the papacy and much Catholic dogma. However, they apparently could not bring themselves to abandon the equally dogmatic doctrine of the trinity. And so error was compounded. Martin Luther, the Catholic priest who turned Reformer, was fairly well informed on the teachings of Sabellius. For example, Heinrich Boehmer stated that Luther's monastery director provided him with a copy of the Dialogues of Vigilius of Thapsius (484 AD), which included writings against Sabellius.2 Based on his knowledge of what Sabellius taught, Luther labeled Sabellius a "heretic": "I don't know of anything in our Lord Christ that the devil has not assailed. Accordingly, he has to start from the beginning and rake up the old errors and heresies. Sabellius was the first; he said that Christ is God and that there is only one person in the Godhead. This is the earliest and most subtle heresy, that there is only one person, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."3 It is interesting that Luther made a rather plain reference that some in his day "raked up the old errors and heresies." Was he referring to Michael Servetus or someone like him? Gulielmus Lindanus wrote in The Betraying of the Beastliness of Heresies (1565), not long after the death of Servetus at the hands of John Calvin: "Michael Servetus and Ludwig Hetzer . . . being the guide of the Anabaptists, taught as Sabellius, who affirmed Christ to be none other in person from the Father."4 However, D. P . Walker called the teaching of Servetus "Arianism . . . in a curious form."5 Of course, Servetus is not able to defend against such charges. Calvin, who had Servetus executed, accused Servetus of being a "pantheist," but apparently Servetus simply defended the omnipresence of God. Luther was not the only reformer to reject out of hand the oneness of God. John Calvin (1509-64) was also an opponent of Oneness. In Calvin's examination of Acts 2:38, which commands water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, he rejected the plain teaching of this verse of Scripture:

"The question arises--was Peter entitled to change the form prescribed by Christ? I maintain that Peter is not speaking in this passage of the form of baptism, but simply declaring that the whole efficacy of baptism is contained in Christ. . . . It is not a fixed formula of baptism that is being dealt with here."6 Here Calvin wondered if possibly Peter was changing the formula of baptism enjoined by Christ in Matthew 28:19! But then he escaped this dilemma by refusing to accept that the shorter formula of baptism in Jesus' name really existed. By not recognizing the formula of baptism in Jesus' name, Calvin was able to cling to his misunderstanding of Matthew 28:19. But if the "whole efficacy of baptism is contained in Christ," as Calvin admitted, then why not use Christ's name (Jesus) in water baptism, as the apostles did? If there is no "fixed formula," then why did Peter use the phrase "in the name of Jesus Christ"? Why do we see this name throughout the Book of Acts (Acts 8:16; 10:48; 19:5)? Furthermore, it is evident from history that Calvin knew, or should certainly have known, of those around him who were baptizing converts in the name of Jesus Christ. In another place, Calvin spoke against the baptism of the Holy Spirit and against speaking in tongues: "This does not strictly apply to us. For since it was the inauguration of His kingdom that Christ meant to set forth by these miracles, they lasted only for a time. . . We do not receive the Spirit to the end that we may speak with tongues, or be prophets, or cure the sick, or work miracles."7 Thus, reformers such as Calvin had opportunity to walk in more light, but they refused it because they could not free themselves completely from their Catholic tradition. On the doctrine of God, they ended up doing more damage than good, because they perpetuated the doctrine of the trinity and opposed the truth concerning the Godhead, Jesus Name baptism, the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of it by speaking in unknown tongues. Moreover, many reformers inherited the murderous spirit of the historical Catholic Church. Of course, there are many genuine Catholics and Protestants who love the Lord and who would not harm a fellow human being, but it is a historical fact that many people had the attitude of "orthodoxy or death." They could coldly look upon the screams and contortions of innocent people burning to death at the stake. They could gaze impassively upon the bleeding body of a man or a woman crying upon the rack in the dungeon. Calvin watched Servetus die in the flames, because he disagreed with his theology. Many other Protestants, as well as Catholics, consented to the death of Servetus and others whom they deemed heretics. But why, in the name of Jesus, should a person be put to death for not holding the same view about Scripture? Is this the Spirit of Christ? Calvin's predecessor, Ulrich Zwingli, had rejected Servetus's views on the Godhead: "The false and wicked doctrine of the troublesome Spaniard [Servetus] goes far to do away with the whole of the Christian religion. . . . Therefore do everything possible that such dreadful blasphemy get no further wind to the detriment of Christianity."8 Moreover, Zwingli rejected believer's baptism as well as baptism by immersion, which

