Part 37

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, and _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 xiv. 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 hope, 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, and 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 determines 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, when 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 an 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, that 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.