that it is very agreeable to the grammatical construction thereof. It is
true, Erasmus defends the other sense of the text, and thereby gives an
handle to many after him, to make use of it, as an objection against
this doctrine, which, he says, may be plainly proved from many other
scriptures; it is very strange, that, with one hand, he should build up,
and, with the other, overthrow Christ’s proper Deity, unless we
attribute it to that affectation which he had in his temper to appear
singular, and, in many things, run counter to the common sense of
mankind; or else to the favourable thoughts which he appears to have
had, in some instances, of the Arian scheme. It may be observed, that
the most ancient versions render this text in the sense of our
translation; as do most of the ancient fathers in their defence of the
doctrine of the Trinity, as a late writer observes.[114] And it is
certain, this sense given thereof by the Anti-trinitarians, is so
apparently forced and strained, that some of the Socinians themselves,
whose interest it was to have taken it therein, have not thought fit to
insist on it. And a learned writer[115], who has appeared in the
Anti-trinitarian cause, seems to argue below himself, when he attempts
to give a turn to this text, agreeable to his own scheme; for certainly
he would have defended his sense of the text better than he does, had it
been defensible; since we can receive very little conviction from his
alleging, that “It is uncertain whether the word _God_ was originally in
the text; and if it was, whether it be not spoken of the Father.” To say
no more than this to it, is not to defend this sense of the text; for if
there were any doubt whether the word _God_ was left out of any ancient
manuscripts, he would have obliged the world, had he referred to them,
which, I think, no one else has done: and, since he supposes it
uncertain whether it be not there spoken of the Father, that ought to
have been proved, or not suggested. We might observe, in defence of our
translation, that whenever the words are so used in the New Testament,
that they may be translated, _Blessed be God_[116], they are disposed in
a different form, or order, and not exactly so as we read them therein:
but, though this be a probable argument, we will not insist on it, but
shall rather prove our translation to be just, from the connexion of the
words, with what goes immediately before, where the apostle had been
speaking of our Saviour, as descending from the fathers, according to
the flesh, or considering him as to his human nature; therefore it is
very reasonable to suppose he would speak of him as to his divine
nature, especially since both these natures are spoken of together, in
John i. 14. and elsewhere; and why they should not be intended here,
cannot well be accounted for; so that if our translation be only
supposed to be equally just with theirs, which, I think, none pretend to
deny, the connexion of the parts of the proposition laid down therein,
determines the sense thereof in our favour.
Here I cannot pass over that proof which we have of our Saviour’s
divinity, in 1 John v. 20. _This is the true God, and eternal life_;
where the _true God_ is opposed, not only to those idols, which, in the
following verse, he advises them to _keep themselves from_; in which
sense the Anti-trinitarians themselves sometimes call him the true God,
that is as much as to say, he is not an idol; upon which occasion a
learned writer[117] observes, that they deal with him as Judas did with
our Saviour, cry, Hail Master, and then betray him: they would be
thought to ascribe every thing to him but proper Deity; but that this
belongs to him, will evidently appear, if we can prove that these words
are spoken of him. It is true, the learned author of the
scripture-doctrine of the Trinity[118], takes a great deal of pains to
prove that it is the Father who is here spoken of; and his exposition of
the former part of the text, which does not immediately support his
cause, seems very just, when he says, _The Son of God is come, and hath
given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true_, _viz._
the Father, 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.
_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that though the divine nature, which
is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is represented, in
scripture, as though it were a Person, when it is called God, yet it is
to be taken in a metaphorical sense; whereas the Father, Son, and
Spirit, as has been before considered, are called Divine Persons
properly, or without a metaphor.[129] Moreover, the divine nature,
though it be called God, is never considered as co-ordinate with, or as
distinguished from the divine Persons, as though it were a Person in the
same sense as they are; and therefore, whenever it is so called, it must
be considered as opposed to the creature; as we before observed, the one
God is opposed to those who are not God by nature. It may also be
considered, that those divine perfections, which are implied in the word
_God_, taken in this sense, are known by the light of nature; (whereas
the divine Personality, as applied either to the Father, Son, or Spirit,
is a matter of pure revelation) and it is such an idea of God, or the
Godhead, that is intended thereby; so that all the force of this
objection consists only in the sense of a word, and the principal thing
in debate is, whether the word _God_ thus absolutely and indeterminately
considered, is a proper mode of speaking, to set forth the divine
nature: now if the scripture uses the word in this sense, it is not for
us to enquire about the propriety, or impropriety, thereof; but we must
take heed that we do not pervert, or misunderstand, the sense hereof
which they do, who either speak, on the one hand, of the Godhead, when
called _God_, as though it were distinct from the Father, Son, and
Spirit; or, on the other hand, understand it only of the Father, as
opposed to the Son and Spirit, as the Anti-trinitarians do, who deny
their proper Deity, and when they assert that there is but one God, do
in effect, maintain that there is but one Person in the Godhead. Thus
concerning the sense in which the Anti-trinitarians take the word _God_,
when (as it is generally expressed) it is taken absolutely in scripture,
as applying it only to the Father; we proceed to consider,