a human will, otherwise He were not both God and man. Hereupon the Church hath of old condemned Monothelites as heretics, for holding that Christ had but one will.'

Then, after setting forth the important distinction between the objects of human will, that some are sought for their own sake as ends, some only as means to an end,' and that, consequently, the will may be led by reason to prefer one good thing before another, and forego meaner for the attainment of higher desires, he proceeds:

These different inclinations of the will considered, the reason is easy how in Christ there might grow desires seeming but being not indeed opposite, either the one of them unto the other, or either of them to the will of God. For let the manner of His speech be weighed; "My soul is now troubled, and what should I say? Father save me out of this hour. But yet for this very cause am I come unto this hour;" His purpose herein was most effectually to propose to the view of the whole world two contrary objects, the like whereunto, in force and efficacy, were never presented in that manner to any but only to the soul of Christ. There was presented before His eyes in that fearful hour, on the one side, God's heavy indignation and wrath towards mankind as yet unappeased, death as yet in full strength, hell as yet never mastered by any that came within the confines and bounds thereof, somewhat also, peradventure, more than is either possible or needful for the wit of man to find out, finally himself, flesh and blood, left alone to enter into conflict with all these; on the other side, a world to be saved by one, a pacification of wrath through the dignity of that sacrifice which should be offered, a conquest over death through the power of that Deity, which would not suffer the tabernacle thereof to see corruption, and an utter disappointment of all the forces of infernal powers, through the purity of that soul which they should have in their hands, and not be able to touch. Let no man marvel that in this case the soul of Christ was much troubled. 2

The recollection of this grand statement would of itself he sufficient to save any well-intentioned mind from a lapse into tendencies towards Apollinarian or Monothelite errors. Indeed, it is one of the great blessings resultant from a study of treatises such as that of Hooker, or the immortal work of Bishop Pearson, that they preoccupy the mind with such a body of truth as to render it instinctively conscious of error, whenever it is subsequently met with. If Dr. Bushnell had more real acquaintance with these works, which he implicitly condemns, he would perhaps have learned to estimate at its proper worth the importance of this benefit, and would, moreover, have probably been saved from the inculcation of very dangerous mistakes; for to blame the assertion of a most important truth, plainly proclaimed in God's Word, and taught (excepting the heretics just named) semper, ubique, et ab omnibus, is, after all, to have a private dogmatism of one's own, a dogmatism of a most pernicious character.

1 Cf. Aristot. Eth. lib. i. cap. ii. τέλος . . . τῶν πρακτῶν, ὅ δι' αὐτὸ βουλόμεθα, τὰ ἄλλα δὲ διὰ τοῦτο.

2 Hooker, Eccl. Pol. bk. v. ch. 48. § 9.

Still more strange, perhaps, is the assertion made in the following passages of the second of these discourses:

'It was needful that Christ, in his life and sufferings, should consecrate or reconsecrate the desecrated law of God, and give it a more exact and imminent authority than it had before-this too without anything of a penal quality in his passion, without regarding him as bearing evil to pay the release of ecil, or as under any infliction or frown of God, and yet doing it by something expressed in his life and death.-P. 198.

My doctrine [] is summarily this; that, excluding all thoughts of a penal quality in the life and death of Christ, or of any divine abhorrence to sin, exhibited by sufferings laid upon his person, he does produce an impression in our minds of the essential sanctity of God's law and character which it was needful to produce, and without which any proclamation of pardon would be dangerous-any attempt to subdue and reconcile us to God ineffectual.' -Pp. 215, 216.

6

My doctrine' is here again, unfortunately, quite unscriptural. The language of Prophets and Apostles, to the effect that the eternal Son did undergo the wrath of His Father, as well as the hatred of sinners, did hear evil to pay the release of evil,' is too clear to be misunderstood, too emphatic to be explained away. 'He was wounded for our transgressions, he 'was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. . . . It pleased 'the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief-thou shalt 'make his soul an offering for sin.' 'He hath made him to be sin 'for us, who knew no sin.' Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.' 'Christ also hath ' once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust.' Who his own 'self bare our sins in his own body on the tree... by whose stripes ye were healed.' 'I am the man that hath seen affliction by 'the rod of his wrath. . . surely against me is he turned.' 'My 'soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death. . . . O my Father, 'if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.' And being in 'an agony, he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground. . . . Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the 'dead the third day." If, indeed, Dr. Bushnell could show that the literal sense of these, and many kindred texts of Scripture, was balanced by apparently opposing texts, and needed to be reconciled with such, and therefore modified; if he could display any weight of authority, so that interpreters of name, and orthodox upon the fundamental doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, were found to have taught that the prima facie interpretation of these passages was not the true one; nay, if he could even prove their obvious meaning to be wholly opposed to sound reason, and inconsistent with the analogy of the constitu

