fellowship with him; he soars above the Arians ; he would

; not be admitted among the gentle followers of Penn. Too heterodox for the orthodox, he is by far too orthodox for the sceptical and misbelieving school. In short, he must be admitted to rank within the pale of the true Church, from the impossibility of classing him with any other than devout and faithful men. But within that divine enclosure, he dwells apart, an intellectual hermit, a sect consisting of the individual, a genus with one species, in society with himself. Yet, though thus isolated as regards his opinions, he is no sectarian in spirit, but most truly Catholic; and of his very aberrations from sound doctrine, it may truly be said, • But yet the light that led astray,

Was light from heaven!' Before we venture any remarks, however, on the circumstances which may be supposed to have caused or influenced Milton's theological opinions, we must inform our readers, that this posthumous volume contains scarcely any new disclosures on this point. His sentiments respecting Divorce, if not his belief in the lawfulness of Polygamy, were well known before. His views of Baptism were not previously known; these, however, will not be counted heretical. But doubts have always been entertained, as Mr. Sumner remarks, as to Milton's real sentiments respecting the Second Person of the Trinity. A considerable variance on this point between his early and his later opinions, is discoverable in his published works; but the passages in the Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained referred to by the learned Translator and Editor of this Treatise, are, to say the least, perfectly compatible with that high Arianism which is more explicitly avowed and defended in the present work. Nor has the fact escaped the notice of his commentators. Every reader, we imagine, bas felt the truth of Addison's remark, that ' if Milton's majesty forsakes him any ' where, it is in those parts of his poem where the Divine • Persons are introduced as speakers.' And large concessions must have been made by pious readers to the claims of poetical license, although the Poet himself would probably have disdained to take shelter under so flimsy an apology. We must confess that, for our own parts, we could never reconcile our feelings to the greater part of the third book. The inferiority which is there ascribed to the Son, is, perhaps, less palpable on account of the almost anthropomorphous representation of the Eternal Father; those expressions which would otherwise have struck even an ordinary reader as heretical, being as it were lost in the general character of impropriety. For instance,

when, in the fifth book, the Almighty is introduced as addressing the Son,

Nearly it now concerns us to be sure
Of our Omnipotence, and with what arms
We mean to hold what anciently we claim
Of deity or empire,'-

the theological sentiments of the Poet are lost sight of in this boldly dramatic representation of the Deity, which recals to mind the Jupiter Olympius of Homer, rather than the High and Lofty One who inhabiteth eternity. We wish to bear in mind what Dr. Johnson says, much to his honour, with regard to such passages in the Paradise Lost as may deserve, or seem to deserve censure.' What Englishman can take delight in 'transcribing passages which, if they lessen the reputation of 'Milton, diminish in some degree the honour of our country?" Still, we deem it important to point out the real character of the theological tenets not indistinctly avowed (though by many overlooked) in his great poem; for, in our view, his piety, though it cannot consecrate his errors, is, by the very tenets which he held, cleared from the imputation that might seem to attach to him, of making theology bend to poetry. Where he erred, he erred through mistake, not through levity, never surrendering the reins to fancy so far as to forget his office as the expositor of celestial truth. The present Treatise shews, as Mr. Sumner remarks, that

Whom else no creature can behold: on thee
Impress'd th' effulgence of his glory abides;

Transfus'd on thee his ample Spirit rests,' B. iii. 350-89.

Effulgence of my glory, Son belov'd,

Son, in whose face invisible is beheld

Visibly, what by Deity I am;

And in whose hand what by decree I do,

Second Omnipotence......

Go then, thou Mightiest, in thy Father's might.'

B. vi. 680-4; 710.

Thus the Filial Godhead answering spake.'

Ib. 722.

Then shall thy saints unmix'd, and from the impure
Far separate, circling thy holy mount,

Unfeigned hallelujahs to thee sing,

Hymns of high praise, and I among them chief. B. vi. 742-5.

Father Eternal, thine is to decree ;

Mine, both in Heaven and Earth, to do thy will
Supreme; that Thou in me, thy Son belov'd,

Mayst ever rest well pleased.'

Thus saying, from his radiant seat he rose

Of high collateral glory.' B. x. 68-71; 85, 6.
Because thou hast, though throned in highest bliss
Equal to God, and equally enjoying

God like fruition, quitted all, to save

A world from utter loss, and hast been found
By merit more than birthright, Son of God,-

..... all power

I give thee; reign for ever, and assume

Thy merits; under thee, as head supreme,
Thrones, princedoms, powers, dominions, I reduce;

All knees to thee shall bow.' B. iii. 305-21.

