MILTON'S TREATISE OF CHRISTIAN

DOCTRINE.

Under the head of Literary and Philosophical Intelligence, in our number for October last, we gave from the London Literary Gazette, a full and correct exhibition of the general contents of this long lost work of the greatest of modern poets-in regard to which there has been, ever since its discovery was announced, a deeply excited curiosity throughout the learned world. It has recently been reprinted in our country, at Boston; and we were preparing ourselves, by a very careful perusal, for its review, when we received our number of the Evangelical Magazine for December last; which contains a review, much like that which we had contemplated. Our first intention, indeed, had been, to make our review extensive and particular: but this design we abandoned, on considering, not only the scantiness of our pages, but the probability that those who wish for an intimate knowledge of these singular volumes such they truly are-will read the whole for themselves. We think that the contents of the work in our October number, the short review which we shall extract from the Evangelical Magazine, and some additional remarks of our own, will satisfy those of our readers who will not be disposed to peruse the book at large. If however, we shall hereafter find, that the essays announced in the review we publish, or that any other remarks or strictures that we may meet with, or be disposed to make ourselves, will probably be useful or gratifying to our readers, they shall certainly not be withheld. The American edition of the work, which is very handsomely executed, is printed in two octavo vo

lumes. It appears by the following title, which stands at the head of the article in the Evangelical Magazine, that the British publication was in the quarto form; and it strikes us that the price was unusually high.

"A Treatise on Christian Doctrine; compiled from the Holy Scriptures alone. By John Milton. Translated from the Original by Charles R. Sumner, M. A., Librarian and Historiographer to His Majesty, and Prebendary of Canterbury. 4to. 21, 10s. common paper; 51. 5s. best. Knight, PallMall.

The genius and learning of the Commonwealth have raised it to a pre-eminent distinction in the annals of our country's glory. In every department of human knowledge it boasted of men who shed a lustre on their own times, and who lived for the good of posterity. After the detraction of ages, it is pleasing to find, that the memory of those unrivalled individuals who flourished in this illustrious period, is emerging gloriously from that cloud with which political prejudice has attempted to obscure it, and is promising, once more, to impart a character of thought and energy to the busy age in which we live. There was a time, when to mention the name of Cromwell, or any of the leading men who adhered to his administration, was to awaken the clamour of fanaticism, hypocrisy, and treason; but this virulent slang is every day becoming less welcome to all ranks and classes in the community, and a more dispassionate judgment is beginning to be exercised, in reference to men and measures which have been too long viewed through a jaundiced medium.

We cannot but view Mr. Sumner's preface to the work before us, as a most honourable specimen of that species of candour to which we have alluded. Although a clergyman of the National Church, and high in ecclesiastical and royal favour, he has ventured to speak of the Protectorate in terms of considerable respect. At least, he has not allowed himself to employ the language of ungenerous invective, but has dealt with exemplary fairness in speaking of talents and character, which nothing but a puny prejudice would ever have dared to impugn. We are, indeed, highly delighted with Mr. Sumner's preface; not more by the liberal spirit which it breathes, than by the perspicuous account which it gives of the great poet's theology. Upon the discovery, the identification, and the peculiarities of this posthumous volume, the learned translator has dwelt at large, and by the able critique which he has thereby furnished, has rendered, in a measure, the labours of all future reviewers unnecessary. His task, in all respects, is most ably performed; and whatever may be the opinion entertained respecting the work itself, there can be but one of the distinguished translator.

It is not without a pang of regret that we profess our belief, that this long lost system of theology is indeed the actual production of the immortal Milton. That it fell from his pen, and that too at a period of life when his judgment must have reached its utmost maturity, cannot for a moment be doubted. Whatever, therefore, might have been his earlier views of divine truth, it is but too lamentably evident, from this volume, that towards the close of his earthly pilgrimage they were, in many essential particulars, wretchedly erroneous and unscriptural. It is, indeed, harrowing to the feelings to learn, from Milton's own showing, that he believed the Son of God to be nothing more than an

exalted creature ;-that he held the materiality and death of the human soul;-that he denied the doctrine of justification by faith alone, without works;-that he maintained, in unqualified terms, the total abrogation of the Decalogue;-that he resolved the institution of the Christian Sabbath into a mere matter of expediency;-that he pleaded for the lawfulness of polygamy-and that he professed his belief that the Deity is possessed of some palpable form, and is agitated by passions similar to those which are common to the human bosom. With these cardinal errors are mixed up a variety of minor ones, equally characteristick of that spirit of unhallowed speculation, which, in the case of the great poet, was found to associate itself with an avowed contempt for human authority, and a profound deference for the word of God. To some of our Baptist brethren, it will not be a little gratifying to find that Milton was on their side. The triumph is, however, in some degree moderated by the circumstance, that his extreme heterodoxy in other particulars, must forever annihilate him as a theological authority. If, however, they will boast of him, let them not forget that he was an Arian, a Polygamist, a Materialist, a Humanitarian, and, in fact, an abettor of almost every error which has infested the church of God.

