metaphor, when a subject so deeply interesting as the sufferings of their exalted Master occupied their attention.

It is deserving of attention as a general remark, that if we were only sensible of the reality and immense worth of the facts and truths of Christianity, we should not find it so difficult to understand the language of deep emotion, with which the Scriptures abound, nor should we be in danger of mistaking the naturally bold and unqualified expressions of strong feeling, for abstract propositions and logical statements.

But further, the Apostles of our Lord were not only used to a highly figurative style of speaking; they were Jews, brought up from their infancy under a religion that dealt most abundantly in sacrifices, in the shedding of the blood of victims before the altar. 'Almost all things,' says the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 'are by the law purged with BLOOD, and without the shedding of blood is no remission.' Under the Mosaic dispensation, blood was used continually in connexion with religious feeling and ceremonies. And the association of blood with religion had been as it were a first principle of thought in the minds of the Apostles. Was it not exceedingly natural that their ancient ways of thinking should affect their modes of speech, and that when they were brought to the profession of Christianity, in the introduction of which the most precious blood had been spilt under circumstances the most affecting, they should seize upon this one point of coincidence between their old religion and the new, and exhaust upon it the language of metaphor? A man's way of expressing himself is always very much

affected by his previous habits of life, and by the manner in which he is brought up, and by the opinions which he has longest cherished. How continually do we discover by their modes of expression, what individuals are in their pursuits and in religion!

[To be concluded.]

SABELLIANISM. ITS ORIGIN AND CHARACTER.

Messrs Editors,-Sabellianism, as most of your readers are probably aware, is generally said to have originated about the middle of the third century after the Christian era; but it was, in fact, only a form of the old Unitarian doctrine, as old certainly as the days of Moses. This doctrine, as it is well known, long retained a hold on the minds of Christians, particularly the unlettered, who had not become contaminated with the reigning philosophy. Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius, were among its more learned advocates, and its adherents in their days, as may be gathered from the confessions and complaints of the Orthodox fathers themselves, were exceedingly numerous, and no doubt constituted a majority of believers. It was embraced, as Athanasius informs us, by some Bishops of Africa, and prevailed to such an extent, at the time Dionysius wrote against it, that the Son of God was scarcely preached in the churches; by which, we are to understand, I suppose, that the divinity of the Son was not taught.

1

Of the doctrines really taught by Sabellius, many persons at the present day, I suspect, entertain very

inadequate and confused ideas. His system was certainly misunderstood, or misrepresented, by most ancient writers. The following passage, which I have translated from Beausobre's 'Histoire Critique de Manichée et du Manicheisme,' it is believed, presents the system in its true character.

A priest of Asia, by the name of Praxeas, may be regarded as the founder of the sect of Sabellians. Praxeas came to Rome near the end of the second century, while Victor occupied that See. He so insinuated himself into favor with this bishop, and so plausibly defended his error, that Victor was led, not only to approve, but to confirm it.* If we believe Tertullian,† Praxeas taught that 'there is only one Divine Person, that is, the Father; that the Father descended into the virgin, that he was born of her, that he suffered, and that he is Jesus Christ himself." About the same time, one Noetus, ‡ of Smyrna, according to Hippolytus and others, or of Ephesus, according to Epiphanius, promulgated precisely the same error in Asia. This error is so absurd, and so obviously opposed to a multitude of passages in the New Testament, that it appears hardly possible, that it should have been maintained by any reasonable man. I have

* Tertul. de Præscrip. in fin.

† Adv. Prax. init.

According to Epiphanius, Noetus promulgated his dogmas not far from the year 245; but it must have heen earlier, for Hippolytus, who flourished about the year 222, testifies that Noetus had been dead some time, when he wrote against him. We know not the date of the work of Hippolytus; we only know that he was cotemporary with Origen, though a little older.

been led to suspect, therefore, that it was not a dogma of these persons, but a consequence which the Orthodox deduced from their principles; and several considerations go to corroborate this suspicion. What I am going to offer concerning the origin and nature of Sabellianism, however, is not suspicion, not conjecture. It is affirmation, and affirmation fully supported by evidence.

*

6

Although the Sabellian heresy has been justly condemned, because it is evidently contrary to scripture, it must be confessed that its origin was innocent. When I examine its source, I find that it originated in no other than the fear of multiplying the Divinity, by multiplying the Divine Persons, and thus bringing back Polytheism, which overthrows the first principle of religion. So testify the ancient fathers with great unanimity. When the Sabellians,' observes Epiphanius, meet the Orthodox, they say to them, my friends, have we one God, or three ?' Hence it appears, that they departed from the catholic faith, only because they were persuaded that it established three Gods. Origen assures us that these sectaries, who were very numerous, professed to love God, and proposed to themselves no other object than to glorify him.' 'They have a dread,' says Eusebius, of introducing a second God.' Eusebius confines his remark to Jesus Christ, or the Word; for this bishop of Cæsarea believed that the spirit was created by the Son, and has affirmed it in a book called Ecclesiasti

* Beausobre, it will be observed, here speaks as a Trinitarian. Tr. † Hær. LXII.

cal Theology, which he composed after the Council of Nice. Although he wrote with great warmth against Marcellus of Ancyra, he nevertheless bears testimony to the fact, that he denied the personality of the Son, solely from the fear of setting up two Gods.' Let us hear what Tertullian says of the Sabellians of his time. The simple,' he observes, 'not to say the ignorant and imprudent, who always constitute the larger part of believers, finding that the rule of faith requires us to renounce the numerous divinities of Paganism, and acknowledge the one only and true God, and not understanding that although we must believe there is one only God, we must believe it with the economy, tremble when they hear of the economy, imagining that the number and plurality of persons in the Trinity is a division of the Unity. They reproach us with preaching two or three Gods, and boast that for them

*

* That is, we must believe in the unity, subject however, to the peculiar modification called the economy, an obscure term, invented to render the doctrine of the trinity, such as it then was, the more palatable, or, at least, so to envelope it in darkness and mystery, as to render its repugnance to the strict and proper unity of the Divine nature less glaring. Prof. Stuart, I suppose, would substitute distinction for economy. Tertullian seems to explain the latter term by number and disposition, or distribution, of the three Divine Persons. 6 The fathers,' says Beausobre, pretended that the plurality of Divine Persons did not destroy the unity of God, first, because the Son and the Spirit derived their origin from the Father; and secondly, because the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father. For example, there will be only one Emperor, though there may be two Cæsars, who govern under the Emperor, who are his sons, and who derive their origin and power from him. This is the economy. The economy of agreement, or concord, according to Hippolytus, unites the three Persons in one God: for there is one God, the Father, who commands, the Son who