Quest. IX., X., XI.

QUEST. IX. How many persons are there in the Godhead?

ANSW. There be three Persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one, true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.

QUEST. X. What are the personal properties of the three Persons in the Godhead?

ANSW. It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the Son to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity.

QUEST. XI. How doth it appear that the Son and the Holy Ghost are God equal with the Father?

ANSW. The scriptures manifest, that the Son and the Holy Ghost are God equal with the Father; ascribing unto them such names, attributes, works, and worship, as are proper to God only.

In these three answers is contained the doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity, which is a subject of pure revelation;[76] and, because it is so much contested in the age in which we live, we are obliged to be more large and particular, in laying down the reasons of our belief of it, and in our defence thereof, against those that deny it. It is a doctrine that has been defended by some of the most judicious writers, both in our own and other nations; whereof some have proved that it was maintained by the church in the purest ages thereof, which therefore renders it less necessary for us to enter into that part of the controversy; but we shall principally insist on it as founded on the sacred writings: and whereas others have rendered some parts of this doctrine more obscure, by confining themselves to the scholastic ways of speaking, we shall endeavour to avoid them, that so it may be better understood by private Christians; and the method we shall pursue in treating of it shall be,

I. To premise some things which are necessary to be considered, with relation to it in general.

II. We shall consider in what sense we are to understand the words Trinity, and Persons in the Godhead, and in what respect the divine Persons are said to be One.

III. We shall prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, have distinct personal properties, and therefore that we have sufficient reason to call them Persons, in the Godhead, as they are in the first of these answers; and under this head shall consider what is generally understood by what is contained in the second of them, which respects the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost; and what cautions we are to use, lest, by mistaking the sense thereof, we be led into any error, derogatory to, or subversive of the doctrine of the Trinity; and also shall endeavour to explain those scriptures, which are generally brought to establish that doctrine.

IV. We shall endeavour to prove that these three Persons, especially the Son and Holy Ghost, are truly divine, or that they have all the perfections of the divine nature; and therefore that they are, in the most proper sense, the one only living and true God.[77]

I. We shall premise some things which are necessary to be considered, with relation to the doctrine of the Trinity in general. And,

1. It is a doctrine of the highest importance, and necessary to be believed by all Christians, who pay a just deference to revealed religion. It may probably be reckoned an error in method to speak of the importance of this doctrine, before we attempt to prove the truth thereof: however, it is not altogether unjustifiable, since we address ourselves to those who believe it, hoping thereby to offer some farther conviction, or establishment, to their faith therein, as well as to others who deny it; we may therefore be allowed to consider it as an important doctrine, that we may be excited to a more diligent enquiry into the force of some of those arguments, which are generally brought in its defence.

Now to determine a doctrine to be of the highest importance, we must consider the belief thereof as connected with salvation, or subservient to that true religion, which is ordained by God, as a necessary means leading to it, without which we have no warrant to expect it: and such doctrines are sometimes called fundamental, as being the basis and foundation on which our hope is built. Here, I think, it will be allowed, by all whose sentiments do not savour of scepticism, that there are some doctrines of religion necessary to be believed to salvation. There are some, it is true, who plead for the innocency of error, or, at least, of those who are sincere enquirers after truth, who, in the end, will appear to have been very remote from it, as though their endeavours would entitle them to salvation, without the knowledge of those things, which others conclude to be necessarily subservient to it. All that we shall say concerning this is, that it is not the sincerity of our enquiries after important truths, but the success thereof, that is to be regarded in this, as well as other means, that are to be used to obtain so valuable an end. We may as well suppose that our sincere endeavours to obtain many of those graces that accompany salvation, such as faith, love to God, and evangelical obedience, will supply, or atone for, the want of them; as assert that our unsuccessful enquiries after the great doctrines of religion will excuse our ignorance thereof; especially when we consider, that blindness of mind, as well as hardness of heart; is included among those spiritual judgments, which are the consequence of our fallen state; and also that God displays the sovereignty of his grace as much, in leading the soul into all necessary truth, as he does in any other things that relate to salvation. However, it is not our business to determine the final state of men; or how far they make advances to, or recede from, the knowledge of such important doctrines; or what will be the issue thereof; but rather to desire of God, that so far as we, or others, are destitute of this privilege, he would grant us and them repentance, to the acknowledgment of the truth, 1 Tim. ii. 25. And here we cannot but observe, that the question relating to important or fundamental articles of faith is not whether any doctrines may be so called? but what those doctrines are: in determining of which, many make provision for their own particular scheme of doctrine: and accordingly some, as the Papists in particular, assert several doctrines to be fundamental, without scripture warrant; yea, such as are directly contrary thereunto; and others allow no doctrine to be so, but what will, if adhered to, open a door of salvation to all mankind, and these set aside the necessity of divine revelation; and others, who desire not to run such lengths, will allow, that some scripture-doctrines are necessary to be believed to salvation: but these are only such as may include those who are in their way of thinking; thus they who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, are obliged in conformity to their own sentiments, to deny also that it is an important article of faith. These may justly demand a convincing proof of the truth thereof, before they believe it to be of any importance, especially to themselves; and therefore it would be a vain thing to tell them, that the belief thereof is connected with salvation; or that it is necessary, inasmuch as divine worship is so, which supposes the belief of the divinity of the Persons, whom we adore; without first proving that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are divine Persons: and it would be as little to their edification to say that there are several doctrines necessary to be believed; such as that of Christ’s satisfaction, and our justification, depending thereon, and that of regeneration and sanctification, as the effects of the divine power of the Holy Ghost; all which suppose the belief of their being divine Persons; unless we first give some convincing proof of the truth of these doctrines, which are supposed to stand or fall with it; for it would be immediately replied, that one is false, and consequently far from being of any importance; therefore so is the other.

But inasmuch as we reserve the consideration of these things to their proper place; we shall only observe at present, that there are some who do not appear to deny the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather the importance of it; and express themselves with very great indifference about it, and blame all attempts to defend it, as needless, or litigious, as though it were only a contest about words: thus they say, though we hold it ourselves, others who deny it, may have as much to say in defence of their own cause as we have, and therefore that these disputes ought to be wholly laid aside. Now, with respect to these, what we have hinted, concerning the importance of this doctrine, may not be altogether misapplied; therefore we have taken occasion to mention it in this place, that we may not be supposed to plead a cause which is not worth defending, as though the doctrine of the Trinity were no other than an empty speculation; but as that which we are bound to esteem a doctrine of the highest importance.

2. We are next to consider what degree of knowledge of this doctrine is necessary to, or connected with salvation. It cannot be supposed that this includes in it the knowledge of every thing that is commonly laid down in those writings, wherein it is attempted to be explained; for when we speak of this, as a doctrine of the highest importance, we mean the scripture-doctrine of the Trinity. This is what we are to assent to, and to use our utmost endeavours to defend; but as for those explications, which are merely human, they are not to be reckoned of equal importance; especially every private Christian is not to be censured as a stranger to this doctrine, who cannot define personality in a scholastic way, or understand all the terms used in explaining it, or several modes of speaking, which some writers tenaciously adhere to; such as hypostasis, subsistence, consubstantiality, the modal distinction of the Persons in the Godhead, filiation, or the communication of the divine essence by generation, or its being farther communicated by procession; some of which rather embarrass the minds of men, than add any farther light to the sense of those scriptures, in which this doctrine is contained.

But when we consider how far the doctrine of the Trinity is to be known, and believed to salvation, we must not exclude the weakest Christian from a possibility of knowing it, by supposing it necessary for him to understand some hard words, which he doth not find in his Bible; and if he meets with them elsewhere, will not be much edified by them. That knowledge, therefore, which is necessary to salvation, is more plain and easy, and to be found in every part of scripture: accordingly, every Christian knows, that the word God signifies a being that has all those divine perfections, which are so frequently attributed to him therein, and are displayed and glorified in all his works of common providence and grace; and that this God is one. To which we may also add, that he learns from his Bible, and therefore firmly believes that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are possessed of these divine perfections, and consequently that they are this one God; and that they are distinguished, as we often find in scripture, by such characters and properties, which we generally call personal, and so apply the word Person to each of them, and conclude that the divine glory attributed to them is the same, though their personal properties, or characters, are distinct; which is the substance of what is contained in the first of those answers, under our present consideration. And he that believes this, need not entertain any doubt as though he wanted some ideas of this sacred doctrine, which are necessary to salvation; since such a degree of knowledge, attended with a firm belief thereof, is sufficient to warrant all those acts of divine worship, which we are obliged to ascribe to the Father, Son, and Spirit, and is consistent with all those other doctrines, which are founded on, or suppose the belief thereof, as was before observed under our last head.

3. We shall consider this doctrine as a great mystery, such as cannot be comprehended by a finite mind; and therefore we shall first enquire what we are to understand by the word Mystery, as it is used in scripture. This word sometimes denotes a doctrine’s having been kept secret, or, at least, revealed more obscurely, upon which account it was not so clearly known before; in which sense, the gospel is called, The mystery which hath been hid from ages, and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints Col. i. 26. It was covered with the ceremonial law, as with a vail, which, many of the people, through the blindness of their minds, did not so fully understand; and accordingly, when persons are led into a farther degree of knowledge thereof, it is said, as our Saviour tells his disciples, that to them it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, Matt. xiii. 11. or when something is revealed in scripture, which the world was not in the least apprised of before; this is, by way of eminence, called a mystery, as the apostle says, speaking concerning the change that shall be passed on those that shall be found alive at the last day; Behold, I shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.

But to this we may add, that there is also another idea affixed to the word Mystery, namely, that though it be revealed, yet it cannot be fully comprehended; and it is in this sense that we call the doctrine of the Trinity a Mystery. Both these ideas seem to be contained in the word, in some scriptures, particularly where the apostle says, Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which, from the beginning of the world, hath been hid in God, Eph. iii. 8, 9. where he speaks of the gospel, not only as hid, but unsearchable; and he speaks of the mystery of God, even the Father, and of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, Col. ii. 3. where the word mystery seems to contain both these ideas; for few will deny, that the glory of the Father, who is here spoken of, as well as Christ, is incomprehensible by a finite mind; and if it be said, that the gospel is hereby intended, and so that the words ought to be rendered, in which are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; this must be supposed to be incomprehensible, as well as formerly less known, otherwise this character of it would be too great.

But suppose the word Mystery were always used to signify a doctrine, not before revealed, without the other idea of its being incomprehensible contained in it; this would not overthrow our argument in general, since we can prove it to be incomprehensible from other arguments, which we shall endeavour to do.

And that we may prepare our way for this, let it be considered, that there are some finite things, which we cannot now comprehend, by reason of the imperfection of our present state, which are not incomprehensible in themselves. How little do we know of some things, which may be called mysteries in nature; such as the reason of the growth and variety of colours and shapes of plants; the various instinct of brute creatures; yea, how little do we know comparatively of ourselves, the nature of our souls, any otherwise, than as it is observed by their actions, and the effects they produce; the reason of their union with our bodies, or of their acting by them, as the inspired writer observes; so that it may well be said, Thou knowest not the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child; even so thou knowest not the works of God, who maketh all things, Eccles. xi. 5. and Elihu, together with some of the other wonderful works of nature, which he challengeth Job to give an account of, speaks of this in particular. Dost thou know how thy garments are warm, when he quieteth the earth, by the south wind? Job xxxvii. 17, &c. which not only signifies that we cannot account for the winds producing heat or cold, as blowing from various quarters of heaven; but that we know not the reason of the vital heat, which is preserved for so many years, in the bodies of men, the inseparable concomitant and sign of life; or what gives the first motion to the blood and spirits, or fits the organized body to perform its various functions. These things cannot be comprehended by us.

But if we speak of that which is infinite, we must conclude it to be incomprehensible, not only because of the imperfection of our present state, but because, as has been before observed, of the infinite disproportion that there is between the object and our finite capacities. In this respect we have before shewn that the perfections of the divine nature cannot be comprehended, such as the immensity, eternity, omnipresence, and simplicity of God; yet we are to believe that he is thus infinitely perfect. And it seems equally reasonable to suppose the doctrine of the Trinity to be incomprehensible; for the mutual relation of the Father, Son, and Spirit, to each other, and their distinct personality, are not the result of the divine will; these are personal perfections, and therefore they are necessary, and their glory infinite, as well as that of his essential perfections; and if we are bound to believe one to be incomprehensible, why should we not as well suppose the other to be so? or if there are some things which the light of nature gives us some ideas of, concerning which we are notwithstanding bound to confess that we know but little of them, for the reason but now mentioned, why should it be thought strange, that this doctrine, though the subject of pure revelation, should be equally incomprehensible? This consequence appears so evident, that some of them, who deny the doctrine of the Trinity to be incomprehensible, do not stick to deny the perfections of the divine nature to be so, when they maintain that there is nothing which is the object of faith but what may be comprehended by us, which is to run such lengths in the defence of their cause, as no one who hath the least degree of that humility, which becomes a finite creature, should venture to do. But they proceed yet farther, as the cause they defend seems to require it, and say, that every doctrine which we cannot comprehend is to be rejected by us, as though our understandings were to set bounds to the truth and credibility of all things.

This, I think, is the true state of the question about mysteries in Christianity: it is not whether the word Mystery is never used in scripture to signify what is incomprehensible; for if that could be sufficiently proved, which I think hath not yet been done, we would assert the doctrine of the Trinity to be more than a mystery, namely, an incomprehensible doctrine; and the proof thereof seems absolutely necessary, since the Antitrinitarians, and some of them with an air of insult, conclude this to be our last resort, which we betake ourselves to when they have beaten us out of all our other strong holds; and therefore we may suppose, that this would be opposed with the greatest warmth, but I do not find that it has hitherto been overthrown: and indeed when they call it one of our most plausible pretences, as though we laid the whole stress of the controversy upon it, it might be expected that it should be attacked with stronger arguments than it generally is. Sometimes they bend their force principally against the sense of the word Mystery; and here they talk not only with an air of insult, but profaneness, when they compare it with the abominable mysteries of the heathen, which were not to be divulged to any but those of them who were in the secret; and the doctrine of the Trinity, and that of transubstantiation, are compared together, so that they are to be reckoned equally mysterious, that is, according to their application of the word, absurd and nonsensical. And this way of arguing has so far prevailed among them, that no one must apply the word to any doctrines of religion without exposing himself to scorn and ridicule; but this will do no service to their cause, nor prejudice to our doctrine, in the opinion of those who enquire into the truth thereof, with that seriousness and impartiality, that the importance of the doctrine calls for.[78]

The question therefore in controversy is; whether any doctrines of religion may be deemed incomprehensible, that is, such as we can have no adequate ideas of, because of the disproportion between them and our finite minds? and whether the incommunicable perfections of God are not to be reckoned among these incomprehensible doctrines? if they are not, then it will be reasonable to demand that every thing relating to them be particularly accounted for, and reduced to the standard of a finite capacity; and if this cannot be done, but some things must be allowed to be incomprehensible in religion, then it will be farther enquired, Why should the doctrine of the Trinity be rejected, because we cannot account for every thing that relates to the personal glory of God, any more than we can for those things that respect his essential glory? or may not some things, that are matter of pure revelation, be supposed to exceed our capacities, and yet we be bound to believe them, as well as other things which appear to be true, and at the same time, incomprehensible, by the light of nature? But, that we may enter a little more particularly into this argument, we shall consider the most material objections that are brought against it, and what may be replied to them.

Object. 1. It is objected that we take up with the bare sound of words, without any manner of ideas affixed to them. And,

2. That it is unbecoming the divine wisdom and goodness to suppose that God should give a revelation, and demand our belief thereof, as necessary to salvation, when, at the same time, it is impossible for our understandings to yield an assent to it, since nothing that is unintelligible can be the object of faith.

3. That practical religion is designed to be promoted in the world hereby, and therefore the will of man must follow the dictates of the understanding, and not blindly embrace, and be conversant about we know not what, which is to act unbecoming our own character as intelligent creatures.

4. That the design of divine revelation is to improve our understandings, and render our ideas of things more clear, and not to entangle and perplex them.

Answ. 1. As to our using words without ideas, there is no Christian, that I know of, who thinks there is any religion in the sound of words, or that it is sufficient for us to take up with the word Trinity, or Persons in the Godhead, without determining, in some measure, what we understand thereby. We will therefore allow that faith supposes some ideas of the object, namely, that we have some knowledge of what we believe it to be: now our knowledge of things admits of various degrees; some of which we only know that they are what they are determined, or proved to be; if we proceed farther in our enquiries, and would know how every thing is to be accounted for, that may justly be affirmed concerning them, here our ideas are at a stand; yet this is not in the least inconsistent with the belief of what we conclude them to be. For the illustrating of which, let it be considered that we believe that God’s eternity is without succession, his immensity without extension; this we know and believe, because to assert the contrary would be to ascribe imperfection to him. In this respect, our faith extends as far as our ideas: but as for what exceeds them, we are bound to believe that there is something in God, which exceeds the reach of a finite mind, though we cannot comprehend, or fully describe it, as though it was not infinite. And to apply this to the doctrine of the Trinity; it is one thing, to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit, have the perfections of the divine nature attributed to them in scripture, as well as distinct personal characters and properties, and because the Godhead is but one, that therefore these three are one, which we firmly believe, inasmuch as it is so clearly revealed in scripture; and another thing, to say, that we can fully describe all the properties of their divine personality, which, though we cannot do, yet we believe that they subsist in an incomprehensible manner. And while we compare them with finite persons, as we do the perfections of God with those of the creature, we separate from the one, as well as the other, whatever savours of imperfection.

2. As to the unintelligibleness of divine revelation, and its being unbecoming the wisdom and goodness of God to communicate those doctrines that are so, it may be replied, that we must distinguish between the rendering a doctrine, which would be otherwise easy to be understood, unintelligible, by the perplexity or difficulty of the style in which it is delivered, and the imparting a doctrine which none can comprehend; the former of these cannot be charged on any part of scripture, and it is only a revelation, which is liable to such a charge, that could be reckoned inconsistent with the wisdom and goodness of God. As to the latter, the design of revelation is not to make us comprehend what is in itself incomprehensible: as, for instance, God did not design, when he made known his perfections in his word, to give us such a perfect discovery of himself, that we might be said hereby to find him out unto perfection, or that we should know as much of his glory as is possible to be known, or as much as he knows of it himself; for that is to suppose the understanding of man infinitely more perfect than it is. Whatever is received, is received in proportion to the measure of that which contains it; the whole ocean can communicate no more water than what will fill the vessel, that is to contain it. Thus the infinite perfections of God being such as cannot be contained in a finite mind, we are not to suppose that our comprehending them was the design of divine revelation; God, indeed, designed hereby that we should apprehend some things of himself, namely, as much as should be subservient to the great ends of religion; but not so much as might be inconsistent with our humble confession, that we are but of yesterday, and know, comparatively, nothing, Job viii. 9.

And this is applicable, not only to the essential, but the personal, glory of God, Who hath ascended into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his Son’s name, if thou canst tell? Prov. xxx. 4. Our Saviour, indeed, speaks of his having ascended into heaven, John iii. 13. as having a comprehensive knowledge of all divine truths; but this he affirms concerning himself as a divine person, exclusively of all creatures.

Moreover, when it is said, in this objection, that God makes the comprehensive knowledge of these things a term of salvation, this we must take leave to deny; and we need not add any more as to that head, since we have already considered what degree of knowledge is necessary thereunto, namely, such as is subservient to religion, which teaches us to adore what we apprehend to be the object thereof, though we cannot comprehend it.

As to that part of the objection, that which is unintelligible, is not the object of faith, we must distinguish before we grant or deny it; therefore, since the object of faith is some proposition laid down, it is one thing to say that a proposition cannot be assented to, when we have no ideas of what is affirmed or denied in it; and another thing to say that it is not believed, when we have ideas of several things contained therein, of which some are affirmed, and others denied; as, for instance, when we say God is an infinite Spirit, there is a positive idea contained in that proposition, or some things affirmed therein, viz. that he is able to put forth actions suitable to an intelligent being; and there is something denied concerning him, to wit, his being corporeal; and in concluding him to be an infinite Spirit, we deny that they are limits of his understanding; all this we may truly be said to understand and believe: but if we proceed farther, and enquire what it is to have such an understanding, or will? this is not a proposition, and consequently not the object of faith, as well as exceeds the reach of our understanding. So as to the doctrine of the Trinity, when we affirm that there is one God, and that the Father, Son, and Spirit, have all the perfections of the Godhead; and that these perfections, and the personality of each of them, are infinitely greater than what can be found in the creature, this we yield our assent to; but if it be enquired how far does God herein exceed all the ideas which we have of finite perfections, or personality, here our understandings are at a loss; but so far as this does not contain the form of a proposition, it cannot, according to our common acceptation of the word, be said to be the object of faith.

3. As to what concerns practical religion, the ideas we have of things subservient to it are of two sorts; either such as engage our obedience, or excite our adoration and admiration: as to the former of these, we know what we are commanded to do; what it is to act, as becomes those who are subject to a divine person, though we cannot comprehend those infinite perfections, which lay us under the highest obligation to obey him: as to the latter, the incomprehensibleness of the divine personality, or perfections, has a direct tendency to excite our admiration, and the infiniteness thereof our adoration. And, since all religion may be reduced to these two heads, the subject matter of divine revelation is so far from being inconsistent with it, that it tends to promote it. Things commanded are not, as such, incomprehensible, as was but now observed, and therefore not inconsistent with that obedience, or subjection, which is contained in one branch thereof; and things incomprehensible do not contain the form of a command, but rather excite our admiration, and therefore they are not only consistent with, but adapted to promote the other branch thereof. Is it not an instance of religion to adore and magnify God, when we behold the display of his perfections in his works? And is he less to be adored, or admired, because we cannot comprehend them? Or should we not rather look upon them with a greater degree of astonishment, than if they did not exceed the reach of a finite mind? Must a person be able to measure the water of the ocean, or number all the particles of matter that are contained in the world; or can our ideas be no ways directed to shew forth the Creator’s praise? Or must we be able to account for every thing that is a mystery in nature; or can we not improve it to promote some of the ends of practical religion, that we are engaged to thereby? May we not say, with wonder, O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all; the earth is full of thy riches? Psal. civ. 24. So when we behold the personal glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, as displayed in the work of redemption, or as contained in scripture, which is therein said to be an instance of his manifold wisdom, Eph. iii. 10. should we not admire it the more, inasmuch as it is, as the apostle calls it, unsearchable? Therefore practical religion, as founded on divine revelation, is not, in all the branches thereof, inconsistent with the incomprehensibleness of those things, which are, some in one respect, and others in another, the objects thereof.

And as to what is farther contained in this objection, concerning the will’s following the dictates of the understanding, and practical religion’s being seated therein, I own, that we must first know what we are to do in matters of religion, before we can act; thus we must first know what it is to worship, love, and obey, the Father, Son, and Spirit, as also that these three divine persons are the object of worship, love, and obedience, and then the will follows the dictates of the understanding; but it is one thing to know these things, and another thing to be able to comprehend the divine, essential, or personal glory, which belongs to them, and is the foundation of these acts of religious worship.

4. As to what is farther objected, concerning the design of divine revelation’s being to improve our understanding; or, as it is sometimes expressed, that it is an improvement upon the light of nature; this seems to have a double aspect, or tendency, viz. to advance, or depreciate, divine revelation.

1. If we take it in the former view, we freely own,

(1.) That it is a very great improvement upon the light of nature, and that, either as we are led hereby, not only into the knowledge of many things which could not be discovered by it, namely, the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, and that infinite satisfaction which was given by him to the justice of God, in order to our discharge from condemnation, as also that communion which believers have with the Father, Son, and Spirit; and therefore, since the light of nature gives us no discovery of these doctrines, divine revelation, and particularly the gospel, makes a very great addition to those ideas which we are led into by the light of nature. It is true, they both take their rise from God, yet one excels the other, as much as the light of the sun does that of a star; and is, as the Psalmist says, when comparing them together, perfect, converting the soul; and sure, making wise the simple, Psal. xix. 7.

(2.) That when the same truths are discovered by the light of nature, and by divine revelation, the latter tends very much to improve our ideas: thus when the light of nature leads us into the knowledge of the being and perfections of God, his wisdom, power, and goodness, as illustrated in the works of nature and providence, we have not so clear ideas thereof, as we receive from the additional discoveries of them in divine revelation; and in this respect one does not cloud or darken those ideas which the other gives. But neither of these are designed by those who bring this objection against the doctrine of the Trinity: therefore we must suppose,

2. That they intend hereby to depreciate divine revelation, and then the sense thereof is this; that though the light of nature leads mankind into such a degree of the knowledge of divine truths, as is sufficient, in its kind to salvation; so that they, who are destitute of divine revelation, may thereby understand the terms of acceptance with God, and the way which, if duly improved, would lead to heaven; yet God was pleased to give some farther discovery of the same things by his word, and, in this sense, the one is only an improvement upon the other, as it makes the same truths, which were known, in some degree, without it more clear, and frees them from those corruptions, or false glosses, which the perverse reasonings of men have set upon them; whereas we, by insisting on inexplicable mysteries, which we pretend to be founded on divine revelation, though, in reality, they are not contained in it, cloud and darken that light, and so make the way of salvation more difficult, than it would otherwise be; and this certainly tends to depreciate divine revelation, how plausible soever the words, at first view, may appear to be; for it supposes those doctrines but now mentioned, and many others of the like nature, not necessary to salvation; so that this objection takes its first rise from the Deists, however it may be applied, by the Anti-trinitarians, in militating against the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, since it is principally designed to overthrow this doctrine, by supposing it to be unintelligible, and consequently, according to their method of reasoning, in no sense the object of faith, the only reply which need be made to it is, that the discoveries of the glory of God, by the light of nature, are, in some respects, as incomprehensible as the doctrine of the Trinity; which we are not, for that reason, obliged to disbelieve, or reject; and therefore there is no advantage gained against our argument, by supposing that the light of nature contains a discovery of truths, plain, easy, and intelligible by all, in the full extent thereof, and that the doctrine of the Trinity is otherwise, and consequently must not be contained in divine revelation, and, as such, cannot be defended by us.

4. Another thing that may be premised, before we enter on the proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, is, that it is not contrary to reason, though it be above it; neither are our reasoning powers, when directed by scripture-revelation, altogether useless, in order to our attaining such a degree of the knowledge thereof, as is necessary, and ought to be endeavoured after. When a doctrine may be said to be above reason, has been already considered, as well as that the doctrine of the Trinity is so; and now we are obliged to obviate an objection, which is the most popular one of any that is brought against it, namely, that it is an absurd and irrational doctrine; and that they who maintain it must first lay aside their reason, before they can be induced to believe it, for it is as much as to say that three are equal to one; which is contrary to the common sense of all mankind, or else, that we maintain a plurality of gods, which is contrary to the very first principles of the light of nature. And here we are reflected on, as though we demanded that our antagonists should lay aside their reason, before we argue with them, and then it is easy to determine on which side the argument will turn; therefore, to make way for what might be said in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, we shall, under this head, consider,

(1.) When a doctrine may be said to be contrary to reason.

(2.) Shew that the doctrine of the Trinity is not so.

(3.) What is the use of reason, in establishing it, or any other doctrines, which are the subject of pure revelation.

(1.) When we may conclude, that a doctrine is contrary to reason. This it may be said to be, when it is contrary to the methods of reasoning made use of by particular persons, which are not always just, and therefore it does not follow, from hence, that it is false or absurd, because our reasoning about it is so, but rather the contrary; so that when they, on the other side of the question, tell us, with an air of boasting, that if the doctrine we are maintaining could have been accounted for, how comes it to pass that so many men of sense and learning, as are to be found among the Anti-trinitarians, have not been able to do it? But this is nothing to our present argument; therefore we suppose that a doctrine is contrary to reason, when it contradicts some of the first principles, which the mind of man cannot but yield its assent to, as soon as ever it takes in the sense of the words which contain them, without demanding any proof thereof; as that the whole is greater than the part; and that a thing can be, and not be, at the same time; or that two is more than one, &c. or when we can prove a thing to be true to a demonstration, and yet suppose that a contradictory proposition, in which the words are taken in the same sense, may be equally true.[80]

(2.) That the doctrine of the Trinity is not contrary to reason. This appears, inasmuch as we do not say that the three Persons in the Godhead are one Person, or that the one divine Being is three divine Beings.

Object. But it is objected, that it is contrary to reason, which establishes and proves the unity of the Godhead, to say that the divine nature may be predicated of more than one, inasmuch as that infers a plurality of Gods, and every distinct Person must be concluded to be a distinct God; therefore the Trinitarian doctrine is down-right Tritheism, and consequently contrary to reason; and here those words of the Athanasian Creed are produced, as an instance hereof, namely, that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, yet there are not three Gods, but one God; so, that the Father is Eternal, the Son is Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal, yet there are not three Eternals, but one Eternal; and the Father Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty, yet are there not three Almighties, but one Almighty. This they suppose, though without ground, to be a plain contradiction.

Answ. But to this it may be replied, that when we say the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are God, we do not say they are distinct Gods, for the distinction between them respects their personality, not their deity: and when we assert that they are all Eternal, or Almighty, we do not suppose that their duration, or power, are distinct; and the same may be said of all other divine perfections that are attributed to them, the perfections are the same in all of them, though the persons are distinct. So that the charge of Tritheism lies in a narrow compass: they say that there is one divine Being, so do we; and to this they add, that this divine Being is a divine person, since existence and personality are the same; therefore, if there are more divine Persons, there must be more Gods; this consequence they maintain, but we deny. But how do they prove it? The proof amounts to no more than this; that there is no instance in finite things, when we speak of angels or men, to whom alone personality can be applied, of any distinct persons, but at the same time their beings are distinct; therefore it must be so with respect to the divine persons. This we are bound to deny, since our ideas of personality and existence are not the same; therefore, how inseparable soever they may be in what respects creatures, we may have distinct ideas of them, when we speak of the divine being and personality of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Here it will, doubtless, be demanded, that we determine wherein the difference consists; or, in particular, since every distinct finite person is a distinct being, what there is in the divine personality, that should exclude the Father, Son, and Spirit, from being distinct beings, because distinct persons; so that when we conclude that there is a small or faint resemblance between divine and human personality, we must be able to comprehend, and fully to describe, that infinite disproportion that is between them, or else must be charged with using words without any manner of ideas annexed to them, and so our cause must fall to the ground. If, indeed, the divine personality were finite, like that of the creature, then it might be required that a finite mind should account for it: but since it is not so, but incomprehensible, we are bound to believe what we cannot comprehend.

But have we no ideas at all of the distinct personality of the Father, Son, and Spirit? To this we may answer; that we have finite ideas thereof, and more than these we have not of any of the divine perfections. We are taught, by scripture, to say that they are distinct persons; and we know what those personal characters, or properties, from whence our ideas take their rise, signify, when applied to men; but, at the same time, abstract, in our thoughts, every thing from them that argues imperfection; or, in short, our conceptions hereof proceed in the same way, as when we think of any of the perfections of the divine nature: these, as well as the divine personality, are equally incomprehensible; yet, while we say they are infinitely more than can be in any creature, we, notwithstanding, retain such ideas of them, as tend to answer those ends of religion, which suppose that we apprehend something of them that is conducive hereunto. We are now to consider,

(3.) The use of reason in proving or defending the doctrine of the Trinity, or any other doctrines of pure revelation. They could not, indeed, have been at first discovered by reason, nor can every thing that is revealed be comprehended by it, yet our reason is not to be laid aside as useless; therefore some call it a servant to faith. Thus revelation discovers what doctrines we are to believe, demands our assent to them, and reason offers a convincing proof that we are under an indispensable obligation to give it: it proves the doctrine to be true, and such as is worthy of God, as it is derived from him, the fountain of truth and wisdom; and this office of reason, or the subserviency thereof to our faith, is certainly necessary, since what is false cannot be the object of faith in general; and nothing unworthy of God can be the matter of divine revelation, nor consequently the object of a divine faith.

Now, in order to reason’s judging of the truth of things, it first considers the sense of words; what ideas are designed to be conveyed thereby, and whether they are contrary to the common sense of mankind; and if it appears that they are not, it proceeds to enquire into those evidences that may give conviction, and enforce our belief thereof; and leads us into the nature of the truths revealed, receives them as instamped with the authority of God, and considers them as agreeable to his perfections, and farther leads us into his design of revealing them, and what we are to infer from them; and in doing this it connects things together, observes the dependence of one thing on another, what is the importance thereof, and how they are to be improved to answer the best purposes.

Now this may be applied particularly to the doctrine of the Trinity; for it contains in it no absurdity contradictory to reason, as has been already proved; and the evidences on which our faith herein is founded will be farther considered, when we prove it to be a scripture doctrine, by the express words thereof, agreeable to the mind of the Holy Ghost, or by just consequences deduced from it; by which it will farther appear, that it is necessary for us to use our reason in stating those doctrines, which are neither founded on, nor can be comprehended by it.

5. We are now to consider from whence the doctrine of the Trinity is to be deduced, or where we are to search for that knowledge thereof, which we are to acquiesce in. And here it must be observed, that it cannot be learnt from the light of nature, for then we should certainly be able to behold some traces or footsteps thereof in the works of creation and providence, that so this might be understood thereby, as well as the power, wisdom, and goodness of God, as the cause is known by its effect; but we should never have known that God made all things by his essential word, without whom nothing was made, that was made, as the evangelist speaks, John i. 3. had we not received this doctrine from divine revelation: likewise, we should never have known that the Spirit, as a distinct Person from the Father, created all things, and performed several other works, by which his personal glory is demonstrated, had we not received the account which we have thereof from scripture. The light of nature could discover to us, indeed, that God, who is a Spirit, or incorporeal Being, has produced many effects worthy of himself; but we could not have known hereby, that the word Spirit signifies a distinct person, which we are beholden to divine revelation for.

And as for the work of our redemption, in which, more than in all the other divine works, the personal glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, is demonstrated, we could have known as little of that by the light of nature, as we do the persons to whom it is attributed. But I am sensible that it will be objected to this,

Object. 1. That our first parents knew the doctrine of the Trinity as soon as they were created, otherwise they could not have given that distinct glory to the Persons in the Godhead that is due to them; and if we are required, not only to worship the divine Being, but to worship the Father, Son, and Spirit; and, if this worship is due from us, as creatures, and not merely as fallen and redeemed; then it will follow from hence, that our first parents must know the doctrine of the Trinity: but this they did not know by divine revelation; therefore they knew it by the light of nature.

Answ. We will allow every thing contained in this objection, excepting that they did not know this by divine revelation; for certainly they had some ideas conveyed this way at first, otherwise they could not have known any thing that related to instituted worship, which, it is plain, they did. And shall it be reckoned any absurdity to suppose that they received this doctrine of the Trinity by divine revelation, though we have no particular account thereof, in that short history which Moses gives us of things relating to the state of innocency? It is therefore sufficient to our purpose, to suppose that it was agreeable to the wisdom and goodness of God to make known to them this important truth, and consequently that he did so, though not by the light of nature.

Object. 2. It is farther objected, that the heathen knew something of the doctrine of the Trinity, as appears by their writings, though they were unacquainted with scripture. To support this objection, they refer to several mystical expressions in the works of Plato, which seem to look that way, when he speaks of three principles; one whereof he calls goodness, or a being that is good; the second he calls his word, or reason; and the third a spirit, which diffuses its influence throughout the whole system of beings, and calls him sometimes the soul of the world; and in other places, he speaks of them as having a distinct sovereignty.[81] And he supposes the first of these to be the cause of things most great and excellent; the second, the cause of things of an inferior nature; the third, of things yet more inferior; and some of his followers plainly call them three hypostases; and sometimes, Father, Word, and Spirit.

Answ. The account which Plato and his followers seem to have given of the doctrine of the Trinity does not appear to have been taken from the light of nature, and therefore this makes nothing to the objection. We have sufficient ground to conclude that Plato travelled into Egypt, with a design to make improvements in knowledge; and some suppose, that there he saw some translation of a part of the Bible into Greek,[82] more ancient than that which is commonly attributed to the LXX, which was not compiled till an hundred years after his time. But whether he did this, or no, is uncertain: it is true, he used several expressions, which are contained in the books of Moses, and took the plan of his laws from thence; upon which account some have called him a second Moses, speaking Greek: but whether he received his notions more immediately from scripture, or by conversation with the Jews, of whom a great number settled in Egypt, after Gedaliah’s death, is not material; however, it is sufficiently evident, that he had not all of them, in a way of reasoning, from the light of nature: and as for his followers, such as Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, and others, they lived in those ages, when Christianity prevailed in the world, though none of them pretended to be Christians; and one of them was the most inveterate enemy to Christianity that lived; yet these might well be supposed to make their master Plato speak several things, as to this mystery, which he never intended, were it only to persuade the Christians to believe that he was not inferior to Moses, or any other recorded in scripture.

Thus having answered the objections, we shall take leave to consider how unwarily some divines, who have defended the doctrine of the Trinity, have not only asserted that Plato understood a great a deal of it, but have made use of this, as an answer to the Anti-trinitarian objection before mentioned, that the doctrine of the Trinity is unintelligible; and they have taken a great deal of pleasure in accounting for this doctrine in such a way as these philosophers have done:[83] and some of them have taken notice of a few dark hints, which they have met with in some of the poetical fictions, and from thence concluded that there was something of the Trinity known, even by the Heathen in general: thus when the word three is mentioned by them, and applied to some things, which they relate concerning their gods; or when they speak of gods delighting in an unequal number, or in the number three. But this is too gross to be particularly mentioned, lest it should give us an unbecoming idea of this divine mystery, or of those who have better arguments than these to defend it.

The reflection which I would make on this is, that what they call an advantage to the doctrine has been certainly very detrimental to it; and, as a late learned divine observes, has tended only to pervert the simplicity of the Christian faith with mixtures of philosophy and vain deceit.[84] And I doubt not but the apostle had an eye to this, among other corruptions, which they who were attached to the Heathen philosophy began to bring into their scheme of divinity, and would notoriously do in after ages, which he purposely fences against, when he says, Beware, lest any man spoil you, through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, Col. ii. 8. And this corruption so much prevailed, that it has given occasion to some of the Anti-trinitarians, to reproach the doctrine of the Trinity, as though it were a system of Platonism. And it is their being too fond of using Plato’s words, in explaining the doctrine of the Trinity, that has given occasion to some of the fathers to be suspected, as though they were less favourable to the scripture account thereof; by which means the adversaries have laid claim to them as their own; and produced some unwary expressions out of Justin Martyr, and others, supposing them to be in the Arian scheme, who, in other parts of their writings, appear to be remote from it.[85]

And this leads us to consider the method which some divines have taken, in using similitudes to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, which, at best, tend only to illustrate, and not to prove a doctrine: and we can hardly make use of this method of illustrating this doctrine, without conveying some ideas, which are unbecoming, if not subversive thereof; and while we pretend to explain that which is in itself inexplicable, we do no service to the truth.

I shall here give a short specimen of this matter, that hereby we may see how some have unwarily weakened the cause which they have been maintaining. Some have taken a similitude from three of the divine perfections, viz. that there are three invisibles of God; power, wisdom, and goodness. Power creates, wisdom governs, and goodness conserves; and so they have gone on to explain this doctrine, till they had almost given it into the hands of the Sabellians: and, indeed, they might have instanced in more divine perfections than three, had it been to their purpose.

Again, others have explained this doctrine by some resemblance which they apprehend to be of it in man; and so they speak of the soul as a principle of a threefold life, rational, sensitive, and vegetative. Others speak of three causes concurring to produce the same effect; such as the efficient, constitutive and final cause. Others have taken their similitude from inanimate things; as the sun, in which there is light, heat, and motion, which are inseparably connected together, and tend to produce the same effects.

Moreover, others illustrate it by a similitude, taken from a fountain, in which there is the spring in the bowels of the earth, the water bubbling out of the earth, and the stream diffusing itself in a perpetual course, receiving all it communicates from the fountain. I am sorry there is occasion to caution any against this method of explaining the doctrine of the Trinity. But these, and many other similitudes of the like nature, we find in the writings of some, who consider not what a handle they give to the common enemy. There are, indeed, in most of them, three things, which are said, in different respects, to be one; but we may observe, that all these similitudes, and others of the like nature, brought to illustrate this doctrine, lead us to think of the whole divided into those parts, of which they consist, whereof they take notice of the number three; or they speak of three properties of the same thing; and if their wit and fancy saw it needful to speak of more than three, the same method of illustrating would serve their purpose, as much as it does the end for which they bring it. Therefore I would conclude this head, by using the words of God to Job, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Job xxxviii. 2. Who are these, that, by pretending to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity by similitudes, do that, which, though very foreign to their design, tends to pervert it?

6. We shall now consider what general rules may be observed for our understanding those scriptures, on which our faith, with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, is founded; and since it is a doctrine of pure revelation, as has been before observed, we must keep close to scripture, even to the words thereof, where they are express and distinct, as to this matter; and to consequences deduced from it, so far as they are just, and self-evident; and, at the same time, while we are sensible that we cannot comprehend this mystery, we must take care that we pretend not to be wise above what is revealed. Now there are some rules, which may be of use to us, in our enquiries into the sense of scripture concerning this doctrine; as,

(1.) We must not suppose that the words of scripture, relating thereunto, are to be taken in a sense, which can be known by none but criticks, as though it were designed only for them to understand; or that the unlearned part of the world should be left in the dark, or led astray, as to several things contained in this important doctrine. Thus we are not to suppose that we are at a loss as to the proper sense of the word God; or could hardly know how to direct our faith and worship, founded thereon, without the help of criticism; or, for want of being acquainted with some distinctions, concerning one that may be called God by nature, or the supreme God, and others who may be called gods by office, or subordinate gods, we should be led to ascribe divine honour where it is not due; or else we must be able to distinguish also concerning worship, and, instead of honouring the Son as we honour the Father, must give him an inferior kind of divine worship, short of what is due to the Father. This we have no scripture warrant for; neither are we led by the scriptures to have any notion of a middle being between God and the creature, or one that is not properly God, so as the Father is, and yet more than a creature, as though there were a medium between finite and infinite; neither are we led, by scripture, to conceive of any being, that has an eternal duration, whose eternity is supposed to be before time, and yet not the same with the eternal duration of the Father. These things we shall have occasion to mention in their proper place, and therefore need make no farther use of them at present, but only to observe, from hence, how intelligible the scripture would be in what relates to this doctrine, if the words thereof had not a plain and determinate sense; but we must make use of these methods of reasoning, if we would arrive to the meaning thereof.

(2.) If some divine perfections are attributed in scripture to the Son and Spirit, all the perfections of the divine nature, may, by a just consequence from thence, be proved to belong to them, by reason of the simplicity and unity thereof: therefore, if we can prove, from scripture, that they have some perfections ascribed to them, which, I hope, it will not be a difficult matter to do, we are not to suppose that our argument is defective, or that the doctrine of the Trinity is not sufficiently maintained, if we cannot produce a scripture to prove every perfection of the divine nature to be ascribed to them.

(3.) When any thing is mentioned in scripture, concerning our Saviour, or the Holy Spirit, which argues an inferiority to the Father, this is to be understood consistently with other scriptures, which speak of their having the same divine nature; since scripture does not, in the least, contradict itself; and how this may be done, will be farther considered under a following head.

(4.) If we have sufficient arguments to convince us of the truth of this doctrine, our faith ought not to be shaken, though we cannot fully understand the sense of some scriptures, which are brought to support the contrary; not that we are to suppose that the scripture gives countenance to two opposite doctrines: but a person may be fully satisfied concerning the sense of those scriptures that contain the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet not be supposed perfectly to understand the meaning of every word or phrase used in scripture, or of some particular texts, which are sometimes brought to support the contrary doctrine; so that objections may be brought, which he is not able readily to reply to. Shall he therefore deny the truth, because he cannot remove all the difficulties that seem to lie in the way of it? That would be to part with it at too easy a rate, which, when he has done, he will find greater difficulties attending the contrary scheme of doctrine. Do they object, that we believe things contrary to reason, because we assert the incomprehensibleness of divine mysteries? or that we are Tritheists, because we believe that there are three Persons in the Godhead, and cannot exactly determine the difference between divine and human personality? We could, on the other hand, point at some difficulties, that they cannot easily surmount. What shall we think of the head of giving divine worship to our Saviour, when, at the same time, they deny him to have those perfections, that denominate him God in the same sense as the Father is so called? The Socinians found it very difficult, when the matter was disputed among themselves, to reconcile their practice with their sentiments, when they worshipped him, whose Deity they denied. And the Arians will find that this objection equally affects their scheme; and it will be no less difficult for them to reconcile Christ’s character, as Redeemer, Governor of the world, Judge of quick and dead, with their low ideas of him, when denying his proper Deity. These things we only mention occasionally at present, that it may not be thought that the doctrine of the Trinity is exposed to greater difficulties than the contrary doctrine, to the end that they who are not furnished with all those qualifications, which are necessary for its defence, may not reckon those arguments, by which they have been convinced of the truth thereof, less valid, because they are not able, at present, to answer all the objections that may be brought against them.

(5.) The weight of several arguments, taken from scripture, to prove this doctrine, is to be considered, as well as the arguments themselves; we do not pretend that every one of them is equally conclusive; there are some, which are oftentimes brought to support it, which we can lay no great stress upon, and therefore shall omit to mention them, among other arguments brought to that purpose, lest we should give occasion to the adversary to insult, or conclude that we take any thing for an argument that has been brought as such to prove this doctrine. Therefore we will not pretend to prove, or peremptorily to determine, that the doctrine of the Trinity is contained in those words of the Psalmist, Psal. xxxiii. 6. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the Hosts of them by the breath of his mouth. Nor will we pretend to prove this doctrine from the threefold repetition of the word Jehovah, in the form of benediction to be used by the high priest, Numb. vi. 24, 25, 26. The Lord bless thee, and keep thee; the Lord make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. Nor do we lay any stress on the three-fold repetition of the word Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Hosts, Isa. vi. 3. though we shall shew, in its proper place, that there are several things in this chapter, which prove this doctrine. However, if at any time, together with arguments that are more conclusive, we bring some that are less so; this use may be made of it, to shew how the scripture way of speaking is consistent therewith in those places that do not so directly prove it. This we thought proper to mention, because it is a very common thing for those, who cannot answer the most weighty arguments that are brought to support a doctrine, to bend their greatest force against those which have the least strength; and then to triumph, as though they had gained the victory, when they have only done it in what respects that which is less material.

II. We shall now consider in what sense we are to understand the words Trinity and Persons in the Godhead; and in what respect the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are said to be one. It is true, the word Trinity is not to be found in scripture, but what we understand by it is plainly contained therein; therefore we use the word, as agreeable thereunto: thus we read of the three that bear record in heaven, viz. the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and that these three are one, 1 John v. 7. These three here mentioned are Persons, because they are described by personal characters; and we shall take occasion elsewhere, when we prove the Deity of the Son and Spirit, to consider their being one, that is, having the same divine nature, which we shall therefore wave at present, being only considering the sense of words commonly used by us in treating of this doctrine. All contending parties, however they have explained the word Trinity, according to their different ways of thinking, have notwithstanding, in compliance with custom, used the word, and so far explained it, as that we might understand that they intend hereby three, who are, in some respect one, though some have not cared to use the word Person; or if they have, it is without the most known and proper idea contained in it. Thus the Sabellians, whenever they use the word, intend nothing by it, but three relations, which may be attributed to the same Person; as when the same Person may be called a father, a son, and a brother, in different respects; or as when he that, at one time, sustains the person of a judge, may, at another time, sustain that of an advocate: this is what some call a Trinity of names; and they might as well have declined to use the words altogether, as to explain them in this sense.

Again, the Arians use the word Person; but these have run into another extreme, inasmuch as that, whilst they avoid Sabellianism, they would lay themselves open to the charge of Tritheism, did they not deny the proper Deity of the Son and Spirit; for they suppose that every distinct Person is a distinct being, agreeable to the sense of personality, when applied to men; but this, as has been before considered, is to be abstracted from the idea of personality, when applied to the Persons in the Godhead. These also understand the oneness of these divine Persons, in a sense agreeable to their own scheme, and different from ours, and therefore they speak of them as one in will, consent, or design, in which respect God and the creature may be said to be one: accordingly Arius, and his adherents, in the council at Nice, refused to allow that the divine persons were Ὁμοουσιοι consubstantial, and, with a great many evasions and subterfuges, attempted to conceal their sentiments: all that they could be brought to own was, that the Son was Ὁμοιος, or Ὁμοιουσιος, which amounts to no more than this, that whatever likeness there may be, in some respects, yet he has not the same proper divine nature with the Father and Holy Ghost.

Which leads us to consider the sense in which it is generally used by those who defend what we think to be the scripture-doctrine of the Trinity. There are some, it is true, both among ancient and modern writers, that attempt to explain what they mean by the word Person, who are so unhappy as to leave the sense thereof more dark than they found it, when they have given a definition thereof, agreeable to what is used by metaphysicians and schoolmen, to this effect, that it is a suppositum, endowed with reason; or that it is one entire, individual, incommunicable, rational subsistence: and when they define Personality, some tell us, that it is a positive mode of a being terminating and compleating its substantial nature, and giving incommunicability to it, which words need to be explained more than the thing defined thereby. And here I cannot but take notice of that warm debate which there was between the Greek and Latin church about the words Hypostasis and Persona; the Latin, concluding that the word Hypostasis signified substance or essence, thought, that to assert that there were three divine Hypostases, was to say that there were three Gods: On the other hand, the Greek church thought that the word Person did not sufficiently guard against the Sabellian notion of the same individual being sustaining three relations; whereupon each part of the church was ready to brand the other with heresy, till by a free and mutual conference, in a synod at Alexandria, A. D. 362. they made it appear, that it was but a mere contention about the grammatical sense of a word; and then it was allowed, by men of temper on both sides, that either of the two words might be indifferently used.[86] But what signifies the use of them, when perplexed with the scholastic explications thereof? This has given occasion to some, whose sentiments have been very remote as to the doctrine of the Trinity, to express themselves with some dislike; on the one hand, the Socinians, and some among the Remonstrants, who made very great advances toward their scheme, viz. Curcellæus, Episcopius, and others,[87] have complained of clouding this doctrine with hard words; and the complaint is not altogether groundless, though it may be their design herein was to substitute such words in the room of them, as would make the remedy worse than the disease. On the other hand, some, who have embraced the doctrine of the Trinity, would not have liked its advocates the worse, had they chose to have defended it in a more plain intelligible manner. Thus Calvin himself wishes, that some words, which are so warmly opposed and defended on each side, were altogether laid aside, and buried, provided that such might be retained as express our faith in the doctrine of the Father, Son, and Spirit, being the one God, but distinguished by their personal properties.[88] And this is that plain sense of the word, which I shall make use of, in what I shall farther attempt to lay down in the defence thereof. And accordingly,

1. We never call any thing a person that is not endowed with understanding and will; and therefore the most glorious inanimate creatures, either in heaven or earth, whatever excellencies they have, or how useful soever they are to the world, they are not persons. Thus, when the sun is described as though it were a person, and is compared to a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoicing as a strong man to run a race, Psal. xix. 5. the words are never understood in any other but a metaphorical sense; so Behemoth and the Leviathan, mentioned in Job, being no other than brute creatures, are described with personal characters, in the same figurative way of speaking; therefore we suppose a person to have an understanding and will.

2. Whenever I, thou, or he, are applied to such a subject, they always connote a person; I, a person speaking; thou, a person spoken to; and he, or him, a person spoken of; and when such modes of speaking are sometimes applied to things that are destitute of reason, or to any moral virtues or principles of acting, which, from the nature of the thing, cannot be denominated persons, such expressions are very easily understood in a figurative sense, which may without any difficulty be distinguished from the proper one, whereby those who are so described are denominated persons.

There are some characters which always denote persons, and some works performed which are properly personal, which can be performed by none but persons. Thus the character of a father, or a son; so a Creator, a Redeemer, a benefactor, a Mediator, an advocate, a surety, a judge, a lord, a law-giver, and many others of the like nature, are all of them personal characters. So that whoever acts with design, and has such-like characters attributed to him, according to the proper acceptation of the word, him we call a person; and these characters we shall endeavour to apply to the Persons in the Godhead, to prove their distinct personality.

But since we are at present only considering the acceptation of words, we shall briefly observe the difference between a divine and a human person, when some personal properties, characters, or works, are attributed to each of them. And,

(1.) Human persons are separated one from the other: thus, for instance, Peter, James, and John, were three persons, but they were separated one from the other; whereas the Persons in the Godhead, however distinguished by their characters and properties, are never separated, as having the same divine essence or nature. As for human persons, one of them might have had a being and personality, had the other never existed, because it exists by the will of God; but the divine persons have a necessary existence and personality, as being, in all respects, independent, so that as they could not but be God, they could not but be divine Persons; the personality of the Son and Spirit are equally independent with that of the Father, and as much independent as their being and divine perfections.

(2.) Human persons have only the same kind of nature, which is generally called a common specific nature, but not the same individual nature with another person; so that though every man has a nature like that of the rest of mankind, yet the human nature, as attributed to one person, is not the same individual human nature that is attributed to another, for then the power and understanding, or the ideas that there are in one man, would be the same individual power and ideas, that are in another, which they are not. Whereas, when we speak of the Persons in the Godhead, as having the divine nature and perfections, we say that this nature is the same individual nature in all of them, though the persons are distinct, otherwise the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, could not be said to be truly and properly God, and to have the same understanding, will, and other perfections of the divine nature.

(3.) When we speak of human persons, we say, that as many persons as there are, so many beings there are; every human person has its own proper being, distinct from all other persons or beings; but we do not say so with respect to the divine Persons, for the divine Being is but one, and therefore the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the very same; which is what we understand when we say, that though there are three Persons in the Godhead, yet they are the same in substance, or the one only living and true God.