some were seeing in the Bible. He fought against these teachings and wrote that people who insisted upon rebaptism should be executed. An early Anabaptist leader, Balthazar Hubmaier, recorded that Zwingli instituted a law in Zurich, Switzerland, that if any were to be rebaptized, "they should immediately without further trial, hearing, or sentence, be cast into the water and drowned."9 Zwingli persuaded his Protestant followers to take up the sword against the Catholics, and he perished in battle (armed with a sword and wearing a helmet) at Kappel in 1531.10 Menno Simons (1496-1529), founder of the Mennonites, wrote about Oneness teaching as follows: "The Monarchians such as Praxeas and [Victor] said the Almighty Father was Jesus Christ, and that He had placed Himself at His own right hand. The Sabellians identified the Name and the Person of Christ with the Name and the Person of the Father, and are called Patripassians; for they believed that it was the Father that suffered. Behold in such manner do they rave who want to understand things that cannot be grasped, and who want to climb higher than the Scriptures teach."11 Thus, the Protestant Reformers unwittingly fell back upon their Catholic fathers' doctrine of rejecting the older, apostolic teaching on the Godhead. Without prayerful examination, it would seem, the Protestant Reformers, in general, refused to have anything to do with the Oneness teaching on the Godhead and on salvation. But there are indications that a number of Oneness believers existed during the Reformation. If they had thought that a new atmosphere of freedom and inquiry followed in the steps of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, they were soon disappointed. The thoughtful reader can see, however, that it has not been the Oneness Christians who filled the land with bloodshed and oppression down through the centuries, but it has been those who have screamed "heretic" and who have heaped calumnies upon the heads of those who embraced the Oneness teaching. People with this unchristian spirit have murdered, burned at the stake, persecuted, and tortured Oneness people, all in the name of Christ. What about those today who purposely spread falsehoods about Oneness teachings? What about those today who brand Christian people as "cultists" simply because they cannot swallow the philosophical pagan doctrine of the trinity? Is this attitude Christian? Or is it akin to the spirit of persecution and murder that we see in the history of so-called orthodox Christianity? It is time to reexamine a teaching that has resulted in so much bloodshed and hatred, a teaching that prospered through alignment with a despotic empire. Contrary to this example, Jesus made a separation between Caesar and the kingdom of God (Matthew 22:21). Are there still churches who teach the beautiful Oneness doctrine of God, acknowledging Jesus Christ as God Almighty Himself revealed in flesh? Do Christians still baptize in the saving name of Jesus Christ? Yes, there is a mighty revival going on today among Oneness Pentecostal churches throughout the world, where apostolic revival and the Acts 2:38 message of salvation are still preached fervently. The largest and fastest growing Oneness Pentecostal group today is the United Pentecostal Church International, which has a worldwide outreach. Its general superintendent, Nathaniel Urshan, stated, "The world has only been evangelized once. This happened in the days of the apostles. The world was evangelized the first and only

time by Oneness Pentecostals. It should be evangelized the second time by Oneness Pentecostal people."12 Today, in almost every country of the world, we find Oneness people who still preach the message of the apostles, the Acts 2:38 message of salvation! The edicts of the Roman emperors could not stamp it out down through the centuries. The fires of the Inquisition could not silence the message. There never has been a time since Jesus launched the church on the Day of Pentecost that believers in the doctrine of the apostles have not existed somewhere waiting for the return of Jesus Christ. In these last days, we owe it to ourselves to investigate the Acts 2:38 message that the believers of Oneness have preached and continue to preach. It is for us today. Notes Grievous Wolves 1 Berthold Altaner, Patrology, trans. Hilda Graef (Edinburgh and London: Nelson, 1960), 99. 2 Clement of Rome, I Clement 44:3, in Johannes Quasten and Joseph Plumpe, eds., Ancient Christian Writers, trans. James A. Kleist (Westminster, MD: Catholic University of America, Newman Press, 1961) 6:44. 3 Ibid. 4 Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, ed. T. E. Page, trans. Kirsopp Lake (New Haven: Loeb Classical Library, 1959), 454. 5 Herbert Musurillo, "Ignatius of Antioch: Gnostic or Essene?" Theological Studies 22, no. 1 (March 1961): 454. 6 Quasten and Plumpe, 109. 7 Ibid., 68. 8 Ibid. 9 Virginia Corwin, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960), 126. 10 Ibid., 140. 11 Ibid., 133. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Eusebius, in William Stuart McBirnie, The Search for the Twelve Apostles (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Pub.), 56. See also Harry T. Peck, ed., Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities (New York: American Book Co., 1923), 865.

15 Quasten and Plumpe, 68. 16 The Martyrdom of Ignatius, trans. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and Crombie, in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Christian Library (hereafter ANCL) (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1867-80) 1:292. 17 In Martin A. Larson, The Story of Christian Origins (Washington, DC: Joseph J. Binns New Republic Books, 1977), 501. 18 Altaner, 110-1. 19 Ibid. 20 Quasten and Plumpe, 82. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 "Writings of Irenaeus," ANCL 5:263. 24 In F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, eds., Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 106. 25 Quasten and Plumpe, 82. 26 Jules LeBreton and Jacques Zeiller, The History of the Primitive Church, trans. Ernest C. Messenger (London: Burns, Oates and Washburne Ltd., 1949) 3:600. 27 In J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmillan, 1885), 429. 28 Richard Ince, A Dictionary of Religions, (London: Arthur Barker, 1935), 212. 29 Quasten and Plumpe, 142. 30 Ibid., 141. 31 The Martyrdom of Polycarp 12:2, in ibid., 99. Christian Apologists 1 Quoted in W. Fairweather, "The Greek Apologists of the Second Century," The Biblical World, ed. William Harper (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), no. 26 (August 1905), article 8, 143. 2 Ibid., 133. 3 Ibid. 4 Quoted by A. J. Grieve, in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings (New York: Scribner, n.d.) 3:371. 5 "The Writings of Justin Martyr and Athenagoras," trans. Marcus Dods, George Reith

