« PredošláPokračovať »
and in the ideas represented by them, especially the first, lies the very soul of sonship; these are participation of nature, and endearment flowing out through intimacy,--deny these, and you at once utterly abnegate sonship, although all the other peculiarities are present. That participation of nature is the true and ultimate test of relation by descent, is evident from the fact that it is the touchstone of the classification in comparative anatomy and ethnology, and lies at the basis of all natural history, whether material or immaterial; but in order that the proximate degree of actual paternity may hold, there must be a direct sharing substantially of that nature to the offspring. These requisites are
eminently true of the " beloved Son," the "Only-begotten in the bosom of the Father;" and although the actual transmission of being cannot be dated as an event, the infusion of essence is as perfectly proved by the full community of attributes not otherwise to be attained. This perfect correspondence of Divine qualities in the Son with the Father, moreover, secures their entire equality through this retention of the essential idea of generation; while the deviation in the mode of the derivation obviates the usual inferiority. The remaining want of analogy between the Divine persons as compared with human-namely, the numerical unity of Father and Son—is yet to be considered.
The question is often asked, What do Trinitarians mean by the distinction, “there are three Persons and one God?” A complete answer to this question would involve a real definition of the idea designated by the word “Person" as here used; but as, from our finite nature, we must ever remain incompetent to a just comprehension of the constitution of the Godhead, our inability to explain the application of this formula, is taken by Unitarians as an evidence that we can have no distinct notion of the fact of such a distinction. This is manifestly unfair; for we are well-assured of innumerable facts, of which we can neither explain nor understand the interior constitution that makes them exist as such. In this case, moreover, we are able clearly to conceive that the several Divine Persons, all equally possessing those attributes of infinity in which Godhead consists, may nevertheless differ in those subordinate properties on which the peculiar personality of each is predicated. Professor Stuart, in his remarks on 'Schleiermacher's Treatise, (Biblical Repository, July, 1835, page 90,) has quoted various definitions of the term personality in this application, from eminent theologians and dialecticians, but finds fault with them all as either illogical, contradictory, or unmeaning; and he at last disposes of the distinctly-stated question, "What is personality?" in his favourite oblique mode, by declining the attempt to fathom the mysterious
profundities of the Divine nature. Now a complete or even tolerably adequate description of the difference between the Divine Personages, is evidently beyond human reason or perception, and therefore as much above the possibility of revelation itself; and in this sense, the Divine personality certainly cannot be defined. Yet it is equally obvious that a clear statement of what we mean by the term person is indispensable to accurate discussion respecting the Trinity. Something we must mean by the term, and we have merely to define lexically in what sense we use it. At the risk of being deemed presumptuous, and of exposure to criticism to use no stronger term.---we propose the following, as approaching the subject as nearly perhaps as is possible :- Personality, as spoken of the members of the Trinity, may be defined to be a certain mutual relation essentially subsisting within the Godhead; and
persons” are those SUBSTANTIVE FORMS of Deity thus distinguished. This lays the foundation for their distinction as individual beings, and yet preserves their identity of essence. Human persons can only be homogeneous in nature—that is, of like, but not the same, substance. The reason is that each is finite, or bounded off by its individuality. But as God is infinite, and therefore each Divine Person also infinite, they must necessarily overlap each other, so to speak, or appertain to the same substratum of essence. In the case of human beings, of course, this would be an actual exclusion of one or the other, for we cannot conceive of human individuality without attaching to it a species of spiritual impenetrability; but I do not see that this notion is applicable to Deity.
We conclude these remarks with the observation that they have only been written in order to obviate certain prejudices which many feel against the natural interpretation of the Introduction to John's Gospel; the general doctrine of the Trinity we must leave to abler hands. We are aware that exceptions might be taken by captious metaphysicians against some parts of the line of argument pursued in these concluding paragraphs, and it is quite possible that the definition above given may fail to satisfy those who have rejected all the definitions hitherto offered on that topic; still, we have ventured them, believing that the candid Trinitarian will find substantial truth at the bottom of them, and hoping that some professed theologian may yet express that truth in a form free from all reasonable objection. It is to be hoped, that the discussions above alluded to will at least have the effect of leading back theology to the plain statements of revelation. This is the only ultimate appeal, and in view of this we beg that the foregoing exegetical discussion may not be disregarded.
