Quest. IX., X., XI. (continued 3)

Again, it is said, in Isa. viii. 13. Sanctify the Lord, or Jehovah, of hosts himself, and let him be your fear and your dread; where he speaks of a person, whom he not only calls Jehovah, the Lord of hosts, which alone would prove him to be a divine Person; but he farther considers him as the object of divine worship, Sanctify him, and let him be your fear and your dread. Certainly, if we can prove this to be spoken of Christ, it will be a strong and convincing argument to evince his proper Deity; now that it is spoken of him, is very evident, if we compare it with the verse immediately following, And he shall be for a sanctuary, which I would chuse to render, For he shall be for a sanctuary, as the Hebrew particle Vau, which we render And, is often rendered elsewhere, and so it is assigned as a reason why we should sanctify him; and then it follows, though we are obliged so to do, yet the Jews will not give that glory to him, for he will be to them for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence, as he shall be for a sanctuary to those that are faithful. That this is spoken of Christ, not only appears from the subject matter hereof, as it is only he that properly speaking, is said to be a rock of offence, or in whom the world was offended, by reason of his appearing in a low condition therein; but, by comparing it with other scriptures, and particularly Isa. xxviii. 16. Behold, I lay in Sion, for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste, this will more evidently appear. In the latter of these scriptures, he is styled, a foundation stone, the rock on which his church is built; in the former a burthensome stone; and both these scriptures are referred to, and applied to him, 1 Pet. ii. 6, 8. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence to them 304that are disobedient; where the apostle proves plainly, that our Saviour is the Person who is spoken of, in both these texts, by the prophet Isaiah, and consequently that he is Jehovah, whom we are to sanctify, and to make our fear and our dread.

Again, there is another scripture, which plainly proves this, viz. Numb. xxi. 5, 6, 7. And the people spake against God, and against Moses; and the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, and much people of Israel died; therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, or Jehovah, and against thee. He, who is called God, in ver. 5. whom they spake against, is called Jehovah in ver. 7. who sent fiery serpents among them, that destroyed them, for their speaking against him; now this is expressly applied to our Saviour by the apostle, 1 Cor. x. 9. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

Again, the prophet Isaiah, having had a vision of the angels, adoring and ministering to that glorious Person, who is represented, as sitting on a throne, in chap. vi. 1, 2. he reflects on what he had seen in ver. 5. and expresses himself in these words, Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord, or Jehovah, of hosts. Now this is expressly applied to our Saviour, in John xii. 41. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him; where it is plain that he intends this vision; as appears from the foregoing verse, which refers to a part thereof, in which God foretels that he would blind the eyes, and harden the hearts of the unbelieving Jews; from whence it is evident, that the Person who appeared to him, sitting on a throne, whom he calls Jehovah, was our Saviour.

Again, this may farther be argued, from what is said in Isa. xlv. 21. to the end, There is no God else besides me, a just God, and a Saviour, there is none besides me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else, I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one say, In the lord have I righteousness and strength; even to him shall men come, and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory. This is a glorious proof of our Saviour’s Deity, not only from his being called Jehovah, but from several other divine characters ascribed to him; thus the Person whom the prophet speaks of, styles himself Jehovah, and adds, that there is no God besides me; and he is represented as swearing by himself, which none ought to do but a divine Person; and he encourages all the ends of the earth to look to him for salvation; so that if it can be made appear that this is spoken of our Saviour, it will be an 305undeniable proof of his proper Deity, since nothing more can be said to express the glory of the Father than this. Now that these words are spoken of our Saviour, must be allowed by every one, who reads them impartially, for there are several things that agree with his character as Mediator; as when all the ends of the earth are invited to look to him for salvation. We have a parallel scripture, which is plainly applied to him, in Isa. xi. 10. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, that is, the Messiah, who should spring from the root or stock of Jesse; which shall stand for an ensign to the people, to it, or to him, shall the Gentiles seek, which is the same thing as for the ends of the earth to look to him; and besides, the word looking to him is a metaphor, taken from a very remarkable type of this matter, to wit, Israel’s looking to the brazen serpent for healing; thus he, who is here spoken of, is represented as a Saviour, and as the object of faith.

Again, he is represented as swearing by himself; and the subject matter of this oath is, That unto him every knee should bow, and every tongue should swear; this is expressly applied to our Saviour, in the New Testament, as containing a prophecy of his being the judge of the world, Rom. xiv. 10, 11, 12. We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ; for it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God; so then every one of us shall give an account of himself to God. And the same words are used, with a little variation, in Phil. ii. 10, 11. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father.

Again, the person, of whom the prophet speaks, is one against whom the world was incensed, which can be meant of none but Christ, as signifying the opposition that he should meet with, and the rage and fury that should be directed against him, when appearing in our nature.

Again, he is said to be one in whom we have righteousness, and in whom the seed of Israel shall be justified; which very evidently agrees with the account we have of him in the New Testament, as a person by whose righteousness we are justified, or whose righteousness is imputed to us for that end.

And this leads us to consider another scripture, Jer. xxiii. 6. in which it is said, This is his name, whereby he shall be called, The Lord, or Jehovah, our righteousness. His being called our righteousness, as was but now observed, implies, that the Messiah, our great Mediator, is the person spoken of, who is called Jehovah. But this is farther evinced from the context, inasmuch as it is said, ver. 5. Behold the days come, viz. the Gospel 306day, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and prosper; and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth; which any one, who judges impartially of the sense of Scripture, will conclude to be spoken concerning our Saviour’s erecting the gospel-dispensation, and being the sole lord and governor of his church. How the exercise of his dominion over it proves his Deity, will be considered under a following head. All that we need to observe at present is, that this description is very agreeable to his character in Scripture, as Mediator; therefore he is called Jehovah in this verse.

Object. 1. It is objected, that the words may be otherwise translated, viz. This is the name, whereby the Lord our righteousness, namely, the Father, shall call him.

Answ. It may be replied, that the Father is never called in Scripture, our righteousness as was but now observed; this being a character peculiar to the Mediator, as it is fully explained in several places in the New Testament. As to what may be farther said, in answer to this objection, it is well known that the Hebrew word יקראו signifies either actively or passively, as it is differently pointed, the letters being the same; and we shall not enter into a critical disquisition concerning the origin, or authenticity of the Hebrew points, to prove that our translation is just, rather than that mentioned in the objection; but shall have recourse to the context to prove it. Accordingly it appears from thence, that if it were translated according to the sense of the objectors, it would be little less than a tautology, q. d. I will raise to David a righteous branch; and this is the name whereby Jehovah, our righteousness, shall call him, viz. the Branch; so that at least, the sense of our translation of the text, seems more natural, as well as more agreeable to the grammatical construction observed in the Hebrew language, in which the words of a sentence are not so transposed as they are in the Greek and Latin, which they are supposed to be, in the sense of the text contained in this objection.

Object. 2. It is farther objected; that though our translation of the text were just, and Christ were called Jehovah, yet it will not prove his Deity, since it is said, in Jer. xxxiii. 16. speaking concerning the church, This is the name whereby she shall be called, The Lord, or Jehovah, our righteousness.

Answ. It is evident from the context, that this is a parallel scripture with that before mentioned; the same person, to wit, the Branch, is spoken of and the same things predicted concerning the gospel church, that was to be governed by him. Therefore, though it is plain that our translators understood this text, as spoken of the church of the Jews or rather the Gospel-Church, 307as many others do, yet, if we consider the sense of the Hebrew words here used יקרא לה, it is very evident that they might, with equal, if not, with greater propriety, have been rendered, shall be called by her; and so the sense is the same with that of the other but now mentioned; the Branch, to wit, our Saviour, is to be called, The Lord our righteousness, and adored as such by the church.

