They who neglect and scorn shall never taste;
But hard be harden'd, blind be blinded more,
That they may stumble on and deeper fall;
And none but such from mercy I exclude."

III. 168-202.

For passages in harmony with this, see also III. 227233. 290-294. VII. 79 and 173. X. 817. XII. 405— 410.

All these, and especially that quoted at length, are in harmony with The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, and in direct opposition to Christian Doctrine, which declares:

"There is no particular predestination or election, but only general; or, in other words, the privilege belongs to all who heartily believe and continue in their belief." "Of what consequence is it to us, to know whether the prescience of God foresees who will, or will not, subsequently believe? for no one believes because God has foreseen his belief; but God foresees his belief, because he was about to believe."

That is, man believes of himself; God, in no way, influences him thereto; only, simply foresees what he will do. Again:

"Those who hold the doctrine that man believes because he is ordained to eternal life, not that he is ordained to eternal life because he will believe, cannot avoid attributing to God the character of a respecter of persons.” Prose Works, Vol. IV. p. 57.

Milton does indeed, in Paradise Lost as in Christian Doctrine, hold that man's freedom is not lost, or intrenched upon, in passing from death unto life; salvation, in some sense, turns upon his willing or choice.

"Man shall not quite be lost, but saved who will."

Yet, lest he should be understood to deny that man is moved to this willing, and hold that he moves himself, or is self-moved to it; consequently his will, or he himself rather than anything outside of himself, is the primary and efficient cause of his willing, and his salvation, he adds:

"Yet not of will in him, but grace in me,
Freely vouchsafed."

Milton goes even further, and defines more carefully the character of this grace, and the condition on which it is given. It is not given because man merits it, or seeks it, but because God wills it. It

"Comes unprevented, unimplored, unsought;

Happy for man, so coming; he her aid

Can never seek, once dead in sins and lost."

III. 230-233.

Those that receive it "are chosen of peculiar grace,"

"Elect above the rest."

Is not this, in other but plain words, the doctrine of Christ in John 1: 12, 13? "As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Also of Paul, Rom. 11: 5-8?" Even so then at this present time, also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."

On the passage above quoted from Paradise Lost, Bk. III. 1. 168-202, besides the remark of Addison, already given, there are two characteristic notes, remarkable from the fact that they agree as to the doctrine of the passage, though one is the concession of a friend, and the other of an enemy of this doctrine.

"Our author,” says Newton, pointing to the line-Some I have chosen,' "did not hold the doctrine of rigid predestination: he was of the sentiments of the more moderate Calvinists; and thought that some, indeed, were elected of peculiar grace; the rest might be saved, complying with the terms and conditions of the Gospel."

"It is a great pity," says Thyer, pointing to that part of the passage that begins This, my long sufferance, and my day of grace,' that our author should have thus debased the dignity of the Deity by putting in his mouth this horrid doctrine of a day of grace, after which it is not possible for a man

to repent; and there can be no sort of excuse for him, except the candid reader will make some allowance for the prejudices which he might possibly receive from the gloomy divinity of that enthusiastic age in which he lived.” -Quoted from Brydges.

The evidence is full and positive that Milton did hold what are called Calvinistic doctrines. The only questions are When? How long? There is but little evidence that he had any special affection for them in his youth, though he was educated in Puritan principles. His earliest tutor, Young, has been called a "rigid and zealous Puritan." Notwithstanding his early education —

"There are many traits in his early taste and early poems," says Sir E. Brydges, "which make us hesitate as to his boyish attachment to this sect." "There is evidence that, at this time," says Prof. Masson, "he had not given so much attention, on his own personal account, to matters of religious doctrine, as he afterwards bestowed." . . . . His seriousness was rather a constitutional seriousness, ratified and nourished by rational reflection than the assumed temper of a sect." Essays on English Poets, p. 38. Camb. 1856. "It does not seem to me," to quote again from Brydges, “ that there are any traces of these Calvinistic prejudices at the time he visited Italy, unless his friendship to Charles Diodati be a sign of it, which I think (looking at the poetical address) is not." - Brydges' Life of Milton, p. 11. Bost. 1855.