and B. P Pratten, ANCL 12:77. 6 Ibid., 17. 7 In Revelation 1:8 (KJV), Jesus identified Himself as the Almighty. In Revelation 1:18, He showed Himself to be not only the Almighty (the Father) but the Messiah (Christ) who suffered. 8 Fairweather, 135. 9 Ibid., 137. 10 Cited by John Chapman, "Monarchians," The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Appleton, 1907) 10:450. 11 Cited by G. T. Stokes, in A Dictionary of Christian Biographical Literature, Sects and Doctrines during the First Eight Centuries, ed. William Smith and Henry Wace (London: John Murray, 1887), 567. 12 Philip Carrington, Christian Apologetics in the Second Century (New York: Macmillan, 1921), 78. 13 Ibid. 14 "The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers," ANCL 1:311. 15 L. W. Barnard, Justin Martyr, His Life and Thought (Cambridge: University Press, 1967), 83. 16 "The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers," ANCL 1:160. 17 Ibid., 172. 18 Ibid., 263. 19 Ibid., 262. 20 Vincent of Lerins (Peregrinus), The Commontory, trans. T. H. Bindley (London: Society for Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1914), 47-48 fn. 21 "The Writings of Clement of Alexandria," trans. William Wilson, ANCL 12:486. 22 Epiphanius, Against Heresies 1:43:3, quoted in Hastings, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 2:388. 23 Cyprian, Epistle 72, To Jubianus, a Bishop (AD 256), 4, ANCL 1:262. 24 Hastings, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 2:388. 25 C. Dwight Dorough, The Bible Belt Mystique (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974).

26 Hastings, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 2:388. 27 Jocelyn Rhys, Shaken Creeds: The Virgin Birth Doctrine (London: Watts and Co., 1922), 103. 28 Ince, 173. 29 Maurice Wiles, The Christian Fathers (Philadelphia and New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1966), 142. 30 Quoted by A. J. Grieve, in Hastings, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 3:371. 31 Ibid. 32 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972) 1:187. 33 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:6:6, quoted in ibid. 1:229. 34 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:14:34, quoted in A. E. Burn, The Athanasian Creed (New York: Edwin S. Gorham Pub., 1912), 47. 35 Irenaeus, Apostolic Preaching, ch. 30, trans. J. Armitage Robinson (New York: Macmillan Co., 1920), 97. 36 Ibid. ch. 43, 108. 37 Ibid., ch. 92, 144. 38 Ibid., ch. 44, 109. 39 Ibid., ch. 44, 110. 40 Larson, 499. This idea of refusing to accept the scriptural birth at Bethlehem as the only birth of Christ (besides being begotten from the dead) and insisting on a precreational birth still persists. For exam- ple, the 1916 Statement of Fundamental Truths of the Assemblies of God says that it is a "transgression of the doctrine of Christ" to say that Jesus Christ derived the title of the Son of God "solely from the fact of the Incarnation." See Bartley J. Linder, The "Godhead," How Many? (Kerrville, TX: Illumination Press, 1997), 459-60. 41 Fairweather, 134. 42 ANCL 2:386. 43 Ibid., 385. 44 Fairweather, 142. 45 Earl Morse Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1945), 9. 46 William Chalfant, "The Origin of the Trinity," in Symposium on Oneness

Pentecostalism 1986 (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1986), 77-109. Noetus 1 Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ANCL 9:51. 2 Friedrich Schleiermacher, "Theologische Zeitschrift," dritt. Heft, s. 295 ff, quoted in Moses Stuart, "Review," The Biblical Repository, ed. B. B. Edwards (Andover: Gould and Newman Pub.), 5, no. 19 (July 1835): 1-2. 3 LeBreton and Zeiller, 600. 4 Peck, ed., Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, 1472. 5 Lightfoot (1885 edition), 448. 6 Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ANCL 9:64-65. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, quoted in Pelikan 1:178. 11 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, ANCL 5:127. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ANCL 9:64-65. 15 Ibid. 16 John Leith, ed., Creeds of the Churches (Richmond, VA: Knox Press, 1973), 18. 17 Peck, edition Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, 1472. 18 Epiphanius, without giving his source, said that Noetus was "an Asian [of Asia Minor] of Ephesus." See also "The Medicine Chest," in ANCL 9:51. 19 Quasten and Plumpe, 109. 20 Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, trans. Kirsopp Lake, n.p. 21 Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, trans. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, ed. J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967), 63-68. 22 Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ANCL 5:229. 23 Stewart A. McDowall, Evolution and Doctrine of the Trinity (Cambridge: Cambridge