There is another scripture, in which our Saviour is called Jehovah, in Joel ii. 27. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, viz. Jehovah, your God, and none else; compared with ver. 32. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord, viz. Jehovah, shall be delivered. In both these verses, it is evident, that our Saviour is called Jehovah; for the person, who is so called, in the former of them, is said, ver. 28. to Pour out his Spirit on all flesh; &c. which Scripture is expressly referred to him, in Acts ii. 16, 17. and this pouring out of his Spirit on all flesh here predicted is also applied, in ver. 33. to him; Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father, the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear. The argument is therefore this: he who was, according to this prophecy, to pour out his Spirit on all flesh, is called Jehovah, your God; but this our Saviour is said to have done, therefore the name Jehovah is justly applied to him. As to the latter of these verses, viz. 32. Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered; this also is referred to, and explained, as spoken of Christ, in Rom. x. 13. And that the apostle here speaks of calling on the name of Christ, is plain, from the foregoing and following verses. In ver. 9. it is expressed, by confessing the Lord Jesus, and it is there connected with salvation. And the apostle proceeds to consider, that, in order to our confessing, or calling on his name, it is necessary that Christ should be preached, ver. 14, 15. and he farther adds, in the following verses, that though Christ was preached, and his glory proclaimed in the gospel, yet the Jews believed not in him, and consequently called not on his name; which was an accomplishment of what had been foretold by the prophet Isaiah, chap. liii. 1. Who hath believed our report, &c. intimating that it was predicted, that our Saviour should be rejected, and not be believed in by the Jews: so that it is very evident the apostle is speaking concerning him, and applying to him what is mentioned in this scripture, in the prophecy of Joel, in which he is called Jehovah; therefore this glorious name belongs to him. Several other scriptures might have been referred to, to prove that Christ is called Jehovah, which are also applied to him in the New-Testament, some of which may be occasionally mentioned under 308some following arguments; but, I think, what hath been already said is abundantly sufficient to prove his Deity, from his having this glorious name given to him; which leads us to consider some other names given to him for the proof thereof; accordingly,

2. He is styled Lord and God, in such a sense, as plainly proves his proper Deity. We will not, indeed, deny, that the names Lord and God, are sometimes given to creatures; yet we are not left without sufficient light, whereby we may plainly discern when they are applied to the one living and true God, and when not. To assert the contrary, would be to reflect on the wisdom and goodness of God; and it would not only render those scriptures, in which they are contained, like the trumpet, that gives an uncertain sound, but we should be in the greatest danger of being led aside into a most destructive mistake, in a matter of the highest importance, and hereby be induced to give that glory to the creature, which is due to God alone; therefore we shall always find something, either in the text, or context, that evidently determines the sense of these names, whenever they are applied to God, or the creature.

And here let it be observed, that whenever the word God or Lord is given to a creature, there is some diminutive character annexed to it, which plainly distinguishes it from the true God: thus when it is given to idols, it is intimated, that they are so called, or falsely esteemed to be gods by their deceived worshippers; and so they are called strange gods, Deut. xxxii. 16. and molten gods, Exod. xxxiv. 17. and new gods, Judges v. 8. and their worshippers are reproved as brutish and foolish, Jer. x. 8.

Again, when the word God, is applied to men, there is also something in the context, which implies, that whatever characters of honour are given to them, yet they are subject to the divine controul; as it is said, Psal. lxxxii. 1, 6. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty he judgeth among the gods; and they are at best but mortal men; I have said ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most high, but ye shall die like men; they are, indeed, described, as being made partakers of the divine image, consisting in some lesser branches of sovereignty and dominion; but this is infinitely below the idea of sovereignty and dominion, which is contained in the word when applied to the great God.

It is true, God says to Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, Exod. vii. 1. by which we are not to understand that any of the divine perfections were communicated to, or predicated of him; for God cannot give his glory to another: but the sense is plainly this, that he was set in God’s stead: thus he is said to be instead of God to Aaron, chap. iv. 16. and 309the same expression is used by Elihu to Job, chap. xxxiii. 6. I am according to thy wish in God’s stead; so that Moses’s being made a god to Pharaoh, implies nothing else but this, that he should, by being God’s minister, in inflicting the plagues which he designed to bring on Pharaoh and his servants, be rendered formidable to them; not that he should have a right to receive divine honour from them.

Again, when the word God is put absolutely, without any additional character of glory, or diminution annexed to it, it must always be understood of the great God, this being that name by which he is generally known in scripture, and never otherwise applied, without an intimation given that he is not intended thereby: thus the Father and the Son are described in John i. 1. The Word was with God, and the Word was God, and in many other places of scripture; therefore if we can prove that our Saviour is called God in scripture, without any thing in the context tending to detract from the most known sense of the word, this will be sufficient to prove his proper Deity; but we shall not only find that he is called God therein; but there are some additional glories annexed to that name, whereby this will more abundantly appear.

As to the word Lord, though that is often applied to creatures, and is given to superiors by their subjects or servants, yet this is also sufficiently distinguished, when applied to a divine Person, from any other sense thereof, as applied to creatures. Now, if we can prove that our Saviour is called Lord and God in this sense, it will sufficiently evince his proper Deity; and, in order hereto, we shall consider several scriptures, wherein he is not only so called, but several characters of glory are annexed, and divine honours given to him, which are due to none but a divine Person, which abundantly determines the sense of these words, when applied to him. And,

(1.) We shall consider some scriptures in which he is called Lord, particularly, Psal. cx. 1. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot-stool; that our Saviour the Messiah, is the person whom David calls his Lord, is very evident, from its being quoted and applied to him in the New Testament, in Mat. xxii. 44. &c. and that by calling him Lord he ascribes divine honour to him, appears from hence, that when the question was put to the Pharisees, If Christ were David’s Lord, how could he be his Son? They might easily have replied to it, had it been taken in a lower sense; for it is not difficult to suppose that David might have a son descending from him, who might be advanced to the highest honours, short of what are divine; but they not understanding how two infinitely distant natures could be united in one person, so that at the same time he should be called 310David’s son, and yet his Lord, in such a sense as proves his Deity, they were confounded, and put to silence.

But whether they acknowledged him to be a divine Person or no, it is evident that David considers him as such; or as the Person who, pursuant to God’s covenant made with him, was to sit and rule upon his throne, in whom alone it could be said that it should be perpetual, or that of his kingdom there should be no end; and inasmuch as he says, ver. 3. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, speaking of the Person whom he calls his Lord, who was to be his Son, he plainly infers that he should exert divine power, and consequently prove himself to be a divine Person.

Again, if the word Lord be applied to him, as denoting his sovereignty over the church, and his being the Governor of the world, this will be considered under the next head, when we speak concerning those glorious titles and attributes that are given to him, which prove his Deity; and therefore we shall waive it at present, and only consider two or three scriptures, in which he is called Lord, in a more glorious sense than when it is applied to any creature: thus in Rev. xvii. 14. speaking of the Lamb, which is a character that can be applied to none but him, and that as Mediator, he is called Lord of lords, and the Prince of the kings of the earth, in Rev. i. 5. and the Lord of glory, in 1 Cor. ii. 8. which will be more particularly considered, when we speak concerning his glorious titles, as an argument to prove it; therefore all that we shall observe at present is, that this is the same character by which God is acknowledged by those that deny our Saviour’s Deity to be described in Deut. x. 17. The Lord your God, is God of gods, and Lord of lords; a great God and terrible; so that we have as much ground to conclude, when Christ is called Lord, with such additional marks of glory, of which more in its proper place, that this proves his Deity, as truly as the Deity of the Father is proved from this scripture.

(2.) Christ is often in scripture called God, in such a sense, in which it is never applied to a creature: thus he is called, in Psal. xlv. 6. Thy throne O God, is for ever, and ever; and there are many other glorious things spoken of him in that Psalm, which is a farther confirmation that he, who is here called God, is a divine Person, in the same sense as God the Father is; particularly he is said, ver. 2. To be fairer than the children of men, that is, infinitely above them; and, ver. 11. speaking to the church, it is said, He is thy Lord, and worship thou him; and, in the following verses, the church’s compleat blessedness consists in its being brought into his palace, who is the King thereof, and so denotes him to be the spring and fountain of compleat blessedness, and his name, or glory, is to be remembered 311in all generations, and the people shall praise him for ever and ever. This glory is ascribed to him, who is called God; and many other things are said concerning him, relating to his works, his victories, his trumphs, which are very agreeable to that character; so that it evidently appears that the Person spoken of in this Psalm, is truly and properly God.

I am sensible that the Anti-trinitarians will object to this, that several things are spoken concerning him in this Psalm, that argue his inferiority to the Father; but this only proves that the Person here spoken of is considered as God-man, Mediator, in which respect he is, in one nature, equal, and, in the other, inferior to him; were it otherwise, one expression contained in this Psalm would be inconsistent with, and contradictory to another.

