Now if these scriptures, which are the chief in all the New Testament, on which this doctrine is founded, are to be taken in this sense, how shall we find a sufficient proof, from other scriptures, of the procession of the Holy Ghost in any other sense? Therefore, that we may farther explain this doctrine, let us consider, that whatever the Son, as Mediator, has purchased, as being sent by the Father for that end, is applied by the Holy Ghost, who therefore acts in subserviency to them. This is generally called, by divines, the œconomy of persons in the Godhead, which, because it is a word that we often use, when we consider the distinct works of the Father, Son, and Spirit, in their respective subserviency to one another, we shall take occasion briefly to explain, and shew how it may be applied to them in that respect without inferring any inferiority as to what concerns their Personal glory. We shall say nothing concerning the derivation, or use, of the word œconomy, though we cannot forbear to mention, with indignation, the sense which some of the opposers of the blessed Trinity have given of it, while laying aside all the rules of decency and reverence, which this sacred mystery calls for, they represent us, as speaking of the family-government of the divine Persons,which is the most invidious sense they could put upon the word, and most remote from our design in the use of it. Now that we may explain and apply it to our present purpose, let it be considered,
1. That all those works, which are the effects of the divine power, or sovereign will, are performed by all the Persons in the Godhead, and attributed to them in scripture; the reason whereof is very evident, namely, because the power and will of God, and all other divine perfections, belong equally, and alike, to the Father, Son, and Spirit: if therefore that which produces these effects belongs to them, then the effects produced must be equally ascribed to them; so that the Father is no more said to create and govern the world, or to be the author of all grace, and the fountain of blessedness, than the Son and Spirit.
2. Nevertheless, since the Father, Son, and Spirit, are distinct Persons, and so have distinct personal considerations in acting, it is necessary that their personal glory should be demonstrated, or made known to us, that our faith and worship may be fixed on, and directed to them, in a distinct manner, as founded thereon.
3. This distinction of the Persons in the Godhead cannot be known, as their eternal power or Deity is said to be, by the works of creation and providence, it being a doctrine of pure revelation; therefore,
4. We are given to understand, in scripture, when it treats of the great work of our salvation, that it is attributed first to the Father, then to the Son, as Mediator, receiving a commission from him to redeem and save his people, and then to the Holy Ghost, acting in subserviency thereunto; this is what we are to understand when we speak of the distinct œconomy of the Father, Son, and Spirit, which I cannot better express than by considering of it as a divine determination, that the personal glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, should be demonstrated in such a way. Now, to instance in some particular acts, or works; when a divine Person is represented in scripture as doing, or determining to do, any thing relating to the work of our redemption, or salvation, by another divine Person, who must, for that reason, be considered herein, as Mediator, it is to be understood of the Father, in this œconomic sense, inasmuch as, by this means, he demonstrates his personal glory: thus it is said, Eph. i. 4, 5.He,i. e.the Father,hath chosen us in him, namely, the Son; andheis said to havepredestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ. Though election and predestination are also applied to the Son and Spirit, when they have another reference corresponding with the demonstration of their personal glory, yet,in this place, they are only applied to the Father. And there are several other scriptures, in which things done are particularly applied to the Father for the same reason. Thus, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. it is said,God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and thathe was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself; and, in 1 Cor. i. 30. it is said,Of him, namely the Father,are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God, that is, the Father,is made unto us wisdom, &c. in which, and several other scriptures to the same purpose, the Father is, in a peculiar manner, intended, because considered, as no other divine person is, as acting by the Mediator, or as glorifying the perfections of the divine nature, which belong to him, by what this great Mediator did by his appointment.
Moreover when a divine Person is considered as acting in subserviency to the Father’s glory, or executing a commission relating to the work of redemption, which he had received from him, and accordingly performing any act of obedience in an human nature assumed by him for that purpose, this is peculiarly applied to, and designed to demonstrate the Son’s Personal character, as belonging to no other Person in the Godhead but him. Of this we have several instances in scripture; thus though to judge the world be a branch of the divine glory, which is common to all the Persons in the Godhead; yet there are some circumstances in the character of a divine Person in particular, who is denominated as Judge of quick and dead, that are applicable to none but the Son; and so we are to understand that scripture, John v. 22.The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son; that is, the Son is the only Person in the Godhead who displays his Mediatorial character and glory, as the Judge of the whole world; yet when there is another personal character ascribed to God, as the Judge of all; or when he is said tojudge the world in righteousness, by that Man, to wit, our Lord Jesus,whom he hath ordained, as in Acts xvii. 31. then this personal character determines it to belong to the Father.
