Part 39

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is another conference which our Saviour held with the Jews, mentioned, John vi. in which we read, that after he had healed a lame man on the sabbath-day, for which, ver. 16. _the Jews sought to slay him_, as a sabbath-breaker, he replies, ver. 17. _My Father worketh hitherto, and I work_; upon which they were more enraged, and as it is said, ver. 18. _sought the more to kill him, because he had not only broken the sabbath, but said also, that God was his Father, making himself equal with God_. It is plain they understood his words, as importing that he was equal with God; and, indeed they could do no otherwise, for he compares his works with God’s, and speaks of himself as working co-ordinately with him. Certainly our works ought not to be mentioned at the same time with God’s; therefore they suppose that he asserted himself to be a divine Person, and farther proved it by calling God his Father; which, according to the sense in which they understood it, denoted an equality with him. Hereupon they charge him with blasphemy, and go round about to kill him for it. Now it is certain, that, if he had not been equal with God, he ought to have undeceived them, which he might easily have done, by telling them that though I call God my Father, I intend nothing hereby, but that I worship, reverence, and yield obedience to him; or that I am his Son, by a special instance of favour, in such a sense as a creature may be; but far be it from me to give you the least occasion to think that I am equal with God, for that would be to rob him of his glory: but we find that our Saviour is far from denying his equality with the Father, but rather establishes and proves it in the following verses.

It is true, indeed, in some passages thereof, he ascribes to himself the weakness of a man, as having therein respect to his human nature, which is included in his being the Messiah and Mediator, as well as his divine: thus he says, ver. 19. _The Son_, _viz._ as man, _can do nothing of himself_; and ver. 20. _The Father sheweth him all things_; but, in other passages, he proves that he had a divine nature, and farther confirms what he had before asserted, namely, that he was equal with God; in ver. 21. _For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will._ Observe, he not only speaks of himself, as having divine power, but sovereignty; the former in that he quickeneth; the latter, in that he does it according to his own will or pleasure; and, in ver. 23. he signifies his expectation from men, that _all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father_. Thus he lays claim to divine glory, as well as ascribes to himself the prerogative of raising the whole world, at the general resurrection, and determining their state, either of happiness or misery, ver. 28, 29. _Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation._ From hence, therefore, we may conclude, that our Saviour was so far from disclaiming the charge of being equal with God, which they called blasphemy, that he proves it by arguments yet more convincing.

Another conference, which he held with the Jews about this matter, we read of in John viii. wherein, taking occasion to speak concerning Abraham, who rejoiced to see his day, he tells them plainly, ver. 58. _Before Abraham was, I am_; not intending hereby, as the Arians suppose, that he was the first creature, but that he was equal with God; and, indeed, there seems to be something in his mode of speaking that argues his asserting his eternal and unchangeable Deity. The phrase here used is the same, with a little variation, with that which is used to set forth the eternity and immutability of God, in Isa. xliii. 13. _Before the day was, I am he._ If the prophet is to be understood, as asserting that God the Father existed before time, before the _day_ was, or the course of nature began, why may we not suppose our Saviour to intend as much, when he says, _Before Abraham was, I am_.

However, since it will be objected, that this, at best, is but a probable argument, though it is such as many of the Fathers have made use of in defending his Deity, yet we will not lay the whole stress of our cause upon it, but may observe, that whatever critical remark others may make on the sense of the words, it is certain the Jews understood them no otherwise, than as implying, that he thought himself equal with God; therefore it is said, ver. 59. that _they took up stones to stone him_; which was a punishment inflicted, under the law, on blasphemers; and ought he not, had they misunderstood his words, to have cleared himself from this imputation, if he had not been equal with God? But he is far from doing this; for it is said, in the following words, that _he hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by_.

Again, there is another conference, which he held with the Jews, mentioned in John x. in which he speaks like a divine Person in several verses; as ver. 14. _I am the good Shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine_; which is the same that is ascribed to God, in Psal. xxiii. 1. _The Lord is my Shepherd_; and he lays claim to his church, whom he calls his sheep, as his own; and ver. 18. he speaks of himself, as having a power over his own life; _I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again_; which is a greater instance of dominion than belongs to a creature, who has not a power to dispose of his own life at pleasure; and, in ver. 28. he ascends yet higher in his expression, when he speaks of himself, as having a power _to give eternal life_ to his people, which is certainly the gift of none but God; and when, in ver. 29. he owns himself to be inferior to his Father, as man; notwithstanding, in ver. 30. he plainly asserts his Deity, when he says, _I and my Father are one_.

_Object._ 1. The Anti-trinitarians object to this, that Christ did not speak of himself as one with the Father, any otherwise than in consent, or, at least, as having power and authority derived from him.

_Answ._ To say that those words, _I and my Father are one_, imply nothing more than that they are One in consent, does not well agree with the sense of the foregoing words, in which he speaks of the greatness, and the power of his Father, and in this of his being One with him. Besides, had he only meant his being One with him in consent, as implying the subjection of all the powers and faculties of his soul to him, that is a sense in which every good man may be said to be one with God; therefore the Jews would not have charged him with blasphemy for it, which, it is plain, they did, and took up stones to stone him, if his own words had not given them ground to conclude that he intended more than this, namely, that he was one in nature with God. It is therefore farther objected,

_Object._ 2. That the Jews, indeed, misunderstood him, and nothing can be inferred from their stupidity, to prove his Deity: but he seems, in the following verses, to do more to the undeceiving them, than he had done in some of the foregoing instances; for he tells them plainly the reason why he spake of himself as a God, namely, because he was a prophet; and these were called _gods, to whom the word of God came_, or, at least, that he had a right to be so called, from his being _sanctified, and sent into the world_.

