Testament, by a divine warrant, as a peculiar honour put upon him; and
here they think it not difficult to prove, that a creature may have a
right conferred on him to receive divine honour; which if they were able
to do, it would tend more to weaken our cause, and establish their own,
than any thing they have hitherto advanced. But this we shall have
occasion to militate against under the fourth head of argument, to prove
the Deity of the Son, _viz._ his having a right to divine worship, and
therefore shall pass it over at present, and consider them as intending
nothing more by the word _God_, when applied to our Saviour, but what
imports an honour infinitely below that which belongs to the Father; and
this they suppose to have been conferred upon him, on some occasions,
relating to the work for which he came into the world. The Socinians, in
particular, speak of his being called God, or the Son of God.
(1.) Because of his having been _sanctified_ and _sent into the world_,
John x. 36. _viz._ to redeem it, in that peculiar and low sense in which
they understand the word _redemption_, of which more hereafter.
(2.) Also from his extraordinary conception and birth, by the power of
the Holy Ghost, as it is said, in Luke i. 35. _The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over-shadow thee;
therefore also that Holy Thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be
called the Son of God._
(3.) Another reason of his having this honour conferred upon him, they
take from his resurrection, and so refer to Rom. i. 4. in which it is
said, that he was _declared to be the Son of God with power, by the
resurrection from the dead_.
(4.) Another reason hereof they take from his ascension into heaven, or
being glorified, at which time they suppose that he was made an High
Priest, and had, in an eminent degree, the name and character of God put
upon him, for which they refer to Heb. v. 3. in which it is said,
_Christ glorified not himself to be made an High Priest; but he that
said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee_.
But they plainly pervert the sense of these respective texts but now
mentioned, inasmuch as they suppose that his mission, incarnation,
resurrection, and ascension, are the principal reasons of his being
called God; and that his deity is founded not in the excellency of his
nature, but in these relative circumstances, in which, as an act of
grace, this honour was conferred upon him, which God, had he pleased,
might have conferred on any other creature, capable of yielding
obedience to him, or receiving such a commission from him: whereas, in
reality, these scriptures refer to that glory which he had as Mediator,
as a demonstration of his Deity, and these honours were agreeable to his
character, as a divine Person, but did not constitute him God, as they
suppose.
But these things are not so particularly insisted on by some late
Anti-trinitarians, though they all agree in this, that his right to
divine honour is the result of that authority which he has received from
God, to perform the works which are ascribed to him, relating to the
good of mankind; whereas we cannot but conclude, from the scriptures
before brought to prove his proper Deity, in which he is called _Lord_
and _God_, in as strong a sense, as when those words are applied to the
Father, that he is therefore God equal with the Father.
Thus having considered our Saviour’s proper Deity, as evinced from his
being called Lord and God; and also, that these names are given to him
in such a sense, as that hereby the Godhead is intended, as much as when
it is applied to the Father; we shall close this head, by considering
two scriptures, in which the divine nature is ascribed to him; and the
first of them is in Coloss. ii. 9. _In him dwelleth all the fulness of
the Godhead bodily_; in which we may observe, that it is not barely
said, that God dwelleth in him, which would not so evidently have proved
his deity, because God is elsewhere said to dwell in others: thus, in 1
John iv. 12. it is said, _God dwelleth in us_; but here it is said, the
Godhead dwelleth in him, which is never applied to any creature; and the
expression is very emphatical, the fulness, yea, all the fulness of the
Godhead dwelleth in him; what can we understand thereby, but that all
the perfections of the divine nature belong to him? The apostle had been
speaking, in ver. 2. of the _mystery of Christ_, as what the church was
to know, and acknowledge, as well as that of the Father; and he also
considers him as the Fountain of wisdom, ver. 3. _In whom are hid all
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge_; and what is here spoken
concerning him, very well corresponds therewith, as being expressive of
his divine glory; the fulness of the Godhead is said, indeed, to dwell
in him _bodily_, by which we are to understand his human nature, as the
body is, in some other scriptures taken for the man; thus, in Rom. xii.
1. we are exhorted _to present our bodies_, _i. e._ ourselves, _a living
sacrifice to God_; so here the divine nature, as subsisting in him, is
said to dwell in, that is, to have the human nature united to it, which
is meant by its dwelling in him bodily.