Press, 1918), n.p. 24 Larson, 541. 25 Hippolytus, quoted in Pelikan 2:180. 26 Second Epistle of St. Clement, in Lightfoot (1967 ed.), 44. Like almost all scholars, Lightfoot did not consider Clement to be the author of the Second Epistle. 27 Chapman, in Catholic Encyclopedia 10:450. 28 Ibid. 29 Stokes, 49. 30 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, ANCL 5:125. 31 Ibid. Many scholars have attested to the popularity of Oneness teaching in the second century. 32 Schleiermacher, quoted in Stuart, 5. 33 J. Z. Mozley, The Impassibility of God (Cambridge: University Press, 1926), 29-30. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Hippolytus, quoted in LeBreton and Zeiller, 601. Praxeas 1 Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 3:829. 2 Tertullian, De Pudicitia 21:7, in Robert M. Grant, Augustus to Constantine (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), 135. We note also that the ancient writer Apollonius (c. AD 211) accused the Montanists of dyeing their hair, putting on mascara, being fond of fancy dress, and playing at the gaming tables. See ANCL 8:776. 3 Hastings, edition of Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 3:829. 4 Ibid. 5 Cross and Livingstone, eds., Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1115. 6 See Timothy D. Barnes, Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 279. 7 Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ANCL 3:597. 8 George Edmundson, The Church at Rome in the First Century (London: Longmans,

Green and Co., 1913), 50. 9 James Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1911), 476. 10 Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans, in Lightfoot (1967 ed.), 75-79. 11 Cited in LeBreton and Zeiller, 601. 12 R. B. Tollinton, Clement of Alexandria (London: Williams and Norgate, 1914) 1:10912. 13 Ibid. 14 Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ANCL 3:597-627. 15 Ibid. 16 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5:21:1, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans., repr. 1986) 1:239. 17 Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies, ANCL 5:129. 18 Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ANCL 3:597. See also Pseudo- Tertullian. 19 Caius of Rome, Against Artemon, ANCL 5:601. 20 Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies, ANCL 3:654. 21 Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ANCL 3:597-627. 22-33 Ibid. 34 Dagobert D. Runes, Pictorial History of Philosophy (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959), 117. 35 Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ANCL 3:597-627. 36 Ibid. 37 T. H. Bindley. This early indication of the use of the titles in water baptism is noteworthy. We suspect it in Justin as early as AD 140- 150. Those being rebaptized would have originally been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Cyprian, however, noted that Marcion's fol- lowers were in the Carthage area too. They may have been there as early as AD 213, since Marcion left the Roman church AD 144. His followers had continued to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ also. Water Baptism 1 G. B. Rossi, Bulletino di Archeologia Christiana, ed. George Edmundson (1868) 1:53 ff.

2 Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, ed. Cyril C. Richardson, in Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953-57) 1:73. 3 John Foxe, The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe (New York: AMS Press, repr. 1965), 151. See also Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1990), 19. Koester assigned an early date (AD 100) to The Shepherd. 4 The Apocryphal New Testament (New York: Peter Eckler Pub., n.d.). 5 Hermas, The Shepherd 2:1, ANCL 2:20. 6 Acts of Paul and Thecla, ANCL 16:286. See Altaner, 10; Daniel Segraves, The Messiah's Name (Kearney, NE: Morris Pub., 1997). 7 K. R. Hagenbuch, A History of Christian Doctrines (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1883) 1:278. 8 Arthur C. McGiffert, History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age (New York: Union Theological Seminary, 1899), 98. 9 George H. Gilbert, A Short History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1907), 25. 10 Edmund Schlink, The Doctrines of Baptism (St. Louis: Concordia, 1972), 28. 11 Fred C. Conybeare, "The Early Modifications of the Text of the Gospels," The Hibbert Journal, ed. L. P Jacks and G. D. Hicks (London and Oxford: Williams and Norgate), 1 (October 1902July 1903): 103. 12 Ibid., 105. 13 J. E. C. Schmidt, Bibliothek fur Kritik und Exegese, band 2, s. 207, quoted in Schleiermacher, 48. 14 Conybeare, 106. 15 "The Writings of Justin Martyr and Athenagoras," ANCL, 60. 16 Ibid. 17 Adolph Harnack, "Chronological Table of Events and Literature Connected with Christians in the First and Second Centuries AD," The Biblical World, ed. William R. Harper (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 9 (January-June 1897) art. 10, 385-91. 18 Barnard, 133-34 fn. 19 Irenaeus, Apostolic Preaching, ch. 3, trans. Robinson, 7. 20 Altaner, 48-49. 21 Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ANCL 3:597-627.