To this we shall only add, as an undeniable proof, that it is Christ that is here spoken of, as also that he is considered as Mediator, as but now observed; that the apostle, speaking of him as Mediator, and displaying his divine glory as such, refers to these words of the Psalmist, Heb. i. 8. Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Again, another proof of our Saviour’s Deity may be taken from Matth. i. 23. Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is, God with us. His incarnation is what gives occasion, as is plain from the words, for his being described by this name or character, God with us, which imports the same thing as when it is elsewhere said, John i. 14. The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. This cannot be applied to any but Christ; to say the Father is called Emmanuel, is such a strain upon the sense of the text, as no impartial reader will allow of; for it is plain that it is a name given to the Son upon this great occasion; and this is as glorious a display of his Deity, as when God the Father says, if we suppose that text to be spoken of him elsewhere, in Exod. xxix. 45. I will dwell amongst the children of Israel, and will be their God.

Again, Christ’s Deity is proved, in 1 Tim. iii. 16. from his being styled God, manifest in the flesh, implying, that the second Person in the Godhead was united to our nature; for neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost were ever said to be manifested in the flesh; and, besides, he is distinguished from the Spirit, as justified by him. And he is not called God, because of his incarnation, as some Socinian writers suppose; for to be incarnate, supposes the pre-existence of that nature, to which the human nature was united, since it is called elsewhere, assuming, or taking flesh, as it is here, being manifested therein, and consequently that he was God before this 312act of incarnation; and there is certainly nothing in the text which determines the word God to be taken in a less proper sense, any more than when it is applied to the Father.

Object. It is objected that the word God is not found in all the manuscripts of the Greek text, nor in some translations thereof, particularly the Syriac, Arabic, and vulgar Latin, which render it, the mystery which was manifest in the flesh, &c.

Answ. It is not pretended to be left out in above two Greek copies, and it is very unreasonable to oppose these to all the rest. As for the Syriac and Arabic translations; some suppose that it is not true in fact that the word God is left out in the Arabic, and though it be left out in the Syriac, yet it is contained in the sense there, which is, great is the mystery of godliness that he was manifested in the flesh; and as for the vulgar Latin version, that has not credit enough, especially among Protestants, to support it, when standing in competition with so many copies of scripture in which the word is found; therefore we can by no means give up the argument which is taken from this text to prove our Saviour’s Deity. Besides as a farther confirmation hereof, we might appeal to the very words of the text itself, whereby it will plainly appear, that if the word God be left out of it, the following part of the verse will not be so consistent with a mystery as it is with our Saviour; particularly it is a very great impropriety of expression to say that a mystery, or as some Socinian writers explain it, the will of God^[112], was manifest in the flesh, and received in a glorious manner; for this is not agreeable to the sense of the Greek words, since it is plain that εν σαρκι εφανερωθη, which we render was manifest in the flesh, is justly translated, being never used in scripture to signify the preaching the gospel by weak mortal men, as they understand it: but on the other hand it is often applied to the manifestation of our Saviour in his incarnation, and is explained when it is said, John i. 14. that he was made flesh, and we beheld his glory^[113]; and as for the gospel, though it met with reception when preached to the Gentiles, and there were many circumstances of glory that attended this dispensation, yet it could not be said for that reason to be received up into glory. Now since what is said 313in this verse agrees to our Saviour, and not to the mystery of godliness, we are bound to conclude that he is God manifest in the flesh, and therefore that this objection is of no force.

The next scripture which we shall consider, is Acts xx. 28. Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood, where we observe, that he who is here spoken of is said to have a propriety in the church; this no mere creature can be said to have, but our Saviour is not only here but elsewhere described as having a right to it; thus it is said in Hebrews iii. 3, 4, 6. He was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house, hath more honour than the house; and he that hath built all things is God, which is as though he should say, our Lord Jesus Christ hath not only built his church but all things, and therefore must be God; and ver. 6. he is called a Son over his own house; so that he is the purchaser, the builder, and the proprietor of his church, and therefore must be a divine person; and then it is observed, that he that hath purchased this church is God, and that God hath done this with his own blood; this cannot be applied to any but the Mediator, the Son of God, whose Deity it plainly proves.

Object. 1. Some object against this sense of the text, that the word God here is referred to the Father, and so the sense is, feed the church of God, that is, of the Father, which He, that is, Christ, hath purchased with his own blood.

Answ. To this it may be answered, that this seems a very great strain and force upon the grammatical sense of the words, for certainly He must refer to the immediate antecedent, and that is God, to wit, the Son. If such a method of expounding scripture were to be allowed, it would be an easy matter to make the word of God speak what we please to have it; therefore we must take it in the most plain and obvious sense, as that is which we have given of this text, whereby it appears that God the Son has purchased the church with his own blood, and that he has a right to it.

Object. 2. God the Father is said to have purchased the church by the blood of Christ, which is called his blood, as he is the Proprietor of all things.

Answ. Though God be the Proprietor of all things, yet no one, that does not labour very hard to maintain the cause he is defending, would understand his blood in this sense. According to this method of speaking, God the Father might be said to have done every thing that the Mediator did, and so to have shed his blood upon the cross, as well as to have purchased the church thereby, as having a propriety in it.

The next scripture, which proves our Saviour’s Deity, is Rom. ix. 5. Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who 314is over all, God blessed for ever; where he is not only called God, but God blessed for ever; which is a character too high for any creature, and is the very same that is given to the Father, in 2 Cor. xi. 31. who is styled, The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, that is, not only the Object of worship, but the Fountain of blessedness. Now if Christ be so called, as it seems evident that he is, then the word God is, in this text, applied to him in the highest sense, so as to argue him a divine Person. Now that this is spoken of our Saviour, is plain, because he is the subject of the proposition therein contained, and is considered, as being of the fathers, concerning the flesh, i. e. with respect to his human nature; so that if we can prove that he is here called God, blessed for ever, we shall have the argument we contend for, this being the only thing contested by the Anti-trinitarians.

Object. It is objected, that the words maybe otherwise rendered, namely, Let God, viz. the Father, who is over all, be blessed for ever, to wit, for this great privilege, that Christ should come in the flesh; therefore it does not prove that which we bring it for.

Answ. In defence of our translation of these words, it may be replied, that it is very agreeable to the grammatical construction thereof. It is true, Erasmus defends the other sense of the text, and thereby gives an handle to many after him, to make use of it, as an objection against this doctrine, which, he says, may be plainly proved from many other scriptures; it is very strange, that, with one hand, he should build up, and, with the other, overthrow Christ’s proper Deity, unless we attribute it to that affectation which he had in his temper to appear singular, and, in many things, run counter to the common sense of mankind; or else to the favourable thoughts which he appears to have had, in some instances, of the Arian scheme. It may be observed, that the most ancient versions render this text in the sense of our translation; as do most of the ancient fathers in their defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, as a late writer observes.^[114] And it is certain, this sense given thereof by the Anti-trinitarians, is so apparently forced and strained, that some of the Socinians themselves, whose interest it was to have taken it therein, have not thought fit to insist on it. And a learned writer^[115], who has appeared in the Anti-trinitarian cause, seems to argue below himself, when he attempts to give a turn to this text, agreeable to his own scheme; for certainly he would have defended his sense of the text better than he does, had it been defensible; since we can receive very little conviction from his alleging, that “It is 315uncertain whether the word God was originally in the text; and if it was, whether it be not spoken of the Father.” To say no more than this to it, is not to defend this sense of the text; for if there were any doubt whether the word God was left out of any ancient manuscripts, he would have obliged the world, had he referred to them, which, I think, no one else has done: and, since he supposes it uncertain whether it be not there spoken of the Father, that ought to have been proved, or not suggested. We might observe, in defence of our translation, that whenever the words are so used in the New Testament, that they may be translated, Blessed be God^[116], they are disposed in a different form, or order, and not exactly so as we read them therein: but, though this be a probable argument, we will not insist on it, but shall rather prove our translation to be just, from the connexion of the words, with what goes immediately before, where the apostle had been speaking of our Saviour, as descending from the fathers, according to the flesh, or considering him as to his human nature; therefore it is very reasonable to suppose he would speak of him as to his divine nature, especially since both these natures are spoken of together, in John i. 14. and elsewhere; and why they should not be intended here, cannot well be accounted for; so that if our translation be only supposed to be equally just with theirs, which, I think, none pretend to deny, the connexion of the parts of the proposition laid down therein, determines the sense thereof in our favour.

