A Vindication, Part 1
THe next Scripture that I produced for the confirmation of the Diety of Jeſus Chriſt, (after Joh. 8. 58.) was Rev. 1. 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.
But he encounters with this Text, and would evade the force of it, in theſe words: How can you demonſtrate (ſaith he) that theſe are the words of Chriſt, and do relate to him?
Repl. 1. I do demonſtrate it from that agreement which theſe words in the 8. verſe have with the words of the 11. and of the 17. verſes, which words of both places do refer to Chriſt, by his own confeſſion, and without the contradiction of any, as the 13. and 17. verſes do evidence to the Reader, in which it appears to be Chriſt that aſſumed the Titles of Alpha and Omega to himſelf.
2. I do collect it, becauſe Chriſt is one of the ſpeakers which we uſually meet with in this Prophecy, but the Father is rarely or never found to be a ſpeaker through this whole Book.
3. Becauſe the things that are in this Book repreſented, are given by the Father unto Chriſt, but are ſhewed and ſignified by Chriſt unto his ſervants; now this is one thing that Chriſt ſhewed, which reſpected himſelf what he was, I am (ſaith he) Alpha and Omega.
4. Becauſe there are no more ſpeakers in this Chapter, but Chriſt and John, who can be made evidently to appear; therefore all that is ſpoken in it, muſt be referred to one of the two; but the 8. verſe cannot be referred to John, therefore to Chriſt.
5. Becauſe it concludes the prooeme, and gives a period to the Preface, (as Pareus ſhews upon the place,) John had repreſented him comming in the clouds, in the 7. verſe, and then in the words of the 8. verſe, ſets him before men, (for the conſolation of the righteous, and terrour of the wicked) as preſent, calling to them, I am Alpha and Omega, &c. who will make doubt of my coming? who can intercept it? I am Alpha and Omega, &c. But he imagines other Arguments will be made uſe of, to prove this place to refer to Chriſt, and diſputes againſt them, his words are theſe:
You will peradventure ſay, that the thing is evident, in that he is called Lord, or you will bring the Teſtimony of learned Authors, who have interpreted the words as ſpoken by Chriſt: And he confutes both theſe reaſons, and ſaith, God, or the Father, diſtinct from Chriſt, is called Lord, Act. 3. 19. 20. &c. And Beza (ſaith he) conceived that theſe words are ſpoken of God, abſolutely taken. And Pareus confeſſeth certain Orthodox Interpreters do attribute the words to God abſolutely conſidered.
Repl. The Title Lord, becauſe it is rarely attributed to the Father in the New Teſtament, and when it is attributed to him, it is done with ſuch clearneſs, that it is eaſily diſcerned, and becauſe it is firſt commonly attributed to Chriſt, therefore it may be a ground of a probable Argument, that Chriſt is meant by it; but a neceſſary Argument cannot be deducted from it; therefore I wave it; and it had been wiſdom if he had done ſo alſo, till he had diſcerned that I had made uſe of it as an Argument. As for learned Interpreters, though I honour them much, yet it hath not been my cuſtom to bottom the ſenſe that I put upon Scriptures upon them; but to prove it from the Scripture, either the Text it ſelf or context, or ſome other parallel place; therefore he might have ſpared his labour in citing Authors, unleſs I had provoked him thereto.
But if he will produce Authors, why will he offer wrong to the Authors whom he produceth? and make them ſpeak that which they ſpeak not? that hath been the way to uphold a rotten tenent, and he treads in that way. I cannot find the words he cites in Beza, and he mentions not the place; and if he can ſhew them in Beza, I can ſhew that Beza contradicts himſelf. If Beza have ſo expreſſed himſelf, probably he would do it when he came to give the ſenſe of the place, but there his words are theſe: Chriſtus hic loquitur ut aeternus Deus, acſi diceret, ego is ſum ante quem nihil eſt, immo per quem factum eſt quicquid factum eſt, quicque ut omnia intereant, ſuperſtes illis omnibus maneam, &c. That is, Chriſt here ſpeaks as the eternal God, as if he ſhould ſay, I am he before whom there is nothing, yea and by whom every thing is made that is made, and am one who do abide, and am ſurviving when all other things periſh. As for Pareus, I confeſs he cites his words aright, and yet abuſeth him egregiouſly; for though he grants that ſome Orthodox Writers do apply theſe words to God, abſolutely conſidered, yet he doth not grant that they are Orthodox in their Interpretation of that Text, but diſputes againſt them, and renders reaſons why the words muſt be applyed to Chriſt. And in the very place from whence he fetcheth thoſe words of Pareus, which he mentions in his Margin, theſe words immediately follow, cauſas tamen evidentes ſententiae huic obſtare, prius oſtendi, that is, though ſome Orthodox Interpreters do apply theſe words to God abſolutely taken, or to the Trinity, yet I have before ſhewed manifeſt reaſons which do croſs this Opinion of theirs. Now he mentions the former words of this Author, and ſilenceth theſe latter words, and ſo deals unkindly and uncandidly with him.
