« AnteriorContinuar »
him on the Cross. “ The Father,” says he, “who was in the Son, took flesh, and made it God, uniting it with himself, and made it one. Father and Son were therefore the name of the God, and this one person (TT póO WTov) cannot be two; thus, the Father suffered with the Son.” He considered his opponents “ditheistic" (Dideol), and they, in return, called his followers - Callistians.”
These and other disclosures respecting the Church at Rome, during the first quarter of the third century, we owe to the ninth book of the “ Philosophoumena" of Hippolitus, which were first published in 1851, and have created so much sensation in the theological world. Hippolytus was, however, it must be remembered, the leading opponent and rival of Callistus, and in his own doctrine of the Trinity inclined to the opposite subordinatian extreme. He calls Callistus, evidently with passion, an “unreasonable and treacherous man, who brought together blasphemies from above and below, only to speak against the truth, and was not ashamed to fall now into the error of Sabellius, now into that of Theodotus” (of which latter, however, he shows no trace). After the death of Callistus, who occupied the papal chair between 219 and 221 or 224, Patripassianism disappeared from the Roman Church.
4. Beryllus of Bostra, in Arabia ; from him we have only a somewhat obscure and very variously interpreted passage preserved in Eusebius (H. E., VI. 33). He denied the personal preëxistence,' and in general the independent divinity (idia Geórns) of Christ, but at the same time asserted the indwelling of the divinity of the Father (ý Tratpuk) Feótns) in him during his earthly life. He forms, in some sense, the stepping stone from simple Patripassianism to Sabellian Modalism. At an Arabian Synod in 244, where the presbyter Origen, then himself accused of heresy, was called into consultation, Beryllus was convinced of his error by that great teacher, and was persuaded particularly of the existence of a human soul in Christ, in place of which he
1 '181afovolas depeypaph, i. e. a circumscribed, limited, separate existence. Vol. XV. No. 60.
had probably put his tatpan Jeórns, as Apollinaris, in a later period, put the lóyos. He is said to have thanked Origen afterwards for his instructions. Here we have one of the very few theological disputations which have resulted in unity, instead of greater division.
5. Sabellius, we learn from the Philosophoumena," spent some time in Rome in the beginning of the third century, and was first gained by Callistus to Patripassianism, but when the latter became bishop, about 220, he was excommunicated. Afterwards we find him presbyter of Ptolemais, in Egypt. There his heresy, meantime modified, found so much favor, that Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, excommunicated him at a council in that city in 261, and, in vehement opposition to him, declared, in almost Arian terms, for the hypostatical independence and subordination of the Son in relation to the Father. This led the Sabellians to complain of that bishop to Dionysius of Rome, who held a council in 262, and in a special treatise controverted Sabellianism, as well as Subordinatianism and Tritheism, with nice orthodox tact. The bishop of Alexandria very cheerfully yielded, and retracted his assertion of the creaturely inferiority of the Son in favor of the orthodox ópooúolos. Thus the strife was for a while allayed, to be renewed with still greater violence, by Arius, half a century later.
Sabellius is by far the most original, ingenious, and profound of the Monarchians. His system is known to us only from a few fragments, and some of those not altogether consistent, in Athanasius and other Fathers. It was very fully developed, and has been revived in modern times, by Schleiermacher, in a peculiarly modified form.
While the other Monarchians confine their inquiry to the relation of Father and Son, Sabellius embraces the Holy Ghost in his speculation, and reaches a trinity; not a simultaneous trinity of essence, however, but only a successive trinity of revelation. He starts from a distinction of
? Or was this possibly another Sabellius?
the monad and the triad in the divine nature. His fundamental thought is, that the unity of God, without distinction in itself, unfolds or extends itself, in the course of the world's development, in three different forms and periods of revelation, and, after the completion of redemption, returns into unity. The Father reveals himself in the giving of the law or the Old Testament economy (not in the creation also; this, in his view, precedes the Trinitarian revelation); the Son, in the incarnation; the Holy Ghost, in inspiration. He illustrates the Trinitarian relation by comparing the Father to the disc of the sun, the Son to its enlightening power, the Spirit to its warming influence. He is said also to have likened the Father to the body, the Son to the soul, the Holy Ghost to the spirit of man; but this is unworthy of his evident speculative discrimination. His view of the Logos, too, is peculiar. The Logos is not identical with the Son, but is the monad itself in its transition to triad; that is, God conceived as vital motion and creating principle, the speaking God (còs larv), in distinction from the silent God (Θεός σιωπών). Each πρόσωπον is another διαλέγεσθαι, and the three πρόσωπα together are only the successive evolutions of the Logos, or the world-ward aspect of the divine nature. As the Logos proceeded from God, so he returns at last into him, and the process of Trinitarian development (dálečis) closes.
