Jesus, the son of Mary, is the Son of God, because he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and because the Word, or wisdom of God, which is always in God, and is an attribute inseparable from him, manifested its energy in his person, to reveal to him the truths he was to impart to man, and to clothe him with power necessary to confirm these truths by miracles. The Word never proceeded from the Father, in any other sense than our reason, so to speak, proceeds from us, when it makes known by words and commands, our thoughts and wishes. So the Word, which was in Jesus Christ, is only a Word declarative, which imparted to him the doctrines of salvation, and a Word operative, which conferred on him miraculous power. The union of the Divine Word with the person of Jesus Christ, is not a substantial union, but only of energy, or operation. Thus the Sabellians recognised no hypostatic union of the Divine essence with the human nature of Jesus Christ. It is only an operation of the Divinity, a full effusion of the divine wisdom and energy into the soul of the Saviour.

Such being the system of Sabellius and his followers, it is clear that they never merited the title of Patripassians.

The Sabellians may be vindicated from another absurdity imputed to them by all authors, who have treated of their heresy, though evidently founded on a false exposition of their system. It is said that they confounded the persons of the Father and Son, that

they figured to themselves a God who is the Father of himself, and Son of himself, and as the Greeks express it, a Son-Father. Origen is one of the first,

who advanced this paradox. These sectaries,' says he, under pretext of honoring God, confound the notions of Father and Son, and say that the Father and the Son are one person. They conceive of them as but one subject, and distinguish them only in thought, and by appropriating to them different names.'*

This language is sophistical and inaccurate. Instead of saying with Origen, that according to the Sabellians, the Father and the Son are only one Person, we should say, the Father and his Word are only one Person. The former proposition is false in the system of Sabellius, the latter true.

When the ancients denounce Sabellianism, they perpetually confound the Word and the Son of God, because in the theology of the church the Word and the Son are the same person. But in the Sabellian theology, they are two very different things. The Word is not the Son of God; it is only an attribute, a faculty, a property of the divine nature. It is the man Jesus Christ, who became the Son of God, by the communication of the Word, as Marcellus says in Eusebius. Hence the Noetians reproached the Orthodox with introducing language, which was novel and strange, in calling the Word, the Son of God. This appellation belonged only to the man Jesus, and simply man, by nature, however great by gifts. Sabellianism and Socinianism, as the learned have remarked, differ very little, if in any thing.

*Origen did not know Sabellius, since he died about the year 253, and the Sabellian heresy is referred to about the year 255. Bu: this heresy was that of Noetus, more ancient than Origen,

The Sabellians having distinguished between the man Jesus, who is the Christ and Son of God, and the Word, which is an attribute of the Father, and not his Son, I feel compelled to say, that we cannot with propriety impute to them the extravagant absurdity, that one only and the same Person is the Father of himself, and the Son of himself; that this Person sometimes appeared under the naine of the Father, and sometimes under that of the Son. They never said any thing like this, nor can it be justly inferred from their principles. They made as much difference between the Word and the Son of God, as between an attribute inseparable from the Divinity, and a man whom it pleased God to crown with extraordinary gifts. Far from believing that the Word was personally united with the Son of God, who is the man Jesus Christ, they believed that the presence of the Word in Jesus Christ was only a presence of assistance and operation, which is to cease when the redemption of the faithful shall be consummated by their res urrection and immortality. I hope these explanations will not be displeasing to the reader. Just ideas of things are always agreeable to the lovers of truth.

STATE OF RELIGION IN FRANCE.

No one can look on the present condition of France without the deepest interest. The political revolution, which she has just passed through, must needs command an extraordinary degree of the public attention. Speculation of course, is busy, in predicting the probable influence of the late changes in her government, both upon her own internal prosperity, and upon her relations with the other nations of Europe. But her religious state and prospects, present a subject at least of equal interest to the christian and the philanthropist. The direction which she shall take in this respect, is connected with many of our brightest hopes of human improvement. What an influence has she already exerted on the religious world! How few of the popular weapons of infidelity, that are not derived from the well furnished armory of the French scoffers of the last century! How much is now in her power to repair the evils, produced by the godless school of wits and philosophers, who are beginning to be appreciated according to their real characters! There is considerable truth in the declaration of a recent French journalist, that the day is not far distant, when France will open a school for the nations. Her local situation, her political importance, her liberal institutions, the strength and vivacity of her national character, give her the means of exercising a great moral influence over other countries.* If regenerated to a firm and enlightened

*See Revue Protestante for Jan. 1830, p. 17, to different numbers of which excellent work we are indebted for several facts and ideas contained in the present article.

faith in Christianity, France will draw after her the most lofty destinies. We have thought that some remarks on this subject might not be uninteresting, at the present moment, and though we cannot enter deeply into it, we will not withhold from our readers such brief hints as have occurred to us.

The prevalence of unbelief and irreligion in that country has been well understood. At the time of the first revolution, as every body is aware, the spirit of speculative infidelity, and even in many instances, of bold and malignant hostility to religion, was spread throughout the land. The upper classes of society were poisoned by the general corruption of manners, and abandonment of principle, while the mass of the people were prepared by the destitution of religious faith and sentiment, to enact their part in the bloody scenes which desolated the country. There seemed to be nothing which could prevent the entire destruction of religion and morals. In fact, christianity was formally renounced, and the truths of natural religion, if not called in question and denied, had no perceptible effect, on the body of the nation. After the establishment of the empire, and during the wars of Napoleon, the public mind was too much distracted by the events of that period to permit any general attention to a subject, which was so repugnant to the spirit of the times, so remote from the ordinary interests of men, as was thought to be the case with all religious considerations. Still a better spirit was at work. There were then individuals of clear and reflecting minds, who perceived the religious deficiencies of the nation. They were not permitted to speak plainly, but the silent thought which they cherished, was a preparation for important