even as the most puritanical moralist, to mark any logical or theoretical difference between the "splendid chances" of the confessed lottery, and the chances in the Charity Fair to draw a piano or ottoman, a fur robe or a ring cake. And practically how steep is the grade from this charitable raffle to the gambling lottery? And will the young man, a brother, son, or friend, successful in the former, be likely to pause before the startling and tempting inducements of the latter? May not the beauty, grace and fascination of the raffle be regarded as gaming made easy for the scrupulous?

As showing the rising tone of moral feeling on the subject of religious and charitable raffles, we have been pleased to see that within a year, grand juries in several States have been charged to take cognizance of them, as a breach of the law. Judge Scott of New York charged the grand jury of King's County that "the disposal of goods by chance at church fairs, is contrary to the laws, and ought to be so treated. The persons who engage in these lotteries should be the first to set an example of obedience to the law." Similar charges have recently been given in other States, and leading secular newspapers are urging the courts to fidelity to law and good morals in this thing. We hail these indications of a returning tide.

Few, if any,

But the question does not call for argument. are willing to defend lotteries and raffles in view of the history we have sketched, and in the face of the almost universal legislation against them. The two are one, and stand or fall together in the argument. Suggestion alone, we think, is needed to bring the humane and charitable heart of the community back into loyalty to the laws of the State, and to the laws of God.

ARTICLE III.

SABELLIANISM.

In order to state this doctrine, it will be necessary to speak of its antecedents.

Christianity at the start took a middle ground between Judaism and Paganism, in its doctrinal conceptions of the being of God. In tracing back that which appeared to be superhuman in the Saviour, to the divine being himself, Christianity must avoid the multiplication of gods, and thus escape from Paganism; while, upon the other hand, in teaching the unity of God, it must avoid the Jewish denial of all distinctive difference in the Godhead, and so escape the Jewish rejection of Christ as the Son of God. According to the Jews, God in his unity remained in a state of separation from man. This doctrine carried out must end in Deism; for logically, it could not allow either that God could be manifest in the flesh by the incarnation, or even that any written revelation of God to man could ever be given.

According to the Pagan conception of many gods, or more gods than one in any sense, the logical result must be Pantheism in which it would appear that everything is a manifestation of God, but in such a way as to shut out all idea of his personality, and in such a way as to show that there could be no special revelation since everything would be a revelation. In the effort to advance such a doctrine of Christ and his relation to the Father, as should oppose Paganism on the one hand and Judaism on the other, and at the same time maintain the true unity of God, there arose a sect known as Monarchians. The point to be, maintained at all hazards, was, that God was a Monarch: the alone autocrat, and sole ruler. The determination was, to evolve such a doctrine of the person of Christ, as should be consistent with this view of God.

To accomplish this, there arose two classes of Monarchians. The first of these classes recognized in Christ nothing but the There was nothing of the divine in him. In their view, to acknowledge the divine in Christ, must lead to the denial of

man.

the unity of God, and end in Paganism. Therefore, this class of Monarchians saw in Christ only the human element.

But the second class of Monarchians saw in Christ nothing but the God, and wholly overlooked or suppressed the human element. In their view, the humanity of Christ was only an appearance of humanity. It was only transient; it was a removeable veil, serving only for the visible manifestation of God.

Thus while both of these classes were Monarchians, and made it their chief aim to maintain the unity of God, they were opposed to each other as to their method of doing it. The first class maintained the divine unity by the declaration that Christ was only a man; the second class maintained the divine unity by the declaration that Christ was only, and very God, and that he had only the show or semblance of humanity. With the first class we have nothing further to do in stating the doctrine of Sabellianism, only that we may say in passing, that it does not seem to have had much influence in the early history of the church. The doctrine was offensive to the piety of the church from the fact that it so plainly dishonored Christ, making him only a man; while its advocates were considered by the devout much in the light of such men as Strauss and Theodore Parker of our times.