This leads us to consider in what respect the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are said to be one; by which we mean, that the Son and Holy Ghost have all the perfections of the divine nature, in the same sense as the Father has; to say less than this, is to assert no more than what our adversaries will allow; for they will not deny them perfections, nor would they be thought to deny them to have divine perfections; yea, many of them will not stick to say, that they are truly and properly God; by which they mean, that whatever deity is attributed to them in scripture, by the appointment of the Father, that is, whatever divine authority they have, this properly belongs to them: but, I think, they will none of them allow that they have the divine nature in the same sense in which the Father is said to have it. This is what we shall endeavour to prove; and more need not be said concerning them, in order to establish that supreme worship which is due to them, as well as the Father; and, in order hereto, we shall consider the force of those arguments contained in one of these answers, and, together with them, the sense of that scripture, John x. 30. in which our Saviour says, I and my Father are one; as also that other scripture, 1 John v. 7. that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, who bear record in heaven, are one; the consideration whereof we shall reserve to a following head.

And inasmuch as they are said to be equal in power and glory, we may observe, that there are two expressions, which we often use, to set forth the deity of the Son and Spirit; sometimes we say they are God, equal with the Father; at other times, that they have the same essential perfections. To which, it may be, some will reply, that if they are equal, they cannot be the same; or, on the other hand, if they are the same, they cannot be equal. For the understanding what we mean by such-like expressions, let it be observed, that when we consider them as having the divine essence, or any of the perfections thereof, we do not chuse to describe them as equal, but the same; we do not say that the wisdom, power, holiness, &c. of the Son and Spirit are equal to the same perfections, as ascribed to the Father: but when we speak of them as distinct Persons, then we consider them as equal: the essential glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, is the same; but their personal glory is equal; and in this sense we would be understood, when we say the Son and Holy Ghost are each of them God, or divine Persons, equal with the Father.[89]

III. We shall prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are distinct persons in the Godhead, by applying what has been but now observed, by which any one may, by our common mode of speaking, be denominated a person; and to this we shall add something concerning those personal properties, mentioned in one of the answers we are explaining, with respect to the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost. And,

1. To prove the personality of the Son. If this be reckoned needless, inasmuch as the Arians and Socinians never yet called it in question, we own that it is not necessary, when we dispute with them, to prove it: but inasmuch as the Sabellians deny it, as a late writer[90] has done, who plainly gives in to that scheme, and concludes the Son of God to be no other than the eternal reason of God; and so he renders that text, John i. 1. In the beginning was the word, that is, reason, and by him, that is, by it, were all things made; and when it is objected, that this mode of speaking signifies nothing more than a quality in God, the only answer he gives to it, is, that it signifies no more a quality, than if we should translate it, The word, as it is generally done: I say, if persons, whether they pretend to be Sabellians or no, express themselves in such a manner, it is certainly necessary for us to prove the personality of the Son.

It appears, therefore, that the Son is a distinct Person from the Father,

(1.) Inasmuch as we often read, in scripture, of two divine Persons speaking to, or of, one another, the distinguishing personal characters, I, thou, and he, being applied to them: thus it is said, Psal. cx. 1. The Lord, that is the Father, said unto my Lord, namely the Son, sit thou at my right-hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool: this may be observed throughout the whole Psalm; thus, ver. 3. Thy people shall be willing; and ver. 6. He, meaning the Son, shall judge among the heathen; and ver. 7. He shall drink of the brook in the way; so Psal. xlv. 2. speaking of the Son, Thou art fairer than the children of men; and ver. 6. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. The places of scripture, which have such modes of speaking concerning the Son, are almost innumerable; and therefore we proceed to consider,

(2.) Other personal characters given him; thus, when he is called the Son of God, whatever we are to understand by that relation or character, of which more under a following head, it certainly denotes him a Person distinct from the Father; so does his being sent into the world by the Father, which expression is frequently used in the New Testament; now a quality, relation or property, cannot be said to be sent as the Son is. So when he is described as a Redeemer, a Mediator, a Surety, a Creator; and when he is styled, by the prophet, the everlasting Father; and often described as a prophet, priest, or king; or Lord of all, or the Prince of peace, or the Prince of the kings of the earth; all these characters sufficiently prove his personality; and all those works which he performs, as sustaining these relations or characters, are properly personal; and some of them are never ascribed to any other person. Thus the Father, or Holy Ghost, are never said to assume the human nature, or to become sureties for the salvation of men, or to execute mediatorial offices, subservient thereunto; from all which it evidently appears, that the Son is a distinct Person: that he is a divine Person, will be proved under a following head: we shall therefore proceed,

2. To prove the distinct personality of the Holy Ghost. This is denied, not only by the Sabellians, but by some of the Socinians; yea, even by Socinus himself; who describes the Holy Ghost as the power of God, intending hereby, as his mode of speaking seems to denote, the energy of the divine nature, or that whereby the Father, who is the only one, to whom, according to him, the divine nature is attributed, produces those effects which require infinite power; so that they call the Spirit the power of God essentially considered; these set aside all those proofs, that may be produced from scripture, to evince his personality, which are so plain and evident, that many of them have dissented from Socinus herein, and owned the Spirit to be a person. Accordingly some of them have described him as the chief of created spirits, or the head of the angels, because they deny his divine nature. Thus a bold writer expresses himself; “I believe that there is one principal minister of God and Christ, peculiarly sent from heaven, to sanctify the church, who, by reason of his eminency and intimacy with God, is singled out of the number of other heavenly ministers, or angels, and comprised in the holy Trinity, being the third person thereof; and that this minister of God and Christ is the Holy Spirit.[91]”

Now we shall prove the personality of the Holy Ghost, by considering some personal characters ascribed to, and works performed by him. Thus there are several such characters, by which he is denominated a person; particularly when he is called a Sanctifier, a Reprover, a Witness, a Comforter, it evidently appears from hence that he is a person: thus when it is said, in John xvi. 8. that when he, to wit, the Comforter is come, he will reprove the world of sin, of righteousness and judgment; and also, that he will guide you into all truth; he shall shew you things to come, &c. And in John xiv. 16, 17. there is the distinct personality of the three persons, and particularly of the Holy Ghost, asserted; I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth; and also in ver. 26. The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things.[92]

It is certain, that to be said to teach, or to instruct, is a personal character; so it is to speak, or to dictate, to another what he should say; but this he is said to do, as our Saviour says to his disciples, Whatever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost, Mark xiii. 11.

Moreover, to witness, or testify, is a personal character; especially when the testimony is not merely objective, as when Job calls his wrinkles and his leanness a witness against him, Job xvi. 8. But when there is a formal testimony given, he that gives it is, according to our common way of speaking, generally considered as a person; and thus the Holy Ghost is described, Acts v. 32. We are his witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Ghost, whom God has given to them that obey him. Here the Holy Ghost’s being a witness is as much a personal character, as their being witnesses; and, Acts xx. 23. it is said, The Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, that bonds and afflictions abide me.

Again, dwelling is a personal character; no one ever supposes that any thing that is in a house dwells there, excepting persons; but the Holy Ghost is said to dwell in believers, John xiv. 17. and alluding hereto, as also connoting his divine personality, it is said, 1 Cor. vi. 19. Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost; as a house is the dwelling-place of a person, so a temple is the dwelling-place of a divine person.

Again, to send any one is a personal character; but this is attributed to the Holy Ghost, Acts xiii. 4. The apostles being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed.

Again, acting with a sovereign will and pleasure is what belongs only to a person; but this is applied to the Holy Ghost, Acts xv. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.

Again, prohibiting, or forbidding, a person to act, is a personal character; but this is applied to the Holy Ghost, Acts xvi. 6. The apostles were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia.

Again, to constitute, or appoint, any one to execute an office is a personal character; but this the Holy Ghost is said to do, Acts xx. 28. he is said to have made them overseers. There are several other personal works and characters, which might have been mentioned; but these are, I humbly conceive, sufficient to prove the thing intended, that the Holy Ghost is a person. I have no more than mentioned the scriptures, which contain these personal characters, because I shall have occasion under a following head, to refer to some of them for the proof of his deity.[93]

Object. It will be objected, by those who are favourers of the Sabellian scheme, that the characters which we have laid down, to prove the personality of the Son, and Holy Ghost, are not Sufficient to answer that end; inasmuch as they are oftentimes applied, in a metaphorical way, to those things which no one supposes to be persons, and therefore that they may be taken in this sense, when applied to the Son and Spirit. To support this objection, they produce several instances out of the book of Job, and some other parts of scripture, where things are described with personal characters, which are not really persons. Thus Job xxxix. 11, 12. speaking concerning the unicorn, it is said; Wilt thou trust him? Wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn? So concerning the horse, it is said, as though he acted with design, as an intelligent creature, ver. 21. &c. He goeth on to meet the armed men; he mocketh at fear; neither believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet; he saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha! And concerning the eagle, ver. 28. She dwelleth in the rock. And concerning the leviathan, chap. xli. 3. &c. Will he make many supplications to thee? Will he speak soft words unto thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. Darts are counted as stubble; he laugheth at the shaking of the spear. And ver. 34. He beholdeth all high things; he is a king over all the children of pride. There are many other personal characters given to brute creatures, which are taken in a metaphorical sense; and sometimes they are applied to inanimate creatures. Thus Job xxxviii. 28, &c. Hath the rain a father? and who hath begotten the drops of dew? Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season, or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? By which nothing is intended but the signs in the Zodiack, or some of the constellations, together with the particular stars of which they consist; yet these are described, as though they were persons. So ver. 35. Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, here we are? Again, the powers and faculties of the soul of man have sometimes personal characters ascribed to them. Thus, conscience is said to bear witness, Rom. ix. 1. And some instances may be brought from scripture of a person’s speaking to himself; yet this doth not connote two persons in man, one speaking, and the other spoken to. It is therefore inferred from hence, that we cannot prove the personality of the Son and Holy Ghost from those personal characters ascribed to them, which may be taken in a metaphorical sense, as well as in the instances but now mentioned.

Answ. In answer to this objection, several things may be considered.

1. Though the scripture often uses figurative, and particularly metaphorical, ways of speaking, yet these may be easily distinguished from the like phrases used elsewhere, concerning which we have sufficient ground to conclude that they are to be taken in a proper sense; therefore, though it is true that there are personal characters given to things which are not persons, yet we are not to conclude from hence, that whenever the same modes of speaking are used, and applied to those who are capable of performing personal actions, that therefore these must be taken in a metaphorical sense; which is a known exception from the common idea contained in the same words.

2. Most of those passages of scripture, where personal characters are attributed to things which are not persons, in a metaphorical sense, are in the poetical books thereof; or in some particular places, where there is a peculiar beautiful mode of speaking taken from thence; will it therefore follow, that these personal characters are used in other parts of scripture, in which the Holy Ghost does not think fit to express himself in such an elegancy of style? Now it is certain, that the personal characters before mentioned are given to the Son and Holy Ghost, throughout the whole scripture, without designing to use a lofty, figurative, or uncommon way of speaking, as in the instances before mentioned.

3. We must not suppose that the Holy Ghost uses any figurative ways of speaking, so as to cast a veil on plain truths, or to endanger our being led hereby out of the way, as we should certainly be, if so many hundred places of scripture, in which these personal characters are applied to the Son and Spirit, were to be taken in a metaphorical sense, without any intimation given in the context that they are so to be understood. And it will be certainly very difficult to find out any place in scripture, that may serve to direct us in our application of these characters, viz. when they are to be taken in a metaphorical sense, when applied to the Persons in the Godhead, and when not.

4. Though we find many metaphors in scripture, yet we observe that the most important truths are laid down in the plainest manner; so that the injudicious and unlearned reader, who understands nothing of the art of rhetoric, or criticism, may be instructed thereby; at least they are not universally wrapt up in such figurative ways of speaking; and it would be strange, if the account we have of the Personality of the Son and Holy Ghost, which is a doctrine of the highest importance, and such as renders them distinct objects of worship, should be expressed in such a way, as that we should be at the greatest uncertainty whether they are persons or not.

5. If these personal characters are not metaphorical, when applied to men or angels, who are subjects capable of having personality attributed to them, why should they be reckoned metaphorical, when applied to the Son and Spirit, who, though they are not distinct beings, yet they have a divine understanding and will, and therefore are not rendered incapable of having personality ascribed to them, as signified by these characters.

6. The asserting that personal characters attributed to the Son and Spirit are always to be understood in a metaphorical sense, would give equal ground to conclude that they are to be so taken, when applied to the Father; and accordingly, while we militate against the Personality of these, we should, at the same time, overthrow his Personality: and while we deny that there are three Persons in the Godhead, we should, in effect, suppose that there are no Persons in the Godhead, any otherwise than as the Godhead, which is common to be Father, Son, and Spirit, is often described as though it were a Person; and if ever Personality is used or applied in a metaphorical sense, it must be when the Godhead is described as though it were a Person.

7. Though some personal characters are occasionally applied, in a metaphorical sense, to things that are not persons, yet it is not usual for them to be described as performing personal works, and these not occasionally hinted at, and joined with other metaphorical ways of speaking, but a long series of action referred to, and variety of works performed, which must certainly be taken in a most proper sense. Thus, when the Son and Spirit are set forth in scripture as performing those works, which are expressive of their personal glory; the one in what respects the purchase of redemption; and the other in the application thereof: and when each of them is described as standing in those relations to men, which are founded in the performance of these works for them; certainly this must be taken in a most proper sense; and we must take heed, lest, while we attempt to prove that the Persons in the Godhead are to be taken in a figurative sense, we do not give occasion to any to think that the great benefits, which we receive from them, are to be understood in the same sense.

We shall now take notice of some other personal properties, whereby the Son and Spirit are distinguished from one another, and from the Father; particularly, as they are expressed in one of the answers under our present consideration; it is proper to the Father to beget the Son, or, as it is sometimes expressed, to be unbegotten; and to the Son, to be begotten of the Father; and to the Holy Ghost, to proceed from the Father and the Son, from all eternity. This is certainly one of the most difficult heads of divinity that can be insisted on; and some have made it more so, by their attempting to explain it. I have sometimes thought that it would be the safest and most eligible way, to pass it over, as a doctrine less necessary to be understood; but since there are several scripture-expressions, on which it is founded, which we ought to pay the greatest deference to, much more than to those explications which are merely human; and inasmuch as these properties plainly prove the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be distinct Persons, therefore we must humbly enquire into the meaning of those scriptures, wherein they are contained; and so to speak something as to what is generally called the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost; and I hope, through divine assistance, we shall advance no doctrine that is either subversive of our faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, which we are endeavouring to maintain, derogatory to the essential or personal glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, or altogether contrary to the sense, in which many Christians, who are unacquainted with those modes of speaking, used by the fathers and schoolmen, understand those scriptures upon which this doctrine is founded.

And here we shall give a brief account of what we apprehend to be the commonly received sentiments of divines, who, in their writings, have strenuously maintained, and judiciously defended, the doctrine of the Trinity, concerning the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost; which I shall endeavour to do with the greatest deference to those who have treated of these subjects, as well as with the greatest impartiality; and shall take occasion to shew how far the Arians conclude that we give up the cause to them, and yet how little reason they have to insult us upon this head.

(1.) As to the eternal generation of the Son, it is generally explained in this manner; the Father is called, by some, the fountain of the Godhead, an expression taken from some of the fathers, who defended the Nicene faith: but others of late, have rather chose to call the Father the fountain of the Trinity; and he is said to be of himself; or unbegotten; which they lay down as his distinct Personal character, from that of the Son.

On the other hand, the Son, as to his Personality, is generally described as being from the Father, and many chuse to express themselves about this mystery in these terms; that the Father communicated the divine essence to the Son, which is the most common mode of speaking, though others think it safer to say, that he communicated the divine Personality to him; though I cannot tell which is least exceptionable.

But when I find others calling it the Father’s giving the divine essence to the Son, their mode of speaking being founded, as they apprehend, on that scripture, John v. 26. As the Father hath life in himself so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself, I cannot but think it an unguarded expression, and foreign to the design of the Holy Ghost in that scripture, as will be hereafter considered. The Arians are ready to insult us upon such modes of speaking, and suppose that we conclude that the Son receives his divine perfections, and therefore cannot be God equal with the Father: but, however, none of them, who use this expression, suppose that the Son’s Deity is founded on the arbitrary will of the Father; for they all assert that the divine nature is communicated necessarily, and from all eternity, as the sun communicates its rays necessarily, which are of equal duration with it; so that while they make use of a word, which, according to its most known acceptation, seems subversive of the truth, they happily, for truth’s sake, explain away the proper sense thereof; so that all they can be blamed for herein, by the adversary, is impropriety of expression.

Again, others speak a little more exceptionally, when, explaining the eternal generation of the Son, they say that the Father produced him: but this idea they also happily explain away; and therefore say it is not such a production, where the cause produces the effect, though some of the fathers, who have been in the Trinitarian scheme, have unwarily called the Father the cause of the Son; yet our modern divines seldom, or never, use that expression, or if they speak of an eternal production, they suppose it vastly differs from the production of all creatures, or from that sense in which the Arians suppose the Son to be produced by him; but certainly this expression had better be laid aside, lest it should be thought that we conclude the Son not equally necessary, and, from all eternity, co-existent with the Father, which our divines, how unwarily soever in other respects they may express themselves, are very far from denying.

(2.) We shall now proceed to consider how some divines express themselves, concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost, which they generally do in this manner, as though the divine essence were communicated by the Father and the Son to the Holy Ghost; and so they suppose that the Holy Ghost, at least as he is a divine Person, or has the divine nature communicated to him, cannot be said to be, any more than the Son, of himself, but from the Father and the Son, from whom he proceeds, or receives, as some express it, the divine nature, and others the divine personality.

Others speak of the Spiration of the Holy Ghost, which they suppose to be the same with his procession; but the world is much at a loss to understand what they mean by the word Spiration: it seems to be a mere metaphorical expression, as when they call him the breath of the Father and the Son, and, if so, then it will not prove his proper personality: but since we are pretty much in the dark about the reason of this mode of speaking, it would be much better to lay it aside, as many modern writers have done.

As to the manner of the procession of the Holy Ghost, there was, about the eighth and ninth centuries, a very warm dispute between the Greek and Latin church; whether the Spirit proceeded from the Father only, or from the Father and the Son; and the controversy arose to such a height, that they charged one another with heresy and schism, when neither side well understood what they contended about; and if they had agreed to the healing expedient, afterwards proposed, that they should mutually acknowledge that the Holy Ghost was from the Father by the Son, the matter would have been left as much in the dark as it was before.

Some speak of the procession of the Holy Ghost, as though he was produced by the Father and the Son, as the Son, as was before observed, is said, in his eternal generation, to have been produced by the Father; yet they suppose that neither of them were so produced, as that they may be called effects; and they term it the production of a person in, and not out of, the divine essence, for that would be to give away the cause we contend for: but which way soever we take it, it contains such an impropriety of expression, as can hardly be defended; and it is much better to explain away the proper and grammatical sense of words, than to corrupt the truth; however, I would not copy after them in this mode of speaking.

Moreover, some have pretended to determine the difference between the eternal generation of the Son and the Spirit’s procession; to which they have, with modesty, premised, that it is not to be explained; but, as far as they enter into this matter, they suppose that they differ in this; that in the eternal generation of the Son, the Father communicated the divine essence, or, at least, personality to him, which is his act alone, and herewith he communicated a property, or power, to him, to communicate the same divine essence to the Holy Ghost; whereas, when the Holy Ghost is said to proceed from the Father and the Son, there is no power therewith conveyed to him to communicate the divine essence to any other, as a fourth person in the Godhead. These things may be observed in the writings of those who treat of this subject; but it is to be feared, they enter too far into the explication of this unsearchable mystery; and some will be ready to conclude that they attempt to be wise above what is written. And,

If I may be allowed to give my sense of the communication of the divine essence, though it will probably be thought that I do not say enough concerning it, yet I hope that, in other respects, none will conclude that I advance any thing subversive of the doctrine of the Trinity, when I assert that the divine essence is communicated, not by the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost, as imparting or conveying it to them; but take the word communicate in another sense, namely, that all the perfections of the divine nature are communicated, that is, equally attributed to, or predicated of, the Father, Son, and Spirit; this sense of the word is what some intend when they say the human nature is communicated to every individual, upon which account they are denominated men; and, as the word is used in this sense, sometimes, by logicians and schoolmen, so it seems to be taken in the same sense, in Heb. ii. 14. where the Greek words, τα παιδια κεκοινωνηκε σαρκος και αιματος, which we render, the children were partakers of flesh and blood, might be rendered, as in the vulgar Latin version, Communicaverunt carni & sanguini, i. e. they have the human nature communicated to, and predicated of, them, or they are truly and properly men. And it is in this sense that we use the word, when we say that the different properties of the divine and human nature are communicated to, that is, predicated of, the Person of Christ, which divines generally call a communication of properties. In this sense I would be understood, when I say that the divine perfections are communicated to, or predicated of, the Father, Son, and Spirit; and this all who maintain the doctrine of the Trinity will allow of. The other sense of communication, viz. imparting, conveying, or giving the divine essence, I shall be very ready to fall in with, when the apparent difficulties, which, to me, seem to lie in the way thereof, some of which have been already considered, are removed.

As to what concerns the farther explication of this mystery, we may observe, that the more nice some have been in their speculations about it, the more they have seemed bewildered: thus, when some have enquired whether the eternal generation is one single act, or an act continued; or whether, when it is said, This day have I begotten thee, the meaning is, that the divine nature was communicated at once, or whether it is perpetually communicating.[97] And the difficulties that attend their asserting either the one or the other of them, which they, who enquire into these matters, take notice of, I shall entirely pass over, as apprehending that this doctrine receives no advantage by such disquisitions.

Neither do I think it tends much to our edification to enquire, as some have done, whether, in the eternal generation, the Father is considered as acting, and the Son as him on whom the action terminates, as the subject thereof; which, when they suppose it does, they farther enquire, whether, in this respect, he is said to be passive, which they are not willing to assert.

And I cannot but take notice of another nicety of inquiry, viz. whether, in the eternal generation, the Son is considered as co-existent with the Father, or as having the divine essence, and hereby only deriving his Sonship from him, from all eternity; or whether he derives both his Sonship and his essence; the former of which is the most generally received opinion. But I am not desirous to enter into this enquiry, especially without first determining what we mean by Sonship.

There is indeed one thing that must be enquired into, and that is, whatever be the explication given of the eternal generation of the Son, and procession of the Holy Ghost, whether they are each of them self-existent, or, as some call it, αυτοθεος; and it is generally determined, that the Son and Holy Ghost have the same self-existent divine nature: but with respect to their manner of having it, some say the Son has his divine nature from the Father, and the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son; or that the Father only is self-existent, as some speak; or, as most others say, that he is self-subsistent; and that this is his personal property, as he is distinguished from the Son and Holy Ghost, whom they conclude not to be self-subsistent, but the one to subsist from the Father, and the other from the Father and the Son. This is a generally received opinion; notwithstanding I must confess myself to be at a loss to account for it: so that the principal thing, in which I am obliged, till I receive farther conviction, to differ from many others, is, whether the Son and Spirit have a communicated or derived Personality: this many assert, but, I think, without sufficient proof; for I cannot but conclude that the divine Personality, not only of the Father, but of the Son and Spirit, is as much independent, and underived, as the divine essence.

Thus we have considered how some have embarrassed this doctrine, by being too nice in their enquiries about it: we shall proceed to consider how others have done prejudice to it, by pretending to explain it; and when they make use of similitudes to that purpose, have rather prejudiced the enemies of this doctrine against it, than given any conviction to them. I shall only mention what I have found in some of their writings, whom, in other respects, I cannot but exceedingly value, as having deserved well of the church of God, in defending this truth with good success, yet, when they take this method to explain this doctrine, to say the best of it, they have done but little service to the cause which they have maintained: thus we find them expressing themselves to this purpose; as the soul of man sometimes reflects on itself, and considers its own nature, powers, and faculties, or when it is conversant about itself, as its object, this produces an idea, which contains the moral image of itself, and is like as when he sees his face in a glass, and beholds the image of himself; this, say they, illustrates the eternal generation of the Son, as God beholding himself, or his divine perfections, begets an image of himself, or has an eternal idea of his own perfections in his mind, which is called his internal word, as opposed to the word spoken, which is external; by this they express the generation of the Son, for which reason he is called, in Heb. i. 3. The brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, as the wax expresses the character or mark of the seal that is impressed on it.

Again, they farther add, that there is a mutual love between the Father and the Son, which brings forth a third Person, or subsistence in the Godhead, to wit, the Holy Ghost; so that as there is in the divine essence an infinite understanding reflecting on itself, whereby it begets, a Son, as was before observed, and an infinite will, which leads him to reflect on himself, with love and delight, as the chief good, whereby he brings forth a third Person in the Godhead, to wit, the Holy Ghost, accordingly they describe this divine Person as being the result of the mutual joy and delight that there is between the Father and the Son: these explications many are at a loss to understand; and we humbly conceive it would be much better to let them alone, and confess this doctrine to be an inexplicable mystery, or else some other way may be found out, which is less liable to these exceptions, while we explain those scriptures, which speak of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost.

The scriptures generally brought in defence of this doctrine are such as these.

1. To prove the eternal generation of the Son, there are several scriptures referred to, particularly that in which the Father is represented as speaking to him, in Psal. ii. 7. Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee; that is, say they, I have, in my eternal, unsuccessive duration, communicated, or imparted, the divine essence, or, at least, personality, to thee.

Another scripture brought to this purpose is that in Prov. viii. 22, 23, 25. The Lord possessed me, speaking of his eternal Word, or Son, in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was; before the mountains were settled; before the hills was I brought forth. Where they suppose that God’s possessing him, which is certainly to be taken in a different sense from his being the possessor of all creatures, is to be understood of his being God’s proper Son by nature; and his being said to be brought forth, they suppose, proves his eternal generation.

Another scripture brought to the same purpose is that in Micah v. 2. speaking of the Son, it is said, His goings forth have been of old, from everlasting; by which they attempt to prove his being begotten in the divine essence: but how that can be called his going forth, I do not well understand.

Moreover, that scripture before mentioned, in Heb. i. 3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. And another parallel scripture, in Col. i. 15. Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature; where, by first-born, they understand, that he was begotten before all worlds: the divine essence, or, at least, personality, being communicated to him from eternity.

Another scripture, which we before referred to, brought to prove this doctrine, is John v. 26. As the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son to have life in himself; that is, say some, as the Father hath all divine perfections in himself originally, so the Son hath these perfections, by communication from him; which they suppose not to be an arbitrary, but a necessary, donation.

Again, this is farther proved, from John i. 17. where he is said to be the only begotten Son of the Father. And ver. 18. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. From the former of which scriptures they prove the eternal generation of the Son; and from the latter, his being begotten in the divine essence, which distinguishes it from all finite productions, which are out of himself.

Moreover, there are many other scriptures that speak of our Saviour as the Son of God; and particularly in Matth. xvi. 16. he is called, The Son of the living God; and in Rom. viii. 32. his own Son, ἱδιος υιος, which some render, his proper Son, that is, not only his Son, who has the same divine nature with himself, but as implying also the manner of its communication; and in Mat. iii. 17. he is called his beloved Son.

2. We shall now consider the scriptures that are generally brought to prove the procession of the Holy Ghost, in the sense before explained. Thus he is said, in John xv. 26. to be sent by the Son from the Father; and to proceed from the Father; where they suppose that this proceeding from the Father signifies the communication of the divine essence, or, at least, his personality; and his being sent by the Son, implies, that this communication is from him, as well as the Father. So in Gal. iv. 6. it is said, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son; and, in John xvi. 7. our Saviour says, I will send him unto you, and ver. 14. He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you; these scriptures, if not brought directly to prove this doctrine, are, notwithstanding, supposed sufficient to evince the truth thereof, inasmuch as the Son could not send him, if he had not proceeded from him; nor could he have received that which he shews to his people, if he had not, from all eternity, received his divine essence, or personality, from him.

There is another scripture, brought by some very valuable divines, to prove the Spiration of the Holy Ghost, which is so termed, either as supposed to be expressive of the manner of his having his personality as a Spirit, or else it is taken from those words of scripture, brought to prove this Spiration, John xx. 22. in which our Saviour is said to have breathed on his disciples, saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; which external sign, or symbol, used in the act of conferring him on them in time, proves his procession from him from eternity; as a temporal procession supposes an eternal one.

These are the scriptures which are generally brought to prove this doctrine. But we shall take occasion to enquire, whether there may not be another sense given thereof, which is less liable to exception, as well as more intelligible. It is to be owned, that they contain some of the deep things of God; and therefore it is no wonder, if they are reckoned among those scriptures that are hard to be understood: but so far as I have any light, either from the context of the respective scriptures, or the analogy of faith, I cannot but conclude that these, and all others of the like nature, that are brought to prove the eternal generation, or Sonship of Christ, respect him as God-man, Mediator;[98] and those other scriptures, that speak of the procession of the Holy Ghost, respect the subserviency of his acting as a divine Person to the Mediator’s glory, in applying the work of redemption.

And here we shall consider these scriptures in particular; and then answer some objections that may be brought against this sense thereof, whereby, I hope, it will appear, that we assert nothing but what tends to the glory of the Son and Spirit, establisheth the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, and agrees with the commonly received faith, so far as it is founded on scripture, without being tenacious of those modes of speaking, which have the sanction of venerable antiquity, and are supported by the reputation of those who have used them; though it may be, those scriptures will be otherwise understood by them, who regard explications that are merely human, no farther than they are defensible.

The first scripture before mentioned, which was brought to prove the eternal generation of the Son, was Psal. ii. 7. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. This cannot, I humbly conceive, respect the communication of the divine nature, or personality to the Son, as appears from the words immediately foregoing, in which it is said, I will declare the decree, or what I had before decreed, or determined. Far be it from us to suppose that the divine nature, or personality, of the Son was the result of an act of the divine will: and, indeed, the whole Psalm plainly speaks of Christ as Mediator; as such he is said, ver. 6. To be set as God’s king, on his holy hill of Sion, and, as such, he is said to intercede with, or ask of God; and, as the result hereof, the Father is said, ver. 8. to give him the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession; and all this is spoken of him, as a farther explication of those words, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And the apostle, in Heb. i. 5. refers to this scripture, when speaking of him as Mediator, and as having, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name than the angels; which he has done, as he is constituted heir of all things: and he subjoins that promise, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son, that is, he shall perform that obedience that is due from him as a Son; and I will give unto him those rewards, which are due from a Father, who has committed this work to him, with a promise of the conferring those revenues of Mediatorial glory on him, that should ensue on his fulfilling it. Moreover, this scripture is referred to, by the apostle, in Acts xiii. 32, 33. when he says, That the promise, which was made to the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again, as it is written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. So that it is plain the Psalmist speaks of him as having finished his work of redemption, at which time he was raised from the dead; and then, in the fullest sense, he had the heathen for his inheritance. And, upon this account, he is also called, in Rev. i. 5. The first begotten of the dead; and, in Col. i. 18. The first-born from the dead.

The next scripture brought to prove the eternal generation of the Son, in Prov. viii. 22, 23, 25. refers to Christ, as Mediator; when God is said to possess him in the beginning of his way, the meaning is, that in his eternal design oi grace relating to the redemption of man, the Father possessed, or laid claim to him as his Son, or servant, appointed in the human nature, to bring about that great work; and accordingly it follows, I was set up from everlasting, that is, fore-ordained of God, to be the Mediator and head of his elect: and this agrees very well with what follows, ver. 30, 31. I was daily his delight, that is, God the Father was well pleased with him, when foreseeing from all eternity what he would do in time, to secure the glory of his perfections in the redemption of man, as God publicly testified his well-pleasedness in him, when he was actually engaged in this work. And it is farther added, That he was always rejoicing before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and his delights were with the sons of men; which signifies the great pleasure Christ had, in his eternal fore-sight of what he would do for the sons of men, whom he is elsewhere said to have loved with an everlasting love.

The next scripture is in Micah v. 2. where speaking of the Son, it is said, Whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting. For the understanding of which scripture, let us consider, that God’s goings are sometimes taken in scripture for what he does, whereby he renders himself the object of his people’s astonishment and praise; these are his visible goings. Thus, Psal. lxvi. 24. They have seen thy goings, O God, even the goings of my God, my King, in the sanctuary; that is, they shall see the great things which thou wilt do for man, in the work of redemption: so in this scripture, the sense whereof we are considering, we read of Christ’s goings forth, his invisible goings, as we may call them, or his secret purposes, or designs of grace, relating to the redemption of his people: His goings forth were from everlasting; that is, he did, from eternity, design to save them; the outgoings of his heart were towards them, and, as the result hereof, he came into the world according to this prediction, and was born in Bethlehem, as in the foregoing words.

The next scripture is in Heb. i. 3. where he is said to be the brightness of his, that is, his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person. By the former expression, I humbly conceive, is meant, that the glory of the divine perfections shines forth most illustriously in Christ, our great Mediator, as the apostle expresses it elsewhere, 2 Cor. iv. 6. God hath shined in our hearts, to give the knowledge of his glory, in the face of Jesus Christ. By the latter expression, in which Christ is called the express image of his Person, I humbly conceive, is meant, that though his divine nature be the same with the Father’s, yet his Personality is distinct; and therefore it is not said to be the same, but the image of his Father’s; and it also proves his proper divine Personality, as being, in all respects, like that of the Father, though not the same.

The next scripture is in John v. 26. As the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. We cannot think that the Father’s having given to the Son to have life in himself implies his giving him the divine perfections, for the propriety of that mode of speaking cannot be defended consistently with his proper underived Deity. But I humbly conceive that the meaning of it is this; that as the Father hath life in himself, that is, as he has eternal life, or that fulness of grace and glory, which his people are to be made partakers of, at his own disposal, and has designed to give it, in his eternal purpose; so hath he given to the Son, as Mediator, to have life in himself, that is, that, as such, he should be the treasury of all this grace, and that he should have life in himself to dispense to them. This is very agreeable to his character and office, as Mediator, and with what follows, ver. 24. where it is said; Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life; and ver. 27. it is farther added, that He, to wit, the Father, hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man; which plainly denotes, that this life, which he has received from the Father, is that eternal life, which he is impowered or commissioned to bestow on his people, as Mediator; this he has in himself, and accordingly he is said, John i. 14. to be full of grace and truth; and Col. i. 19. It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.

The next thing to be considered, is the sense of those many scriptures, in which our Saviour is described as the Son of God, or the Son of the living God, or his only begotten Son, or his own or proper Son, as distinguished from all others, which, I humbly conceive, sets forth his glory, as Mediator, which we shall endeavour to prove. But, to prepare our way for the prosecution of this argument, as well as to prevent any misconstruction that might give prejudice thereunto, we shall take leave to premise,

1. That when we read of the Son of God, as dependent on the Father, inferior and obedient to him; and yet, as being equal with him, and having the same divine nature, we cannot conceive of any character which answers to all these ideas of sonship, unless that of a Mediator. If we consider the properties of sonship among men, every one who stands in this relation to a Father is dependent on him. In this respect, the father is the cause of his son, and it is not like other productions, for no effect can, properly speaking, be called a son, but that which hath the same kind of nature with his father; and the relation of sonship always connotes inferiority, and an obligation to yield obedience. I do not apply this, in every respect, to the Sonship of Christ, which no similitude, taken from mere creatures, can sufficiently illustrate; but his character, as Mediator, seems to answer to it, more than any thing else that can be said of him, since he has, as such, the same individual nature with the Father, and also is inferior to, and dependent on him. As a son, among men, is inferior to, and dependent on, his father, and, as the prophet speaks, Mal. i. 6. Honoureth his father; so whatever Christ is, as Mediator, he receives it from the Father, and, in all that he does, he honoureth his Father, as he says, John viii. 49. As the whole work of redemption is referred to the Father’s glory, and the commission, by which he acts as Mediator, is received from the Father, so, as a Son, he refers all the glory thereof to him.

2. This account of Christ’s Sonship does not take away any argument, by which we prove his Deity; for when we consider him as Mediator, we always suppose him to be both God and man, which is what we intend when we speak of the Person of Christ in this respect; so that, as God, he is equal with the Father, and has an equal right to divine adoration. This belongs to him as much, when considered as Mediator, as it can be supposed to do, if we consider his Sonship in any other respect.

3. It does not take away any argument to prove his distinct Personality from the Father and Holy Ghost, or, at least, if it sets aside that which is taken from the dependence of his Personality on the Father, as received from him by communication, it substitutes another in the room of it, inasmuch as to be a Mediator is, without doubt, a personal character; and because neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost, can be said to be Mediators, it implies, that his Personality is distinct from theirs; likewise his acting as Mediator from the Father; and the Holy Spirit’s securing the glory which arises to him from hence, and applying the redemption purchased by him, is a farther proof of this distinction of the Persons in the Godhead.

4. Since we consider the Mediator as both God and man, in one Person, we do not suppose that this character respects either of his two natures, considered separately.

(1.) Not his divine nature. It is true, that his having the same nature with the Father might be reckoned, by some, a character of Sonship, as it contains one ingredient in the common idea that we have among men. They, as sons, are said to have the same kind of nature with their fathers; so our Saviour’s having the same individual nature with the Father might give occasion to some to denominate him, for that reason, his Son; but though this may be the foundation of his being called God’s proper Son, ιδιος υιος, yet this is not his distinguishing character as a Son: for it would follow from hence, that the Holy Ghost, who has the same nature with the Father, would, for that reason, be called his Son, which is contrary to the scripture-account given of him, as proceeding from the Father and the Son.

(2.) This character of Christ, as God-man, Mediator, does not respect his human nature, considered separately from his divine, nor any of those peculiar honours conferred upon it, beyond what any mere creatures are made partakers of.

This leads us to consider the difference between this notion of his Sonship, and that which was generally assigned, as the reason of his being so called, by the Socinians; these generally speak of Christ, as being denominated the Son of God, because of the extraordinary and miraculous conception, or formation, of his human nature in the womb of the Virgin; and for this they refer to that scripture in Luke i. 35.[101] The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that Holy Thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. The sense, in which they understand this text, is, that Christ is called the Son of God, because of this extraordinary event: But we cannot think that a miraculous production is a sufficient foundation to support this character, and therefore must conclude, that the glory of Christ’s Sonship is infinitely greater than what arises from thence: therefore, I humbly conceive that this scripture is to be understood, with a small variation of the translation, in this sense, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, &c. because that Holy Thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be called, as he really is, the Son of God; that is, he is as Mediator, an extraordinary Person appointed to execute a glorious office, the Godhead and the manhood being to be united together, upon which account he is called the Son of God: and therefore it is expedient that the formation of his human nature should be in an extraordinary way, to wit, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Again, there is a very wide difference between our account of Christ’s Sonship, as Mediator, and theirs, as taken from this scripture, in that they suppose that his being called the Son of God, refers only to some dignities conferred upon him, whom they suppose to be no more than a man. This is infinitely below the glory, which we ascribe to him, as Mediator, since their idea of him, as such, how extraordinary soever his conception was, argues him to be no more than a creature; but ours, as has been before observed, proves him a divine Person, since we never speak of him, as Mediator, without including both natures.

Having premised these things, to explain our sense of Christ’s being called the Son of God, as Mediator, we proceed to prove this from scripture. And here we are not under a necessity of straining the sense of a few scriptures, to make them speak agreeably to this notion of Christ’s Sonship; but, I think, we have the whole scripture, whenever it speaks of Christ, as the Son of God, as giving countenance to this plain sense thereof; so that I cannot find one place, in the whole New Testament, in which Christ is called the Son of God, but it is, with sufficient evidence, proved, from the context, that it is applied to him, as Mediator. Here we shall refer to several scriptures, in which he is so considered: thus that scripture before-mentioned, in Matth. xvi. 16. where Peter confesses, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God; in which, speaking of him as Christ, or the Mediator, that is, the Person who was invested in the office, and came to perform the work of a Mediator, he is, in this respect, the Son of the living God; so when the high priest asked our Saviour, Matth. xxvi. 63. Art thou the Christ, the Son of God? that is, art thou the Messiah, as thou art supposed to be by thy followers? Our Saviour, in ver. 64. replied to him, Thou hast said, that is, it is as thou hast said; and then he describes himself in another character, by which he is often represented, as Mediator, and speaks of the highest degree of his Mediatorial glory to which he shall be advanced at his second coming, ver. 64. 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. And, doubtless, the centurion, and they who were with him, when they confessed that he was the Son of God, in Matth. xxvii. 54. understood by it, that he was the Messiah, or the Christ, which is a character by which he was most known, and which had been supported by so many miracles, and was now confirmed by this miracle of the earthquake, which gave him this conviction; also in Luke iv. 41. when the devils are represented as crying out, Thou art Christ, the Son of God, it follows, that they knew that he was Christ; so that the commonly received notion of our Saviour’s Sonship was, that he was the Christ. And in John xi. 3. when Jesus says concerning Lazarus, that his sickness was not unto death, that is, not such as that he should continue in the state of the dead, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby, the meaning is, that he might give a proof of his being the Christ, by raising him from the dead; therefore, when he speaks to Martha, with a design to try whether she believed he could raise her brother from the dead, and represents himself to her as the object of faith, she replies, ver. 27. I believe that thou art the Christ the Son of God, which should come into the world. Again, it is said, in Acts ix. 20. that Saul, when converted, preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God, that is, he proved him to be the Messiah; and accordingly, ver. 22. when he was establishing the same doctrine, it is said, that he proved that he was the very Christ.

Moreover, our Saviour is farther described, in scripture, as executing some of his mediatorial offices, or as having received a commission to execute them from the Father, or as having some branches of mediatorial glory conferred upon him, at the same time that he is called the Son of God, which gives us ground to conclude, that this is the import of his Sonship. Thus we read, Heb. iv. 14. that we have a great High Priest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God; and in John i. 29. John the Baptist gives a public testimony to him, as sustaining such a character, which belongs to him, as Mediator, when he says, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world; and afterwards, referring to the same character, he says, ver. 34. I saw, and bare record, that this is the Son of God; and at another time he gives a noble testimony to him, as God-man, Mediator, John iii. 29, &c. when he calls him, The Bridegroom which hath the bride, that is, who is related to, and has a propriety, in his church, and that he testifies what he has seen and heard, and that it is he whom God hath sent, who speaks the words of God, for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him; and then, as a farther explication hereof, he says, ver. 35. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. This is, in effect, the same, as when he is called elsewhere, his beloved Son; and, in Heb. iii. 6. Christ is said to be a Son over his own house, whose house are we; which denotes not only his propriety in his church, but his being the Head thereof, as Mediator; and the apostle, 1 Thess. i. 10. speaks of him, as the Son of God, whom we are to wait for from heaven; whom he has raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come; and, Gal. ii. 20. he speaks of the Son of God, as one who loved him, and gave himself for him; and Col. i. 13. he is spoken of as God’s dear Son, and, at the same time, as having a kingdom, into which his people are translated; and in the following verse, as the person in whom we have redemption, through his blood, who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature; which seems to be taken in the same sense as when he said, Heb. i. 2. to have been appointed Heir of all things, and so referring to him as God-man, Mediator.

Moreover, when he is considered as a Son related to his Father; this appears, from the context, to be a description of him as Mediator. Thus, John xx. 17. he says, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; to my God, and your God; that is, my Father by whom I am constituted Mediator, and your Father, namely, the God who loves you for my sake: he is first my God, as he has honoured, loved and glorified me; and then your God, as he is reconciled to you for my sake; so the apostle says, 2 Cor. i. 3. Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort.

Object. 1. In these scriptures, and others of the like nature, there are two ideas contained; namely, one of our Saviour, as the Son of God, by eternal generation; the other of him, as Mediator; whereas we suppose that one contains only an explication of the other.

Answ. If Christ’s Sonship, in the sense in which it is generally explained, were sufficiently proved from other scriptures, which take no notice of his mediatorial character, or works, or could be accounted for, without being liable to the difficulties before-mentioned, and if his character, as Mediator, did not contain in it an idea of Personality, the objection would have more weight than otherwise it seems to have.

Object. 2. It is said, Gal. iv. 4. God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law; therefore he was the Son of God before he was sent into the world, when made of a woman, and under the law, that is, his Son by eternal generation.

Answ. The answer I would give to this objection is,

1. It is not necessary to suppose that Christ had the character of a Son before he was sent, though he had that of a divine Person; since the words may, without any strain, or force, upon the sense thereof, be understood thus; when the fulness of time was come, in which the Messiah was expected, God sent him forth, or sent him into the world, with the character of a Son, at which time he was made of a woman, made under the law; the end whereof was, that he might redeem them that were under the law.

2. If we suppose Christ had the character of a Son before he was sent into the world, it will not overthrow our argument: since he was, by the Father’s designation, an eternal Mediator, and, in this respect, God’s eternal Son; and therefore, he who before was so by virtue of the eternal decree, is now actually sent, that he might be, and do, what he was from all eternity designed to be, and do: he was set up from everlasting, or appointed to be the Son of God; and now he is sent to perform the work which this character implies in it.

Object. 3. It is farther objected, that his Sonship is distinct from his being Mediator, inasmuch as it is said, Heb. v. 8. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. Now it cannot, in propriety of speech, be said, though he were Mediator, yet he learned obedience, since he was under an obligation to obey, and suffer as Mediator; therefore the meaning must be, though he were a Son by eternal generation, yet he condescended to put himself into such a capacity, as that he was obliged to obey, and suffer, as Mediator.

Answ. The stress of the objection lies in the word which we render though, Και περ ων υιος &c. which may be rendered, with a small variation, though being a Son, he learned obedience by the things he suffered; but being made perfect, viz. after his sufferings, he became the author of eternal salvation, unto all them that obey him; and then it takes away the force of the objection. However, I see no absurdity if it be rendered, as it is in the vulgar Latin version, And, indeed, being a Son, he learned obedience[102], and then it proves the argument we are endeavouring to defend, q. d. it is agreeable to the character of a son to learn obedience; it was with this view that it was conferred upon him, and in performing obedience, and suffering as Mediator, and thereby securing the glory of the divine perfections in bringing about the work of our redemption, he acted in pursuance of that character.

Object. 1. It will be farther objected, that what we have said concerning the Sonship of Christ, as referred to his being Mediator, has some consequences attending it, which seem derogatory to his Person; particularly, it will follow from hence, that had not man fallen, and stood in need of a Mediator, our Saviour would not have had that character, and therefore never have been described as the Son of God, or worshipped as such. And our first parents, while in the state of innocency, knowing nothing of a Mediator, knew nothing of the Sonship of Christ, and therefore could not give him the glory, which is the result thereof. Moreover, as God might have prevented the fall of man, or, when fallen, he might have refused to have recovered him by a Mediator; so our Saviour might not have been the Son of God, that is, according to the foregoing explication thereof, a Mediator between God and man.

Answ. This objection may be very easily answered, and the charge, of Christ’s mediatorial Sonship being derogatory to his glory, removed; which that we may do, let it be considered,

1. That we allow, that had not man fallen, our Saviour would not have been a Mediator between God and man; and the commonly received notion is true, that his being a Mediator is, by divine ordination and appointment, according to the tenor of several scriptures relating thereunto; and I see no absurdity in asserting, that his character, as the Son of God, or Mediator, is equally the result of the divine will, or decree. But this I hope, if duly considered, will not contain the least diminution of his glory, when we farther assert,

2. That though our Saviour had not sustained this character if man had not fallen, or if God had not designed to bring about the work of redemption by him, yet he would have been no less a distinct Person in the Godhead, and, as such, would have had a right to divine glory. This appears from what hath been before said, concerning his personality being equally necessary with his Deity, which, if it be not communicated to him, certainly it has not the least appearance of being the result of the divine will; and, indeed, his divine personality is the only foundation of his right to be adored, and not his being invested in an office, which only draws forth, or occasions our adoration. When we speak of Christ’s being adored, as Mediator, it is his divine personality, which is included in that character, that renders him the object of adoration, and not his taking the human nature, or being, or doing, what he was, or did, by divine appointment; and I question whether they, who assert that he had the divine nature, or personality, communicated to him, will lay the stress of his right to divine adoration, on its being communicated, but on his having it, abstracting from his manner of having it; so when we speak of Christ as Mediator, it is his having the divine glory, or personality, which is included in that character, that renders him the object of adoration; therefore, if man had not fallen, and Christ had not been Mediator, he would have had a right to divine glory, as a Person in the Godhead. And I doubt not but that our first parents, before they fell, had an intimation hereof, and adored him as such; so that if Christ had not been Mediator, it would only follow from thence, that he would not have had the character of a Son, but he would, notwithstanding, have had the glory of a divine Person; for though his sonship be the result of the divine will, his personality is not so.[103]

Having enquired into the sense of those scriptures which treat of the Sonship of Christ, we shall next consider those that are generally brought to prove the procession of the Holy Ghost; the principal of which, as has been before observed, are in John xiv. 26. and chap. xv. 26. and xvi. 7. in which he is said to proceed from the Father, or to be sent by the Father in Christ’s name, or to be sent by the Son. We have already considered the most commonly received sense hereof, as including in it an eternal procession, viz. the communication of the divine essence, or personality to him, as distinguished from the eternal generation of the Son; but now we shall enquire whether there may not be another sense given of these scriptures, agreeable to the analogy of faith, that may be acquiesced in by those, who cannot so well understand, or account for, the common sense given thereof, which, I humbly conceive, is this: that the Spirit is considered not with respect to the manner of his subsisting, but with respect to the subserviency of his acting, to set forth the Mediator’s glory, and that of the Father that sent him. I chuse to call it a subserviency of acting, without connoting any inferiority in the agent; or if we suppose that it argues any inferiority in the Holy Spirit, this is only an inferiority in acting, as the works that he does are subservient to the glory of the Mediator, and of the Father, though his divine personality is, in all respects, equal with theirs. This explication of these texts, is allowed of by many, if not by most, of those who defend the doctrine of the Trinity, notwithstanding their maintaining another notion of the Spirit’s procession from the Father and the Son, from all eternity, in the sense before considered. I need only refer to that explication which a great and learned divine gives of these, and such like texts, notwithstanding his adhering, in other respects, to the common mode of speaking, relating to the eternal generation of the Son, and procession of the Holy Ghost. His words are these[106]: “All that discourse which we have of the mission, and sending of the Holy Ghost, and his proceeding and coming forth from the Father and Son, for the ends specified, John xiv. 26. and xv. 26. and xvi. 7, 13. concerns not at all the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, as to his distinct personality and subsistance, but belongs to that œconomy, or dispensation of the ministry, that the whole Trinity proceedeth in, for the accomplishment of the work of our salvation.”

Now if these scriptures, which are the chief in all the New Testament, on which this doctrine is founded, are to be taken in this sense, how shall we find a sufficient proof, from other scriptures, of the procession of the Holy Ghost in any other sense? Therefore, that we may farther explain this doctrine, let us consider, that whatever the Son, as Mediator, has purchased, as being sent by the Father for that end, is applied by the Holy Ghost, who therefore acts in subserviency to them. This is generally called, by divines, the œconomy of persons in the Godhead, which, because it is a word that we often use, when we consider the distinct works of the Father, Son, and Spirit, in their respective subserviency to one another, we shall take occasion briefly to explain, and shew how it may be applied to them in that respect without inferring any inferiority as to what concerns their Personal glory. We shall say nothing concerning the derivation, or use, of the word œconomy, though we cannot forbear to mention, with indignation, the sense which some of the opposers of the blessed Trinity have given of it, while laying aside all the rules of decency and reverence, which this sacred mystery calls for, they represent us, as speaking of the family-government of the divine Persons, which is the most invidious sense they could put upon the word, and most remote from our design in the use of it. Now that we may explain and apply it to our present purpose, let it be considered,

1. That all those works, which are the effects of the divine power, or sovereign will, are performed by all the Persons in the Godhead, and attributed to them in scripture; the reason whereof is very evident, namely, because the power and will of God, and all other divine perfections, belong equally, and alike, to the Father, Son, and Spirit: if therefore that which produces these effects belongs to them, then the effects produced must be equally ascribed to them; so that the Father is no more said to create and govern the world, or to be the author of all grace, and the fountain of blessedness, than the Son and Spirit.

2. Nevertheless, since the Father, Son, and Spirit, are distinct Persons, and so have distinct personal considerations in acting, it is necessary that their personal glory should be demonstrated, or made known to us, that our faith and worship may be fixed on, and directed to them, in a distinct manner, as founded thereon.

3. This distinction of the Persons in the Godhead cannot be known, as their eternal power or Deity is said to be, by the works of creation and providence, it being a doctrine of pure revelation; therefore,

4. We are given to understand, in scripture, when it treats of the great work of our salvation, that it is attributed first to the Father, then to the Son, as Mediator, receiving a commission from him to redeem and save his people, and then to the Holy Ghost, acting in subserviency thereunto; this is what we are to understand when we speak of the distinct œconomy of the Father, Son, and Spirit, which I cannot better express than by considering of it as a divine determination, that the personal glory of the Father, Son, and Spirit, should be demonstrated in such a way. Now, to instance in some particular acts, or works; when a divine Person is represented in scripture as doing, or determining to do, any thing relating to the work of our redemption, or salvation, by another divine Person, who must, for that reason, be considered herein, as Mediator, it is to be understood of the Father, in this œconomic sense, inasmuch as, by this means, he demonstrates his personal glory: thus it is said, Eph. i. 4, 5. He, i. e. the Father, hath chosen us in him, namely, the Son; and he is said to have predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ. Though election and predestination are also applied to the Son and Spirit, when they have another reference corresponding with the demonstration of their personal glory, yet, in this place, they are only applied to the Father. And there are several other scriptures, in which things done are particularly applied to the Father for the same reason. Thus, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. it is said, God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and that he was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself; and, in 1 Cor. i. 30. it is said, Of him, namely the Father, are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God, that is, the Father, is made unto us wisdom, &c. in which, and several other scriptures to the same purpose, the Father is, in a peculiar manner, intended, because considered, as no other divine person is, as acting by the Mediator, or as glorifying the perfections of the divine nature, which belong to him, by what this great Mediator did by his appointment.