How little, alas! can mere genius effect in protecting the human mind from the influence of pernicious error, and in conducting it to a cheerful acquiescence in the revealed truth of Heaven! How affecting is it to see the most stupendous intellects, falling victims to the sorcery of an ingenious though deceitful theory, while the unlettered peasant holds on in the even tenor of his way, believing what God has said, and obeying what he has commanded!

When first we perused the objectionable parts of Milton's theo

logy, we were ready to say, what a pity is it that the work at large ever escaped from its ancient hiding-place! Upon reflection, however, we are now disposed to think somewhat differently; for it is surely not a small advantage, to know what can be said in support of dangerous opinions by men of gigantick powers. If such men as Milton can be confuted, nothing, or but little, is to be apprehended from inferior quarters. With these feelings we have resolved, in a series of Essays, to answer the most unscriptural parts of this elaborate work, and to furnish our numerous readers with the means of arriving at a conclusion satisfactory to their own minds, and agreeable to the word of God. We have been led

to form this resolution, partly because of the publicity which Milton's opinions have obtained in intelligent circles; and partly, be

cause, in a short review, we could not have entered into an effective discussion.

We conclude our present remarks by informing our readers, that although there is a host of errors in the volume before us, it has, nevertheless, some decided claims on the lovers of biblical knowledge. It is marked throughout, and even where the reasoning is perverse, by a very decided appeal to the sacred oracles. If the proofs selected from the Holy Scriptures are not always pertinent, they are at least, exceedingly numerous, and show that the distinguished author had not relinquished, in the progress of his speculations, a profound deference for the word of God. In some parts of the work, too, we have discovered passages of transcendent energy and pathos, which would bear comparison with the very richest of his other compositions. In closing the volume, however, our prevailing impressions are those of bitter sorrow and regret.-Would that Milton had felt more humbly, and then,

doubtless, would he have thought and written more correctly!"

Of the volumes before us, about two-thirds of the contents consist of the very words of scripture; distinct reference to the book, and in every instance, there is a chapter and verse, where the Milton professes the most profound quoted passage may be found.

reverence for Divine revelationto have been guided wholly by its dictates, and to be willing to submit unreservedly and cheerfully to its authority. But if he had really have done, we are confident he felt and acted as he professes to

could never have written much that we find in this treatise. Ac

cordingly, it is curious to observe how he frequently appears to forget his declared adherence to the plain language and obvious import of scripture, and to resort to all the resources of the critick, the logician, and we had almost said the sophist.

Although we can by no means pretend so much as to hint at what we consider the minor errors of this treatise, and although the more important ones are indicated in the think it right to let our readers review we have borrowed, yet we know what are the author's tenets, in regard to the Son of God, the Holy Spirit, and the doctrine of the Atonement; because among Arians and Socinians, with whom Milton must be classed, there is the greatest diversity of opinions, on these all important points. We can give but a small part of what is said on these topicks, but it shall thor, and so as to afford a fair exbe given in the words of the auhibition of his sentiments. Of the Son of God he says

"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 hea ven and earth."-p. 106, vol. i.

Then, after the quotation of a number of texts and passages of scripture, to show that the Son of God existed before any other created being, and yet not by an eternal generation, he adds

"It is evident however upon a careful comparison and examination of all these passages, and particularly from the whole of the second Psalm, that however the generation of the Son may have taken place, it arose from no natural necessity, as is generally contended, but was no less owing to the decree and will of the Fa ther than his priesthood or kingly power, or his resuscitation from the dead. Nor does this form any objection to his bearing the title of begotten, in whatever sense that expression is to be understood, or of God's own Son,' Rom. viii. 32. For

he is called the own Son of God merely

because he had no other Father besides God, whence he himself said, that God was his Father,' John v. 18. For to Adam God stood less in the relation of Father, than of Creator, having only formed him from the dust of the earth; whereas he was properly the Father of the Son made of his own substance. Yet it does not follow from hence that the Son is coessential with the Father, for then the title of Son would be least of all applicable to him, since he who is properly the Son is not coeval with the Father, much less of the same numerical essence, otherwise the Father and the Son would be one person; nor did the Father beget him from any natural necessity, but of his own free will,-a mode more perfect and more agreeable to the paternal dignity; particularly since the Father is God, all whose works, as has been already proved from scripture, are executed freely according to his own good pleasure, and consequently the work of generation.

"For questionless, it was in God's power consistently with the perfection of his own essence not to have begotten the Son, inasmuch as generation does not pertain to the nature of the Deity, who stands in no need of propagation; but whatever does not pertain to his own essence or nature, he does not affect like a natural agent from any physical necessity. If the generation of the Son proceeded from a physical necessity, the Father impaired himself by physically begetting a co-equal; which God could no more do than he could deny himself; therefore the generation of the Son cannot have proceeded otherwise than from

a decree, and of the Father's own free will.

