renounced the Roman Catholic Church altogether, and established what he called the German Catholic Church. He was soon joined by another priest of the same stamp, Czerski; and numbers of the Rationalists of Germany, having no fixed religious principles of any sort, ranked themselves under the banners of the new apostles, not through any love for the new form of faith, but hoping to destroy Catholicity. We have seen, however, at their last Conference, that they have abolished Christianity itself, and the sect, as it is, is already nearly extinct.

END OF THE HISTORY.

REFUTATION OF HERESIES.

REFUTATION I.

THE HERESY OF SABELLIUS, WHO DENIED THE DISTINCTION OF PERSONS IN THE TRINITY.

THE Catholic Church teaches that there are in God one Nature and three distinct Persons. Arius, of whose heresy we shall have to speak in the next chapter, admits the distinction of Persons in the Trinity, but said that the three Persons had three different natures among themselves, or, as the latter Arians said, that the three Persons were of three distinct natures. Sabellius, on the other hand, confessed, that in God there was but one nature; but he denied the distinction of Persons, for God, he said, was distinguished with the name of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost, by denomination alone, to signify the different effects of the Divinity, but that in himself, as there is but one nature, so there is but one Person. The Sabellian heresy was first taught by Praxeas, who was refuted by Tertullian in a special work. In the year 257, the same heresy was taken up by Sabellius (1), who gave it great extension, especially in Lybia, and he was followed by Paul of Samosata. These denied the distinction of the Persons, and, consequently, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and, therefore, the Sabellians were called Patro-passionists, as St. Augustin (2) tells us, for as they admitted in God only the Person of the Father alone, they should, consequently, admit that it was the Father who became incarnate, and suffered for the redemption of mankind. The Sabellian heresy, after being a long time defunct, was resuscitated by Socinus, whose arguments we shall also enumerate in this dissertation.

SEC. I. THE REAL DISTINCTION OF THE THREE DIVINE PERSONS IS PROVED.

2. In the first place, the plurality and the real distinction of the three Persons in the Divine nature is proved from the words of Genesis: "Let us make man to our own image and likeness" (Gen. i. 26); and in chap. iii., v. 22, it is said: "Behold, Adam is

(1) Euseb. His. Eccles. (2) St. Augus. trac. 26, in Jo.

become one of us;" and again, in chap. xi., ver. 7: "Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongues." Now these words, "let us do," "let us go down," "let us confound," show the plurality of Persons, and can in no wise be understood of the plurality of natures, for the Scripture itself declares that there is but one God, and if there were several Divine natures, there would be several Gods; the words quoted, therefore, must mean the plurality of Persons. Theodoret (1), with Tertullian, makes a reflection on this, that God spoke in the plural number, “let us make," to denote the plurality of Persons, and then uses the singular, "to our image," not images, to signify the unity of the Divine

nature.

3. To this the Socinians object:-First.-That God spoke in the plural number, for the honour of his Person, as kings say kings say "We" when they give any order. But we answer, by saying, that sovereigns speak thus, "we ordain," "we command," in their ordinances, for then they represent the whole republic, but never when they speak of their private and personal acts; they never say, for example, "we are going to sleep," or "we are going to walk," nor did God speak in the way of commanding, when he said, "Behold Adam is become as one of us." Secondly. They object, that God did not thus speak with the other Divine Persons, but with the Angels; but Tertullian, St. Basil, Theodoret, and St. Irenæus, laugh at this foolish objection (2), for the very words, " to our image and likeness," dispose of it, for man is not created to the image of the angels, but of God himself. Thirdly. They object, that God spoke with himself then, as if exciting himself to create man, as a sculptor might say, "Come, let us make a statue." St. Basil (3), opposing the Jews, disposes of this argument. "Do we ever see a smith,' he says, "when sitting down among his tools, say to himself-Come, let us make a sword?" The saint intends by this to prove, that, when God said, "let us make," he could not speak so to himself alone, but to the other Persons: for no one, speaking to himself, says, "let us make." It is clear, therefore, that he spoke with the other Divine Persons.

4. It is proved, also, from the Psalms (ii. 7): "The Lord hath said to me, thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Here mention is made of the Father begetting the Son, and of the Son begotten; and in the same Psalm the promise is made: "I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession." Here a clear distinction is drawn between the Person of the Son and the Person of the Father, for we cannot say it is the same Person who begets and is begotten.

(1) Theod. qu. 19, in Gen. Hon. 9 in Hexamer.; Theod. qu. loc. cit. p. 87.

(2) Tertull. 1. contra Prax. c. 12; St. Basil, t. 1; (3) St. Basil,

19, in Gen.; St. Iræn. . 4, n. 37.