Again, to give eternal life is a divine prerogative, and consequently belongs to all the Persons in the Godhead; yet when a divine Person is said to give eternal life to a people, that were given to him for that purpose, and to have received power, or authority, from another, to confer this privilege as Mediator, then it is peculiarly applied to the Son: thus John xvii. 2.Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Moreover, when a divine Person is said to do any thing in subserviency to the Mediator; or, as it is said, in John xvi. 14.He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you, this is peculiarly applied to the Spirit. Sowhen he is said to give his testimony to the mission, or work of the Mediator, by any divine works performed by him, this is peculiarly applied to him; or when he is said to sanctify and comfort, or to seal and confirm believers unto the day of redemption. Though these being divine works, are, for that reason, applicable to all the Persons in the Godhead; yet when he is said to perform them in a way of subserviency to Christ, as having purchased them, then his distinct personal character, taken from thence, is demonstrated, and so these works are especially applied to him. This is what we understand by that peculiar œconomy, or dispensation, which determines us to give distinct personal glory to each of the Persons in the Godhead.
And now we are speaking of the Spirit, considered as acting, whereby he sets forth his Personal glory, we may observe, that, in compliance with this way of speaking, the gifts and graces of the Spirit, are, by a metonymy, called theSpirit, as in Acts xix. 2. when it is said,Have ye received the Holy Ghost? They said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.We are not to understand it as though they had not heard whether there were such a Person as the Holy Ghost; but they had not heard that there was such an extraordinary dispensation of the gifts of the Holy Ghost conferred on men; so John vii. 39. it is said,The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified; the wordgivenbeing supplied in our translation, and not in the original; it ought rather to be rendered,The Holy Ghost was not as yet; by which we are to understand the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and not his Personality, which was from all eternity.
And here we may farther observe, that when the Holy Ghost is spoken of as a Person, that word which denotes his Personality, ought not to be renderedIt, butHe, as expressive of his Personal character; but when it is taken in a figurative sense, for the gifts or graces of the Spirit, then it should be translatedIt. This is sometimes observed in our translation of scripture; as in John xvi. 13. it is said of the Spirit,He will guide you into all truth, where the Personal character of the Spirit is expressly mentioned, as it ought to be: but it is not duly observed by our translators in every scripture; Rom. viii. 16. it is said,The Spirit itself beareth witness, which ought to have been renderedHimself; as also in ver. 26.The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us.The same ought to be observed in all other scriptures, whereby we may be led to put a just difference between the Spirit, considered as a divine Person; or as acting, or producing those effects, which are said to be wrought by him.
Thus concerning the Sonship of Christ, and the procession ofthe Holy Ghost. What I have said, in attempting to explain those scripture that treat of the Person of Christ, as God-man, Mediator, and of his inferiority, in that respect, (or as he is said to sustain that character) to the Father; as also those which speak of the subserviency of the Spirit, in acting, to the Father and the Son, does not, as I apprehend, run counter to the common faith of those who have defended the doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity. Therefore I hope that when I call one the Sonship of Christ, and the other the procession of the Holy Ghost, this will not be deemed a new and strange doctrine. And I cannot but persuade myself, that what I have said concerning the Mediator, as acting in obedience to the Father, and the Spirit, in subserviency to him, will not be contested by those who defend the doctrine of the Trinity. And, if I have a little varied from the common way of speaking, I hope none will be offended at the acceptation of a word, especially since I have endeavoured to defend my sense thereof, by referring to many scriptures. And, if I cannot give into the common explication of the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost, I am well satisfied I do no more than what many Christians do, who have received the doctrine of the Trinity from the scripture, and are unacquainted with those modes of speaking which are used in the schools: these appear as much to dislike them, when used in public discourses about this doctrine, as any other can do, what has been attempted to explain it in a different way.
IV. We shall now proceed to consider the Godhead of the Son, and Holy Ghost, as maintained in one of the answers we are explaining, by four general heads of argument.
I. From those divine names which are given to them, that are peculiar to God alone.
II. From their having the divine attributes ascribed to them, and consequently the divine nature.
III. From their having manifested their divine glory, by those works that none but God can perform.
IV. From their having a right to divine worship, which none but God is worthy to receive.
If these things be made to appear, we have all that we need contend for; and it will be evident from thence, that the Son and Holy Ghost are God equal with the Father. These heads of argument we shall apply to them distinctly; and,
First, To the Son, who appears to be God equal with the Father,
I. From those divine names given to him, that are peculiar to God alone. And here we shall premise something concerning the use of names given to persons, together with the designthereof. Names are given to persons, as well as things, with a twofold design.
