when the Word was with God," and laid him under a sort of necessity to exhibit the Word in distinct personality, as an object, not of faith merely, but of imagination, and as the separate agent in distinct transactions. The abstract metaphysical positions of theologians failed him here. They presented nothing tangible to his grasp or footing. He had at once to achieve the work of the theologian and that of the poet, and yet, if possible, to keep them distinct, never suffering fancy to invade the office of Revelation, but ever bearing in mind the command, while framing this gorgeous tabernacle for Divine Truth, "See that thou make all things according "to the pattern shewed thee in the mount." Without venturing to apologize for either his poetical or his theological errors, we must be permitted to give expression to our astonishment, that he has fallen into no worse improprieties. Who but he, while thus soaring into the heaven of invention,

Upon the seraph-wings of Ecstacy,'

would have preserved that perfect self-possession, calmness, and sobriety of manner which he always displays when he approaches the precincts of such awful themes? And who, that had been beguiled, like Milton, into the semi-Arian hypothesis, which his theme and argument almost seemed to demand, and at all events would contribute to recommend to his adoption,—would, like him, have maintained so reverential an adherence to the language of Scripture, that, with a few exceptions, his creed never leads him into improprieties of phraseology, so that the whole poem has been till now implicitly received as orthodox?

But while we think that the cast of his mind and the nature of his high enterprise might predispose him to this hypothesis, it is quite evident, that he adopted it on what appeared to him solid and scriptural grounds; nor are we left at a loss to know the steps of the process. The main argument on which he rests, is this; that Generation,' however explained, ⚫ must be an external efficiency.' This opinion, it will immediately be seen, he maintains in opposition to the dogma respecting the eternal generation of the Son, grounding his argument on the unauthorized statements of the orthodox on this point. The eternal and necessary existence of the Word, so far from being explained or proved by the tenet in question, is, by such language, involved in apparent contradiction. As a general position, it is self-evident, that generation, derivation, emanation, procession, not less than creation, imply an external efficiency; and every step that is taken to explain the manner of this generation, confirms this idea. Archbishop Secker, for

instance, in his excellent Lectures on the Creed, speaking of our Saviour, says: In respect of his Divine nature, he derived his being from the Father by an eternal generation.' And Witsius remarks, that the very idea of generation, properly so called, namely, that by which one is constituted the Son of any person, includes the communication of the same nature." * · How the communication of the essence to the Third Person by breathing,-differs from the communication of the same essence to the Second Person by generation, are mysteries,' he elsewhere remarks, the knowledge of which it has seemed good to the great Teacher to reserve for the celestial state. Accordingly, Milton remarks, that the ́ di⚫ vines themselves argue, that there is a certain emanation of the Son from the Father; for, though they teach that the Spirit is co-essential with the Father, they do not deny that it emanates, and goes out, and proceeds, and is breathed from the Father, which are all expressions denoting external ' efficiency.' In like manner, it has been usual with theologians to speak of the Father as the Fountain of Deity,'-a phrase which virtually concedes the derivation and dependence of the Word and the Spirit. By calling the Father the Fountain of the Deity or of the Trinity,' remarks the venerable John Brown of Haddington, by saying that the Divine essence is communicated, or that the Son and Spirit are produced, or that they have a personal, though not an essential dependence on the Father, learned men have inadvertently hurt this mystery, and given occasion to its enemies to blaspheme.' 'Whoever asserts that the Son owes his essence to the Father,' remarks Calvin, denies him to be self-existent.' He therefore contends, that as, according to the Scriptures, there is essentially but one God, the essence of both the Son and the Spirit ' is unbegotten.' In the next sentence, however, he draws what may seem a distinction too metaphysical for modern readers,

* See Witsius on the Apostles' Creed; translated (with copious notes) by the Rev. Donald Fraser of Galloway. 2 vols. 8vo. Glasgow, 1823, (Vol. I. p. 153.) We take this opportunity of bearing our testimony to the ability, learning, and diligence displayed by Mr. Fraser in this praiseworthy attempt to make the English reader acquainted with one of the best works of Witsius, and in the valuable notes, critical and theological, with which he has accompanied his Translation. We trust that this recommendation of the work to the notice of our readers, will answer all the purpose of a distinct review of the book, which scarcely comes within our province. We are indebted to Mr. F. for pointing out the passage cited from Secker. Dr. Owen and the late Principal Hill have, he remarks, used similar phraseology.

when he contends, that because the Father is the first in order, and hath of himself begotten the Logos, he is justly esteemed the original and fountain of the whole Divinity,*-intimating that the Son is personally though not essentially begotten, and that in a sense which, if applied to his essence, would make the Word a derived, communicated, or dependent subsistence. All this subtile confusion results from the attempt to press certain phrases into the service of a metaphysical philosophy, by taking them as explanatory or expressive of the mode of the Divine Existence, instead of receiving as a fact, and as all that we are concerned to know,-this testimony of the Father respecting his only, his well-beloved Son; that Jesus is, in a sense absolutely peculiar to himself, and not only supreme but exclusive and unique, the Son of the Living God, who is "in the bosom of the Father." Even when the word Son is made the subject of an over-curious etymological dissection, and we proceed to push our inquiries into the mode or nature of what has been called the Filiation of the Divine Logos, we are immediately stopped short by that impassable barrier of thick darkness which surrounds the proper sphere of reason. That Christ was eternally the Son of God as respects his ineffable dignity, may safely be affirmed, whether we hold with those who believe the Sonship of Christ to relate chiefly to his Mediatorial character and incarnation, or whether we consider it as the proper title of his essential Deity. But the moment that we begin to insist on the Eternal Sonship of Christ as a metaphysical dogma, expressive, not of his essential dignity and godhead, but of the nature of his subsistence in relation to the Father, we touch the borders of Arianism.