The account which some give of the sense of this text, to evade the
force of the argument, taken from thence, to prove our Saviour’s Deity,
does little more than shew how hard the Anti-trinitarians are put to it
to maintain their ground, when they say that the word Θεοτης, which we
render _Godhead_, signifies some extraordinary gifts conferred upon him,
especially such as tended to qualify him to discover the mind and will
of God; or, at least, that nothing else is intended thereby, but that
authority which he had from God, to perform the work which he came into
the world about; since it is certain, that this falls infinitely short
of what is intended by the word _Godhead_, which must signify the divine
nature, subsisting in him, who assumed, or was made flesh, and so dwelt
therein, as in a temple.
There is another scripture, which seems to attribute to him the divine
nature, _viz._ Phil. ii. 6. where it is said, that he was _in the form
of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God_; by _the form
of God_, I humbly conceive, we are to understand the divine nature which
he had, and therefore it was no instance of robbery in him to assert,
that he was equal with God. If this sense of the text can be defended,
it will evidently prove his proper Deity, since it is never said,
concerning any creature, that he is in the form of God, or, as the words
may be rendered, that he subsisted in the form of God; now it is well
known, that the word which we render _form_, is not only used by the
schoolmen, but by others, before their time, to signify the nature, or
essential properties, of that to which it is applied; so that this sense
thereof was well known in the apostle’s days. Therefore, why may we not
suppose, that the Holy Ghost, in scripture, may once, at least, use a
word which would be so understood by them? And it will farther appear,
that Christ’s Deity is signified thereby, if the following words are to
be understood in the sense contained in our translation, that _he
thought it not robbery to be equal with God_; now this seems very plain,
for the same word ἡγησατο, _he thought_, is taken in the same sense in
the third verse of this chapter; _Let every man esteem_, or think,
_others better than themselves_; and it is used about twenty times in
the New Testament, five times in this epistle, besides in this text, and
never understood otherwise than as signifying _to think_, _esteem_, or
_account_; and it would destroy the sense of the respective texts, where
it is used, to take it otherwise. This the Anti-trinitarians themselves
will not deny, inasmuch as it does not affect their cause;
notwithstanding they determine that it must be otherwise translated in
this text; and so they render the words, ουχ ἁρπαγμον ἡγησατο το ειναι
ισα Θεω, _he did not covet to be honoured_, or was not greedy, or in
haste of being honoured _as God_[130], that is, he did not affect to
appear like a divine Person, or catch at those divine honours that did
not belong to him. Could this sense of the text be made out to be just,
it would effectually overthrow our argument, taken from thence, to prove
Christ’s proper Deity: but this is as foreign from the sense of the
words, as any sense that could be put upon them; and all that is
pretended to justify it, is a reference which they make to a phrase, or
two, used in a Greek writer, which is not at all to their purpose[131].
Moreover the sense of this text, as agreeable to the words of our
translation, will farther appear to be just, if we consider, that our
Saviour’s _being in the form of God_, is there opposed to his having
afterwards been _in the form of a servant_, or the _fashion of a man_;
now if the latter be to be understood of his being truly and properly
man, and not to be taken barely for something in him which resembled the
human nature; or if his _taking on him the form of a servant_, imports,
his being in a capacity to perform that obedience which was due from
him, as man to God, in a proper, and not a theatrical sense; then it
will follow, that his being in the form of God, as opposed hereunto,
must be taken for his being truly and properly God, or for his having
the divine nature, as before mentioned; which was the thing to be
proved.
