The theory of Sabellius, then, which we are yet to examine, is not to be regarded as any thing altogether new; but it must be taken in connection with the formulas of Noetus and Beryll, and regarded as the more full development of them.

$6. Views of Sabellius.

[Ir is very remarkable, that we should have almost no definite information respecting the personal history of Sabellius; considering the unusual interest which his opinions excited, in ancient times, both for and against him. That he lived in Africa, at Ptolemais a town of Pentapolis or Cyrenaica, some distance on the Mediterranean shore west of Egypt, is generally conceded. Later authors ascribe to him the office of bishop or elder; but they are too late to be safe guides. It is merely the influence which he seems to have had in the church, that would lead us to suppose that he was invested with some office. The probable time of his publishing his sentiments, may be stated at 255-259. Dionysius of Alexandria (Epist. in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. VII. 6) mentions the heresy of Sabellius as having recently sprung up. Philastrius and Augustine say, that he was a pupil of Noetus. This may have been the case; but the distance between the two countries where they lived, renders this circumstance somewhat improbable, although not impossible.

The

That he was a writer, cannot well be questioned. younger Arnobius (de Deo uno, etc. p. 570 in Feuardent's edit. of Irenaeus) says, that in the fifth century some of his writings were still extant. Of what nature these were, he has not told us.

That the opinions of Sabellius were urged with zeal and ability by him, seems altogether probable from the fact, that many bishops in the neighbouring countries, and in Egypt, received them. Moreover the burning zeal which Dionysius bishop of Alexandria manifests against them, shews that he felt the danger from them to be great. His excessive sensitiveness also betrays the conviction in his mind, that they would soon become predominant. It is probable, that his strenuous efforts to suppress Sabellianism, joined with the successive ones of Athanasius, Basil, and others, may have checked very much the rapid progress which it was making. Epiphanius however, (Haeres. 62) about A. D. 375, testifies that the adherents of Sabellius

were still to be found in great numbers, both in Mesopotamia and at Rome. Facts like these account for the uncommon zeal which Dionysius, Athanasius, and Basil, as well as Hilary and others, shew against what they supposed to be Sabellianism. They shew us, also, that many in the churches were stumbled at the hypostatic theory of the Alexandrine School, and eagerly embraced an opportunity to throw it off; which always happens where such matters are carried to excess.

The second general council at Constantinople (A. D. 533), in their seventh canon, declared that baptism by Sabellius was not valid; which shews that at so late a period Sabellianism was still extant, and at or around the metropolis of the Roman empire. In fact, the frequent and vehement opposition made to this opinion by Augustine, Basil, Hilary, Euthymius, and others, shews 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.

Various names were given by the ancients, in the way of reproach, to the Sabellian party. They were called Patripassians, Monarchians, Unionites, Praxeans, and finally Hermogenites. The ground of the three first names is evident. The opponents of the Sabellians believed them to maintain, that there was only one person in the Godhead, and that this person was the same with that of the Father. Hence the three first names. Praxeans was an epithet of reproach, because they were accused of holding sentiments like those of Praxeas, whom Tertullian attacks with such uncommon vehemence. But as to the epithet Hermogenites, which was intended to shew that (like Hermogenes) they held to the eternal existence of matter and denied the proper creation of the world, there is no evidence that Sabellius, or his disciples in general, held such an opinion. It is probable, however, that some zealous and considerably distinguished Sabellian in the course of time broached this view; and party zeal took occasion from this to give the adherents of Sabellius a new and more reproachful name. The history of church or state will present us with abundance of the like examples.

It is remarkable that both in ancient and in modern times, the epithet Sabellianism should have been, and should continue to be, employed as a generic designation of almost all the different shades of opinion, which deny the hypostatic theory of the Trinity, and yet maintain the Godhead of Christ. This shews

the great pre-eminence which the system of Sabellius obtained, over all the opinions which had some particular affinities with his.

The common apprehension of Sabellianism has been, that it removes all distinction of personality or hypostasis in the Godhead; and that it considers Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be mere names of the Godhead under different developments of one and the same person, who was both Movάs and Father. This view of Sabellianism has been called in question by many distinguished writers; yet the current opinion seems hardly to have been arrested. Morus, Souverain, Beausobre, and Lardner, have endeavoured to shew, that Sabellius taught only that 2 δύναμις θεοῦ, not a divine υπόστασις, dwelt in the man Christ Jesus.

Mosheim seems to have come much nearer to a true representation, in his Comm. de Rebus Christ. p. 690 seq. He represents Sabellius as having denied that there was any plurality of persons in the Movάs itself, and of course that there was any substantial and real individual personality in the Godhead as such and simply considered; but still he avers, that Father and Son and Spirit were considered by him as altogether distinct; and yet that they are parts or partitions of the divine Movás, called by the names Creator and Redeemer and Sanctifier, or Father and Son and Holy Ghost.