1. Sometimes nothing else is intended thereby, but to distinguish one from another, in which sense the names given are not in themselves significant, or expressive of any property, or quality, in those that are so described. Thus most of those names we read of in scripture, though not all of them, are designed only to distinguish one man from another, which is the most common use and design thereof; notwithstanding,
2. They are sometimes given to signify some property in those to whom they are applied,viz.what they should be, or do. Thus we have many instances, in scripture, of persons called by names, which have had some special signification annexed to them, assigned as a reason of their being so called. Thus Adam had that name given him, because made of earth; and Eve was so called, because she was the mother of all living. The same may be said concerning Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and several others, whose respective names have a signification annexed to them, agreeable to the proper sense of the words, and the design of their being so called.
And, to apply this to our present purpose, we may conclude, that when names are given to any divine Person, they are designed to express some excellency and perfection belonging to him; and therefore we shall have sufficient reason to conclude the Son to be a divine Person, if we can make it appear that he has those names given to him in scripture, which are proper to God alone. And,
1. The name Jehovah is given to him, which is peculiar to God. Here we shall prove,First, that the name Jehovah is peculiar to God. And,Secondly, that it is ascribed to Christ.
(1.) That the name Jehovah is peculiar to God, whereby he is distinguished from all creatures: thus it is said, Isa. xlii. 8.I am the Lord, or Jehovah,that is my name, and my glory will I not give to another; or, as the text may be rendered,I am Jehovah, that name of mine, and my glory, which is signified thereby,will I not give to another: therefore it follows, that it is an incommunicable name of God: and when he says,I will not give it to another, it supposes that it necessarily belongs to him; and therefore that he cannot give it to another, since that would be unbecoming himself; therefore this name, which is expressive of his glory in so peculiar a manner, is never given to any creature.
There are other scriptures to this purpose, in which the name Jehovah is represented, as peculiar to God. Thus when the prophet Amos had been speaking of the glory of God, as displayed in the works of creation and providence, he adds,thatthe Lord, or Jehovah,is his name, chap. v. 8. So that those works, which are peculiar to God, might as well be applied to creatures, as that name Jehovah, which is agreeable thereunto. And in chap. ix. 6. the prophet gives another magnificent description of God, with respect to those works that are peculiar to him, when he says,It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth; and then he adds,the Lord, or Jehovah,is his name.
Again, it is said, in Psal. lxxxiii. 18.That men may know, that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.This is never said of any other divine names, which are, in a limited sense, sometimes given to creatures; and, indeed, all creatures are expressly excluded from having a right hereunto.
Again, there are other scriptures, in which this name Jehovah is applied to God, and an explication thereof subjoined, which argues that it is peculiar to him. Thus when Moses desired of God, that he would let him know whathis namewas for the encouragement of the faith of the Israelites, to whom he sent him, Exod. iii. 13.q. d.he desires to know what are those divine glories, that would render him the object of faith and worship; or how he might describe him in such a way to the children of Israel, whereby they might express that reverence and regard to him, that was due to the great God, who sent him about so important an errand. In answer to which God says, ver. 14.I AM THAT I AM. Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AMhath sent me unto you; which description of him doth not set forth one single perfection, but all the perfections of the divine nature; as though he should say, I am a God of infinite perfection; and then he adds, in the following verse,Thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, The Lord, or Jehovah,the God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; where Jehovah signifies the same withI AM THAT I AM. And he adds,This is my memorial unto all generations; therefore this glorious name is certainly peculiar to God.
What has been already observed, under this head, is sufficient to prove that the name Jehovah is proper to God alone. But we might hereunto add another argument, of less weight, which, though we do not lay that stress upon, as though it was sufficient of itself to prove this matter; yet, being added to what has been already suggested, it may not be improper to be mentioned,viz.that the word Jehovah has no plural number, as being never designed to signify any more than the one God; neither has it any emphatical particle affixed to it, as other words in the Hebrew language have; and particularly severalof the other names of God, which distinguishes him from others; who have those names sometimes applied to them; and the reason of this is, because the name Jehovah is never given to any creature.