I might here consider the sense which Dr. Whitby, in his annotations,
gives of our Saviour’s being _in the form of God_, as opposed to that of
a servant, (after he had given up the sense of the words, as in our
translation, to the adversary) which is, that his being in the form of
God, implies, his appearing, before his incarnation, in a bright shining
cloud, or light, or in a flame of fire, or with the attendance of an
host of angels, as he is sometimes said to have done, which the Jews
call Shechinah, or the divine Majesty, as being a visible emblem of his
presence; this he calls _the form of God_, and his not appearing so,
when incarnate in this lower world, _the form of a servant_, as opposed
to it; and adds, that when he ascended into heaven, he assumed the form
of God; and therefore whenever he has occasionally appeared, as to the
martyr Stephen at his death, or to the apostle Paul at his first
conversion, it has been in that form, or with like emblems of majesty
and divinity, as before his incarnation,
Here I would observe concerning this, that what he says of Christ’s
appearing with emblems of majesty and glory before his incarnation, and
the glory that was put upon his human nature after his ascension into
heaven, is a great truth; but as this is never styled, in scripture, the
form of God, nor was the symbol of the divine glory ever called therein
the divine majesty, however it might be called by Jewish writers;
therefore this has no reference to the sense of this text, nor does it,
in the least, enervate the force of the argument, taken from it, to
prove our Saviour’s proper Deity, any more than this critical remark on
the words thereof does, the sense of our translation, whereby it
evidently appears. I might also observe the sense which another
learned[132] writer gives of _the form of God_ in this text, which is
the same that is given by several of the Socinians; namely, that it has
a relation to his working miracles while here upon earth, which is
certainly very disagreeable to the scope and design of the text, since
he is said to be _in the form of God_, before he took upon him the form
of a servant, that is, before his incarnation: and besides, the working
miracles, never was deemed sufficient to denominate a person to be in
the form of God, for if it had, many others, both before and after him,
might have had this applied to them; whereas it is a glory appropriate
to him, who thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
I would not wholly pass over that which some call a controverted text of
scripture, in 1 John v. 7. _For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are
one_, lest it should be thought that I conclude the arguments, brought
by the Anti-trinitarians, sufficiently conclusive to prove it
spurious,[133] but I shall say the less on this subject, because it is a
very hard matter to advance any thing that has not been very largely
insisted on, by various writers; among whom I cannot but mention, with
great esteem; one who has defended the scripture-doctrine of the Trinity
with a great deal of learning and judgment, who has given a particular
account of several that have written on either side of the
question[134]. No one pretends to deny, that this text is not to be
found in a great number of manuscripts, among which some are generally
allowed to be of great antiquity; therefore it is less to be wondered
at, that it is left out in some ancient versions thereof, which were
taken from copies that were destitute of it; all which only proves, that
the text has been corrupted: but the main question is, which of those
copies are to be reckoned genuine, those which have it, or others which
have it not? It must be allowed, that there are a considerable number,
in which the text is inserted, as Beza and others observe; and it will
be a hard matter to prove that these are all spurious, which must be
done, before we shall be obliged to expunge it out of scripture.
If it be objected, that the manuscripts, which have the text, are not so
ancient as those that are without it, it will be a difficult matter for
them to determine the antiquity thereof, with such exactness, as, by
comparing one with the other, it may be certainly known, with respect to
all of them, which has the preference, and by what a number of years:
besides, since it is certain, that more manuscripts of scripture are
lost by far, than are now known to be in the world; unless we suppose
that religion, in ancient times, was contracted into a very narrow
compass, or that very few, in the first ages of the church, had copies
of scripture by them, which is not to be supposed; and, if so, then it
will be hard to prove that those manuscripts, which have the text
inserted, did not take it from some others, that were in being before
them; so that the genuineness, or spuriousness of the text, is not to be
determined only or principally by inspection into ancient manuscripts.
Nor can I think it very material to offer conjectures concerning the
manner how the text came first to be corrupted. Dr. Hammond, and others,
suppose, that some one, who transcribed this epistle, might commit a
blunder, in leaving out this text, because of the repetition of the
words in the following verse, _There are three that bare record_. It is,
indeed, a hard thing to trace every mistake made by an amanuensis to its
first original; however, this must be concluded, that it is possible for
it to be left out through inadvertency, but it could not be put in
without a notorious fraud; and no one would attempt to do this, unless
some end, which he thought valuable, were answered thereby. Indeed, if
the doctrine of the Trinity could not have been maintained without such
an insertion, I will not say, that every one, who ever defended it, had
honesty enough to abhor such a vile practice; but this I am bound to
say, that if any one did so, he was guilty not only of fraud, but folly,
at the same time; since the divinity of the Son and Spirit, as well as
of the Father, is maintained throughout the whole scripture; and the
principal thing asserted concerning the Son, in this text, _viz._ that
he is _One_ with the Father, is expressly laid down in his own words,
John x. 30. _I and my Father are one._
I know the Arians take occasion to censure the defenders of the doctrine
of the Trinity, as being guilty of this fraud, though Father Simon[135]
is a little more sparing of his reflections on them; but he is no less
injurious to the truth, when he maintains, that some person or other, in
the margin of a copy, which he had by him, which he supposes to have
been about five hundred years old, had affixed to ver. 8. these words,
as an explication thereof, as though the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
were intended thereby, to wit, by the _Spirit_, _water_, _and blood_;
and from hence concludes, that the next person, who transcribed from
this manuscript, mistook this note for a part of the text; and so the
7th verse came to be inserted. This Le Clerc calls a setting the matter
in a clear light; for some persons are ready to believe that which
supports their own cause, how weakly soever it be maintained.