There is the same progress and coming into the light, on these doctrines, as on that of the Son of God and the Spirit of God. If he denied them in youth and early manhood, he came to hold them and embrace them, in later years, as is seen in "The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce," in 1644, in Paradise Lost, and, as might be shown by an appeal to "True Religion, Heresy, etc.," in 1673, the year before his death.

Of the Son of God in The Christian Doctrine.

The next subject, in the order of Christian doctrine, is "The Son of God." In entering upon the discussion of this fundamental doctrine, Milton gives warning beforehand, that he is about to maintain opinions obnoxious to the church generally. He also shows not a little anxiety to conciliate favor and get a fair hearing. He likewise shows much

manliness in facing the opprobrium which he knows he shall draw upon himself in advocating his views of the Son of God.

"I cannot enter," he says," upon subjects of so much difficulty as the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, without again premising a few introductory remarks. If indeed I were a member of the church of Rome, which requires implicit obedience to its creed, on all points of faith, I should have acquiesced, from education or habit, in its simple decree and authority, even though it denies that the doctrine of the Trinity, as now received, is capable of being proved from any passage of Scripture. 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 deduced 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 myself, should take offence at my freedom, particularly as I impose my authority on no one, but merely propose what I think more worthy of belief than the creed in general acceptation."- Prose Works, IV. 78.

Having thus premised, Milton devotes the largest and most elaborate chapter of Christian Doctrine to his views of the character and offices of the Son of God. Outright he rejects the supreme divinity of the Son, and maintains that He is a dependent, created being created within the limits of time, not by any necessity, but by the will and decree of the Father. He is endued, by the Father, with the divine nature and substance, but distinct from the Father and inferior, yet one with Him in affection and will. He further maintains that the Son existed in the beginning, and was the first of the whole creation. By power delegated from the Father, He created the heavens, and the earth, and all things. With these views, Milton of course denies the eternal generation of the Son, His self-existence, coëquality, and coëssentiality with the Father. But we must not leave the subject with this synopsis. We must show the manner in which these opinions are supported.

In the chapter on decrees, Milton divides the efficiency of God into internal and external. Internal efficiency is independent of all extraneous agency. "Such," he says, "are His decrees." External efficiency shows itself in the execution of the divine decrees. It is that

"Whereby He carries into effect, by external agency, whatever decrees

He hath purposed within Himself. It may be comprised under the heads of Generation, Creation, and the Government of the Universe."

'First, Generation, whereby God, in pursuance of His decree, has begotten His only Son, whence He chiefly derives His appellation of Father.” Id. 30. 79.

Milton now, to establish what he has laid down, argues like a schoolman, for several pages. He argues to show that the Son was not eternally begotten, but begotten within the limits of time. He admits the truth of the holy scriptures:

"Whatever some of the moderns allege to the contrary, that the Son existed in the beginning, under the name of the Logos or Word, and was the first of the whole creation; by whom, afterwards, all other things were made, both in heaven and earth."

Having quoted John 1:1-3, "In the beginning," etc.; 17:5," And now, O Father, glorify Me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was;" and many other passages, in which not only existence before the world, but even the creation of the world, is ascribed to the Son, he says:

"All these passages prove the existence of the Son before the world was made, but they conclude nothing respecting His generation from all eternity.

Upon the 3d Psalm and those kindred passages that speak of the Son as begotten, we must give a specimen of Milton's argumentation.

"It is evident," he says, " upon a careful comparison and examination of all these passages, that however the generation of the Son may have taken place, it arose from no natural necessity, as is generally contended, but was no less owing to the decree and will of the Father than His priesthood or kingly power, or His resuscitation from the dead. Nor is it any objection to this, that He bears the title of Begotten, in whatever sense that expression is to be understood; or of God's own Son, Rom. 8:32. For He is called the own Son of God merely because He had no other Father besides God; whence He Himself said, that God was His Father. (John 5:18.) For to Adam God stood less in the relation of Father than of Creator, having only formed him from the dust of the earth; whereas He was properly the Father of the Son, made of His own substance. Yet it does not follow from