Athanasius traced the doctrine of Sabellius to the Stoic philosophy. The common element is the pantheistic leading view of an expansion and contraction (ěktaois, or πλατυσμός, and συστολή), of the divine nature immanent in the world. In the Pythagorean system also, in the Gospel of the Egyptians, and in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies, there are kindred ideas. But the originality of Sabellius cannot be brought into question by these. His theory broke the way for the Nicene church doctrine, by its full
1 'H uovàs Tlatuvdeioa yéyove tplas.
'Ovóuara, apbowtra, - not in the orthodox sense of the term, however, but in the primary sense of mask, or part (in a play).
8 Which has been for the first time duly brought out by Dr. Baur.
coördination of the three persons. He differs from the orthodox standard mainly in denying the trinity of essence and the permanence of the trinity of manifestation, making Father, Son, and Holy Ghost only temporary phenomena, which fulfil their mission and return into the abstract monad. The Athanasian or Nicene formula unites the truths of the Sabellian and the hypostasian theories, by teaching the eternal tripersonality in the unity of substance.
BAPTISM A SYMBOL OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEW
BY REV. H. L. WAYLAND, M. A., WORCESTER, MASS.
The January number of this periodical contained a very interesting Article, upon “ Baptism a Consecratory Rite." The remarks which follow are designed to illustrate the view, that baptism is rather an initiatory rite — is intended to symbolize the commencement of the new Christian life.
In conversion, the soul passes through a change miraculous in its origin, marked in its character, and momentous in its results. The man is changed in his relations to God and to his law. Formerly he was the object of deserved condemnation; now he meets with the benignant smile of his Heavenly Father, and with the full approval of his law. He is changed as to his central motive and leading principle. Formerly he sought his own interests with supreme regard, while the will of God was matter of entire indifference to him. Now it is his supreme desire to please God, and he is regardless of his own interests. This is the theory of conversion, and only as it bears this character has it attained its divine ideal. Corresponding to this inward
subjective change, is one objective and outward. The man leads henceforth a new life. New enjoyments and avocations now engage him, while from those which formerly engrossed him, he turns away with repugnance. Instead of a life of pride, self-indulgence and ungodliness, he leads now a life of prayerfulness, humility, self-denial, and holiness. Resulting from all this change in his relations, in his inward and outward life, is a change in his destiny. Formerly he was tending to an eternity of remorse and woe; now to endless bliss and glory.
The Scriptures show their estimate of the magnitude of this change by designating it as a "new birth," a "new creation,” a “resurrection, etc. It is natural that an event so important should have its appropriate celebration. The new relations which the man holds should be suitably impressed on himself and attested to others. Our sense of the solemnity of new obligations is deepened when these are assumed publicly and with a proper ceremonial. Shall well nigh every change of human relations be appropriately celebrated, and this change alone, transcending all others in importance, affecting our relations to God and our fellow men, want its symbolic rite? Shall the servant of a for. eign potentate openly and with fitting solemnity renounce his former allegiance, and assume the duties, and claim the privileges of a new citizenship, and shall not he, who, once a servant of Satan and of the world, an alien from the commonwealth of Israel, becomes now a fellow citizen of the saints? The convert has become one of a royal priesthood; let him have his investiture; he has become the heritor of a heavenly throne and crown; let him be publicly and suitably endowed with his new dignities.
Accordingly, the author of our faith has provided a rite, which most appropriately symbolizes the commencement of the new life. This initiatory rite is baptism.
1 The theory and normal idea of the rite, would require that its administration should be coincident in time with the occurrence of the moral change which it symbolizes; and in default of this, that the two should be separated by as brief an interval as possible.