Here I cannot pass over that proof which we have of our Saviour’s divinity, in 1 John v. 20. This is the true God, and eternal life; where the true God is opposed, not only to those idols, which, in the following verse, he advises them to keep themselves from; in which sense the Anti-trinitarians themselves sometimes call him the true God, that is as much as to say, he is not an idol; upon which occasion a learned writer^[117] observes, that they deal with him as Judas did with our Saviour, cry, Hail Master, and then betray him: they would be thought to ascribe every thing to him but proper Deity; but that this belongs to him, will evidently appear, if we can prove that these words are spoken of him. It is true, the learned author of the scripture-doctrine of the Trinity^[118], takes a great deal of pains to prove that it is the Father who is here spoken of; and his exposition of the former part of the text, which does not immediately support his cause, seems very just, when he says, The Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, viz. the Father, 316and we are in him that is true, speaking still of the Father, by or through his Son Jesus Christ; but, I humbly conceive, he does not acquit himself so well in the sense he gives of the following words, upon which the whole stress of the argument depends, not only in that he takes it for granted, that the word ουτος, This, refers back, as is most natural and usual, not to the last word in order, but to the last and principal in sense, namely, the Father, which is, at least, doubtful, since any unprejudiced reader, who hath not a cause to maintain, which obliges him to understand it so, would refer it to the immediate antecedent, viz. the Son, by whom we have an interest in the Father; for when he had been speaking of him as Mediator, and, as such, as the author of this great privilege, namely, our knowing the Father, and being in him, it seems very agreeable to describe him as a Person every way qualified for this work, and consequently as being the true God; and besides, the apostle had spoken of the Father in the beginning of the verse, as him that is true, or, as some manuscripts have it, him that is the true God, as the same author observes; therefore what reason can be assigned why this should be again repeated, and the apostle supposed to say we know the Father, who is the true God, which certainly doth not run so smooth, to say the best of it, as when we apply it to our Saviour: that author, indeed, attempts to remove the impropriety of the expression, by giving an uncommon sense of these words, namely, This knowledge of God is the true religion, and the way to eternal life; or, this is the true worship of God by his Son unto eternal life, which, though it be a truth, yet can hardly be supposed to comport with the grammatical sense of the words; for why should the true God be taken in a proper sense in one part of the verse, and a figurative in the other? And if we take this liberty of supposing ellipses in texts, and supplying them with words that make to our own purpose, it would be no difficult matter to prove almost any doctrine from scripture; therefore the plain sense of the text is, that our Saviour is the true God intended in these words; and it is as evident a proof of his Deity, as when the Father is called, the true God; or the only true God, as he is in John xvii. 3. where, though he be so called, nevertheless he is not to be considered as the only Person who is God, in the most proper sense, but as having the one divine nature; in which sense the word God is always taken, when God is said to be one.

Moreover, let it be observed, that he who is here called the true God, is styled, life eternal, which, I humbly conceive, the Father never is, though he be said to give us eternal life, in one of the foregoing verses; whereas it is not only said concerning our Saviour, that in him was life, John i. 4. but he says, John 317xiv. 6. I am the life; and it is said in 1 John i. 2. The life was manifested, and we have seen it, or him, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, προς τον Πατερα which is an explication of his own words, John i. 1. προς τον Θεον with God; and then he explains what he had said in ver. 14. of the same chapter, when he says, the word of life, or the Person who calls himself the life was manifested unto us; which seems to be a peculiar phrase, used by this apostle, whereby he sets forth our Saviour’s glory under this character, whom he calls life, or eternal life; and he that is so, is the same Person, who is called the true God; which character of being true, is often used and applied to Christ, by the same inspired writer, more than by any other, as appears from several scriptures, Rev. iii. 17, 14, and chap. xix. 11. and though, indeed, it refers to him, as Mediator, as does also his being called eternal life, yet this agrees very well with his proper Deity, which we cannot but think to be plainly evinced by this text.

There is another scripture, which not only speaks of Christ as God, but with some other divine characters of glory added to his name, which prove his proper Deity: thus in Isa. ix. 6. he is styled, the mighty God, and several other glorious titles are given to him; as, the wonderful Counsellor, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace; these are all applied to him, as one whose incarnation was foretold, to us a Child is born, &c. And he is farther described as a Person who was to be the Governor of his church, as it is said, the government shall be upon his shoulders; all which expressions so exactly agree with his character as God-man, Mediator, that they contain an evident proof of his proper Deity.

Object. They who deny our Saviour’s Deity, object, that the words ought to be otherwise translated, viz. the wonderful Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, shall call him, the Prince of peace.

Answ. We have before observed, in defence of our translation of another text,^[119] that the Hebrew word, that we translate, he shall be called, (which is the same with that which is used in this text) does not fully appear to signify actively; and also that such transpositions, as are, both there and here, made use of, are not agreeable to that language; and therefore our sense of the text is so plain and natural, that any one, who reads it impartially, without forcing it to speak what they would have it, would take it in the sense in which we translate it, which contains a very evident proof of our Saviour’s divinity.

There is another scripture which speaks of Christ, not only as God, but as the great God, in Tit. ii. 13. Looking for that blessed 318hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; none ever denied that he, who is said to appear, is true and proper God, and therefore the principal thing we have to prove is, that the text refers only to our Saviour, or that the apostle does not speak therein of two Persons, to wit, the Father and the Son, but of the Son; and accordingly, though we oftentimes take occasion to vindicate our translation, here we cannot but think it ought to be corrected; and that the word and should be rendered even:^[120] But, because I would not lay too great a stress on a grammatical criticism, how probable soever it may be; we may consider some other things in the text, whereby it appears that our Saviour is the only Person spoken of therein, from what is said of him, agreeable to his character as Mediator: thus the apostle here speaks of his appearing; as he also does elsewhere, in Heb. ix. 28. He shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation; and in 1 John iii. 2. When he shall appear, we shall be like him, &c. and then he who, in this text, is said to appear, is called the blessed hope, that is, the object of his people’s expectation, who shall be blessed by him when he appears: thus he is called, in 1 Tim. i. 1. our hope, and in Coloss. i. 27. The hope of glory; now we do not find that the Father is described in scripture as appearing, or as the hope of his people. It is true, a late writer^[121] gives that turn to the text, and supposes, that as the Father is said to judge the world by Jesus Christ, and as when the Son shall come at last, it will be in the glory of his Father; so, in that sense, the Father may be said to appear by him, as the brightness of his glory shines forth in his appearance. But since this is no where applied to the sense of those other scriptures, which speak of every eye’s seeing him in his human nature, 319and plainly refer to some glories that shall be put upon that nature, which shall be the object of sense; why should we say that the text imports nothing else but that the Father shall appear in his appearing, which is such a strain upon the sense of the words, that they who make use of it would not allow of, in other cases? I might have added, as a farther confirmation of the sense we have given of this text, its agreeableness with what the apostle says, in Tit. ii. 10. when he calls the gospel, The doctrine of God our Saviour, and with what immediately follows in ver. 14. where, having before described him as our Saviour, he proceeds to shew wherein he was so, namely, by giving himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity; and he is not only called God our Saviour by this apostle, but he is so called in 2 Pet. i. 1. where the church is said to have obtained like precious faith, through the righteousness of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; or as the marginal reading has it, of our God and Saviour; this seems to be so just a reading of the text we are considering, that some, on the other side of the question, allow that the words will very well bear it; but they think their sense agreeable, as the author but now mentioned says, to the whole tenor of Scripture, which is little other than a boast, as though the scripture favoured their scheme of doctrine, which, whether it does or no, they, who consider the arguments on both sides, may judge; and we think, we have as much reason to conclude that our sense of the words, which establishes the doctrine of our Saviour’s being the great God, is agreeable to the whole tenor of scripture; but, passing that over, we proceed to another argument.