And St. Paul declares that these words refer to Christ the Son of God: "So Christ also did not glorify himself, that he might be made a high priest, but he that said unto him: Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee" (Heb. v. 5.)

5. It is also proved by the 109th Psalm: "The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand;" and it was this very passage that our Saviour made use of to convince the Jews, and make them believe that he was the Son of God. "What think you of Christ, said he? Whose Son is he? They say to him: David's. He saith to them: How, then, doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, &c. If David then call him Lord, how is he his Son?" (Mat. xxii. 42-45). Christ wished by this to prove that, although the Son of David, he was still his Lord, and God, likewise, as his Eternal Father was Lord.

6. The distinction of the Divine Persons was not expressed more clearly in the Old Law, lest the Jews, like the Egyptians, who adored a plurality of Gods, might imagine that in the three Divine Persons there were three Essential Gods. In the New Testament, however, through which the Gentiles were called to the Faith, the distinction of the three Persons in the Divine Essence is clearly laid down, as is proved, first from St. John, i. 1: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Now, by the expression, "the Word was with God," it is proved that the Word was distinct from the Father, for we cannot say of the same thing, that it is with itself and nigh itself at the same time. Neither can we say that the Word was distinct by Nature, for the text says, "the Word was God;" therefore, the distinction of Persons is clearly proved, as St. Athanasius and Tertullian agree (4). In the same chapter these words occur: "We saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only-begotten of the Father." Here no one can say, that the Son is begotten from himself; the Son, therefore, is really distinct from the Father.

7. It is proved, also, from the command given to the Apostles: "Go, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Mat. xxviii. 19). Hence the words, in the name, denote the unity of Nature, and signify that Baptism is one sole operation of all the three named Persons; and the distinct appellation afterwards given to cach Person, clearly proves that they are distinct. And, again, if these three Persons were not God, but only creatures, it would be absurd to imagine that Christ, under the same name, would liken creatures to God.

8. It is proved, also, by that text of St. John: "Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also....... I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete" (John, xiv. 9, 16). By the

(4) Tert. adv. Prax. c. 26; St. Ath. Orat. contr. Sab Gregal.

words, "he that seeth me seeth the Father," he proves the unity of the Divine Nature; and by the other expression, "I will ask," &c., the distinction of the Persons, for the same Person cannot be at once the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is even more fully explained by the words of St. John, xv. 26: "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father shall send my name."

in

9. It is also proved by that text of St. John: "There are three who give testimony in heaven-the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" (1 John, v. 7.) Nor is the assertion of the adversaries of the Faith, that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, are merely different in name, but not in reality, of any avail, for then it would not be three testimonies that are given, but only one alone, which is repugnant to the text. The Socinians labour hard to oppose this text especially, which so clearly expresses the distinction of the three Divine Persons, and they object that this verse is wanting altogether in many manuscripts, or, at all events, is found only in part; but Estius, in his commentaries on this text of St. John, says, that Robert Stephens, in his elegant edition of the New Testament, remarks that, having consulted sixteen ancient copies collected in France, Spain, and Italy, he found that, in seven of them, the words "in heaven" alone were omitted, but that the remainder of the text existed in full. The Doctors of Louvain collected a great number of manuscripts for the edition of the Vulgate brought out in 1580, and they attest that it was in five alone that the whole text was not found (5). It is easy to explain how a copyist might make a mistake in writing this verse, for the seventh and eight verses are so much alike, that a careless copyist might easily mix up one with the other. It is most certain that in many ancient Greek copies, and in all the Latin ones, the seventh verse is either put down entire, or, at least, noted in the margin; and, besides, we find it cited by many of the Fathers, as St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Fulgentius, Tertullian, St. Jerome, and Victor Vitensis (6). The Council of Trent, above all, in its Decree of the Canonical Scriptures, Sess. IV., obliges us to receive every book of the Vulgate edition, with all its parts, as usually read in the Church: "If any one should not receive as holy and canonical the entire books, with all their parts, as they are accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and contained in the old Vulgate edition..... let him be anathema." The seventh verse quoted is frequently read in the Church, and especially on Low Sunday.

10. The Socinians, however, say that it cannot be proved from

(5) Tournel. Theol. Comp. t. 2, qu. 3, p. 41; Juenin. Theol. t. 3, c. 2. (6) St. Cypr. 7. 1, de Unit. Eccl.; St. Ath. l. 1. ad Theoph.; St. Epiph. Hær.; St. Fulg. 1. contra Arian.; Tertull. 1. adv. Prax. 25; St. Hier. (aut Auctor) Prol. ad Ep. Canon. Vitens. 7. 3, de Pers. Afr.