It might easily be replied to this, that this text was known in the
world long enough before that manuscript was wrote, and consequently
this insertion could not first take its rise from thence; and therefore
to produce a single instance of this nature, is, I humbly conceive,
nothing to the purpose[136].
But, passing by what respects scripture-manuscripts, there is more
stress to be laid on the writings of those who have referred to this
text; and accordingly it is certain, that it was often quoted in defence
of the doctrine of the Trinity, by ancient writers, in the fifth and
following centuries, therefore it was found in the manuscripts that they
used. It is true, it is not quoted by the Fathers, who wrote in the
fourth century, to wit, Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory, Nazianzen,
Chrysostom, nor by Augustin, and some others; but nothing can be
inferred from hence, but that it was not in the copies they made use of:
but it does not follow that it was in no copy at that time; for, if we
look farther back to the third century, we find it expressly referred to
by Cyprian, which I cannot but lay a very great stress on; he has it in
two places[137], in the former of which, he occasionly mentions these
words, _These three are one_; and, in the latter, he expressly quotes
this scripture; and says, it is _written of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, that these three are one_; which evidently proves, that he found
it in some manuscript extant in his time, which was before any
manuscript, now in being, is pretended to have been written; for even
the Alexandrian manuscript is, I think, supposed by none to be of
greater antiquity than the fourth century, which seems to me to be of
greater force than any thing that is suggested, concerning its being not
found in manuscripts of later date; and we may observe, that that Father
does not speak of it as a certain manuscript, which was reserved, as a
treasure, in some private library, which might be adulterated; nor doth
he pretend to prove the authority thereof, nor make use of it, to prove
the genuineness of the text; but quotes the text, as we do any other
place of scripture, as supposing it was generally acknowledged to be
contained therein; and he also was reckoned a man of the greatest
integrity, as well as piety, and so would not refer to any text, as a
part of the sacred writings, which was not so.
_Object._ It is objected against this, by the Anti-trinitarians, that
though he quotes scriptures, yet it is not this, but ver. 8. and that
not in the words thereof, but in a mystical sense, which he puts upon
it, by the Spirit, water, and blood, agreeing in one, intending the
Father, Son, and Spirit, being one: and this is the sense Facundus, an
African bishop, who lived about the middle of the sixth century, puts
upon it, and supposes him thus to quote it.
_Answ._ But to this it may be answered, that his judgment is no more to
be valued, who lived three hundred years after him, than if he had lived
in this present age; nor had he any farther light to understand
Cyprian’s meaning, than we have; and we know very well, that Cyprian was
not so unreasonably fond of mystical interpretations of scriptures, as
Origen, and some others of the Fathers were: and even they never
presumed to quote any mystical sense, which they put on scripture, as
the words thereof, or say, as this Father does, it is so written; much
less are we to suppose that his words are to be taken in this sense. And
whatever Facundus’s sense was of his words, another who lived in the
same century, together with, or a little before him, _viz._ Fulgentius,
refers (as the learned author above mentioned[138] observes) to this
passage of Cyprian; not as a mystical explication of ver. 8. but as
distinctly contained in ver 7. and, as such, makes use of it against the
Arians.
As for that known passage in Tertullian[139], in which he speaks of the
union, or connexion, as he calls it, of the Father in the Son, and of
the Son in the Comforter, making three joined together, and that these
three are one, that is, one divine Being, not one Person, and so
referring to our Saviour’s word’s, _I and the Father are one_, it is a
very good explication of the sense of this text, and discovers that, in
that early age of the church, he had a right notion of the doctrine of
the Trinity: but whether it is sufficiently evident from hence, that he
refers to this scripture under our present consideration, though
defending the doctrine contained in it, I will not determine. I shall
add no more in the defence of the genuineness of this text, but rather
refer the reader to others, who have wrote professedly on this
subject.[140]
And whereas some of the anti-trinitarians have supposed, that if this
scripture were genuine, it doth not prove the doctrine of the Trinity,
because the words ought to be taken as implying, that the Father, Son,
and Spirit, are one only in testimony; to this it may be answered, that
though it be an undoubted truth that they agree in testimony, yet it
doth not amount to the sense of the words, _They are one_; for if that
had been the principal idea designed to be conveyed thereby, no reason
can be assigned why the phrase should be different from 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.