MONARCHIANISM, in its technical Christological sense, designates the view taken by those Christians whc, within the church, towards the end of the 2d century and during the 3d, opposed the doctrine of a hypostatic Logos (hypostasianism) or of an independent personal subsistence of the Divine Word. It is usual (and convenient) to speak of two kinds of monarchianism,—the dynamistic and the modalistic. By monarchians of the former class Christ was held to be a mere man, miraculously conceived indeed, but constituted the Son of God simply by the infinitely high degree in which he had been filled with Divine wisdom and power. This view was represented in Asia Minor about the year 170 by the anti-Montanistic Alogi, so called by Epiphanius on account of their rejection of the Fourth Gospel; it was also taught at Rome about the end of the 2d century by Theodotus of Byzantium, a currier, who was excommunicated by Bishop Victor, and at a later date by Artemon, excommunicated by Zephyrinus. About the year 260 it was again propounded within the church by Paul of Samosata (g.v.), who held that, by his unique excellency, the man Jesus gradually rose to the Divine dignity, so as to be worthy of the name of God. Modalistic monarchianism, conceiving that the whole fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ, took exception to the “subordi-natianism” of some church writers, and maintained that the names Father and Son were only two different designations of the same subject, the one God, who “with reference to the relations in which He had previously stood to the world is called the Father, but in reference to His appearance in humanity is called the Son.” It was first taught, in the interests of the “monarchia” of God, by Praxeas, a confessor from Asia Minor,in Rome about 190, ...