teaching theology, and this habitual use of the most eminent writers, ill comport with a spirit of unbounded freedom of opinion. Mr. Sumner remarks, that, in his general distribution of his system, Milton has closely followed the two divines above mentioned; and not only the arguments, but even whole sentences in his second part, are sometimes almost identically the same as in Wollebius. The treatise of this divine we have not seen, but Ames's "Marrow of sacred Divinity," translated out of the Latin, and published by order from the Honourable the House of Commons, now lies before us. Mr. Sumner remarks, that this Translation is very badly executed. The extracts which we shall proceed to lay before our readers, will shew, that to translate it was no easy task; and it may possibly appear to many, that it would have been no loss to the world, had it remained locked up in a learned language. After laying down in Chapters I., II., III., the definition, or nature of divinity, the distribution of the system, and the nature of faith, the learned divine proceeds, in the fourth chapter, to treat of God as the object of Faith, on which ineffable subject we have the following most lucid and practical remarks.

Now that which may be known of God (is) his sufficiency ⚫ and his efficiency. These two are the pillars of faith, the 'props of comfort, the incitements of piety, and the surest marks of true religion. The sufficiency of God is that whereby he himself hath sufficient in himself for himself and for us: hence also he is called All-sufficient. Gen. xvii. 1. This sufficiency of God is the first ground or reason of our faith, why we believe in him, viz. because he is able to give us life. Rom. iv. 20. The sufficiency of God is in his essence ' and subsistence. The essence of God is, that whereby he is a being absolutely first.... Hence it follows, first, that God is one, and only one; secondly, that God is of himself, that is, neither from another, nor of another, nor by another, nor for ⚫ another.'

6

Compare with this muddy theology, the following observations of Milton's on the same awful subject.

God is known, so far as he is pleased to make us acquainted with himself, either from his own nature or from his efficient power.

When we speak of knowing God, it must be understood with reference to the imperfect comprehension of man; for to know God as he really is, far transcends the power of man's thoughts, much more of his perception. (1 Tim. ví. 16.) God therefore has made as full a revelation of himself as our minds can conceive, or the weakness of our nature can bear.

It is impossible to comprehend accurately under any form of definition the Divine nature, for so it is called, 2 Pet. i. 4., that ye

might be partakers of the Divine nature-though nature does not here signify essence, but the Divine image, as in Gal. iv. 8. which by nature are no Gods, and born's Col. ii. 9. Oorns Rom. i. 20. To stov Acts xvii. 29. which words are all translated Godhead. But, though the nature of God cannot be defined, since he who has no efficient cause is essentially greatest of all, some description of it at least may be collected from his names and attributes.'

Here Milton appears, as a divine, to great advantage in comparison with his master. But let us now see how Dr. Ames, in his fifth chapter, proceeds to explain the subsistence of God, as distinct from his essence. Every sentence, in the original, is numbered, and forms a distinct paragraph; but for convenience' sake, we omit the breaks.

'The Subsistence of God is that one Essence, as it is with its personal properties. The same essence is common to three subsistences, and, as touching the Deity, every subsistence is ⚫ of itself. Nothing moreover is attributed to the Essence, which may not be attributed to every subsistence in regard of the Essence of it. But those things that are attributed properly to every Subsistence in regard of its subsistence, ⚫ cannot be attributed to the Essence. The Subsistences are distinguished from the Essence, as the manners of subsisting growing together with the same Essence are distinguished from the same absolutely considered. They are distinguished among themselves, as Relatives, by certain relative properties; so as one cannot be another; yet they are together in nature, neither can they be said to be former, or latter, but in order of beginning, and manner of subsisting. But seeing those relative properties are as it were individuating in an essence that lives spiritually and most perfectly: therefore those subsistences are rightly called persons. Now these properties are not ⚫ inherent qualities, but relative affections, unto which agrees all that perfection which is found in the like affections of the ⚫ creature, but no imperfection agreeth to them. Hence it is that a relative property in God doth make or infer a person, which in the creatures hath not the same reason. These subsistences are either breathing, as Father and Sonne, or breathed, as the Holy Spirit. To breathe, or send forth, is à relation, not such as by itself can make a person, but common to two persons. The relative property of the Father is to beget. Psal. ii. 7., John iii. 16., Heb. i. 6. Hence he

is the first in Order. The relative property of the Sonne is 'to be begotten, that is, so to proceed from the Father, that he is partaker of the same Essence, and doth perfectly re'semble his nature, and hence he is the second in order. Heb. i. 3. The property of the Holy Ghost is to be breathed or

sent forth and proceed both from the Father and the Sonne.

