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 VOL. I.

Rr

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 tire words may be 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,

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.* 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, 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 See Whitby in loc.

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

" 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*, 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 † 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 ‡, 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,

Thus they are four times, Lake i. 68. 2 Cor. i. 5. Eph. i. 3. and 1 Pet. i. 3. wherein whoygos is put before Ows. Dr. Owen against Biddle, page 256.

* See Dr. Clarke's reply to Nelson, page 97.

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 los, 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, posvПalpe which is an explication of his own words, John is 1. mpos Toy Our 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, 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 bles

* See Page 307.