And to this we might add, that since the Jews best understood their own language, they may, in some respects, be depended on, as to the sense they give of the word Jehovah; and it is certain they paid the greatest regard to this name, even to superstition. Accordingly, they would never pronounce it; but, instead thereof, use some other expressions, by which they describe it. Sometimes they call it,that name, orthat glorious name, orthat name that is not to be expressed;[107]by which they mean, as Josephus says,[108]that it was not lawful for them to utter it, or, indeed, to write it, which, if any one presumed to do, they reckoned him not only guilty of profaneness, in an uncommon degree, but even of blasphemy; and therefore it is never found in any writings of human composure among them. The modern Jews, indeed, are not much to be regarded, as retaining the same veneration for this name; but Onkelos, the author of the Chaldee paraphrase on some parts of scripture, who lived about fifty years after our Saviour’s time, and Jonathan Ben-Uzziel, who is supposed to have lived as many years before it, never insert it in their writings; and, doubtless, they were not the first that entertained these sentiments about it, but had other writings then extant, which gave occasion thereunto. Some critics conclude, from Jewish writers, that it was never pronounced, even in the earliest ages of the church, except by the High Priest; and when he was obliged, by the divine law, to pronounce it, in the form of benediction, the people always expressed an uncommon degree of reverence, either by bowing, or prostration; but this is not supported by sufficient evidence. Others think it took its rise soon after their return from captivity, which is more probable; however, the reason they assign for it is, because they reckoned it God’s incommunicable name.
And here I cannot but observe, that the translators of the Greek version of the Old Testament, commonly called the LXX. which, if it be not altogether the same with that mentioned by Aristæus, which was compiled almost three hundred years before the Christian Æra, is, without doubt, of considerable antiquity; these never translate the wordJehovah, but, instead thereof, put Κυριος, Lord;[109]and, even when it seems absurd not to do it, as in Exod. vi. 3. when it is said, by myname,Jehovah, was I not known, they render it, by my name, theLord, was I not known.[110]
This we take occasion to observe, not as supposing it is a sufficient proof of itself, of the argument we are maintaining, but as it corresponds with the sense of those scriptures before mentioned, by which it appears that this is the proper, or incommunicable, name of God.
Object.It is objected, by the Anti-Trinitarians, that the name Jehovah is sometimes given to creatures, and consequently that it is not God’s proper name; nor does it evince our Saviour’s Deity, when given to him. To prove that it is sometimes given to creatures, they refer to several scriptures; as Exod. xvii. 15. where the altar that Moses erected is calledJehovah Nissi,i. e.the Lord is my banner; and, in Judges vi. 22. another altar that Gideon built, is calledJehovah Shallom; and Gen. xxii. 14. it is said, that Abraham called the name of the place, in which he was ready to offer Isaac,Jehovah Jireh; and, in Ezek. xlviii. 35. it is said, that Jerusalem, from that day, should be calledJehovah Shammah; they add also, that the Ark was calledJehovah, upon the occasion of its being carried up into the city of David, when it is said, Psal. xlvii. 5.The Lord,i. e.Jehovahis gone up with a shout, even the Lord with the sound of a trumpet, and also on other occasions. And the name Jehovah is often, in the Old Testament, given to angels, and therefore not proper to God alone.
Answ.1. When they pretend that the name Jehovah was given to inanimate things, and in particular to altars, as in the instance mentioned in the objection, that one of the altars was indeed calledJehovah Nissi, it is very unreasonable to suppose, that the name and glory of God was put upon it; had it been a symbol of God’s presence, it would not have been called by this name, especially in the same sense in which our Saviour and the Holy Spirit have it applied to them; and therefore the meaning of this scripture, as I apprehend, is nothing but this, that there was an inscription written on the altar, containing these words,Jehovah Nissi, the design whereof was to signify, to the faith of those who came to worship there, that the Lord was their banner: therefore this name, strictly speaking, wasnot given to the altar, but to God; upon which some, not without good reason, render the word; he built an altar, and called the name of it, the altar ofJehovah Nissi. The same may be said with respect to the altar erected by Gideon, which was calledJehovah Shalom, or the altar ofJehovah Shalom, to the end that all who came to offer sacrifice upon it, might hereby be put in mind that God was a God of peace, or would give peace to them.