There is one scripture in which our Saviour is called both Lord and God, viz. John xx. 28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord, and my God. The manner of address to our Saviour, in these words, implies an act of adoration, given to him by this disciple, upon his having received a conviction of his resurrection from the dead; and there is nothing in the text, but what imports his right to the same glory which belongs to the Father, when He is called his people’s God. Herein they lay claim to him, as their covenant God, their chief good and happiness; thus David expresses himself, Psal. xxxi. 14. I trusted in thee, O Lord, I said thou art my God; and God promises, in Hos. ii. 23. that he would say to them which were not his people, Thou art my God; and chap. viii. 2. Israel shall cry unto me, My God we know thee; and the apostle Paul speaking of the Father, says, Phil. iv. 19. My God shall supply all your need, &c. that is, the God from whom I have all supplies of grace; the God whom I worship, to whom I owe all I have, or hope for, who is the Fountain of all blessedness. Now if there be nothing in this text we are considering, that 320determines the words to be taken in a lower sense than this, as there does not appear to be, then we are bound to conclude, that Christ’s Deity is fully proved from it.

Object. Some of the Socinians suppose, that the words, my Lord, and my God, contain a form of exclamation, or admiration; and that Thomas was surprized when he was convinced that our Saviour was risen from the dead, and so cries out, as one in a rapture, O my Lord! O my God! intending hereby the Father, to whose power alone this event was owing.

Answ. Such exclamations as these, though often used in common conversation, and sometimes without that due regard to the divine Majesty, that ought to attend them, are not agreeable to the scripture way of speaking. But, if any scriptures might be produced to justify it, it is sufficiently evident, that no such thing is intended in these words, not only because the grammatical construction will not admit of it,^[122] but because the words are brought in as a reply to what Christ had spoken to him in the foregoing verse; Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord, &c. whereas it is very absurd to suppose, that an exclamation contains the form of a reply, therefore it must be taken for an explicit acknowledgment of him, as his Lord, and his God; so that this objection represents the words so contrary to the known acceptation thereof, that many of the Socinians themselves, and other late writers, who oppose our Saviour’s proper Deity, do not think fit to insist on it, but have recourse to some other methods, to account for those difficulties, that lie in their way, taken from this, and other texts, where Christ is plainly called God, as in John i. 1. and many other places in the New Testament.

Here we may take occasion to consider the method which the Anti-trinitarians use to account for the sense of those scriptures, in which Christ is called God. And,

1. Some have had recourse to a critical remark, which they make on the word Θεος God, namely, that when it has the article ὁ before it, it adds an emphasis to the sense thereof, and determines it to be applied to the Father. And inasmuch as the word is sometimes applied to him, when there is no article, (which, to some, would appear an objection, sufficient to invalidate this remark) they add, that it is always to be applied to him, if there be nothing in the text that determines it otherwise. This remark was first made by Origen, and afterwards largely insisted on by Eusebius, as Dr. Clarke observes;^[123] and he so far gives into it, as that he apprehends it is never applied, 321when put absolutely in scripture, to any other Person; we shall therefore enquire into the justice thereof.

By the word God absolutely taken, (whether Θεος have an article before it or no) we understand nothing else but its being used without any thing to determine its application, either to the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost; whereas, on the other hand, when it is not absolutely used, there are several things, by which we may certainly know to which of the divine persons it belongs: thus it is particularly applied to the Father, when there is something in the text that distinguishes him from the Son or Spirit: so John xiv. 1. Ye believe in God, viz. the Father, believe also in me; and in all those scriptures, in which Christ is called the Son of God, there the word God is determined to be applied to the Father; and when God is said to act in relation to Christ as Mediator, as in Heb. ii. 13. Behold, I and the children which God hath given me, it is so applied.

And the word God is determined to be applied to the Son, when he is particularly mentioned, and so called, or described, by any of his Mediatorial works or characters; as in Matt. i. 23. God, viz. the Son, with us; and 1 Tim. iii. 16. God manifest in the flesh; or when there is any thing in the context, which discovers that the word God is to be applied to him.

Also, with respect to the Holy Ghost, when any of his Personal works, or characters, are mentioned in the text or context, and the word God applied to him, to whom they are ascribed, that determines it to belong to the Holy Ghost; as in Acts v. 3, 4. speaking concerning lying to the Holy Ghost, it is explained, Thou hast not lyed unto men, but unto God; and 1 Cor. iii. 16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you; but more of this when we speak of the Deity of the Holy Ghost. In these, and such like cases, the word God is not put absolutely; but, on the other hand, it is put absolutely when there is nothing of this nature to determine its application; as in those scriptures that speak of the divine Unity, viz. in Matt. xix. 17. There is none good but one, that is God; and in 1 Cor. viii. 4. There is none other God but one; and in James ii. 19. Thou believest that there is one God, &c. and John x. 33. Thou, being a man, makest thyself God; and in many other places of the like nature, in which there is an idea contained of the divine perfections; but it is not particularly determined which of the Persons in the Godhead is intended thereby.

This is what we are to understand by the word Θεος, God, being put absolutely without any regard to its having an article before it, or not; from whence nothing certain can be determined concerning the particular application thereof, since many scriptures might easily be referred to, in which it is put without 322an article, though applied to the Father; and, on the other hand, it has very often an article put before it when applied to idols, or false gods;^[124] and the devil is called, ὁ Θεος του αιωνος τουτου, the god of this world; and it may be observed, that in two evangelists,^[125] referring to the same thing, and using the same words, one has the word with an article, and the other without.

Therefore, setting aside this critical remark about the application of the word God, when there is an article before Θεος, the main thing in controversy is how we are to apply it, when neither the context, nor any of the rules above-mentioned, give us any direction, therein, namely, whether it is in that case only to be applied to the Father, or indifferently to any of the Persons in the Godhead. The author above-mentioned, in his scripture-doctrine of the Trinity, always applies it to the Father; and it may easily be perceived, that he has no other reason than this to apply many scriptures to the Father, which others, who have defended the doctrine of the Trinity, in another way, apply to the Son, as being directed herein by something spoken of him in the context, as in Rev. xix. 4, 5, 6, 17.^[126]

And this is, indeed, the method used by all the Anti-trinitarians, in applying the word God, especially when found absolutely in scripture. That which principally induces them hereunto, is because they take it for granted, that as there is but one divine Being, so there is but one Person who is truly and properly divine,^[127] and that is the Father, to whom they take it for granted that the word God is to be applied in scripture to signify any finite being, as the Son, or any creature below him. But this supposition is not sufficiently proved, viz. that the one divine Being is a person, and that this is only the Father, whom they often call the supreme, or most high God, that is, superior, when compared with the Son and Spirit, as well as all creatures; but this we cannot allow of, and therefore cannot see sufficient reason to conclude, that the word God, when put absolutely, is to be applied to no other than the Father.

That which I would humbly offer, as the sense of the word, when thus found in scripture, is, that when the Holy Ghost has left it undetermined, it is our safest way to consider it as such, and so to apply it indifferently to the Father, Son, or Spirit, and not to one person, exclusive of the others: thus when it is said, Mark xii. 29, 32. The Lord our God is one Lord; and there is one God, and there is none other but him; the meaning is, 323that there is but one divine Being, who is called God, as opposed to the creature, or to all who are not God by nature: thus when the unity of the Godhead is asserted in that scripture here referred to, Deut. vi. 4. and Israel was exhorted to serve him, they are, at the same time, forbidden to go after other gods, ver. 13, 14. And when it is said, that to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, is more than all burnt-offering and sacrifices, Mark xii. 33. it implies, that religious worship was performed to God; but it is certain that this was performed to all the Persons in the Godhead; therefore none of them are excluded in this scripture, in which the unity of God is asserted. And however Dr. Clarke concludes Athanasius, from his unguarded way of speaking, in some other instances, to be of his side; yet, in that very place, which he refers to,^[128] he expressly says, that when the scripture saith the Father is the only God, and that there is one God, and I am the First, and the Last; yet this does not destroy the divinity of the Son, for he is that one God, and first and only God, &c. And the same thing may be said of the Holy Ghost.

Again, when it is said, Mat. xix. 17. There is none good but one, that is God; it implies, that the divine nature, which is predicated of all the persons in the God-head, hath those perfections that are essential to it, and particularly that goodness by which God is denominated All-sufficient: so in Acts xv. 18. when it is said, Known unto God are all his works; where the word God is absolute, and not in a determinate sense, applied either to Father, Son, or Spirit, the meaning is, that all the Persons in the Godhead created all things, which they are expressly said to do in several scriptures, and, as the consequence thereof, that they have a right to all things, which are known unto them.