Moreover when a divine Person is considered as acting in subserviency to the Father’s glory, or executing a commission relating to the work of redemption, which he had received from him, and accordingly performing any act of obedience in an human nature assumed by him for that purpose, this is peculiarly applied to, and designed to demonstrate the Son’s Personal character, as belonging to no other Person in the Godhead but him. Of this we have several instances in scripture; thus though to judge the world be a branch of the divine glory, which is common to all the Persons in the Godhead; yet there are some circumstances in the character of a divine Person in particular, who is denominated as Judge of quick and dead, that are applicable to none but the Son; and so we are to understand that scripture, John v. 22. The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son; that is, the Son is the only Person in the Godhead who displays his Mediatorial character and glory, as the Judge of the whole world; yet when there is another personal character ascribed to God, as the Judge of all; or when he is said to judge the world in righteousness, by that Man, to wit, our Lord Jesus, whom he hath ordained, as in Acts xvii. 31. then this personal character determines it to belong to the Father.

Again, to give eternal life is a divine prerogative, and consequently belongs to all the Persons in the Godhead; yet when a divine Person is said to give eternal life to a people, that were given to him for that purpose, and to have received power, or authority, from another, to confer this privilege as Mediator, then it is peculiarly applied to the Son: thus John xvii. 2. Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

Moreover, when a divine Person is said to do any thing in subserviency to the Mediator; or, as it is said, in John xvi. 14. He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you, this is peculiarly applied to the Spirit. So when he is said to give his testimony to the mission, or work of the Mediator, by any divine works performed by him, this is peculiarly applied to him; or when he is said to sanctify and comfort, or to seal and confirm believers unto the day of redemption. Though these being divine works, are, for that reason, applicable to all the Persons in the Godhead; yet when he is said to perform them in a way of subserviency to Christ, as having purchased them, then his distinct personal character, taken from thence, is demonstrated, and so these works are especially applied to him. This is what we understand by that peculiar œconomy, or dispensation, which determines us to give distinct personal glory to each of the Persons in the Godhead.

And now we are speaking of the Spirit, considered as acting, whereby he sets forth his Personal glory, we may observe, that, in compliance with this way of speaking, the gifts and graces of the Spirit, are, by a metonymy, called the Spirit, as in Acts xix. 2. when it is said, Have ye received the Holy Ghost? They said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. We are not to understand it as though they had not heard whether there were such a Person as the Holy Ghost; but they had not heard that there was such an extraordinary dispensation of the gifts of the Holy Ghost conferred on men; so John vii. 39. it is said, The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified; the word given being supplied in our translation, and not in the original; it ought rather to be rendered, The Holy Ghost was not as yet; by which we are to understand the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and not his Personality, which was from all eternity.

And here we may farther observe, that when the Holy Ghost is spoken of as a Person, that word which denotes his Personality, ought not to be rendered It, but He, as expressive of his Personal character; but when it is taken in a figurative sense, for the gifts or graces of the Spirit, then it should be translated It. This is sometimes observed in our translation of scripture; as in John xvi. 13. it is said of the Spirit, He will guide you into all truth, where the Personal character of the Spirit is expressly mentioned, as it ought to be: but it is not duly observed by our translators in every scripture; Rom. viii. 16. it is said, The Spirit itself beareth witness, which ought to have been rendered Himself; as also in ver. 26. The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us. The same ought to be observed in all other scriptures, whereby we may be led to put a just difference between the Spirit, considered as a divine Person; or as acting, or producing those effects, which are said to be wrought by him.

Thus concerning the Sonship of Christ, and the procession of the Holy Ghost. What I have said, in attempting to explain those scripture that treat of the Person of Christ, as God-man, Mediator, and of his inferiority, in that respect, (or as he is said to sustain that character) to the Father; as also those which speak of the subserviency of the Spirit, in acting, to the Father and the Son, does not, as I apprehend, run counter to the common faith of those who have defended the doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity. Therefore I hope that when I call one the Sonship of Christ, and the other the procession of the Holy Ghost, this will not be deemed a new and strange doctrine. And I cannot but persuade myself, that what I have said concerning the Mediator, as acting in obedience to the Father, and the Spirit, in subserviency to him, will not be contested by those who defend the doctrine of the Trinity. And, if I have a little varied from the common way of speaking, I hope none will be offended at the acceptation of a word, especially since I have endeavoured to defend my sense thereof, by referring to many scriptures. And, if I cannot give into the common explication of the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost, I am well satisfied I do no more than what many Christians do, who have received the doctrine of the Trinity from the scripture, and are unacquainted with those modes of speaking which are used in the schools: these appear as much to dislike them, when used in public discourses about this doctrine, as any other can do, what has been attempted to explain it in a different way.

IV. We shall now proceed to consider the Godhead of the Son, and Holy Ghost, as maintained in one of the answers we are explaining, by four general heads of argument.

I. From those divine names which are given to them, that are peculiar to God alone.

II. From their having the divine attributes ascribed to them, and consequently the divine nature.

III. From their having manifested their divine glory, by those works that none but God can perform.

IV. From their having a right to divine worship, which none but God is worthy to receive.

If these things be made to appear, we have all that we need contend for; and it will be evident from thence, that the Son and Holy Ghost are God equal with the Father. These heads of argument we shall apply to them distinctly; and,

First, To the Son, who appears to be God equal with the Father,

I. From those divine names given to him, that are peculiar to God alone. And here we shall premise something concerning the use of names given to persons, together with the design thereof. Names are given to persons, as well as things, with a twofold design.

1. Sometimes nothing else is intended thereby, but to distinguish one from another, in which sense the names given are not in themselves significant, or expressive of any property, or quality, in those that are so described. Thus most of those names we read of in scripture, though not all of them, are designed only to distinguish one man from another, which is the most common use and design thereof; notwithstanding,

2. They are sometimes given to signify some property in those to whom they are applied, viz. what they should be, or do. Thus we have many instances, in scripture, of persons called by names, which have had some special signification annexed to them, assigned as a reason of their being so called. Thus Adam had that name given him, because made of earth; and Eve was so called, because she was the mother of all living. The same may be said concerning Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and several others, whose respective names have a signification annexed to them, agreeable to the proper sense of the words, and the design of their being so called.

And, to apply this to our present purpose, we may conclude, that when names are given to any divine Person, they are designed to express some excellency and perfection belonging to him; and therefore we shall have sufficient reason to conclude the Son to be a divine Person, if we can make it appear that he has those names given to him in scripture, which are proper to God alone. And,

1. The name Jehovah is given to him, which is peculiar to God. Here we shall prove, First, that the name Jehovah is peculiar to God. And, Secondly, that it is ascribed to Christ.

(1.) That the name Jehovah is peculiar to God, whereby he is distinguished from all creatures: thus it is said, Isa. xlii. 8. I am the Lord, or Jehovah, that is my name, and my glory will I not give to another; or, as the text may be rendered, I am Jehovah, that name of mine, and my glory, which is signified thereby, will I not give to another: therefore it follows, that it is an incommunicable name of God: and when he says, I will not give it to another, it supposes that it necessarily belongs to him; and therefore that he cannot give it to another, since that would be unbecoming himself; therefore this name, which is expressive of his glory in so peculiar a manner, is never given to any creature.

There are other scriptures to this purpose, in which the name Jehovah is represented, as peculiar to God. Thus when the prophet Amos had been speaking of the glory of God, as displayed in the works of creation and providence, he adds, that the Lord, or Jehovah, is his name, chap. v. 8. So that those works, which are peculiar to God, might as well be applied to creatures, as that name Jehovah, which is agreeable thereunto. And in chap. ix. 6. the prophet gives another magnificent description of God, with respect to those works that are peculiar to him, when he says, It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth; and then he adds, the Lord, or Jehovah, is his name.

Again, it is said, in Psal. lxxxiii. 18. That men may know, that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth. This is never said of any other divine names, which are, in a limited sense, sometimes given to creatures; and, indeed, all creatures are expressly excluded from having a right hereunto.

Again, there are other scriptures, in which this name Jehovah is applied to God, and an explication thereof subjoined, which argues that it is peculiar to him. Thus when Moses desired of God, that he would let him know what his name was for the encouragement of the faith of the Israelites, to whom he sent him, Exod. iii. 13. q. d. he desires to know what are those divine glories, that would render him the object of faith and worship; or how he might describe him in such a way to the children of Israel, whereby they might express that reverence and regard to him, that was due to the great God, who sent him about so important an errand. In answer to which God says, ver. 14. I AM THAT I AM. Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you; which description of him doth not set forth one single perfection, but all the perfections of the divine nature; as though he should say, I am a God of infinite perfection; and then he adds, in the following verse, Thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, The Lord, or Jehovah, the God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; where Jehovah signifies the same with I AM THAT I AM. And he adds, This is my memorial unto all generations; therefore this glorious name is certainly peculiar to God.

What has been already observed, under this head, is sufficient to prove that the name Jehovah is proper to God alone. But we might hereunto add another argument, of less weight, which, though we do not lay that stress upon, as though it was sufficient of itself to prove this matter; yet, being added to what has been already suggested, it may not be improper to be mentioned, viz. that the word Jehovah has no plural number, as being never designed to signify any more than the one God; neither has it any emphatical particle affixed to it, as other words in the Hebrew language have; and particularly several of the other names of God, which distinguishes him from others; who have those names sometimes applied to them; and the reason of this is, because the name Jehovah is never given to any creature.

And to this we might add, that since the Jews best understood their own language, they may, in some respects, be depended on, as to the sense they give of the word Jehovah; and it is certain they paid the greatest regard to this name, even to superstition. Accordingly, they would never pronounce it; but, instead thereof, use some other expressions, by which they describe it. Sometimes they call it, that name, or that glorious name, or that name that is not to be expressed;[107] by which they mean, as Josephus says,[108] that it was not lawful for them to utter it, or, indeed, to write it, which, if any one presumed to do, they reckoned him not only guilty of profaneness, in an uncommon degree, but even of blasphemy; and therefore it is never found in any writings of human composure among them. The modern Jews, indeed, are not much to be regarded, as retaining the same veneration for this name; but Onkelos, the author of the Chaldee paraphrase on some parts of scripture, who lived about fifty years after our Saviour’s time, and Jonathan Ben-Uzziel, who is supposed to have lived as many years before it, never insert it in their writings; and, doubtless, they were not the first that entertained these sentiments about it, but had other writings then extant, which gave occasion thereunto. Some critics conclude, from Jewish writers, that it was never pronounced, even in the earliest ages of the church, except by the High Priest; and when he was obliged, by the divine law, to pronounce it, in the form of benediction, the people always expressed an uncommon degree of reverence, either by bowing, or prostration; but this is not supported by sufficient evidence. Others think it took its rise soon after their return from captivity, which is more probable; however, the reason they assign for it is, because they reckoned it God’s incommunicable name.

And here I cannot but observe, that the translators of the Greek version of the Old Testament, commonly called the LXX. which, if it be not altogether the same with that mentioned by Aristæus, which was compiled almost three hundred years before the Christian Æra, is, without doubt, of considerable antiquity; these never translate the word JEHOVAH, but, instead thereof, put Κυριος, Lord;[109] and, even when it seems absurd not to do it, as in Exod. vi. 3. when it is said, by my name, JEHOVAH, was I not known, they render it, by my name, the LORD, was I not known.[110]

This we take occasion to observe, not as supposing it is a sufficient proof of itself, of the argument we are maintaining, but as it corresponds with the sense of those scriptures before mentioned, by which it appears that this is the proper, or incommunicable, name of God.

Object. It is objected, by the Anti-Trinitarians, that the name Jehovah is sometimes given to creatures, and consequently that it is not God’s proper name; nor does it evince our Saviour’s Deity, when given to him. To prove that it is sometimes given to creatures, they refer to several scriptures; as Exod. xvii. 15. where the altar that Moses erected is called Jehovah Nissi, i. e. the Lord is my banner; and, in Judges vi. 22. another altar that Gideon built, is called Jehovah Shallom; and Gen. xxii. 14. it is said, that Abraham called the name of the place, in which he was ready to offer Isaac, Jehovah Jireh; and, in Ezek. xlviii. 35. it is said, that Jerusalem, from that day, should be called Jehovah Shammah; they add also, that the Ark was called Jehovah, upon the occasion of its being carried up into the city of David, when it is said, Psal. xlvii. 5. The Lord, i. e. Jehovah is gone up with a shout, even the Lord with the sound of a trumpet, and also on other occasions. And the name Jehovah is often, in the Old Testament, given to angels, and therefore not proper to God alone.

Answ. 1. When they pretend that the name Jehovah was given to inanimate things, and in particular to altars, as in the instance mentioned in the objection, that one of the altars was indeed called Jehovah Nissi, it is very unreasonable to suppose, that the name and glory of God was put upon it; had it been a symbol of God’s presence, it would not have been called by this name, especially in the same sense in which our Saviour and the Holy Spirit have it applied to them; and therefore the meaning of this scripture, as I apprehend, is nothing but this, that there was an inscription written on the altar, containing these words, Jehovah Nissi, the design whereof was to signify, to the faith of those who came to worship there, that the Lord was their banner: therefore this name, strictly speaking, was not given to the altar, but to God; upon which some, not without good reason, render the word; he built an altar, and called the name of it, the altar of Jehovah Nissi. The same may be said with respect to the altar erected by Gideon, which was called Jehovah Shalom, or the altar of Jehovah Shalom, to the end that all who came to offer sacrifice upon it, might hereby be put in mind that God was a God of peace, or would give peace to them.

2. As for the place to which Abraham went to offer Isaac, which is called Jehovah-Jireh, it was the mount Moriah; and it is certain that this was not known by, or whenever spoken of, mentioned, as having that name; neither had Abraham any right to apply to it any branch of the divine glory, as signified thereby; therefore when it is said, he called the name of the place Jehovah-Jireh, it is as though he should have said, let all that travel over this mountain know, that the Lord was seen, or provided a ram instead of Isaac, who was ready to be offered up; let this place be remarkable, in future ages, for this amazing dispensation of providence, and let them glorify God for what was done here, and let the memory hereof be an encouragement to their faith. Or else we may farther consider him speaking as a prophet, and so the meaning is, this place shall be very remarkable in future ages, as it shall be the mount of vision; here Jehovah will eminently appear in his temple, which shall be built in this place. Or if you take the words in another sense, viz. God will provide, it is as though he should say, as God has provided a ram to be offered instead of Isaac, so he will provide the Lamb of God, who is to take away the sin of the world, which was typified by Isaac’s being offered. So that the place was not really called Jehovah; but Abraham takes occasion, from what was done here, to magnify him, who appeared to him, and held his hand, whom alone he calls Jehovah.

And to this we may add, that when Jerusalem is called Jehovah Shammah, the Lord is there, the meaning hereof is only this, that it shall eminently be said in succeeding ages of the new Jerusalem, that the Lord is there; the city, which was commonly known by the name Jerusalem, is not called Jehovah, as though it had any character of divine glory put upon it; but it implies, that the gospel church, which is signified thereby, should have the presence of God in an eminent degree; or, as our Saviour promised to his disciples, Matth. xxviii. 20. that he would be with them always, even unto the end of the world; and, as the result thereof, that the gates of hell should not prevail against it, Matth. xvi. 18.

3. As for the ark; it was not called Jehovah, though the Psalmist takes occasion, from its being carried up into the city of David, with a joyful solemnity, and an universal shout, with the sound of a trumpet, to foretel the triumphant and magnificent ascension of our Saviour into heaven, which was typified hereby; concerning whom he says, Jehovah is gone up; or, speaking in a prophetic style, the present, or time past, being put for the time to come, it is as though he should say, the Lord, when he has completed the work of redemption on earth, will ascend into heaven, which shall be the foundation of universal joy to the church; and then he shall, as the Psalmist farther observes, reign over the heathen, and sit on the throne of his holiness.

Again, it does not appear that the ark was called Jehovah, in Exod. xvi. 33, 34. because, when Aaron is commanded to lay the pot full of manna before the testimony, that is, the ark, this is called, a laying it before Jehovah: but the reason of the expression is this; viz. God hath ordained that the mercy-seat over the ark should be the immediate seat of his residence, from whence he would condescend to converse with men, and accordingly he is said, elsewhere, to dwell between the cherubims; and, upon this account, that which was laid up before the ark, might be said to be laid up before the Lord.

But since none are so stupid to suppose that inanimate things can have the divine perfections belonging to them, therefore the principal thing contended for in this argument, is, that the ark was called Jehovah, because it was a sign and symbol of the divine presence; and from thence they conclude, that the name of God may be applied to a person that has no right to the divine glory, as the sign is called by the name of the thing signified thereby.

To which it maybe answered, that the ark was not only a sacramental sign of God’s presence, for that many other things relating to ceremonial worship were; but it was also the seat thereof: it was therefore the divine Majesty who was called Jehovah, and not the place of his residence; and it was he alone to whom the glory was ascribed that is due to his name.

4. When it is farther objected, that the name Jehovah is often applied to angels, the answer that may be given to this is; that it is never ascribed to any but him, who is called, by way of eminence, the angel, or Messenger of the covenant, viz. our Saviour, Mal. iii. 1. And whenever it is given to him, such glorious things are spoken of him, or such acts of divine worship demanded by and given to him, as argue him to be a divine Person; as will plainly appear, if we consider what the angel that appeared, in Exod. iii. says concerning himself, ver. 6. I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is said, Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God; and in verses 7, 8. The Lord, or Jehovah, said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people that are in Egypt, and I am come down to deliver them; and ver. 10. I will send thee unto Pharaoh; and then, in the following verses, he makes mention of his name, as of the great Jehovah, the I AM, who sent him. And Jacob gives divine worship to him, when he says, Gen. xlviii. 16. The Angel, that redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads. I might refer to many other scriptures, where the Angel of the Lord is said to appear, in which from the context, it is evident that it was a divine Person, and not a created angel. The most ancient Jewish writers generally call him the Word[111] of the Lord.

But this will not properly be deemed a sufficient answer to the objection, inasmuch as it is not denied, that the Person, who so frequently appeared in the form of an angel, made use of such expressions, as can be applied to none but God; therefore they say that he personated God, or spake after the manner of his representative, not designing that the glory of the divine perfections should be ascribed to him, but to Jehovah, whom he represented.

To which it may be replied, that the angel appearing to Moses, in the scripture before mentioned, and to several others, doth not signify himself to personate God, as doubtless he ought to have done, had he been only his representative, and not a divine Person; as an embassador, when he speaks in the name of the king, whom he represents, always uses such modes of speaking, as that he may be understood to apply what he says when personating him, not to himself, but to him that sent him; and it would be reckoned an affront to him, whom he represents, should he give occasion to any to ascribe the honour that belongs to his master to himself. Now there is nothing, in those texts, which speak of this angel’s appearing, that signifies his disclaiming divine honour, as what did not belong to him, but to God; therefore we must not suppose that he speaks in such a way as God doth, only as representing him: we read, indeed, in Rev. xxii. 8, 9. of a created angel appearing to John, who was supposed by him, at the first, to be the same that appeared to the church of old, and accordingly John gave him divine honour; but he refused to receive it, as knowing that this character, of being the divine representative, would not be a sufficient warrant for him to assume it to himself; we must therefore from hence conclude, that the angel that appeared to the church of old, and is called Jehovah, was a divine Person.

2. Having considered that the name Jehovah is peculiarly applied to God, we now proceed to prove that it is given to the Son, whereby his Deity will appear; and the first scripture that we shall refer to is Isa. xl. 3. The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, or Jehovah, make Straight in the desert a highway for our God. Now if we can prove that this is a prophecy of John’s preparing the way of our Saviour, then it will appear that our Saviour, in this scripture, is called Jehovah. That it is a prediction of John’s being Christ’s fore-runner, appointed to prepare the Jews for his reception, and to give them an intimation, that he, whom they had long looked for, would suddenly appear, is plain from those scriptures in the New Testament, which expressly refer to this prediction, and explain it in this sense: thus Matth. iii. 3. This is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight; therefore he whose way John was to prepare, whom the prophet Isaias calls Jehovah, is our Saviour.

Again, it is said, in Isa. viii. 13. Sanctify the Lord, or Jehovah, of hosts himself, and let him be your fear and your dread; where he speaks of a person, whom he not only calls Jehovah, the Lord of hosts, which alone would prove him to be a divine Person; but he farther considers him as the object of divine worship, Sanctify him, and let him be your fear and your dread. Certainly, if we can prove this to be spoken of Christ, it will be a strong and convincing argument to evince his proper Deity; now that it is spoken of him, is very evident, if we compare it with the verse immediately following, And he shall be for a sanctuary, which I would chuse to render, For he shall be for a sanctuary, as the Hebrew particle Vau, which we render And, is often rendered elsewhere, and so it is assigned as a reason why we should sanctify him; and then it follows, though we are obliged so to do, yet the Jews will not give that glory to him, for he will be to them for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence, as he shall be for a sanctuary to those that are faithful. That this is spoken of Christ, not only appears from the subject matter hereof, as it is only he that properly speaking, is said to be a rock of offence, or in whom the world was offended, by reason of his appearing in a low condition therein; but, by comparing it with other scriptures, and particularly Isa. xxviii. 16. Behold, I lay in Sion, for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste, this will more evidently appear. In the latter of these scriptures, he is styled, a foundation stone, the rock on which his church is built; in the former a burthensome stone; and both these scriptures are referred to, and applied to him, 1 Pet. ii. 6, 8. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence to them that are disobedient; where the apostle proves plainly, that our Saviour is the Person who is spoken of, in both these texts, by the prophet Isaiah, and consequently that he is Jehovah, whom we are to sanctify, and to make our fear and our dread.

Again, there is another scripture, which plainly proves this, viz. Numb. xxi. 5, 6, 7. And the people spake against God, and against Moses; and the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, and much people of Israel died; therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, or Jehovah, and against thee. He, who is called God, in ver. 5. whom they spake against, is called Jehovah in ver. 7. who sent fiery serpents among them, that destroyed them, for their speaking against him; now this is expressly applied to our Saviour by the apostle, 1 Cor. x. 9. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

Again, the prophet Isaiah, having had a vision of the angels, adoring and ministering to that glorious Person, who is represented, as sitting on a throne, in chap. vi. 1, 2. he reflects on what he had seen in ver. 5. and expresses himself in these words, Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord, or Jehovah, of hosts. Now this is expressly applied to our Saviour, in John xii. 41. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him; where it is plain that he intends this vision; as appears from the foregoing verse, which refers to a part thereof, in which God foretels that he would blind the eyes, and harden the hearts of the unbelieving Jews; from whence it is evident, that the Person who appeared to him, sitting on a throne, whom he calls Jehovah, was our Saviour.

Again, this may farther be argued, from what is said in Isa. xlv. 21. to the end, There is no God else besides me, a just God, and a Saviour, there is none besides me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else, I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one say, In the lord have I righteousness and strength; even to him shall men come, and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory. This is a glorious proof of our Saviour’s Deity, not only from his being called Jehovah, but from several other divine characters ascribed to him; thus the Person whom the prophet speaks of, styles himself Jehovah, and adds, that there is no God besides me; and he is represented as swearing by himself, which none ought to do but a divine Person; and he encourages all the ends of the earth to look to him for salvation; so that if it can be made appear that this is spoken of our Saviour, it will be an undeniable proof of his proper Deity, since nothing more can be said to express the glory of the Father than this. Now that these words are spoken of our Saviour, must be allowed by every one, who reads them impartially, for there are several things that agree with his character as Mediator; as when all the ends of the earth are invited to look to him for salvation. We have a parallel scripture, which is plainly applied to him, in Isa. xi. 10. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, that is, the Messiah, who should spring from the root or stock of Jesse; which shall stand for an ensign to the people, to it, or to him, shall the Gentiles seek, which is the same thing as for the ends of the earth to look to him; and besides, the word looking to him is a metaphor, taken from a very remarkable type of this matter, to wit, Israel’s looking to the brazen serpent for healing; thus he, who is here spoken of, is represented as a Saviour, and as the object of faith.

Again, he is represented as swearing by himself; and the subject matter of this oath is, That unto him every knee should bow, and every tongue should swear; this is expressly applied to our Saviour, in the New Testament, as containing a prophecy of his being the judge of the world, Rom. xiv. 10, 11, 12. We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ; for it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God; so then every one of us shall give an account of himself to God. And the same words are used, with a little variation, in Phil. ii. 10, 11. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father.

Again, the person, of whom the prophet speaks, is one against whom the world was incensed, which can be meant of none but Christ, as signifying the opposition that he should meet with, and the rage and fury that should be directed against him, when appearing in our nature.

Again, he is said to be one in whom we have righteousness, and in whom the seed of Israel shall be justified; which very evidently agrees with the account we have of him in the New Testament, as a person by whose righteousness we are justified, or whose righteousness is imputed to us for that end.

And this leads us to consider another scripture, Jer. xxiii. 6. in which it is said, This is his name, whereby he shall be called, The Lord, or Jehovah, our righteousness. His being called our righteousness, as was but now observed, implies, that the Messiah, our great Mediator, is the person spoken of, who is called Jehovah. But this is farther evinced from the context, inasmuch as it is said, ver. 5. Behold the days come, viz. the Gospel day, that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and prosper; and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth; which any one, who judges impartially of the sense of Scripture, will conclude to be spoken concerning our Saviour’s erecting the gospel-dispensation, and being the sole lord and governor of his church. How the exercise of his dominion over it proves his Deity, will be considered under a following head. All that we need to observe at present is, that this description is very agreeable to his character in Scripture, as Mediator; therefore he is called Jehovah in this verse.

Object. 1. It is objected, that the words may be otherwise translated, viz. This is the name, whereby the Lord our righteousness, namely, the Father, shall call him.

Answ. It may be replied, that the Father is never called in Scripture, our righteousness as was but now observed; this being a character peculiar to the Mediator, as it is fully explained in several places in the New Testament. As to what may be farther said, in answer to this objection, it is well known that the Hebrew word יקראו signifies either actively or passively, as it is differently pointed, the letters being the same; and we shall not enter into a critical disquisition concerning the origin, or authenticity of the Hebrew points, to prove that our translation is just, rather than that mentioned in the objection; but shall have recourse to the context to prove it. Accordingly it appears from thence, that if it were translated according to the sense of the objectors, it would be little less than a tautology, q. d. I will raise to David a righteous branch; and this is the name whereby Jehovah, our righteousness, shall call him, viz. the Branch; so that at least, the sense of our translation of the text, seems more natural, as well as more agreeable to the grammatical construction observed in the Hebrew language, in which the words of a sentence are not so transposed as they are in the Greek and Latin, which they are supposed to be, in the sense of the text contained in this objection.

Object. 2. It is farther objected; that though our translation of the text were just, and Christ were called Jehovah, yet it will not prove his Deity, since it is said, in Jer. xxxiii. 16. speaking concerning the church, This is the name whereby she shall be called, The Lord, or Jehovah, our righteousness.

Answ. It is evident from the context, that this is a parallel scripture with that before mentioned; the same person, to wit, the Branch, is spoken of and the same things predicted concerning the gospel church, that was to be governed by him. Therefore, though it is plain that our translators understood this text, as spoken of the church of the Jews or rather the Gospel-Church, as many others do, yet, if we consider the sense of the Hebrew words here used יקרא לה, it is very evident that they might, with equal, if not, with greater propriety, have been rendered, shall be called by her; and so the sense is the same with that of the other but now mentioned; the Branch, to wit, our Saviour, is to be called, The Lord our righteousness, and adored as such by the church.

There is another scripture, in which our Saviour is called Jehovah, in Joel ii. 27. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, viz. Jehovah, your God, and none else; compared with ver. 32. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord, viz. Jehovah, shall be delivered. In both these verses, it is evident, that our Saviour is called Jehovah; for the person, who is so called, in the former of them, is said, ver. 28. to Pour out his Spirit on all flesh; &c. which Scripture is expressly referred to him, in Acts ii. 16, 17. and this pouring out of his Spirit on all flesh here predicted is also applied, in ver. 33. to him; Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father, the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear. The argument is therefore this: he who was, according to this prophecy, to pour out his Spirit on all flesh, is called Jehovah, your God; but this our Saviour is said to have done, therefore the name Jehovah is justly applied to him. As to the latter of these verses, viz. 32. Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered; this also is referred to, and explained, as spoken of Christ, in Rom. x. 13. And that the apostle here speaks of calling on the name of Christ, is plain, from the foregoing and following verses. In ver. 9. it is expressed, by confessing the Lord Jesus, and it is there connected with salvation. And the apostle proceeds to consider, that, in order to our confessing, or calling on his name, it is necessary that Christ should be preached, ver. 14, 15. and he farther adds, in the following verses, that though Christ was preached, and his glory proclaimed in the gospel, yet the Jews believed not in him, and consequently called not on his name; which was an accomplishment of what had been foretold by the prophet Isaiah, chap. liii. 1. Who hath believed our report, &c. intimating that it was predicted, that our Saviour should be rejected, and not be believed in by the Jews: so that it is very evident the apostle is speaking concerning him, and applying to him what is mentioned in this scripture, in the prophecy of Joel, in which he is called Jehovah; therefore this glorious name belongs to him. Several other scriptures might have been referred to, to prove that Christ is called Jehovah, which are also applied to him in the New-Testament, some of which may be occasionally mentioned under some following arguments; but, I think, what hath been already said is abundantly sufficient to prove his Deity, from his having this glorious name given to him; which leads us to consider some other names given to him for the proof thereof; accordingly,

2. He is styled Lord and God, in such a sense, as plainly proves his proper Deity. We will not, indeed, deny, that the names Lord and God, are sometimes given to creatures; yet we are not left without sufficient light, whereby we may plainly discern when they are applied to the one living and true God, and when not. To assert the contrary, would be to reflect on the wisdom and goodness of God; and it would not only render those scriptures, in which they are contained, like the trumpet, that gives an uncertain sound, but we should be in the greatest danger of being led aside into a most destructive mistake, in a matter of the highest importance, and hereby be induced to give that glory to the creature, which is due to God alone; therefore we shall always find something, either in the text, or context, that evidently determines the sense of these names, whenever they are applied to God, or the creature.

And here let it be observed, that whenever the word God or Lord is given to a creature, there is some diminutive character annexed to it, which plainly distinguishes it from the true God: thus when it is given to idols, it is intimated, that they are so called, or falsely esteemed to be gods by their deceived worshippers; and so they are called strange gods, Deut. xxxii. 16. and molten gods, Exod. xxxiv. 17. and new gods, Judges v. 8. and their worshippers are reproved as brutish and foolish, Jer. x. 8.

Again, when the word God, is applied to men, there is also something in the context, which implies, that whatever characters of honour are given to them, yet they are subject to the divine controul; as it is said, Psal. lxxxii. 1, 6. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty he judgeth among the gods; and they are at best but mortal men; I have said ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most high, but ye shall die like men; they are, indeed, described, as being made partakers of the divine image, consisting in some lesser branches of sovereignty and dominion; but this is infinitely below the idea of sovereignty and dominion, which is contained in the word when applied to the great God.

It is true, God says to Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, Exod. vii. 1. by which we are not to understand that any of the divine perfections were communicated to, or predicated of him; for God cannot give his glory to another: but the sense is plainly this, that he was set in God’s stead: thus he is said to be instead of God to Aaron, chap. iv. 16. and the same expression is used by Elihu to Job, chap. xxxiii. 6. I am according to thy wish in God’s stead; so that Moses’s being made a god to Pharaoh, implies nothing else but this, that he should, by being God’s minister, in inflicting the plagues which he designed to bring on Pharaoh and his servants, be rendered formidable to them; not that he should have a right to receive divine honour from them.

Again, when the word God is put absolutely, without any additional character of glory, or diminution annexed to it, it must always be understood of the great God, this being that name by which he is generally known in scripture, and never otherwise applied, without an intimation given that he is not intended thereby: thus the Father and the Son are described in John i. 1. The Word was with God, and the Word was God, and in many other places of scripture; therefore if we can prove that our Saviour is called God in scripture, without any thing in the context tending to detract from the most known sense of the word, this will be sufficient to prove his proper Deity; but we shall not only find that he is called God therein; but there are some additional glories annexed to that name, whereby this will more abundantly appear.

As to the word Lord, though that is often applied to creatures, and is given to superiors by their subjects or servants, yet this is also sufficiently distinguished, when applied to a divine Person, from any other sense thereof, as applied to creatures. Now, if we can prove that our Saviour is called Lord and God in this sense, it will sufficiently evince his proper Deity; and, in order hereto, we shall consider several scriptures, wherein he is not only so called, but several characters of glory are annexed, and divine honours given to him, which are due to none but a divine Person, which abundantly determines the sense of these words, when applied to him. And,

(1.) We shall consider some scriptures in which he is called Lord, particularly, Psal. cx. 1. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot-stool; that our Saviour the Messiah, is the person whom David calls his Lord, is very evident, from its being quoted and applied to him in the New Testament, in Mat. xxii. 44. &c. and that by calling him Lord he ascribes divine honour to him, appears from hence, that when the question was put to the Pharisees, If Christ were David’s Lord, how could he be his Son? They might easily have replied to it, had it been taken in a lower sense; for it is not difficult to suppose that David might have a son descending from him, who might be advanced to the highest honours, short of what are divine; but they not understanding how two infinitely distant natures could be united in one person, so that at the same time he should be called David’s son, and yet his Lord, in such a sense as proves his Deity, they were confounded, and put to silence.

But whether they acknowledged him to be a divine Person or no, it is evident that David considers him as such; or as the Person who, pursuant to God’s covenant made with him, was to sit and rule upon his throne, in whom alone it could be said that it should be perpetual, or that of his kingdom there should be no end; and inasmuch as he says, ver. 3. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, speaking of the Person whom he calls his Lord, who was to be his Son, he plainly infers that he should exert divine power, and consequently prove himself to be a divine Person.

Again, if the word Lord be applied to him, as denoting his sovereignty over the church, and his being the Governor of the world, this will be considered under the next head, when we speak concerning those glorious titles and attributes that are given to him, which prove his Deity; and therefore we shall waive it at present, and only consider two or three scriptures, in which he is called Lord, in a more glorious sense than when it is applied to any creature: thus in Rev. xvii. 14. speaking of the Lamb, which is a character that can be applied to none but him, and that as Mediator, he is called Lord of lords, and the Prince of the kings of the earth, in Rev. i. 5. and the Lord of glory, in 1 Cor. ii. 8. which will be more particularly considered, when we speak concerning his glorious titles, as an argument to prove it; therefore all that we shall observe at present is, that this is the same character by which God is acknowledged by those that deny our Saviour’s Deity to be described in Deut. x. 17. The Lord your God, is God of gods, and Lord of lords; a great God and terrible; so that we have as much ground to conclude, when Christ is called Lord, with such additional marks of glory, of which more in its proper place, that this proves his Deity, as truly as the Deity of the Father is proved from this scripture.

(2.) Christ is often in scripture called God, in such a sense, in which it is never applied to a creature: thus he is called, in Psal. xlv. 6. Thy throne O God, is for ever, and ever; and there are many other glorious things spoken of him in that Psalm, which is a farther confirmation that he, who is here called God, is a divine Person, in the same sense as God the Father is; particularly he is said, ver. 2. To be fairer than the children of men, that is, infinitely above them; and, ver. 11. speaking to the church, it is said, He is thy Lord, and worship thou him; and, in the following verses, the church’s compleat blessedness consists in its being brought into his palace, who is the King thereof, and so denotes him to be the spring and fountain of compleat blessedness, and his name, or glory, is to be remembered in all generations, and the people shall praise him for ever and ever. This glory is ascribed to him, who is called God; and many other things are said concerning him, relating to his works, his victories, his trumphs, which are very agreeable to that character; so that it evidently appears that the Person spoken of in this Psalm, is truly and properly God.

I am sensible that the Anti-trinitarians will object to this, that several things are spoken concerning him in this Psalm, that argue his inferiority to the Father; but this only proves that the Person here spoken of is considered as God-man, Mediator, in which respect he is, in one nature, equal, and, in the other, inferior to him; were it otherwise, one expression contained in this Psalm would be inconsistent with, and contradictory to another.

To this we shall only add, as an undeniable proof, that it is Christ that is here spoken of, as also that he is considered as Mediator, as but now observed; that the apostle, speaking of him as Mediator, and displaying his divine glory as such, refers to these words of the Psalmist, Heb. i. 8. Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Again, another proof of our Saviour’s Deity may be taken from Matth. i. 23. Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is, God with us. His incarnation is what gives occasion, as is plain from the words, for his being described by this name or character, God with us, which imports the same thing as when it is elsewhere said, John i. 14. The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. This cannot be applied to any but Christ; to say the Father is called Emmanuel, is such a strain upon the sense of the text, as no impartial reader will allow of; for it is plain that it is a name given to the Son upon this great occasion; and this is as glorious a display of his Deity, as when God the Father says, if we suppose that text to be spoken of him elsewhere, in Exod. xxix. 45. I will dwell amongst the children of Israel, and will be their God.

Again, Christ’s Deity is proved, in 1 Tim. iii. 16. from his being styled God, manifest in the flesh, implying, that the second Person in the Godhead was united to our nature; for neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost were ever said to be manifested in the flesh; and, besides, he is distinguished from the Spirit, as justified by him. And he is not called God, because of his incarnation, as some Socinian writers suppose; for to be incarnate, supposes the pre-existence of that nature, to which the human nature was united, since it is called elsewhere, assuming, or taking flesh, as it is here, being manifested therein, and consequently that he was God before this act of incarnation; and there is certainly nothing in the text which determines the word God to be taken in a less proper sense, any more than when it is applied to the Father.

Object. It is objected that the word God is not found in all the manuscripts of the Greek text, nor in some translations thereof, particularly the Syriac, Arabic, and vulgar Latin, which render it, the mystery which was manifest in the flesh, &c.

Answ. It is not pretended to be left out in above two Greek copies, and it is very unreasonable to oppose these to all the rest. As for the Syriac and Arabic translations; some suppose that it is not true in fact that the word God is left out in the Arabic, and though it be left out in the Syriac, yet it is contained in the sense there, which is, great is the mystery of godliness that he was manifested in the flesh; and as for the vulgar Latin version, that has not credit enough, especially among Protestants, to support it, when standing in competition with so many copies of scripture in which the word is found; therefore we can by no means give up the argument which is taken from this text to prove our Saviour’s Deity. Besides as a farther confirmation hereof, we might appeal to the very words of the text itself, whereby it will plainly appear, that if the word God be left out of it, the following part of the verse will not be so consistent with a mystery as it is with our Saviour; particularly it is a very great impropriety of expression to say that a mystery, or as some Socinian writers explain it, the will of God[112], was manifest in the flesh, and received in a glorious manner; for this is not agreeable to the sense of the Greek words, since it is plain that εν σαρκι εφανερωθη, which we render was manifest in the flesh, is justly translated, being never used in scripture to signify the preaching the gospel by weak mortal men, as they understand it: but on the other hand it is often applied to the manifestation of our Saviour in his incarnation, and is explained when it is said, John i. 14. that he was made flesh, and we beheld his glory[113]; and as for the gospel, though it met with reception when preached to the Gentiles, and there were many circumstances of glory that attended this dispensation, yet it could not be said for that reason to be received up into glory. Now since what is said in this verse agrees to our Saviour, and not to the mystery of godliness, we are bound to conclude that he is God manifest in the flesh, and therefore that this objection is of no force.

The next scripture which we shall consider, is Acts xx. 28. Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood, where we observe, that he who is here spoken of is said to have a propriety in the church; this no mere creature can be said to have, but our Saviour is not only here but elsewhere described as having a right to it; thus it is said in Hebrews iii. 3, 4, 6. He was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house, hath more honour than the house; and he that hath built all things is God, which is as though he should say, our Lord Jesus Christ hath not only built his church but all things, and therefore must be God; and ver. 6. he is called a Son over his own house; so that he is the purchaser, the builder, and the proprietor of his church, and therefore must be a divine person; and then it is observed, that he that hath purchased this church is God, and that God hath done this with his own blood; this cannot be applied to any but the Mediator, the Son of God, whose Deity it plainly proves.

Object. 1. Some object against this sense of the text, that the word God here is referred to the Father, and so the sense is, feed the church of God, that is, of the Father, which He, that is, Christ, hath purchased with his own blood.

Answ. To this it may be answered, that this seems a very great strain and force upon the grammatical sense of the words, for certainly He must refer to the immediate antecedent, and that is God, to wit, the Son. If such a method of expounding scripture were to be allowed, it would be an easy matter to make the word of God speak what we please to have it; therefore we must take it in the most plain and obvious sense, as that is which we have given of this text, whereby it appears that God the Son has purchased the church with his own blood, and that he has a right to it.

Object. 2. God the Father is said to have purchased the church by the blood of Christ, which is called his blood, as he is the Proprietor of all things.

Answ. Though God be the Proprietor of all things, yet no one, that does not labour very hard to maintain the cause he is defending, would understand his blood in this sense. According to this method of speaking, God the Father might be said to have done every thing that the Mediator did, and so to have shed his blood upon the cross, as well as to have purchased the church thereby, as having a propriety in it.

The next scripture, which proves our Saviour’s Deity, is Rom. ix. 5. Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever; where he is not only called God, but God blessed for ever; which is a character too high for any creature, and is the very same that is given to the Father, in 2 Cor. xi. 31. who is styled, The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, that is, not only the Object of worship, but the Fountain of blessedness. Now if Christ be so called, as it seems evident that he is, then the word God is, in this text, applied to him in the highest sense, so as to argue him a divine Person. Now that this is spoken of our Saviour, is plain, because he is the subject of the proposition therein contained, and is considered, as being of the fathers, concerning the flesh, i. e. with respect to his human nature; so that if we can prove that he is here called God, blessed for ever, we shall have the argument we contend for, this being the only thing contested by the Anti-trinitarians.

Object. It is objected, that the words maybe otherwise rendered, namely, Let God, viz. the Father, who is over all, be blessed for ever, to wit, for this great privilege, that Christ should come in the flesh; therefore it does not prove that which we bring it for.

Answ. In defence of our translation of these words, it may be replied, that it is very agreeable to the grammatical construction thereof. It is true, Erasmus defends the other sense of the text, and thereby gives an handle to many after him, to make use of it, as an objection against this doctrine, which, he says, may be plainly proved from many other scriptures; it is very strange, that, with one hand, he should build up, and, with the other, overthrow Christ’s proper Deity, unless we attribute it to that affectation which he had in his temper to appear singular, and, in many things, run counter to the common sense of mankind; or else to the favourable thoughts which he appears to have had, in some instances, of the Arian scheme. It may be observed, that the most ancient versions render this text in the sense of our translation; as do most of the ancient fathers in their defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, as a late writer observes.[114] And it is certain, this sense given thereof by the Anti-trinitarians, is so apparently forced and strained, that some of the Socinians themselves, whose interest it was to have taken it therein, have not thought fit to insist on it. And a learned writer[115], who has appeared in the Anti-trinitarian cause, seems to argue below himself, when he attempts to give a turn to this text, agreeable to his own scheme; for certainly he would have defended his sense of the text better than he does, had it been defensible; since we can receive very little conviction from his alleging, that “It 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,

2. That they farther suppose that our Saviour is called God, in the New 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.

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.

As for the Arians, they distinguish between Christ’s being in the beginning of time, and his being from eternity; and so they suppose the meaning of the text to be, that the Word was from the beginning; and whatever disguise they seem to put upon their mode of speaking, when they say there was not a point of time in which Christ was not, or that he was before the world, they are far from asserting that he was without beginning, or properly from eternity. And, in answer hereunto, let it be considered, that we cannot conceive of any medium between time and eternity; therefore whatever was before time, must be from eternity, in the same sense in which God is eternal. That this may appear, let us consider that time is the measure of finite beings, therefore it is very absurd, and little less than a contradiction, to say that there was any finite being produced before time; for that is, in effect, to assert that a limited duration is antecedent to that measure, whereby it is determined, or limited. If we should allow that there might have been some things created before God began to create the heavens and the earth, though these things might be said to have had a being longer than time has had, yet they could not have existed before time, for time would have begun with them; therefore if Christ had been created a thousand millions of ages before the world, it could not be said that he existed before time; but it would be inferred from hence, that time, which would have taken its beginning from his existence, had continued so many ages; therefore that which existed before time, must have existed before all finite beings, and consequently was not produced out of nothing, or did not begin to be, and is properly from eternity. Therefore I cannot but think the objection evasive, or a fruitless attempt to take off the force of this argument, to prove our Saviour’s Deity, since the expressions of scripture, by which his eternity is set forth, are as strong and emphatical, as those whereby the Father’s is expressed, and consequently his Deity is equally evident.

2. Our Saviour is said to be unchangeable, which perfection not only belongs to God, but is that whereby he is considered as opposed to all created beings, which are dependent upon him, and therefore changed by him, at his pleasure. Now that Christ is immutable, is evident, if we compare the words of the Psalmist, Psal. cii. 25-27. Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end, with Heb. i. 10. where the apostle uses the same words and considers them as applied to Christ; so that it will be a very hard matter for any to evade the force of this argument. I am persuaded, that if the apostle had not applied these words to Christ, the Anti-trinitarians would have allowed, that the Psalmist gives as plain an account of the immutability of God, as can be found in scripture, or, indeed, as words can express. Some of the writers on that side of the question, have passed over this scripture, as thinking, I suppose, that it is better not to attempt to account for it consistently with their scheme, than to do it in such a way, as will not, in the least, support it: others do not care to own that they are applied to Christ; but that is to break the chain of the apostle’s reasoning, and thereby to fasten an absurdity upon him. Now, that we may briefly consider the connexion between this and the foregoing verses, whereby it will evidently appear that our Saviour is the Person here described, as unchangeable, let us consider, that the design of this chapter is to set forth the Mediatorial glory of Christ, to establish his superiority to angels; and after he had referred to that scripture, which speaks of the eternity of his kingdom, to wit, the 45th Psalm, ver. 6. he then speaks of him as unchangeable, and so applies the words of the Psalmist, but now mentioned, to him. We may also observe, in the text, that he is not only unchangeable, as to his existence, but his duration is unchangeable, which farther confirms what was observed under the last head, that he is eternal, as God is, viz. without succession, as well as from everlasting: this seems to be contained in that expression, Thou art the same, thy years shall not fail, as though he should say, thy duration does not slide, or pass away by successive moments, as the duration of time and created beings do.

To this we might add what the apostle says, Heb. xiii. 8. that he is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, that is, throughout all the changes of time, he remains unchangeably the same in his divine nature. A late writer[143] supposes the meaning of this scripture to be nothing but this, that the doctrine of Christ, once taught by the apostles, ought to be preserved unchanged: it is true, he says elsewhere,[144] that it is certainly true that the Person of Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever; whether, by yesterday, he means any thing more than a limited duration of time past, which he must do, or else give up the doctrine that he every where contends for, I cannot tell; but he does not think that this text respects the Person of Christ, but his doctrine as above mentioned; the principal argument by which he proves it is, its supposed connexion with the foregoing verse; and so it is as though he should say; Have regard to what has been delivered to you by those who have preached the word of God, who, though they are no more among you, yet the doctrine they have delivered is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. But it seems to be too great a strain on the sense of the words, to suppose Christ to import the same with his doctrine; and, with submission, I cannot think that this is to be inferred from what goes before, or follows after it; but the sense seems to be this; Adhere to the doctrine you have formerly received from those who have preached the word of God to you, and be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines, so as to change your sentiments with your teachers, for that would not be to act in conformity to Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever; so that he designs to establish their faith from the consideration of Christ’s immutability, whatever changes they are liable to from the death of their teachers, or the innovations of those who succeed them, and endeavour to carry them away by divers and strange doctrines; so the text seems to be as plain a proof of our Saviour’s immutability as that scripture, Rev. i. 4. is of the immutability of God, in which it is said, He is, was, and is to come. If, by his being yesterday, we are to understand, as some do, his managing the affairs of his church under the legal dispensation; and to-day, his governing them under this present dispensation; and for ever, the eternity of his kingdom, it plainly proves, that whatever changes he has made in the affairs of the government of the church and of the world, yet he is the same, and consequently a divine Person.

3. Another divine attribute ascribed to our Saviour, is omnipresence, as in Matt, xviii. 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them; which expression imports the same thing, with that whereby the divine omnipresence (as is allowed by all) is set forth in Exod. xx. 24. In all places where I record my name, I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. Now that Christ’s presence in the midst of his people, in all places, argues his omnipresence, is very evident, since he designs, by this promise, to encourage them in all places, and at all times, to perform religious duties, with an eye to this privilege; so that wherever there is a worshipping assembly, they have hereby ground to expect that he will be present with them. Now it is certain, that no creature can be in two places at the same time, much less in all places, which is the same as to fill heaven and earth, and is applicable to God alone, as the prophet expresses it, in Jer. xxiii. 24. Moreover, when Christ says, that he will be with his people in all places, it must be meant at the same time, and not successively, otherwise he could not be where-ever two or three are met in his name; this therefore is a plain proof of his omnipresence, which is an incommunicable perfection of the divine nature, and consequently argues him to be true and proper God.

Object. 1. It is objected to the sense we have given of this scripture, (to weaken the force of the argument taken from it) that our Saviour is here said to be present, only by his authority, where two or three are met together in his name; and accordingly the words are to be taken in a metaphorical sense, as when a king is said to be present in all parts of his dominions, where persons, who are deputed to represent him, act by his authority.

Answ. Though we allow, that whatever is done in Christ’s name, must be said to be done by his authority; yet we cannot allow that his being in the midst of them is to be taken only for his being so by his authority; for we must not suppose that our Saviour, in these words, makes use of a tautology; and, indeed, it would be a very jejune and empty way of speaking to say, that where two or three are met together in my name, that is, by my authority, there am I in the midst of them, by my authority. Certainly, Christ’s being in the midst of them, must be taken in the same sense with that parallel scripture before referred to, in Exod. xx. 24. where God’s coming to his people, in those places where he records his name, is explained, as having a very great privilege attending it, namely, his blessing them, which he is said to do, when he confers blessedness upon them, and gives them a full and rich supply of all their wants; this therefore must be the sense of our Saviour’s being in the midst of his people.

Moreover, as God is said to be present where he acts, so Christ’s powerful influence, granted to his people in all places, which supposes his omnipresence, contains a great deal more than his being present by his authority; and if that were the only sense in which this scripture is to be taken, it might as well be alleged, that all the scriptures, which speak of the divine omnipresence might be taken in that sense, which would be to set aside all the proofs we have from thence of this perfection of the divine nature; therefore this objection seems to be rather an evasion, than an argument, to overthrow Christ’s divinity, taken from his omnipresence.

Object. 2. Others suppose that Christ being in the midst of his people, when met together in his name, implies nothing more than his knowing what they do when engaged in acts of religious worship.

Answ. We observe, that they who make use of this objection, that they may militate against that argument, which is brought to prove his Deity from his omnipresence, will, for argument’s sake, allow him to be omniscient, not considering that that equally proves him to be a divine Person, as will be considered under our next head. Now, to prove that Christ’s being present with his people, is to be understood of his knowing what they do, they refer to that scripture, 2 Kings v. 26. in which Elisha says to Gehazi, as knowing what he had done, when he followed Naaman, the Syrian, for a reward; Went not mine heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot with thee? But since this scripture signifies nothing else but that this secret was revealed to him, which is, in a figurative way of speaking, as though he had been present with him, it will not follow from hence that the prophet pretended to know what was done in all places, and that at all times, which is more (as will be farther observed under the next head) than what seems communicable to any creature: but this is intended by Christ’s knowing all things, and more than this, doubtless, is meant by his being in the midst of his people, whereby he encourages them to expect those blessings, which they stand in need of, from him, in which respect he promises to be with them in a way of grace; and certainly he that is so present with his people, must be concluded to be, in the most proper sense, a divine Person.

There is another scripture, which is generally brought to prove Christ’s omnipresence, and consequently his proper Deity, to wit, John iii. 13. And no man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. For the understanding of which words, we must consider their connexion with what goes immediately before; thus by, No man hath ascended up into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, It is plain our Saviour means, that no man has a full and comprehensive knowledge of heavenly things, of which he had been speaking in the foregoing verse, but he that came down from heaven; in which he asserts his divine omniscience[145], as the person in whom all treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid, as it is expressed elsewhere; or none knows the mysteries which are hid in God, but he that is in the bosom of the Father, who came down from heaven; or, as the apostle expresses it, 1 Cor. xv. 47. who is the Lord from heaven; and then, as a farther proof of his Deity, he adds, that he is in heaven; that is, while he was on earth, in one nature, as being omnipresent, he was in heaven in the other nature; and, agreeably to this sense of the scripture, he is said to come down from heaven, as his divine nature manifested its glory here on earth, when the nature was united to it, which is the only sense in which God is said to come down into this lower world; as we have the same mode of speaking, in Gen. xi. 7. Exod. iii. 8. and other places; so that if he is thus omnipresent, we must conclude that he is a divine Person.

The Arians give a very different sense of this text, especially those words, The Son of man, who is in heaven;[146] for, they suppose, the words ought to be rendered, was in heaven; and that it does not argue his omnipresence, but that nature, which they call divine, first resided in heaven from the beginning, when it was produced by the Father; and afterwards in his incarnation, by a removal from heaven to earth it was said to come down from thence. But, before we allow of this sense of the text, they must prove that Christ was the first creature, and that, in this finite nature, he resided in heaven till his incarnation, and that he afterwards, by a change of place, descended into this lower world; and, if they could make this appear, there is yet a difficulty in the expression, as they understand the words; for it is not usual to say, I came from a place, and was in that place before I came from it; therefore whether their exposition of the words, or ours, be most proper, I leave any one to judge.