2. As for the place to which Abraham went to offer Isaac, which is called Jehovah-Jireh, it was the mount Moriah; and it is certain that this was not known by, or whenever spoken of, mentioned, as having that name; neither had Abraham any right to apply to it any branch of the divine glory, as signified thereby; therefore when it is said, he called the name of the place Jehovah-Jireh, it is as though he should have said, let all that travel over this mountain know, that the Lord was seen, or provided a ram instead of Isaac, who was ready to be offered up; let this place be remarkable, in future ages, for this amazing dispensation of providence, and let them glorify God for what was done here, and let the memory hereof be an encouragement to their faith. Or else we may farther consider him speaking as a prophet, and so the meaning is, this place shall be very remarkable in future ages, as it shall be the mount of vision; here Jehovah will eminently appear in his temple, which shall be built in this place. Or if you take the words in another sense,viz.God will provide, it is as though he should say, as God has provided a ram to be offered instead of Isaac, so he will provide the Lamb of God, who is to take away the sin of the world, which was typified by Isaac’s being offered. So that the place was not really called Jehovah; but Abraham takes occasion, from what was done here, to magnify him, who appeared to him, and held his hand, whom alone he calls Jehovah.
And to this we may add, that when Jerusalem is calledJehovah Shammah, the Lord is there, the meaning hereof is only this, that it shall eminently be said in succeeding ages of the new Jerusalem, thatthe Lord is there; the city, which was commonly known by the name Jerusalem, is not called Jehovah, as though it had any character of divine glory put upon it; but it implies, that the gospel church, which is signified thereby, should have the presence of God in an eminent degree; or, as our Saviour promised to his disciples, Matth. xxviii. 20. thathe would be with them always, even unto the end of the world; and, as the result thereof, thatthe gates of hell should not prevail against it, Matth. xvi. 18.
3. As for theark; it was not calledJehovah, though the Psalmist takes occasion, from its being carried up into the city of David, with a joyful solemnity, and an universal shout, withthe sound of a trumpet, to foretel the triumphant and magnificent ascension of our Saviour into heaven, which was typified hereby; concerning whom he says,Jehovahis gone up; or, speaking in a prophetic style, the present, or time past, being put for the time to come, it is as though he should say, the Lord, when he has completed the work of redemption on earth, will ascend into heaven, which shall be the foundation of universal joy to the church; and then he shall, as the Psalmist farther observes,reign over the heathen, andsit on the throne of his holiness.
Again, it does not appear that the ark was calledJehovah, in Exod. xvi. 33, 34. because, when Aaron is commandedto lay the pot full of manna before the testimony, that is,the ark, this is called, a laying it before Jehovah: but the reason of the expression is this;viz.God hath ordained that the mercy-seat over the ark should be the immediate seat of his residence, from whence he would condescend to converse with men, and accordingly he is said, elsewhere, todwell between the cherubims; and, upon this account, that which was laid up before the ark, might be said to be laid up before the Lord.
But since none are so stupid to suppose that inanimate things can have the divine perfections belonging to them, therefore the principal thing contended for in this argument, is, that the ark was called Jehovah, because it was a sign and symbol of the divine presence; and from thence they conclude, that the name of God may be applied to a person that has no right to the divine glory, as the sign is called by the name of the thing signified thereby.
To which it maybe answered, that the ark was not only a sacramental sign of God’s presence, for that many other things relating to ceremonial worship were; but it was also the seat thereof: it was therefore the divine Majesty who was called Jehovah, and not the place of his residence; and it was he alone to whom the glory was ascribed that is due to his name.
4. When it is farther objected, that the name Jehovah is often applied to angels, the answer that may be given to this is; that it is never ascribed to any but him, who is called, by way of eminence, the angel, orMessenger of the covenant,viz.our Saviour, Mal. iii. 1. And whenever it is given to him, such glorious things are spoken of him, or such acts of divine worship demanded by and given to him, as argue him to be a divine Person; as will plainly appear, if we consider what the angel that appeared, in Exod. iii. says concerning himself, ver. 6.I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is said, Moseshid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God; and in verses 7, 8.The Lord, or Jehovah,said, I have surely seen the affliction of mypeople that are in Egypt, and I am come down to deliver them; and ver. 10.I will send thee unto Pharaoh; and then, in the following verses, he makes mention of his name, as of the greatJehovah, theI AM, who sent him. And Jacob gives divine worship to him, when he says, Gen. xlviii. 16.The Angel, that redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads.I might refer to many other scriptures, where the Angel of the Lord is said to appear, in which from the context, it is evident that it was a divine Person, and not a created angel. The most ancient Jewish writers generally call him theWord[111]of the Lord.