Object. It will probably be objected to this, that we assert that there are four divine Persons, namely, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the Godhead which is common to them all, since we call it God, which word in other instances, connotes a personal character; and, if so, then it will follow, that we are chargeable with a contradiction in terms, when we say that there are three Persons in the Godhead, viz. in one Person.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that though the divine nature, which is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is represented, in scripture, as though it were a Person, when it is called God, yet it is to be taken in a metaphorical sense; whereas the Father, Son, and Spirit, as has been before considered, are called Divine Persons properly, or without a metaphor.^[129] Moreover, the divine nature, though it be called God, is never considered as co-ordinate with, or as distinguished from the divine Persons, as though it were a Person in the 324same sense as they are; and therefore, whenever it is so called, it must be considered as opposed to the creature; as we before observed, the one God is opposed to those who are not God by nature. It may also be considered, that those divine perfections, which are implied in the word God, taken in this sense, are known by the light of nature; (whereas the divine Personality, as applied either to the Father, Son, or Spirit, is a matter of pure revelation) and it is such an idea of God, or the Godhead, that is intended thereby; so that all the force of this objection consists only in the sense of a word, and the principal thing in debate is, whether the word God thus absolutely and indeterminately considered, is a proper mode of speaking, to set forth the divine nature: now if the scripture uses the word in this sense, it is not for us to enquire about the propriety, or impropriety, thereof; but we must take heed that we do not pervert, or misunderstand, the sense hereof which they do, who either speak, on the one hand, of the Godhead, when called God, as though it were distinct from the Father, Son, and Spirit; or, on the other hand, understand it only of the Father, as opposed to the Son and Spirit, as the Anti-trinitarians do, who deny their proper Deity, and when they assert that there is but one God, do in effect, maintain that there is but one Person in the Godhead. Thus concerning the sense in which the Anti-trinitarians take the word God, when (as it is generally expressed) it is taken absolutely in scripture, as applying it only to the Father; we proceed to consider,

2. That they farther suppose that our Saviour is called God, in the New Testament, by a divine warrant, as a peculiar honour put upon him; and here they think it not difficult to prove, that a creature may have a right conferred on him to receive divine honour; which if they were able to do, it would tend more to weaken our cause, and establish their own, than any thing they have hitherto advanced. But this we shall have occasion to militate against under the fourth head of argument, to prove the Deity of the Son, viz. his having a right to divine worship, and therefore shall pass it over at present, and consider them as intending nothing more by the word God, when applied to our Saviour, but what imports an honour infinitely below that which belongs to the Father; and this they suppose to have been conferred upon him, on some occasions, relating to the work for which he came into the world. The Socinians, in particular, speak of his being called God, or the Son of God.

(1.) Because of his having been sanctified and sent into the world, John x. 36. viz. to redeem it, in that peculiar and low sense in which they understand the word redemption, of which more hereafter.

(2.) Also from his extraordinary conception and birth, by 325the power of the Holy Ghost, as it is said, in Luke i. 35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over-shadow thee; therefore also that Holy Thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.

(3.) Another reason of his having this honour conferred upon him, they take from his resurrection, and so refer to Rom. i. 4. in which it is said, that he was declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead.

(4.) Another reason hereof they take from his ascension into heaven, or being glorified, at which time they suppose that he was made an High Priest, and had, in an eminent degree, the name and character of God put upon him, for which they refer to Heb. v. 3. in which it is said, Christ glorified not himself to be made an High Priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

But they plainly pervert the sense of these respective texts but now mentioned, inasmuch as they suppose that his mission, incarnation, resurrection, and ascension, are the principal reasons of his being called God; and that his deity is founded not in the excellency of his nature, but in these relative circumstances, in which, as an act of grace, this honour was conferred upon him, which God, had he pleased, might have conferred on any other creature, capable of yielding obedience to him, or receiving such a commission from him: whereas, in reality, these scriptures refer to that glory which he had as Mediator, as a demonstration of his Deity, and these honours were agreeable to his character, as a divine Person, but did not constitute him God, as they suppose.

But these things are not so particularly insisted on by some late Anti-trinitarians, though they all agree in this, that his right to divine honour is the result of that authority which he has received from God, to perform the works which are ascribed to him, relating to the good of mankind; whereas we cannot but conclude, from the scriptures before brought to prove his proper Deity, in which he is called Lord and God, in as strong a sense, as when those words are applied to the Father, that he is therefore God equal with the Father.

Thus having considered our Saviour’s proper Deity, as evinced from his being called Lord and God; and also, that these names are given to him in such a sense, as that hereby the Godhead is intended, as much as when it is applied to the Father; we shall close this head, by considering two scriptures, in which the divine nature is ascribed to him; and the first of them is in Coloss. ii. 9. In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; in which we may observe, that it is not barely said, that God dwelleth in him, which would not so evidently have proved his deity, because God is elsewhere said to dwell in others: 326thus, in 1 John iv. 12. it is said, God dwelleth in us; but here it is said, the Godhead dwelleth in him, which is never applied to any creature; and the expression is very emphatical, the fulness, yea, all the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth in him; what can we understand thereby, but that all the perfections of the divine nature belong to him? The apostle had been speaking, in ver. 2. of the mystery of Christ, as what the church was to know, and acknowledge, as well as that of the Father; and he also considers him as the Fountain of wisdom, ver. 3. In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; and what is here spoken concerning him, very well corresponds therewith, as being expressive of his divine glory; the fulness of the Godhead is said, indeed, to dwell in him bodily, by which we are to understand his human nature, as the body is, in some other scriptures taken for the man; thus, in Rom. xii. 1. we are exhorted to present our bodies, i. e. ourselves, a living sacrifice to God; so here the divine nature, as subsisting in him, is said to dwell in, that is, to have the human nature united to it, which is meant by its dwelling in him bodily.

The account which some give of the sense of this text, to evade the force of the argument, taken from thence, to prove our Saviour’s Deity, does little more than shew how hard the Anti-trinitarians are put to it to maintain their ground, when they say that the word Θεοτης, which we render Godhead, signifies some extraordinary gifts conferred upon him, especially such as tended to qualify him to discover the mind and will of God; or, at least, that nothing else is intended thereby, but that authority which he had from God, to perform the work which he came into the world about; since it is certain, that this falls infinitely short of what is intended by the word Godhead, which must signify the divine nature, subsisting in him, who assumed, or was made flesh, and so dwelt therein, as in a temple.

There is another scripture, which seems to attribute to him the divine nature, viz. Phil. ii. 6. where it is said, that he was in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God; by the form of God, I humbly conceive, we are to understand the divine nature which he had, and therefore it was no instance of robbery in him to assert, that he was equal with God. If this sense of the text can be defended, it will evidently prove his proper Deity, since it is never said, concerning any creature, that he is in the form of God, or, as the words may be rendered, that he subsisted in the form of God; now it is well known, that the word which we render form, is not only used by the schoolmen, but by others, before their time, to signify the nature, or essential properties, of that to which it is applied; so that this sense thereof was well known in the apostle’s days. Therefore, why may we not suppose, that the Holy 327Ghost, in scripture, may once, at least, use a word which would be so understood by them? And it will farther appear, that Christ’s Deity is signified thereby, if the following words are to be understood in the sense contained in our translation, that he thought it not robbery to be equal with God; now this seems very plain, for the same word ἡγησατο, he thought, is taken in the same sense in the third verse of this chapter; Let every man esteem, or think, others better than themselves; and it is used about twenty times in the New Testament, five times in this epistle, besides in this text, and never understood otherwise than as signifying to think, esteem, or account; and it would destroy the sense of the respective texts, where it is used, to take it otherwise. This the Anti-trinitarians themselves will not deny, inasmuch as it does not affect their cause; notwithstanding they determine that it must be otherwise translated in this text; and so they render the words, ουχ ἁρπαγμον ἡγησατο το ειναι ισα Θεω, he did not covet to be honoured, or was not greedy, or in haste of being honoured as God^[130], that is, he did not affect to appear like a divine Person, or catch at those divine honours that did not belong to him. Could this sense of the text be made out to be just, it would effectually overthrow our argument, taken from thence, to prove Christ’s proper Deity: but this is as foreign from the sense of the words, as any sense that could be put upon them; and all that is pretended to justify it, is a reference which they make to a phrase, or two, used in a Greek writer, which is not at all to their purpose^[131]. Moreover 328the sense of this text, as agreeable to the words of our translation, will farther appear to be just, if we consider, that our Saviour’s being in the form of God, is there opposed to his having afterwards been in the form of a servant, or the fashion of a man; now if the latter be to be understood of his being truly and properly man, and not to be taken barely for something in him which resembled the human nature; or if his taking on him the form of a servant, imports, his being in a capacity to perform that obedience which was due from him, as man to God, in a proper, and not a theatrical sense; then it will follow, that his being in the form of God, as opposed hereunto, must be taken for his being truly and properly God, or for his having the divine nature, as before mentioned; which was the thing to be proved.