As for the Socinians, who deny that Christ had any existence before his incarnation, these are very much at a loss to account for the sense of this scripture; though Socinus himself, and many of his followers, have concluded from thence, that Christ was taken up into heaven some time after his incarnation, which they suppose to have been in some part of those forty days in which the scripture says he was in the wilderness tempted of the devil; but how he could ascend into heaven, and yet be in the wilderness, where one of the evangelists says he was all the forty days, as Mark i. 13. cannot be easily understood, or accounted for; and, indeed, the scripture is altogether silent as to this matter: and it is very strange, if it had been so, that when we have an account of other circumstances in his life, which are of less importance, no mention should be made of this, which, had it been discovered, would have been a great inducement to his followers to have paid the highest regard to his doctrine; for they suppose he was taken up into heaven, that he might be instructed in those things which he was to impart to the world. And, instead of a proof hereof, they only say that this is a parallel instance with that of Moses, who was called up to the top of mount Sinai, which was then the immediate seat of the divine presence, and there received the law, which he was to impart to Israel; so, they suppose, it was necessary, that our Saviour should ascend into heaven, that he might there be instructed in that doctrine, which he was to communicate to his church.

But we cannot but conclude, that being omniscient, as will be proved under our next head, he had no need to receive instructions, and having, in his human nature, had an unction from the Holy Ghost; or, as it is expressed, John iii. 34. that God gave not the Spirit by measure unto him, therefore it was necessary that he should ascend into heaven, to receive the doctrines from thence, which he was to deliver. Moreover, according to this conjecture, his coming from heaven, in the end of time, to judge the world, should have been called his third coming, (as his first coming from thence was in his incarnation, and his second coming is supposed to be his return to this world, after he ascended into heaven, during this interval of time) which is contrary to that text of scripture, in Heb. ix. 28. which calls it, his coming the second time, without sin, unto salvation. And, indeed, it is so ungrounded a supposition, that some of the Socinians themselves reckon it, at most, but a probable conjecture, but do not pretend to say that it is sufficiently founded in scripture; and therefore we cannot think that this will have any tendency to enervate the force of our argument, to prove Christ’s Deity, taken from the above-mentioned sense of that text; The Son of man, which is in heaven.

4. Our Saviour’s Deity may farther be proved, from his being omniscient: thus the apostle Peter says, in John xxi. 17. Lord thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee. This is too great a glory to be ascribed to any creature; and had it been spoken of the Father, the Anti-trinitarians themselves would have owned, that it is as great a proof of his Deity, as any contained in scripture, as importing the same thing with what the Psalmist says, Psal. cxlvii. 5. His understanding is infinite. But, besides this there is another expression that abundantly proves this matter, wherein he is denominated the Searcher of hearts, which is a glory that God appropriates to himself, in Jer. xvii. 10. I the Lord search the hearts, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways; and elsewhere, 1 Chron. xxviii. 9. The Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts; and all creatures are excluded from having any branch of this glory, when it is said, in 1 Kings viii. 39. Thou only knowest the hearts of all the children of men: now such a knowledge as this is ascribed to Christ; sometimes he is said to know the inward thoughts and secret reasonings of men within themselves, Mark ii. 8. And, if it be said, that this is only a particular instance of knowledge, such as he might have had by immediate divine inspiration, and therefore that it does not prove his Godhead; there is another scripture, that speaks of his knowledge, as more extensive, viz. that he knows the thoughts of all men, John ii. 25. He needed not that any one should testify of man, for he knew what was in man; and this his knowledge does not only respect men’s present, but their future thoughts, which are not known to themselves: thus it is said, in John vi. 64. that he knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And if all this be not reckoned sufficient to prove him to be the heart-searching God, nothing can be expressed in plainer terms than this is, concerning him, in Rev. ii. 23. All the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts; and I will give unto every one of you, according to your works.

Object. 1. It is objected to this argument for Christ’s omniscience, taken from Peter’s confession above-mentioned, Lord, thou knowest all things, &c. that nothing else is intended hereby, but that he had a very great degree of knowledge; not that he was strictly and properly omniscient, as supposing that it is an hyperbolical expression, not altogether unlike that of the woman of Tekoa to David, in 2 Sam. xiv. 20. when she says, My lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth.

Answ. It is true, this expression of her’s is either an unwarrantable strain of compliment, or flattery, occasioned by David’s suspecting that Joab had employed her to plead the cause of Absalom; or else it is a sincere acknowledgment of his great wisdom, without supposing him to be absolutely omniscient, as though she should say, thou knowest all things that are done in the land: there is no plot or contrivance, how secret soever it may be managed, but thou wilt, some way or other, find it out, as thou hast done this that I am sent about. But what reference has this to Peter’s confession? Does it follow, that because there are hyperbolical expressions in scripture, as well as in other writings, that this must be one? or because a wise governor may have a conjectural knowledge of what is done by his subjects, when considering the various circumstances that attend their actions, that therefore the apostle intends nothing more than this? It is plain he appeals to Christ, as the heart-searching God, concerning the inward sincerity of his love to him, as well as of his repentance, after a public and shameful denial of him, which might have given just occasion for its being called in question; and it is as evident a proof of his omniscience, as that is of the Father’s, in Psal. cxxxix. 23, 24. Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me and know my thoughts, and see if there be any wicked way in me, &c.

Object. 2. Others, especially some of the Arians, do not so much deny Christ’s omniscience, as the consequence deduced from it, to wit, his proper Deity; and these make use of a more abstruse and metaphysical way of reasoning, and accordingly they suppose that a creature may know all things, that is, all finite objects, and consequently all things that are done in the world, namely, all creatures, and all their actions, since the object of this knowledge is, at most, but finite; therefore it is possible for a finite mind to be so enlarged, as to take in all finite things, or to have the knowledge of all things communicated to it, since the object and the recipient are commensurate with each other. Therefore our Saviour may know all things; and yet it will not follow from hence, that his understanding is infinite, or that his knowledge is so properly divine as the Father’s is; and consequently this is no sufficient argument to prove his Deity in the sense in which we understand it.

Answ. This method of reasoning might as well be used to evade the force of every argument, brought from scripture, to prove the Father’s omniscience, or, indeed, to evince his infinite power, since all effects produced, which are the objects thereof, are but finite; and therefore it may as well be said, that it does not require infinite power to produce them, nor prove his eternal power and Godhead.

Moreover, as this would tend to destroy the infinite disproportion between God and the creature in acting, so it supposes that God can communicate a branch of his own glory to a creature, by enlarging it to such a degree, as to take in all finite objects. There are some things not so properly too great for God to do, as for a creature to be the subject of: we do not pretend to set limits to the divine power; yet we may infer, from the nature of things, and the powers of finite beings, that it is impossible for any one, below God, to know all things past, present, and to come, at one view; which our Saviour must be supposed to do, or else this attribute of omniscience is not justly applied to him; nor would he be fit to govern the world, as will be observed under a following head; therefore we must conclude, from hence, that he is truly and properly a divine Person.

To what has been said, concerning Christ’s omniscience, we may subjoin those scriptures that speak of him, as the wisdom of God, the Fountain of all communicated wisdom, the light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, as he is called, in John i. 9. And it is supposed, by many, that wisdom spoken of in Prov. viii. is to be understood of our Saviour, as the personal wisdom of God, inasmuch as there are several personal characters ascribed to him: thus it is said, ver. 23. I was set up from everlasting, &c. and ver. 30, 31. Then, to wit, before the creation of all things, I was by him, as one brought up with him; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him, rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights were with the sons of men. This cannot properly speaking, be applied to God’s essential wisdom; it must therefore be a description of an eternal divine Person, distinct from the Father.

But since many suppose, that whatever is spoken of wisdom, in this and some other chapters of this book, is only metaphorical, or a beautiful description of divine wisdom, as the instructor of mankind; though we cannot see how this, if nothing else be intended by it, can agree with some of the personal characters before mentioned, which seem applicable to our Saviour; yet we find that he is elsewhere called the wisdom of God, in a sense, that can by no means be supposed to be figurative: thus when we read in Luke xi. 49. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, &c. it is certainly understood of our Saviour.[147] To which, if it be objected, that, by the wisdom of God, is meant there the wise God, to wit, the Father; it may be answered, that another evangelist, referring to the very same thing, explains what is meant by the wisdom of God, and represents our Saviour as speaking in his own Person, Matt. xxiii. 34. Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, &c.

5. The next divine perfection that is ascribed to Christ, is almighty power. This attribute is appropriated, by the Arians to the Father;[148] and accordingly they suppose, that it implies not only his supremacy over all creatures, but over the Son and Holy Ghost; and therefore they peremptorily conclude it is never applied to them, and consequently that the Deity of our Saviour cannot be proved by it; and that they may turn our own weapons upon us, or improve some unwary concessions, made by some very considerable writers, who have, in other respects, very well defended the doctrine of the Trinity, they seem to insinuate, as though this were a matter to be taken, as it were, for granted, though it might easily be made appear, that they strain the sense of those expressions, from whence they conclude them to have given up the cause to them, beyond what they ever intended; and there are many others, who are far from making such concessions.

As for the word παντοκρατωρ, Almighty, there is nothing in the derivation thereof, from whence it may justly be inferred, that it is a perfection, that contains a greater display of the divine glory, than the other perfections, that are attributed to all the Persons in the Godhead, though indeed it contains in it an idea of the universal extent of divine power, with respect to the objects thereof; yet this is not to be separated from the sense of the word, when power is ascribed to God in those scriptures, where he is called the Almighty; therefore, if we can prove that Christ has power ascribed to him, that is properly divine, this will evince his Deity, as much as though we could produce several scriptures, in which he is indisputably called the Almighty; and this we shall first endeavour to do, and then enquire whether we have not as much, or more reason to conclude, that he is called Almighty, than they have to deny it.

That power, such as is properly divine, is attributed to Christ, may be proved from that scripture before-mentioned, which is evidently applied to him, Isa. ix. 6. where he is called, the mighty God; and, in Psal. xlv. 3. which, as has been before observed, is spoken concerning him, in which he is called most mighty; and, in Phil. iii. 21. we read of his changing our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body; which is such an effect of power, as plainly argues it divine, as much as the production of all things out of nothing could do; and this is said to be done, according to the working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself. We might observe many other things, which he has done, and will do, that require infinite power, which we shall have occasion to consider, when we prove his deity from his works under a following head.

But since all this is to no purpose, with respect to those who deny his proper Deity, unless we can prove that he is called Almighty; and the whole stress of this argument is laid upon it, for no other reason, as I presume, but because they think it impossible for us to do it: I shall attempt it; and I hope to make it appear that we have greater probability, on our side, that he is so called, than they have ground to deny it. Here I shall take notice of this perfection of the divine nature, as we find it in the book of the Revelations, in which this attribute is mentioned nine times, and, in some places, seems to be applied to the Father, but in others to the Son.

The first we shall mention is in chap. i. 8. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty; which seems to be spoken of our Saviour,

1. Because he is described at large in the three foregoing verses; and there is nothing which gives the least ground to question its application to him, unless that character s being given to the Person here spoken of, which is given to the Father, in ver. 4. which is, and which was, and which is to come; but since we find in other scriptures, the same divine glories ascribed to the Son that had before been ascribed to the Father; as in John v. 21. As the Father raiseth the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will; and in Tit. iii. 4. the Father is called God our Saviour, as appears by comparing it with the 5th and 6th verses; and so is Christ called, chap. ii. 10, 13. therefore, why may not the Father and the Son be each of them described with this character, Which was, is, and is to come? and that more especially, if we consider, that the ascribing this to Christ, is, in effect, the same with what is said of him elsewhere, Heb. xiii. 8. where he is said to be the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.[149]

2. It farther appears, that this text, in which the Person spoken of is called Almighty, is applied to Christ, because that character, Alpha and Omega, seems to be applied to none but him in other places, where it is used. We find it four times in this book, viz. not only in this verse, but in ver. 11. in which it is indisputably applied to him, as will appear, by comparing it with the followings verses. And, in chap. xxi. 6. he is again called Alpha and Omega, which, that it is applied to him, appears from the context; it is he that makes all things new, or puts a new face upon the affairs of his church; and it is he who commands John to write what he saw and heard; He said unto me, Write these words, ver. 5. We may observe, that whereever John is commanded, in this book, to write, it is Christ that gives forth the command: thus he said to him before, chap. i. 19. Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; and he is again commanded to write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, by him who is called the Son of man, chap. xiv. 13, 14.

Again, in chap. xxii. 13. he is called Alpha and Omega, who is described in the foregoing verse, as coming quickly, whose reward is with him; which is undoubtedly meant of our Saviour; for it is said concerning him, ver. 20. Surely I come quickly, Amen: even so come, Lord Jesus.

That which I infer from hence, is, that if Christ be styled Alpha and Omega, in all other placed in this book, it is more than probable he is so in this 8th verse of the 1st chapter, in which he is said to be the Almighty. And as he is called Alpha and Omega, so the explication of these words, wherever we meet with it in this book without the words themselves, is applied to Christ: thus he is called, chap. i. 17. and ii. 8. the first and the last; and, chap. iii. 14. the beginning of the creation of God: from hence, I humbly conceive, we have more ground to conclude, that Christ is called the Almighty in this verse, than the Arians have to deny it.

Again, there is another place in this book where he seems to be styled the Almighty, chap. xv. 3. And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. This triumphant song is occasioned by one of the greatest victories which the church expects to obtain in this world: by the song of Moses, I humbly conceive, is meant the church’s celebrating the glory of God, for the greatest victory that ever was obtained under the legal dispensation; and the song of the Lamb, is an acknowledgment of the greatest that is, or shall be obtained under the gospel-dispensation; and, in celebrating the Lamb’s victories, they set forth the praises of the mighty Conqueror in the following words, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty: it is the Lamb that is every where described in this book, as fighting the church’s battles, and obtaining victory for it; therefore it is his glory which is here set forth.

And as he is always described, in this book, as thus fighting the church’s battles; so it is he who is described as taking vengeance on its enemies, which is the just consequence thereof. Therefore I cannot but conclude, that he is spoken of, in chap. xvi. 6, 7. as having given their persecutors blood to drink, for they were worthy; and, in ver. 7. Even so Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.

Again, in chap. xvi. 14. we read of the battle of that great day of God Almighty; and then it immediately follows, Behold, I come as a thief in the night, &c. which expression is known to be elsewhere applied to our Saviour, and to none but him; and that it is he who fights the church’s battles, is evident from chap. xvii. 14. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overthrow them; and from chap. xix. 12, &c. where it is said, his eyes were as a flame of fire; as he is elsewhere described, chap. i. 14. to denote that the great day of his wrath was come; and his name is called, in the 13th verse of this 19th chapter, the Word of God; and we read of the armies which followed him, and that out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that he might smite the nations. From whence we may conclude, that since Christ is represented, in so many places in this book, as fighting with, and triumphing and reigning over his enemies, inflicting his plagues upon them, and delivering his church from their persecution, which is a work of divine power, he is fitly styled in several places, Lord God Almighty.

We might consider several other divine attributes ascribed to Christ, which prove his Deity, viz. holiness, truth, and faithfulness: thus, in Rev. iii. 7. These things saith he that is holy, he that is true; and he is farther described in the following words, as having uncontroulable power; who openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth. That this is spoken of him, is beyond dispute; and in chap. vi. 10. They cried with a loud voice, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell upon the earth? to whom did they cry but to the Lamb, who is said to have opened the seals, or to have discovered the mysteries that were thereby revealed, as in ver. 1.? And when he had opened the sixth seal, he is described, as hearing his church’s prayer, and avenging their blood, and so is represented as coming to judgment, in a very terrible manner; upon which occasion it is said, the great day of his wrath is come; and therefore it is he who is described as holy and true.

But if it be replied to this, that creatures are sometimes called holy and true, we may farther add, that it is Christ to whom it is said, chap. xv. 4. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name, for thou only art holy; for all nations shall come and worship before thee, for thy judgments are made manifest. This I infer from what has been before considered, that it is he who obtains victory over, and pours forth his judgments on his church’s enemies; and it is he whose praises are celebrated in the song of the Lamb, mentioned in the verse immediately foregoing.

Having considered several divine perfections, as ascribed to our Saviour, and these so glorious, that nothing greater can be mentioned to set forth the glory of a divine Person; yet we may add hereunto, those glorious titles that are given him with a design to excite in us adoring and admiring thoughts of him: amongst which we shall only mention some which are either the same with, or are equivalent to those which are given to the Father, which they who deny Christ’s Deity, cannot but own to be distinguishing characters of a divine Person, when so applied. Thus, is the Father styled, in Heb. xiii. 20. The God of peace? our Saviour is styled, in Isa. ix. 6. The Prince of peace; and he is said, Eph. ii. 14. to be our peace; and as peace includes in it all the blessings that accompany salvation, Christ’s being styled the Author thereof, denotes him to be the Fountain of blessedness, which he could not be, were he not a divine Person.

Again, as God is called a Sun, and a Shield, Psal. lxxxiv. 9. so Christ is called, in Mal. iv. 2. The Sun of Righteousness; and, in Isa. xxxii. 2. An hiding place from the wind, a covert from the tempest, and the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.

Again, it is said of God the Father, Deut. xxx. 20. He is thy life, and the length of thy days; our Saviour says, concerning himself, in John xi. 25. compared with chap. xiv. 6. that he is the life; and, Acts iii. 15. he is called the Prince of life; and, in Colos. iii. 4. our life. Again, is the Father called, in Psal. lxxx. 1. The Shepherd of Israel? Christ is called, in Heb. xiii. 20. That great Shepherd of the sheep.

Moreover, is God often described in scripture as a glorious King; as in Zeph. iii. 15. The King of Israel, even the Lord in the midst of thee? our Saviour is styled, in Isa. vi. 5. The King, the Lord of hosts; and, in John i. 49. The King of Israel; and, in Rev. xix. 16. King of kings, and Lord of lords.

Again, is God styled the Hope of Israel, Jer. xiv. 8? our Saviour seems to be so called by the apostle, when he says, in Acts xxviii. 20. for the Hope of Israel, I am bound with this chain, that is, for Christ’s sake, who is the object of his people’s hope. However, whether he is intended thereby, or no, in that scripture, he is called elsewhere our hope, 1 Tim. i. 1. compared with Coloss. i. 27.

Moreover, is God the object of desire, so that there is nothing in heaven or earth, or within the whole compass of finite beings, that is to be desired besides, or in comparison with him, as the Psalmist says, Psal. lxxiii. 25? our Saviour is called, in Hag. ii. 7. The desire of all nations. I might refer to many other glorious titles that are given to him in the 2nd and 3rd chapters of the Revelations, in the epistles to the seven churches; every one of which is prefaced with such a character given of him, as is designed to strike them with an holy reverence, and esteem of him, as a divine Person. Thus concerning those proofs of Christ’s Deity, which are taken from the names, attributes, and titles which are given to him; which leads us to consider,

III. The next head of argument taken from those works, which have been done by our Saviour, that are proper to God alone. Divine works argue a divine efficient, or that he has infinite power, and consequently that he is an infinite Person, or truly and properly God, who performs them. Now these works are of two sorts; either of nature and common providence, or of grace, to wit, such as immediately respect our salvation; in all which, he acts beyond the power of a creature, and therefore appears to be a divine Person.

1. He appears to be so, from his having created all things. He that made the world, must be before it; and therefore since time began with the first creature, as has been before observed, it follows that he must be before time, that is, from eternity.

Again, he that created all things, must have a sovereign will, for whose pleasure they are, and were created, Rev. iv. 11. And it follows from hence, that he has an undoubted right to all things, and that he might have annihilated them, had it been his pleasure; and also, that he has a right to dispose of them as he will, as the potter has power over his clay. All these things are consequent on the work of creation; therefore it is an undeniable argument, that he, who created all things, must be God.

It may also be observed, that to create, is to exert infinite power, or to act above the power of a creature, which, at best, is but finite: now whatever is more than finite, must be infinite; and consequently he who created all things, must exert infinite power, and that is certainly such as is truly divine.

We might farther consider, that there are many scriptures which appropriate creation to God, and, indeed, it cannot be otherwise; for to suppose that a creature gave being to itself, is to suppose him to be both a cause and an effect, and consequently to be, and not to be, at the same time, to exist as a creator, and not to exist as brought into being, which is a plain contradiction; and it is evident, that, in scripture, the creature is opposed to the Creator: thus, in Rom. i. 25. it is said, they worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. And there are several scriptures that speak of creation, as a distinguishing evidence of divine glory: thus, in Isa. xl. 28. we have a magnificent description of God, taken more especially from this work, when he is called, The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth; and, in chap. xlii. 5. Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein; in which, and many other scriptures of the like nature, which might be referred to, it appears that creation is a work peculiar to God.

The next thing we are to prove is, that our Saviour created all things. There are many who think that this may be proved from the work of creation’s being ascribed to more persons than one; and therefore when we read of creators, in the plural number, as it is in the original, in Eccles. xii. 1. Remember thy Creator, or creators; and when God, in creating man, is represented as speaking after this manner, Let us make man after our own image, &c. this seems to imply that there were more divine Persons engaged in this work than the Father.

I do not indeed lay so much stress on this argument, as many do, yet it is not wholly to be neglected; for, I confess, I cannot see any reason why there should be such a mode of expression used, were it not to signify this divine mystery, of a plurality of Persons in the Godhead, to whom this work is ascribed.

Object. As for the objection, which some of the Anti-trinitarians, especially the Socinians, bring against it, that this mode of speaking, is such as is used in conformity to the custom of kings who, speak in the plural number;

Answ. To this it may be answered, that though kings do often speak in the plural number, yet this is only a modern way of speaking, implying, that whatever a king does, is by the advice of some of his subjects, who are his peculiar favourites, and who are also made use of to fulfil his will; but, nevertheless, this way of speaking is not so ancient as scripture-times, much less as Moses’s time, or the beginning of the world, which he refers to, when God is represented as thus speaking. It is the custom of kings, in scripture, to speak in the singular number: and it is very absurd to pretend to explain any mode of speaking used in scripture, by customs of speech, not known till many ages after.

I am sensible, some think that mode of speaking used by Ahasuerus Esth. i. 15. What shall we do unto the queen Vashti, according to law? is a proof that it was used in former ages. But the words may be rendered, What is to be done, according to law, &c. or what is expedient for me to do? and therefore it doth not prove that kings used, in ancient times, to speak of themselves in the plural number; and consequently it cannot be argued, that when God is represented as speaking so in scripture, it is in compliance with any such custom. Besides, whenever he is represented as speaking in scripture, in all other instances, excepting those that are supposed to be contained in our argument, he is always represented as speaking in the singular number; and therefore it seems still more probable, that this variation from his usual way of speaking, is not without some reason, and that hereby we are led into this doctrine, that there are more divine Persons than one, that created all things.

But not to insist on this, since we have more plain proofs hereof in scripture, it evidently appears that Christ made all things, not only from what is said in John i. 3. that all things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made; but, from Col. i. 16. By him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they are thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him; in which he is not only said to be the Creator, but the end of all things, which is the same with what is said in Prov. xvi. 4. that the Lord hath made all things for himself.

This farther appears from Psal. cii. 25. Of old hast thou laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; which is expressly applied to Christ by the apostle, in Heb. i. 10.

By these, and such-like scriptures, it evidently appears that Christ made all things. The Socinians, indeed, who are sensible that creation was an evident proof of divine power, and therefore that the Creator of all things must be God, labour very hard to prove that all those scriptures that ascribe this work to our Saviour, are to be taken in a metaphorical sense, and so signify nothing else but his being the author of the gospel-state, which is a kind of new creation peculiar to him; and that he did this as a prophet, revealing those doctrines which relate thereunto; and accordingly they take the sense of that scripture, in John i. 2, 3. which speaks of his being in the beginning, and that all things were made by him, as intending nothing else, but that he was in the beginning of the gospel, and that whatever was made, or ordained, to be a standard and rule of faith, was by him; and that, in the discharge of this work, he was to restore decayed religion, and to correct several mistaken notions, which the Jews had entertained concerning the moral law, to add some new precepts to it, and give directions concerning that mode of worship which should be observed in the church for the future. This is all they suppose to be intended by that work, which is ascribed to Christ as a Creator; whereas, in this scripture, it is plainly said, that there was nothing in the whole frame of nature, nothing that was an effect of power, made without him. And there is another scripture, which cannot, with any colour of reason, be understood in that sense, viz. in Col. i. 16. By him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible; where the apostle speaks of the creation of angels and men, as well as all other things: now, certainly, Christ did not come into the world to rectify any mistakes or restore decayed religion among the angels, therefore the apostle here plainly proves that our Saviour created all things.

But since this opinion of the Socinians is now almost universally exploded by the Anti-trinitarians, we have no occasion to add any thing farther in opposition to it; but shall proceed to consider what the Arians say concerning Christ’s creating all things. These allow that the work of creation is ascribed to him; but they deny that this argues him to be God in the same sense as the Father is. The account which they give thereof is, that God, to wit, the Father, created all things by the Son, as an instrument, created by him, immediately for that purpose; so that the Son was an inferior, or second cause of the production of all things; and therefore that it cannot, from thence, be concluded that he is God equal with the Father.

What I would humbly offer, in opposition hereunto is,

1. That, in this account of creation, there is not a just difference put between the natural and supernatural production of things, of which the latter can only be called creation; therefore, if these two be confounded, the distinguishing character of a Creator is set aside, and consequently the glory arising from hence cannot be appropriated to God; nor is that infinite perfection, that is displayed therein, duly considered, but according to this scheme or method of reasoning a creature may be a Creator, and a Creator a creature; nor can the eternal power and Godhead of the divine Being be demonstrated by the things that are made or created, as the apostle says they are in Rom. i. 20.

2. From that first mistake arises another, namely, that because, in natural productions, that which was created by God, may be rendered subservient to the production of other things; in which respect it may be termed an instrument made use of by a superior cause, and may have an energy or method of acting, peculiar to itself, whereby it produces effects according to the course and laws of nature, fixed by God, the first cause of all things; therefore they suppose, though without sufficient ground that God might create all things by an instrument, or second cause thereof, as they conclude he did by the Son.

3. Notwithstanding we must assert, that creation being a supernatural production of things, what has been said concerning natural production, is not applicable to it; therefore,

4. Though things may be produced in a natural way, by second causes, whose powers are limited, and subjected as aforesaid, to the laws of nature; yet supernatural effects cannot be produced by any thing short of infinite power; therefore, since creation is a supernatural work, it must be concluded to be a work of infinite power.

5. It follows, from hence, that it is not agreeable to the idea of creation, or the producing all things out of nothing, for God to make use of an instrument. That this may appear, let it be considered, that whatever instrument is made use of, it must be either finite or infinite. An infinite instrument cannot be made use of, for then there would be two infinites, one superior, the other inferior. Nor can a finite one be made use of, for that, according to our last proposition, cannot produce any supernatural effect, as creation is supposed to be, which requires infinite power, and that cannot be exerted by a finite medium, therefore no such instrument can be used. Moreover, if it requires infinite power to create all things, this power, in its method of acting, would be limited, by the instrument it makes use of; for whatever power a superior cause has in himself, the effect produced, by an instrument will be in proportion to the weakness thereof. This some illustrate by the similitude of a giant’s making use of a straw, or a reed, in striking a blow in which the weakness of the instrument renders the power of the person that uses it insignificant. Thus if God the Father should make use of the Son, in the creation of all things, the power that is exerted by him therein, can be no other than finite; but that is not sufficient for the production of things supernatural, which require infinite power. To this we may add,

6. That the creation of all things is ascribed to the sovereignty of the divine will; accordingly the Psalmist describing it, in Psal. xxxiii. 9. says, He spake and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast; so when God, in Gen. i. 3. said, Let there he light, and there was light; and when we read of the other parts of the creation, as produced by his almighty word, it implies that they were produced by an act of his will. Now it seems impossible, from the nature of the thing, that an instrument should be made use of in an act of willing any more than in an act of understanding.

7. No cause can reasonably be assigned why God should make use of an instrument in the production of all things; for certainly he that, by his immediate power, produced the instrument, might without any difficulty, or absurdity, attending the supposition, have created all things immediately without one. And we must farther suppose, that if there were nothing in the nature of things, which required him to make use of an instrument, he would not, by making use of one, to wit, the Son, administer occasion to him, to assume so great a branch of his own glory, namely, that of being the Creator of the ends of the earth; or for his being, as the result thereof, worshipped as a divine Person supposing him to have a right to divine worship, for no other reason.

Object. 1. Though no one supposes that God stood in need of an instrument, or could not have created all things without it, yet we must conclude that he did not, because the scripture speaks of the Father’s creating all things by the Son; and when one person is said to do any thing by another, it implies that he makes use of him as an instrument therein.

Answ. This seems to be the only foundation on which this doctrine is built. But there is no necessity of understanding the words in this sense, especially if we consider that all effects are produced by the power of God; and this power, supposing the Son to be a divine Person, (which we have endeavoured, by other arguments, to prove) must belong to him; and the Father, and the Son being united, in the same Godhead, one cannot act without the other; therefore whatever is said to be done by the Father, may, in this sense, be said to be done by the Son; for though the Persons are distinct, the power exerted is the same.

Thus a learned writer[150] accounts for this matter, when he says, that “The Son is of the same nature and substance with the Father, so nearly allied, so closely united, that nothing could be the work of one, without being, at the same time, the work of both: Hence it was, that the Son was Joint-creator with the Father, that all things were made by him, and nothing without him; it was not possible for them either to act, or to exist separately; and therefore it is that the work of creation is, in scripture, attributed to both.” This is a very safe as well as a just way of reasoning, consistent with, and founded on the doctrine of the Father and the Son’s being united in the same Godhead, though distinct Persons; and therefore it is agreeable to the sense of those scriptures, which attribute this work to the Son, in the same sense, as when it is attributed to the Father.

But I am sensible that the Arians will reply to it; that this does not sufficiently account for that subordination in acting, that seems to be implied in the sense of those scriptures, in which the Father is said to have created all things by the Son; therefore I shall take leave to speak more particularly to those texts that treat of this matter, where the same mode of speaking is used. And though there are several scriptures that represent the Son as a Creator, or consider all things, as being made by him, as well as the Father, or as a Joint-creator with him; yet there are but two places in the New Testament, in which the Father is said to have created all things by the Son, namely, Eph. iii. 9. in which it is said, that God, that is, the Father, created all things by Jesus Christ; and the other is in Heb. i. 2. where it is said, by whom also he made the worlds.

We have already considered the absurdity of the Socinian way of expounding those other scriptures, that speak of Christ as a Creator, in which he is not said to act in subserviency to, but co-ordinately with the Father. But inasmuch as God the Father is, in these scriptures, said to create all things by Jesus Christ, I shall humbly offer it, as my opinion, that though the other scriptures, in which Christ is set forth as a Creator, have no reference to him as Mediator, nor to the new creation, yet this seems to be the more probable sense of both these scriptures.[151]

As for the former of them, though some suppose that it is needless to give the sense of it, since the words, by Jesus Christ,[152] are wanting in some ancient copies of scripture, as well as in the vulgar Latin and Syriac versions; yet, since there are many copies that have it, we will suppose it to be genuine; and that we may account for the sense of it, we may observe that the apostle makes use of the word create three times in this epistle; we find it, in chap. ii. 10. and iv. 24. in both which places it is taken for the new creation, which is brought about by Christ, as Mediator; and, I humbly conceive, that it may be taken so, in this verse, which we are now considering; and therefore this is a part of that mystery, of which the apostle speaks in the foregoing words, that was hid in God; and this sense seems not to be excluded, by those who suppose, that in other respects, it has some reference to the first creation of all things.[153]

As for the other scripture, by whom also he made the worlds, δι ου και τους αιωνας εποιησεν, that is, by whom he made, instituted, or ordained, the various dispensations, which the church was under, either before or since his incarnation; this was certainly done by him as Mediator; and herein he acted in subserviency to the Father, as well as in all other works performed by him, as having this character. I would not be too peremptory in determining this to be the sense of the text, inasmuch as the apostle speaks of his upholding all things, in the following verse, which is well put after this account of his having created them: I am also sensible that the word which we translate worlds, is used in Heb. xi. 3. to signify the world that was at first created, in the most proper sense of the word creation, when the apostle says, that through faith we understand that the worlds, τους αιωνας were framed by the word of God, &c. But yet when I find that in many other places of the New Testament, where the word is used, it is taken in the sense but now given,[154] I cannot but conclude it the more probable sense of the text; but that which most of all determines me to acquiesce in it, is, because the subserviency of the Son to the Father in this work is most agreeable to it.

If it be objected, that this sense of the text coincides with that which is given of it by Socinus, and his followers, which we before-mentioned and opposed;

To this I answer, that the sense I have given of it, is very foreign to theirs, who endeavour thereby to evade the force of the argument brought from it, to prove our Saviour’s Deity; whereas we only exchange one argument, for the proof thereof, for another; for it seems to me to be as great an evidence, that he is a divine Person, when considered as the Author and Founder of the church, in all the ages thereof, or the rock on which it is built, as when he is called, Creator of the world: if he be the supreme Head, Lord, and Lawgiver to his church, in all the ages thereof; if the faith and hope of all that shall be saved, is founded upon him, as the great Mediator, Redeemer, and Sovereign thereof, then certainly he is God, equal with the Father.

Object. 2. To what has been before suggested, upon which the chief stress of our reasoning depends, viz. that a finite creature cannot be an instrument in supernatural productions, it is objected, that miracles are supernatural productions; but these have been wrought by men, as instruments in the hand of God; therefore the creation of all things may as well be supposed to have been performed by the Son, as an instrument made use of to this end by the Father.

Answ. That miracles are supernatural productions, no one denies; and it follows from hence, that they are either a species of creation, or equivalent to it; therefore if it be allowed that a creature can have power communicated to him to work them, and therein may be said to be an instrument made use of by God, then we cannot reasonably deny that God the Father might use the Son as an instrument in creating all things. But we must take leave to deny that any, who are said to have wrought miracles, have had infinite power communicated to them for that purpose; therefore they are not properly instruments in the hand of God, to produce supernatural effects; but all that they have done therein, was only by addressing themselves to God, that he would put forth his immediate power in working the miracle; and in giving the people, for whose sake it was to be wrought, occasion to expect it; and afterwards improving it for their farther conviction. It is true, miracles are oftentimes said to have been wrought by men; but, I humbly conceive, nothing more than this is intended thereby; which, that it may appear, we may observe, that sometimes they who have wrought them, have not made use of any action herein, but only given the people ground to expect the divine interposure: thus, immediately before the earth swallowed up Korah and his company, Moses gave the people to expect this miraculous event, Numb. xvi. 28-30. And Moses said, Hereby shall ye know that the Lord hath sent me. If these men die the common death of all men, then the Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, then shall ye know that these men have provoked the Lord; and as soon as he had spoken the words, the ground clave asunder, and swallowed them up. This might be reckoned among the miracles wrought by Moses; though all that he did was only what tended to raise the people’s expectation, that such an extraordinary event should immediately happen. Again, at other times, when a miracle has been wrought, we read of nothing done but only a word spoken to signify that God would work it: thus, when the captain, with his fifty men, was sent by the king of Israel, to the prophet Elijah, to command him to come to him, the prophet uses this mode of speaking, 2 Kings i. 12. If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty; which immediately happened accordingly.

At other times, when miracles have been wrought, the Person, who, in the sense but now mentioned, is said to work them, has made use of some external and visible sign, which was either an ordinance for his own faith, if no one was present but himself; as when the prophet Elisha smote the waters of Jordan with Elijah’s mantle, and said, 2 Kings ii. 14. Where is the Lord God of Elijah? or else the sign, being given by divine direction, was an ordinance for the faith of the people present, whose conviction was intended thereby; not that they should suppose that the action used had any tendency to produce the miracle: but it was only designed to raise their expectation, that God would work it by his immediate power; as when Moses was commanded, in Exod. xiv. 16. to lift up his rod, and stretch out his hand over the sea, and divide it, that Israel might pass through; or, in chap. xvii. 6. to smite the rock, whereupon God caused water to come out of it; and in several other actions, which he used, by divine direction, when other miracles were wrought; in which respect, though he was said, in a less proper way of speaking, to have wrought them, yet he was no more than a moral instrument herein, and therefore the divine power was not communicated to, or exerted by him; and if creatures have been instruments in working miracles in no other sense than this, it cannot be inferred from hence that Christ might be made use of by the Father, as an instrument in creating the world: a moral instrument he could not be; for there was no doctrine contested, no truth to be confirmed thereby, no subjects present to expect a divine interposure; and, indeed, none ever supposed that the Son of God was an instrument in this sense; therefore if no one ever was an instrument in any other, nor could be from the nature of the thing, as has been already proved, then the force of the argument, which we have laid down to prove it, is not in the least weakened by this objection.

Thus we have endeavoured to prove the divinity of Christ from the work of creation.

2. We shall proceed to consider how our Saviour’s Deity appears, from those works of providence, which are daily performed by him. Providence is as much a divine work, and contains as glorious a display of the divine perfections, as creation; and this is twofold, viz. preserving and governing. With respect to the former of these, some divines have asserted, that it is, as it were, a continued creation, not formally so; but as the one produces a creature, the other prevents its sinking into nothing; and because it is, in all respects, dependent on the power of God, and as much so, for the continuance of its being, as it was for its being brought into being; therefore conserving providence is an evidence of the divine power of him who sustains all things.

Now that this glory belongs to our Saviour, is plain from scripture, which speaks of him, in Heb. i. 3. as upholding all things by the word of his power; and in Coloss. i. 17. it is said, by him all things consist; both these scriptures respect this branch of divine providence, namely, his preserving all things in being; and this is certainly more than can be said of any creature. And it is not pretended that herein he acts as the Father’s instrument, even by those who suppose that he was so, in the creation of all things, inasmuch as scripture does not speak of God’s upholding all things by him, but of Christ’s upholding them by his own, that is, the divine power; so that we have as plain a proof of his Deity, from his upholding providence, as there is of the being of a God, which is evidently inferred from it.

As to the other branch of providence, respecting the government of the world in general, or of the church in particular, this is also ascribed to Christ, and thereby his Godhead is farther proved. Whatever degree of limited dominion may be said to belong to creatures; yet universal dominion belongs only to God; and this is assigned, as one ground and reason of his right to divine honour; therefore it is said, in Job xxv. 2. Dominion and power are with him, that is, there is a holy reverence due to him, as the supreme Lord and Governor of the world; and, in Psal. lxvii. 4. when it is said concerning the great God, that he shall judge the people righteously, and govern the nations upon earth, this is considered as the foundation of universal joy, O let the nations be glad, and sing for joy; and of praise, ver. 5. Let the people praise thee, O God; let all the people praise thee; and, in Psal. xxii. 28. when it is said, the kingdom is the Lord’s; and he is the Governor among the nations; this is assigned, as the reason of their worshipping him, ver. 27. All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn unto the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. This therefore is, undoubtedly, a branch of the divine glory; so that if we can prove that universal dominion belongs to Christ, or that he is the Governor of the world, and of the church therein, this will plainly evince his Deity.

1. Let us consider him as the Governor of the world. This seems to be the meaning of several expressions of scripture, in which royal dignity is ascribed to him; and he is represented as sitting upon a throne, and his throne to be for ever and ever, Psal. xlv. 6. and he infinitely greater than all the kings of the earth; upon which account, he is called, in Rev. i. 5. The Prince of the kings of the earth; and they are commanded to testify their subjection to him, and all are represented as blessed that put their trust in him, Psal. ii. 12. And as his kingdom is considered, in John xviii. 36. as not being of this world, and the honours due to him, such as are divine, this farther proves his Deity.

Moreover, his universal dominion, and consequently his Godhead, is evinced by that glorious character, which we have before considered[155], as belonging to him, namely, the Lord of hosts, as the prophet Isaiah says, speaking of the vision which he had of his glory, in chap. vi. 5. Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts, as denoting his sovereignty over all the hosts of heaven, and all creatures in this lower world, as he governs them, and makes one thing subservient to another, and all this is done to set forth his own glory.

2. This will farther appear, if we consider him as the Governor of his church; in this he has access to the souls of men, working in them those graces, which are the effects of almighty power, which he does, when they are effectually called; and the work of sanctification, which is consequent hereupon, is carried on till it is perfected. We shall have occasion, under some following answers[156], to prove that these are divine and supernatural works; the more full and particular proof whereof, we shall reserve to its proper place, and only observe, at present, that they are spoken of as such in scripture, and ascribed to the exceeding greatness of the power of God, no less than that which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, Eph. i. 18,——20. and elsewhere they are called a new creation, chap. ii. 1. a quickening or resurrection, a breaking the rock in pieces, taking away the heart of stone, giving an heart of flesh, or a new heart; Jer. xxiii. 29. Ezek. xxxvi. 26. which expressions would never have been used, had not the work been divine and supernatural; therefore it follows from hence, that since Christ is the Author of this internal work, he is a divine Person. Now that he is so, is obvious, from many places in the New Testament; as when he is styled, in Heb. xii. 2. The Author and Finisher of our faith; and when the apostle, in 1 Tim. i. 14. speaks of faith and love abounding, which is in Christ Jesus, he speaks, at the same time, of the grace of our Lord abounding, as the spring and fountain thereof; and when the apostles, in Luke xvii. 5. desire him to increase their faith, not in an objective way, as affording some greater foundation for it, but subjectively, by an internal work, exciting and promoting the principle thereof, which was before implanted in them; and so causing all those graces, that accompany it, to abound, as the effects of his divine power.

We might farther consider Christ’s spiritual government, as extended to his church, collectively considered, which is exposed to many dangers and difficulties, and meets with much opposition from its enemies, who attempt its ruin, but in vain, because it is the object of the divine care, kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salvation: for which reason, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Now this is, in a peculiar manner, the work of Christ; he is the rock on which it is built; and his presence, in the midst of his people, is not only their glory, but their safety; which it would not be, if he were no more than a creature. We might also consider the subserviency of the various dispensations of providence in the world to their good, as he is Head over all things to the church, Eph. i. 22. which could not answer that valuable end, had he not been a divine Person.

We might farther consider how the divine glory of Christ will be demonstrated, in his second coming to compleat the work of salvation, begun in this world. To prepare a way for this, there will be an universal resurrection of the dead, which will be no less an effect of almighty power, than the creation of all things was at first. I need not therefore say any thing farther to prove this to be a divine work; we need only prove that this general resurrection shall be performed by Christ: this might be proved from several scriptures; in one whereof he expressly asserts it himself, in words very plain and particular, viz. John vi. 38. The hour is coming, in which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, &c.

Moreover, when, at the same time, he is represented as coming in the clouds, with power and great glory, in his own glory, as well as that of the Father, and of the holy angels, in Luke ix. 26. the most natural sense of that text seems to be this, that his divine glory, which is called his own, which was comparatively hid from his people, while he was here on earth, shall eminently be demonstrated in his second coming, and also that Mediatorial glory, which he has received from the Father, as what he had a right to, on his having accomplished the work of redemption, which he came into the world about; and then there is the glory of his retinue, as appearing with all his holy angels; which bears some resemblance to that expression whereby the majesty of God is set forth upon another occasion, namely, as appearing on mount Sinai, to give the law, when it is said, in Deut. xxxiii. 2. The Lord came with ten thousands of saints. And to this we may add, that the work, which he shall, immediately after this, be engaged in, to wit, that of judging the world in righteousness, plainly proves his Deity, since none but a divine Person can judge the secrets of all men, and bring to light every thing that has been done, from the beginning to the end of time; and this is to be done, in that day; for it is said, in Eccles. xii. 14. That God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. This is a farther improvement of that argument, before laid down to prove his divinity from his omniscience; if his judgment must be, as the apostle says, in Rom. ii. 2. according to truth, and consequently performed with the greatest impartiality, as well as an exquisite knowledge or discerning of the cause, without which it could not be said, that the Judge of all the earth does right, (as he certainly will) in Gen. xviii. 25. and if rewards shall be proportioned to every work done, so that every one shall receive as the apostle says, in 2 Cor. v. 10. according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad; and if persons are to be rewarded, or punished, for all the secret springs of action, which must be reckoned either good or bad, according to what they produce, as well as the actions themselves; and if this respects not particular persons only, but all men, who have lived, or shall live, from the beginning to the end of the world, it evidently proves, that he, to whom this glorious work is ascribed, must be a divine Person.

And to this we may add, that the manner of his appearing, with the terror, as well as the majesty of a judge, being such as shall strike his enemies with the utmost horror and confusion, is a farther proof of this matter. This is represented in a lively manner, in Rev. vi. 15-17. in which it is said, the kings of the earth, and the great men, those who once rendered themselves formidable to their subjects shall desire to hide themselves in the dens and rocks of the mountains, and shall say to the rocks and to the mountains, fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth upon the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? And,

Lastly, He will not only pronounce the sentence but execute it, and that with respect to his saints and subjects; and his enemies: as to the former of these he will not only command them to come, and possess the kingdom prepared for them, but the blessedness which he will confer upon them, pursuant thereunto, is called the beatific vision, in 1 John iii. 2. We shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; and the happiness of heaven is described in such a way as plainly proves our Saviour to be the fountain thereof, and consequently a divine Person; for it is represented as a state, in which they will behold his glory, John xvii. 24. whereas certainly the beholding the glory of the most exalted creature, falls infinitely short of this ingredient in the heavenly blessedness.

And on the other hand, the immediate impressions of the wrath of God on the consciences of his enemies, or the power of his anger, which shall render them eternally miserable, when banished from his presence, proves him to be a divine Person, inasmuch as the highest degree of misery consists in a separation, or departure from him, which it could not do, if he were not the fountain of blessedness; nor could the punishment of sinners be proportioned to their crimes, if it were not to be inflicted by the glory of his power; the apostle joins both these together, in 2 Thess. i. 9. though some understand the words, as implying, that their punishment proceeds from his immediate presence, in the display of the greatness of his power, as a sin-avenging Judge; in either of which senses, it argues him to be a divine Person. And that it is our Saviour who is spoken of, is evident, from the foregoing and following verses; it is he who shall appear in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel; and it is he that shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe; so that we have a very plain proof of his Deity, from the exercise of his government, either in this or the other world.

Having endeavoured to prove the divinity of Christ, from his works of creation and providence and under the former of these, offered some things in answer to the methods taken by the Socinians, and especially the Arians, in accounting for the sense of those scriptures that speak of the Father’s creating all things by the Son; it is necessary for us now to consider the most material objections, brought by the Anti-trinitarians in general, against what has been said in defence of this doctrine, taken from the works of common and special providence, as ascribed to him, and, in particular, from the administration of his kingdom of grace; it is therefore objected.

Object. 1. That his kingdom, and power of acting, in the administration of the affairs relating thereunto, is wholly derived from the Father: thus he says in Luke xxii. 29. I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; and, in Mat. xi. 27. All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and in Psal. ii. 6. Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion. And whatever he does in managing the affairs thereof, is by the Father’s commission and appointment: thus in John v. 36. he speaks of the works which he was to perform, as those which the Father had given him to finish. And as for his power of executing judgment, which is one of the greatest glories of his kingly government, this is derived from the Father, in John v. 22. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son; and, in Acts xvii. 31. it is said, that he hath appointed a day, in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained, meaning our Saviour; and when he speaks, in Rev. ii. 27. of his ruling his enemies with a rod of iron, and breaking them to shivers, as the vessels of a potter, he adds, that this he received of his Father; from whence they argue, that since he received his dominion, or right to govern the world and the church, from the Father, therefore he cannot be God equal with the Father. As we say, in opposition to their scheme of doctrine, that a derived Deity, such as they suppose his to be, cannot be the same with that which the Father has; so they allege this, by way of reprisal, against the argument we have but now insisted on, that a derived dominion cannot be made use of as a medium to prove him that has it to be a divine Person, in the same sense in which we maintain him to be.

2. In all his works, and particularly in the administration of the affairs of his kingdom, he acts for the Father’s glory, and not his own; whereas a divine Person, cannot act, for any other end than for his own glory: this therefore rather disproves, than evinces, his proper Deity; as when he says, in John viii. 49. I honour my Father; and, in chap. v. 30. he says, I seek not mine own will, but the will of my Father which hath sent me. He also speaks of the Father giving him a commandment to do what he did; as in John xii. 49. I have not spoken of my self, but the Father which sent me; he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak; and, in chap. xiv. 31. As the Father gave me commandment, so do I; and, in chap. xv. 10. he speaks of his having kept his Father’s commandment, and pursuant hereunto, abiding in his love, from whence they argue, that he who is obliged to fulfil a commandment, or who acts in obedience to the Father, is properly a subject, or a servant, and therefore cannot be God in the same sense as the Father, who gave this commandment, is.

3. They add, that in the government of his church, and the world, in subserviency thereunto, he acts in the Father’s name, as deputy and vicegerent; as in John x. 25. The works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me; and accordingly his works are called the Father’s, in ver. 37. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; and these works are said to be done from the Father, ver. 32. Many good works have I shewed you from my Father: and, as the consequence of all this, he acknowledges, as he ought to do, in John xiv. 28. that the Father is greater than he. How then can he be a divine Person, in the sense in which we have proved him to be, when there is a God above him, in whose name he acts in all he does?

4. They farther argue, that he was made both Lord and Christ, and that by the Father, as it is expressly said, in Acts ii. 36.

5. They farther argue that the donatives of his kingdom, or those honours which are bestowed on his subjects, are not his to give, but the Father’s; as it is said, in Matt. xx. 23. To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them, for whom it is prepared of my Father.

6. This kingdom which he received from the Father, and thus administers in subserviency to him, is, in the end, to be resigned, or delivered up: thus, in 1 Cor. xv. 24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; and in ver. 28. When all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him, that put all things under him, that God may be all in all; and accordingly, he shall lay aside those divine honours which he now has, or cease to perform those works which give him a right to claim them. These are the strongest arguments, of any, that are brought by the Anti-trinitarians against our Saviour’s proper Deity; and, indeed, as though they had little else to object, there is scarce an argument to disprove it, but what is supported in this method of reasoning, which they think to be altogether unanswerable, (and there are many more scriptures, which might have been brought to the same purpose) therefore it is necessary that we should consider what may be replied to it.

The sum of what has been objected, as thus branched out into several particulars, is, that since Christ is represented as below the Father, or inferior to him, he cannot he equal with him, for that is no other than a contradiction.[157]

Answ. To this it may be replied, that though the scripture speaks of our Saviour, as receiving a commission from the Father, and acting in subserviency to him; yet let it be considered, that this does not respect the inferiority of the divine nature, but the subserviency of what is done by him, as Mediator, to the glory of the Father, as this character and office were received from him. And, indeed, whenever the Son is represented, as engaged in the great work of redemption, or in any thing tending thereunto, or in any work consequent thereupon, whereby what was before purchased is said to be applied by him, this has a peculiar reference to him, as Mediator: therefore let us consider,

1. That nothing is more common, in scripture, than for him to be represented as Mediator, especially in all those things that concern the spiritual advantages, or salvation of his church, which is the principal thing to be considered in his government; and in this sense we are to understand those scriptures, which have been brought to support the objection: and it is plain, that our Saviour generally speaks of himself under this character, which is included in his being the Messiah, or Christ, which is the main thing that he designed to evince by his doctrine and his miracles; therefore, if we duly consider the import of this character, it will not only give light to the understanding such like scriptures, but sufficiently answer the objection against his Deity taken from them.

Our adversaries will not deny that Christ is represented as a Mediator; but they widely differ from us, when they take occasion to explain what they intend thereby: sometimes they seem to mean nothing else by it, but a middle-Being betwixt God and the creature; and therefore the work performed by him as such is not what requires him to be, in the most proper sense, a divine Person, and consequently whatever inferiority to the Father is contained in this character, they conclude that this respects his Deity; whereas we distinguish between the subserviency of the work, performed by him, as Mediator, to the glory of God the Father, together with the subjection, or real inferiority of the human nature, in which he performed it to the Father; and the inferiority of his divine nature: the former we allow; the latter we deny.

2. When we speak of him as Mediator, we always suppose him to be God and Man, in one Person; and that these two natures, though infinitely distinct, are not to be separated. As God, without the consideration of a human nature united to his divine Person, he would be too high to sustain the character, or to perform the work of a servant, and, as such, to yield obedience, which was incumbent on him, as Mediator; and on the other hand, to be a mere man, is too low, and would be altogether inconsistent with that infinite value and dignity, that was to be put on the work which he was to perform. Therefore it was necessary that he should have two distinct natures, a divine and a human, or that he should be God incarnate. This will be more particularly considered under some following answers[158]; and therefore we shall reserve the proof hereof for its proper place, and there consider the distinct properties of each nature; and all that we shall observe at present is, that the evangelist John, in whose gospel our Saviour is often described, as inferior to the Father, as well as equal with him, which is agreeable to his Mediatorial character, lays down this, as a kind of preface, designing hereby to lead us into the knowledge of such like expressions, when he says, in John i. 14. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us; which is all the proof we shall give of it at present.

3. It follows from hence, that several things may be truly spoken concerning, or applied to him, which are infinitely opposite to one another, namely that he has almighty power in one respect, as to what concerns his Deity; and yet that he is weak, finite, and dependent in another, as to what respects his humanity. In one nature, he is God equal with the Father, and so receives nothing from him, is not dependent on him, nor under any obligation to yield obedience. In this nature, he is the object of worship, as all worship terminates on that Deity, which is common to all the Persons in the Godhead: but, in the other nature, he worships, receives all from, and refers all to the glory of the Father; therefore,

4. Those scriptures which speak of him as receiving a kingdom, doing all things from, or in obedience to the Father, or in his name, and for his glory, and as inferior to, and dependent on him, are not only applied to him, as Mediator, but they have a particular respect to his human nature; so that all that can be inferred from such modes of speaking, as those above-mentioned, as so many objections against the doctrine which we are defending, is, that he who is God is also man, and consequently has those things predicated of him, as such which are proper to a nature infinitely below, though inseparably united with his divine.

Moreover, whereas it is said, that the Father has committed all judgment to the Son, or that he judgeth the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained; all that can be inferred from hence is, that so far as this work is performed by him, in his human nature, which will be rendered visible to the whole world at the day of judgment, it is an instance of the highest favour and glory conferred upon this nature, or upon God-man Mediator, as man: but whereas he is elsewhere described, as having a right to judge the world, as God; and as having those infinite perfections, whereby he is fit to do it, these are the same that belong to the Father, and therefore not derived from him.