In these passages, Mr. Sumner thinks that there occur real and important contradictions;' but, we must confess, we have not been able to detect them. They appear to us in systematic accordance with the opinions which are advocated in this Treatise nor have we been able to discover any other inconsistency in the Author, than is involved in the Arian hypothesis itself. At what period of his life Milton embraced that hypothesis, can be matter only of conjecture. It must have been, at all events, subsequent to the publication of his Treatise on Reformation, in 1641,* in which occurs that sublime apostrophe,

• Milton was then thirty-three years of age.

or rather invocation to the Trinity: 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, ineffa'ble 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.' During the next fifteen years, Milton's pen was chiefly employed in the service of his country, and all the energy of his mind was thrown into the bitter polemical warfare in which he was almost incessantly occupied. In the year 1655, he retired from his office of Latin Secretary, having, between two and three years before, lost his sight in liberty's defence.' And it was about the time that he was thus released from public business, that he is known to have entered upon the composition of three great works,-Paradise Lost, a Latin Thesaurus, and the Treatise now brought to light. The Paradise Lost was finished about 1665, having been in hand about ten years. The change in the Author's theological tenets must, therefore, have taken place at some period between 1641 and 1665; and it seems highly probable, that it resulted from the studies to which he gave himself up on retiring from public life.

In attempting to account for this change in his tenets, we cannot admit that much stress is to be laid on his supposed 'bias against the authority of the Church' on the ground intimated by Mr. Sumner, who remarks, that Milton was pre'disposed by the political constitution of his mind to such ' unbounded freedom as can hardly consist with any established V system of faith whatever. Between the love of liberty and a sceptical spirit, we should be reluctant to admit the existence of any natural connexion. But Milton's mind was singularly free from any tendency to scepticism; and for this unbounded freedom he was no advocate. His temperament and bis habits of thinking were those of the poet, rather than of the philosopher. His love of freedom was that of the patriot, not of the theorist; and his republicanism was the result of his classic passion for antiquity, not of any fondness for innovation. The implicit manner in which he uniformly defers to the authority of Scripture as to a final law of faith, is the very opposite of what might be expected to characterize a free-thinker. Let us,' he says, ' discard reason in sacred ' matters, and follow the doctrine of Holy Scripture exclu'sively! How opposite is this language to a spirit of such unbounded freedom as can hardly consist with any established system of faith! In fact, the Arian creed is one which is in

finitely removed from scepticism, for it requires quite as entire and implicit a surrender of mind to the authority of Scripture, as the orthodox belief. On Revelation, and on Revelation only, it professedly rests for support; and as large a portion of positive belief, if we may be allowed the expression, goes to the composition of the hypothesis, as of that for which it is substituted.

Milton's bias against the authority of the Church' originated, we apprehend, in what has always been the most fruitful occasion of heresies,-the erroneous statements and dangerous tenets of the orthodox. The Church of Rome, in order to exalt her own authority as a pretended living oracle, and to establish the necessity of Tradition, denies that the doctrine of the Trinity is capable of being proved from any passage of Scripture; thus, as Chillingworth remarks, doing the princi'pal and proper work of the Socinians for them.' Milton adverts to this dangerous position of the Romanists in the prefatory remarks to this part of his Treatise, adding:

"But since I enrol myself among the number of those who acknowledge the word of God alone as the rule of faith, and freely advance what appears to me much more clearly deducible from the Holy Scriptures than the commonly received opinion, I see no reason why any one who belongs to the same Protestant or Reformed Church, and professes to acknowledge the same rule of faith as my. self, should take offence at my freedom, particularly as I impose my faith on no one, but merely propose what I think more worthy of belief than the creed in general acceptation. I only entreat that my readers will ponder and examine my statements in a spirit which desires to discover nothing but the truth, and with a mind free from prejudice. For, without intending to oppose the authority of Scripture, which I consider inviolably sacred, I only take upon myself to refute human interpretations as often as the occasion requires, conformably to my right, or rather to my duty as a man.' p. 81.

This belief that he was only attacking human interpretations,' had, evidently, no small influence on the mind of the Writer; and this idea must have been not a little strengthened by the scholastic and unscriptural manner in which it was at that time customary with theologians to state and explain the orthodox doctrine. We have little doubt that this circumstance first suggested to Milton the idea of the present Treatise. His biographers inform us, that the Sunday's work for 'his pupils,' after reading a chapter of the Greek Testament and hearing his exposition of it, was, to write from his dic⚫tation some part of a system of divinity which he collected 'from the most eminent writers upon that subject, as Amesius, 'Wollebius, &c.' An attachment to the systematic mode of

·