To escape from the entanglement of these contradictory explanations, Milton cut the knot. He denies the eternal and necessary generation of the Son, as a contradiction in terms; but, unhappily, agreeing with the divines of his day in understanding the word generation in a literal sense, as implying

* See Calvin's Institutes, (Allen's Transl.) vol. i. pp. 159, 163. Calvin's own words are. Nam quisquis essentiatum à Patre Filium esse dicit, à seipso negat esse....Ex Scripturis docemus unum essentialiter Deum esse, ideoque essentiam tam Filii quam Spiritus esse ingenitam. Sed quatenus Pater ordine primus est, atque ex se genuit suam Sapientiam, merito censetur principium et fons totius divinitatis. Ita Deus indefinitè est ingenitus, et Pater etiam persona respectu ingenitus.' And further on, Atqui alibi (Augustinus) ab hac calumnia. se purgat, ubi Patrem vocat principium totius deitatis, quia à nullo est ; prudenter scilicet expendens specialiter Patri adscribi Dei nomen, quod nisi ab ipso fiat initium, concipi nequeat simplex Dei unitas.?

mode of production, he founds on this his cardinal argument, that what was generated must have had a beginning. No

thing,' he says, can be more evident, than that God of his own will created, or generated, or produced the Son before all things, endued with the Divine nature, as, in the fulness of time, he miraculously begat him in his human nature of the Virgin Mary.' But, though symbolizing thus far with Arius, he differs most essentially from him in maintaining that the Son is consubstantial with the Father-Filii autem ex substantia ejus producti proprius erat Pater. Hence it will be seen, that he held literally and entirely the Nicene creed, believing in 'One Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one ⚫ substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.' The following sentences will, we think, clearly prove that he would have been able unreservedly to subscribe to every article of this confession.

'All these passages prove the existence of the Son before the world was made, but they conclude nothing respecting his generation from all eternity.' p. 83.

This point appears certain, notwithstanding the arguments of some of the moderns to the contrary, that the Son existed in the beginning, under the name of the Logos or Word, and was the first of the whole creation, by whom afterwards all other things were made, both in heaven and in earth.' p. 82.

The generation of the Divine nature is described by no one with more sublimity and copiousness than by the Apostle to the Hebrews, i. 2, 3. Whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, &c. It must be understood from this, that God imparted to the Son as much as he pleased of the Divine nature, nay, of the Divine substance itself, care being taken not to confound the substance with the whole essence, which would imply, that the Father had given to the Son what he retained numerically the same himself, which would be a contradiction of terms, instead of a mode of generation. This is the whole that is revealed concerning the generation of the Son of God. Whoever wishes to be wiser than this, becomes foiled in his pursuit after wisdom, entangled in the deceitfulness of vain philosophy, or rather of sophistry, and involved in darkness.' pp. 87, 8.

The only expressions in the Nicene creed which we can conceive of Milton's objecting to, are the words very God of very God;' because, if self-existence be understood equally of the Father and of the Son, as implied in that term, it is certain that Milton would have rejected it, and would have

treated as a contradiction, a phrase which seems to intimate a derived or secondary self-existence. In this respect, indeed, he contends for the simplicity and supremacy of the selfexistent Deity in the Father, and sometimes in language which seems to fall below his exalted sentiments of the Divine nature and substance' of the Son. When he comes to speak of the communication of the Divine attributes of Omnipresence, Omniscience, Supreme Authority, Omnipotence, the power of conversion, the act of creation, (as the secondary efficient cause,' per quem,) preservation, renovation, resuscitation, final judgement, and Divine glory,-all to the Son,it is painful to see how, to escape from the inference that these attributes prove essential Deity, he is compelled to have recourse to evasions and qualifications worthy only of the Socinian school. Unable, and what is more, unwilling to deny that our Lord is possessed of these attributes, he is reduced to the position that they do not attach to him absolutely,―although, in fact, absolutely,' in this connexion, means neither more nor less than really. Omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence do not admit of degrees, of being more or less absolute, even if we can conceive of their being derived or communicated, a second Omnipotence," to use our great Poet's own expression, or a second Omnipresence. He admits that Jehovah has "given his glory" to the Son, though "another" than the Father; but contends, and truly, though not consistently, that, by so doing, the Father does not alienate his glory from himself in imparting it to Him who is "the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person." Omissions, however, as well as unsatisfactory and incorrect assertions, will be found in this part of his argument, though nothing occurs which comes so nearly to a misrepresentation or perversion of Scripture, as a passage which we have already pointed out in the Paradise Lost, where he seemingly introduces Messiah as among the worshippers before the throne,

I among them chief."

In the Visions of the Beloved Disciple, the Lamb was not among those who circled the holy mount,' but was "in the midst of the throne,"-not among the worshippers, but receiving the worship of every creature in heaven and on earth. The throne of God and the Lamb" was the same; and " before the throne and before the Lamb" stood the multitude which no man could number. "The glory of God did lighten the city, and the Lamb was the light thereof." Now, with Archbishop Leighton, we maintain, that to pretend to give any explanation of the Divine Essence, as disVOL. XXV. N.S.

C