authority of Erasmus; who has also shown that the difference of punctuation may raise a doubt with regard to the true meaning of the passage, namely, whether the clause in question should not rather be understood of the Father than of the Son.* But waiving these objections, and supposing that the words are spoken of the Son; they have nothing to do with his essence, but only intimate that divine honour is communicated to the Son by the Father, and particularly that he is called God; which has been already fully shown by other arguments. But, they rejoin, the same words which were spoken of the Father, Rom. i. 25.more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen,' are here repeated of the Son; therefore the Son is equal to the Father. If there be any force in this reasoning, it will rather prove that the Son is greater than the Father; for according to the ninth chapter he is over all,' which however, they remind us, ought to be understood in the same sense as John iii. 31, 32. he that cometh from above, is above all; he that cometh from heaven is above all.' In these words even the divine nature is clearly implied, and yet, what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth,' which language affirms that he came not of himself, but was sent from the Father, and was obedient to him. It will be answered, that it is only his mediatorial character which is intended.

**Sanctus Cyprianus adversus Judæos libro secundo, capite quinto, adduxit hunc locum, omissa Dei mentione. Itidem Hilarius enarrans Psalmum cxxii. quod incuria librariorum esse omissum videri potest.' Erasmi Annotationes ad Rom. ix. 5. See also his treatise entitled Responsio de Filii divinitate. Tom. IX. p. 849. Macknight in his notes on the passage of the Romans, answers Erasmus with regard to both the points which Milton mentions.

But he never could have become a mediator, nor could he have been sent from God, or have been obedient to him, unless he had been inferior to God. and the Father as to his nature. Therefore also after he shall have laid aside his functions as mediator, whatever may be his greatness, or whatever it may previously have been, he must be subject to God and the Father. Hence he is to be accounted above all, with this reservation, that he is always to be excepted 'who did put all things under him,' 1 Cor. xv. 27. and who consequently is above him under whom he has put all things. If lastly he be termed blessed, it must be obscrved that he received blessing as well as divine honour, not only as God, but even as man. Rev. v. 12. 'worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honour and glory and blessing;' and hence, v. 13. blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.'

There is a still greater doubt respecting the reading in 1 Tim. iii. 16. ' God was manifest in the flesh.' Here again Erasmus asserts that neither Ambrose nor the Vetus Interpres read the word God in this verse, and that it does not appear in a considerable number of the early copies.* However this may be, it will be clear when the context is duly examined, that the whole passage must be understood of God the Father

* Ambrosius et Vulgatus Interpres legerunt pro sòs. ¿, id est, quod.' Erasmus ad 1 Tim. iii. 16. The Clermont MS. the Vuigate, and some other versions read, which. The Colbertine MS. reads is, who. All the other Greek MSS. have Otés. For a defence of the latter reading see Mill and Macknight in loco, and Pearson On the Creed. See also Waterland, Works, II. 158.

in conjunction with the Son. For it is not Christ who is the great mystery of godliness,' but God the Father in Christ, as appears from Col. ii. 2. the mystery of God and of the Father, and of Christ.' 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ....to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.' Why therefore should God the Father not be in Christ through the medium of all those offices of reconciliation which the apostle enumerates in this passage of Timothy? God was manifest in the flesh-namely in the Son, his own image; in any other way he is invisible: nor did Christ come to manifest himself, but his Father, John xiv. 8, 9. Justified in the Spirit'-and who should be thereby justified, if not the Father? Seen of angels'—inasmuch as they desired to look into this mystery, 1 Pet. i. 12. Preached unto the Gentiles'-that is, the Father in Christ. 'Believed on in the world'—and to whom is faith so applicable, as to the Father through Christ? Received up into glory '—namely, he who was in the Son from the beginning, after reconciliation had been made, returned with the Son into glory, or was received into that supreme glory which he had obtained in the Son. But there is no need of discussing this text at greater length: those who are determined to defend at all events the received opinion, according to which these several prepositions are predicated not of the Father but of the Son alone, when they are in fact applicable both to the one and the other, though on different grounds, may easily establish that the Son is God, a truth which I am far

from denying but they will in vain attempt to prove from this passage that he is the supreme God, and one with the Father.

The next passage is Tit. ii. 13. the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.' Here also the glory of God the Father may be intended, with which Christ is to be invested on his second advent, Matt. xvi. 27. as Ambrose understands the passage from the analogy of Scripture. For the whole force of the proof depends upon the definitive article, which may be inserted or omitted before the two nouns in the Greek without affecting the sense; or the article prefixed to one may be common to both.* Besides, in other languages, where the article is not used, the words may be understood to apply indifferently either to one or two persons; and nearly the same words are employed without the article in reference to two persons, Philipp. i. 2. and Philem. 3. except that in the latter passages the word Father is substituted for great. So also 2 Pet. i. 1. through the righteousness of [our] God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.' Here the repetition of the pronoun uv without the article, as it is read by some of the Greek manuscripts, shows that two distinct persons are spoken of. And surely what is proposed to us as an object of belief, especially in a matter involving a primary article of faith, ought not to be an inference forced and extorted from passages relating to an entirely different subject, in which the readings are sometimes various, and the

เ

* On the importance of the Greek article, see Mr. Granville Sharp's Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, &c.; Dr. Wordsworth's Six Letters to Mr. Sharp; Mr. Boyd's Supplementary Researches; and Bp. Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek Article.

VOL. I.

20

sense doubtful,-nor hunted out by careful research from among articles and particles,-nor elicited by dint of ingenuity, like the answers of an oracle, from sentences of dark or equivocal meaning-but should be susceptible of abundant proof from the clearest sources. For it is in this that the superiority of the gospel to the law consists; this, and this alone, is consistent with its open simplicity; this is that true light and clearness which we had been taught to expect would be its characteristic. Lastly, he who calls God great, does not necessarily call him supreme, or essentially one with the Father; nor on the other hand does he thereby deny that Christ is the great God, in the sense in which he has been above proved to be such.

Another passage which is also produced is 1 John iii. 16. hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us.' Here however the Syriac version reads illius instead of Dei, and it remains to be seen whether other manuscripts do the same.* The pronoun he, Exɛivos, seems not to be referred to God, but to the Son of God, as may be concluded from a comparison of the former chapters of this epistle, and the first, second, fifth and eighth verses of the chapter before us, as well as from Rom. v. 8. God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.' The love of God, therefore, is the love of the Father, whereby he so loved the world, that he purchased it with his own blood,' Acts xx. 28. and for it laid down his life,' that is, the life of his only begotten Son, as it may be explained from John iii. 16. and by analogy from many other passages. Nor is it ex

*The Ethiopic version reads aurou. Mill omits oữ.