Again, when, in another scripture, before referred to, it is said, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, it is not there said, that the Father hath made him God, or given him any branch of the divine glory; but it signifies the unction that he received from the Father, to be the King, Head, and Lord of his church; which, so far as this is an act of grace, or connotes his dependence on the Father herein, it has an immediate respect to him, in his human nature, in which, as well as in his divine nature, this dominion is exercised; whereas his sovereignty, and universal dominion over the church and the world, or those divine perfections, which render him, in all respects, fit to govern it; they belong, more especially to the Mediator, as God, and are the same as when they are applied to the Father.

Moreover, when he says, I seek not my own will, but the Father’s, that sent me; and elsewhere, Not my will, but thine be done; it argues that he had a human will, distinct from his divine, in which he expresses that subjection to the Father, which becomes a creature; this is plainly referred to him as man; so, on the other hand, when he says, speaking of himself co-ordinately with the Father, As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, so even the Son quickeneth whom he will; this, though spoken of him as Mediator, has a peculiar reference to his divine nature.

Again, when he says, in another scripture, The Father is greater than I, that is applied to him as man; whereas elsewhere, in John x. 30. when he says, I, and my Father are one, that is spoken of him as God, having the same nature with the Father so that if we suppose our Saviour to be God and Man, as he is plainly proved to be, from scripture, then it follows, that whatever is said concerning him, as importing his right to divine honour on the one hand, or his disclaiming it on the other, these are both true, when we consider him in these different natures.

Thus we are to understand those scriptures, that speak of the real inferiority of the Son to the Father: but when, in other places, nothing is intended but the subserviency of what is done by the Son, as Mediator, or its tendency to set forth the Father’s glory, this may be applicable to those divine works, which the Mediator performs; and so we may distinguish between the subserviency of the divine actions to the Father’s glory, and the inferiority of one divine Person to another; the former may be asserted without detracting from his proper Deity, while the latter is denied, as inconsistent with it.

Thus we have endeavoured to explain those scriptures, which are referred to by the Arians, to overthrow our Saviour’s divinity: and, by the same method of explication, I humbly conceive, all others, that can be brought to that purpose, may be understood. I have passed over that scripture, indeed, which respects Christ’s delivering up the kingdom to the Father, and being subject to him, which it might have been expected that I should have endeavoured to explain; but I choose rather to refer the consideration thereof to its proper place, when we speak concerning Christ’s kingly office, and his being exalted in the execution thereof.

IV. The next argument to prove the divinity of Christ is taken from his being the object of religious worship, which is a practical owning of him to be a divine Person, when there is an agreement between our words and actions, in both which we acknowledge him to have the perfections of the divine nature. This argument is so strong and conclusive, that it is very difficult to evade the force thereof; and, indeed, it affects the very essentials of religion. Now, that we may herein proceed with greater plainness, we shall,

1. Consider what we understand by worship in general, and by religious worship in particular. I am very sensible that the Anti-trinitarians understand the word in a sense very different from what we do, as taking it in a limited sense, for our expressing some degree of humility, or reverence, to a person, whom we acknowledge in some respect, to be our superior; but whatever external signs of reverence, or words, we use, as expressive of our regard to him who is the object thereof, this, when applied to our Saviour, is no more than what they suppose to be due to a person below the Father. Therefore, that we may not mistake the meaning of the word, let it be considered; that worship is either civil or religious; the former contains in it that honour and respect which is given to superiors, which is sometimes expressed by bowing, or falling down, before them, or some other marks of humility, which their advanced station in the world requires; Though this is seldom called worshipping them; and it is always distinguished from religious worship, even when the same gestures are used therein. It is true, there is one scripture, in which the same word is applied to both, in 1 Chron. xxix. 20. where it is said, All the congregation bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king, that is, they paid civil respect, accompanied with those actions that are expressive of humility, and that honour that was due to David, but their worship given to God was divine or religious. This is the only sense in which we understand worship in this argument, and it includes in it adoration and invocation. In the former, we ascribe infinite perfection unto God, either directly, or by consequence; an instance whereof we have in 1 Chron. xxix. 11, 12. Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty; for all that is in heaven, and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as Head above all. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all, and in thine hand is power and might and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all; and, in Deut. xxxii. 3. in which we are said to ascribe greatness unto him; and, in Rom. i. 21. to glorify him as God, or, give unto him the glory due to his name, Psal. xxix. 2.

Invocation is that wherein we glorify God, as the Fountain of blessedness, when we ask those things from him, which none but a God can give, which is sometimes called seeking the Lord, Psal. cv. 4. or calling upon him, Psal. l. 15. And this includes in it all those duties which we perform, in which we consider him as a God of infinite perfection, and ourselves dependent on him, and desirous to receive all those blessings from him, which we stand in need of; and particularly faith, in the various acts thereof, is a branch of religious worship, as connoting its object to be a divine Person; as also supreme love, and universal obedience; and, indeed, it contains in it the whole of religion, in which we have a due regard to that infinite distance that there is between him and the best of creatures; and religious worship is no where taken in a lower sense than this in scripture.

2. Religious worship, as thus described, is to be given to none but a divine Person, according to our Saviour’s words, in Matth. iv. 10. Thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. This is evident, from the idea we have of religion in general, which is a giving that glory, or ascribing those perfections to God, which belong to him, as being founded in his nature; and therefore it is the highest instance of blasphemy and profaneness to apply them to any creature, since it is in effect to say that he is equal with God.

3. It plainly appears, from Scripture, that Christ is the object of religious worship, and consequently that the argument we are maintaining is just, namely, that, for this reason, he must be concluded to be a divine Person. Now that he is the object of religious worship, is evident, from many examples in scripture of such worship being given to him, when, at the same time, they, who have given it, have not been reproved or restrained, but rather commended, for performing it. We have various instances of this nature in the Old Testament, of which I shall mention two or three, viz. in Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads. When he speaks of Abraham and Isaac’s walking before him, it implies, that, in their whole conversation, they considered themselves as under his all-seeing eye; and Jacob acknowledges him as the God, who had sustained, preserved, and provided for him hitherto, the support of his life, and his Deliverer, or Redeemer, from all evil. This divine Person he addresses himself to, in a way of supplication, for a blessing on the posterity of Joseph; and that he intends our Saviour hereby, is evident, because he has a reference to his appearance in the form of an angel, and therefore describes him under that character. Now we cannot suppose that this holy patriarch is here represented as praying to a created angel, for that would be to charge him with idolatry. Moreover, this is the same description that is given of Christ elsewhere, in Isa. lxiii. 9. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the Angel of his presence saved them; in his love, and in his pity he redeemed them, and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old; and in Mal. iii. 1. The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple; even the Messenger, or Angel, of the covenant, whom ye delight in; which contains a very plain prediction of our Saviour’s incarnation, whose way is said to be prepared by John the Baptist, who is spoken of in the words immediately foregoing. Now it is certain, that God the Father is never called an angel in scripture, inasmuch as this is a peculiar description of the Mediator, who, as such, is never mentioned as the Person sending, but sent; in which he is considered as one that was to be incarnate, and, in our nature, to execute those offices, which he was therein obliged to perform. This is the Person then whom Jacob adored and prayed to.

We have another instance, not only of his being worshipped, but of his demanding this divine honour of him that performed it, in Josh. v. 14, 15. where he appeared as the Captain of the host of the Lord; upon which, Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant? And the Captain of the Lord’s host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot, for the place whereon thou standest is holy; and Joshua did so. It cannot be supposed that it was any other than a divine Person that appeared; not only because Joshua fell on his face and worshipped him, and expressed his willingness to fulfil his command, but because he bid him loose his shoe from his foot, since the place on which he stood was holy; which expression is no where used in any other text of scripture, except in Exod. iii. 5. in which our Saviour, as we before considered, appeared to Moses, with the majesty and glory of a divine Person, whose immediate presence made the place relatively holy, which the presence of a creature never did. Moreover, the character which he here gives of himself to Joshua, as the Captain of the Lord’s host, not only implies, that all his success was owing to his conduct and blessing, on his warlike enterprizes; but this is also agreeable to the description which is elsewhere given of our Saviour, in Isa. lv. 4. in which he is said to be a Leader and Commander to the people; and he is called in Heb. ii. 10. The Captain of our salvation; and elsewhere, The Prince of life; and, The Prince of the kings of the earth.

Moreover, there are various instances in the New Testament of worship given to Christ; in which, by several circumstances contained in it, it is evident, that it was divine or religious. Thus he had divine honour given him by the wise men from the East, in Matth. ii. 11. who fell down and worshipped him, &c. and, in Luke xxiv. 52. when he ascended up into heaven, his disciples worshipped him; where there is nothing in the mode of expression that distinguishes this from that worship that is due to God. Moreover, there is a very illustrious instance of his being thus worshipped by a numerous assembly, represented in that vision, in Rev. v. 11-13. I beheld, and heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, saying, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing: And every creature that is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and ever; in which words there are such glories ascribed, that higher expressions cannot be used by any, who adore the divine Majesty; and it is plain, that our Saviour is intended hereby, because he is described as the Lamb that was slain; and he is also considered co-ordinately with the Father, when it is said, that this glory is given to him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb. Now if our Saviour be thus worshipped, he must have a right to it, or else his worshippers would have been reproved, as guilty of idolatry; thus Peter reproves Cornelius, or rather prevents his paying divine adoration to himself, who was no more than a man, in Acts x. 26. Stand up, I myself also am a man; and the angel, in Rev. xix. 10. when John at first, through mistake, thinking him to be a divine person, fell at his feet to worship him, expressly forbad him, saying, See thou do it not; I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus; worship God. But our Saviour never forbids any to worship him; therefore we must conclude that he is the object thereof, and consequently a divine Person.

We shall now proceed to consider the various branches of divine worship that are given to him, viz.

1. Swearing by his name, whereby an appeal is made to him, as the Judge of truth, and the Avenger of falsehood. Some think that the apostle, in Rom. ix. 1. intends as much as this, when he says, I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not, that is, I appeal to Christ, as the heart-searching God, concerning the truth of what I say. But there is also another sense of swearing, namely, when in a solemn manner, we profess subjection to him, as our God and King; which agrees with, or is taken from the custom of subjects, who swear fealty or allegiance to their king: thus it is said, in Isa. xlv. 23. Unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear; and, in doing this, they acknowledge him to be the object of faith, and to have a right to universal obedience, as well as the Fountain of blessedness. This religious worship, as the prophet foretels, was to be given to the Person here spoken of, who is particularly said to be our Saviour by the apostle, referring to it in Rom. xiv. 11.

2. This leads us to consider another act of religious worship, which has some affinity with the former, contained in the baptismal vow; in which there is a consecration, or dedication, of the person baptized, to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the command given, in Matt. xxviii. 19. or a public profession, that it is our indispensable duty to exercise an entire subjection to them, in a religious manner. This is one of the most solemn acts of worship that can be performed, wherein there is an explicit mention of the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And here we may consider, in general, that the Son is put co-ordinately with the Father, which no creature ever is: and it will be also necessary for us to enquire what is meant by being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that so it may farther appear to be an act of religious worship.

Some hereby understand nothing else but our being baptized by the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or by a warrant received from them to do it: but though this be sometimes the meaning of our acting in the name of God, yet more is intended by this expression, used in the administration of this ordinance, otherwise it is not sufficiently distinguished from all other acts of religious worship; which cannot be rightly performed without a divine warrant. According to this sense of the word, ministers may as well be said to preach the gospel, and the church to attend on their ministration, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; for this cannot he done without a divine warrant, upon which account it may be deemed an ordinance.

Moreover, to suppose that this instituted form of administering baptism, conveys no other idea, but that of a divine warrant to do it, is to conclude that there is no determinate meaning of the action performed, contained in it; but the administrator is to intend nothing else by it, but only that he has a warrant from God to baptize; whereas its being performed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, seems plainly to intimate the principal thing signified thereby, as a direction for our faith, when engaging in it: which is, that they who are baptized are consecrated, or devoted to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, devoted to God professedly, and called by his name, in the sense in which the phrase is elsewhere used in scripture; his right to them is hereby signified, and their indispensable obligation to be entirely his; and that with a peculiar acknowledgment of the distinct personal glory of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the concern that each of them have in our salvation. The apostle speaking of our being baptized in the name of Christ, calls it, in Gal. iii. 27. a putting on Christ; which seems to imply a consecration, or dedication, to him. Persons as well as things, before this ordinance was instituted, were consecrated to God by divers washings, as well as other rites, used under the ceremonial law; and this seems to be the sense in which the apostle himself explains this putting on Christ, in ver. 29. when he infers, from this action, that they who had so done were Christ’s, not only by that right, which he has to them as their Creator and Redeemer, but by another, which is the immediate result of their professed dedication to him; therefore this is such a comprehensive act of worship, that it includes in it the whole of that subjection, which is due to the Father, Son, and Spirit; and since, in particular, the Son is considered as the object thereof, together with the Father, it follows that he is God, equal with the Father.

I might here consider, that it would be not only an unwarrantable action, but an instance of the greatest profaneness, for us to be baptized in the name of any one who is not a divine Person, which farther argues that it is an act of divine worship; upon which occasion, the apostle Paul, speaking concerning some of the church of Corinth, as being disposed to pay too great a veneration to those ministers who had been instrumental in their conversion, as though, for this reason, they were to be accounted the lords of their faith; and, in particular, that some said they were of Paul, and, being apprehensive that they thought the minister, who baptized them, had a right to be thus esteemed, he not only reproves this ungrounded and pernicious mistake; but takes occasion to thank God, that he baptized none of them, but Crispus and Gaius, together with the household of Stephanas, lest any should say he baptized in his own name; so that while he testifies his abhorrence of his giving any just occasion to any, to conclude that he was the object of this branch of divine worship, he takes a great deal of pleasure in this reflection, that the providence of God had not led them through the ignorance and superstition that prevailed among them, to draw this false conclusion from his exercising this branch of the ministerial work, which properly they would not have inferred from any other’s having baptized them, who had not so great an interest in their affections as he had. This I apprehend to be the meaning of what the apostle says, in 1 Cor. i. 12-16. which I take occasion to refer to, as a farther proof of baptism’s being an act of religious worship, unalienable from the Father, Son, and Spirit, in whose name alone we are to be baptized; and I cannot but conclude, that if the Son were not a divine Person, we might as well be baptized in the name of Paul, or any other of the apostles, as in his name, which is a just consequence from its being an act of religious worship; and therefore he would never have joined his own name with the Father’s when he gave forth his commission to baptize, if he had not had a right to it, as well as the Father.

Again, divine worship is due to Christ, as he is the object of faith; and that not only as we are to depend upon whatever he has revealed, as a matter of infallible verity, otherwise the faith of the church especially under the New Testament dispensation, would be built on an uncertain foundation; but, since I am sensible it would be objected to this, that whatever is transmitted to us by divine inspiration, is infallibly true, though the instruments made use of herein were not divine persons; and when we assert that what Christ delivered was infallible, in a higher sense than this, we rather suppose than prove his Deity; the Anti-trinitarians will not deny, that what he imparted was infallibly true, and therefore the object of faith; but they suppose at the same time, that whatever was imparted to the world by the apostles and prophets, was equally true and infallible; therefore they were the objects of faith, in the same sense that our Saviour himself was.

In answer to this I would not compare what was delivered immediately by our Saviour with what was transmitted by those who spake and wrote by divine inspiration, or suppose that one was more infallibly true than the other; and therefore that which I would principally insist on, when I speak of Christ, as the object of faith, whereby he appears to be a divine Person, is not only that we are obliged to yield an assent to what he has imparted to us, but this is to be attended with a firm reliance on him, or trusting him with all we have, or for all we expect, to make us completely happy: in this sense we are to understand the apostle’s words, when he says, in 2 Tim. i. 12. I know whom I have believed, or trusted, and I am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day; this is such a faith, as no creature is the object of. Trust in man is prohibited, and called a departure from God, in Jer. xvii. 5. Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, or, by a parity of reason in any other creature, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart herein departeth from the Lord. Trust is such an act of faith, as is appropriated to a divine Person; and I cannot but observe, that there is something peculiar in the mode of speaking, when Christ is represented as the object thereof, that is never applied to any creature; as his worshippers are said to believe in him; thus, in John xiv. 1. Ye believe in God, believe also in me,[159] where he commands his people to believe in him, in such a way; as that this act of faith is accompanied with other graces, which argue him a divine Person.

This leads us to consider him as the object of supreme love and universal obedience, which are also acts of religious worship; the former respects him, as our chief good and happiness; the latter as our undoubted sovereign and proprietor: we do not say, that a person’s having a right to be obeyed, or loved, or trusted, in a limited degree, argues him to be a divine Person; but when these graces are to be exercised in the highest degree, without any possibility of our exceeding therein; and when the exercise thereof is inseparably connected with salvation, as it often is in scripture, and our not exercising them, is said to exclude from it, I cannot but from hence conclude, that, being thus circumstanced, is an act of religious worship; and it is certain, that our saviour is often represented, in scripture, as the object thereof.

The last thing that we shall consider, under this head, is, that he is the object of prayer and praise; and that these are parts of religious worship, needs no proof. Some think, and the conjecture is not altogether improbable, that this is intended by the Psalmist, Psal. lxxii. 15. Prayer also shall be made for him continually; since it might as well be rendered, continually made to him, which agrees with what follows, And daily shall he be praised; and that this Psalm respects the Messiah, who had a right to more glory than Solomon, appears from several things, which are said concerning him therein; but I will not insist on this, since we have more evident proofs thereof in other scriptures. It is also foretold concerning him in Isa. xi. 10. that to him, for so the words ought to be rendered, shall the Gentiles seek; which mode of speaking is frequently used, to signify our addressing ourselves to a divine Person with prayer and supplication, for the supplying of our wants. But we have yet more evident proofs hereof in the New Testament; the Syrophenician woman’s prayer, which was directed to him, was indeed short, but very comprehensive, Matt. xv. 22. Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; and, in ver. 25. She came and worshipped him, saying, Lord help me; and this act of religious worship was commended by our Saviour, and her prayer answered. And can we suppose any other than an act of religious worship, contained in that petition of the man who came to him to cast the devil out of his son, in Mark ix. 24? Who said, with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief; by which we are not to understand that he desired that his unbelief should be removed in an objective way, by our Saviour’s giving him more convincing arguments to confirm his faith, but by a powerful access to his heart, as the Author and Finisher of faith, which is the peculiar gift of God; and accordingly he is considered as a divine Person, by those who thus address themselves to him.

We shall conclude this head, with giving a few instances of short prayers directed to Christ, together with doxologies, or ascriptions of praise, in which he is sometimes joined with the Father and Holy Ghost; and he is also argued, from the subject matter thereof, to be a divine Person: thus the apostle Paul concludes his epistles with, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, Amen; 1 Cor. xvi. 23. Phil. iv. 23. 1 Thess. v. 28. 2 Thess. iii. 18. and, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit; Philem. ver. 25. and, The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy Spirit; 2 Tim. iv. 22. which is a short and comprehensive prayer directed to Christ, that he would bestow on them all those graces that are necessary to their salvation; and that this grace may so govern and influence their spirits, as to fit them for his service, which supposes him to be the God and Giver of all grace. And, in 2 Cor. x. iii. 14. he puts up a prayer to the three Persons in the Godhead expressly; The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all, Amen; desiring, that they would communicate those blessings, which accompany salvation, by which the divine perfections, and in particular the Personal glory of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are demonstrated; and herein the Son is as much considered as the object of prayer as the Father, and consequently hereby proved to be a divine Person.

To this we may add those doxologies whereby praise is given to Christ; and so he is farther considered as the object of divine worship; thus, in 2 Pet. iii, 18. speaking of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, he says, To him be glory, both now and for ever, Amen; and, in Jude, ver. 24, 25. Unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now, and for ever, Amen; where it is plain that he ascribes this divine glory to Jesus Christ; for he is spoken of in ver. 21. Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus unto eternal life, that is, for that mercy which shall preserve us unto eternal life, and then confer it upon us; which is the sense of those words, Keeping us from falling, and presenting us faultless before the presence of his glory, with a small variation of the phrase; and the very same thing he is expressly said to do elsewhere, in Eph. v. 27. to present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy, and without blemish, that is, that he may present it to his own view, as taking a survey of his workmanship, when brought to perfection; as God is said to have taken a view of all things that he had made at first, when he pronounced them good Gen. i. 31. and, when he has thus taken a survey of his church, or presented it to himself, then he presents it to the view of the whole world of angels and men, which, as it is said, is attended with exceeding joy; which plainly makes it appear that our Saviour is the Person here spoken of; which is agreeable to what follows, where he is called, as he is elsewhere, God our Saviour, Tit. ii. 10, 13. which character agrees with the name by which he was most known, to wit, Jesus.

Another doxology we have in Rev. i. 4, 5, 6. Grace be unto you, and peace from Jesus Christ, &c. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood; and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever, Amen.

There are also two places more, in which, to me, it seems more than probable, that doxologies are directed to Christ, namely, in 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16. Who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto: whom no man hath seen, or can see; to whom be honour and power everlasting, Amen: All allow that nothing greater can be said of God than is here spoken; therefore the only thing denied by the Arians is, that this is applied to any but the Father; but to me, it seems very obvious that it is spoken of Christ, because he is mentioned immediately before: thus, in ver. 13. it is said, I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus[160]; who, before Pontius Pilate, witnessed a good confession; That thou keep this commandment without spot, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which in his times he shall shew; Who is the blessed and only Potentate, &c. where by his times is meant that season in which his glory shall shine most brightly, when, what he witnessed before Pontius Pilate, to wit, that he was the Son of God, he will demonstrate in the highest degree, and then will eminently appear to have a right to that glory, which the apostle ascribes to him.

Again, there is another scripture, in which a glorious doxology is ascribed to Christ, in 1 Tim. i. 17. Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory, for ever and ever, Amen. A late learned writer[161] puts this among those scriptures which he applies to the Father, without assigning any reason for it; which he ought to have done, inasmuch as the context seems to direct us to apply it to the Son, spoken of in the foregoing verses; thus, in ver. 12. I thank Jesus Christ our Lord, who counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; and, ver. 14. The Grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant, &c. and ver. 15. Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; and ver. 16. Howbeit, for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all long-suffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. Thus having mentioned the great things which Christ did for him, it is natural to suppose that he would take occasion, from hence, to ascribe glory to him, which he does in the words immediately following, Now, unto the King, eternal, immortal, &c.

Having considered the force of this argument, taken from divine worship being ascribed to Christ, to prove his deity, we shall now proceed to observe the methods used by the Anti-trinitarians to evade it. Some of the Socinians, as though there had been no scriptures that speak of him as the object of religious worship, have peremptorily denied that it is due to him, and thought very hardly of their brethren, as though they were involved in the common guilt of idolatry, which they suppose his worshippers to have been chargeable with. This occasioned warm debates in Transylvania and Poland, where Socinianism most prevailed towards the close of the 16 century[162]; and, indeed, the method of reasoning, made use of by those who denied that he was the object of worship, though it tended more to his dishonour, yet it carried in it a greater consistency with that scheme of doctrines, which both sides maintained, who denied his divinity.

As for the Arians, they do not expressly deny him to be the object of worship, but rather deviate from the true sense of the word, when they maintain his right to it: they speak of great honours that are to be ascribed to him, by which one would almost be ready to conclude that they reckoned him a divine Person; but when these honours are compared with those that are due to the Father, they very plainly discover that they mean nothing more hereby, but what in consistency with their own scheme may be applied to a creature. Thus a late writer[163], in his explication of that text, in John v. 23. That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father, plainly discovers his sense of divine worship, as due to our Saviour, to be very remote from that which is defended by those who maintain his proper deity. His explication of this text is, “That the meaning is not that the Son’s authority should, like that of the Father, be looked upon as underived, absolute, supreme, and independent; but that as the Jews already believed in God, so they should also believe in Christ: as they already honoured God the Father, so they should also for the future, honour the Son of God; honour him, as having all judgment committed unto him; honour him, to the honour of the Father, which sent him; acknowledge him to be God, to the glory of the Father.” Which is a very low idea of divine honour; for it is as much as to say, that as the Father is to be honoured as God, so there is a degree of honour, which he has conferred upon the Son, infinitely below that which is due to himself, but yet called divine, because it is given him by a divine warrant. Whether, in this sense, an angel might not have had a warrant to receive divine honour, I leave any one to judge; and, indeed, nothing is contained in this sense, but what rather tends to depreciate, than advance the glory of Christ. But that we may better understand how far they allow that religious worship may be given to our Saviour, as well as that we may take occasion to defend that right to divine worship, which we have proved to be due to him, we shall briefly consider, and endeavour to make some reply to the following objections.

Object. 1. To what has been said concerning a right to religious worship, being founded only in a person’s having the perfections of the divine nature; and accordingly that it is an argument that our Saviour is truly and properly God, equal with the Father, because as such, he has a right to it, it is objected, that if God commands us to worship a creature, we are bound to obey him; and accordingly, without considering any right that is founded in his nature, we are to give divine worship to Christ, by divine direction, or in obedience to a command given us to that purpose; and that such a command was given, upon which Christ’s right to receive divine worship is founded, appears from Heb. i. 6. When he bringeth his first-begotten into the world, he saith, and let all the angels of God worship him; which supposes that they did not worship him before, nor would they have done it afterwards, without this divine intimation.

Answ. 1. As to our yielding obedience to a divine command, provided God should require us to give divine worship to a creature, it may be replied, that we do not deny but that all the divine commands are to be obeyed; but yet this supposition is groundless, inasmuch as God cannot command us to worship a creature, any more than he can discharge us from an obligation to worship himself. This, therefore, is, in effect, to suppose what can never be; therefore nothing can be inferred from such a supposition; we might as well say, that if God should cease to exist, he would cease to be the object of worship; or if a created being had divine perfection, he would have a right to equal honour with God; which is to suppose a thing that is in itself impossible; and it is no less absurd to suppose it warrantable for us to pay divine worship to a creature. This will farther appear, from what has been said in explaining the nature of religious worship. Adoration is a saying to a person, who is the object thereof, thou hast divine perfections, and to say this to a creature, is contrary to truth; and therefore, certainly the God of truth can never give us a warrant to say that which is false, as this certainly would be. And if we consider worship, as it is our addressing ourselves to him, whom we worship, in such a way, as becomes a God, he cannot give us a warrant so to do, for that would be for him to divest himself of his glory: and it would also disappoint our expectations, by putting us on trusting one that cannot save us; and such are justly reproved, in Isa. xlv. 20. as having no knowledge, who pray unto a god that cannot save. We must therefore conclude, that since God cannot give his glory to another, he cannot give any warrant to us to pay divine worship to a creature, as is supposed in the objection,

2. As for that scripture, referred to, in which God commanded the angels to worship our Saviour, when he brought him into the world, it is not to be supposed that he had no right to divine worship before his incarnation; for if he be a divine Person, as the scriptures assert him to be, the angels, doubtless adored him as such before; the only new discovery that was then made to them was, that the second Person in the Godhead was now God incarnate; and therefore this instance of infinite condescension was to be considered as a motive to excite their adoration, but not the formal reason of it: thus we are sometimes commanded to adore and magnify God for the visible displays of his divine perfections in his works; as the Psalmist says, Psal. cvii. 8. Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! and, in many other scriptures, where the works of God are represented, as a means or motive to excite our worship or adoration; whereas the divine perfections, which are displayed or rendered visible therein, are the great foundation or reason thereof; we worship this God because he is infinitely perfect; though we take occasion, from the visible display of his perfections, to worship him. In this sense we understand the worship given to Christ by the angels, when brought into the world; they took occasion, from this amazing instance of his condescension, to adore those perfections, which induced the Son of God to take the human nature into union with his divine; not that they supposed his right to worship was founded therein.

Object. 2. Since our worshipping Christ includes in it ascribing all that glory to him that is his due; it is enough for us, when we worship him, to confess that he has an excellency above the angels, or that he is the best of all created beings, as well as the most honourable, and the greatest blessing to mankind, as he was sent of God to instruct us in the way of salvation as a Prophet, to intercede for us as a Priest, and to give laws to us as a King, and that he has done all this faithfully, and with great compassion to us. These things, and whatever else he does for the advantage of mankind, may, and ought to be acknowledged to his praise, as a debt due to him, in which respect he is to be considered as the object of worship; nevertheless, we are not to give him that glory which is due to the Father, as though he were a Person truly and properly divine, in the same sense as he is.

Answ. 1. It is agreed, on both sides, that that glory, which is due to him, is to be ascribed; but we humbly conceive, that the ascribing to a person that honour, which he has a right to, unless we suppose it to be divine, is not religious worship; or, to confess that those works which he has done, are wonderful, and of great advantage to mankind, is no instance of adoration, unless we suppose that these works are such, as none but a Person who has the divine nature can perform; whereas all those works, which they ascribe to him, may, according to them, be performed by a finite being, or else they must allow the arguments, which have been taken from thence, to prove his proper deity.

2. If the works that are ascribed to him be considered as properly divine, as they are represented to be in scripture, it must not be concluded, from hence, that he is to be adored, as performing them; but we are rather to take occasion from thence, as was observed in our last head, to adore those divine perfections, which are evinced hereby, which render him the object of worship; as the works of God are motives to induce us to worship him, and not the formal reason of that worship; as when, in the first commandment, God lays claim to divine honour, or obliges the Israelites to have no other gods before him, because he had brought them out of the land of Egypt, we are to consider their deliverance from thence, indeed, as a motive to worship; but it is the divine power that was exerted therein, that was properly the object thereof; so, in Psal. cxxxvi. 1. we are to give thanks to the Lord, whose mercy endureth for ever; and, in the following verses, there is a particular mention made of some glorious works which God had done, who alone doth great wonders, who, in wisdom, made the heavens, stretched out the earth; made the sun to rule by day, and the moon by night, &c. These, and several other works there mentioned are all considered as motives to excite our adoration; but his being Jehovah, the God of gods, and Lord of lords, as in the 1st, 2d, and 3d verses, is the great foundation of his right to worship, since that is infinite; whereas his works are only the effects of infinite power, and so a demonstration of his right to divine glory. Now to apply this to those works which are done by our Saviour, if we suppose them, as we ought, to be properly divine, they are to be considered only as evincing his right to divine honour, as they are a demonstration of his deity, which is the only thing that renders him the object of divine worship.

Object. 3. But some will proceed a little farther, when they speak of Christ as the object of worship, and so will allow, that honours, truly divine, may be given to him; yet that this does not prove him to be God equal with the Father, since he is herein only considered as the Father’s Representative, on whom the worship, that is immediately applied to him, must be supposed to terminate; as when an ambassador, who represents the prince that sent him, is considered as sustaining that character, and so receives some honour, which otherwise he would have no right to, or rather he is honoured as personating him whom he represents.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that whatever may be said to be done by an ambassador, as representing the prince that sent him, there is always something contained in the manner of his address, or in the honours ascribed to him, that denotes him to be more than a subject; and it would be ill represented, should he assume that honour to himself that is due to his master. Therefore our Saviour, were he not a divine Person, but only the Father’s Representative, could not have a right to claim that divine honour that is ascribed to him; neither have we any foundation, in scripture, to distinguish concerning a supreme and a subordinate worship, or a worship given to a person that does not terminate in him, but in another, whom he represents.

If there be any apparent foundation for this supposition, it must be taken from those expressions in which Christ is represented, as Mediator, as acting in the Father’s name, and not seeking his own glory, but the glory of him that sent him, or referring all the honour, that is given to him as such, to the Father. But to this it may be replied, that when our Saviour uses such a mode of speaking, he disclaims any right to divine honour due to him as Man, in which respect he received a commission from the Father, and acted in his name; but when the honour of a divine Person is given to him as God, though considered as Mediator, he is not to be looked upon as representing the Father, or transferring the divine glory that he receives, to the Father, but as having the same right to it as the Father has, inasmuch as he has the same divine nature, otherwise we cannot account for those modes of speaking, in which the glory of a divine Person is ascribed to him, without restriction or limitation, as it oftentimes is in scripture.

Object. 4. To what has been said in defence of Christ’s divinity, from our being baptized in his name, it is objected, that it does not follow, that because we are baptized in the name of the Son, as well as of the Father, that therefore he is God equal with the Father; for though this ordinance, as it respects the Father, contains, properly, an act of divine worship, in which we consider him as the great Lord of all things, to whom divine worship, in the highest sense is due; yet we consider the Son, as well as the Holy Ghost, only as having a right to an inferior kind of worship, in proportion to the respective parts which they sustain, by the will of the Father, in the work of our salvation; and, in particular, to be baptized in the name of Christ, implies in it nothing else but a declaration that we adhere to him, as the Father’s Minister, delegated by him to reveal his mind and will to us, and to erect that gospel-dispensation, which we, in this ordinance, professedly submit to; and accordingly to be baptized in the name of Christ, is to be taken in the same sense, as when, in 1 Cor. x. 2. the Israelites were said to be baptized into Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea; as they signified thereby their consent to be governed by those laws, which Moses was appointed, by God, to give them; upon which account, they were denominated a particular church, separated from the world, and obliged to worship God in such a way, as was prescribed in the ceremonial law: even so, by baptism, we own ourselves Christians, under an obligation to adhere to Christ, as our Leader and Commander, who has revealed to us the gospel, which, by subjecting ourselves to, we are denominated Christians; and to this they also add, especially the Socinians, that as baptism was first practised as an ordinance, to initiate persons into the Jewish church, and was afterwards applied by our Saviour, to signify the initiating the heathen into the Christian church; so it was designed to be no longer in use among them, than till Christianity was generally embraced; and consequently we being a Christian nation, are not obliged to submit to it, since we are supposed to adhere to the doctrines of Christianity, and therefore it is needless to signify the same by this ordinance. It was upon this account that Socinus, and some of his followers, not only denied the baptism of infants, but that of all others, who were supposed to be Christians.

Answ. 1. As to the first part of this objection, to wit, that baptism does not signify the same thing when it is administered in the name of Christ, as when administered in the name of the Father, this is founded on a supposition, that the Son has not a right to the same honour that is due to the Father, which ought to be proved, and not taken for granted; and it altogether sets aside the consideration of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost’s being herein co-ordinately represented, as the objects of this solemn dedication, which tends very much to derogate from the Father’s glory. As it supposes the Son and Spirit to have a right to that glory which belongs to him, while they deny them to be divine Persons; and according to this method of reasoning, God might as well have ordained, that we should have been baptized in his name, together with the name of any of his prophets and apostles, which were appointed to be his ministers, in revealing his will to us, as in the name of the Son and Spirit, unless they were accounted worthy of having an honour infinitely superior to that which is given to any creature given to them herein.

2. When it is supposed that our professed subjection to Christ in baptism, is nothing else but our consent to be governed by those laws, which he has given us in the gospel, and so is compared with that declaration of subjection to the law of Moses, which was contained in the baptism of the Israelites into Moses.

To this it may be replied; that this supposes Christ to be no other than a Lawgiver; and that to be a Christian, is nothing else but to be professedly a member of that society, which goes under that denomination; and that to put on Christ is not to consecrate or devote ourselves to him as a divine Person; which is a very low idea of Christianity; and consequently the character of a Christian does not imply in it so much, when assumed by an Anti-trinitarian, as when applied to those who suppose that they are hereby obliged to honour him, as they honour the Father, or to submit to his government, as truly and properly divine. A Christian is not barely one who is of Christ’s party, in the same sense as a Mahometan, who adheres to the laws of Mahomet, is of his; for Christianity contains in it an obligation to perform those religious duties, of trust, universal obedience, and love, that are due to Christ as a divine Person.

3. As to the supposition, that baptism being an ordinance of Proselytism to the Christian faith, therefore a Christian nation is no longer obliged to submit to it, this is directly contrary to what our Saviour says in the words immediately following the institution thereof, in Matt, xxviii. 20. Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, that is, you may expect my presence with you in administering this ordinance, as well as preaching the gospel, not only during the first age of the church, till Christianity shall obtain in the world, but as long as there shall be a society of Christians in it. And, indeed, if Christianity were nothing more than a public declaration of our obligation, to adhere to the laws of Christ; it does not follow, that because we are born in a Christian nation, therefore such a profession is no longer necessary. But since more than this is contained therein, as hath been before observed, namely, our professed subjection to Christ, in a religious way, as a divine Person, this extends the baptismal obligation much farther than to our being called Christians, and argues the necessity of our engaging in this ordinance, as long as Christ is the object of faith, or to be acknowledged to be the Prophet, Priest, and King of his church, and, as such, the object of religious worship, namely, unto the end of the world.

Object. 5. There is another objection against the argument in general, relating to Christ’s being the object of divine worship, taken from his having refused to have one of the divine perfections ascribed to him, and directing the Person that gave it, to ascribe it to the Father, in Matt. xix. 17. He said unto him, Why callest thou me good, there is none good but one, that is God; q. d. there is but one Person who is good, as goodness is properly a divine attribute, and that is the Father: therefore he alone is the object of that worship, which consists in the ascribing the perfections of the divine nature to him, in which sense we have before supposed religious worship to be understood.

Answ. 1. As to what our Saviour says, concerning the divine unity, when he asserts, that there is none good but one, that is God; it is, doubtless to be understood in the same sense with all other scriptures, that deny a plurality of gods, in opposition to the principles and practice of idolaters; but it does not follow from hence, that the Father is the only Person who is God, or the object of divine worship. This has been before considered[164], and therefore all that I shall reply to this part of the objection is, that the word God is sometimes taken for the Godhead, without a particular restriction or limitation thereof, either to Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but may be equally applied to them all. In this sense it is to be taken, when the being of a God is demonstrated by the light of nature; as from the effects of the divine power, we argue, that there is a God, who is the Creator of all things; but this cannot, if we have no other light to guide us herein but that of nature, be applied to the Father, as a distinct Person in the Godhead, for the distinction that there is between the divine Persons is a matter of pure revelation; therefore all that our Saviour intends by this expression is, that no one has a right to have divine perfections ascribed to him, but he that has a divine nature, which whether it be meant of the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, he is denominated the one only living and true God.

It follows from hence, that when such modes of speaking are used in scripture, though the Father be called the one or only God, the Son is not excluded, as a late judicious writer well observes.[165]

2. As to that part of the objection, which concerns our Saviour’s blaming the man for calling him good, there are two senses given of it; one is taken from a different reading of the words, namely, Why dost thou ask me concerning good.[166] But it will not be much to our purpose either to defend or disprove this reading, since Mark and Luke read it, Why callest thou me good, &c. therefore, passing this over and supposing that it ought to be read, as we generally do; the common answer that is given to this objection, which, I humbly conceive, may be well acquiesced in, is; that our Saviour considers the man, as ascribing a divine perfection to him, whom, at the same time, he concluded to be no more than a creature; and therefore it is as though he should say; either, first, acknowledge me to be a divine Person, or else do not ascribe divine honours to me, for then by consequence, thou mightest as well ascribe them to any other creature. And accordingly, by the same method of reasoning, had he conversed with any Anti-trinitarian, in his day, who had given divine worship to him, and yet denied his proper deity, he would have reproved him for this mistake arising from an erroneous conscience, as much as he does the man, whom he reproves, in the same sense, for styling him good.

That Christ does not exclude himself from having a right to this divine perfection, is not only evident, from those several scriptures, which have been before referred to, that ascribe perfections to him that are equally divine, inasmuch as he that has a right to one divine perfection, has a right to all; but he also styles himself, in John x. 14. The good Shepherd, which certainly imports as much as good Master, which expression was used by the man before-mentioned; and that his being the good Shepherd argues him to be the Fountain of blessedness, which is certainly a divine perfection, is evident, because he speaks of himself, as communicatively good in the highest sense, ver. 28. I give unto them, viz. my sheep, eternal life.[167]

Secondly, Having proved the deity of the Son, we proceed to consider that of the Holy Ghost, in which we are obliged to oppose the Socinians and Arians, though in different respects: As for the Socinians, they seem to be divided in their sentiments about this matter, some of them considering the Holy Ghost no otherwise than as a divine power; and therefore they call him Virtus Dei, or the divine energy, or power of acting, seeming, by this account of it, to deny his distinct Personality, as the Sabellians do that of the Son and Spirit; though others of them, being convinced that there is sufficient proof of his Personality in scripture, to deny his deity, supposing him to be no other than a created ministering Spirit.[174]

As for the Arians, though this controversy was not brought upon the stage in the council at Nice, which was so much employed in defending the deity of our Saviour, by proving him to have the same essence with the Father, that they had no opportunity to proceed in the defence of the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost; yet this is universally denied by all who give into the Arian scheme: It is true, that as they do not question his Personality, so they allow that he has many glories ascribed to him, agreeing, in words, with the scripture account thereof; but they are, notwithstanding, far from asserting his proper deity, any more than that of the Son.

We have already proved him to be a distinct Person,[175] and therefore nothing remains, but that we consider him as having a divine nature. And, to make this appear, we shall proceed in the same method, in which we have proved the divinity of the Son, namely, from those divine names, attributes, works, and worship, which are ascribed to him; though we have no occasion here to insist on the proof of that proposition, that he who is thus described is God, as having done that already under each of those distinct heads, in defence of our Saviour’s deity; and therefore we need only consider them as applied to the Holy Ghost. And,

1. It appears that he is God, equal with the Father and Son, inasmuch as the same divine names are given to him that are given to them; particularly,

(1.) He is called God, without any thing tending to detract, or diminish, from the proper sense of the word, when applied to the Father or the Son: thus, in Acts v. 3, 4. Peter said, Ananias, Why hath satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God, where he is not only called God, but put in opposition to the creature; and it is as though the apostle should say, thou hast endeavoured to deceive him, by whom I am inspired, which is a greater crime, than if thou hadst only lied to me.

Object. It is objected, that it is not the Holy Ghost who is here called God, but the Father; in defence of which sense of the text it is supposed, that though the lie was immediately designed to deceive the apostles, or the Holy Ghost, by whom they were known to be inspired, yet this was interpreted by God the Father, as an attempt to impose upon him, whose Minister the objectors suppose the Holy Spirit to be, as well as the apostles; and accordingly they thus argue; he that does any thing against God’s ministers, to wit, the Father’s, may be said to do the same against him. And here they refer to some scriptures, which, they think, give countenance to this argument namely, Exod. xvi. 8. where Moses tells the Israelites, when they murmured against him, Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord; and, in 1 Sam. viii. 7. where God says to Samuel, speaking concerning the Israelites, They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me; and also our Saviour’s words to his disciples, in Luke x. 16. He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me; and, in 1 Thes. iv. 8. He that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit.[176]

Answ. How plausible soever this objection may seem to be, yet, if duly considered, it will not appear sufficient to overthrow the argument we are maintaining; it is true, indeed, that what is done against any one, who acts by a commission, as a servant to another, is interpreted to be done against him that gives him the commission; as he that affronts a judge, or an ambassador, in this respect, affronts the king, whom he represents; or if an inferior servant is ill treated, in delivering a message from his master, this is always supposed to contain a reflection on him who sent him; But, I humbly conceive, this cannot be applied, as it is in the objection, to Ananias’s not lying unto men, but unto God. And, to make this appear, let it be considered; that here are two terms of opposition; and these either respect God the Father and the apostles; or God the Father and the Holy Ghost; or else God the Holy Ghost and the apostles.

1. God the Father cannot be said here to be opposed to the apostles, so as to give countenance to this phrase, or mode of speaking used, Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God, because it is said, in the foregoing verse, that they had lied to the Holy Ghost: if the Holy Ghost had not been mentioned, indeed, then there might have been more ground to conclude, that Peter opposed himself to God the Father, or intimated hereby, that Ananias, in attempting to deceive him, attempted to deceive God that sent him; but even then it would not have fully corresponded with the sense of those scriptures but now referred to; for though he that despises a servant, despises him that sent him; and, accordingly, he that despises a minister, when he is preaching the gospel, or despises the message that he brings, may be said to despise God, whose message it is; yet it does not follow, that if a person designs to impose upon a minister, in other respects, that he imposes upon God that sent him; for he may not disown the divine authority, or commission, which he has to preach the gospel, and yet may conclude that he may deceive him, though he be sensible that he cannot deceive God, who knoweth all things: But this I need not farther insist on, since it is not supposed, in the objection; but God the Father is therein opposed to the Holy Ghost, or else there would be no appearance of any argument in it; therefore,

2. Let us consider God the Father as being here opposed to the Holy Ghost; and then it is as much as to say, Thou hast lied to the Holy Ghost, wherein thou hast not lied to man, but to God, to wit, the Father; to which we may answer,

That had the apostle designed to oppose the Holy Ghost to the Father, and thereby deny his deity, it ought to have been expressed thus; Thou hast not lied unto the Holy Ghost, but unto God; and this would effectually have determined him not to have been God, and removed any umbrage or suspicion, as though, by the expression, Thou hast not lied unto men, we were to understand the apostles; or since it will be objected, that this would have been contrary to matter of fact, for Ananias did lie both to the apostles and to the Holy Ghost; therefore it would have been better understood, had it been said, Thou hast not lied to the Holy Ghost, or to men, that is, not to them only, but thou hast, interpretatively, in lying to them, lied unto God, to wit, the Father. If it had been so expressed, the sense would have been plain and obvious, in favour of the Anti-trinitarians, as well as agreeable to the scriptures before-mentioned, as giving countenance to it; but since it is not so expressed, we must conclude,

3. That in this text there is no other opposition, but of God the Holy Ghost to the apostles; and accordingly the sense is very plain and natural, which is as though the apostle had said, Thou hast endeavoured to deceive me, who am under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which is a greater crime than if thou hadst only lied to me, at another time, when this honour was not conferred upon me; for herein thou hast committed a double crime, inasmuch as thou hast not only lied to me, which thou oughtest not to have done, but thou hast lied to the Holy Ghost, and, in so doing, hast not lied unto men, but unto God; or, as it is expressed, in ver. 9. that Ananias and his wife had agreed together to tempt the Holy Ghost. Which is called a lying to him, in one verse, is styled a tempting him in the other; this therefore seems to be a plain and easy sense of the words, which any unprejudiced reader would be inclined to give into; and since the scripture is written to instruct the most injudicious Christians, as well as others, I cannot conceive that such modes of speaking would have been made use of therein, which have a tendency to lead persons out of the way, by deviating from the common sense of words, (especially in a matter of so great importance as this is) whereby some, at least, would be inclined, as we are, by adhering to the most proper sense thereof, to acknowledge the Holy Ghost to be God, if he were not so.

There is another scripture, in which the Holy Ghost is called The God and the Rock of Israel, in 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. Now it seems very evident, that this is applied to him, by comparing it with the foregoing and following words; in which it is said, the Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue; and then we have an account of what be said, namely, He that ruleth over man, must be just, &c. It cannot, with any colour of reason, be supposed that there is more than one Person here intended, who imparted this to the prophet; and inasmuch as this Person is not only called the God, but also the Rock of Israel, that is a plain intimation that he is the almighty God of Israel, which is the sense of the metaphor, taken from a rock, when applied to God in other scriptures.

Again, it is said, in 1 Cor. iii. 16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. Here it must be observed, that their being called the temple of God, who is said to dwell in them, denotes the inhabitant to be a divine Person, since a temple, according to the known acceptation of the word, always connotes a deity; and so it is called the house of God. Now he that dwelt in them, upon which account they are called his temple, is expressly said to be the Spirit of God, which is agreeable to what is said concerning him elsewhere, in chap. vi. 19. Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which, or who, is in you?

(2.) He is called Lord; this seems very evident, from Isa. vi. 8, 9. And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I, send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye, indeed, but understand not, &c. where we observe, that the person sending speaks both in the singular number and the plural, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? by the former expression, Whom shall I send, he evinces his divinity, as having a right to give a commission to the prophets, to declare his mind and will to man, which, as will be observed under a fol-head, none but a divine Person has a right to do; by the latter, Who shall go for us, he includes himself among the Persons in the Godhead, as it has before been observed[177]; viz. that when God is represented, as speaking in the plural number, a Trinity of Persons seems to be intended thereby.

But that which we shall principally consider is, that the Holy Ghost is here called Lord, which appears from what the apostle says, in Acts xxviii. 25, 26. Well spake the Holy Ghost, by Esaias the prophet, unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing, ye shall hear, and shall not understand, &c.

It cannot be reasonably objected to this, that the apostle only refers to the book of Isaiah, and not to this particular part thereof; for though, indeed, these words, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, might be used, as a preface to any quotation from scripture, as all scripture is given by his inspiration; yet this message, referred to by the apostle, was not only transmitted by Esaias to the church, but it is distinguished from all those other things, which the Spirit of the Lord spake by him; and therefore it cannot be supposed that the apostle means, when referring to this scripture, any other than the Holy Ghost’s giving him this commission, when he says, Well spake the Holy Ghost by him; and consequently he that gave this commission, or spake thus to him, is the Holy Ghost, who is, in the foregoing words, called the Lord.

Moreover, there is another scripture, in 2 Cor. iii. 18. where it is said, We are changed from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord; or, as it is observed in the margin, As by the Lord the Spirit; which reading is certainly as proper as any other, and is preferred, by some, to it; and therefore it contains, at least, a probable argument that the Spirit is expressly called Lord.[178]

2. The Holy Ghost appears to be God, from those divine attributes that are ascribed to him. Accordingly,

(1.) He is said to be eternal, in Heb. ix. 24. Christ, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God. I am sensible, many think this eternal Spirit signifies Christ’s eternal Godhead; which is so called, because of the spirituality of its nature; and that, in this place, it is designed to set forth the infinite value, which the oblation that he made of himself, in his human nature to God, received from the divine nature, to which it was united; which, though it be a very great truth, yet there does not seem to be so great a propriety in the expression, when we suppose the eternal Spirit is taken for the divine nature, as if it be understood of the Holy Ghost: and Christ may be said, by him, to have offered himself, without spot, to God, as implying, that the unction, which he received from the Holy Ghost, was the means to preserve him from all sinful defilement, upon which account his oblation was without blemish; and, indeed, it was no less necessary, in order to its being accepted, that it should be spotless, than that it should be of infinite value; therefore I must conclude, that it is the Holy Ghost who is here called the eternal Spirit.

Moreover, his eternity may be evinced from his having created all things, as he that made the world, and all finite things, wherewith time began, must be before them, and consequently from everlasting; by which the eternity of Christ was proved, under a foregoing head; and that the Holy Ghost made all things, will be proved under our next argument.

(2.) His immensity or omnipresence, is a farther proof of his deity; and this seems to be plainly contained in Psal. cxxxix. 7. Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? q. d. there is no place where the Spirit is not; and it is allowed by all, that the divine immensity is here described in a very elegant manner; though, it is true, it is objected, that one part of this verse is exegetical of the other, and therefore the Psalmist, by the Spirit, intends nothing else but the presence of God; but it is equally, if not more probable, that the Spirit is distinguished from the presence of God, and consequently that he is a distinct Person in the Godhead; and this does not contain any strain upon the sense of the words, since the Spirit is so often spoken of in scripture as a Person, as has been before observed;[179] and therefore it is not strange that he should be mentioned as such in this text; and, if he be spoken of as a Person, it is beyond dispute that he is there proved to be a divine Person.

(3.) He is said to be omniscient in 1 Cor. ii. 10. The Spirit searcheth all things; yea, the deep things of God. To search, indeed, is a word used in condescension to our common mode of speaking, as we arrive to the knowledge of things by searching, or enquiry, though this idea is to be abstracted from the word, when applied to God; for him to search, is to know all things; and, in this sense, it is used, in Psal. cxxxix. 23, 24. Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, &c. It does not imply the manner of his knowing, but the exquisiteness of his knowledge; and so we must understand it in this scripture, when applied to the Spirit’s searching all things, in which we have an account of the objects of his knowledge, namely, the deep things of God: thus he knows all those things, which were hid in the divine mind from all eternity, and the infinite perfections of the divine nature, which are incomprehensible to a creature, and which none can, by searching, find out to perfection, Job xi. 7. in which respect the highest creatures, viz. the angels, are said to be charged with folly, whose knowledge is comparatively imperfect, chap. iv. 18. Moreover, we may observe, that the manner of the Spirit’s knowing all things, is not like ours, that is by inferring consequences from premises, in a way of reasoning; for it is said, in the verse immediately following, that he knows the things of God, in such a way, as a man knoweth the things of a man, that is, his own thoughts, by an internal principle of knowledge, not by revelation, or any external discovery: thus the Spirit knows the divine nature, as having it; therefore his omniscience is a plain proof of his Deity.

3. The Deity of the Holy Ghost may be farther evinced, from his performing those works which are proper to God alone. And,

(1.) He is said to have created all things: thus, in Gen. i. 2. The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters; where, by the Spirit of God, cannot be meant, as some suppose, the air or the wind; for that was not created till the second day, when God made the firmament. Again, it is said, in Job xxvi. 13. By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens; and, in chap. xxiii. 4. The Spirit of God hath made me. Some of the Arians are so sensible that the Spirit is represented as the Creator of all things as well as the Son; that they suppose him to be an instrument to the Son in the creation thereof; which is as much as to say, he is an instrument of an instrument; and, indeed, to say the Son created all things, as an instrument, has been considered as an indefensible notion;[180] but this is much more so.

