only a modal distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. What is Tritheism, he also shews us plainly, namely, that it is to hold that the three persons in the Trinity are of a different nature, or separated and divided from each other; or that there is more than one fountain or principle of the Divinity. According to which account, Dr. Sherlock is certainly clear from the charge of Tritheism: the catholic doctrine he declares to be this, 'That there are three really distinct hypostases in the Godhead, and yet that there is but one God, because the Father only is the head of the Divinity, and the Son and Holy Ghost as they are derived from Him, so they exist in Him, and are inseparably united to Him.'" Mr. Nelson, also, observes in his Life of Bishop Bull, p. 291, that,

Dr. Sherlock had "so expressed himself, as to seem to destroy the unity of the Deity, and to make himself suspected of Tritheism by more than a few; though our learned author, in his Discourse of the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, seems to clear him from that charge."

Hence we see, that so long as Dean Sherlock maintained this doctrine of the three hypostases, he was at liberty to understand them to be three distinct intelligent agents, three distinct infinite minds or spirits, or three distinct infinite beings, and yet that he need not be considered as erring from the faith of the catholic church, or that of primitive antiquity; while, on the other hand, those who maintained one numerical essence of the Deity, in opposition to the doctrine of the specific unity, and that the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were modal distinctions of that one numerical essence, had come very near the heresy of Sabellianism.

The case, therefore, is as follows. Dr. Sherlock maintained, that the Trinity were three distinct minds, three distinct spirits, three distinct intelligent beings: to say otherwise he regarded as heresy and nonsense. In this he was joined by various other clergy. On the other hand, the

convocation of the University denounced this doctrine as Tritheistical; while Dr. Bull, in whose orthodoxy the University reposed the highest confidence, afterwards pronounces the work to be not Tritheistical.

Now when we consider that each party disclaimed the errors imputed to them by the other; that for instance Dean Sherlock declared that his doctrine was not Tritheistical, and South, Wallis, and others, that their doctrine was not Sabellian; it is clear that there was a misconception somewhere of what Sabellianism is, and what it is not; of what is Tritheism, and what it is not.

First, then, with regard to Sabellianism, let us hear Dr. Whitby.* (See Last Thoughts of Dr. Whitby: Preface.) It is rightly observed by Justin Martyr, in the beginning of his exhortation to the Greeks, that "an exact scrutiny into things doth often produce conviction, that those things which we once judged to be right, were, after a more diligent inquiry into truth, found to be otherwise. And truly I am not ashamed to say, this is my case. For when I wrote my Commentaries on the New Testament, I went on too hastily, I own, in the common beaten road of other reputed orthodox divines; conceiving first that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in one complex notion, were one and the same God, by virtue of the same individual essence communicated from the Father. This confused notion I am now fully convinced, by the arguments I have offered here, and in the second part of my Reply to Dr. Waterland, to be a thing impossible, and full of gross absurdities and contradictions. And then, as a natural consequence from this doctrine, I secondly concluded that these divine persons differed only in the manner of their existence. And yet, what that can signify in the Son according to this doctrine, it will not, I think, be very easy intelligibly to declare. That the difference can be only For a further account of Sabellianism, see Newman's History of the

Arians.