"Thus the Son was begotten of the Father in consequence of his decree, and therefore within the limits of time, for the decree itself must have been anterior

to the execution of the decree, as is sufficiently clear from the insertion of the word 'to-day.'"-pp. 109, 110, vol. i.

The following connected passage, which closes the chapter "Of the Holy Spirit," will sufficiently show the opinion of the author relative to that Divine agent

"Lest however we should be altogether ignorant who or what the Holy Spi rit is, although scripture nowhere teaches us in express terms, it may be collected from the passages quoted above, that the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as he is a minister of God, and therefore a creature, was created or produced of the substance of God, not by a natural necessity, but by the free will of the agent, probably, before the foundations of the world were laid, but later than the Son, and far inferior to him. It will be objected, that thus the Holy Spirit is not sufficiently distinguished from the Son. I reply, that the Scriptural expressions themselves, to come forth,' to go out from the Father,' to proceed from the Father,' which mean the same in the Greek, do not distinguish the Son from the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as these terms are used indiscriminately with reference to both persons, and signify their mission, not their nature. There is however sufficient reason for placing the name as well as the nature of the Son above that of the Holy Spirit in the discussion of topicks relative to the Deity; inasmuch as the brightness of the glory of God, and the express image of his person, are said to have been impressed on the one, and not on the other."-pp. 225, 226, vol. i.

We are not now to combat the errors here stated. Both before and since the time of Milton, they have been repeatedly and triumphantly confuted. In regard to the atonement, our author's sentiments may be learned from his definition of Redemption.

"Redemption is that act whereby Christ, being sent in the fulness of time, redeemed all believers at the price of his own blood, by his own voluntary act, conformably to the eternal counsel and grace of God the Father."—p. 383.

In his subsequent explanations, he insists that the atonement of Christ was properly and strictly vicarious; so that in this particular he differs from the whole modern school of Unitarians. Both in relation to the Son of God, and the nature of the atonement, the sentiments of Milton appear to us to have been very similar to those of the celebrated Dr. Samuel Clarke.

Mr. Sumner, in the "Preliminary Observations," which are prefixed to his translation, shows that Milton's opinions, relative to the doctrine of the Trinity, were once orthodox; that in some of his previous publications he had even denounced Arians and Socinians, as unworthy of the name of Christians; and he has inserted, from his tract entitled "Of Reformation in England," the following sublime address to the Trinity in unity

"Thou, therefore, that sittest in light and glory unapproachable, Parent of angels and men! next thee I implore, omnipotent King, Redeemer of that lost remnant whose nature thou didst assume, me, ineffable and everlasting Love! And thou, the third subsistence of divine infinitude, illumining Spirit, the joy and solace of created things! one tripersonal Godhead! look upon this thy poor and almost spent and expiring church."-p. xxxiii.

Milton, however, had probably adopted the notions relative to the Deity, which appear in this treatise, before he composed "Paradise Lost," and "Paradise Regained." Yet those works had, till the late discovery, been generally considered as entirely orthodox. Mr. Sumner, notwithstanding, shows that in Paradise Lost, there are real and important contradictions in the language of Milton on this subject"the subject of the Trinity. It has been the known practice of Unitarians, in every age, to use such language as is capable of an application to orthodox opinions, long after those opinions have in reality been abandoned by themselves;

and with this Milton appears to be justly chargeable. Nothing is more certain than that, till the appearance of this treatise, he had been generally considered as holding every important doctrine of religion correctly. Johnson, whose rigorous attachment to the creed of the established church of England is well known, who had no friendship for Milton's peculiar notions, and who had carefully read all that was then known to have come from his pen, says in his Life of Milton-"Milton appears..... to have been untainted by any heretical peculiarity of opinion." What would he have said, in what language would Milton have been denounced, if this treatise of Christian doctrine had been then discovered!

But this treatise will explain what appeared to Johnson and to others to be a strange peculiarity in Milton's practice; namely, that with all his avowed and apparent reverence for religion, he belonged to no church, and maintained no visible worship. We say without hesitation, that there was no church then on earth, and we firmly believe there never was and never will be one, with which Milton could be supposed able cordially to unite, while holding the opinions contained in this book. Nor was there any church, while he lived, that held any portion of orthodoxy, that, with a knowledge of his sentiments, would have received him. The representation of his unhappy errors, as given in the review we have taken from the Evangelical Magazine, is not only true, but extremely lenient.-He was all that the writer of that article represents him, and much worse. There is scarcely a subject that he touches, on which, before he leaves it, he does not become an advocate for some strange, and in many instances, very objectionable peculiarity-He is least exceptionable in showing what are the duties which men owe to themselves and to others.