But this will not properly be deemed a sufficient answer to the objection, inasmuch as it is not denied, that the Person, who so frequently appeared in the form of an angel, made use of such expressions, as can be applied to none but God; therefore they say that he personated God, or spake after the manner of his representative, not designing that the glory of the divine perfections should be ascribed to him, but to Jehovah, whom he represented.
To which it may be replied, that the angel appearing to Moses, in the scripture before mentioned, and to several others, doth not signify himself to personate God, as doubtless he ought to have done, had he been only his representative, and not a divine Person; as an embassador, when he speaks in the name of the king, whom he represents, always uses such modes of speaking, as that he may be understood to apply what he says when personating him, not to himself, but to him that sent him; and it would be reckoned an affront to him, whom he represents, should he give occasion to any to ascribe the honour that belongs to his master to himself. Now there is nothing, in those texts, which speak of this angel’s appearing, that signifies his disclaiming divine honour, as what did not belong to him, but to God; therefore we must not suppose that he speaks in such a way as God doth, only as representing him: we read, indeed, in Rev. xxii. 8, 9. of a created angel appearing to John, who was supposed by him, at the first, to be the same that appeared to the church of old, and accordingly John gave him divine honour; but he refused to receive it, as knowing that this character, of being the divine representative, would not be a sufficient warrant for him to assume it to himself; we must therefore from hence conclude, that the angel that appeared to the church of old, and is called Jehovah, was a divine Person.
2. Having considered that the name Jehovah is peculiarly applied to God, we now proceed to prove that it is given to the Son, whereby his Deity will appear; and the first scripturethat we shall refer to is Isa. xl. 3.The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, or Jehovah,make Straight in the desert a highway for our God. Now if we can prove that this is a prophecy of John’s preparing the way of our Saviour, then it will appear that our Saviour, in this scripture, is called Jehovah. That it is a prediction of John’s being Christ’s fore-runner, appointed to prepare the Jews for his reception, and to give them an intimation, that he, whom they had long looked for, would suddenly appear, is plain from those scriptures in the New Testament, which expressly refer to this prediction, and explain it in this sense: thus Matth. iii. 3.This is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight; therefore he whose way John was to prepare, whom the prophet Isaias calls Jehovah, is our Saviour.
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 particleVau, which we renderAnd, 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 beto them for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence, as he shallbe for a sanctuaryto 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 themthat 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 himselfJehovah, 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 anundeniable 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, toit, or tohim,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 haverighteousness, and in whom theseed 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 Gospelday,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,as 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. toPour 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 undersome 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 namesLordandGod, 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. andthe 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 calledLord, 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 calledDavid’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 wordLordbe 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 calledLord, 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 calledLord of lords, and thePrince of the kings of the earth, in Rev. i. 5. andthe 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 calledGod, 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 calledGod, 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, andhis name, or glory,is to be rememberedin 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 calledEmmanuel, 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 styledGod, 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 calledGod, 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 thisact of incarnation; and there is certainly nothing in the text which determines the wordGodto be taken in a less proper sense, any more than when it is applied to the Father.
Object.It is objected that the wordGodis 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 wordGodis 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 godlinessthat he wasmanifested 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 wordGodbe left out of it, the following part of the verse will not be so consistent witha mysteryas it is withour 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 renderwas 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 wasmade 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 saidin 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; andhe 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 wordGodhere is referred to the Father, and so the sense is, feed the church of God, that is, of the Father, whichHe, 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 certainlyHemust 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 understandhis bloodin 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, whois over all, God blessed for ever; where he is not only calledGod, butGod 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 wordGodis, 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 beingof the fathers, concerning the flesh,i. e.with respect to his human nature; so that if we can prove that he is here calledGod, 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 isuncertain whether the wordGodwas 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 wordGodwas 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 thetrue Godis opposed, not only to those idols, which, in the following verse, he advises them tokeep 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,andwe 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, ashim 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 shouldthe true Godbe 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; orthe 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 wordGodis 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 togive us eternal life, in one of the foregoing verses; whereas it is not only said concerning our Saviour, thatin him was life, John i. 4. but he says, Johnxiv. 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 Θεονwith 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 himselfthe lifewasmanifested 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 callslife, oreternal life; and he that is so, is the same Person, who is called the true God; which character of beingtrue, 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 calledeternal 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, themighty God, the everlasting Father, shall call him, the Prince of peace.