modal, even Dr. South has fully demonstrated; and that this was the opinion generally received from the fourth century, may be seen in the close of my first part to Dr. Waterland. And yet the Right Rev. Bishop Bull positively affirms that this is rank Sabellianism, in these words: 'A person cannot be conceived without essence, unless you make a person in divine matters to be nothing else but a mere mode of existence, which is manifest Sabellianism.' And the judicious Dr. Cudworth tells us, that the orthodox AntiArian fathers did all of them zealously condemn Sabellianism, the doctrine whereof is no other but this, that there is but one hypostasis or single individual essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and consequently, that they were indeed but three names, or notions, or modes, of one and the selfsame thing; whence such absurdities as these would follow, that the Father's begetting the Son was nothing but a name, notion, or mode of one deity begetting another; or else the same deity under one notion begetting itself under another notion. And when again, the Son or Word is said to be Incarnate, and to have suffered death for us upon the cross, that it was nothing but a mere logical notion or mode of the Deity under one particular notion or mode only.' That the doctrine of the Sabellians was exactly the same with that of those who style themselves the orthodox, asserting that the Father and the Son are numerically one and the same God, is evident from the words of Athanasius and Epiphanius, both testifying that to say the Father and the Son were μονοέσιοι οι ταυτούσιοι, of one and the same substance, was Sabellianism: and surely, of consequence to contend, that this is the doctrine of England, is to dishonor our church, and in effect to charge her with that heresy, which was exploded with scorn by the whole church of Christ, from the third to the present century. In a word, all notions of the word person, besides the plain and obvious one, signifying a real and intelligent agent, have been already

so excellently baffled and learnedly confuted, that I own I am not able to resist the shining evidence of truth." Bayle's Dictionary: Art. Whitby.

It will here be seen that Dr. Whitby, before the alteration of his views from orthodoxy to alleged Arianism, maintained that there was one substance of the Deity having three modal distinctions or persons. That he considered this to be the orthodox faith, and to be the faith of all the orthodox theologians with whom he was acquainted; that it was under this impression that he wrote his Comments on the Gospels and Epistles, which to this day are reputed orthodox. On the other hand, Bull, Waterland, South, and others, maintain that this is not the opinion of the fathers, or of the church, as Whitby and others had asserted, but is Sabellianism.

The difference between the two appears to be this: according to South and others, a person is a substance modally distinguished; according to Whitby, a person is a modal distinction. The former considered the person to be the substance, having a given mode, or modally distinguished; the latter considered the person to be the mode, as contemplated separately from the substance. Without entering into the dispute, we shall have occasion, in the second chapter, to point out, in the application of the doctrine of Bishop Bull, a departure from it among the orthodox; and to shew that they sometimes separate the person from the substance, and the substance from the person, as truly as do those who are denominated Sabellians.

We may here add with respect to Dr. Whitby's view of Sabellianism, that certainly if his were a true statement of the doctrine, we should regard it as absurd; and should make no hesitation in saying, that to suppose a person to be a mere mode and not a substance, is nonsense.

To affirm, as some do, that Swedenborg held such a doctrine, is pure fiction. His view of the Trinity in Unity, is, that God is one substance; that this one substance is one

person, who is that one substance, and not a mere mode separated from the substance; that in this one substance, which is one person, there are three real distinctions, and not merely nominal, as it is said Sabellius held; that these three distinctions are those of goodness, wisdom, and power; consequently that there is one divine substance and person, distinguished according to degrees (not modes) in a threefold manner, as expressed by Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; that between these three there is a subordination of the second to the first, and of the third to the second,-the same with that of wisdom to love, and of power to wisdom.

Thus much will suffice with regard to the uncertainty as to what Sabellianism is, and what it is not; let us now advert to the uncertainty as to what is Tritheism.

The question of Tritheism belongs entirely to the Roman and the Protestant Churches; neither of which, I believe, have as yet thought of imputing this error to the writings of Swedenborg; although this imputation would be quite as reasonable as others which they make.

In remarking upon this subject, we shall begin by observing that in the year 1699, a little after the time of some of the foregoing discussions, was published a work of great learning and repute, by Dr. Allix, entitled, Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church against the Unitarians, &c. This called forth an answer from the Rev. Stephen Nye, Rector of Hormead. On these two works Mr. Bayle makes the following remarks:

"He (Mr. Nye) charges Dr. Allix with being a Tritheist ; because he sometimes speaks of God in the plural number, and says that the three divine persons are three beings, three uncreated spirits. But if Dr. Allix's notion be Tritheistical, I do not know what to make of Mr. Nye's notion, except they be Sabellian. For if the three persons be but three distinctions, an eternal Spirit, a divine self-knowledge begotten by that spirit, and a divine self-complacence which