22 Tertullian, On Baptism, ANCL. 23 G. Quispel, "African Christianity before Tertullian," in Romanitas et Christianitas, ed. W. den Boer et al. (New York: American Elsevier Pub., 1973), 277-78. 24 Bindley, 37. 25 Philip Hughes, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils 325-1870 AD (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1961), 13. 26 Cyprian, Epistle 72, To Jubianus, a Bishop (AD 256), 4, ANCL 1:262. 27 Ibid., 270. 28 Ibid. 29 St. Dionysius of Alexandria, Letters and Treatises, trans. Charles Lett Feltoe (New York: Macmillan Co., 1918), 54. 30 Ibid., 15. 31 In H. Landon, ed., A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church (Edinburgh: John Grant Pub., 1909) 1:44. 32 Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. 3: Caesar and Christ (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944), 658. 33 Hughes, 35. 34 "Synod of Laodicea," canon 8, in Charles Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1876) 2:303-4. 35 Stokes, 568. 36 Ibid. 37 Leo the Great, Letters, trans. Edmund Hunt (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1957), 250. 38 Schleiermacher, quoted in Stuart, 36. 39 Martin of Braga, in The Fathers of the Church: Iberian Fathers, trans. Claude Barrow, ed. Roy Deferrari (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1969) 1:101. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 2:81, 43. Conybeare, 107. 42 Cited in Steven Runciman, The Medieval Manchee (Cambridge, 1955), 48 fn. 56. 43 Conybeare, 107.

Sabellius 1 Charles I. Adams, ed., Johnson's Universal Encyclopedia (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), vol. 7. See also Grosses Vollstandiges Universal-Lexikon (1742; repr. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druek und Verlagsanstalt, 1961), band 33, s.97. See also, William Chalfant, "Sabellius: His Life and Theology," unpublished man- uscript available from Pentecostal Publishing House, Hazelwood, MO. 2 Aziz S. Atiya, History of Eastern Christianity (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1968), 433. 3 Peck, ed., Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, 284. 4 R. B. Tollinton, Clement of Alexandria, 113. 5 Schleiermacher, quoted in Stuart, 35. 6 Quoted in LeBreton and Zeiller, 602. 7 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 9:2, ANCL 5:125. Hippolytus knew better. Bishop Zephyrinus's predecessor, Bishop Victor, was also monarchian. The modalist view predominated, not only in Asia Minor, but in Rome as well. 8 LeBreton and Zeiller, 602. 9 Hippolytus, Philosophumena 9:11, trans. F. Legge (New York: Macmillan, 1921) 2:124. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, trans. Burton Scott Easton (Ann Arbor, MI: Archon Books, 1962), 41. 13 Zephyrinus, quoted in Hippolytus, Philosophumena, trans. Legge, 124. 14 J. P Kirsch, in Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Appleton,. 1907) 15:757. 15 Quoted in LeBreton and Zeiller, 602. 16 Hippolytus, Philosophumena 9:11, trans. Legge, 124-25. 17 Ibid., 129. 18 Kirsch, in Catholic Encyclopedia 15:757. 19 Hippolytus, Philosophumena 9:12, trans. Legge, 129. 20 Ibid. 21 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), 124.

22 Callistus, quoted in Hippolytus, Philosophumena 9:16-19, in LeBreton and Zeiller, 602. 23 Tertullian, De Pudicitia, in Tertullian's Treatises on Penance, trans. William P LeSaint (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press,. 1959), 54. 24 Eric John, ed., The Popes (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1964), 53. 25 Edward W. Benson, Cyprian, His Life, His Times, His Work (New York: Macmillan, 1897), 68. 26 Hippolytus, Philosophumena 9:12, trans. Legge, 129. 27 John, ed., 53. 28 Chapman, in Catholic Encyclopedia 10:449. 29 Kirsch, in Catholic Encyclopedia 15:757. 30 Cited in Stokes, 568. The following inscription on a Roman Christian tomb was discovered in 1742: "He who is said to be both the Father and the Son is going to come." See Northcote, Epitaphs of Catacombs, 102. Stokes considered it a fourth-century inscription, but Adolph Harnack thought it was from the second century. 31 Jerald C. Brauer, ed., The Westminster Dictionary of Church History (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969). 32 Schleiermacher, quoted in Stuart, 35, and in Atiya, 435. 33 Schleiermacher, quoted in Stuart, 36. 34 William Fairweather, Origen and Greek Patristic Theology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1901), 215-17. 35 Schleiermacher, quoted in Stuart, 35. 36 Hilary, "The Trinity," trans. Stephen McKenna, The Fathers of the Church, ed. Bernard Peebles, et al. (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1970) 25:134. 37 Epiphanius, Against Heresies 62:1, in Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church, 2d ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), 54. 38 Ibid. 39 Gregory Thaumaturgus, A Sectional Confession on Faith, 7, ANCL 6:42. 40 Athanasius, Concerning the Council, quoted by Schleiermacher, in Stuart, 65. 41 Vincent of Lerins (Peregrinus), The Commontory, 76. 42 Martin Larson, 566-67.

