name, who would consider the offences which the Jews should commit against his Son, as offences against himself; in the same sense as the Son declares that whatever is done to those who believed in him, is done to himself. Matt. xxv. 35, 40. I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat, &c. inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. An instance of the same kind occurs Acts ix. 4, 5. Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? The same answer must be given respecting Zech. xii. 10. especially on a comparison with Rev. i. 7. every eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him: for none have seen Jehovah at any time, much less have they seen him as a man; least of all have they pierced him. Secondly, they pierced him who poured upon them the spirit of grace, v. 10. Now it was the Father who poured the spirit of grace through the Son; Acts ii. 33. having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this. Therefore it was the Father whom they pierced in the Son. Accordingly, John does not say, they shall look upon me, but, they shall look upon him whom they pierced, chap. xix. 37. So also in the verse of Zechariah alluded to a change of persons takes place they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son; as if Jehovah were not properly alluding to himself, but spoke of another, that is, of the Son. The passage in Malachi iii. 1. admits of a similar interpretation: behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me, and Jehovah, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold he shall come, saith Jehovah of hosts. From which passage Placæus argues thus: He before whose face the Baptist is to be sent as a messenger, is the God of Israel; but the Baptist was not sent before the face of the Father; therefore Christ is that God of Israel. But if the name of Elias could be ascribed

2

* Milton attributes similar language to the Almighty, when he represents him as giving his great command concerning the Messiah in heaven:

to John the Baptist, Matt. xi. 14. inasmuch as he went before him in the spirit and power of Elias, Luke i. 17. why may not the Father be said to send him before his own face, inasmuch as he sends him before the face of him who was to come in the name of the Father? for that it was the Father who sent the messenger, is proved by the subsequent words of the same verse, since the phrases I who sent, and the messenger of the covenant who shall come, and Jehovah of hosts who saith these things, can scarcely be understood to apply all to the same person. Nay, even according to Christ's own interpretation, the verse implies that it was the Father who sent the messenger; Matt. xi. 10. behold, I send my messenger before thy face. Who was it that sent?the Son, according to Placæus. Before the face of whom?-of the Son:-therefore the Son addresses himself in this passage, and sends himself before his own face, which is a new and unheard of figure of speech; not to mention that the Baptist himself testifies that he was sent by the Father, John i. 33. I knew him not, but he that sent me.... the same said unto me, &c. God the Father therefore sent the messenger before the face of his Son, inasmuch as that messenger preceded the advent of the Son; he sent him before his own face, inasmuch as he was himself in Christ, or, which is the same thing, in the Son, reconciling the world unto himself, 2 Cor. v. 19. That the name and presence of God is used to imply his vicarious power and might resident in the Son, is proved by another prophecy concerning John the Baptist, Isai. xl. 3. the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. For the Baptist was never heard to cry that Christ was Jehovah, or our God.

Recurring, however, to the Gospel itself, on which, as on a foundation, our dependence should chiefly be placed, and adducing my proofs more especially from the evangelist John, the leading purpose of whose work was to declare explicitly the nature of the Son's divinity, I proceed to demonstrate the other proposition announced in my original division of the subject-namely, that the Son himself professes to have received

from the Father, not only the name of God and of Jehovah, but all that pertains to his own being, that is to say, his individuality, his existence itself, his attributes, his works, his divine honours; to which doctrine the apostles also, subsequent to Christ, bear their testimony. John iii. 35. the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things unto him. xiii. 3. Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things unto him, and that he was come from God. Matt. xi. 27. all things are delivered unto me of my Father.

But here perhaps the advocates of the contrary opinion will interpose with the same argument which was advanced before; for they are constantly shifting the form of their reasoning, Vertumnus-like, and using the twofold nature of Christ developed in his office of mediator, as a ready subterfuge by which to evade any arguments that may be brought against them. What Scripture says of the Son generally, they apply, as suits their purpose, in a partial and restricted sense; at one time to the Son of God, at another to the Son of Man,-now to the Mediator in his divine, now in his human capacity, and now again in his union of both natures. But the Son himself says expressly, the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand, John iii. 35.—namely, because he loveth him, not because he hath begotten him and he hath given all things to him as the Son, not as Mediator only. If the words had been meant to convey the sense attributed to them by my opponents, it would have been more satisfactory and intelligible to have said, the Father loveth Christ, or the Mediator, or the Son of Man. None of these modes of expression are adopted, but it is simply said, the Father loveth the Son; that is, whatever is comprehended under the name of the Son. The same