(2.) Extraordinary or miraculous works, which are equivalent to creation, have been performed by the Spirit; thus the apostle, speaking concerning extraordinary gifts, subservient to the propagation of the gospel, in the first preaching thereof, attributes them to the Spirit, which he largely insists on, in 1 Cor. xii. and when he says, ver. 4, 5, 6. that there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God, which worketh all in all; which many who defend the doctrine of the Trinity, take for granted, that it signifies all the Persons in the Godhead, that our Saviour is called Lord, and the father God, therein; and some of the Anti-trinitarians, from hence, would argue, that the Spirit is not God, because he is distinguished from the Father, whom they suppose to be there called God, I cannot but from hence conclude, that the Holy Spirit is set forth under all these three names; and the works attributed to him, notwithstanding the variety of expressions, are the same, and included in that general term of spiritual gifts. And so I take the meaning of the text to be this, there are diversities of gifts, or extraordinary operations, which some were enabled to put forth in the exercise of their ministry, which are all from the same Spirit, who is called Lord and God, who has an infinite sovereignty, and bestows these blessings as he pleases, as becomes a divine Person; and this agrees very well with what is said, in ver. 11. All these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

(3.) The Spirit of God commissioned and qualified ministers to preach the gospel, and thereby to gather and build up churches, determining that their ministry should be exercised in one place, and not in another; which is a peculiar branch of the divine glory, and no one has a right to do it, but a divine Person. A creature may as well pretend to command the sun to shine, or stop its course in the heavens at his pleasure, as he can commission a minister to preach the gospel, or restrain the preaching thereof. And here we may observe, that the Holy Ghost is plainly said to have called and appointed the apostles to exercise their ministry in the first preaching of the gospel, after he had, by conferring extraordinary gifts upon them, qualified them for it; and accordingly he speaks in a style truly divine, in Acts xiii. 2. The Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them; and, in Acts xx. 28. the apostle tells the elders, or ministers of the church at Ephesus, that the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. We read also of the Spirit’s determining where they should exercise their ministry; thus he commanded Philip to go and preach the gospel to the eunuch, in Acts viii. 29. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot; and, at another time, the Spirit bade Peter to go and preach the gospel to Cornelius, when he doubted whether it were lawful for him to do it or no, in Acts x. 19, 20. The Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee; therefore get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing, for I have sent them; and, at another time, it is said, in Acts xvi. 6, 7. They were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia; and that they assayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered them not; and, in ver. 9, 10. the apostle Paul was ordered, in a vision, to go to Macedonia; which command he obeyed, assuredly gathering that the Lord, that is, the Spirit, had called him to preach the gospel unto them. Nothing can be a greater argument of the sovereignty of the Holy Ghost, in what respects this matter, which was of the highest importance; therefore it is an evident proof of his divinity. But to this we may add,

(4.) That his divinity farther appears from the unction, which he conferred on our Saviour, to perform the work of a Mediator in his human nature: thus it is said, in Isa. lxi. 1. The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the meek, &c. And this is particularly referred to, as signifying our Saviour’s unction by the Holy Ghost, in Luke iv. 18, 19. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me, &c. And, indeed, it is not denied that this is spoken of the Holy Ghost, even by those who do not infer his deity from it; accordingly it is inserted, by a late writer, among those scriptures that speak particularly of the Holy Ghost;[181] and it would be a great strain on the sense of the text, to suppose that he hath anointed me, refers to the Father, and not to the Spirit. As to the meaning of the word unction, it is borrowed from the ceremonial law, under which the prophets, priests, and kings were publickly anointed with oil, as used to signify the warrant, or commission, they had received from God, to execute these offices, together with the qualifications which were to be expected for the discharge thereof. In this sense our Saviour is said to have been anointed by the Holy Ghost, to wit, in his human nature, in which he was obliged to yield obedience and subjection to God, and accordingly he was authorized and qualified to perform this obedience by the Holy Ghost; so that, how difficult soever it was, it might be discharged by him, without the least failure or defect therein, as we observed before, that it was owing hereunto, that his oblation was without spot: the work was certainly extraordinary, and consequently the glory redounding to the Holy Ghost from hence, is such as proves him to be a divine Person.

(5.) He farther appears to be so, inasmuch as the work of grace, both as to the beginning, progress, and completing of it, in the souls of believers, is ascribed to him, as well as to the Father and the Son. That this is a work of God’s almighty power, and consequently too great to be performed by any creature; and that the Holy Ghost is, in particular, the author thereof, we shall here take for granted, without attempting to prove it, which would not be a just method of reasoning, were we not led to insist on this subject, under some following answers, in which this will be more particularly proved.[182] And if the work appears to be the effect of the exceeding greatness of the power of God, whereby we are regenerate and sanctified, and enabled to overcome all the opposition which attends it, till we are brought to glory, then he, who is the author hereof, will evidently appear to be the God of all grace; and therefore we shall proceed to consider,

4. That the Holy Ghost appears to be God, inasmuch as he has a right to divine worship. That none but a divine Person has a right hereunto, has been already proved; and that the Spirit has a right to it, might be evinced, from his having those divine perfections, which, as has been before observed, are ascribed to him in scripture; since he has the perfections of the divine nature, which are the objects of adoration, then it follows, that he is to be adored; and if he has performed those works, which argue him to be the proprietor of all things, this must be acknowledged; and if all that grace, which is necessary to make us meet for the heavenly blessedness, be his work and gift, it follows from hence, that he is to be sought to for it, which is a great branch of religious worship. But this being only an improvement of, or a deduction from those foregoing arguments, laid down to prove his Deity, we shall enquire whether we have not something that contains in it the obligation of a command, or whether there are not some examples, which are equivalent thereunto, which will farther warrant our giving divine worship to him. Some suppose, that that prayer is directed to the Holy Ghost, which is mentioned in Acts i. 24, 25. Thou, Lord, which knoweth the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship; and the reason of this supposition is, because the designation of persons to the exercise of their ministry, as well as the extraordinary gifts with which they were furnished, is peculiarly applied to the Holy Ghost in this book; therefore, it is supposed, they prayed to the Holy Ghost, that he would signify whom he had chosen to the apostleship, in the room of Judas, of those two that were nominated by them; but this being, at most, but a probable argument, I shall lay no stress upon it.

But, I humbly conceive, that we have a more evident example of prayer made to the Holy Ghost, in 2 Thess. iii. 5. The Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ; it seems more than probable that the Holy Ghost, who is here called Lord, is prayed to; for he is distinguished from the Father and Son; and the apostle prays to him that he would direct them into the love of the Father, and enable them patiently, to wait for the Son.

Again, there is another instance hereof, in 1 Thess. iii. 12, 13. The Lord make you to increase and abound in love one towards another, to the end, that he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; where the Holy Ghost seems to be the person prayed to; and is plainly distinguished from the Father and Son, inasmuch as what is prayed to him for, is their being holy before the Father, at the coming of the Son.

There is another scripture, in which it is still more evident, that the apostle prays to the Holy Ghost, together with the Father and Son, viz. Cor. xiii. 14. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all, amen; where, in that part of this prayer, which respects the Holy Ghost, is contained an humble supplication, that he would be pleased to manifest himself to them, or that he would communicate to them those graces which they stood in need of; that so, as the church is said elsewhere, in John i. 3. to have fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ; here the apostle prays that they may have fellowship with the Holy Ghost; and how can this blessing be prayed for, without supposing him addressing himself herein to the Holy Ghost? Whenever any thing is desired, or prayed for, that can be considered no otherwise than as an effect, produced by a free agent, this prayer, or desire, is supposed more immediately to be directed to him: As suppose a person should use this mode of speaking, in presence of a disobliged friend; Oh that he would look upon me, that he would converse with me, or that he would discover his wonted love to me! though, according to the form of expression, it seems not be directed to him, yet every one would suppose it to be equivalent to an immediate address made to him to that purpose; wherefore, for the apostle to desire that the Holy Ghost would have communion with, that is, converse with, and manifest himself to them, in performing all those works, which were necessary for their edification and salvation, this desire cannot contain less than a prayer to him.

We shall now proceed to consider some objections, brought by the Anti-trinitarians, against the deity of the Holy Ghost.

Object. A divine Person cannot be the gift of God, for that supposes him to be at his disposal, and inferior to him; but the Spirit is said to be given by him, in Neh. ix. 20. Thou gavest also thy good Spirit to instruct them; and, in Acts xi. 17. God gave them the like gift, meaning the Spirit, that he did unto us; and, in Luke xi. 13. God, the Father, is said to give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him. Again, the Spirit is said to be sent, and that either by the Father, as in John xiv. 26. The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name; or by the Son, as in chap. xvi. 7. If I depart, I will send him unto you. Again, he is said to receive what he communicates from another, in John xvi. 14. He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you; which is inconsistent with the character of a divine Person, who is never said to receive what he imparts to others, as the apostle speaks concerning God, in Rom. xi. 35. Who hath first given to him? Again, he is said not to speak of himself, but what he hears, when he shews things to come, John xvi. 13. Accordingly he did not know that which he was to communicate before he heard it. Again, he is said to have a mind distinct from God, unless we suppose that there are a plurality of gods, and so more distinct divine minds than one; for this, they bring that scripture, in Rom. viii. 27. He that searcheth the heart, knoweth the mind of the Spirit. Again, he is represented as making intercession, which is an act of worship, and consequently he cannot be the object thereof; ver. 26. The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, &c. this also argues that he is not possessed of the blessings which he intercedes for. Again, he is not only said to be resisted and grieved, which expressions, it is true, are sometimes applied to God, though in an improper sense, speaking after the manner of men; but the Spirit is said to be quenched, or extinguished: thus, 1 Thess. v. 19. this, together with what has been before said concerning him, is not applicable to a divine Person. These are the most material objections that are brought against the doctrine which we have been endeavouring to maintain, and the sum of them all is this; that it is inconsistent with the character of a divine Person to be thus dependent on, and subjected to the will of another, as the Spirit is supposed, by them, to be.

Answ. That we may defend the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, against such-like objections as these, we shall first premise something relating to all those scriptures which speak of the Spirit, as given or sent by the Father, and then apply it to the sense of those in particular which are brought to support the objections, as before-mentioned.

1. It may be easily observed, that in several places of scripture, especially in the New Testament, the Holy Ghost is often taken for the gifts or graces of the Spirit; and more particularly for that extraordinary dispensation, in which the apostles were endowed with those spiritual gifts, which were necessary for the propagation and success of the gospel: these, by a Metonymy, are called the Spirit; and, I humbly conceive, all those scriptures, which speak of the Spirit’s being poured forth, as in Prov. i. 23. and Joel ii. 28. compared with Acts ii. 17. and elsewhere, are to be understood in this sense; and thus it is explained, in Acts x. 44, 45. The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word; upon which occasion it is said, that upon the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Thus we are to understand that scripture, in Acts xix. 2. We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost; and another in John vii. 39. the Holy Ghost was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified; the word given is supplied by our translators, probably, to fence against a weak argument of some Anti-trinitarians, taken from that text, to overthrow the eternity of the Spirit; but whether the word be supplied or no, the sense of the text is plainly this, that the gifts of the Holy Ghost were not conferred before Christ’s ascension into heaven; which is a farther confirmation of this acceptation of the word, or of this figurative way of speaking, being used in this, and several other places of scripture, to the same purpose.

2. All those scriptures which seem to represent the Holy Ghost, as inferior to the Father and Son, some of which are contained in the objection, may be understood as denoting the subserviency of the works of the Spirit, which are also called the Holy Ghost, to those works which are said to be performed by the Father and Son: Now it is certain that the subserviency of one work unto another, performed by different persons, does not necessarily infer the inferiority of one person to the other: accordingly we must distinguish between the Spirit, as subsisting, and as acting; in the former sense, he is a divine Person, equal with the Father and Son; in the latter, he may be said to be subservient to them.

But now we shall proceed to consider the sense of those scriptures, brought to support the objection, in consistency with what has been premised. The first scripture mentioned, is that in which it is said, Thou gavest them thy good Spirit to instruct them; where the Holy Ghost is described with a personal character, and probably it is not to be understood metonymically for his gifts and graces; accordingly the meaning of it seems to be this; that the Spirit’s efficiency, in guiding and instructing them, was a special gift of God conferred upon them; and, in this respect, though he was a sovereign Agent, yet he is said to act by the will of the Father, which is the same with his own will: for though the Persons in the Godhead are distinct, yet they have not distinct wills; and it is no improper way of speaking to say, that when a divine Person displays his glory, and therein confers a blessing upon men, that this is given; as when God is said to give himself to his people, when he promises to be a God to them. There is, indeed, in this mode of speaking, a discriminating act of favour conferred on men, upon which account it is called a gift; but this does not militate against the divinity of the Holy Ghost, though he is said to be given to them.

As for the other scripture, in which it is said, God gave them the like gift, as he gave to us, meaning the Holy Ghost, that is plainly taken for the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, the conferring whereof is called, in the foregoing words, a being baptized with the Holy Ghost; as it is particularly explained in that scripture, referred to, in Acts x. 45, 46. where it is said, that on the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost; what this gift is, we may learn from the following words, They spake with tongues, and magnified God.

Again, when it is said, in Luke xi. 13. that your heavenly Father shall give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him; this is explained by another evangelist, in Matt. vii. 11. where it is taken for good things in general, and so includes the graces of the Spirit, that accompany salvation, when it is said, your Father, that is in heaven, shall give good things to them that ask him; so that here the Spirit is taken for all those blessings which he bestows upon his people, in answer of prayer.

As for those scriptures before mentioned, in which the Spirit is said to be sent, either by the Father, or the Son, they are not, indeed, to be understood in the same sense, as when the Son is said to be sent in his human nature, appearing in the form of a servant, to fulfil the will of God; but when God is said to send his Spirit, the word is to be taken in a metaphorical sense; in which, sending imports as much as giving; and when the Spirit is said to be given, it has a peculiar reference to the grace which he was to bestow upon them. If we enquire into the reason of this metaphorical way of speaking, it may probably be this; that we may understand hereby that the Spirit, which was to produce these effects, was a divine Person, and that the effects themselves were subservient to those works which were performed, by which the Personal glories of the Father and Son were demonstrated.

Again, when it is farther said by our Saviour, in John xvi. 14. that the Spirit shall receive of mine, and shew it unto you; this plainly intends the Spirit’s applying to them those blessings which Christ had purchased by his blood, which tended to his glory; and still it signifies only the subserviency of the Spirit to the Son, in working, as the application of redemption tends to render the purchase thereof effectual, to answer its designed end.

As to the next scripture, before mentioned, in John xvi. 13. where the Spirit is said not to speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; this does not argue, in the least, that the Spirit receives what he communicates, as dependent on the Father, for the knowledge of those things he is to impart, or that he has ideas impressed on his mind, as creatures are said to have; for that is inconsistent with what has been before proved from scripture, viz. That the Spirit knoweth the deep things of God, even as the spirit of a man knoweth the things of a man; or, as an intelligent being, is conscious of his own thoughts, or actions, not by information, but by an immediate internal perception. The sense therefore of this text is this; that the Spirit shall communicate no other doctrines, or give no other laws, but what Christ had before given in the gospel; or that what he revealeth, is the same that Christ had given them ground to expect: accordingly, it is so far from militating against the Spirit’s divinity, that it proves the harmony and consent of what is suggested by one divine Person, with what had been before delivered by another; and as to the mode of expression here used, concerning the Spirit’s speaking what he had heard; this is spoken after the manner of men, and is no more inconsistent with his divine omniscience, or the independence thereof, than when God is said, in other scriptures, to know things by searching them, or, as it were, by enquiry, as hath been before observed, in considering omniscience, as attributed to the Holy Ghost. These, and suchlike expressions, by which God is represented, by words, accommodated to our usual way of speaking, when applied to men, are to be understood, notwithstanding, in a way agreeable to the divine perfections, by abstracting from them every thing that argues the least imperfection in him, when applied to the Holy Ghost; as when some expressions, agreeable to human modes of speaking, are elsewhere used, with a particular application to the Father, without detracting from his divine glory.

Again, when it is objected, that the Spirit hath a distinct mind from God, as when it is said, God knoweth the mind of the Spirit; and, as though he were represented as engaged in an act of worship, he is, in the following words, described, as praying, or, making intercession for us, according to the will of God; as, in Rom. viii. 26, 27. it is plain, that, by the mind of the Spirit, we are to understand those secret desires in prayer, which are wrought in believers by the Spirit, when they want words to express them; instead of which, they address themselves to God, as it is said, with groanings that cannot be uttered, which are from the Spirit, as the Author of these secret desires, which are only known to the heart-searching God, who knows the meaning of them, what it is we want, in which respect, this is called the mind of the Spirit, as the Author thereof, though it is subjectively our own mind or desires, which we want words to express; and when the Spirit is said to make intercession for us, it implies nothing else but his enabling us, whether in more or less proper modes of speaking, to plead with God for ourselves.

Lastly, As to those expressions, by which the Spirit is represented, as quenched, or extinguished, these are to be understood in the same sense as when by a metonymy, as before mentioned, the gifts of the Spirit; as when those extraordinary gifts were first promised, they were led to expect that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost, and with fire, that is, they should have the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost conferred upon them, which were to be signified by the emblem of fiery tongues, that sat on them, in Acts ii. 3. the reason of which emblem might probably be this; that as a necessary qualification from their preaching the gospel, they should be filled with an holy flame of love to God, and zeal for his glory, as well as with the gift of tongues, by which they might communicate his mind to the world. This privilege, which they had received, the apostle exhorts them not to forfeit, abuse, or provoke the Holy Ghost to take from them, which is called a quenching the Spirit; therefore this metaphorical way of speaking, accommodated hereunto, must not be supposed to be inconsistent with his divinity.

I shall conclude with some inferences, which more especially respect the practical improvement of the doctrine of the Trinity. And,

1. We may take occasion, from hence, to observe the difference that there is between natural and revealed religion. As the former respects the knowledge of God so far, as it may be attained without the help of divine revelation, and that worship, which the heathen, who have nothing else to guide them but the light of nature, are obliged to give to the divine Being; the latter, which is founded on scripture, contains a display of the Personal glory of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which is necessary to be known and believed, as being the foundation of all revealed religion; so that the sum of Christianity consists in our subjection to, and adoring the Godhead, as subsisting in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

2. As this doctrine is eminently displayed in the work of redemption, it is necessary for us to consider how it is accommodated to, and demonstrated by all the branches thereof. The price that was given, by our great Redeemer, has a value put upon it, in proportion to the dignity of his Person, and lays a sure foundation for our hope of being accepted in the sight of God, on account of his obedience and sacrifice, which was of infinite value: and the application of redemption being a work which the Spirit, who is a divine Person, has undertaken to perform, encourages us to expect that it shall be brought to perfection; so that they, who are the objects of redeeming love and sanctifying grace, shall, in the end, be completely saved.

3. As it is necessary for us to adore and magnify the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the hope which we have of this inestimable privilege in the gospel; so we must observe the distinct glory that is to be given to each of these divine Persons for this work; to the Father, in that whatever is done by the Mediator, to procure this privilege for us, is considered, in scripture, as taking its rise from him, 1 Cor. i. 30. Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us, wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: And whatever was done in the human nature, or by God incarnate; that is, in a peculiar manner, the work of the Son, and a revenue of glory is due to him for it, who gave his life a ransom for many, and herein expressed the highest instance of condescension, which is enhanced by the infinite dignity of his Person. Moreover, whatever work is performed in subserviency to the Mediator’s glory, whereby the Spirit demonstrates his distinct Personal glory; this gives us occasion to adore him, in all the displays of his power, in beginning, carrying on, and completing the work of grace in the souls of men.

4. As to what respects that fellowship or communion, which believers have with the Father, Son, and Spirit, this depends on the account we have, in scripture, of the distinct methods, in which their Personal glory is set forth therein: Thus we have access to God the Father, through the Mediation of the Son, by the powerful influence of the Holy Spirit, as the apostle says, in Eph. ii. 18. Through him we have an access, by one Spirit unto the Father; and our hope of blessedness proceeds this way, as it is the gift of the Father, who has prepared an inheritance for us, the purchase of the Son, on whose death it is founded, and the work of the Holy Ghost, as bringing us to and putting us into the possession of it.

5. This directs us as to the way of performing the great duty of self-dedication, to the Father, Son, and Spirit; to the Father, as our covenant God in Christ; to the Son, as the Mediator, Head, and Surety of this covenant; and to the Spirit, by whom we are made partakers of the blessings promised therein; in all these, and many other respects, we are to have a particular regard to the persons in the Godhead, in such a way, as their Personal glory is set forth in scripture.

6. Since the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one, though we distinguish them as Persons, yet we must consider them as having the same divine perfections, the same divine understanding and will, lest, while we give glory to each of the Persons in the Godhead, we should suppose that there are more Gods than one; therefore, though the Person of the Father is distinct from that of the Son and the Holy Ghost, we are not to suppose the power, wisdom, goodness, and faithfulness, or any other divine perfections, belong, in a more or less proper sense, to one Person than another.

7. This doctrine is of use to direct us how we are to address ourselves to God in prayer: thus, when therein we call him our Father, we are not to consider him in the same sense, as when he is represented as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we address ourselves to him, as the Author of our being, the God of all grace, and the Fountain of blessedness; in which respect, the Son and the Holy Ghost are not to be excluded, especially unless we consider him as our Father in Christ, and so express our faith with respect to his distinct Personality, from that of the Son and the Spirit. And though only one divine Person be particularly mentioned in prayer, the blessed Trinity is to be adored; or whatever Personal glory we ascribe to one, as subsisting distinctly from the other, we must, notwithstanding, consider the Father, Son, and Spirit, as the one only living and true God.

Thus we have gone through this great and important subject, and therein have taken occasion, particularly, to insist on the chief matters in controversy relating to the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, and consider the various methods taken to oppose it both by the Socinians and Arians, and endeavoured, not only to defend the Deity of our Saviour, and the Holy Ghost by enquiring into the sense of those many scriptures, in which our faith therein is founded, but to answer the most material objections that are brought against it; and our enlarging more on it, than we shall do on several following answers, cannot be reckoned a needless work, inasmuch as a great deal hath been written in opposition to it, whereby the faith of some has not only been shaken, but overthrown. I would never attempt to speak of this doctrine, or any of the divine perfections, without being sensible of the difficulty of the subject, it being such as is not to be comprehended by a finite mind. I hope nothing will appear to have been suggested inconsistent with the essential, or Personal glory of the Father, Son, or Spirit; and it may reasonably be expected that there should be allowances made for great defects, since it is but a little of God that can be known by us; therefore, when we pretend to speak concerning him, it will not be thought strange if we give occasion to any to say, that we have the greatest reason to acknowledge, that, in many instances, we cannot order our words, by reason of darkness.

Footnote 76:

“God is One: a most pure, most simple, and most perfect Being.

“The absolute unity and simplicity of this glorious Being is strictly exclusive of any division of perfections. Yet, as human knowledge is not intuitive but discursive, we find it necessary to form and communicate our conceptions, by referring them to distinct and infinite attributes. Such are independence, spirituality, eternity, immutability, power, knowledge, rectitude, and benevolence.

“It is absurd to say, that either the abstract essence, or any of the infinite perfections of God, in themselves, or in their exercise, can be grasped, included, or comprehended (or whatever equivalent term be used) by a limited intellect. ‘A part of His ways, a little portion of Him,’ we know; for He has unveiled it. The knowledge of the best and greatest finite mind can only be, to immortality, an approximation; and therefore must for ever be infinitely small. God alone is CAPABLE OF COMPREHENDING His own nature, mode of existence, and perfections.

“The only questions, therefore, that we have to ask, are, Has Deity, in fact, communicated to man any information concerning HIMSELF? And what has He communicated? Whatever such revelation may be, it is impossible that it should be self-contradictory, or any other than most becoming to infinite wisdom and purity.

“This revelation authorizes us, by a variety of inductive proofs, to conclude, that, with regard to the mode of existence of the ONE Divine Essence, the Unity of the Godhead includes a Trinity of Persons (so denominated for want of any better terms) who are scripturally styled the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: Distinct, not in essence or in perfections, but only personally: One, not personally, but in the common possession of the same identical nature and attributes.

“No contradiction or absurdity is involved in this doctrine, because the unity refers to one respect, and the trinity to another. But we make no difficulty in professing our incapacity to include in our knowledge, or express by any possible terms, the respect in which the Trinity of persons subsists in the perfect Oneness of the Deity. Such pretension would imply a contradiction.”

SMITH’S LETTERS TO BELSHAM.

Footnote 77:

“That which is taught in the scriptures concerning the incomprehensible and spiritual essence of God ought to suffice, not only to overthrow the foolish errors of the common people, but also to confute the fine subtilties of profane philosophy. One of the old writers seemed to have said very well, ‘That God is all that we do see, and all that we do not see.’ But by this means he hath imagined the Godhead to be diffused into all the parts of the world. Although God, to the intent to keep men in sober mind, speak but sparingly of his own essence, yet, by those two names of addition that I have rehearsed, he doth both take away all gross imaginations, and also repress the presumptuous boldness of man’s mind. For surely his immeasurable greatness ought to make us afraid, that we attempt not to measure him with our sense: and his spiritual nature forbiddeth us to imagine any thing earthly or fleshly of him. For the same cause he often assigneth his dwelling place to be in heaven. For though, as he is incomprehensible, he filleth the earth also: yet because he seeth our minds by reason of their dulness to lie still in the earth, for good cause he lifteth us up above the world, to shake off our sloth and sluggishness. And here falleth to ground the error of the Manichees, which, in appointing two original beginnings, have made the devil in a manner equal with God. Surely, this was as much as to break the unity of God, and restrain his unmeasurableness. For where they have presumed to abuse certain testimonies, that sheweth a foul ignorance, as their error itself sheweth a detestable madness. And the Anthropomorphites are also easily confuted, who have imagined God to consist of a body, because oftentimes the scripture ascribeth unto him a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet. For what man, yea, though he be slenderly witted, doth not understand that God doth so with us speak as it were childishly, as nurses do with their babes? therefore such manner of speeches do not so plainly express what God is, as they do apply the understanding of him to our slender capacities. Which to do, it behoved of necessity that he descended a great way beneath his own height.

“2. But he also setteth out himself by another special mark, whereby he may be more nearly known. For he so declareth himself to be but one, that he yet giveth himself distinctly to be considered in three persons: which, except we learn, a bare and empty name of God without any true God fleeth in our brain. And that no man should think that he is a threefold God, or that the one essence of God is divided in three persons, we must here seek a short and easy definition, to deliver us from all error. But because many do make much about this word Person, as a thing invented by man, how justly they do so, it is best first to see. The apostle naming the Son the engraved form of the hypostasis of his Father, he undoubtedly meaneth, that the Father hath some being, wherein he differeth from the Son. For to take it for essence (as some expositors have done, as if Christ like a piece of wax printed with a seal did represent the substance of the Father) were not only hard, but also an absurdity. For since the essence of God is single or one, and indivisible, he that in himself containeth it all, and not by piece-meal, or by derivation, but in whole perfection, should very improperly, yea, foolishly, be called the engraved form of him. But because the Father, although he be in his own property distinct, hath expressed himself wholly in his Son, it is for good cause said, that he hath given his hypostasis to be seen in him. Wherewith aptly agreeth that which by and by followeth, that he is the brightness of his glory. Surely by the apostle’s words we gather, that there is a certain proper hypostasis in the Father, that shineth in the Son: whereby also again is easily perceived the hypostasis of the Son, that distinguisheth him from the Father. The like order is in the holy Ghost. For we shall by and by prove him to be God, and yet he must needs be other than the Father. Yet this distinction is not of the essence, which it is unlawful to make manifold. Therefore, if the apostle’s testimony be credited, it followeth that there be in God three hypostasis. This term seeing the Latins have expressed by the name of Person, it were too much pride and frowardness to wangle about so clear a matter. But if we list word for word to translate, we may call it subsistance. Many in the same sense have called it substance. And the name of Person hath not been in use among the Latins only, but also the Grecians, perhaps to declare a consent, have taught that there are three Prosopa, that is to say Persons, in God. But they, whether they be Greeks or Latins that differ one from another in the word, do very well agree in the sum of the matter.

“3. Now howsoever the hereticks cry out against the name of Person, or some overmuch precise men do carp that they like not the word feigned by the device of men; since they cannot get of us to say, that there be three, whereof every one is wholly God, nor yet that there be many gods: what unreasonableness is this, to dislike words, which express none other thing but that which is testified and approved by the scriptures? It were better (say they) to restrain not only our meanings but also our words within the bounds of scripture, than to devise strange terms, that may be the beginnings of disagreement and brawling: so do we tire ourselves with strife about words: so the truth is lost in contending: so charity is broken by odiously brawling together. If they call that a strange word, which cannot be shewed in scripture, as it is written in number of syllables; then they bind us to a hard law, whereby is condemned all exposition that is not pieced together, with bare laying together of texts of scripture. But if they mean that to be strange, which, being curiously devised, is superstitiously defended, which maketh more for contention than edification, which is either improperly, or to no profit, used, which withdraweth from the simplicity of the word of God, then with all my heart I embrace their sober mind. For I judge that we ought with no less devout reverence to talk of God than to think of him, for as much as whatsoever we do of ourselves think of him is foolish, and whatsoever we speak is unsavoury. But there is a certain measure to be kept. We ought to learn out of the scriptures a rule both to think and speak, whereby to examine all the thoughts of our mind, and words of our mouth. But what hindereth us, but that such as in scripture are to our capacity doubtful and entangled, we may in plainer words express them, being yet such words as do reverently and faithfully serve the truth of the scripture, and be used sparingly, modestly, and not without occasion? Of which sort there are examples enough. And whereas it shall by proof appear that the church of great necessity was forced to use the names of Trinity, and Persons, if any shall then find fault with the newness of words, shall he not be justly thought to be grieved at the light of the truth, as he that blameth only this, that the truth is made so plain and clear to discern?

“4. Such newness of words, if it be so called, cometh then chiefly in use, when the truth is to be defended against wranglers that do mock it out with cavils. Which thing we have at this day too much in experience, who have great business in vanquishing the enemies of true and sound doctrine. With such folding and crooked winding, these slippery snakes do slide away, unless they be strongly gripped and holden hard when they be taken. So the old fathers, being troubled with contending against false doctrines, were compelled to shew their meanings in exquisite plainness, lest they should leave any crooked byeways to the wicked, to whom the doubtful constructions of words were hiding-holes of errors. Arius confessed Christ to be God, and the Son of God, because he could not gainsay the evident words of God, and, as if he had been so sufficiently discharged, did feign a certain consent with the rest. But in the meanwhile he ceased not to scatter abroad that Christ was created, and had a beginning, as other creatures. But to the end that they might draw forth his winding subtilty out of his den, the ancient fathers went further, pronouncing Christ to be the eternal Son of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father. Hereat wickedness began to boil, when the Arians began to hate and detest the name Omoousion, consubstantial. But if in the beginning they had sincerely and with plain meaning confessed Christ to be God, they would not now have denied him to be consubstantial with the Father. Who dare now blame these good men as brawlers and contentious, because, for one little word’s sake, they were so keen in disputation, and disturbed the peace of the church? But that little word shewed the difference between the true believing Christians, and the Arians, who were robbers of God. Afterwards rose up Sabellius, who accounted in a manner for nothing the names of the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost, saying in disputation that they were not made to shew any manner of distinction, but only were several additions of God, of which sort there are many. If he came to disputation, he confessed that he believed the Father God, the Son God, the Holy Ghost God. But afterwards he would readily slip away with saying, that he had in no otherwise spoken than as if he had named God, a powerful God, just God, and wise God: and so he sung another song, that the Father is the Son, and the Holy Ghost is the Father, without any order, without any distinction. The good doctors who then had care of godliness, to subdue his wickedness, cried out on the other side, that there ought to be acknowledged in one God three properties: and to the end to fence themselves against the crooked winding subtilties with plain and simple truth, they affirmed, that there did truly subsist in one God, or (which is the same thing) that there did subsist in the unity of God, a Trinity of Persons.

“5. If then the names have not been without cause invented, we ought to take heed, that in rejecting them we be not justly blamed of proud presumptuousness. I would to God they were buried indeed, so that this faith were agreed of all men, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be one God: and yet that the Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Ghost the Son, but distinctly, by certain property. Yet I am not so precise, that I can find in my heart to strive for bare words. For I observe, that the ancient fathers, who otherwise spake very religiously of such matters, did not every where agree one with another, nor every one with himself. For what forms of speech used by the councils doth Hillary excuse? To how great liberty doth Augustine sometimes break forth? How unlike are the Greeks to the Latins? But of this disagreement one example shall suffice for this time. When the Latins wanted to express the word Omoousion, they called it Consubstantial, declaring the substance of the Father and the Son to be one, thus using the word substance for essence. Whereupon Hierom to Damasus saith, it is sacrilege to say, that there are three substances in God: and yet above a hundred times you shall find in Hillary, that there are three substances in God. In the word hypostasis, how is Hierom difficulted? for he suspecteth that there lurketh poison in naming three hypostasis in God. And if a man do use this word in a godly sense, yet he plainly saith that it is an improper speech, if he spake unfeignedly, and did not rather wittingly and willingly seek to charge the bishops of the East, whom he sought to charge with an unjust slander. Sure this one thing he speaketh not very truly, that in all profane schools, Ousia, essence, is nothing else but hypostasis, which is proved false by the common and accustomed use. Augustine is more modest and gentle, who, although he says, De trint. li. 5. cap. 8, 9. that the word hypostasis in that sense is strange to Latin ears, yet so far is it off, that he taketh from the Greeks their usual manner of speaking, that he also gently beareth with the Latins who had followed the Greek phrase. And that which Socrates writeth in the fifth book of the Tripartite history tendeth to this end, as though he meant that he had by unskilful men been wrongfully applied unto this matter. Yea, and the same Hillary himself layeth it as a great fault to the heretics charge, De trin. li. 2. that by their frowardness he is compelled to put those things in peril of the speech of men, which ought to have been kept in religiousness of minds, plainly confessing that this is to do things unlawful, to speak what ought not to be spoken, to attempt things not licensed. A little after, he excuseth himself with many words, for that he was so bold to utter new names. For after he had used the natural names, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, he addeth, that whatsoever is sought further is beyond the compass of speech, beyond the reach of sense, and beyond the capacity of understanding. And in another place he saith, that happy are the bishops of Gallia, who had not received, nor knew any other confession but that old and simple one, which from the time of the apostles was received in all churches. And much like is the excuse of Augustine, that this word was wrung out of necessity, by reason of the imperfection of men’s language in so great a matter: not to express that which is, but that it should not be unspoken, how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are three. This modesty of the holy men ought to warn us, that we do not forthwith so severely, like censors, brand them with infamy, who refuse to subscribe and swear to such words as we propound them: so that they do not of pride, or frowardness, or of malicious craft. But let them again consider, by how great necessity we are driven to speak so, that by little and little they may he enured with that profitable manner of speech. Let them also learn to beware, lest since we must meet on the one side with the Arians, on the other side with the Sabellians, while they be offended that we cut off occasion from them both to cavil, they bring themselves in suspicion, that they be the disciples either of Arius or of Sabellius. Arius saith that Christ is God, but he muttereth that he was created, and had a beginning. He saith Christ is one with the Father, but secretly he whispereth in the ears of his disciples, that he was made one as the other faithful be, although by singular prerogative. Say once that Christ is consubstantial with his Father, then pluck you off his visor from the dissembler, and yet you add nothing to the scripture. Sabellius saith, that the several names, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, signify nothing in God severally distinct. Say that they are three, and he will cry out that you name three gods. Say that there is in one essence a Trinity of persons, then shall you in one word both say what the scripture speaketh, and stop their vain babbling. Now if any be holden with so curious superstition, that they cannot abide these names, yet is there no man, though he would never so fain, that can deny but that when we hear of one, we must understand an unity of substance: when we hear of three in one essence, that, it is meant of the persons of the Trinity. Which thing being without fraud confessed, we stay no longer upon words. But I have long ago found, and that often, that whosoever do obstinately quarrel about words, do keep within them a secret poison: so that it is better willingly to provoke them, than for their pleasure to speak darkly.”

CALVIN.

Footnote 78:

“There are some doctrines in the gospel the understanding could not discover; but when they are revealed, it hath a clear apprehension of them upon a rational account, and sees the characters of truth visibly stampt on their forehead: as the doctrine of satisfaction to divine justice, that pardon might be dispensed to repenting sinners. For our natural conception of God includes his infinite purity and justice; and when the design of the gospel is made known, whereby he hath provided abundantly for the honour of those attributes, so that He doth the greatest good without encouraging the least evil, reason acquiesces, and acknowledges. This I sought, but could not find. Now, although the primary obligation to believe such doctrines ariseth from revelation, yet being ratified by reason, they are embraced with more clearness by the mind.

“2. There are some doctrines, which as reason by its light could not discover; so when they are made known, it cannot comprehend; but they are by a clear and necessary connexion joined with the other that reason approves: as the mystery of the Trinity, and the Incarnation of the Son of God, which are the foundations of the whole work of our redemption. The nature of God is repugnant to plurality, there can be but one essence; and the nature of satisfaction requires a distinction of persons: For he that suffers as guilty, must be distinguished from the person of the judge that exacts satisfaction; and no mere creature is able by his obedient sufferings to repair the honour of God: So that a divine person, assuming the nature of man, was alone capable to make that satisfaction, which the gospel propounds, and reason consents to. Now, according to the distinction of capacities in the Trinity, the Father required an honourable reparation for the breach of the divine law, and the Son bore the punishment in the sufferings of the human nature; that is peculiarly his own. Besides, ’tis clear that the doctrine of the Trinity, that is, of three glorious relations in the Godhead, and of the Incarnation, are most firmly connected with all the parts of the christian religion, left in the writings of the apostles, which as they were confirmed by miracles, the divine signatures of their certainty, so they contain such authentic marks of their divinity, that right reason cannot reject them.

“3. Whereas there are three principles by which we apprehend things, Sense, Reason and Faith; these lights have their different objects that must not be confounded. Sense is confined to things material; Reason considers things abstracted from matter; Faith regards the mysteries revealed from heaven: and these must not transgress their order. Sense is an incompetent judge of things about which reason is only conversant. It can only make a report of those objects, which by their natural characters are exposed to it. And reason can only discourse of things, within its sphere: supernatural things which derive from revelation, and are purely the objects of faith, are not within its territories and jurisdiction. Those superlative mysteries exceed all our intellectual abilities. ’Tis true, the understanding is a rational faculty, and every act of it is really or in appearance grounded on reason. But there is a wide difference between the proving a doctrine by reason, and the giving a reason why we believe the truth of it. For instance, we cannot prove the Trinity by natural reason; and the subtilty of the schoolmen, who affect to give some reason of all things, is here more prejudicial than advantageous to the truth: For he that pretends to maintain a point by reason, and is unsuccessful, doth weaken the credit which the authority of revelation gives. And ’tis considerable, that the scripture, in delivering supernatural truths, produces God’s authority as their only proof, without using any other way of arguing: But although we cannot demonstrate these mysteries by reason, yet we may give a rational account why we believe them.

“Is it not the highest reason to believe the discovery that God hath made of himself, and his decrees? For he perfectly knows his own nature and will; and ’tis impossible he should deceive us: this natural principle is the foundation of faith. When God speaks, it becomes man to hear with silence and submission. His naked word is as certain as a demonstration.

“And is it not most reasonable to believe that the Deity cannot be fully understood by us? The sun may more easily be included in a spark of fire, than the infinite perfections of God be comprehended by a finite mind. The angels, who dwell so near the fountain of light, cover their faces in a holy confusion, not being able to comprehend Him. How much less can man in this earthly state, distant from God, and opprest with a burthen of flesh? Now from hence it follows;

“1. That ignorance of the manner how divine mysteries exist is no sufficient plea for infidelity, when the scripture reveals that they are. For reason that is limited and restrained cannot frame a conception that is commensurate to the essence and power of God. This will appear more clearly by considering the mysterious excellencies of the divine nature, the certainty of which we believe, but the manner we cannot understand: As that his essence and attributes are the same, without the least shadow of composition; yet his wisdom and power are to our apprehensions distinct, and his mercy and justice in some manner opposite.[79] That his essence is intire in all places, yet not terminated in any. That he is above the heavens, and beneath the earth, yet hath no relation of high or low, distant or near. That he penetrates all substances, but is mixed with none. That he understands, yet receives no ideas within himself: That he wills, yet hath no motion that carries him out of himself. That in him time hath no succession; that which is past is not gone, and that which is future is not to come. That he loves without passion, is angry without disturbance, repents without change. These perfections are above the capacity of reason fully to understand; Yet essential to the deity. Here we must exalt faith, and abase reason. Thus in the mystery of the incarnation, (1 Tim. iii. 16.) that two such distant natures should compose one person, without the confusion of properties, reason cannot reach unto; but it is clearly revealed in the word: (John i. 14.) Here therefore we must obey, not enquire.

“The obedience of faith is, to embrace an obscure truth with a firm assent, upon the account of a divine testimony. If reason will not assent to revelation, till it understands the manner how divine things are, it doth not obey it at all. The understanding then sincerely submits, when it is inclined by those motives, which demonstrate that such a belief is due to the authority of the revealer, and to the quality of the object. To believe only in proportion to our narrow conceptions is to disparage the divine truth, and debase the divine power. We can’t know what God can do; he is omnipotent, though we are not omniscient: ’Tis just we should humble our ignorance to his wisdom, and that every lofty imagination, and high thing, that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, should be cast down, and every thought captivated into the obedience of Christ; 2 Cor. x. 5. ’Tis our wisdom to receive the great mysteries of the gospel in their simplicity: for in attempting to give an exact and curious explication of them, the understanding, as in an hedge of thorns, the more it strives, the more ’tis wounded and entangled. God’s ways are far above ours, and his thoughts above ours as heaven is above the earth. To reject what we can’t comprehend, is not only to sin against faith, but against reason, which acknowledges itself finite, and unable to search out the Almighty to perfection; Job xi. 7.

“2. We are obliged to believe those mysteries that are plainly delivered in scripture, notwithstanding those seeming contradictions wherewith they may be charged. In the objects of sense, the contrariety of appearances doth not lessen the certainty of things. The stars to our sight seem but glittering sparks, yet they are immense bodies. And it is one thing to be assured of a truth, another to answer to all the difficulties that encounter it: a mean understanding is capable of the first; the second is so difficult, that in clear things the profoundest philosophers may not be able to untie all the intricate and knotty objections which may be urged against them. ’Tis sufficient the belief of supernatural mysteries is built on the veracity and power of God; this makes them prudently credible: this resolves all doubts, and produces such a stability of spirit, as nothing can shake. A sincere believer is assured, that all opposition against revealed truths is fallacious, though he cannot discover the fallacy. Now the transcendent mysteries of the Christian religion, the Trinity of persons in the divine nature, the incarnation of the Son of God, are clearly set down in the scripture. And although subtile and obstinate opponents have used many guilty arts to dispirit and enervate those texts by an inferior sense, and have rackt them with violence to make them speak according to their prejudices, yet all is vain, the evidence of truth is victorious. A heathen, who considers not the gospel as a divine revelation, but merely as a doctrine delivered in writings, and judges of its sense by natural light, will acknowledge that those things are delivered in it: And notwithstanding those who usurp a sovereign authority to themselves, to judge of divine mysteries according to their own apprehensions, deny them as mere contradictions, yet they can never conclude them impossible: for no certain argument can be alledged against the being of a thing without a clear knowledge of its nature: Now, although we may understand the nature of man, we do not the nature of God, the œconomy of the persons, and his power to unite himself to a nature below him.

“It is true, no article of faith is really repugnant to reason; for God is the author of natural, as well as of supernatural, light, and he cannot contradict himself: They are emanations from him, and though different, yet not destructive of each other. But we must distinguish between those things that are above reason and incomprehensible, and things that are against reason and utterly inconceivable: Some things are above reason in regard of their transcendent excellency, or distance from us; the divine essence, the eternal decrees, the hypostatical union, are such high and glorious objects, that it is an impossible enterprise to comprehend them: the intellectual eye is dazzled with their overpowering light. We can have but an imperfect knowledge of them; and there is no just cause of wonder that supernatural revelation should speak incomprehensible things of God. For he is a singular and admirable Being, infinitely above the ordinary course of nature. The maxims of philosophy are not to be extended to him. We must adore what we cannot fully understand. But those things are against reason, and utterly inconceivable, that involve a contradiction, and have a natural repugnancy to our understandings, which cannot conceive any thing that is formally impossible: and there is no such doctrine in the Christian religion.

“3. We must distinguish between reason corrupted, and right reason. Since the fall, the clearness of the human understanding is lost, and the light that remains is eclipsed by the interposition of sensual lust. The carnal mind cannot, out of ignorance, and will not from pride and other malignant habits, receive things spiritual. And from hence arises many suspicions and doubts, (concerning supernatural verities) the shadows of darkened reason, and of dying faith. If any divine mystery seems incredible, it is from the corruption of our reason, not from reason itself; from its darkness, not its light. And as reason is obliged to correct the errors of sense, when it is deceived either by some vicious quality in the organ, or by the distance of the object, or by the falseness of the medium, that corrupts the image in conveying of it. So it is the office of faith to reform the judgment of reason, when either from its own weakness, or the height of things spiritual, it is mistaken about them. For this end supernatural revelation was given, not to extinguish reason, but to redress it, and enrich it with the discovery of heavenly things. Faith is called wisdom and knowledge: it doth not quench the vigour of the faculty wherein it is seated, but elevates it, and gives it a spiritual perception of those things that are most distant from its commerce. It doth not lead us through a mist to the inheritance of the saints in light.”

BATES.

Footnote 79:

Infinitus, immensus & soli sibi tantus, quantus est notus, nobis vero ad intellectum pectus angustum est, & ideò sic cum dignè estimamus, cùm inaestimabilem dicimus. Min. Fel.

Footnote 80:

He who has marked the differences between truth and error, good and evil, made them discoverable, and formed human minds susceptible of their impressions, thereby discovers his will that we should attend to them, and has made it our duty to do so. With this sentiment sacred revelation is expressly accordant; “prove all things, hold fast that which is good.” The Gospel requires not faith without evidence, it demands no more assent than is proportioned to the weight of probability, and charges as a crime only our refusing to attend to the evidence, or our coming to it with hearts prejudiced against, and therefore insensible to, its evidence. The exercise of reason is essential to faith, for how sudden soever our convictions, still it is the judgment which is convinced.

Yet reason has her due province; she may and ought to ascertain the genuineness, authenticity, and divine authority of the scriptures. When this is done, she cannot correctly delay her assent, because she may not fully comprehend the promises or works of God, for this would require wisdom no less than Divine. But suppose she should presume to try them, by what balances shall she weigh them? To what shall she compare them? To the reasons and fitness of things? what are these but circumstances and relations springing from the works of God? His creation originated from his wisdom and power, and is ever dependent on them. This is therefore to circumscribe infinite wisdom by what has been already discovered of it; it is to limit infinite power from effecting any thing which it has not hitherto accomplished. Such judgment is not the work of reason, it is irrational. Reason can only make an induction, where there exists premises from which a conclusion can be drawn; but here her limits are exceeded, she has no standard by which she can measure infinity. By reasoning we justly infer from the works of God, many of his glorious moral, as well as natural, perfections; we gather that he is holy, just, true, and good, and we may fairly say that he will never depart from such rectitude, but that all his works will be conformed to such principles. We can go no farther than unto generals, we have no right to question any word or act of his, and say it is not conformed to such perfections, because this would suppose that we possess infinite wisdom. He may have ways of solving our difficulties and objections, with which we are not acquainted. Such judgment is not only irrational, but arrogant, as it is an extension of the claims of reason beyond her just limits. Our duty in such case is exemplified in the father of the faithful. At God’s command we must, like him, sacrifice our Isaacs, and leave to him both to accomplish his promises and to justify the action. It is evident that the doctrine of the Trinity is but partially revealed to man, but sufficiently to let him into a competent knowledge of the plan of redemption.

Footnote 81:

Vid. Epist. 2. ad Dionys.

Footnote 82:

Vid. Euseb. Præp. Evang. Lib. XIII. cap. 12.

Footnote 83:

Vid. Huet. Concord. Ration. & Fid. Lib. II. cap. 3.

Footnote 84:

See Dr. Berriman’s Historical account, &c. page 94.

Footnote 85:

“Philo uses not the name for his derivative Being in the Godhead, which we see the other Jews of the time using in the Gospels. He speaks not of him, by his natural appellation of the Son of God. No! He takes up another title for him, which indeed was known equally to other Jews, or Philo could not possibly have adopted it; which was known equally to the Gentiles, as I shall show hereafter; but which was known only to the scholars of either. He calls him ‘the LOGOS of God.’ This is a name, that can be borrowed, together with the idea annexed to it, only from the Jews, or from the common ancestors of them and of the Gentiles; that answers exactly to the Dabar of Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures, and to the Memra of Jehovah in the Chaldee paraphrasts upon them; and signifies merely ‘the WORD of God.’ This name has been since introduced into our religion, by one of the inspired teachers of it. And notwithstanding the ductility of the Greek language in this instance, which would allow it to be rendered either the Word or the Reason of God; yet the English Bible, with a strict adherence to propriety, and in full conformity to the ancient Christians and ancient Jews, has rejected the accidental signification, and embraced only the immediate and the genuine. Yet, even now, the name is confined in its use to the more improved intellects among us. And it must therefore have peculiarly been, in the days of Philo, the philosophical denomination of Him, who was popularly called the Son of God.

“The use of the name of Logos, or Word, by Philo and by St. John in concurrence, sufficiently marks the knowledge of the name among the Jews. But the total silence concerning it, by the Jewish writers of the three first Gospels; the equal silence of the introduced Jews concerning it, in all the four; and the acknowledged use of it through all the Jewish records of our religion, merely by St. John himself; prove it to have been familiar to a few only. It is indeed too mysterious in its allusion, and too reducible into metaphor in its import, to have ever been the common and ordinary appellation for the Son of God. Originating from the spiritual principle of connexion, betwixt the first and the second Being in the Godhead; marking this, by a spiritual idea of connexion; and considering it to be as close and as necessary as the Word is to the energetick Mind of God, which cannot bury its intellectual energies in silence, but must put them forth in speech; it is too spiritual in itself, to be addressed to the faith of the multitude. If with so full a reference to our bodily ideas, and so positive a filiation of the Second Being to the First, we have seen the grossness of Arian criticism endeavouring to resolve the doctrine into the mere dust of a figure; how much more ready would it have been to do so, if we had only such a spiritual denomination as this, for the second? This would certainly have been considered by it, as too unsubstantial for distinct personality, and therefore too evanescent for equal divinity.

“St. John indeed adopted this philosophical title, for the denomination of the Son of God; only in one solemn and prefatory passage of his Gospel, in two slight and incidental passages of his Epistles, and in one of his Book of revelations. Even there, the use of the popular instead of the philosophical name, in the three Gospels antecedent to his, precluded all probability of misconstruction. Yet, not content with this, he formed an additional barrier. At the same instant in which he speaks of the Logos, he asserts him to be distinct from God the Father, and yet to be equally God with him. ‘In the beginning,’ he says, ‘was THE WORD; and THE WORD was with God; and THE WORD was GOD.’ Having thus secured the two grand points relating to the Logos, he can have nothing more to say upon the subject, than to repeat what he has stated, for impressing the deeper conviction. He accordingly repeats it. His personality he impresses again, thus; ‘THE SAME was in the beginning with God.’ His divinity also he again inculcates, thus: ‘ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM, and WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE.’ Here the very repetition itself, of enforcing his claim to divinity, by ascribing the creation to him; is plainly an union of two clauses, each announcing him as the Creator of the universe, and one doubling over the other. And the uncreated nature of his own existence is the more strongly enforced upon the mind, by being contrasted with the created nature of all other existences. These were MADE, but he himself WAS; made by Him, who was with God, and was God. Nor would all this precaution suffice, in the opinion of St. John. He must place still stronger fences against the dangerous spirit of error. He therefore goes on to say, in confirmation of his personality and divinity, and in application of all to our Saviour: ‘HE was in the world, and THE WORLD WAS MADE BY HIM, and the world knew him not; HE came unto HIS OWN [PROPER DOMAINS,] and HIS OWN [PROPER DOMESTICKS] received him not.’ And he closes all, with judiciously drawing the several parts of his assertions before into one full point; and with additionally explaining his philosophical term, by a direct reference of it to that popular one which he uses ever afterwards: ‘and THE WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory, the glory as of THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, full of grace and truth.’

“Yet, when such guards were requisite, what induced St. John to use this philosophical title at all? The reason was assuredly this. The title was in high repute, and in familiar use, among the refined spirits of the age; and his Gospel was peculiarly calculated for the service of such. The almost perpetual recurrence of the appellation in Philo’s works shows evidently the use and the repute in which it was, among the more spiritualized of the Jews. St. John therefore adopted it himself, for the more easy access to their conviction. It was also congenial, probably, of itself to the spiritualized state of St. John’s mind. He, who has dwelt so much more than the other Evangelists upon the doctrines of our Saviour; and who has drawn out so many of them, in all their spiritual refinement of ideas; would naturally prefer the spiritual term of relationship for God the Son and God the Father, before the bodily, whenever the intellect was raised enough to receive it, and whenever the use of it was sufficiently guarded from danger. These were two reasons, I suppose, that induced St. John to use it a few times. And these were equally (I suppose) the reasons, that induced him, with all his guards, to use it only a few.

“Nor let us be told, in the rashness of Arian absurdity, that we misunderstand St. John in this interpretation of his words. If reason is capable of explaining words, and if St. John was capable of conveying his meaning in words to the ear of reason; then we may boldly appeal to the common sense of mankind, and insist upon the truth of our interpretation. Common sense indeed hath already determined the point, in an impartial person, in an enemy, in a Heathen. I allude to that extraordinary approbation, which was given by a Heathen of the third century to this passage of St. John. ‘Of modern philosophers,’ says Eusebius, ‘Amelius is an eminent one, being himself, if ever there was one, a zealot for the philosophy of Plato; and he called the Divine of the Hebrews a Barbarian, as if he would not condescend to make mention of the Evangelist John by name.’ Such is Eusebius’s account of our referee. But what are the terms of his award? They are these. ‘And such indeed was the Logos,’ he says, ‘by whom, a perpetual existence, the things created were created, as also Heraclitus has said; and who by Jupiter, the Barbarian says, being constituted in the rank and dignity of a Principle, is with God and is God, by whom all things absolutely were created; in whom the created living thing, and life, and existence, had a birth, and fell into a body, and putting on flesh appeared a man; and, after showing the greatness of his nature, and being wholly dissolved, is again deified and is God, such as he was before he was brought down into the body and the flesh and a man. These things, if translated out of the Barbarian’s theology, not as shaded over there, but on the contrary as placed in full view, would be plain.’ In this very singular and very valuable comment upon St. John’s Gospel in general, and upon his preface in particular, we may see, through the harsh and obscure language of the whole, some circumstances of great moment. The bold air of arrogance in the blinded Heathen over the illuminated Divine must strike at once upon every eye. But the Logos appears, from him, to have been known to the philosophers of antiquity later than the Gospel; and known too as a perpetual Existence, and the Maker of the world. St. John also is witnessed by a Heathen, and by one who put him down for a Barbarian, to have represented the Logos as THE MAKER OF ALL THINGS, as WITH GOD, and as GOD; as one likewise, ‘in whom the created living Thing,’ or the human soul of our Saviour, ‘and’ even ‘Life and Existence’ themselves, those primogenial principles of Deity, ‘had a birth, and fell into a body, and putting on flesh appeared a man,’ who was therefore man and God in one; who accordingly ‘showed the greatness of his nature’ by his miracles, was ‘wholly dissolved,’ and then ‘was again DEIFIED, and IS GOD,’ even ‘SUCH AS HE WAS, before he was brought down into the body and the flesh and a man.’ And St. John is attested to have declared this, ‘not even as shaded over,’ but ‘on the contrary as placed in full view.’ We have thus a testimony to the plain meaning of St. John, and to the evident Godhead of his Logos, a Godhead equally before and after his death; most unquestionable in its nature, very early in its age, and peculiarly forcible in its import. St. John, we see, is referred to in a language, that shows him to have been well known to the Grecian cotemporaries of Amelius, as a writer, as a foreigner, and as a marked assertor of Divinity for his Logos.”