43 In Charles Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 167. 44 Ibid., 167 fn. Beryllus 1 Peck, ed., Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, 218. 2 Schleiermacher, quoted in Stuart, 13. 3 "The Condemnation of Origen," in Church History 6 (1937): 55. 4 Cited by Schleiermacher, quoted in Stuart, 13. 5 Ibid., 16. 6 John E. Oulton and Henry Chadwick, Alexandrian Christianity (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954) 2:431. 7 Schleiermacher, quoted in Stuart, 17. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Gabriel Oussani, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. C. G. Herbermann et al. (New York: Appleton, 1907) 1:668. 11 Ibid. 12 Oulton and Chadwick, 432. 13 William Smith, ed., Dictionary of Christian Biography, n.p. 14 Thomas J. Shahan, The Catholic Encyclopedia 1:674. Gabriel Oussani, in ibid., 668, noted that a "Synod of Arabia" was held in AD 242 against Origen, but he was cleared of false doctrine and was held in high favor by the trinitarian bishops of Arabia, and that Origen returned to Arabia "a second time . . . [in AD 250] to combat certain heretics who taught that the soul died with the body, but that it would rise up again with it on the Judgment Day." However, Oussani, unlike Shahan, did not include Beryllus among those who believed in "soul sleep." 15 Gennadius, in Select Library of the Christian Classics, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1956), 375. 16 Augustus Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1871) 1:593-94. Monarchians 1 Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma (London: Williams and Norgate, 1897) 1:59 fn, 62.

2 Ibid. 3 Caius, Against Artemon, ANCL 5:601. 4 Hippolytus, Philosophumena 7:35, cited by Chapman, in Catholic Encyclopedia 10:448. 5 Ibid. 6 Kelly, 116-17. 7 Chapman, in Catholic Encyclopedia 10:448. 8 Kelly, 116-17. 9 Schleiermacher, quoted in Stuart, 36-37. 10 Ibid. 11 Pseudo-Athanasius, Against Apollinarius, quoted in ibid., 73. 12 Athanasius, in The Letters of St. Athanasius concerning the Holy Spirit, trans. C. R. B. Shapland, (London: Epworth Press, 1951), 186. 13 Schleiermacher, quoted in Stuart, 63. 14 In St. Dionysius of Alexandria, trans. Charles Feltoe, 23. 15 Vincent of Lerins (Peregrinus), The Commontory, 38 fn. 16 See Talmadge French, Our God Is One (Indianapolis: Voice and Vision, 1999). In his excellent modern study of Oneness Pentecostals, French noted the presence of what he calls an "adoptionist" Christology among PAW churches, when a convert of G. T. Haywood, Samuel Hancock of Detroit, began to teach in the 1950's that Jesus was "only the Son" and "not God." But the dynamic monarchians did not deny the divinity of Christ. It would be interesting to compare Hancock's theology with that of the dynamic monarchians. Bishop Hancock was forced to leave the PAW when he disclosed his views on Jesus. 17 Kelly, 117. 18 Hippolytus, Philosophumena 7:35, quoted by Chapman, in Catholic Encyclopedia 10:448. 19 Ibid. 20 Bigg, 201-2. 21 Ibid. 22 Hastings, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 1:140.

23-27 Ibid. 28 Novatian, On the Trinity, 30, quoted in Kelly, 117. 29 Leighton Pullan, The Church of the Fathers, 4th ed. (London: Rivingtons, 1916), 135. 30 Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, ANCL 5:229. George Cross, in Hastings, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, 616, stated that the Alogi "appeared" c. AD 170 in Asia Minor and "were the principal adoptionist monarchians who perpetuated Ebionism." 31 John, ed., 53. 32 Fred L. Horton Jr., The Melchizedek Tradition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 106-8. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Harnack, History of Dogma 1:27. 36 Horton, 171. 37 Caius, Against Artemon, ANCL 5:601. 38 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5:28, trans. Roy Deferrari (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, n.d.), 342 fn. 39 Ibid., 342. 40 Harnack, History of Dogma 3:34. For a more in-depth study of the dynamic monarchians, see William Chalfant, "The History of the Monarchian Christians" (1999), unpublished manuscript available from Pentecostal Publishing House, Hazelwood, MO. The Origin of the Trinity 1 William A. Neilson, ed., Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd ed. (Springfield, MA: G. Merriam Co., 1955), 2713. 2 R. V Sellers, "Faith in the Trinity," The Church Quarterly (Essex:. Talbot Press, 1959) April-June: 173. 3 Adolph Harnack, cited in A. E. Burn, The Athanasian Creed (New York: Edwin S. Gorham Pub., 1912), 48-49. 4 Bigg, 251-52. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid.