1 Isa. liii. 5, 10; 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. iii. 13; 1 Pet. iii. 18, ii. 24; Lament. iii. 1, 3; Matt. xxvi. 38; Luke xxii. 44, xxiv. 46.

6

6

tion and course of nature;-on any of these hypotheses his teaching, if not found ultimately tenable, might at least appear plausible, and deserving of some extended examination. But it is not possible for him to take up any of these positions: ther are no texts which even present the semblance of contrariety there is no orthodox commentator, ancient or modern, we be lieve, who ever understood these passages in any but their mos plain and natural sense, or doubted, in this case at least, the perfect applicability of Hooker's well-known rule, 'That where a literal construction will stand, the furthest from the letter i commonly the worst ;" there is no insuperable difficulty in conceiving that the analogy of our course of life on earth, (where the innocent are so often permitted to undergo pain and trouble, that they may save the guilty, where all nations have concurred in the expediency of appeasing offended Deity by sacrifices, that is to say, by the vicarious sufferings of other animals 2) may as least suggest some deep ground of reason at the foundation of a doctrine, which at first sight appears unreasonable. To reject the plain teaching of the word of God on the plea that we must, in our present condition, have a clearer view of its conformity to reason than this, is nothing less than pure unadulterated rationalism. Yet such is the only ground of rejection that we can discover in Dr. Bushnell's Lectures. He does, it is true, cite a single passage of S. Paul, (Rom. iii. 25.) which he makes to support his view by inserting that view in brackets between the words of the text, and assuming that whatever is not stated in this particular passage is no part of a Christian's faith." But although he thus attempts to claim the sanction of what he is pleased to call the Apostle's 'standard text,' (p. 216,) (another mere assumption-why more standard than any other?) his real reliance is evidently placed u on he thoroughly rationalistic scheme of interpretation. The docti

1 Eccl. Pol. v. ch. 69. § 2.

2 Vide Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion,' by Soame Jeny, i (10th Edition, Edinburgh, 1798, p. 124.) This very short Essay is excellent upon this point, and hence obtained great praise in that interesting book of De Maistre's (which Archdn. Hare called one of the wisest and most delightful works of recent times,') Les Soirées de St. Pétersbourg. But the eulogy is somewhat excessive. Soame Jenyns is less original and less free from mistakes, than one might imagine from Count Joseph's language. Still, his book has great merits, and may reach quarters inaccessible to clerical pens, and difficult treatises like Bp. Butler's,

3 It is due to ourselves, no less than to Dr. Bushnell, to give a specimen of this remarkable quotation. We reprint it, brackets and all, precisely as it stands j his book. (P.216.) Whom God hath set forth [made conspicuous in the flesh] to be a propitiation [propitiatory or mercy-seat-made so, not by standing in any penal attitude under God, but] by faith in his blood,' &c. Now we should be glad to know where S. Paul affords the slightest hint, that in the term propitiation (ixαorpiov) he involves the idea that our blessed Lord did not stand in any penal attitude. By thus filling up the clauses of holy Scripture with intermediate fancies of our own, we would undertake to make any text mean anything.

H

however clearly proclaimed in Scripture, is not to be received,
because it seems to him to involve something offensive to our
moral sense or repugnant to our ideas of God.' (P. 198).

Such is the almost invariable course pursued by these oponents of dogmatic confessions: they put aside the majestic nd righteous, the scriptural and necessary dogmatism of the Fathers of Nicæa,-it is too straitened and confined for them,and then offer us the results of speculations, opposed alike to Scripture and to all sound philosophy, ushered in with the dogmatism of that brief and self-complacent formula, My doctrine is summarily this!'