Let him try which way he can wind in his Vertumnian distinctions and evasions, if his canonical gabardine of text and letter do not sit too close about him, and pinch his activity.' Tetrachordon, Prose Works, II. 201. Vertit rationes, et "annon rex cum optimatibus plus potestatis habeat" quærit; iterum nego, Vertumne, si pro optimatibus proceres intelligas, quoniam accidere potest ut nemo inter eos optimatis nomine sit dignus.' Pro Populo Anglicano Defensio, Prose Works, V. 149.

question may also be repeated which was asked before, whether from the time that he became the Mediator, his Deity, in their opinion, remained what it had previously been, or not? If it remained the same, why does he ask and receive every thing from the Father, and not from himself? If all things come from the Father, why is it necessary (as they maintain it to be) for the mediatorial office, that he should be the true and supreme God; since he has received from the Father whatever belongs to him, not only in his mediatorial, but in his filial character? If his Deity be not the same as before, he was never the Supreme God. From hence may be understood John xvi. 15. all things that the Father hath are mine-that is, by the Father's gift. And xvii. 9, 10. them which thou hast given me, for they are thine; and all mine are thine, and thine are mine.

5

In the first place, then, it is most evident that he receives his name from the Father. Isai. ix. 6. his name shall be called Wonderful, &c. the everlasting Father; if indeed this elliptical passage be rightly understood; for, strictly speaking, the Son is not the Father, and cannot properly bear the name, nor is it elsewhere ascribed to him, even if we should allow that in some sense or other it is applied to him in the passage before us. The last clause, however, is generally translated not the everlasting Father, but the Father of the age to come, that is, its teacher, the name of father being often attributed to a teacher. Philipp. ii. 9. wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and hath given him (κai éxapiσaтo) a name which is above every name. Heb. i. 4. being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. Eph. i. 20, 21. when he set him at his own right hand ......far above all principality, &c. and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. There is no reason why that name should not be Jehovah, or any other name pertaining to

Milton follows the version of Tremellius, who translates the passage thus-Cujus nomen vocat Jehova, admirabilem, &c.

5

Пaтnρ péλоνTos ai@vos. Septuag. Pater futuri sæculi. Vulg. The Father of the everlasting age. Lowth. The Father of the world to come. Douay Bible.

the Deity, if there be any still higher: but the imposition of a name is allowed to be uniformly the privilege of the greater personage, whether father or lord.

We need be under no concern, however, respecting the name, seeing that the Son receives his very being in like manner from the Father. John vii. 29. I am from him. The same thing is implied John i. 1. in the beginning. For the notion of his eternity is here excluded not only by the decree, as has been stated before, but by the name of Son, and by the phrases-this day have I begotten thee, and, I will be to him a father. Besides, the word beginning can only here mean before the foundation of the world, according to John xvii. 5. as is evident from Col. i. 15-17. the first born of every creature: for by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, &c. and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Here the Son, not in his human or mediatorial character, but in his capacity of creator, is himself called the first born of every creature. So too Heb. ii. 11. for both he that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified, are all of one; and iii. 2. faithful to him that appointed him. Him who was begotten from all eternity the Father cannot have begotten, for what was made from all eternity was never in the act of being made; him whom the Father begat from all eternity he still begets; he whom he still begets is not yet begotten, and therefore is not yet a son; for an action which has no beginning can have no completion. Besides, it seems to be altogether impossible that the Son should be either begotten or born from all eternity. If he is the Son, either he must have been originally in the Father, and have proceeded from him, or he must always have been as he is now, separate from the Father, self-existent and independent. he was originally in the Father, but now exists separately, he has undergone a certain change at some time or other, and is therefore mutable. If he always existed separately from, and independently of, the Father, how is he from the Father, how begotten, how the Son, how separate in subsistence, unless he be also separate in essence? since (laying aside metaphysical trifling) a substantial essence and a subsistence are the same

If