By way of recapitulation, we subjoin the following scheme, exhibiting the course of thought as contained in the successive clauses of John i, 1–18:
THE ESSENTIAL DIVINITY OF CHRIST.
a) By reason of pre-existence to creation. (1) In the beginning was the Logos,
and the Logos was [associated reflex
ively] toward the Deity, c) In nature........
and the Logos was Deity. d) Repetition of a) and b) .................. (2) This Being was in the beginning [thus
related] toward the Deity.
a) Direct assertion of his Creatorship. (3) All things came to be through him,
thing come to be,
that has come to be.
a) Foundation of this relation........... (4) In him was life,
[b] Anomalous resistance...... and the darkness did not take it down Digression.-Collateral reference to the Bap- [into itself].
(6) There came to be a man,
sent from (near] God;
his name was John:
(7) this man came for testimony, that he
might testify concerning the Light; [B] Ultimate.....
80 that all might believe through him. [x] His consequent inferiority...... (8) That man was not the Light, but came
that he might testify concerning the
(9) there was [another that was] the Light,
the true one, [B] In extent of sphere
that lights every man,
 Among mankind at large....
(10) He was in the world,
[b] His title to regard........
and the world came to be through him, and [yet] the world did not know
 With his particular coun
 Fact of favour with some.... (12) Whoever received him, however,
he gave them privilege to become chil
dren of God,  Condition securing it.......... [namely] those believing (and thus
pledging themselves] to his name;
a) As by inheritance....... (13) who were not born out of bloods,
nor out of flesh-will,
nor out of man-will,
but [were born] out of God.
II. His assumption of humanity, consistent
with these statements. 1. His incarnate state. a) Fact of his incarnation:  Its inception..........
(14) And the Logos became flesh  Its continuation...
and tented among us, – 6) Evidence of this fact.  Ocular testimony...
and we witnessed his glory,  The recognition palpable........ a glory [indeed] as of an only-begotten
from near his father, 2. Beneficial results of this manifestation. a) Foundation of these advantages in his own nature...
full of grace and truth. . Digressive return to the Baptist's testimony. B. In support of Christ's exalted position. a) Fact of the deposition........
(15) (John testifies concerning him and has
cried saying, B) The Baptist's own application of his language..........
“This person was he whom I [meant
when I] said,
[a] Designation of a disciple........ • The one coming behind me,
because he was my first.") Resumption of the main topic at the point of interruption. 6) Blessings imparted to individuals..... (16) And out of his fulness we all received,
even grace [accumulated] over-against grace.
c) Moral elevation of man in general.
Moses, [b] Its defects met by the latter. [whereas the] grace and [the] truth
came to be through Jesus Christ :  Necessity of this mode of reve
(18) no one has ever beheld God;
velop the divine nature and
the one being [admitted] into the bo
som of the Father,
accomplishment of the
that person unfolded him.
ART. III.-ALGERNON SIDNEY.
Life of Algernon Sidney; with Sketches of some of his Contemporaries, and Extracts from his Correspondence und Political Writings. By G. VAN SANTVOORD. NewYork: Charles Scribner. 1851.
The name of SIDNEY is among the most illustrious in the annals of England. An ancient stock of the Norman aristocracy, the family was first naturalized on British soil nearly a hundred years after the Conquest, when Sir William Sidney, chamberlain to Henry II., accompanied that prince from Anjou into his newly-inherited dominions. The descendants of this adventurer occupied a conspicuous place among the English gentry during the times of the Plantagenets, and of the rival houses of York and Lancaster; and at the demise of Henry VIII. the honoured representative of the Sidneys was tutor to the royal heir, Prince Edward, from whom he afterwards received the park and manor of Penshurst in Kentfrom that time the favourite seat of the Sidneys. A grandson of the royal tutor was Sir Philip Sidney, whose name is still cherished both in political and literary history, and who is especially remembered as the favourite of the court of Queen Elizabeth. He is described as a perfect model of a finished gentleman-virtuous, polite, brave, and accomplished—and such was the goodness of his heart, that he was loved by the lowest persons about him as much as he was admired by those of his own rank. It was he who, when mor