We turn to the elucidation of the charge that Dr. Bushnell has ignored other passages of holy Scripture and facts connected with the constitution of human nature. We are not, of course, so unreasonable as to expect that in a few lectures the wide field of holy Scripture should be fully investigated, or the territory of man's nature be thoroughly mapped out. But it is desirable to consider such points in both, as are too intimately connected with the question to be passed by with safety. Thus, for instance, we have alluded in the earlier part of this paper to that class of texts, which speaks of the form of doctrine,'' the form of sound words,' the faithful saying,'' the 'deposit,'' the good profession professed before many witnesses,' 'the word which ye heard from the beginning;' and the like.1 Now to understand these phrases as allusive to the Gospel dogmas proclaimed by the Church (for the New Testament Scriptures were not yet complete, many being still unwritten) is a clear, simple, intelligible sense, a sense, moreover, never doubted nor called in question by primitive interpreters. And we have a right to ask the opponents of dogma, what these ssages do mean, if they do not mean this? There may be an er forthcoming, but that answer it has never yet been our athe to hear or see. As for anything contained in Dr. Bushrell's work, his edition of the New Testament might, for ought that we can perceive, have been robbed of the whole collection of these constantly recurring phrases. Nowhere, that we can recollect, does he make the slightest allusion to them, or even appear conscious of their existence. But the student who accepts, with us, their natural and Catholic interpretation, will thus be enabled, on a glance, to put on one side whole masses of verbiage, poured forth by the anti-dogmatists, all resting upon the hollow and unwarrantable assumption, that there is no allusion in the pages of the New Testament to the existence of any Christian dogma.

...

1 Rom. vi. 17; 2 Tim. i. 13; 1 Tim. i. 15 (et passim), vi. 20, 12; 1 John ii. 7.

There is likewise another family of texts highly relevant to the present discussion; those, namely, which speak of heresy, and class it among grievous sins. Heresy, which is a sin of the intellect, is condemned in terms similar to those employed concerning lack of love for Christ, which is a sin of the heart and affections. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.' Though we, or an angel from 'heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be Anathema." Thus, too, S. Peter speaks of 'heresies of perdition,' i. e. we presume, tending to perdition. And in the long list of works of the flesh,' as opposed to the fruit of the Spirit,' set forth in the Epistle to the Galatians, heresies are classed with murder and adultery. Moreover, the heretic is, after due admonition, to be avoided (or rejected) on the ground that he is subverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned. In these apostolic warnings, the Christian who has the happiness to be trained in accordance with primitive belief finds no difficulty, so far, at least, as concerns their meaning. Assuming the ordinary definition of heresy, as the denial of saving truth,' and believing that, though intellectual in form, it is, (when wilful,) essentially allied with a certain moral tone, and frequently referrible to a kind of spiritual pride, he can well understand how its adoption may be a temptation to many who have overcome, or been kept free from, the snares of sensuality and worldly ambition: just as in one of the accounts of the wondrous scene in the wilderness, the invitation to spiritual presumption is recorded after the failure of the allurements to appetite and temporal power. And, not to dwell too long upon the moral element which enters into heresy, it may suffice to observe that it is almost proverbially said concerning certain forms of misbelief, as e. g. Socinianism, that it is the heart that needs to be touched, not the head to be reasoned with. Let it be owned that this admixture of two elements, the moral and the intellectual, in heresy, necessitate especially, in times like those in which our lot is cast, great caution, and the very largest charity, in any attempt to judge the case of individual Christians. The age, the country, the parental influence, the kind of education, the misrepresentation (often quite unintentional) of true doctrine, and in short the entire animus of the erring thinker, must be duly taken into account. Those,' says S. Augustine, who defend their opinion, although it be false and perverse, without any obstinate ani

1 Cor. xvi. 22; Gal. i. 8. 3 Titus iii. 10.

2 αἱρέσεις απωλείας. 2 Pet. ii. l. The Vulgate renders Tapaiтou by fuge, our authorized version by reject. Neither sense is very classical; but the latter, if a shade further from classic usage, scems supported by 1 Tim. iv. 7, v. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 23; and Heb. xii. 25.