I might here consider the sense which Dr. Whitby, in his annotations, gives of our Saviour’s being in the form of God, as opposed to that of a servant, (after he had given up the sense of the words, as in our translation, to the adversary) which is, that his being in the form of God, implies, his appearing, before his incarnation, in a bright shining cloud, or light, or in a flame of fire, or with the attendance of an host of angels, as he is sometimes said to have done, which the Jews call Shechinah, or the divine Majesty, as being a visible emblem of his presence; this he calls the form of God, and his not appearing so, when incarnate in this lower world, the form of a servant, as opposed to it; and adds, that when he ascended into heaven, he assumed the form of God; and therefore whenever he has occasionally appeared, as to the martyr Stephen at his death, or to the apostle Paul at his first conversion, it has been in that form, or with like emblems of majesty and divinity, as before his incarnation,

Here I would observe concerning this, that what he says of Christ’s appearing with emblems of majesty and glory before his incarnation, and the glory that was put upon his human nature after his ascension into heaven, is a great truth; but as this is never styled, in scripture, the form of God, nor was the symbol of the divine glory ever called therein the divine majesty, however it might be called by Jewish writers; therefore this has no reference to the sense of this text, nor does it, in the least, enervate the force of the argument, taken from it, to prove our Saviour’s proper Deity, any more than this critical remark on the words thereof does, the sense of our translation, whereby it evidently appears. I might also observe the sense which another learned^[132] writer gives of the form of God in this text, which is the same that 329is given by several of the Socinians; namely, that it has a relation to his working miracles while here upon earth, which is certainly very disagreeable to the scope and design of the text, since he is said to be in the form of God, before he took upon him the form of a servant, that is, before his incarnation: and besides, the working miracles, never was deemed sufficient to denominate a person to be in the form of God, for if it had, many others, both before and after him, might have had this applied to them; whereas it is a glory appropriate to him, who thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

I would not wholly pass over that which some call a controverted text of scripture, in 1 John v. 7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one, lest it should be thought that I conclude the arguments, brought by the Anti-trinitarians, sufficiently conclusive to prove it spurious,^[133] but I shall say the 330less on this subject, because it is a very hard matter to advance any thing that has not been very largely insisted on, by various writers; among whom I cannot but mention, with great 331esteem; one who has defended the scripture-doctrine of the Trinity with a great deal of learning and judgment, who has given a particular account of several that have written on either side of the question^[134]. No one pretends to deny, that this text is not to be found in a great number of manuscripts, among which some are generally allowed to be of great antiquity; therefore it is less to be wondered at, that it is left out in some ancient versions thereof, which were taken from copies that were destitute of it; all which only proves, that the text has been corrupted: but the main question is, which of those copies are to be reckoned genuine, those which have it, or others which have it not? It must be allowed, that there are a considerable number, in which the text is inserted, as Beza and others observe; and it will be a hard matter to prove that these are all spurious, which must be done, before we shall be obliged to expunge it out of scripture.

If it be objected, that the manuscripts, which have the text, are not so ancient as those that are without it, it will be a difficult matter for them to determine the antiquity thereof, with such exactness, as, by comparing one with the other, it may be certainly known, with respect to all of them, which has the 332preference, and by what a number of years: besides, since it is certain, that more manuscripts of scripture are lost by far, than are now known to be in the world; unless we suppose that religion, in ancient times, was contracted into a very narrow compass, or that very few, in the first ages of the church, had copies of scripture by them, which is not to be supposed; and, if so, then it will be hard to prove that those manuscripts, which have the text inserted, did not take it from some others, that were in being before them; so that the genuineness, or spuriousness of the text, is not to be determined only or principally by inspection into ancient manuscripts.

Nor can I think it very material to offer conjectures concerning the manner how the text came first to be corrupted. Dr. Hammond, and others, suppose, that some one, who transcribed this epistle, might commit a blunder, in leaving out this text, because of the repetition of the words in the following verse, There are three that bare record. It is, indeed, a hard thing to trace every mistake made by an amanuensis to its first original; however, this must be concluded, that it is possible for it to be left out through inadvertency, but it could not be put in without a notorious fraud; and no one would attempt to do this, unless some end, which he thought valuable, were answered thereby. Indeed, if the doctrine of the Trinity could not have been maintained without such an insertion, I will not say, that every one, who ever defended it, had honesty enough to abhor such a vile practice; but this I am bound to say, that if any one did so, he was guilty not only of fraud, but folly, at the same time; since the divinity of the Son and Spirit, as well as of the Father, is maintained throughout the whole scripture; and the principal thing asserted concerning the Son, in this text, viz. that he is One with the Father, is expressly laid down in his own words, John x. 30. I and my Father are one.

I know the Arians take occasion to censure the defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity, as being guilty of this fraud, though Father Simon^[135] is a little more sparing of his reflections on them; but he is no less injurious to the truth, when he maintains, that some person or other, in the margin of a copy, which he had by him, which he supposes to have been about five hundred years old, had affixed to ver. 8. these words, as an explication thereof, as though the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were intended thereby, to wit, by the Spirit, water, and blood; and from hence concludes, that the next person, who transcribed from this manuscript, mistook this note for a part of the text; and so the 7th verse came to be inserted. This Le Clerc calls a setting the matter in a clear light; for some 333persons are ready to believe that which supports their own cause, how weakly soever it be maintained.

It might easily be replied to this, that this text was known in the world long enough before that manuscript was wrote, and consequently this insertion could not first take its rise from thence; and therefore to produce a single instance of this nature, is, I humbly conceive, nothing to the purpose^[136].

But, passing by what respects scripture-manuscripts, there is more stress to be laid on the writings of those who have referred to this text; and accordingly it is certain, that it was often quoted in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, by ancient writers, in the fifth and following centuries, therefore it was found in the manuscripts that they used. It is true, it is not quoted by the Fathers, who wrote in the fourth century, to wit, Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, nor by Augustin, and some others; but nothing can be inferred from hence, but that it was not in the copies they made use of: but it does not follow that it was in no copy at that time; for, if we look farther back to the third century, we find it expressly referred to by Cyprian, which I cannot but lay a very great stress on; he has it in two places^[137], in the former of which, he occasionly mentions these words, These three are one; and, in the latter, he expressly quotes this scripture; and says, it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that these three are one; which evidently proves, that he found it in some manuscript extant in his time, which was before any manuscript, now in being, is pretended to have been written; for even the Alexandrian manuscript is, I think, supposed by none to be of greater antiquity than the fourth century, which seems to me to be of greater force than any thing that is suggested, concerning its being not found in manuscripts of later date; and we may observe, that that Father does not speak of it as a certain manuscript, which was reserved, as a treasure, in some private library, which might be adulterated; nor doth he pretend to prove the authority thereof, nor make use of it, to prove the genuineness of the text; but quotes the text, as we do any other place of scripture, as supposing it was generally acknowledged to be contained therein; and he also was reckoned a man of the greatest integrity, as well as piety, and so would not refer to any text, as a part of the sacred writings, which was not so.

Object. It is objected against this, by the Anti-trinitarians, that though he quotes scriptures, yet it is not this, but ver. 8. and that not in the words thereof, but in a mystical sense, which he puts upon it, by the Spirit, water, and blood, agreeing 334in one, intending the Father, Son, and Spirit, being one: and this is the sense Facundus, an African bishop, who lived about the middle of the sixth century, puts upon it, and supposes him thus to quote it.