7 Ibid., 250. 8 Ibid., 251-52. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid., 251 fn. 11 Henry Malter, in Hastings, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 9:873. 12 Ibid. 13 William Bridgewater, ed., Columbia-Viking Desk Encyclopedia (New York: Dell, 1960), 1424. 14 Philip Carrington, Christian Apologetics in the Second Century, 77. 15 George H. Gilbert, "Interpretation of the Bible by the Fathers," Biblical World, ed. Ernest DeWitt Burton (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, September 1911), 38, no. 3: 154. 16 William S. McBirnie, The Search for the Twelve Apostles (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House n.d.), 255; Bigg, 37-38. 17 Bigg, 37-38. 18 Ibid., 41. 19 Ibid., 41 fn. 20 Ibid., 43. 21 Ibid. 22 Altaner, 212. 23 Harnack, History of Dogma 1:326. 24 Bigg, 51. 25 Ibid., 58. 26 George Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1896), 104. 27 Harold I. Bell, Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt (New York: Philosophical Library, 1953), 99. 28 LeBreton and Zeiller 3:73 fn. 29 E.G. Weltin, The Ancient Popes (Westminster, MD: Newman Press,1964), 109. See also Shotwell and Loomis, The Popes.

30 Henry Milman, The History of Latin Christianity (New York: A. C. Armstrong, 1899), 73. 31 Jean Danielou, A History of Early Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973) 2:376-77. 32 Ibid. 33 Rufus M. Jones, The Church's Debt to Heretics, 81. 34 Henry Bettenson, ed., The Early Church Fathers (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), 334. 35 Ibid., 335. 36 Bigg, 303. 37 Harnack, History of Dogma 3:132. 38 Ibid., 79. 39 E. Zeiller, in Hastings, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 9:658. 40 Ibid. 41 In F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, eds., Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 106. 42 Carl Brumback, God in Three Persons (Cleveland, TN: Pathway Press, 1959), 71. 43 David Campbell, The Eternal Sonship (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1978), 55-56. 44 Robert M. Bowman Jr., Why You Should Believe in the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), 28. 45 E. Calvin Beisner, God in Three Persons (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale Pub., 1985), 58-59. 46 David Bernard, Oneness and Trinity, AD 100-300 (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1991), 111. 47 Ibid. 48 H. J. Carpenter, Popular Christianity and Early Theologians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 25. 49 Gregory A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992), 161. 50 Harnack, History of Dogma 3:74-75 & 75 fn. 51 George F. Thomas, Religious Philosophies of the West (New York: Charles Scribner's

Sons, 1965), 47. 52 Ibid., 72. 53 Ibid., 49. 54 Martin Larson, 579. 55 Bigg, 289. 56 Henry Chadwick, Augustine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 8. 57 Ibid. 58 Levi L. Paine, The Evolution of Trinitarianism (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1900), 71-72. 59 Max Fisher, What The Great Philosophers Thought about God (Los Angeles: University Book Pub., 1958), 91. 60 J. W. C. Wand, The Four Great Heresies (London: Mowbray, 1967), 31. 61 Augustine, On the Trinity, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 1956) 6:xiv. 62 William B. Chalfant, "The Origin of the Trinity," Symposium on Oneness Pentecostalism 1986 (Hazelwood, MO: United Pentecostal Church International, 1986), 83. Baptism 1 Justin, quoted by Robinson in Irenaeus, Apostolic Preaching, 34. 2 "The Writings of Justin Martyr," ANCL 1:208-9, 243. See Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 29, 88, and Second Apology, 6. 3 Quoted by A. J. Grieve, in Hastings, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 3:371. 4 Ibid. 5 Papias, Fragment 2:9, quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, in Quasten and Plumpe, 117. 6 Peck, ed., Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, 865. 7 Hermas, The Shepherd, commandment 11:6, ANCL 2:27. 8 Ibid., commandment 11:7, ANCL 2:27-28. 9 Ibid., vision 3:76, ANCL 2:15. 10 Didache 11:7, in Quasten and Plumpe, 22.

11 Altaner, 52-53. 12 Anonymous Epistle to Bishop Abercius Marcellus, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, trans. Roy Deferrari, 321. 13 Tertullian, Against Praxeas 13, ANCL 3:597-627. 14 Tertullian, De Oratione 11, quoted in Benson, 269. 15 Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition, trans. Easton, 41. See also Novatian, On the Trinity. 16 Epiphanius, cited by Schleiermacher, in Stuart, 63. 17 Pseudo-Athanasius, The Fourth Oration against the Arians, in Pelikan 2:183. 18 Malchion, Epistle, quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7:30, Nicene and PostNicene Fathers 1:314. Malchion was Paul of Samosata's accuser before the council that condemned him. 19 Frank Stagg, E. Glenn Hinson, and Wayne E. Oates, Glossolalia (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1967), 53. 20 Ibid., 52. The Catholic Church Gets Married 1 Hastings, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 2:168-69. 2 Walter Hobhouse, The Church and the World (London: Macmillan, 1910), 94. 3 Henry Fairfield Burton, "The Worship of the Roman Emperors," Biblical World, ed. Ernest DeWitt Burton (Chicago: University of Chicago) 40, no. 2 (August 1912): 90. 4 Harnack, History of Dogma 3:88. 5 Ibid., 82. 6 Durant, 658. 7 Henry G. Bohn, The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates (London: Convent Garden, 1853), 179 fn. 8 Kelly, 134. 9 Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1:23, cited in ibid., 239. 10 Fourth Epistle to the Bishops of Africa, quoted in Pelikan 2:183. 11 Bigg, 165. 12 Herbert Musurillo, "The Recent Revival of Origen Studies," Theological Studies (Plattsburg, NY: Bellarmine College), 24, no. 2 (June 1963): 250-62.