WHITAKER.

Footnote 86:

Vid. Forbes. Instruct. Hist. Theol. Lib. I. cap. 2 §. 8.

Footnote 87:

Vid. Curcell in Quattern. Dissert. de Voc. Trinit. personæ ge.

Footnote 88:

Vid. Calv. Institut. Lib. I. cap. 13. §. 5.

Footnote 89:

“The doctrine of a plurality appears in the very first words of inspiration. God would not record the history of creation, without informing the Church that the character of Creator was by no means to be confined to one person. It has often been observed, that this is taught in the words rendered God created, where we have a noun in the plural joined with a verb in the singular number, plainly expressing a plurality in unity. That this is the genuine sense of the passage appears from the work ascribed, in the next verse, to the Spirit of God, who is said to have ‘moved on the face of the waters.’ By modern Jews, whom some Christians have followed, this expression has been rendered, ‘a wind of God,’ or ‘a mighty wind.’ But the firmament, or expanse, was not created till the second day. This includes the atmosphere which surrounds our earth: for the fowl is said to ‘fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.’ Now, it cannot reasonably be supposed that there could be a mighty wind, or any wind at all, before the existence of an atmosphere.

“If we turn to the gospel-history, we find a third person mentioned as engaged in the work of creation. ‘All things were made by’ that Word, who ‘in the beginning existed with God.’

“This plurality appears still more expressly, when the sacred historian gives an account of the creation of man: ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’ But it is a plurality in unity: ‘So God created man in his own image.’ It has been justly observed, that to this the language of Elihu, and of the royal Preacher, agrees: ‘None saith, Where is God my Makers;’ and, ‘Remember now thy Creators.’ Nothing can be more absurd than the various attempts which have been made to shew, that this language may be otherwise understood. God could never speak in this manner to angels, or to any second causes. For to whomsoever these words were addressed, they must have been co-operators with God in this divine work. They must have assisted him in making man. Philo the Jew expressly says that these words, Let us make, declare a plurality. That the Jewish writers in general view this language as including a mystery, not to be made known to the vulgar, and indeed studiously concealed by them, from their abhorrence of Christianity, has been elsewhere demonstrated. It is therefore unnecessary to enlarge here. I shall only add, that the modern Jews are so fully convinced that the doctrine of a plurality is contained in these words, as to wish to alter the reading. Instead of Let us make man, they incline to read, Let man be made; although the Samaritan text, the Septuagint, the Talmudists, and all their translations, whether ancient or modern, express the language in the same manner with our version.

“The same important doctrine is introduced in the history of the Fall. That three-one God, who said, ‘Let us make man after our image,’ in the same character laments the loss of this image. ‘JEHOVAH God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us;’ or, as some read the passage, ‘Behold the man, who was as one of us!’ Here Philo observes; ‘These words, as one of us, are not put for one, but for more than one.’ The learned Allix has remarked that the ancient Jewish writers maintain, that God ‘speaks not this to the angels, who had no common likeness to the unity or essence of God, but to Him who was the celestial Adam, who is one with God.’ To whom this character applies, we learn from the Targum of Jonathan on the place, who here speaks of ‘the only begotten in heaven.’

“This doctrine is also taught in the history of the Confusion of Tongues. ‘JEHOVAH said,—Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language.’ Here the Jews repeat their contemptible subterfuge, that God addresses his ‘house of judgment,’ that is, created angels. For it is an established doctrine with them, that ‘God does nothing without previously consulting with his family above.’ But it has justly been observed, that these words, if spoken to angels, would imply that God were one of them, or that he descended in the same manner with them, by a real change of place. Besides, in a moment to change one language into many, and to infuse these into the minds of men, who were utter strangers to them before, so that they should entirely forget their former modes of speech, is a work that far surpasses the power of angels, and can be accomplished by no being but that God, with whom to will and to do is the same.

“It must be evident to every one, who reads the history of the Old Testament with any degree of attention, that an Angel is often introduced as speaking the language, performing the works, and accepting the worship, which exclusively belong to the Supreme Being. In other words, one, who is undoubtedly a divine person, often appears in a delegated character. Now, while it was the will of God in this manner constantly to remind his Church of the economy of redemption, he at the same time taught her a distinction of persons in the divine essence. It was this Angel who appeared to Abraham on different occasions, to Hagar, to Jacob, to Moses, to Joshua, to the Israelites at Bochim, to Gideon, to Manoah and his wife. But I enter not into a particular consideration of these appearances, having endeavoured to illustrate the character of this divine Messenger in another place. There it has also been proved, that the law was given to the Israelites at Mount Sinai by the second person of the adorable Trinity, in the character of the Angel of JEHOVAH. It deserves particular attention, that at the very time that the God of Israel gave his people a law, by which they were to be distinguished from all the idolatrous nations around, one special design of which was to preserve the doctrine of the divine unity;—at the very time that he pronounced that leading precept, ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me;’ he, according to the Sacred History, viewed in its connexion, sustained the character of an Angel, and was pleased to communicate the knowledge of this fact to his people. How can these apparent contradictions be reconciled, but by admitting that it was the will of God to reveal himself to his church, as at the same time possessing essential unity and personal plurality?

“The more ancient Jewish writers declare, that two persons were engaged in promulgating the law. They say; ‘The two first precepts were spoken by the Supreme Spirit, but he spoke all the rest by his Glory, who is called El Shaddai, known to the fathers; by whom the prophets foretold future events; who is called Jah: in whom the Name of God is; the Beloved of God who dwelt in the temple; and the Mouth of the LORD; and the Face of the LORD; and the Rock; and that Goodness which Moses saw, when he could not see God.’ Elsewhere they call him ‘the Schechinah, by whom we draw near to God, and present our supplications to him; who is that Angel in whom the name of God is, who is himself called God and JEHOVAH.’ The change of person, in the promulgation of the law, asserted by these writers, is evidently a mere fancy. But their language deserves attention; as it shews how fully they were convinced of the doctrine of a plurality in unity, when they introduced it in this manner.

“It has been universally admitted by the friends of revelation, that the great end which God hath in view in the work of Redemption is the display of his own adorable perfections. But there is doubtless another, although less attended to, nowise incompatible with this, nay, itself an eminent branch of the supreme end. This is the manifestation of the mystery of the Trinity, and of the mode of subsistence peculiar to each person in the divine essence. This must undoubtedly be viewed as included in the one great design of the all-wise God in our redemption; and it is evident that he hath still kept it in eye, in the revelation given to the Church, and especially in the history of that work, as it is recorded in the gospels. We may trace the doctrine of a Trinity in the accounts given of the old creation; but it appears with far superior evidence in the history of the new. This corresponds to the superior greatness of the work, and to the brighter and more extensive display of divine perfection.

“Such was the state of the Church, as to admit of a more full manifestation of this mystery. It was more obscurely revealed to the patriarchs, and under the Mosaic economy. This was analogous to the general character of the revelation then made; as well as to the state of the Church, yet in her infancy, and exposed to constant temptations to polytheism, from the situation of all the surrounding nations. But ‘when the fulness of the time was come,’ that the gospel should be preached to every creature, and the kingdom of Satan fall as lightning from heaven, in the overthrow of heathen darkness; there were no such impediments to the more clear revelation of this mysterious doctrine. The rest of the divine conduct indeed rendered this necessary. God had now ‘sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.’ The ends of this mission could not be accomplished, without a full revelation of the character of this illustrious Messenger. He could not otherwise receive that homage from the Church, which he merited as her Redeemer, and which was necessary, in order to her salvation. Now, his character, as essentially the Son of God, and at the same time a divine Messenger, could not be properly unfolded, without a declaration both of the paternity of the First Person, and of that wonderful dispensation, according to which the Second, although equal in power and glory, voluntarily ‘emptied himself.’ Nor could the unity of the work of redemption, as pervading all the dispensations given to the Church, and the beautiful harmony of the law and the gospel, be otherwise displayed. Without a full revelation of this mystery, how could it have been known that he, who appeared in the end of ages as sent of God, was the very same person who had formerly led the Church, as the Angel of his face; that He, who now brought spiritual redemption to his folk, was no other than that Angel-Redeemer, who had already so frequently delivered them from temporal calamities?

“If this mystery be unknown or disbelieved, there can be no faith in Christ as the Mediator between God and men. For he who believes not that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, as to identity of essence, while at the same time there is a distinction of persons, denies the voluntary subjection of the Son to the Father in the eternal covenant, and thus the whole foundation of his merit and of our salvation. In relation to the work of our redemption, and in the history given of it, are revealed various internal actings of the divine persons towards each other, as well as those of an external nature. The Father appoints, gives, sends, prepares a human nature for his Son; the Son undertakes, gives himself, comes, assumes this nature.

“From the history given of the conception of Christ, we find that three divine persons were engaged in the creation of this ‘new thing in the earth.’ The Father appears in the character of ‘the Highest;’ the Third Person, as ‘the Holy Ghost,’ and ‘the Power of the Highest;’ and the Second, as ‘the Son of God.’ When this wonderful Person, the incarnate Word, was to be manifested to Israel at his baptism, each divine Person concurred in the work. The Father testified his presence and approbation by a voice from the excellent glory, announcing Jesus as his beloved Son; and the Holy Ghost descended like a dove, and rested on him. The history of his death, viewed in its connexion, affords a proof of a similar kind. As ‘it pleased JEHOVAH,’ in the person of the Father, sustaining the character of Judge, to bruise the Son as our Surety; and as he, having power over his own life, commended his spirit into the hands of his Father, thus presenting unto him a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour; he did so ‘through the Eternal Spirit.’ The same thing appears from the resurrection of Jesus. He was ‘powerfully declared to be the Son of God in his resurrection from the dead;’ for he had ‘power to take again’ that which no one could take from him. This work is frequently ascribed to God, where the term evidently denotes the First Person. ‘God hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ As he was ‘put to death in the flesh, he was quickened by the Spirit,’ by that Spirit of holiness, ‘by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.’ Nor is this less evident from the account given of the effusion of the Spirit. This is undoubtedly a divine work; and it is described as belonging to each adorable Person. Jesus had foretold that the Comforter should come, that himself should send him, and that he should at the same time be sent by the Father. Accordingly, from the account given of this wonderful event by the apostle Peter, which is left on record for the instruction of the Church, we find that each divine Person was engaged in accomplishing it: ‘Jesus, having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear.’

“It is undeniable, that one special end, which Christ had in view in his miraculous works, was to confirm his doctrine with respect to his equality with the Father. When he gave thanks at the tomb of Lazarus, before raising him from the dead, it was because of the people who stood by, that they might believe that the Father had sent him; and sent him as a Messenger invested with divine power, because essentially possessing divine perfection. For he had previously said to his disciples: ‘This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby;’ and taught Martha, that if she ‘would believe, she would see the glory of God,’ in seeing the manifestation of that power which essentially belonged to himself, as ‘the Resurrection and the Life.’ When he cured the man sick of the palsy, it was in order to prove that he had ‘power on earth to forgive sin;’ while he admitted the principle held by the scribes, that no one could forgive sins but God only. On different occasions he refers to his miraculous works, as irrefragable evidences of his having the same essence with the Father; and of the mutual inexistence, as some have expressed it, of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Father, in respect of this essential unity, while there is at the same time a real distinction of persons. When his enemies accused him of blasphemy, because he said, ‘I am the Son of God,’ ‘making himself God;’ he replied, ‘If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.’ To Philip, when desiring to see the Father, he said, ‘Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very work’s sake.’ The Evangelist John, when referring to the signs recorded in the preceding history, subjoins this declaration; ‘These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Son of God.’ That he appropriates this character to Jesus, as expressive of supreme deity, is evident from the uniform tenor of the gospel which bears his name.

“The doctrine of the Trinity is peculiarly elucidated by the history of redemption; as it does not merely exhibit all the adorable Persons as engaged in this work, but ascribes a peculiar operation to each Person. The contrivance of our redemption is ascribed to the Father; the purchase of it to the Son; and the effectual application of this purchased redemption to the Holy Spirit. The Father sends his Son as our Surety; the Son cheerfully comes in this character; and the Holy Spirit is sent by both. The purpose of election is more immediately ascribed to the Father; the objects of his love are all chosen in Christ; and they, who were thus chosen from eternity, are in time chosen out of the world, and separated for himself, by the renewing and sanctifying work of the Spirit.

“Nor is this all. The peculiar operation of each Person, in the work of our salvation, is perfectly analagous to the order of subsistence in the Holy Trinity; and thus beautifully illustrates the mutual relations of the divine Persons. All the external works of God, indeed, are common to each Person; as the divine nature is the same indivisible principle of operation. Yet these works are distinctly ascribed to the three Persons, because each Person operates according to the order of subsistence. In the old creation, the Father called all things into being by his co-essential Word, communicating life immediately by the Spirit, as exercising a generating power on the unformed mass. When God created man, the First Person formed him by the Second, as his essential Image, giving him life, both natural and moral, by the Third, as ‘the Spirit of life.’ Yet this implies no inferiority, or mere instrumentality, in any of the adorable Persons; but only the most perfect order and harmony. The case is the same in the new creation. It seems most consistent with divine wisdom, that he who is first in the order of subsistence should rather send than be sent; that the Son, who is ‘the image of the invisible God,’ should procure the restoration of that blessed image lost by sin; and that he, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, should be sent by both, to quicken those who are spiritually dead. This distinct operation indeed, as it corresponds with the order of subsistence, beautifully harmonizes with the distinguishing character belonging to each Person. He, who is essentially the Father, assumes the character of paternity, in a federal respect, towards those who are orphans and aliens. The only begotten Son of God is sent forth, made under the law, that they may ‘receive the adoption of sons,’ and appears as ‘the first-born among many brethren.’ The adorable Spirit, ‘the breath of JEHOVAH,’ breathes on the slain, that they may live; giving them a new heart and a right spirit. He, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, unites the sinner to both.

“Is it ‘life eternal to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent?’ Hath no one the Father, who ‘denieth the Son?’ Can no one honour the Father, ‘who honoureth not the Son?’ Is it the Spirit alone who quickeneth, and who teacheth us to ‘know the things that are freely given us of God?’ Can no man ‘say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost?’ Is it through Christ that ‘we have access by one Spirit unto the Father?’ Let us bless God for the revelation of the mystery of a Trinity in unity; and especially because he hath revealed it so clearly in the history of our redemption, in relation to that work in which a peculiar operation belongs to each adorable Person, in which the love of a three-one God is so wonderfully displayed, in which we discern so blessed a harmony, not only of divine perfections, but of divine Persons! In all our worship, let us view God according to this revelation, ascribing glory to him ‘who is, and who was, and who is to come, and to the Seven Spirits which are before his throne, and to Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first-begotten from the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.’ Let us earnestly desire communion with this three-one God; with the Father, in his love as the spring of our salvation; with the Son, in all that grace which he hath purchased by his blood; and with the Holy Ghost, in the whole extent of his efficacious operation. In order to this, let us press after union with Christ, that in him we may be united to the Father by that one Spirit who proceeds from both, and who is conferred by both as the Spirit of adoption. Let us cultivate love to the brethren, as members of the same mystical body, desiring to be ‘one heart and one soul;’ that although many, we may be one, and thus be assimilated, in our weak measure, to the blessed Trinity in respect of unity; as Jesus prays in behalf of his Church;—‘That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us.—I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.’”

JAMIESON.

Footnote 90:

See Le Clerc’s Supplement to Dr. Hammond on the New Testament, preface to John i.

Footnote 91:

See Biddle’s Confession of Faith, touching the holy Trinity, Article VI.

Footnote 92:

Some have thought, that εκεινος being of the masculine gender, because it refers immediately to πνευμα, which is of the neuter, implies, that the Spirit is taken personally, which is the reason of this grammatical construction; but if it be said that the reason why it is masculine is, because it agrees with παρακλητος, it, notwithstanding, proves the Personality of the Holy Ghost, since a Comforter is a personal character. The same thing is observed in the grammatical construction of that scripture, Eph. i. 13, 14. speaking concerning the Holy Spirit of promise, το πνευμα της επαγγελιας; it is said, ὁς εστιν αρῥαβων, which denotes the personal character of the Spirit, otherwise it would have been ὁ εστιν αρῥαβων, unless you suppose ὁς agrees with αρῥαβων, which seems to be a more strained sense of the grammatical construction than the other, which proves his personality.

Footnote 93:

“THAT the Holy Scriptures make mention of Three by way of great eminence and distinction may appear from many passages, out of which I shall only produce some. At the Prediction of the blessed Virgin’s conception, which was to be without the concurrence of a man, the divine message is delivered in these words: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; Therefore, also that Holy Thing, that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. Here are plainly distinguished from each other, the Holy Ghost, or Power overshadowing; the Highest, whose Power that Spirit is; and the Holy Thing, or Person, who is called the Son of God, because born of a mother, impregnated by that Divine Power. At our Blessed Lord’s Baptism, the Spirit of God, we read, descended like a dove and rested upon him, and a voice from Heaven declared him to be the Son of God: Nothing can be plainer than three Personalities in this transaction; the Father speaking from Heaven, the Son coming out of Jordan, and the Spirit descending from above. In the Promise, which our blessed Saviour makes his disciples, to comfort their hearts against what was coming upon them, I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of Truth; and when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me, there are manifestly Acts, and Persons, and capacities, different. The Father, from whom the Spirit proceeds, whom the Son prays, and by whom, at the Son’s Request, the Comforter was given: The Son, praying the Father; sending the Comforter from the Father, and testified of by the Spirit so sent: And the Spirit, given by the Father, sent by the Son, testifying of the Son, and, upon the Son’s Departure, abiding for ever with the Disciples.

“The great Apostle of the Gentiles, to enforce the Doctrine of the resurrection, tells the Romans, that if the Spirit of him, who raised Jesus from the dead, dwelt in them, he that raised Christ from the dead would also quicken their mortal bodies by his Spirit, that dwelled in them; where he evidently refers to Jesus, the Son of God; raised from the Dead; to the Spirit of God, by which he was raised; and to him that raised Jesus, and at the last great day shall raise all others, in whom his Spirit dwells. The same apostle, to satisfy the Corinthians of the benefits of their conversion, after having enumerated several ranks of sinners, and such were some of you, says he, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God, i. e. God the Father. It cannot be denied that Sanctification and Justification are the gifts of God alone; for none can absolve us from the Guilt and pollution of sin, but he only: But then the Apostle tells the Corinthians, that this benefit they received not only from God the Father, but from the Lord Jesus likewise, and from the Holy Spirit: Analogous to which is that other Passage in the same epistle; There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit, (there is the third Person in the Trinity) there are differences of Administration, but the same Lord, (there is the second Person) and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God, (or first person in the Trinity) that worketh all in all. Once more, the same Apostle, in his prayer for the Thessalonians, directs his devotion to the ever blessed Trinity: Now God himself, even our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you, and the Lord, (i. e. the Holy Ghost) make you to increase and abound in love one towards another: For that by the Lord we are here to understand the Holy Ghost, I think is very plain from the next verse; ‘to the end, that he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints;’ since he is the Sanctifier, and to establish our hearts in holiness is his proper work and office: And if so, then is there a plain enumeration of the three Persons of the Trinity in this passage.

“The great Apostle of the Jews begins his first Epistle general to his dispersed Brethren with a declaration of the same article, when he calls them elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through Sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus; for there we may observe, that the three Persons are not only expressly named, but their distinct employments, with reference to man’s salvation, are particularly specified, while the Father is said to elect, the Spirit to sanctify, and the holy Jesus to shed his blood. The beloved Apostle St. John, in his Salutation to the Churches, Grace, and Peace from him, which is, and which was, and which is to come, and from the seven spirits which are before his Throne, and from Jesus Christ has given us a distinct enumeration of the three Persons in the Deity, if we will but admit, (as most interpreters have done) that by the Seven Spirits, which was a sacred number among the Jews, that one Person (viz. the Holy Ghost) is to be understood, from whom all that variety of gifts and operations, which were then conspicuous in the Christian Church, did proceed. But however this be, ’tis certain, that the passage in his Epistle of the Three which bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, are as full and plain a Testimony and declaration of this Mystery, as can be cited in words; and though some have endeavoured to invalidate the authority of this passage, as not extant in some ancient copies, and seldom appealed to by the first defenders of the catholick faith against the Arians and Macedonians, yet the contrary to this is most evident. Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and Fulgentius quote it in their writings: Athanasius made use of it in the council of Nice against Arius; and the reason why it was left out in some ancient copies Socrates acquaints us with in his Ecclesiastical history, when he tells us, ‘That the Christian Church had all along complained, that the Epistle of St. John had been corrupted by the first adversaries of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity.’ ’Twas by their artifice therefore that it was omitted; for several learned pens, both of our own and other churches, have made it very manifest, that it was[94] originally in the text, and that the most and ancientest copies always had it.

“But we need not be so tenacious of one text, when, besides these already mentioned, and many more that might be produced upon a farther enquiry, the very form of our admission into the Christian covenant is in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; the form of our prayers is thus directed, that through the Son we have an access by one Spirit to the Father; and the form of our dismission from them is, every day, with this benediction, The grace of the Lord Jesus, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore; as if the Wisdom of God had intended to inculcate this notion of the Trinity, and, in every act of our religious worship, to remind us of the manner of his subsistence.

“Thus it appears that there are Three, very often occurring in scripture, under the different appellations of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: and that these three are not one and the same Being, under different respects and considerations, but three real and distinct persons, with a peculiar manner of subsisting, is plain from the very names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, if we understand them in a proper and natural sense; because these are opposite relations, which can never meet in the same subject: for a Father cannot be Father to himself, but to his Son; nor can a Son be Son to himself, but to his Father; nor can the Holy Ghost proceed from himself, or (in this sense) be his own Spirit, but the Spirit of the Father, and Son, from whom he proceeds: and therefore the Father is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit; nor the Son the Father, or Holy Spirit; nor the Holy Spirit either Father or Son. The only question is, whether these names, when spoken of the Trinity have a proper and natural, or only an allusive and metaphorical signification.

“The divine nature and perfections indeed, (as they are far exalted above our conception) may be brought down by metaphors, taken from some things, that are analagous in creatures; in which sense we may allow Father and Son to be metaphorical names, when applied to God: not that God the Father is not, in the highest and most perfect sense, a Father, and his Son a most proper, natural, and genuine Son; but because the divine generation is so perfect a communication of the divine nature and being from Father to Son, that human generations are but obscure and imperfect images and resemblances of it. The truth is, when any thing is spoken metaphorically of God, the metaphor and image are always in the creatures; the truth, perfection, and reality of all, in God: and if so, then if God be a Father, and have a Son, an only-begotten Son, begotten eternally of himself; though this eternal generation be infinitely above what we can imagine or conceive, yet it is evident, that God the Father is more properly and perfectly a Father, and God the Son more properly and perfectly a Son, than any earthly fathers or sons ever were. And if God the Father and his Son be truly and perfectly Father and Son, they must be truly and perfectly distinct beings; for the Father cannot be the Son whom he begets; nor the Son the Father that begat him; nor the Holy Ghost either the Father or the Son, from whom he proceeds: consequently, they must be distinct, and real, and proper persons; for he that begets, and he that is begotten, and he that proceeds from both, cannot be one and the same person.

“And as this difference of relations makes a manifest distinction between the three persons; so the different offices and employments, that are ascribed to them in scripture, is a farther note of discrimination. For who sees not, that the work of creation of all things at first, and ever since the just, and wise, and merciful disposal of them, are attributed to the Father; that the great undertaking of our redemption is the care and employment of the Son; and the business of enlightening and sanctifying those, whom the Son redeemeth, the particular province of the Holy Ghost? Without supposing them to be three distinct persons, I say, no satisfactory solution can be given, why, in the great work of man’s salvation, a distinct office and operation should be proper to each of them; why the Father only should be said to elect; the Son only to have shed and sprinkled his blood; and the Holy Ghost only to sanctify us unto obedience. So far then as a diversity of names, offices, and operations, distinguishes one being from another, there is plainly a distinction of persons subsisting in the Godhead. But this is not all. Those, who pretend to state[95] the true notion of a person as a term made use of in this argument, tell us, that it is a being, which has understanding, and is a distinct, entire substance of itself; an individual substance of a rationed nature, or a complete intelligent substance, with a peculiar manner of subsistence: so that there is a common nature, which must be joined by a peculiar manner of subsisting, to make a person, otherwise it would be a mere mode; for we never conceive a person without the essence in conjunction with it. And this notion may haply be of use, not only to state the true distinction of the Persons in the Godhead, but to account likewise for some dubious passages in the fathers, and reconcile the different parties that contend about them: only we must take care (as I said before) that, when we discourse of the sacred Trinity, the word person be not conceived in the same sense as among men. The persons of men are distinct men, as well as distinct persons; but this is no ground for us to affirm, that the persons in the divine nature are distinct Gods. The distinction of the persons of men is founded in a separate and divided subsistence; but this cannot be the foundation of the distinction of the divine persons, because separation and division cannot belong to an infinite Being. In a word, three human persons are three men, because, though they have the same specific nature, yet they have not the same numerical nature: but the three Persons in the Godhead are not three Gods, because they have the same numerical essence, which belongs in common to them all: and since it is confessed on all hands, that nature and subsistence go to the making up of a person, why may not the way of their subsistence be as different as the human and Divine natures (one finite, and the other infinite) are confessed to be? Though therefore in things created it is necessary for one single essence to subsist in one single person, and no more; yet this does not at all prove that the same must be necessary in him, whose nature is wholly different from theirs, and, consequently, may differ as much in the manner of his subsistence. For ’tis a thing agreeable even to the notions of bare reason to imagine, that the divine nature has a way of subsisting very different from the subsistence of any created being, and consequently, may have one and the same nature diffused into three distinct persons: but how, and in what manner this is effected; how one substance in the Deity is communicated to more, and becomes theirs; how of one and the same essence, there can be three persons numerically different; this is the difficulty, and what made the holy father (writing upon the argument) confess, ‘That the mystery of the Trinity is immense and incomprehensible, beyond the expression of words, or reach of sense; that it blinds our sight, and exceeds the capacity of our understanding: I understand it not, says he; nevertheless I will comfort myself in this, that angels are ignorant of it, nor do ages apprehend it; that neither the apostles enquired after it, nor the Son himself has thought fit to declare it.’

“The only valid objection (and to which all others are reducible) against these personalities, so often occurring in scripture, is taken from the simplicity of the divine nature, which, in the opinion of some, will not admit of any distinction. But though the simplicity of God excludes all mixture, i. e. all composition of things heterogeneous in the Godhead, (there being nothing in God but what is God) yet, notwithstanding this, there may be a distinction of hypostases in the Godhead, provided they are homogeneous, and of the same nature. Nay, the simplicity of the divine nature, if rightly considered, is so far from excluding, that it necessarily infers a distinction of hypostases in the Godhead: for, since the simplicity of the Godhead consists chiefly in this, that God is a pure eternal Mind, free from the mixture of all kind of matter whatever; an eternal Mind must needs have in it, from all eternity, a notion or conception of itself, which the schools call verbum mentis; nor can it, at any time, be conceived without it. Now this word cannot be in God, what it is in us, a transient vanishing accident; for then the divine nature would be compounded of substance and accident, which would be repugnant to its simplicity; and therefore must be a substantial subsisting word, and though not divided, yet distinct from the eternal Mind, from whence it proceeds. This is no novel subtlety of the schools, but a notion, that[96] runs through all the Fathers of the first ages, and is not destitute of a sufficient foundation in scripture. It proves indeed only two Persons in the Godhead, not a Trinity; but then it proves, that a distinction of persons in the Godhead is very consistent with its simplicity; nay, that from the true nature of the simplicity of the Godhead, such a distinction necessarily follows; and if there is a distinction of two, there may be of three; and that there is of three, the full evidence of scripture (as I have already shewn) abundantly assures us.”

STACKHOUSE.

Footnote 94:

To confirm this we may add, that, if the difference of copies happened by the negligence of transcribers, such a mistake is much more easily made by omitting a clause, than by inserting one, especially when the same words occur twice very near together, which is the present case: and that, without this clause, the next verse is maimed, and hardly good sense, the words, in earth, standing disjointed by themselves; whereas the words, in heaven, (as we now read them) make a clear, strong, and elegant antithesis: and for these reasons, those copies, in which this passage is found, are more likely to be true, than those in which it is wanting.—Trapp’s Doctrine of the Trinity.

Footnote 95:

A late learned author has given us this definition of a single person, “That it is an intelligent agent, having the distinctive characters of I, thou, and he, and not divided or distinguished into more intelligent agents, capable of the same characters.” [Waterland’s second Defence,] and thereupon he thus argues in another place, “Our ideas of person are plainly taken from our conceptions of human persons, and from them transferred to other subjects, though they do not strictly answer in every circumstance. Properly speaking, he and him, are no more applicable to a divine person, than she or her;” but we have no third way of denoting a person, and so, of the two, we choose the best, and custom familiarizes it.—His Sermons at Lady Moyer’s Lectures.

Footnote 96:

It has, with good reason, been supposed by the Catholick writers, that the design of the word Λογος was to intimate, that the relation of Father and Son hears some resemblance and analogy to that of thought, viz. that as thought is co-eval with the mind, so the Son is co-eval with the Father; and that as thought is closely united to, proceeds from, and yet remains in the mind, so also may we understand that the Son is in the bosom of the Father, proceeding from him, and yet never divided or separate, but remaining in him and with him.—Waterland’s Sermons at Lady Moyer’s Lectures.

Footnote 97:

Some, who take delight in darkening this matter, by pretending to explain it, call the former a το νυν, stans; the latter, fluens.

Footnote 98:

“In the Saviour’s exalted relation to his Father, the name Son of God comes chiefly under observation. It is known that in the sacred word, rational creatures are often dignified with the honorary title of Sons or Children of God; and that in various respects, and for obvious reasons. But certainly that name in Christ signifies something higher. John x. 35-38. He is not only a Son of God, but the Son, by way of eminence above all ο υιος: So that he is by this, as a peculiar and proper denomination, distinguished from other subjects. We know, that the Son of God is come. 1 John v. 20. John viii. 36.—He is God’s only-begotten Son. John i. 14, 18. iii. 16. God’s own Son. Rom. viii. 32. ‘To which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?’ Heb. i. 5. When Christ spoke to his disciples concerning the Father, he never said, our Father, (as he had taught them to pray;) but always with an express distinction my Father. Luke ii. 48, 49. John ii. 16. chiefly John xx. 17.——From the prophetic doctrine, that name was known in Israel, as in its full force applicable to the Messias; which can be clearly evinced from various passages. Mat. xvi. 15, 16. xxvi. 63. Mark iii. 11. John vi. 69. xi. 27. x. 36. Amidst all the confusion of their apprehensions, they found so much emphasis in it, that the acknowledgment of it was among them a ground of adoration, Mat. xiv. 33. John ix. 35-38.; so that when Jesus, with the distinction and appropriation of the divine works, called God his Father, they thence concluded, which the Saviour did not contradict, that he held God for his own Father, and thus made himself equal to God. John v. 18. x. 33-36. Indeed, however intimate the connexion is betwixt being the Messias, the Christ, and being the Son of God, this last signifies still something different, something more original. For Paul preached Christ, that he was the Son of God[99]. In the love of the truth, let us observe the divine testimony, he did not become the Son of God by or after his coming in the flesh, by or after the execution of his ministry; but herein is God’s great mercy celebrated, that ‘he sent him who was his Son, made him under the law, and delivered him up for us all.’ This is evident, from a variety of passages. Gal. iv. 4. Rom. viii. 32. Heb. v. 8. 1 John iv. 9, 10. It is plainly supposed in the parable, the lord of the vineyard sent to the husbandmen many servants, some of whom they beat, and others they slew. Having therefore yet one son who was dear to him, he sent him last of all to them, saying, ‘they will surely reverence my son.’ Mark xii. 6.——In his supreme excellence, as the Son of God, lies the reason of punishing unbelief. As the Son of God, ‘he is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.’ Heb. i. 3. On the self-same account, he is, according to the language of men, his heir, that is, has a natural right to all the works of God, especially to his church; which are also made by him, in communion with the Father. See this described in a lofty strain by the apostle, Heb. i. 1-3. iii. 3-6. Col. i. 15-17. and also by Jesus himself. Mark xii. 6, 7.——Though, therefore, a further theological illustration of Christ’s divine sonship should best be preceded by the proof of his true Deity, yet in the meantime, the name Son of God, as ascribed to him, points us not only to his distinguished elevation above all creatures, which Arius acknowledged, but also to his unity of nature with the Father,[100] and to the ground of his existence in the eternal and necessary existence of the Father.”

WYNPERSSE.

Footnote 99:

Acts ix. 20.; see also chap. viii. 37. In both these places, however, there is a different reading in the Greek. But compare Jesus’ first accusation before Pilate, that he said he was the Christ. (Luke xxiii. 2.) with a new and a later, that he made himself the Son of God. (John xix. 7.

Footnote 100:

Unity of nature with the Father. In the original it is equality of his nature. But apprehending that, by an error of the press, gelykheid is put for eenigheyd, I have adventured to translate the passage as above; and that in the fullest consistency with the design of the worthy author, in the whole of this treatise, and with his express words in the close of the second paragraph of this very section, where he says, “we dare not esteem Christ less than ὁμοουσιος, that is, of the same nature or essence with God.”

Footnote 101:

“The meaning of the terms, Son of God, only-begotten Son of God, must needs be of importance, inasmuch as the belief of the idea signified by them was made a leading article in the primitive professions of faith. John vi. 69. iii. 18. xx. 31. Acts xviii. 37. 1 John iv. 15. Whatever disputes have arisen of late among christians, there seems to have been none on this subject in the times of the apostles. Both Jews and Christians appear to have agreed in this: the only question that divided them was, whether Christ was the Son of God, or not? If there had been any ambiguity in the term, it would have been very unfit to express the first article of the christian faith.

“It has been frequently suggested, that the ground of Christ’s sonship is given us in Luke i. 35, and is no other than his miraculous conception: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.

“It is true that our Lord was miraculously conceived of the Holy Spirit, and that such a conception was peculiar to him; but it does not follow that by this he became the Son, or only-begotten Son of God. Nor does the passage in question prove any such thing. It has been thought that the phrase Son of God, in this place, is used in a peculiar sense, or that it respects the origin of Christ’s human nature, as not being by ordinary generation of man, but by the extraordinary influence of God; and that he is here called the Son of God in the same sense as Adam is so called, (Luke iii. 38.) as being produced by his immediate power. If this be the meaning of the term in the passage in question, I should think it will be allowed to be peculiar, and therefore that no general conclusion can be drawn from it, as to the meaning of the term in other passages. But granting that the sonship of Christ, in this place, is to be understood in the same sense as it is commonly to be taken in the new testament, still it does not follow that the miraculous conception is the origin of it. It may be a reason given why Christ is called the Son of God; but not why he is so. Christ is called the Son of God as raised from the dead, and as exalted at the right hand of God. Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i. 4, 5. Did he then become the Son of God by these events? This is impossible; for sonship is not a progressive matter. If it arose from his miraculous conception, it could not for that reason arise from his resurrection, or exaltation: and so on the other hand, if it arose from his resurrection, or exaltation, it could not proceed from his miraculous conception. But if each be understood of his being hereby proved, acknowledged, or, as the scriptures express it, declared to be the Son of God with power, all is easy and consistent.

“Whether the terms, Son of God, and only-begotten Son of God, be not expressive of his divine personality, antecedent to all consideration of his being conceived of the holy Spirit, in the womb of the Virgin, let the following things determine.

“First: The glory of the only-begotten of the Father, and the glory of the Word, are used as convertible terms, as being the same: but the latter is allowed to denote the divine person of Christ, antecedent to his being made flesh; the same therefore must be true of the former. The Word was made flesh, and we beheld his glory; that is, the glory of the Word, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John i. 14. It is true, it was by the Word being made flesh, and dwelling amongst us, that his glory became apparent; but the glory itself was that of the eternal Word, and this is the same as the glory of the only-begotten of the Father.

“Secondly: The Son of God is said to dwell in the bosom of the Father; that is, he is intimately acquainted with his character and designs, and therefore fit to be employed in making them known to men. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John i. 18. If this be applied to his divine person, or that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us, 1 John i. 2. it is natural and proper; it assigns his omniscience as qualifying him for making known the mind of God: but if he became the only-begotten of the Father by his miraculous conception, or by any other means, the beauty of the passage vanishes.

“Thirdly: God is frequently said to have sent his Son into the world: John vii. 17. x. 36. 1 John iv. 9, 10. but this implies that he was his Son antecedent to his being sent. To suppose otherwise, is no less absurd than supposing that when Christ is said to have sent forth his twelve disciples, they were not disciples, but in consequence of his sending them, or of some preparation pertaining to their mission.

“Fourthly: Christ is called the Son of God antecedently to his miraculous conception, and consequently he did not become such by it.—In the fulness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law—God sent his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh. Gal. iv. 4. Rom. viii. 3.—The terms, made of a woman, made under the law, are a parenthesis. The position affirmed is, that God sent forth his Son to redeem the transgressors of the law. His being made of a woman, and made under the law, or covenant of works, which man had broken, expressed the necessary means for the accomplishment of this great end; which means, though preceding our redemption, yet follow the sonship of the Redeemer. There is equal proof that Christ was the Son of God before he was made of a woman, as that he was the Word before he was made flesh. The phraseology is the same in the one case as in the other. If it be alleged that Christ is here called the Son of God on account of his being made of a woman, I answer, If so, it is also on account of his being made under the law, which is too absurd to admit of a question.—Moreover: To say that God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, is equal to saying that the Son of God assumed human nature: he must therefore have been the Son of God before his incarnation.

“Fifthly: Christ is called the Son of God antecedent to his being manifested to destroy the works of the devil: but he was manifested to destroy the works of the devil by taking upon him human nature; consequently, he was the Son of God antecedent to the human nature being assumed. There is equal proof from the phraseology of 1 John iii. 8. that he was the Son of God antecedent to his being manifested to destroy the works of the devil, as there is from that of 1 Tim. iii. 16. that he was God antecedent to his being manifested in the flesh; or from 1 John i. 2, that that eternal life, which was with the Father, was such antecedent to his being manifested to us.

“Sixthly: The ordinance of baptism is commanded to be administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Matt. xxviii. 19. The terms, Father and Holy Spirit, will be allowed to denote divine persons; and what good reasons can be given for another idea being fixed to the term Son?

“Seventhly: The proper deity of Christ precedes his office of Mediator, or High Priest of our profession, and renders it an exercise of condescension. But the same is true of his sonship: He maketh the Son a High Priest—Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience. Heb. vii. 28. v. 8. His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to the same thing as his being a divine person.

“Eighthly: It is the proper deity of Christ which gives dignity to his office of Mediator: but this dignity is ascribed to his being the Son of God. We have a GREAT High Priest; Jesus, the SON of GOD. Heb. iv. 14. His being the Son of God, therefore, amounts to the same thing as his being a divine person.

“Lastly: It is the proper deity of Christ which gives efficacy to his sufferings—By HIMSELF he purges our sins. Heb. i. 3. But this efficacy is ascribed to his being the Son of God—The blood of Jesus Christ, HIS SON, cleanseth us from all sin. 1 John i. 7. His being the Son of God therefore amounts to the same thing as his being a divine person.

“Those who attribute Christ’s sonship to his miraculous conception, (those however to whom I refer,) are nevertheless constrained to allow that the term implies proper divinity. Indeed this is evident from John v. 18, where his saying that God was his own Father is supposed to be making himself equal with God. But if the miraculous conception be the proper foundation of his sonship, why should it contain such an implication? A holy creature might be produced by the over-shadowing of the Holy Spirit, which yet should be merely a creature; i. e. he might, on this hypothesis, profess to be the Son of God, and yet be so far from making himself equal with God, as to pretend to be nothing more than a man.

“It has been objected, that Christ, when called the Son of God, is commonly spoken of as engaged in the work of mediation, and not simply as a divine person antecedent to it. I answer; In a history of the rebellion in the year 1745, the name of his Royal Highness, the commander in chief, would often be mentioned in connexion with his equipage and exploits; but none would infer from hence that he thereby became the king’s son.

“It is further objected, that sonship implies inferiority, and therefore cannot be attributed to the divine person of Christ.—But, whatever inferiority may be attached to the idea of Sonship, it is not an inferiority of nature, which is the point in question: and if any regard be paid to the Scriptures, the very contrary is true. Christ’s claiming to be the Son of God was making himself, not inferior, but as God, or equal with God.

“Once more: Sonship, it is said, implies posteriority, or that Christ, as Son, could not have existed till after the Father. To attribute no other divinity to him, therefore, than what is denoted by sonship, is attributing none to him; as nothing can be divine which is not eternal. But if this reasoning be just, it will prove that the divine purposes are not eternal, or that there was once a point in duration, in which God was without thought, purpose or design. For it is as true, and may as well be said, that God must exist before he could purpose, as that the Father must exist before he had a Son: but if God must exist before he could purpose, there must have been a point in duration in which he existed without purpose, thought, or design; that is, in which he was not God! The truth is, the whole of this apparent difficulty arises from the want of distinguishing between the order of nature and the order of time. In the order of nature, the sun must have existed before it could shine; but in the order of time, the sun and its rays are coeval: it never existed a single instant without them. In the order of nature, God must have existed before he could purpose; but in the order of time, or duration, he never existed without his purpose: for a God, without thought or purpose, were no God. And thus in the order of nature, the Father must have existed before the Son; but, in that of duration, he never existed without the Son, The Father and the Son therefore are properly eternal.”

FULLER.

Footnote 102:

Και περ is used six times in the New Testament; in two or three of which places it might be rendered, without deviating from the sense of the respective texts, & quidem, as well as quamvis; and I see no reason why the enclitic particle περ, being added to και, should always, without exception, alter the sense thereof, any more than when it is joined to ως, εαν, or ει. And whereas I render και, in ver. 9. But, instead of And, that may be justified by several scriptures, where it is so rendered; as Luke vii. 35. Matth. xii. 39. Acts x. 28. 1 Cor. xvi. 12.

Footnote 103:

Dr. Ridgley differs from the most of his brethren on the Sonship of Christ as Mediator. The following note, and the two preceding, represent, it is presumed, the orthodox doctrine on this important head.

“The Redeemer is the Son of God, in a peculiar and appropriated sense, and by which he is distinguished from every other person in the universe. He is therefore called the first begotten, or first born son of God: his only begotten son, his own son; and eminently The Son, and The Son of the Father. His dear Son; or, as it is in the original, The Son of his love; His beloved Son, in whom he is well pleased. ‘For he received from God the Father, honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ 2 Pet. i. 17. He is ‘The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.’ John i. 18. Who only knows the Father; and none does or can reveal and make him known but the Son. Matt. xi. 27. John i. 18. He being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person; he that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father, John xiv. 9. Heb. i. 3. Which epithets and declarations distinguish him from all other sons; as much as his Father is distinguished from all other fathers. He is mentioned as the Son of God above an hundred times in the New Testament; and fifty times by the apostle John. And the Father of Jesus Christ, the Son, is mentioned above two hundred and twenty times; and more than one hundred and thirty times in the gospel and epistles of St. John. Jesus Christ often makes use of the epithets, The Father, My Father, &c. This character is represented as essential to the Redeemer and peculiar to him, and is an essential article of the Christian faith. This confession Peter made as the common faith of the disciples of Christ. ‘We believe, and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God,’ John vi. 69. Matt. xvi. 16. This was the Eunuch’s faith, required in order to his being baptized. ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ And he who believes with all his heart, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, hath the Son, and with him eternal life. When Peter made this confession, ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,’ Christ said to him, ‘Blessed art thou; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.’ Matt. xvi. 16, 17. ‘He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life.’ John iii. 36. And John says, ‘Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God! He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God: that ye may know ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.’ 1 John iv. 15. v. 5, 12, 13.

“It must be farther observed, that this title, the Son of God, is the highest title that is given to the Redeemer, and denotes his divinity, or that he is himself God, and therefore equal with the Father, if his divinity be any where expressed in the Bible; and that it is there abundantly declared, we have before shewed. He styles himself, and is called The Son of Man, more than eighty times in the New Testament, by which epithet his humanity is more especially denoted, but not excluding his divinity. And, on the contrary, he is called the Son of God, more particularly to express his infinitely superior character, his divinity or godhead. In this view, let the following passages be considered. When the angel, who declared to the virgin Mary that she should be the mother of the Messiah, expressed to her the greatness of this her Son, he does it by saying that he should be called the Son of the Highest, the Son of God. ‘He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest. Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.’ Luke i. 32, 35. If this were not his greatest, his highest title and character, he most certainly would have given him a higher, and one that did fully express divinity. This, therefore, did express it in the fullest and strongest manner. And no one, who believes in the divinity of Christ, can, consistently, have any doubt of it. And when the Father gives him the highest encomium, and recommends him to men, as worthy of their highest regards, implicit obedience, and unlimited trust and confidence, and commands them thus to regard, love, trust in, and obey him, this is the highest character he gives him, by which his divinity is expressed, ‘This is my beloved SON, in whom I am well pleased: Hear ye him.’ If this does not express his divinity, we may be sure divinity is no part of his character; and that he is not God. So, when Peter undertakes to express the idea he had of the high and glorious character of his Lord and Master, he does it in the following words, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If Peter believed the divinity of Christ, he certainly expressed this in these words; for he did not conceive of any higher character, that could be given in any other words. This also appears by Nathaniel’s using this epithet, when he was struck with wonder and surprise at the omniscience of Christ. ‘Rabbi, thou art the SON of God, thou art the King of Israel.’ John i. 49. When our Lord Jesus Christ proposed himself to the man whom he had restored to sight, as the proper object of his faith and trust, he said to him, ‘Dost thou believe on the Son of God?’ And when he told the man that he himself was the person, he said, ‘Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.’ John ix. 35, 38. It appears from this, that Son of God was the highest title which Jesus assumed, and that this had special reference to, and expressed his divinity; and therefore in this character, and as the Son of God, this pious man paid him divine honour, and worshipped him. When the disciples of our Lord, and all that were in the ship with them, had seen him walking upon the sea, in the midst of a terrible storm, and reducing the boisterous winds, and raging waves, to a calm, by his word and presence, they were struck with a fresh and affecting conviction of his divinity, that he was God, and expressed it by coming to him, falling down and worshiping him, ‘saying, of a truth, thou art the Son of God.’ Matt. xiv. 33. In which words they expressed his divinity, and gave a reason for their worshipping him, as their Lord and their God, viz. that they were sure from clear and abundant evidence, that he was the Son of God. The apostle John, when he would represent Jesus Christ in his highest and most glorious character, gives him this title, and adds, ‘This is the true God.’ He says, ‘We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true: And we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.’ 1 John v. 20.

“It is to be farther observed, that when our Lord said to the Jews, ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,’ the Jews, therefore sought the more to kill him, because he said that God was his Father, (his own proper Father, as it is in the original) ‘MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL WITH GOD.’ This is to be understood as the sense which St. John the Evangelist puts upon the words of Christ, ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.’ For this was making himself equal with God the Father, as doing the same work with him: And this is represented as implied in God’s being his own Father; or in his being the Father’s own Son, the Son of God. But if we understand it as the sense which the Jews put upon the words of Christ, and that they said this was making himself equal with God, it amounts to the same thing; for it appears that their inference was just; and our Saviour is so far from denying it to be true, that in his reply to them, he confirms it, and asserts that whatsoever the Father does, the Son does the same; and instances in his raising the dead, and judging the world, and having all things, and all power in his hands. ‘That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.’ John v. 13-17. Thus he makes the Son equal with the Father. Hence it appears that to be the Son of God, and God’s own Son, is the same with a divine person, and denotes one who is truly God; and that this title is used to express the divinity, rather than the humanity of Jesus Christ.

“The same appears from what passed between our Lord and the Jews at another time. He said to them, ‘I and my Father are One.’ This, they said, was blasphemy, because being a man, he made himself God. It is plain from the answer which he makes to them that they considered him as a blasphemer, because he claimed to be the Son of God, by calling God his Father. ‘Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?’ This was the blasphemy with which they charged him; because they considered his saying, that he was the Son of God, by calling God his Father, as an assertion that he was God. John x. 30, 33, 36. And it appears, not only from this passage, but from others, that the Jews, and others, did affix the idea of divinity to the Son of God, and considered this title as expressing a character infinitely above a mere creature. When Jesus was arraigned before the Jewish council, the High Priest charged him with the solemnity of an oath, saying, ‘I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And when Jesus answered in the affirmative, he with all the members of the council, charged him with blasphemy; and pronounced him worthy of death for making this claim. Matt. xxvi. 64, 65, 66. And they brought this accusation against him to Pilate, ‘We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. When, therefore, Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid.’ John xix. 7, 8. By this, it is evident that Pilate considered the Son of God, to imply divinity. When the Centurion, and the guard who were with him, saw the earthquake and the other supernatural events which attended the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, ‘they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.’ Matt, xxvii. 54. From this, it is evident that they considered the Son of God to be more than a man, at least, if not really God.

“There was some idea and belief propagated among other nations, as well as the Jews, of an extraordinary personage, a divinity, who was denominated The Son of God, and who was to make his appearance in the world. To this, Nebuchadnezzar doubtless had reference, when he said, that in a vision, he saw a fourth person, walking in the midst of the fire of the furnace into which he had cast three men; and that none of them had been hurt by the fire; and the form of the fourth was like the Son of God. Dan iii. 25. And who but this divine person can be meant by Agur, when he says, ‘Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his Son’s name, if thou canst tell?’ Prov. xxx. 4.

“This epithet and character we find expressly mentioned by David, the divinely inspired king of Israel, in the second Psalm. And he is there introduced and described, as a divinity, who claims divine homage, trust, and worship, as the Omnipotent heir, possessor and ruler of the world. ‘I will declare the decree. The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art MY SON, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.’[104] From this ancient oracle in Israel, and from a revelation which was made upon the first apostacy, and handed down by tradition, not only the Jews, but also those of other nations who had any particular connexion with them, were taught to consider the expected Messiah as the Son of God in a peculiar and appropriated sense; and as implying real divinity. Therefore, it was supposed on all hands, that this person, the Son of God, the King of Israel, the King of the Jews, was to be worshipped as worthy to receive divine honours. Hence the wise men from the East, being admonished of the birth of this glorious personage, came to worship him, to pay him divine honours; for which they had a particular warrant, having had him pointed out to them by a STAR, which was a known symbol, or hieroglyphic of the Divinity, or a God. And Herod took it for granted, that this person was to be worshipped, and receive divine honours. For he said to the wise men, ‘When ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.’

“All this will be of no weight, indeed, and as nothing with the Anti-trinitarians, the Sabellians; and with all those who deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Arians and Socinians. But they who believe in a Trinity of persons in the Deity, and that Jesus Christ is God, the second person of the Trinity, must be sensible that he is called the Son of God, the Son of the Father, with a special reference to his divine nature, and to denote his Godhead, as the second person in the Triune God.—The Arians and Socinians hold that he is the Son of God, considered as a mere creature, being by this distinguished from all other creatures; and consequently that there was no Son of God before this creature did exist. The latter, or Trinitarians, believe that the sonship of Jesus Christ, necessarily includes his divinity; but are not all agreed as to the foundation of his sonship, and in what it consists. It has been generally believed, and the common doctrine of the church of Christ, from the beginning of the fourth century, and so far as appears from the days of the apostles to this time, that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God: That his Sonship is essential to him, as the second person in the Trinity, and that in this sense, he is the only begotten Son of the Father, antecedent to his incarnation, and independent on it, even from eternity. But there are some who think that the Sonship of the Redeemer consists in an union of the second person of the Trinity, or the Word, with the human nature; and that he became the Son of God by becoming man; and therefore before the incarnation, there was no Son of God, though there were a Trinity of persons in the GODHEAD. This opinion seems to be rather gaining ground, and spreading, of late.

“Those on each side of this question differ in their opinion of the importance of it, and of the bad tendency of either of these opposite sentiments. Some suppose that the difference is of little or no importance, as both believe the Redeemer to be God and man, in one person, and that he is the Son of God, and that this implies his divinity, though they differ in opinion respecting the time and manner of his filiation. Others think this is a difference so great and important, and attended with such consequences; and that those who are opposed to them on this point embrace such a great and dangerous error, that they ought to be strenuously opposed: and consequently do not desire an accommodation, or think it possible.

“Though it be needless and improper here to undertake the labour of entering into all the arguments which have been produced, or may be mentioned in support of each side of this question; yet the following observations may not be altogether useless; but may be of some help to form a judgment upon this point, agreeable to the scriptures.

