His name in the list of heresies appended to the "De Praescriptionibus" of that writer (an anonymous epitome of the lost "Syntagma" of Hippolytus) is a correction made by some ancient diorthotes for Noetus.A History of Christianity: Volume I: Beginnings to 1500: Revised Edition pg 144-146 By Kenneth S. Latourette Published by HarperCollins, 1975 , He taught Monarchian doctrine there, or at least a doctrine which Tertullian regarded as Monarchian: "Paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit." Adversus Praxen 1,12, in: CC SL, 2 (E. Kroymann / E. Evans, 1954), p.
|
|
There is little reason for thinking that Praxeas was a heresiarch, and less for identifying him with Noetus, or one of his disciples. He was very likely merely an adversary of the Montanists who used some quasi-Monarchian expressions when at Carthage, but afterwards revised them when he saw they might be misunderstood.
|
|
Both of these theologies have similarities to latter day Unitarianism. The Monarchian controversy came to a head again in the mid-3rd century. In 259 the help of Dionysius of Alexandria, was invoked in a dispute among the churches in Libya between adherents of Justin's Logos-theology and some modalist Monarchians. Dionysius vehemently attacked the modalist standpoint.
|
|
In their original monarchian dualist story, Bogomils taught that God had two sons, the elder Satanail and the younger Michael. Satanail rebelled against the father and became an evil spirit. He created the lower heavens and the Earth and tried in vain to create man, though in the end he had to appeal to God for the Spirit. After creation, Adam was allowed to till the ground on condition that he sold himself and his posterity to the owner of the Earth, Satanail.
|
|
Praxeas was a Monarchian from Asia Minor who lived in the end of the 2nd century/beginning of the 3rd century. He believed in the unity of the Godhead and vehemently disagreed with any attempt at division of the personalities or personages of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Christian Church. He was opposed by Tertullian in his tract Against Praxeas (Adversus Praxean), and was influential in preventing the Roman Church from granting recognition to the New Prophecy. An early anti-Montanist, he is known only by virtue of Tertullian's book "Adversus Praxean".
|
|
Like original Bogomilism, was a moderate or monarchian dualist, believing in the inferiority of the "bad" or evil principle. Mark received consolamentum afresh from Nicetas, an absolute dualist who belonged to the ordo of Drugunthia or Dragovitia (in the southeastern Balkans), having received his consolamentum from bishop Simon of Dragovitia. Unlike Mark, Nicetas came from a late Bogomil current which believed both principles were coeternal and coeval, more similar to Catharism.Yuri Stoyanov, The Other God: Dualist Religions from Antiquity to the Cathar Heresy Nicetas then went on to Languedoc.
|
|
It holds that the Son was not co- eternal with the Father, and that Jesus Christ was essentially granted godhood (adopted) for the plans of God and for his own perfect life and works. Different variations of Dynamism hold that Jesus was "adopted" either at the time of his baptism or his ascension. Notable adherents included Theodotus of Byzantium and Paul of Samosata, a bishop of Antioch. The name "Monarchian" properly does not strictly apply to the Adoptionists, or Dynamists, as they (the latter) "did not start from the monarchy of God, and their doctrine is strictly Christological".
|
|
From the imperfect and conflicting data that is available, one positive result can be gathered that the Bogomils were gnostics, adoptionists and dualists. Their dualism was initially moderate (or "monarchian"): according to their teachings, God created and rules the spiritual part of the world, and Satan the material, but Satan is ultimately inferior to God and his side by virtue of being God's son. However, Bogomils were not quite free from the absolute dualism of Manichaeism and Paulicianism, and over time adopted an absolute position too, believing God and Satan as eternal opponents, similar to the one maintained by the posterior Cathars. Their adoptionist teaching apparently came from Paul of Samosata (though at a later period the name of Paul was believed to be that of the Apostle).
|
|