13 Schleiermacher, quoted in Stuart, 78. 14 Friedrich Baur, cited in Hagenbach, 170. 15 Hastings, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 1:588. See also Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, trans. John Henry Cardinal Newman (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1897) 2:26-27. 16 Hastings, ed., Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, 588. 17 Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, revised by A. W. Adams (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958), 172-76. 18 Ibid. 19 See Lightfoot, 255, and Harnack, History of Dogma 1:59, 74, 75 fn. There is dispute over whether Lucian's recension (edition) became the Majority Text (Byzantine) or the Minority Text (Alexandrian, as represented in the fourth-century manuscripts Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). See also David O. Fuller, Which Bible? (Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Pub., 1984), 31; Daniel Segraves, The Search for the Word of God (By the author, 1982), 48l. According to Fuller, Bruce Metzger originally thought that Lucian's recension was actually the Byzantine Text but abandoned this idea. Segraves seems to hold that Lucian's recension was the Alexandrian Text, used by Westcott and Hort. 20 Hilaire Belloc, The Great Heresies (London: Catholic Book Club, n.d.), 49. 21 Hughes, 22. 22 Belloc, 49. 23 Ibid., 46. 24 Walter J. Burghardt, Saints and Sanctity (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1965), 25-26. 25 Hughes, 22. 26 Burghardt, 25-26. 27 Belloc, 50. 28 Philip Hughes, 31 fn. 29 Ibid., 31. 30 Ibid., 14. 31 Ibid., 33. 32 Ibid., 32.

33 Ibid., 39-40. 34 Bohn, 179. 35 Larson, 572. 36 Hughes, 35. 37 Robert M. Grant, Augustus to Constantine (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), 248. 38 From Eusebius, The Life of Constantine 3:64-65, in ibid., 141. 39 Jean Danielou and Henry Marrou, The Christian Centuries: The First Six Hundred Years, trans. Vincent Cronin (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1944), 257. 40 Schleiermacher, quoted in Stuart, 36. 41 Athanasius, The Epistle on the Decrees of the Council of Nicea, in Nicene and PostNicene Fathers 14:4. 42 Henry Percival, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 14:114. 43 Ambrose, ed. and trans. S. L. Greenslade, Early Latin Theological Selections, in Library of Christian Classics 5:189. 44 Paul Goodman, The Synagogue and the Church (London: George Routledge and Sons, New York: E. P Dutton, 1910), 166. 45 Ibid., 166 & 166 fn. 46 Barrows Dunham, Heroes and Heretics: A Political History of Western Thought (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964), 118, 198. 47 Joseph Lecler, Toleration and the Reformation, trans. T. L. Westrow (New York: Association Press, 1960) 2:490-91. 48 Athanasius, Epistle ad Serapionem 3:6-7, ed. and trans. Henry Bettenson, in The Early Christian Fathers. 49 Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), xii. 50 Ibid., 118. 51 David Bernard, The Trinitarian Controversy in the Fourth Century (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame, 1993), 60. 52 Barth, 57. Conclusions 1 Harnack, History of Dogma 3:12. 2 Heinrich Boehmer, Road to Reformation, Martin Luther to the Year 1521, trans. J.

Doberstein and Theodore Tappert (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1946), 41. 3 Martin Luther, "Table Talk No. 269" (April 20May 16, 1532), Luther's Works, ed. Theodore Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 36. 4 Gulielmus Lindanus (William, bishop of Rurimunde in Ghelderland), The Betraying of the Beastliness of Heresies, trans. Lewis Evans, ed. D. M. Rogers (Menston, England: Scolar Press, n.d., in Bodleian Library). 5 D. P Walker, The Ancient Theology, Studies in Christian. Platonism from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1972), 117-18. 6 John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries, The Acts of the Apostles 1-13, trans. J. W. Fraser and W. McDonald (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub, 1965), 81. 7 Ibid., 81-82. 8 Ulrich Zwingli, quoted in Louis Israel Newman, "Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements," Oriental Studies (New York: Columbia University Press, 1925) 23:530. 9 Balthazar Hubmaier (Nicholsburg, 1526), in George H. Williams, ed., Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, Library of Christian Classics 25:45-46. 10 Roland Bainton, Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace (New York: Abingdon Press, 1961), 144. 11 The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, ed. John Christian Wenger (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, Mennonite Pub., 1956), 802. 12 Nathaniel Urshan, in The Pentecostal Herald, 54, no. 1 (1979): 3. The fundamental doctrine of this Jesus Name, Oneness group is stated in each issue of the church's official magazine as follows: The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body.