John xv. 26., Rom, viii. 2., Gal. iv. 6.'

The work in which this perilous jargon occurs, was printed by order of the Parliament as a work useful for this season' (1642). We may conclude that its authority stood high; and indeed, Milton would hardly have adopted it as a text-book, had it not been one of the most approved systems of divinity of that age. Nor were these the dogmas merely of Dr. William Ames. Attempts at explication and definition on this inscrutable subject, not less presumptuous and not much less unintelligible, have been received, applauded, and defended to the present hour. It is a happy circumstance, perhaps, when they are implicitly received by a pious mind, because, within the mysterious folds of an enigmatic disguise, they include the truth. Too often, the effect of these pernicious philosophizings is, to bewilder and distress an ingenuous mind, by awakening doubts to which it had hitherto been a stranger. On such a mind as Milton's, it is easy to conceive what an impression of utter dissatisfaction and disgust must have been made by this received explication of the orthodox doctrine. How could he possibly teach his pupils such divinity as this? He was, therefore, in a manner compelled to turn his attention to framing a system more accordant, in his own opinion, with the discoveries of Revelation. It is true, that the erroneous dogmas and false reasonings of the orthodox supply no reason for abandoning the truths they hold, and ruuning into opposite errors; but, in making good his escape from error on one side, it is seldom that the theologian does not pass beyond the confines of truth on the other. Milton regarded these human interpretations as unsupported by Scripture. He saw that with regard to such dogmas as these, the Romanists were right, they could be substantiated only by Tradition, which, to a true Protestant, will not pass for either evidence or authority. But he knew that the knowledge of God could be obtained only from Revelation. The Scriptural doctrine appeared to him to be lost, when it was only obscured under a cloud of logical subtilties; and he therefore set about its re-discovery.

We have already remarked, that Milton's mind was of a poetical, rather than of a philosophical cast,—that he was more imaginative than sceptical, more eloquent than severely reasoning. At the time that he first seriously turned his attention to the composition of his " Idea of Theology," he was engaged in the construction of his grand poem, in which, as in an intellectual pantheon, every part of theology was to be personified. His great argument led him far back into eternity,

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

sent forth and proceed both from the Father and the Sonne. John xv. 26., Rom. viii. 2., Gal. iv. 6.'.

The work in which this perilous jargon occurs, was printed by order of the Parliament as a work useful for this season' (1642). We may conclude that its authority stood high; and indeed, Milton would hardly have adopted it as a text-book, had it not been one of the most approved systems of divinity of that age. Nor were these the dogmas merely of Dr. William Ames. Attempts at explication and definition on this inscrutable subject, not less presumptuous and not much less unintelligible, have been received, applauded, and defended to the present hour. It is a happy circumstance, perhaps, when they are implicitly received by a pious mind, because, within the mysterious folds of an enigmatic disguise, they include the truth. Too often, the effect of these pernicious philosophizings is, to bewilder and distress an ingenuous mind, by awakening doubts to which it had hitherto been a stranger. On such a mind as Milton's, it is easy to conceive what an impression of utter dissatisfaction and disgust must have been made by this received explication of the orthodox doctrine. How could he possibly teach his pupils such divinity as this? He was, therefore, in a manner compelled to turn his attention to framing a system more accordant, in his own opinion, with the discoveries of Revelation. It is true, that the erroneous dogmas and false reasonings of the orthodox supply no reason for abandoning the truths they hold, and running into opposite errors; but, in making good his escape from error on one side, it is seldom that the theologian does not pass beyond the confines of truth on the other. Milton regarded these human interpretations as unsupported by Scripture. He saw that with regard to such dogmas as these, the Romanists were right, they could be substantiated only by Tradition, which, to a true Protestant, will not pass for either evidence or authority. But he knew that the knowledge of God could be obtained only from Revelation. The Scriptural doctrine appeared to him to be lost, when it was only obscured under a cloud of logical subtilties; and he therefore set about its re-discovery.

We have already remarked, that Milton's mind was of a poetical, rather than of a philosophical cast,—that he was more imaginative than sceptical, more eloquent than severely reasoning. At the time that he first seriously turned his attention to the composition of his " Idea of Theology," he was engaged in the construction of his grand poem, in which, as in an intellectual pantheon, every part of theology was to be personified. His great argument led him far back into eternity,