meant the union of two Natures in Christ, and the dissolving of this would be implied in the assertion of one Person in the Trinity. If the Arian notion were true, the Word and flesh became one without a soul: if the Sabellian were true, Christ must have been either merely influenced by an energy of the one-person God, or else have had the Father for his soul. If the latter were his view, of course there would be the greatest difficulty upon the part of Sabellius to admit the truth of that doctrine of the Maternity which so forcibly implies a distinction of persons in the Trinity. If, however, Christ was with him, a mere man having a certain divine energy at work in him, like a ray from the sun, capable of being drawn back again, then he would like to give his Christ the same kind of preeminence which Eusebius bountifully bestowed upon him. If he had been asked when this energy put itself first forth in Christ, and assigned his childhood as the period, John the Baptist might rise from the dead, and reproach him for not conceding to Christ a greater honour than he had who was the servant. He must then have been driven to give the energy its beginning at the very first, and consequently would not have conceded to Mary a privilege which would have made a lily in Christ's court as great, as Sabellius could make the antitype of Solomon himself. But, perhaps, we know so little of the Sabellian theory of the Incarnation, except as exhibited in some of its later disciples, that it is not wise to add more here. For the general tendency of the theories

• Vide Anselm. cur Deus guage of Nazianzen given above, Homo. ii. cap. 9. p. 328.

a Petav. de Inc. i. 3. 7. Epiph. 62. init. and observe the lan

e

Chap. vi. 7.

of these last having been already pointed out, materials have been also already furnished in considering other heresies for finding their bearing in regard to the Immunity. Enough has been said to make it credible, that if any of those now reserved in darkness for the judgment, on account of any heresy in the Incarnation, were asked his opinion, he would be found a most decided opponent of the privilege the Church'delighteth to honour.'

9. It has been observed by a judicious commentator upon Homer', that it is not the great bard himself, but others who have represented Helen as else than modest. If this were so, it was not amiss that so many heroes, with so many ships and so many men, should so long labour in defence of injured purity. The length of the defence has increased Helen's celebrity; though one of their greatest champions for a long while held aloof from the war in her behalf, it was not from any doubts against her, but from want of encouragement to himself to proceed. But one Grecian nation is said to have furnished neither heroes, nor men, nor ships, for the battle. Of them Simonides is reported to have observed with severity:

Troy with Corinthians hath no fault to find.' This principle it has been my endeavour to apply in the present chapter. The heroes in theology have done well to fight with all their forces in behalf of the Immaculate Virgin, and the enemy of purity doubtless will feel his anger stirred against those who shew, that she whom he would fain have men believe was his prey, is guiltless of the charge. But heretical doctors will not earn the blame of their infernal master for defending this privilege, because Löwe ad Odyss. iv. p. 125.

in all they did do and teach, they furnished premises for its refutation. Hell with the heretics hath no fault to find. They have done nothing to make men believe that the Woman did really bruise his head".

CHAP. VII.

THE CONTROVERSIES ON THE INCARNATION A KEY TO THE CHURCH'S MIND ON THE IMMUNITY.

1. In the last chapter, we had occasion to consider the several heresies on the Incarnation, and to shew that their upholders could not well have taken our side upon the subject of the Immunity. Heresies no doubt were plied against the Church by Satan in such order, as he thought best suited to the furtherance of his kingdom upon earth. Valentinus, Manes, or Apollinaris, he raised up (so to speak) in early time, to furnish a kind of mock antiquity to the whole tribe of the Eutychians. Sabellius did nearly the same for the Unitarians, as did other early heresies for other later ones. But one most observable piece of policy is, that he raised up heresies in pairs, which seldom could be combated by one Doctor in his own lifetime. A great advantage to be gained by this was, that each succeeding heresy could always contrive to make the orthodox appear to hold the extreme, which was opposite to itself. The fact, that the Eutychian party tried to shelter themselves under the authority of St. Cyril, is a good instance to shew the advantage of such policy to Satan's kingdom. Nevertheless, if the order of heresies be capable of being regarded on one side as resulting from the policy of Satan, it may be also regarded on another as resulting from the restraining

hand of Almighty God. If God saw that the principles developed in the Trinitarian controversy would be necessary for the refutation of Nestorianism, and those developed in controverting the latter for the refutation of Eutychianism, and those developed in refuting this for the controverting of Monothelitism; then we see, why he should allow Satan not the order he might like the best, but that best suited to manifest the glory of his Church. God gave prophecies of Mary from the very first; he shewed her glory more clearly in Jael; he spoke of it still more plainly in Isaias, in the Jewish Church; and in the Christian he poured forth doctrine as prophecy", developing it in a similar order, allowing Satan perhaps to attack the Church just in that particular order which was best suited to display in organic growth, and in a written form, what he had printed on the mind of his Church from the first.

2. Yet it is possible, notwithstanding this, that Satan himself had an organized scheme of attack upon the Church; and if we possessed more of the writings of ancient heretics, we might find traces of this scheme in those whom he had inspired with the doctrine of devils. In the first Lateran Council, a fragment of a heretic of St. Athanasius' time is produced, which anticipates future heresies almost as strikingly as the Saint did the principles calculated to refute them. "Where is the need of a soul," says this heretic, "in order, that a perfect man may be worshipped along with God: wherefore John proclaims this truth, the Word was made flesh,' that is, was compounded with flesh, not with a soul,

See part i. chap. i. §. 10. b Ecclus. xxiv. 33 or 46. • Hence St. Paul (Ephes. iv.

14.) speaks of μεθοδεία τῆς πλάνης. cf. vi. 11.