It was different with the second class of Monarchians, for they appeared to honor Christ in assuming that he was only divine. They claimed this in all their arguments. Of course, in considering the person of Christ, the constant endeavor was to sink the human and elevate the divine. Hence the declaration was made, as by Beryllus, bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, that Christ had no human soul. He had the body, the flesh, of a man; but instead of a human, intelligent soul, he had the divine intelligence, and was, as to the intelligent soul, very God. The humanity of Christ, therefore, was not a perfect humanity, for he had only the body, only the corporeal of a man; while in everything else he was very God.

Coming now to Sabellius, who was a Monarchian of the second class, we find him endorsing the statement of Beryllus, that Christ had no human soul. As some have disputed this, it is necessary to observe that according to the anthropology of

the times, there was Soma, the body; Psuke, the breath of life, or the spirit; and Nous, 'the intelligent reason. In this philosophy of man, the Soma and the Psuke belong to the human body; while the Nous is that which was wanting in the semblance of humanity which belonged to Christ, its place being supplied by the divine intelligence, God himself. Thus, according to Sabellius, the humanity of Christ was not a complete humanity, it was only a transitory shape, or appearance, in which God made a revelation of himself. So far, Sabellius was only a Monarchian. In advance of the second class of Monarchians that preceded him, he declared that the Holy Spirit was only another form of manifestation of the same one God, or Monarch. Thus the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was all in which Sabellius made any deviation from the strict Monarchianism that preceded him. In short he declared that "the Father remains the same, but evolves himself in the Son, and in the Spirit." Sabellius completed his scheme of a trinity by putting the Spirit in the same relation to God as that of Christ to God, which was already received. It was a trinity in which the same one God appeared, only in the discharge of different offices, or modes of operation. He was the same God in person, who acted now as God the Father, now as God in Christ, and now as God the Spirit. This trinity was simply the self-evolution of the one Monarch into these several offices or modes of operation.

We have spoken of Sabellius as adding to the Monarchian speculation the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. It is plain that he was led to this under pressure of the doctrine of the Spirit advanced by the Montanists, who were in those times something like our Spiritualists. They held that Christ was only a man, but that he was a good medium, as we should say; and that as a good medium of the Spirit, he accomplished many wonderful works. In opposition to the Montanists, Sabellius would show that Christ was more than a mere man, that he was verily God; and in like manner, he would raise the Holy Spirit from the vulgar idea of the Montanists to that of the Holy Spirit being one manifestation of God. So far, it is evident that the intention of Sabellius in his scheme of a trinity

was to honor God, and to do this especially by maintaining his unity.

Let us consider now the practical consequences of this theory of Sabellius, for this is necessary in the most cursory statement of his doctrine. The personality of Christ is not regarded as possessed of any eternal substance, but is only a transitory appearance. The quasi humanity of Christ at length dissolves, and becomes as though it had never been. Whatever there was of the personal existence of Christ is at length annihilated. But in the light of Scripture it may be asked, if the body and whatever there was of the personality of Christ be annihilated, how then is he to become the first fruits of them that slept, by rising in his own body, and by assuming forever his own special personality? If the personality of Christ is transient, is only an appearance that vanishes away, then must not the personality of those who believe on him, and are spoken of as becoming like him, must not their personality also vanish away? Since the Christian faith in a personal, eternal life stands on the faith of the eternal duration of the personality of Christ, we might conclude that as Sabellius made Christ's personality to be nothing more than a transitory appearance, so he must have conceived it to be in regard to all personal existence, aside from God. But if all personal existence is only ephemeral, and transitory in this manner, why then everything at last comes to Pantheism. It is easy to see that the rejection of the eternal personality of Christ must end in Pantheism, in order to be logically consistent. This was the strong objection raised against Sabellius at the time he advanced his doctrine of a trinity. It was the same objection which threw the doctrine into discredit as advocated by Apollinaris of Laodicea about a century later. Apollinaris was a Monarchian. His great effort in the Arian controversy was to suppress the doctrine of a perfect human nature in Christ. By his perfect knowledge of the ancient Greek literature, and by his philosophical turn of mind, it is said that he supposed he could establish his argument with mathematical precision. Accepting the views of Beryllus of Bostra, and of Sabellius as already stated, the force of the argument of Apollinaris was spent in attempting to show that in the humanity of Christ there was no human soul; that his hu