« PoprzedniaDalej »
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 fat 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. 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 er 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.'
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.
tinct from what we call his Attributes, would be a refine* ment so absurd, that, under the appearance of more accurate knowledge, it would betray our ignorance the more*.' Where the Divine attributes inhere, there,-if we may be allowed the expression, or-that is God. If the Son of God be, as touching his Essence, my Creator, preserver, regenerator, lord, and judgemthe cause by whom (per quem) I am, the Source from whom I receive all things, the Dispenser of my final happiness,—the Almighty, the All-sufficient, whose glory is the light of heaven and the joy of all its blessed inhabitants,—then, whatever metaphysical difficulties may be raised respecting the properties of the Divine Essence,—my faith cannot mistake its object.
(To be continued.)
Art. II. Voyage en Angleterre et en Russie.— Travels in England
and in Russia, during the Years 1821, 1822, and 1823. By
Edouard de Montulé. 2 vols. 8vo. pp. 674. Paris, 1825. IF F we may judge of the impression made on the minds of
foreigners by our printed travels in their countries, from the effects which the speculations of their voyageurs concerning England, produce on our feelings, we must seem a very absurd and laughter-moving people. It is really marvellous, and pretty considerably’ provoking, to read the whimsicalities, not to say the malignancies, which some of our foreign visiters will broach as fearlessly as if a six weeks' tour had been a six years' domiciliation. There was a General Pillet, some years back, who, in revenge for a captivity on parole of no very long duration, amused himself with venting all manner of gross and calumnious fabrications against our national character. And there has been, recently, a Dr. Pichot, who has published some very amusing letters about England, much, no doubt, to the edification of his correspondents, but tending much more to the illustration of certain sufficiently disadvantageous peculiarities in the excellent Doctor's own intellectual and moral constitution.
The temperament of a publishing traveller ought to be very equable. He should by no means be a humorist, and his
* Works, Vol. IV. p. 344.
pulse should always beat healthful time, He should have much charity, both natural and cultivated, towards both block heads and bigots, since they are a breed that he will encounter in all countries, not excepting his own. Many things must cross his path that he will not like, more that he cannot understand ; and he should be prepared either to investigate or to forget the one, and quietly to tolerate the other. If all nations thought and felt and lived alike, the zest of travelling would be gone, and the spell of our own fire-side, with its hovering influences of home-felt delight, would lose of its intensity. It is the faculty of identifying himself with all the varieties of national character and custom, not less than that of detecting them with keen and discriminating glance, that distinguishes the successful tourist; and, all other qualities of curiosity, acquisition, activity being equal, the best natured and most accommodating traveller will secure the largest and ripest harvest of facts and illustrations. No representation can be trust-worthy, when the original has been seen through an impure medium. A mist has the effect of enlarging masses, obscuring outlines, neutralising colours, and confounding shadows. Now, what a fog is to the picturesque, prejudice is to every object that comes under the cognizance of the mind. If we set out on our travels with an exclusive prepossession in favour of our own habits, national and personal, we shall be sufferers at every stage, and resolute grumblers in the mass; but if we take up the more philosophical principle of something to commend in each, and all things to be tolerated in all-we shall both journey more comfortably on the way, and bring home the larger stock of information in the end. To take our own feelings and habits with us, as the unvarying scale of comparison, is to assume, instead of proving the right; it is, moreover, to deprive ourselves of the great practical benefit of knowledge, the improvement of what is defective in our own system.
There are two ways of looking at every subject, the smiling and the vinegar aspect.' An Englishman of fashion will quarrel with the Vetturini of Italy, because they are not dressed in scarlet and gold like the post-boys of Salt-Hill :an artist is delighted with their effect as figures in the landscape. If one of our commercial travellers, on a holiday trip to Brussels and Waterloo, chances to get imprisoned in a treckschuyt, he gets fidgety at the stoppages and slow movements, wonders at the odd people that surround him, meets with a • Monsieur Kaniferstane' at every turn, and thinks every moment an hour till he gets back to his lodgings at Pentonville. A differently gifted person admires the different