Answ. But to this it may be answered, that his judgment is no more to be valued, who lived three hundred years after him, than if he had lived in this present age; nor had he any farther light to understand Cyprian’s meaning, than we have; and we know very well, that Cyprian was not so unreasonably fond of mystical interpretations of scriptures, as Origen, and some others of the Fathers were: and even they never presumed to quote any mystical sense, which they put on scripture, as the words thereof, or say, as this Father does, it is so written; much less are we to suppose that his words are to be taken in this sense. And whatever Facundus’s sense was of his words, another who lived in the same century, together with, or a little before him, viz. Fulgentius, refers (as the learned author above mentioned^[138] observes) to this passage of Cyprian; not as a mystical explication of ver. 8. but as distinctly contained in ver 7. and, as such, makes use of it against the Arians.

As for that known passage in Tertullian^[139], in which he speaks of the union, or connexion, as he calls it, of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, making three joined together, and that these three are one, that is, one divine Being, not one Person, and so referring to our Saviour’s word’s, I and the Father are one, it is a very good explication of the sense of this text, and discovers that, in that early age of the church, he had a right notion of the doctrine of the Trinity: but whether it is sufficiently evident from hence, that he refers to this scripture under our present consideration, though defending the doctrine contained in it, I will not determine. I shall add no more in the defence of the genuineness of this text, but rather refer the reader to others, who have wrote professedly on this subject.^[140]

And whereas some of the anti-trinitarians have supposed, that if this scripture were genuine, it doth not prove the doctrine of the Trinity, because the words ought to be taken as implying, that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one only in testimony; to this it may be answered, that though it be an undoubted truth that they agree in testimony, yet it doth not amount to the sense of the words, They are one; for if that had been the principal idea designed to be conveyed thereby, no reason can be assigned why the phrase should be different from 335what it is in the following verse; but it would, doubtless, have been expressed, εις το ἑν εισιν, They agree in one.

Thus we have endeavoured to prove our Saviour’s proper Deity from those scriptures that speak of him, not only as a being called Lord and God, but from others, that assert him to have the divine nature, or to be equal with God the Father; we shall now proceed to consider some scriptures, by which it appears, that he asserts this concerning himself; or what proofs we have of his Deity from his own words, in several conferences which he held with the Jews, by which he gave them reason to conclude that he was God equal with the Father; and the opposition which he met with from them, who, for this reason, charged him with blasphemy, plainly intimates, that they understood his words in this sense. And if it be replied to this, as it often is, that nothing can be inferred to prove his Deity from their misunderstanding his words, and so charging him, without ground to be guilty thereof; to this it may be answered, though we do not lay much stress on what they understood to be the meaning of his words, yet it plainly appears, that he intended them in this sense, inasmuch as if they misunderstood him, he did not undeceive them, which certainly he ought to have done, had he not been a divine Person. If any one seems to assume to himself any branch of the glory of God, that does not belong to him, though the ambiguity of words, provided they may be taken in two contrary senses, may in some measure, excuse him from having had such a design, however unadviseable it be to speak in such a way, yet if he apprehends that they, to whom he directs his discourse, are in the least inclined to misunderstand him, he is obliged, from the regard which he has to the divine glory, and the duty which he owes to those with whom he converses, as well as in defence of his own character, to undeceive them; therefore, if our Saviour had not been equal with God, he would, doubtless, upon the least suspicion which the Jews might entertain, that he asserted himself to be so, immediately have undeceived them, and would have told them, that they took his words in a wrong sense, and that he was far from usurping that glory, which belonged to God; that had he intended them in that sense, they might justly have called him a blasphemer; this he would, doubtless have done, had he by his words, given them occasion to think him a divine Person if he were not so.

Thus the apostles Paul and Barnabas, when the people at Lystra, upon their having wrought a miracle, concluded that they were gods, with what zeal and earnestness did they undeceive them! In Acts xiv. 14, 15. it is said, when they perceived they were going to offer sacrifice to them, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, and saying, Sirs, why 336do ye these things? we also are men of like passions with you. And, at another time, we read, that Peter and John, in Acts iii. 11-13. when they had cured the lame man, though the people did not conclude them to be divine persons, yet, perceiving that they were amazed, and being jealous that some thoughts might arise in their minds, as though they had a right to that glory, which belongs to God alone, or that this miracle was to be ascribed to themselves, rather than to him, we read, that when Peter saw that they marvelled, and that the people ran together, he answered, ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though, by our own power, or holiness, we had made this man to walk? and accordingly takes occasion to shew, that the glory hereof was due to none but God.

But our Saviour takes no such method to exculpate himself from this charge of blasphemy; therefore we must suppose they did not mistake his words but that he intended thereby, that they should understand him to be a divine Person; yea, he is so far from undeceiving them, if they were deceived, that he rather confirms, than denies, the sense, which they put upon them. This appears from Matt. ix. 2-5. when they brought to him a man sick of the palsey, to whom, when he healed him, he said, Son be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee, he perceived, that certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth, supposing that none had power to forgive sins but God. It is true, the words might have been understood, as though he had said, thy sins are forgiven thee, only in a declarative way, as signifying, that the man had obtained forgiveness from God, without insinuating thereby, that he had a power, as a divine Person, to forgive sins. But it is plain, that the Jews took his words in this latter sense, from their charging him with blasphemy; but, instead of rectifying the mistake, if it was one, he asserts, that notwithstanding the meanness of his appearance, while in his humble state on earth, yet he had a power to forgive sins; and he not only asserts, but proves this, when he says, ver. 5. Whether it is easier to say, thy sins be forgiven thee? or to say Arise, and walk? Many suppose, that Our Saviour hereby intends to establish his Deity, by asserting his infinite power, which was exerted in working a miracle, and so it is as though he should say: he that can produce any effect, which is above the laws of nature, as miracles are, at least if he does it by his own power, must be God: but this he had done, and so proved his deity thereby, and consequently his right to forgive sins.

But I am sensible it will be objected to this, that since creatures have wrought miracles, which were as truly and properly so as this that Christ wrought; therefore the working a miracle 337will not prove the divinity of the person that wrought it, unless we could prove that he did it by his own power, that we cannot do without supposing his deity, and therefore that ought not to be made use of, as a medium to prove it.

Some, indeed, attempt to prove it from that scripture, Luke xi. 20. in which he says, he cast out devils by the finger of God, supposing he means hereby his own divine power. Others take notice of something peculiar to himself as they suppose, in the way of his working miracles, that herein he spake, and acted like a God. But, since neither of these arguments will be reckoned conclusive, therefore I would take a method somewhat different, which is not liable to the aforesaid objection, to account for this matter; and that is that our Saviour first tells the man, that his sins were forgiven him, knowing, before-hand, how this would be resented by the scribes, who would, upon this occasion, charge him with blasphemy, which accordingly they did; and then, to convince them that he was a divine Person, and had a power to forgive sin, he wrought a miracle, and so bade the man, sick of the palsey, to arise and walk; whereby he proved his deity, of which he designed to give an extraordinary conviction, and consequently of his having a power to forgive sin, by an appeal to this miracle. Now though miracles do not argue the divinity of the person that works them, from any visible circumstance contained therein as but now mentioned, yet they effectually prove it, provided this be the thing contested, and an explicit appeal be made to the divine power to confirm it by miracles, then they are an undoubted proof thereof, as much as they prove any thing relating to the Christian religion: and, in this sense, I humbly conceive, Christ proved his deity by miracles, which he is expressly said elsewhere to have done; as in John ii. 11. speaking concerning his first miracle in Cana of Galilee, it is said, that thereby he manifested forth his glory, and his disciples believed on him; where, by his glory is doubtless, meant his divine glory; for the faith of his disciples, which was consequent hereupon, was a divine faith: and we never read of the glory of Christ, in his humbled state more especially, but it must import the glory of his deity, which his disciples are said, in some measure to behold, when they believed in him. This Christ confirmed by his miracles, in the same way, as his mission was confirmed thereby. By this means, therefore, he proved his deity and consequently his right to forgive sin: and therefore was so far from endeavouring to convince the Jews, that they were mistaken in thinking him a divine person, he farther insists on, and proves, that he was so.