vanced, fome time after Praxeas, in Afia, by g Noetus. Shortly after Sabellius fprung up in Egypt, who maintain'd an unity of Perfon, much after the fame manner with Praxeas and Noetus. As the orthodox h had been brought, in answer to the Praxeans and Noetians, to fay, they did not maintain three gods, but τρία πρόσωπα, or three perfons, Sabellius did not think it proper to deny, in words, that there were three perfons in the God-head; but he denied they were real perfons, and took the word πρόσωπον, or perfona, only in a figurative sense, as fignifying a manifeftation, reprefentation, or a theatrical charac ter; fo that he could not be reckon'd free of the charge of making the the Father suffer, any 8 Ετερόι τινες ἑτέραν διδασκαλίαν παρεισάγεσαν γενομένοι τινὸς. Νοήτε μαθεται, ὃς τὸ μὲ γένα ἦν Σμυρναιος οὐ πρὸ πολλᾶ χρόνο γενόμενα· οὗτα φυσιωθεὶς εἰς ἐπηρμέτον ἤχθη, διήση πνεύματα ἀλλωτρίς ἐπαχθείς. Ἔφη τ' Χρισὸν αὐτὸν ειναι ἳ Πατέρα καὶ ἀυτὸν * Πατέρα γεγενῆς, καὶ πεπονθῆναι καὶ αποτεθνηκέναι· ་ ταῦτα ἀκέσαντες οἱ μακάριοι πρεσβύτεροι προσκαλησάμενοι ἐνώπιον τ' έχε κλησίας ἐξήταζον· ὁ ἢ ἀρνεῖτο· λέγων τὰς ἀρχὰς μὴ φρονεῖν· ύσερον δὲ ἐμφωλευσας ἔν τισιν καὶ συσκευάσας ἑαυτῷ συμπλανωμένες, καθα ρὸν ἕτερον ἱσῶν τὸ δόγμα ἐβέλετο. Ὃν πάλιν προσκαλεσάμενοι οι μακάριοι πρεσβύτεροι ήλεγξαν. Ὁ ἢ ἀντίσατο λέγων, τι ἦν καινὸν ποιω, δοξάζων τ Χρισὸν; πρὸς ὃν ἀνταποκρίνονται οἱ πρεσβύτεροι· ἡμεῖς ἕνα Θεὸν οἶδαμιν ἀληθῶς· οἴδαμεν Χρισόν· οἴδαμεν τὸν υἱὸν παθόντα, καθὼς ἔπαθεν, καὶ ἀνασάντα τῇ πρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, καὶ ὄντα εν δεξιᾷ τὸ Πατρὸς καὶ ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρές· καὶ ταῦτα λέγομεν ἃ ἐμάθομεν. Τότε τῦτον ἐλέγξαντες ἐξέωσαν τὸ ἐκκλησίας, ὃς εις τοσᾶτο φυσίωμα ἠνέχθη, ὡς διδασκαλίαν συςῆσαι. Hippolytus contra Noetum, cap. i. Vol. II. p. 5, 6. Ed. Fabric. Ορᾶτε πῶς προπετὲς καὶ τολμερὸν δόγμα παρεισήνεγκαν, αυτός ἐστι Χρισὸς ὁ Πατήρ, αυτὸς υἱὸς, αυτὸς ἐγεννήθη, ἀυτὸς ἔπαθεν, αυτός, ἑαυτὸν ἤγειρεν. Αλλ' ἐκ ὅτως ἔχει· άι με γραφαί ὀρθῶς λέγεσιν ἄλλα ἂν καὶ Νόητ@ νοεῖ. Ibid. c. i. p. 7. τι h See this matter well clear'd up by the learned Dr. Waterland, in his second defence, p. 212, 213. See also Dr. Berriman', account of the Trinitarian controverty, p. 119, 120. more more than those before him. In order to guard against the subtil evafions of him and his followers, the Greek writers, among the orthodox, afterwards more generally used the word wisaris. After the rife of Arianifm, Euftathius and Marcellus of Ancyra, fcrupled to fay there were three hypoftafes, left they fhould make three fubftances, therefore they were charg'd with Sabellianifm; but it does not appear that they were really of that opinion; only fome unguarded expreffions were dropt by them, and too ftiffly maintain'd, which were improved against them, by the malice of the Arian party, who endeavour'd to take revenge on them, for their bold appearance in behalf of the doctrine of a confubftantial Trinity. i The Manichees, a fect which had oddly made a jumble of Christianity and Paganifm, if they had any fentiments relating to the Trinity k, fell in with Sabellianifm. The Prifcillianifts, much i That Euftathius was not in the Sabellian Scheme, may appear from the following noble fragment, preferved by Theodorit (Dial. 3.) where he fpeaks of the word Logos, as God begotten and diftinct from the Father. Δόξαν ἢ ἐπίκτητον ὁ Πατὴρ ἐκ ἐπιδέχεται, τέλειο, ἄπειρῷ άπε ρινόητα ων, ἀπροσδεής κάλλες, καὶ παντόιας ἐπηρείας. Αλλ' οὐδὲ ὁ λόγω αυτᾶ, Θεὸς ὢν ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐξ αυτ8, δι' ο γεγόνασιν ἄγελοι καὶ οὐρανὸς καὶ γῆς ἄπιειρα μεγέθη, καὶ πάσαι συλλήβδα τῶν γενητῶν ὕλαι τε καὶ συςάσεις. Αλλ' ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὸ Χρισοῦ, εκ νεκρῶν ἐγειρόμενος, ὑψοῦται καὶ δοξάζεται, τῶν ἐναντίων αιχύντιο αντικρυς ἀραμένων. What Manes's opinion was concerning the Triuity I do not find, from the fragments of his letters, and the acts of his difpute with Archelaus, which are remaining; but that the later Manichees fell in with Sabellianifm, will appear from the following words of Fauftus, preserved by Austin, in his treatise against him (lib. xx. c. 2.) Igitur nos patris quidem Dei omnipotentis, & Chrifti filii ejus & Spiritus fancti unum idemque, fub triplici appellatione, coli mus numen. such another fort of people, entertain'd afterwards the fame opinions; but as each of these forts of heretics had more of Paganism than true Christianity in their schemes, they were not much minded on this head. I do not find the notion of one proper divine perfon was much regarded, till the revival of the