It will be seen in the exhibition of Dr. Schleiermacher, which the sequel presents, that Mosheim was quite mistaken in regard to the last part of this representation, viz., that the Godhead is divided. Indeed it seems plain from the exhibition of this subject as made by Dr. S., that it was with Sabellius not a matter of doubt or hesitancy at all, whether Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were to be acknowledged as distinct noóowna of the Godhead; for he even excommunicated those who denied this. The true question, therefore, turns on this, viz., what is it which constitutes what we namе лооσшлоv or person in the Godhead? Is it original, substantial, essential to divinity itself? Or does it belong to and arise from the exhibitions and developments which the divine Being has made of himself to his creatures? The former Sabellius denied ; the latter he fully admitted; and Dr. S. himself seems fully to sympathize with his views, in regard to this point.

Supposing this to be, and it really appears to be, a correct account of genuine Sabellianism, then that which has been called

so in modern times; that which makes out the Sabellians to be the same as Patripassians, and represents them as denying the distinctions in the Godhead; is altogether a mistaken view of the subject. The mischiefs arising first from erroneous and inadequate conceptions respecting the true nature of an opinion, and then from zeal to proscribe it and proclaim it as heretical, are of a serious nature. It is time that in some way or other they should be curtailed. I trust the views of Dr. S. will help us better to know, at least, what Sabellianism truly is. It is only then, that we can be able to judge, whether it is indeed a fatal heresy.

The ancient sources for consultation are Euseb. Ecc. Hist. VII. 6. Theodoret, Haeret. Fab. II. 9. Philastrius, Haeres. LIV. Augustine, de Haeres. c. 41. Epiphanius Haeres. LXII. The modern ones which deserve most attention, are Mosheim, de Rebus Christ., p. 690 seq. Walch, II. p. 14 seq. Lardner, Credib. of Gosp. Hist. IV. p. 593 seq. Worm, Hist. Sabelliana. Beausobre Hist. du Manich. I. p. 533 seq. Many other writers, ancient and modern, have discussed and attacked the opinions of Sabellius. None have proved them so critically as Schleiermacher. TR.]

BERYLL proceeded thus far in his system, viz., that while he fully recognized the divine nature of Christ, he still believed that the Logos by his incarnation received a peculiar лεoуoan (circumscription, limitation); in other words, that something was attached to him in these circumstances, which would not have been attached to him if they had not occurred. In this respect therefore he was ready to concede, that the Godhead in Christ might be distinguished from the Godhead as it is in and of itself. In order clearly to represent his views of the Christian economy, he felt constrained to admit a two-fold method of existence in the Godhead; which still did not at all interfere with the divine unity or μοναρχία.

He was therefore on his way toward the doctrine of a Trinity, in a more strict sense than can be asserted of Noetus. The formulas of the latter seemed more to indicate something that was transitory in the Godhead, some lowering down of the Infinite One towards the finite, and then again some recontraction of itself back again. Consequently, there was something in all

this of an oscillating nature; on account of which the divine economy in Christ would be presented to us only as a thing which in its operations was temporary and limited by place, and which in fine might at some future period be exchanged for another economy.

Beryll had attained to his views, without being swayed by any philosophical or cosmological speculations; or (as is often but not correctly said) without any Platonizing; which was indulged in only by those who strenuously defended the doctrine of personality, and this in a manner that opposed the sentiments of Beryll. Too much therefore is asserted, when it is said, that without Platonizing, the Fathers would never have come to believe in the doctrine of a Trinity.' At most it can only be said with truth, that perhaps we should not have obtained the Nicenian or Athanasian Creed. The views expressed in this, are no doubt intended to be a correction of the earlier Arian tendencies in such Fathers as we have already quoted; but still these views do, after all, rest substantially on the same basis as Arianism, inasmuch as their object is to explain the revelation of God in Christ by a divine plurality, to which the divine Unity becomes quite subordinate. In all probability, views like those of Sabellius, which might have been deduced from such theories as those of Beryll and Noetus, would have gained the predominance rather than these, unless an interest in a measure foreign to that of simple Christian piety had predominated. This laid too much stress on plurality; so that the μovaggia of the Godhead was infringed upon, or, in order to preserve the appearance of maintaining it, formulas were introduced which either were not tenable or were not intelligible. If the Sabellian views had peaceably obtained admission, in the sequel they would doubtless have received more accurate and definite limitations. But they were overwhelmed in the stronger opposite current, before they had time to be fully unfolded.

Beryll was on the way to the Trinitarian doctrine, whether he actually attained to it, or stopped in his course; for, according to the best information we have, his assertion, that before the incarnation there was no personal distinction in the Godhead, has relation only to the second person, and not to the third. The same is also probable, as we have seen above, respecting Noetus and Praxeas; whereas in Origen, Hippolytus, and Tertullian, three persons are fully admitted. The views of Noetus and Praxeas were not fully unfolded, nor really moulded