Page:Illustrations of the End of the Church.djvu/135

Rh it is certain that Swedenborg does not,—nay, to do so, we should regard as a fundamental error. But the doctrine of the Trinity must not be identified with that of the Tripersonality; they are very different things.

Thus much with regard to the Sabellian confusion of the offices of Father and Son.

We now proceed to the second consideration; namely, that the doctrine of Sabellius, as also of Swedenborg, teaches Patripassianism; consequently, the passibility of the Divine Nature. Without vindicating the doctrine of Sabellius, it may be observed, that this has been denied by Epiphanius and others; who, nevertheless, were opponents of that doctrine. One reason for which they have so denied it, may have been this,—that if, according to the commonly received doctrine, it may be said, that the second person of the Trinity may suffer, and yet not his Divine Nature; by parity of reason it follows, that, if the first person suffered, it does not necessarily imply that the Divine Nature suffered. Again: if from the assumption that the Father became incarnate, it necessarily follows that the Divine Nature suffered; by parity of reason it follows, that, if the Son became incarnate, it was his Divine Nature that suffered. If, however, it be Sabellianism, to hold that the Divine Nature suffered, we shall see that the commonly received doctrine borders so nearly upon it, that the ordinary Christian must be unable to—perceive the difference. Indeed, the real heresy which has been professedly rejected by the church, has not been that of the passibility of God, but the passibility of God in one person instead of the other. Before, however, we enter upon this subject, it may be well to ask first, where the great evil is in supposing the Divine Nature to have suffered; may we not presume that it shews the great love of God for us, in