anti-trinitarian errors, after the reformation; then that ignorant enthufiaftic blafphemer, Michael Servetus, feem'd fometimes to fall into this way; but there is fuch a monftrous confufion in his fentiments, that it is fcarce to be known what he held. The Socinian fcheme, which is that of Paul of Samofata, and Photinus revived, and which had fuch a run in Poland, is near akin to the Sabellian; and is in reality only a more clumfy intricate way of expreffing the fame thing: however, this is certain, that the English Socinians, who made fuch a noife in the close of the last century, came at length to fettle in pure Sabellianifm; and on that foot the anti-trinitarians feem generally, till the Arian herefy, upon its late revival, was received with applause by many; and fince that time, it has been reckon'd more fashionable, by all the oppofers of the doctrine of the Trinity, to profefs a reverence for that hypothefis. I would not be thought, by this short hiftorical account of the oppofition that has been made to the doctrine of the Trinity, on the foot of holding only one proper perfon in the Godhead, to be preparing a charge of Sabellanism against Mr. Watts. He differs much in expreffion from the Sabellians; and tho I cannot fee he makes much more of the Son and Spirit then they do, yet I charitably hope, he has not duely weigh'd and confider'd his own scheme. He He fays, a man incurs the charge of Sabellianifm, if he follows what he invidiously calls the scholaftick scheme, which, he fays, has been profefs'd by most of the reformed churches, and which, he tells us, with a fort of a fneer, has been commonly called modern orthodoxy. He would have done well to have fhew'd us, whether the scheme he advances is more clear of that charge. When a man goes beyond Scripture, in explaining this mysterious part of our religion, under the pretence of giving a rational account of it, his nicest care will hardly exempt him from the inconvenience of having fome names of modern or antient error fixed upon him; and the reason is this, it is hardly poffible that there can be any mistake relating to the doctrine of the Trinity advanced now, which has never been started before; for as to this matter, it may truely be faid, there is nothing new under the fun. I fhall now proceed to fhew what Mr. Watts's fentiments, as to the perfonality of the Son and Spirit are, in which I fhall be very careful of doing him any injuftice: what I affirm is, that he has not left the Son and Spirit any real pèrfonality. This I fhall endeavour to fhew from his own words, and fhall not concern my felf what name may juftly be given to his scheme. Upon a fancy of his own, that the complete Divine Nature may be represented, as including in it two Divine Powers, the Word and Spirit, and that we may suppose the human foul acting by the mind and will, to reprefent God the Father, acting by his two Divine Powers, the Word and Spirit, he tells us, m'tis evident the Father is properly called a person, ! Pref. p. viii, ix. F m p. 187. an an intelligent voluntary agent, with little or no alteration of the common fenfe of the word in n human language; " but then he fays, "when the Word and Spirit are called perfons, which are fuppofed to be really but divine powers of the Father, whofe inward diftinction we know not, the term perfon is used in a figurative or metaphorical fenfe, and not in fo proper and literal a fenfe as when the Father is called a perfon." If in these words he does not deny the real perfonality of the Son and Spirit, I do not know of what ufe words can be. This notion he endeavours to render probable, " by a man's being reprefented, as fpeaking to his own mind, by the custom of the Eaftern writers P, to perfonalize every thing, by the Jews being wont to diftinguish the power of a fpirit from that fpirit, and by the primitive a writers describing the divine Logos as a perfonal power. All these things are either falfe, or unaccurate, or do not come up to the point; as might eafily be fhew'd, were it proper to take up the reader's time in fuch a digreffion. Some of his other confiderations, to support his figurative sense of the word perfon, may be just taken notice of. He fays, "the common explication of the doctrine, which has been esteem'd moft orthodox among the proteftant churches, has fuppofed the diftinctions of the facred Three, not to arife to the complete, proper, and literal idea of perfon among men. This is very true; but what he adds, that therefore it can be but a figurative metaphorical perfonality, which they allow, "is a mistaken inference, or else a prefumptuous fup S n Page 187. |