“1. As this question respects the character of the Redeemer, it may justly be considered as an important one; as every thing relating to his character is very important and interesting. Who would be willing to be found at last taking the wrong side of this question; and always to have entertained so unbecoming ideas and conceptions of the Redeemer, which his must be, if on this point he embraces and contends for that which is directly contrary to the truth? Though such an error should not be fatal to him who embraces it, but be consistent with his being a real Christian; yet it must be a very criminal mistake, and dishonourable to Jesus Christ; as every idea of him must be, which is contrary to his true character: For that is so perfect and glorious, that nothing can be taken from it, or added to it, which will not mar and dishonour it. His character, as it respects the question before us, is without doubt properly and clearly stated in divine revelation, and if we embrace that which is contrary to the truth, it must be wholly our own fault, and a very criminal abuse of the advantages which we enjoy, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ his Son, whom he has sent. Those considerations ought to awaken our attention to this subject, and excite a concern and earnest desire to know and embrace the truth; which will be attended with a modest, humble, diligent enquiry, sensible of the danger in which we are, through prejudice, or from other causes, of embracing error; and earnestly looking to the great Prophet to lead us into the truth.

“2. What has been observed above, and, it is believed, made evident, viz. that the term, Son of God, so often given to Christ, is used to denote his divine nature, and to express his divinity, rather than his humanity, seems naturally, if not necessarily, to lead us to consider this character as belonging to him independent of his union to the human nature, and antecedent to his becoming man; and therefore, that it belongs to him as God, the second person in the Trinity. For if his sonship consists in his union to the human nature, and he became a son, only by becoming a man; then this character depends wholly upon this union, and is derived from his being made flesh: Therefore this epithet could not be properly used to denote his divinity, independent of his humanity, or what he is as a divine person, antecedent to his incarnation; or to express his divine, rather than his human nature. And Son of God, would be no higher a character, and express no more than Son of man; which is contrary to the idea which the scripture gives us on this head, as has been shown.

“This may, perhaps, be in some measure illustrated by the following instance. The son of a nobleman of the first honour and dignity, came from Europe, and married the daughter of a plebian in America, by which he became his son: But as his honour and dignity did not consist in his marrying this woman, or in his being the son of the plebian, by this union with his daughter, but in his original character; no man thought of expressing his highest and most dignified character by which he was worthy of the greatest respect, by using an epithet which denoted only his union to that woman, and which was not applicable to him in any other view; or by calling him son, as expressing this new relation: But the highest title which they gave him, was that which had a special respect to, and expressed his original character, which he sustained antecedent to this union; and in which his highest dignity consisted. And he being the son of a nobleman and a lord, in which all his honour and dignity did consist, they used this phrase, My noble Lord, to express their highest respect, and his most worthy character. This epithet was always used to express his original and highest character and relation, and could not, with propriety, be used to express any thing else. He was often called, indeed, the son of the plebian, when they designed particularly to express his union to his wife, and speak of him as standing in this relation.

“3. The Son of God is spoken of in many instances, if not in every one where this term is used, so as will naturally lead the reader to consider him as sustaining this character and relation antecedent to his incarnation, and independent of it. ‘God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son.’ John iii. 16. Do not these words seem to express this idea, viz. that there existed an only begotten son, antecedent to his being given; that God gave this his Son to the world by his becoming flesh, and being united to the human nature; and not that he became his Son by this union? ‘In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins.’ 1 John iv. 9, 10. If God sent his only begotten Son into the world, does not this suppose he had a Son to send, antecedent to his sending him; and that he did not become his Son by his sending him into the world, or only in consequence of this! This is expressed in the same manner by St. Paul. ‘But when the fulness of time was come God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.’ Gal. iv. 4. The Son was sent forth. Does not this seem at least to imply that there was a Son to be sent forth antecedent to his being made of a woman, and that he was not made a Son, by being made of a woman or becoming man? ‘No man hath seen God at any time: The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.’ John i. 18. Do not these words naturally lead us to conceive of the only begotten Son as existing in the nearest union with the Father as his Son, independent of the human nature?

“It is said, ‘God was manifested in the flesh.’ 1 Tim. iii. 16. It would be unnatural and absurd to suppose, from this expression, that Jesus Christ was not God, antecedent to his being manifested in the flesh, and that by his becoming man, he became a God. Directly the contrary to this is asserted, viz. that he who is God from eternity, did in time appear in the human nature, and manifested himself to be God, independent of the flesh, in which he appeared. It is also said, ‘For this purpose, the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.’ 1 John iii. 8. These two passages appear to be parallel. God manifested in the flesh, and the Son of God manifested, are two expressions of the same thing. From this it may be inferred, that the Son of God, and God, are synonymous here, and of the same import. This serves to confirm what has been said above of the use and meaning of the term, Son of God. And may it not with equal certainty be inferred from these two passages, compared together, that the Son of God existed in this character as the Son of God, antecedent to his manifestation in the flesh, and independent of it; and that he did not become the Son of God by being made flesh? If God be manifested in the flesh, there must be a God to be manifested antecedent to such a manifestation, and independent of it. And is it not equally certain that if the Son of God be manifested, he must have existed the Son of God, antecedent to such manifestation, and independent of it? Consequently he did not become the Son of God by his being manifested in the flesh: His Sonship does not consist in the union of the divine and human natures in one person. His personality existed before this union with the human nature; and he was the Son of God before this: This same Son of God, this same person who existed without beginning, assumed the human nature, not a human person, into a union with himself, his own person, and so appeared, was manifested in the flesh.

“When David speaks of the Son of God, and represents the Father as saying, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,’ so long before his incarnation, the idea which most naturally arises in the mind from this is, that there was then such a person as the Son, who did at that time declare the decree, by the mouth of David; and not, that there should in some future time be a Son begotten, who should then declare the decree. ‘I will declare the decree: The Lord said unto me, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ It is very unnatural, and contrary to all propriety of speech to suppose, ‘this day have I begotten thee,’ means I will beget thee in some future time; and that the Son should be made to declare the decree, long before any such person existed; and when there was in fact no such Son. The decree which the Son declares is not that declaration, ‘Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee;’ but what follows, ‘ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron, &c.’ ‘This day,’ that is, now, not in time which is passed, or which is to come; for with God there is no succession, no time passed or to come; but he exists, as we may say, in one eternal, unsuccessive NOW. Therefore, when we speak of an eternal, immanent act, it is most properly expressed thus, ‘This day, or NOW, have I begotten thee.’ This therefore is the sense in which the best divines have generally understood it.

“St. Paul cites this passage as being illustrated and verified in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Acts xiii. 33. But he cannot mean that he by the resurrection became the Son of God, and was then begotten: for he had this title before that. His meaning is explained by himself in his epistle to the Romans. ‘Declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead.’ Rom. i. 4. That is, this was a fresh and open manifestation and declaration that he was indeed what had been often asserted of him, and what he always was: The only begotten Son of God.

“What the angel said to the virgin Mary, ‘He shall be great, and shall he called the Son of the Highest—The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God,’ cannot reasonably be understood as a declaration that his sonship consisted in his miraculous conception, or in the union of the second person of the Trinity with the human nature, thus conceived: But that this child, conceived in this manner, and born of a virgin, should appear, and be known to be the Son of God, that very person who had been spoken of and known in all past ages by this title; of whom Isaiah had particularly spoken, when he said, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name IMMANUEL. Unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder: And his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God:’ Isaiah vii. 14. ix. 6. That this Son was now to be born of the virgin Mary: the long expected Messiah, who is considered and spoken of by the people of God, by the title of the Son of God, which title he shall bear, as he is indeed the mighty God.

“We are naturally lead to consider the Son of God as existing in this character before his incarnation, and the same with the Word, by what is said of him in the first chapter of John. ‘The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father. No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, this was he of whom I spake, he that cometh after me, is preferred before me: For he was before me. And I saw, and bear record that this is the Son of God.’ Here John is represented as asserting that the Son of God, concerning whom he bore witness, did exist before him, which therefore must be before his incarnation; for John was conceived before the incarnation of Jesus. But how can this be true, if there were no Son of God, before John existed? But if we consider the Word and the Son of God as synonymous, who was in the beginning with God, and who was God, and created all things, this whole chapter will be plain and easy to be understood; and we shall see John bearing witness to the Son of God, who existed before him in this character, and was now come in the flesh.

“We find the same representation made in the epistle to the Hebrews. ‘God, who spake in time past unto the fathers, by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things; by whom also he made the worlds. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,’ &c. How could God make the worlds by his Son, four thousand years before he had a Son; and on this supposition, where is the propriety or truth of this assertion? And how could the Son be said to uphold all things by the word of his power, thousands of years before any Son existed? ‘And again, when he bringeth the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.’ This expression naturally suggests the idea that God the Father had a first-begotten Son to bring into the world, whom he commanded the angels to worship. How can he be said to bring his first begotten Son into the world, when he had no such Son to bring into the world; and indeed never did bring this his Son into the world, if he was begotten and received his sonship in this world, when he took the human nature in the womb of the virgin, and was not a son before?

“Again, speaking of Melchisedec, he says, he was ‘Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God.’ Heb. vii. 3. If there were no Son of God till the human nature of Christ existed, then the Son of God did begin to exist; consequently there was a beginning of his days; and Melchisedec was not made like him, but unlike to him, by having no beginning of days.

“Since there are so many passages of scripture, (and there are many more than have now been mentioned) which seem to represent the Redeemer as the Son of God, antecedent to his incarnation, and independent of it, which will naturally lead those who attend to them to this idea of him; and some of them cannot be easily reconciled to the contrary opinion; this will fully account for the generally received doctrine in the Christian world from the earliest ages to this time, viz. That the Redeemer of man is the second person in the Trinity, the eternal Son of God, who in the fulness of time was made flesh, by a personal union with the human nature.

“4. It is worthy of consideration, whether the contrary opinion, viz. That the Redeemer is the Son of God, only by the second person in the Trinity being united to human nature, and becoming man, does not naturally lead to dangerous and evil consequences; and what good end is to be answered by it? If it be not agreeable to scripture, we know it must be dangerous and hurtful in a greater or less degree, (as all errors respecting the person and character of the Redeemer are) and naturally tends to lead into other mistakes, still greater, and of worse consequence. And if it be agreeable to scripture, it certainly has no bad tendency. If, therefore, it does appear from reasoning upon it, or from fact and experience, that this opinion tends to evil consequences, and has a bad effect; we may safely conclude that it is wrong, and contrary to divine revelation.

“1. Does not this sentiment tend to lower our ideas of the Redeemer, and lead into a way of thinking less honourably of him? It has been observed that it appears from scripture, that this title, Son of God, was used to express the highest and most honourable idea which his friends had of his person and character. But if we understand by it, nothing but what takes place by his union to man, by taking flesh upon him, and consider it as signifying nothing but what took place by his becoming man, nothing is expressed by it more than by Son of man: And we are left without any epithet or common scripture phrase, whereby to express the divinity, the Godhead of the Redeemer, and his equality with the Father. Thus, instead of raising our conceptions of the Redeemer, does it not tend to sink them? Does not the sonship of Christ become an infinitely less and more inconsiderable matter, upon this plan, than that which has always been esteemed the orthodox sentiment on this point, which considers his sonship, as wholly independent of the whole creation, as eternal, and altogether divine?

“We live in an age when the enemies of the Redeemer lift up their heads, and are suffered to multiply and prevail. The deists attempt to cast him out as an impostor. Arians and Socinians strip him of his divinity: And the careless, ignorant, immoral and profane, treat him with contempt, or neglect. This is agreeable to his great enemy, Satan; who seems now to be let loose in an unusual degree, and has uncommon power among men, to lead them into gross errors, and those especially which are dishonourable to Christ, and injurious to his character. And if this sentiment now under consideration, concerning the Sonship of the Redeemer, should spread and prevail now, this would be no evidence in favour of it; but, considering what has been now observed, concerning it, would it not give reason to suspect, at least, that it is dishonourable to the Son of God, and leads to other errors yet more dishonourable to him?

“This leads to observe,

“2. It is worthy of consideration, whether this doctrine of the filiation of Jesus Christ, does not tend to reject the doctrine of the Trinity, as it has been held by those who have been called the orthodox in the christian church, and leads to what is called Sabellianism; which considers the Deity as but one person, and to be three only out of respect to the different manner or kind of his operations.

“This notion of the Sonship of Christ, leads to suppose that the Deity is the Father of the Mediator, without distinction of persons; and that by Father so often mentioned in the New Testament, and generally in relation to the Son is commonly, if not always, meant Deity, without distinction of persons. If this be so, it tends to exclude all distinction of persons in God, and to make the personality of the Redeemer to consist wholly in the human nature; and finally, to make his union with Deity no more, but the same which Arians and Socinians admit, viz. the same which takes place between God and good men in general; but in a higher and peculiar degree. But if there be no tendency in this doctrine of the sonship of Christ, to the consequences which have been now mentioned; and it can be made evident that none of those supposed evils do attend it, or can follow from it; yet it remains to be considered what advantage attends it, and the good ends it will answer, if it were admitted to be true. None will say, it is presumed, that it is more agreeable to the general expressions of scripture relating to this point, than the opposite doctrine; who well considers what has been observed above. The most that any one can with justice say with respect to this is, that the scripture may be so construed and understood, as to be consistent with the sonship of Christ, commencing at the incarnation, however inconsistent with it some passages may appear at first view.

“It may be thought, perhaps, that this notion of the sonship of the Redeemer is attended with two advantages, if not with more, viz. It frees the doctrine of the Trinity from that which is perfectly incomprehensible, and appears a real contradiction and absurdity; that the second person should be Son of the first, who is the Father; the Son being begotten by the Father from eternity; than which nothing can be more inconceivable, and seemingly absurd. And this appears inconsistent with the second person being equal with the first; for a son begotten of a father, implies inferiority, and that he exists after his father, and consequently begins to exist, and is dependent. Both these difficulties are wholly avoided, it is thought, by supposing that the second person in the Trinity became a son by being united to the human nature, and begotten in the womb of the virgin. And it is probable that these supposed advantages have recommended this scheme of the Sonship of Christ, to chose who embrace it, and led them to reject the commonly received opinion; and not a previous conviction that the former is most agreeable to the scripture. This therefore demands our serious and candid attention. And the following things may be observed upon it.

“1. If we exclude every thing from our creed, concerning God, his existence, and the manner of his existence, which to us is incomprehensible and unaccountable, we must reject the doctrine of the Trinity in unity, and even of the existence of a God. The doctrine of three persons in one God is wholly inconceivable by us, and Unitarians consider it as the greatest contradiction and absurdity imaginable. And those Trinitarians, who have undertaken to explain it, and make it more intelligible, have generally failed of giving any light; but have really made it absurd and even ridiculous, by ‘darkening counsel by words without knowledge.’ If we reasoned properly on the matter, we should expect to find in a revelation which God has made of himself, his being and manner of subsistence, mysteries which we can by no means understand, which are to creatures wonderful, and wholly unaccountable. For the being of God, and the manner of his existence, and of his subsisting, must be infinitely above our comprehension: God is infinitely great, and we know him not. And if we attempt to search out these mysteries by reason, we are prone to think they are contradictions and absurdities, merely because our reason cannot fathom them; and they appear more unintelligible, the more we try to understand them. ‘Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the ALMIGHTY to perfection? It is as high as heaven, what canst thou do? Deeper than hell, what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.’ Job ii. 7, 8, 9. ‘Teach us what we shall say unto him, (and what we shall say concerning him;) for we cannot order our speech by reason of darkness. Shall it be told him that I speak?’ and attempt to comprehend and explain the mysteries that relate to his existence? ‘If a man speak, surely he shall be swallowed up.’ Job xxxvii. 19, 20. If a man undertake thus to speak, instead of giving any light, he will be involved and overwhelmed in impenetrable darkness.

“They, therefore, who do not believe the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ, because it is mysterious and incomprehensible, and to some it appears to be full of contradiction, will, if they be consistent with themselves, for the same reason, reject the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in one God.[105]

“2. If the doctrine of the eternal generation and sonship of the second person in the Trinity be soberly and modestly considered in the light of the foregoing observation, and with a proper sense of our own darkness and infinite inferiority to the divine Being, and how little we can know of him; we shall not be forward to pronounce it inconsistent with reason, and absurd; but be convinced, that to do thus, is very bold and assuming; and that it may be consistent and true, notwithstanding any thing we may know; though it be mysterious and incomprehensible. This is a divine generation, infinitely above any thing that takes place among creatures, and infinitely different. It is that of which we can have no adequate idea, and is infinitely out of our reach. What incompetent judges are we then of this matter? What right or ability have we to pronounce it absurd or inconsistent, when we have no capacity to know or determine what is true, consistent, or inconsistent in this high point, any farther than God has been pleased to reveal it to us? There may be innumerable mysteries in the existence and manner of subsistence of the infinite Being, which are, and must be, incomprehensible, by a finite understanding. God has been pleased, for wise ends, to reveal that of the Trinity, and this of the eternal generation and sonship of the second person: And he has done it in a manner, and in words best suited to convey those ideas of it to men, which it is necessary they should have: And we ought to receive it with meekness and implicit submission, using our reason in excluding every thing which is contrary to, or below infinite perfection, and absolute independence; without pretending to comprehend it, or to be able to judge of that which is infinitely high and divine, by that which takes place among creatures, with respect to generation, and father and son.

“God is said in scripture, to repent and be grieved at his heart; to be angry, and to have his fury to come up in his face; and hands, feet, eyes, mouth, lips and tongue, &c. are ascribed to him. These words are designed and suited to convey useful ideas, and important instruction to men. But if we should understand these expression as meaning the same thing in the Divine Being, that they do when applied to men; we must entertain very unworthy, and most absurd notions of God, and wholly inconsistent with other declarations in the sacred Oracles. But if we exclude every thing that is human, or that implies any change or imperfection from these expressions when applied to the Deity, they will convey nothing absurd or inconsistent, or that is unworthy of God. And it will doubtless be equally so in the case before us; if it be constantly kept in mind that the only begotten Son of God denotes nothing human, but is infinitely above any thing which relates to natural, or creature generation, and does not include any beginning, change, dependence, inferiority, or imperfection. This will effectually exclude all real absurdity and contradiction.

“It will be asked, perhaps, when all this is excluded from our ideas of generation, of Father and Son, what idea will remain in our minds, which is conveyed by these words? Will they not be without any signification to us, and altogether useless? To this, the following answer may be given: From what is revealed concerning this high and incomprehensible mystery, we learn, that in the existence of the Deity, there is that which is high above our thoughts, as the heavens are above the earth, infinitely beyond our conception, and different from any thing which takes place among creatures, which is a foundation of a personal distinction, as real and great as that between father and son among men, and infinitely more perfect: which distinction may be in the best manner conveyed to us by Father and Son, to express the most perfect union and equality; that the Son is the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, and that there is infinite love and endearment between them; and that in the economy of the work of redemption, the Son is obedient to the Father, &c. All this, and much more, our minds are capable of conceiving from what is revealed on this high and important subject; which is suited to impress our hearts with a sense of the incomprehensible, infinite, adorable perfection and glory of the Father and the Son; and is necessary in order to give us a right understanding of the gospel; of the true character of the Redeemer, and of the work of redemption.

“What has been now said under this second particular, may serve to remove the other supposed difficulty in admitting the eternal filiation of the second person in the Trinity, viz. that it represents the Son as inferior to the Father, and as existing after him, and therefore his existence had a beginning. This is obviated by the above observations; and particularly by this, that it is a divine filiation, and therefore infinitely unlike that which is human; and above our comprehension. Besides, to suppose eternal generation admits of before or after, or of a beginning, is inconsistent. It may be further observed,

“3. That the opinion that Jesus Christ is the first and only begotten Son of God, by the second person in the Trinity becoming incarnate, and united to the human nature, is, perhaps, attended with as great difficulties as the other which has been considered, if not greater. If so, the inducement to embrace it, and reject the other, which we are examining, wholly ceases.

“If the Son was begotten by the miraculous formation of the human nature; then the Holy Ghost begot the Son and is the Father, as much as the first person in the Trinity. For the angel said to the virgin, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.’ If we take these words as referring only to the production of the human nature, and if it be granted that by the highest, is meant the first person in the Trinity, of which there does not appear to be any evidence, yet the third person, the Holy Ghost, is represented as doing as much, and being as active in this production as the first person. But if this were no difficulty, and the first person of the Trinity be supposed to produce the human nature, and in this sense to be the Father of Jesus Christ; yet this will make him his Father in no other and higher sense than he is the Father of angels, and of Adam; and Jesus Christ will be the Son of God in no other, or higher sense than they; for they were created and formed in an extraordinary, miraculous way.

“If the Son was begotten by uniting the second person of the Trinity with the human nature, and the filiation of the Son is supposed to consist wholly in being thus united to man; this is attended with the following difficulties, as great, perhaps, if not greater, than those which attend the eternal Sonship of the second person.

“1. This is as different in nature and kind from natural or creature generation, as eternal divine generation; and the one bears no analogy or likeness to the other.

“2. This union of God with the creature so as to become one person, is as mysterious and incomprehensible, as the eternal Sonship of the second person of the Trinity; and as inexplicable: so that nothing is gained with respect to this, by embracing this scheme.

“3. It is not agreeable to scripture to suppose that the first person of the Trinity only, united the second person to the human nature, and so became a Father by thus begetting a Son. The third person, the Holy Ghost, is represented as doing this, or at least, being active in it; and there is nothing expressly said of the first person doing any thing respecting it as such. ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.’ ‘Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. When his mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.’ And the angel of the Lord said unto Joseph, ‘Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.’ Matt. i. 18, 20. And this uniting the divine nature with the human, is expressly ascribed, not to the first, but to the second person. ‘For as much as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.’ Heb. ii. 14, 16. Do not they speak not only without scripture, but contrary to it, who say that the first person of the Trinity became a Father by uniting the second person to the human nature, in the womb of the virgin Mary; by which the latter became the only begotten Son of the Father? That the relation of Father and Son began in the incarnation of Christ, and consists wholly in this? And do they by this supposition avoid any difficulty, and render the filiation of the Redeemer more consistent, intelligible, or honourable to him? Let the thoughtful, candid discerning reader judge.”

HOPKINS.

Footnote 104:

This is an incontestable proof that the Son is God, even JEHOVAH. The Psalmist often says, “Blessed are they, blessed is the man who trusteth in the Lord.” And here he says, Blessed are all they who trust in the Son of God, and yet forbids us to put our trust in any but God. “Put not your trust in princes, or in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God.” Psalm cxlvi. 3, 5. And he says, “My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from him.” Psalm lxii. 5. They only are blessed, who trust in God; and all others are cursed. “Thus saith the Lord, Cursed be the man that trusteth in man. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.” Jer. xvii. 5, 7. They are blessed, who trust in the Son of God. Therefore he is the Lord.

Footnote 105:

It has been before observed, that the denial of the eternal sonship of Christ seemed to have a tendency to a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity; and in what way. But what is here observed, shews how the denial of the former tends, another way, to the rejection of the latter. For if the former be rejected, because it is incomprehensible, and appears inconsistent, it may be expected that when the doctrine of the Trinity is more particularly considered, it will appear equally unintelligible; and therefore be rejected, for the same reason. Is it not probable, that Sabellius, the ancient Anti-trinitarian, was in this way led to give up the doctrine of the Trinity?

Footnote 106:

See Dr. Owen against Biddle, p. 362.

Footnote 107:

Ονομα ανεκφωνητον.

Footnote 108:

Antiq. Lib. III. Cap. 5.

Footnote 109:

This the Holy Ghost has condescended, for what reason I know not, to give countenance to, in all those quotations in the New Testament, where the name JEHOVAH, is referred to from the Old.

Footnote 110:

In two places, indeed, it is rendered by Θεος, God, Gen. iv. 1. and Isa. liv. 13. And there is one place in which some think they attempt a literal translation of it, 2 Sam. i. 11. where, instead of the people of the Lord, they translate the text, επι τον λαον Ιουδα, in which, some think, Ιουδα, is put for Ιουα, or Ιουβα, through the mistake of some amanuensis; but it seems rather to be an explication than a literal translation of the words; and whereas some think, the reason of this method used by them in their translation, is, because the Hebrew letters, of which that name consists, cannot well be expressed by the letters of the Greek alphabet, so as to compose a word like it, that does not seem to be the reason of it, inasmuch as they attempt to translate other names equally difficult; as in Gen. x. 2. Ιωυαν, for Javan; and 2 Kings xii. 2. Ιωδαε for Jehoiada.

Footnote 111:

See Dr. Allix’s judgment of the Jewish church against the Unitarians, chap. xiii. to xvi.

Footnote 112:

Vid. Catech. Racov. ad Quest. lix.

Footnote 113:

It is elsewhere said concerning him, 1 John iii. 5. that he was manifested, &c. εφανερωθη, as also in ver. 8. And as for what is said in the last clause of the verse we are considering, that he was received up into glory, it is a very great strain on the sense of these words, to apply it to a mystery, or to the gospel, since the words, ανεληφθη εν δοξη, plainly intimate a person’s meeting with a glorious reception when ascending into heaven; αναλαμβαινομαι signifies sursum recipere, therefore we render it, received up; and so it is often applied to our Saviour, Acts i. 2, 11, 22. and his ascension is called, Luke ix. 51. ἡμερα της αναληψεως, the time in which he should be received up.

Footnote 114:

See Whitby in loc.

Footnote 115:

See Dr. Clarke’s reply to Nelson, page 86.

Footnote 116:

Thus they are four times, Luke i. 68. 2 Cor. i. 5. Eph. i. 3. and 1 Pet. i. 3. wherein ευλογητος is put before Θεος.

Footnote 117:

Dr. Owen against Biddle, page 256.

Footnote 118:

See Dr. Clarke’s reply to Nelson, page 97.

Footnote 119:

See Page 307.

Footnote 120:

It is certain, that και is oftentimes exegetical, as well as copulative; and it appears to be so, by a great many instances in the New Testament; when it is put between two nouns, the first whereof has an article, and the other none; thus it will be acknowledged by all, that it is taken, in 2 Cor. i. 3. Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ὁ Θεος και Πατηρ; so in Eph. i. 3. 2 Thes. ii. 16. 1. Pet. i. 3. Rom. xv. 6. Phil. iv. 20. 2 Cor. xi. 31. and in Col. ii. 2. In these scriptures, and others of the like nature, the Arians themselves allow that this rule holds good, though they will not allow it, when it proves our Saviour’s Deity, because it militates against their own scheme; as in Eph. v. 5. where the apostle speaks of the kingdom of Christ, and of God, as we render it; but, I think, it ought to be rendered, even of God; for it is, του Χριστου και Θεου so in 2 Thess. i. 12. The grace of our God, and, or even, of the Lord Jesus Christ, the words are, του Θεου ἡμων και κυριου Ιησου Χριστου. See among many other scriptures to the like purpose, 1 Tim. v. 21. and chap. vi. 13. 2 Pet. i. 2. It is true there are several exceptions to this rule, though they are generally in such instances, in which it is impossible for the latter word to contain an explication of the former, though, in other instances, it, for the most part, holds good; and therefore it will, at least, amount to a probable argument, that the words in this text, του μεγαλου Θεου και σωτηρος ἡμων Ιησου Χριστου ought to be rendered, of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ. Vide Granville Sharp on the Greek article, and Middleton on the same subject.

Footnote 121:

See Dr. Clark’s reply to Nelson, page 85.

Footnote 122:

The words, ὁ Κυριος and ὁ Θεος are in the nominative case, which denotes that they are not spoken in a way of exclamation.

Footnote 123:

See reply to Nelson, page 67.

Footnote 124:

Acts vii. 43. chap. xiv. 11.

Footnote 125:

See Matt. xix. 26. compared with Mark x. 27.

Footnote 126:

See Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 67, 68, and in many other places.

Footnote 127:

This is the sense of Dr. Clarke’s first section in Part 2, on which the whole scheme seems to be founded; and he speaks to the same purpose in several other places; and, in particular, in his reply to Nelson, page 67, 68, he concludes the word Θεος, God, absolutely taken to import the same, as ὁ παντοκρατωρ or ὁ επι παντων Θεος, by which he always intends the Father.

Footnote 128:

See Scripture-doctrine, page 3.

Footnote 129:

See page 120.

Footnote 130:

See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 176.

Footnote 131:

Whitby is very particular in laying down this sense of the text, with the defence thereof, in his annotations on this scripture, from Heliodorus, where he finds the words, ἁρπαγμα ποιειν, which he renders, to snatch at; and ἁρπαγμα ἡγεισθαι, which, he supposes, signifies to pursue, or covet, a thing that is desirable, but, however, the words going before, or following, in that author, may determine that to be his sense thereof, as the sense of particular words is oftentimes greatly varied thereby; yet this will not justify the rendering them in the same sense, in other instances, very foreign thereunto, as certainly the text we are explaining must be reckoned to be; besides, the word is not the same, for it is ἁρπαγμα, which properly signifies a prey, or the thing stolen; and therefore though ἁρπαγμα ποιειν ξυντυχιαν may signify, to catch an opportunity, as a person catches at what he thinks for his advantage, yet if the word ἁρπαγμον had been used instead of it, it would very much have altered the sense thereof; also though ἁρπαγμα ἡγεισθαι signifies, to esteem a thing worthy to be pursued, or catched at, as a prey, yet ἁρπαγμον ἡγεισθαι, which are the words in the text we are considering, signify no such thing, but rather to reckon a thing unlawful to be pursued, as what he has no right to; and that is the sense thereof in our text, q. d. He did not think it unlawful to pursue, or lay claim to that divine honour, of being equal with God, or, as we render it, thought it not robbery, &c. For the justifying of this sense, every one, that observes the acceptation of the Greek words, will find that ἁρπαγμος signifies, the action of robbing, and ἁρπαγμα the thing stolen, as may be observed in many other words, where the former construction signifies the act; the latter the effect: as in λογισμος and λογισμα, κομπασμος, and κομπασμα, κολασμος and κολασμα, ὁρισμος and ὁρισμα, ὁπλισμος and ὁπλισμα, στοχασμος and στοχασμα; and, in the New Testament, βαπτισμος signifies the action of baptizing, and βαπτισμα the ordinance in which it is performed. See Mark vii. 8. compared with Matt. iii. 7. and chap. xxi. 25. Multitudes of instances might have been given, but these are sufficient.

Footnote 132:

Grotius in loc.

Footnote 133:

“It may readily be granted that any tract published by an apostolick man, in the early Christian church, would be circulated among the Christians of those times, with great dispatch, immediately on its publication. This is a natural and indefeasible position, since it arises from a principle in human nature itself. It is natural, too, that, in those times, it should be copied without delay in such churches as were then extant. And this first edition would be circulated to the widest extent, of course. Churches that were established afterwards were more likely to receive the second edition of such a writer’s works; especially, if they had intercourse with the town where he resided in his latter days, and drew their copies from thence, immediately. But I think we may say, that for one copy of the second edition that was circulated, there would be 20, or 50, or 100 copies of the first edition; since not only would it have the advantage of priority, but not one reader in a hundred would think of the second as different from the first. And this has led our translators to mark, as doubtful, the first quotation which I selected from the first Epistle of John, in my last; chap. ii. 23. I have no doubt of the genuineness of the addition; but possibly there may be 50 copies without it to one which contains it.

“Admitting, then, the residence of St. John be at Ephesus, or any part of Asia Minor, for the last thirty years of his life, for which we have the testimony of ancient history, we may date his first epistle, early in that period: or even before he came to live there. This would spread first, among the neighbouring churches in Asia Minor: secondly, eastward, to those countries which professed Christianity, Antioch, for certain: Syria, Cilicia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia, Babylonia, &c. Toward these countries, there are caravans which go every month, or six weeks, from Asia Minor: there is a regular intercourse maintained, between Smyrna, and the internal parts of Asia Minor, and on through Tarsus to Antioch:—from Ephesus to Smyrna was easy. We have every reason to affirm, that it was the same anciently, and therefore, there was an immediate conveyance of such addresses as the apostle John published for the general use of all Christians, from Ephesus, eastward to the oriental provinces of the Roman empire, where Christianity was settled and flourished. In these churches his writings would be in request. Moreover, these churches would be the first to translate his writings into their current language, for the use of the natives of these provinces, who did not understand Greek (which, however prevalent the Greek language was, must have been many) because here was a great number of professing Christians, who desired to be acquainted with their contents.

“It is evident, therefore, that these translations, having for their basis the first edition, can be no evidences of what the apostle thought proper to add in his second addition. The Syriac version, for instance, if we suppose that to be the earliest of all, would represent the first edition, as would also, all versions made from it, and all copies made from those, at that time, received in those parts. Whereas, the Armenian version, because it is much later, would at least stand the chance of obtaining (and being made from) the second edition. The Syriac version, therefore, is no evidence against an addition. The Armenian version is an evidence for it. This version contains 1 John v. 7.

“Also, the churches in Africa were not planted till many years after those of Asia; their intercourse with Ephesus, being by sea, was irregular, and could only take place, occasionally, if it was direct. If we suppose it to be, on the subject before us, through Italy, then it was subject to the same circumstances as attended the intercourse between Ephesus and Rome. I say Rome, because we have no reason to think that there was any number of Christians, worth mentioning, in any other city of Italy. The apostle Paul, when travelling from Rhegio upward was met by brethren from Rome; which when he saw, he thanked God, and took courage. Certainly, then, he had not met with many friends in places that he passed through, and his courage had been somewhat cast down, for that reason. We find no trace of Christianity in Herculaneum, one of the cities of Italy, of the second size, which was destroyed A. D. 79, though we meet with traces of Judaism there; and in short, it must be admitted, that, compared with Asia, the western provinces had but few Christians. We have no reason to think that Rome sent out missionaries early. The south of France was christianized from Asia, though so much further off than Rome. The natural inference is, that these parts would receive later copies of any apostolick writing, published in Asia Minor, than those parts which had a regular intercourse, half a dozen times in a year, at least, but probably much oftener, with Ephesus. And whatever versions were extant in the west, would represent the second edition with its variations, whatever they might be.

“As to Rome itself, I infer, that that capital of the empire had, if any place had, both editions. Suppose, for a moment, that the first edition had reached Rome, when Aristobulus quitted that city for Britain, or that it was sent to Aristobulus, in Britain, from Rome, it will follow, that the ancient British copies would not contain those additions which the apostle John inserted in the second edition. And to this agrees the fact: for Pelagianism could hardly have been repressed by any text more effectually than by the one in question. Yet that errour rose in Britain, and it was not so decidedly opposed then, as it is now, minus the testimony of this text. Moreover, the text is not quoted by the venerable Bede, in a passage of his works, where we should expect to find it, at least, alluded to. He, therefore, might have the first edition.

“In short, almost all the arguments employed against the authenticity of the text may be admitted. They cease to have any great force, after it is once conceded to those who use them, that the first edition, together with all its representatives, in the first century, suppose, had not the words in debate. They are reduced to the infirmity of a negative argument, at best.

“I must now observe, that the African churches being planted long after the Asiatick, they, no doubt, would obtain the best transcripts of the works of any inspired writer, which could be procured about the time of their being founded; i. e. the second edition of the letter under consideration. To this agrees the fact; the African bishops quote the passage. Tertullian, Cyprian, Eucherius, Eugenius, with his consistory of 400 bishops, Vigilius, Fulgentius, &c. &c. so that it was undeniably extant in their copies from the second century downwards. The argument, then, is reduced to a point: either these divines found the passage in their copies, or they put it there. The latter alternative is so dishonourable to Christians and to Christianity, that one is willing to accept of any hypothesis which may vindicate professors and teachers from such enormous guilt.—But further:

“I have said, that Rome might be expected to procure whatever was most excellent in Christian literature, as well as in other studies. It had, then, the first edition, because that was the earliest which could be procured; and the second because the influx of persons to Rome from all parts was so great, that every thing which was portable of a literary nature, might be expected to be brought there. Rome had an ancient version of the scriptures, known under the name of the old Italic version. It is not of any consequence to our argument, whether this version contained the text of the heavenly witnesses, since it was made very early; but if the revised Roman version of the New Testament contained it, we are reduced to the same dilemma as before, in reference to the African bishops—The reviser of this edition (Jerom) either found it, or forged it. The same arguments that relieve the characters of the African bishops, relieve the character of this father. The accusation is incredible. It is loading the party with a crime so far beyond ordinary culpability, that the mind revolts at the charge. It is admitted, then, that the Latin version reads this verse; that St. Jerome adopted it; that it was adopted by the learned after him; as by our own famous Alkwin, at the time, and in the court of Charlemagne, and has so continued ever since. The inference is, that St. Jerome preferred the authority and text of the second edition, and followed it.

“These, moreover, are independent witnesses; for, the African bishops, who wrote before Jerom, could not receive this passage from his revised version: or, if any choose to affirm that the African bishops received this passage from the old Italic version, then the authenticity of the passage follows of course, in proportion to whatever importance is attached to this increased antiquity.”

SELECT REVIEWS.

Footnote 134:

Mr. Abraham Taylor, in his true Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity, Part. I. chap. 2. in which we have his own method of reasoning in defence thereof, which is, at least, sufficient to remove the boasts and insults of those who wonder that we should not give up the cause entirely to them.

Footnote 135:

See Histoire Crit. du. Nouv. Testam. chap. 18. page 204.

Footnote 136:

See this conjecture of Father Simon learnedly opposed in Smith. Miscellan. contra Simon.

Footnote 137:

Vid. Epist. lxxiii. ad Jubaianum, & de Unitate Eccl. § v.

Footnote 138:

See true Scripture-doctrine, &c. page 53.

Footnote 139:

Contra Praxeam, cap. 25.

Footnote 140:

See the Author before referred to, in the true scripture-doctrine, &c. as also Trigland de tribus in cælo testibus.

Footnote 141:

Vide Abbadie on the Divinity of Christ, per totum.

Footnote 142:

See Quest. vii.

Footnote 143:

See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture doctrine, page 127.

Footnote 144:

Reply to Nelson, page 169.

Footnote 145:

See a parallel scripture, Prov. xxx. 2, 3.

Footnote 146:

ὁ ων εν τω ουρανω, is admitted by Griesback into his text.

Footnote 147:

By the wisdom of God seems here to be meant the wisdom of God essentially considered. But see Matt. xxiii. 34.

Footnote 148:

See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 63.

Footnote 149:

See page 344, 345, ante.

Footnote 150:

Dr. Waterland, Serm. III. in defence of Christ, page 106.

Footnote 151:

“That Christ was not a mere instrument which God used in the work of creation, as the Arians pretend, is plain from this, that the Scriptures not only teach, that Christ was the very supreme God himself that created all things; Psal. cii. 25. Heb. i. 10. but also that no instrument was used in that work. It was wrought immediately by God himself. As it is written, ‘God himself formed the earth and made it.’ Isa. xlv. 18. (This, all grant, was the supreme God: And this God was Jesus Christ.) ‘He alone spread out the heavens.’ Job ix. 8. Not by an instrument, but by himself alone, Isa. xliv. 24. with his own hands. Isa. xlv. 12.”

BELLAMY.

Footnote 152:

δια Ιησου Χριστου are omitted by Griesbach.

Footnote 153:

Vid. Bez. in loc. Unus Deus omnes populos condidit, sic etiam nunc omnes ad se vocat; condidit autem per Christum, sic per Christum instaurat.

Footnote 154:

See Matt. xii. 32. 1 Cor. x. 11. Eph. i. 21. and chap. ii. 7. Heb. vi. 5. and chap. ix. 26. the apostle speaking of the foundation of the world, meaning the first creation, uses the word Κοσμος; but when, in the following words, he speaks of Christ’s appearing in the end of the world, to put away sin, &c. he uses the words των αιωνων.

Footnote 155:

See page 304.

Footnote 156:

See Quest. lxvii. and lxxv.

Footnote 157:

“The Father, saith he, is greater than I. John xiv. 28. As Christ is the head of the church, so the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor. iii. 23. xi. 3. He calleth the Father his God. Matt, xxvii. 46. John xx. 17.—The Father raised him to Israel; Acts xiii. 23. anointed him with the Holy Ghost and with power; Acts x. 38. spared him not, but delivered him up for us all; Rom. viii. 32. and raised him from the dead. Acts ii. 24.—God had appointed him to execute his saving designs, sent him into this world, and gave him commandments. John iii. 16, 17. vi. 38-40. The work given him he finished, and in it he was faithful to the Father. John iv. 34. xvii. 4. Heb. iii. 2. x. 9.—Therefore, God hath also exalted him above measure; Phil. ii. 9. set him at his own right hand in heaven; Eph. i. 20. and gave him all power. Matt, xxviii. 18. He hath made him Lord and Christ; Acts ii. 36. exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give to Israel repentance and remission of sins. Acts v. 31. He hath also ordained him to judge the world in righteousness; Acts xviii. 31. and to him, Christ shall then be subject, and deliver up the kingdom. 1 Cor. xv. 24-28.

“To be the true God, and to be under God, to be the Infinite, and to be the subject, are, according to all reason, and the scripture itself, inconsistent properties. By undeniable authority, however, they are ascribed to the same subject; and therefore, there must be a way to solve the difficulty. How often do we meet with particulars in the system of truth, which seem to oppose one another; but when well considered, agree, and even support one another. The human constitution itself, exhibits a clear instance. The grand inquiry is, upon what foundation every different truth is established, and how to reconcile seeming contradictions. Now, while they who attack the Godhead of Jesus, can never in our opinion, answer the multitude of proofs in its favour; there is on the contrary, for the confessors of that doctrine, the greatest store of solutions, as often as something not divine, something beneath the nature and authority of his Father, and something finite are testified concerning him. ‘He who was in the form of God, and counted it not robbery to be equal with God, took upon him the form of a servant.’ Phil. ii. 6, 7. ‘The Word who was with God, and who was God, became flesh; but in that flesh, manifested a glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.’ John i. 1, 14.—According to the infallible testimony, he is therefore true God and true man; and his saving mediatory performances are inseparably founded on both natures. While the value of these, the power to save his people forever, and to direct all things in heaven and on earth to that end, as also the fitness to be the object of their grateful confidence, and his capacity for conducting the general judgment, are founded on, and give an invincible proof of his divine perfection; it is at the same time his finite nature, wherein he finished the human ministrations of his teaching office, and of his priestly sacrifice.—And thus it is intelligible, how the glory and majesty with which he governs the kingdom of God, to the mighty ingathering and defence of his people, and to the destruction of all opposition, occur as an exaltation; in as far as the human nature, according to its capacity shared therein, obtained the fruit and reward of its labour, and the Lamb that was slain, deserves and receives everlasting honour, because of the works of salvation in both natures. This appears, because every where, his obedience and deepest humiliation are assigned as the reason of his exaltation.—‘I was dead and behold I am alive for evermore, Amen! and have the keys of hell and of death.’ Rev. i. 18. ‘To this end Christ died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord over the dead and the living.’ Rom, xiv. 9. See also Phil. ii. 7-10. Heb. i. 3. John v. 27. Rev. i. 5, 6. v. 12-14.”

WYNPERSSE.

Footnote 158:

See Quest. vii.

Footnote 159:

Creatures are said to be believed, as our Saviour speaking concerning John the Baptist, in Mark xi. 31. says, Why did ye not believe him? διατι ουν ουκ επιστευσατε αυτω; and, in Acts viii. 12. the Samaritans believed Philip, επιστευσαν τω Φιλιππω; and, in John v. 46. Moses is described as a person who ought to be believed; Had ye believed Moses, &c. says our Saviour, ει γαρ επιστευετε Μωση; but it is never said that a creature is believed in. This was Augustin’s observation; upon which occasion he says, In Exposit. Evangel. Johan. Tract. 29. “Though we may be said to believe Paul and Peter, yet we are never said to believe in them.” But as for our Saviour, we are not only to believe him, namely, what he has spoken, but πιστυειν εις αυτον, to believe in him.

Footnote 160:

The words are, ενωπιον του Θεου του ζσττοο ωοποιουντος τα παντα και Χρις του Ιησου; where και seems to be exegetical, according to the rule laid down, page 318. and therefore I would render the words, God, who quickeneth all things even Jesus Christ; and, if this be a just rendering, then the Father is not mentioned in the context; and therefore this doxology is not ascribed to him but to our Saviour.

Footnote 161:

See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 58, 77.

Footnote 162:

The chief opposers of Christ’s being the object of worship, were Jacobus Palæologus, Franciscus Davidus, Christianus Franken, Simon Buduæus; and, on the other hand, it was defended by Socinus, and several others, though not in the same sense in which we maintain it.

Footnote 163:

See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine, page 132.

Footnote 164:

See page 322, 323. ante.

Footnote 165:

See Dr. Waterland’s defence of the divinity of Christ, serm. iv. pag. 127. & seq. where he proves, that the exclusive terms of One, only, &c. do not except the Son, so as to deny him to have the same Godhead with the Father: this he proves from several scriptures, viz. Mat. xi. 27. No one knoweth the Son, but the Father; nor any one the Father, save the Son; it does not follow from hence, that the Father does not know himself nor the Son himself: and when it is said, in 1 Cor. ii. 11. The things of God knoweth no one, but the Spirit of God; this does not exclude the Son, for that would contradict the scripture but now mentioned; no more than the Son’s only knowing the Father excludes the Holy Ghost, which would be contrary to this scripture; so in Rev. xix. 12. it is said, that the Son had a name written which no one knew but he himself: none ever thought that the Father was excluded by this exclusive term; so when God the Father saith, in Isa. xliv. 24. I am he that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself: this would contradict many other scriptures, which speak of the Son as the Creator of all things, if he were to be excluded by it. Again, when the Psalmist saith, concerning the Father, in Psal. lxxxiii. 18. that his name alone is Jehovah, we must set aside all those scriptures in which our Saviour is called Jehovah, if he is contained in this exclusive term. See more to this purpose in the said sermon, in which this argument is managed with a great deal of judgment. I shall only take leave farther to cite what is well observed in page 33. “That, perhaps the word God in those places, namely, such in which there are these exclusive terms, is to be understood in the indefinite sense, abstracting from the particular consideration of this or that person, in like manner as the word man often stands not for any particular human person, but the whole species, or human nature; as when we say, man is frail; man is mortal, or the like.”

Footnote 166:

Τι με ερωτας περι του αγαθου. Beza speaks of two or three of the most ancient copies in which this reading is found; and Grotius also adheres to it, from the credit, as he says, of the most ancient and correct copies; and it is also observed, that the vulgar Latin version renders it so; and Augustin read it so in the copy that he made use of: and whereas the evangelists, Mark and Luke, read it, Why callest thou me good, he endeavours to reconcile this different reading therewith as supposing there was a seeming contradiction between them which he might better have done, by referring to some copies which had it, as we read it, why callest thou me good; from whence, it is probable, he saw none that so rendered it in his time. Vid. Agust. de Consensu. Evan. lib. ii. cap. 63. It is also thus translated in the ancient Hebrew version of the gospel of Matthew.

Footnote 167:

“If Dr. Priestley, in his celebrated efforts to establish the Unitarianism of the primitive church against Dr. Horsley, fell so short of ‘complete victory;’ it may be presumed, that the failure would, in some degree, affect his greater work, The History of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ. Many parts of that elaborate performance are merely a republication of the Letters, excluding the personalities. Their merits and their fate must, therefore, be closely, interwoven.

“This large and capital work was given to the world under circumstances which appeared very promising for bringing the controversy to a satisfactory issue. With great and long continued diligence the indefatigable author collected his materials. He digested and arranged them, with that lucid perspicuity for which he was so justly distinguished. He tried every method to call forth into the field of preparatory discussion, some learned and able Trinitarians and Arians. He waited for some years after the publication of the work; and then renewed his public challenge, affording an additional period for the fate of the question. It was, of course, implied, and the obligation was frankly avowed by the Doctor; that he would in proper time duly notice what any fair and candid opponents should produce.

“It is to be lamented, however that the expectations thus excited have not been completely answered; and the decease of Dr. Priestly excludes every hope that they will be so.

“Early in the year 1790, a mild and amiable writer, Dr. Williams,[168] addressed to Dr. Priestley his objections to the whole structure of the argument built on the History of Early Opinions. He offered reasons to shew, that the appeal to the fathers was a method calculated to increase difficulties, and to render the controversy almost interminable; that it has been experimentally proved an insufficient mode of argument; that it has been long ago solidly refuted;[169] that it was plainly reprehended by Jesus Christ; that it is highly untheological in its just consequences; and that it is illogical and inconclusive. This letter breathed the sincere spirit of amicable controversy; and I cannot but think that it deserved the very candid and serious attention of your learned friend. But I believe it was never noticed in any other way than that of private compliment.

“In 1794, Dr. Jamieson published a professed and minute examination of the History of Early Opinions. This elaborate and learned work was the very performance which Dr. Priestley had so long desired and challenged. It surely, then, had a just claim on his particular and public notice. At the time of this work’s appearance, Dr. Priestley was occupied in the important measure of emigration to America. But when that step was accomplished, he enjoyed, for the remaining years of life, a calm and undisturbed retreat. We have, however, yet to be informed of the reason why his former pledge was not fulfilled.

“As the controversy has been thus left open, it cannot be deemed illiberal in me to mention the result of personal observation in reading this large work of Dr. Priestley’s. I am the more inclined to do so, since what I have remarked may be of use in answering a question of some importance; What degree of reliance can be placed on Dr. Priestley’s care and accuracy in his citations of the fathers?

“You, Sir, are well aware of the importance which Dr. Priestley attaches to the position, that the doctrines of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ were acknowledged by the orthodox fathers to have been most cautiously concealed, in the earlier preaching of the apostles, and not to have been clearly divulged, till John taught them at the close of the apostolic age.

“Dr. Jamieson appears to me to have solidly refuted this assertion.[170] But he has, by no means, proceeded so far as he might easily have done, in shewing Dr. Priestley’s remarkable inattention to rigid accuracy in the allegation of his authorities.

“The instances of this kind which I have observed have given me much astonishment. If they concerned merely the literary reputation of this truly eminent character, to drag them into public notice could only be the work of a petulant and little mind. But they become cases of a very different nature, when conclusions of prime importance on a very interesting subject are inferred from egregious misconstructions of an author’s meaning. In such cases regard to truth must supersede personal delicacies.

“This duty becomes the more urgent when we are told, from high and respectable authority, that, ‘in all the most important controversies in which’ Dr. Priestley ‘was engaged, he had studied the subject thoroughly, and was a complete master of the whole question:’ and that, in his reasoning, ‘there was nothing artificial and ambiguous; no design to slur over difficulties and objections, or to lay greater stress upon a topic than it would well bear.’[171]

“The doctor has selected Chrysostom as the father whose evidence is most ample in support of the opinion, that John first taught the divinity of Christ. ‘Chrysostom,’ says Dr. Priestley, ‘represents all the preceding writers of the New Testament as children, who heard, but did not understand things, and who were busy about cheese-cakes and childish sports, but John,’ he says, ‘taught what the angels themselves did not know before he declared it.’[172]

“At the bottom of the page, Dr. Priestley faithfully transcribes the Greek of this passage, and no one can say that his translation is materially unfair, so far as it goes. The sentence is exactly thus: ‘All the rest, like little children, hear indeed, yet do not understand what they hear, but are captivated with cakes and childish sports.’ The omission of the clause ‘all the rest,’ (οι γε αλλοι παντες) does not appear of much consequence. The insertion of it would only have led the reader to inquire for the antecedent, and Dr. Priestley has provided a ready answer: ‘all the preceding writers of the New Testament.’

“Do me the favour, my dear Sir, to take down the volume of Chrysostom, and turn to the passage. Will you find the antecedent to this relative clause to be any ‘writers of the New Testament,’ or any persons at all connected with the New Testament? No, Sir. You will find it to be the effeminate and dissipated spectators of athletic games, and the auditors of musicians and oratorial sophists![173]”

SMITH’S LETTERS TO BELSHAM.

Footnote 168:

Letter to Dr. Priestley, in vol. i. of Dr. Williams’ edition of Owen on the Hebrews.

Footnote 169:

Dr. Williams refers only to Chillingworth by name. I would take the liberty of adding, that M. Daille’s admirable work On the Use of the Fathers in Determining Religious Controversies, is deserving of the most careful perusal with reference to this subject.

Footnote 170:

See his valuable work, Vindication of the Primitive Faith, &c. in Reply to Dr. Priestley’s Hist. of Early Opinions: vol. i. p. 284-313.

Footnote 171:

Mr. Belsham’s Disc. p. 24, 25.

Footnote 172:

Hist. of Early Op. vol. iii. p. 128, 129.

Footnote 173:

Mr. Belsham denies that these characters are the antecedent to the exceptive clause in question, and conceives that it refers to the mass of unlearned Christians, who are placed in opposition to “the spectators and auditors of John, men that are become angels, or are desirous of becoming such.” But the Greek fathers give some additional features of their character. “These,” he says, “are devoted to merriment and luxuriousness, living in riches, honours, and gluttony.” The candid reader will judge whether this description be more applicable to plain and honest christians, than to the gay and dissipated persons mentioned in a preceding part of the discourse.

Footnote 174:

In this they agree with those who were formerly called Macedonians, from Macidonius, bishop of Constantinople, who lived about the middle of the fourth century, who entertained such sentiments of the Holy Ghost, and had a considerable party that adhered to him, who were also called Pneumatomachi.

Footnote 175:

See page 249, 250.

Footnote 176:

See Woltzogen, and other Socinian writers, in loc. and Dr. Clarke’s Scripture-doctrine, page 13. where he inserts this among those scriptures; in all which he supposes that the word God is applied to the Father.

Footnote 177:

See page 358.

Footnote 178:

Several of the Post Nicene Fathers have taken the words, καθαπερ απο του πνευματος, in the same sense as by the Lord, the Spirit; and, in particular, Basil. de Spirit. Sanct. ad Amphiloc. Cap. 21. & Chrysost. in loc.

Footnote 179:

See page 249, 250, 251.

Footnote 180:

See page 359, 360.

Footnote 181:

See Dr. Clarke’s Scripture-doctrine, page 198.

Footnote 182:

See Quest. lix. lxvii. lxxii. lxxv.