_Answ._ By these expressions, he does not intend to set himself upon a level with the prophets of old, but they contain an argument from the less to the greater; and so it is, as though he should say, If some persons, who made a considerable figure in the church of old, and were sent about important services to them, are called gods, I have much more reason to claim that character, as having been sanctified, and sent into the world about the great work of redemption, consecrated, or set apart to glorify the divine perfections therein; which work, as will be observed under a following head, proves his Deity; and therefore we are not to suppose that he disclaims it, when he speaks of himself, as engaged therein. Then he proceeds yet farther, in asserting his Deity, when he speaks of his _being in the Father, and the Father in him_, which, it is certain, the Jews took in a very different sense from what those words are taken in, when applied to creatures, for they concluded, that he spake of himself as a divine Person; for it follows, ver. 39. that _they sought again to take him, but he escaped out of their hand_; so that he still gives them occasion to conclude, that he was God equal with the Father.

Thus he asserted his Deity in all these various conferrences with the Jews; in which, if he had not been what they apprehended him to insinuate that he was, many charges must have been brought against him; not only as to what concerns matters of common prudence, as incensing the people by ambiguous expressions, and thereby hazarding his own life; but his holiness would have been called in question, had he given occasion to them, to think that he assumed to himself divine glory, had he not had a right to it.[141]

And this leads us to consider that last public testimony, which he gave to his Deity, in the presence of the Sanhedrim, which, in some respects, may be said to have cost him his life, when he stood before Pontius Pilate; upon which occasion, the apostle says, 1 Tim. vi. 13. that _he witnessed a good confession_: this we have recorded, Matth. xxvi. 61. where we observe, that when false witnesses were suborned to testify against him, who contradicted one another, in their evidence, upon which the high priest desired that he would make a reply to what they said, in his own defence, he did not think that worthy of an answer, and therefore held his peace: but when he was asked, in the most solemn manner, and adjured by the living God, to tell them, _Whether he were the Christ, the Son of God_? that is, the Messiah, whom the Jews expected, who governed his church of old, and whom they acknowledged to be a divine Person, or the Son of God; here the whole matter is left to his own determination. Had he denied this, he would have saved his life; and if he confessed it, he was like to die for it. On this occasion, he does not hold his peace, or refuse to answer; therefore, says he, ver. 64. _Thou hast said_; which is as though he had said, It is as thou hast said, I am the Christ, the Son of God; and then in the following words, _Nevertheless, I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man, sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven_; whereupon the high priest rent his clothes, and appealed to the people that they had heard his blasphemy, and accordingly they judged him worthy of death. Here we observe, that he not only asserts himself to be the Son of God, and to have a right to the glory of a divine Person, but, as a farther confirmation thereof, applies to himself a text, which the Jews, supposed to belong to the messiah, Dan. vii. 13. _I saw in the night-visions, and behold, one, like the Son of man, came with the clouds of heaven_, &c. So that, from all this, it follows, that if Christ, when he conversed occasionally with the Jews, or when he was called before the Sanhedrim, asserts himself to be the Son of God, which includes in it his Deity, and so does not shun to speak of himself, as equal with God, we have the doctrine, which we are defending, maintained by himself; therefore we must conclude, that he really is what he declared himself to be, namely, God equal with the Father.

II. We proceed to consider how our Saviour’s Deity appears, from those divine attributes, which are ascribed to him, which are proper to God alone; to which we shall add, those high and glorious titles, by which he is described in scripture. The attributes of God, as has been before observed[142], are all essential to him, and therefore cannot, in a proper sense, be any of them, applied to a creature, as they are to Christ, which will be particularly considered in some following heads.

1. He is said to be eternal, and that not only without end, as the angels and saints in heaven shall be, but from everlasting: this appears from Micah v. 2. _Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting._ If his goings forth have been from everlasting, then he existed from everlasting, for action supposes existence. Nothing more than this can be said, to prove that the Father was from everlasting: and that this is spoken of our Saviour is very plain, from the reference to this text, in Matth. ii. 6. where the former part of this verse is quoted and explained, as signifying our Saviour’s being born in Bethlehem; therefore the latter part of it, _whose goings forth_, &c. must belong to him. Again, he is said, in John i. 1. to have been _in the beginning_; observe, it is not said he was _from_ but _in_, the beginning; therefore it is plain, that he existed when all things began to be, and consequently was from eternity.

When we consider this divine perfection as belonging to our Saviour, we militate against both the Socinians and the Arians; as for the former, they deny, that he had any existence, properly speaking, before his conception in the womb of the virgin Mary, and interpret all those scriptures that speak of his pre-existence to it, such as that in John viii. 58. _Before Abraham was, I am_, or that _the Word was in the beginning_, as importing either, that he was from eternity, in the decree and purpose of God, relating to his incarnation, in which sense every thing that comes to pass was eternal, as fore-ordained by God, which is therefore a very absurd exposition of such-like texts; or else they suppose, that his being in the beginning signifies nothing else but his being the Founder of the gospel-state, which cannot be the sense of the evangelist’s words, because he is said _to be with God_; and it immediately follows, _and all things were made by him_, which every unprejudiced reader would suppose to intend the creation of the world, and not the erecting the gospel-dispensation; this therefore evidently appears to be a perversion of the sense of the text.