But he ſaith, We muſt betake our ſelves to reaſon, whereby the Spirit may convince us, of whom the Text in controverſies is to be underſtood.
Repl. This is new Doctrine that is here taught us, viz. that reaſon is the Spirits organ or inſtrument in its convictions that it ſets upon men; and it is dangerous deſperate Doctrine, which hath been exploded by all humble ſober Chriſtians; if a man muſt be believe no further then he can ſee, the whole Goſpel muſt be rejected; for it is an high myſtery which reaſon cannot look into, and the love of the Father and of Chriſt hath an heigth and depth, &c. which paſſeth knowledge: muſt not perſons believe it? I have heard it, and do believe it, that the Spirit is ſent to convince according to the revealation of Scripture, whether we can reach it with our reaſon, or cannot reach it; but reaſon is now advanced as the only medium to Faith, which was formerly cryed down as the great Enemy of Faith.
But let his reaſons be conſidered of.
1. This Text (ſaith he) declares the principal Author of thoſe things which John the Divine was to communicate to the ſeven Churches; for theſe words begin a new matter, and are no part of the ſalutation: They ſpeak of God even the Father, who is of higheſt authority, and from whom originally this Revelation was. Chriſt he is ſpoken of ver. 11. and is to be conſidered as the principal inſtrument, in conveying this Revelation to the Churches; for God gave it to him, to ſhew to his ſervants thoſe things which were ſhortly to come to paſs. verſ. 1.
Rep. 1. This reaſon aſſerts ſeveral things, and proves nothing, and ſo leaves the Reader altogether unſatisfied, unleſs bare words muſt paſs for currant.
2. There is no truth in any thing that he aſſerts in relation to this text in controverſie; for though there might be ſome colour for ſuch a collection, that God the Father is the principal Authour of this Revelation, and Chriſt the principal Inſtrument of conveying this Revelation to the Churches, (which is only in a ſenſe true, not of whole Chriſt, but of one part of him, to be underſtood) in relation to the firſt verſe; becauſe there it is ſaid that God gave it to Chriſt; yet in relation to verſe 8. of which the diſpute is, there is not the leaſt ſhadow of ground for any one to conceive, much leſs to utter ſuch things: For if Alpha ſignifie the firſt, or the beginning, yet it muſt not be reſtrained to this Revelation, but muſt be extended to all things; and whether the Father or Chriſt be meant, yet a perſon that is from everlaſting to everlaſting, and that is the root and fountain of all things, and that comprehends all things, is meant, as all the letters in the Greek Alphabet are comprehended betwixt Alpha and Omega.
3. It is unreaſonable for him, or any one, to apply the letter Alpha to the Father in verſe 8. and thence to deduce this concluſion, the Father is of higheſt authority, and from him originally this Revelation was, and then to apply the ſame letter Alpha in verſe 11. to Chriſt, and thence to deduce a diverſe, if not contrary, yea contradictory concluſion, viz. Chriſt is the principal inſtrument in conveying this Revelation to the Churches: For if Chriſt be but the principal inſtrument in conveying it, then he is not of higheſt authority, nor from him originally was the …. Now it is ſenſleſs and noto…iouſly …, to imagine that contrary concluſions … proceed from the ſame premiſes; … to the Father, he argues thus from verſe 8, The Father is Alpha, therefore he is of higheſt authority, and the original of this Revelation: But in reference to Chriſt he argues thus from verſe 11. Chriſt is Alpha, therefore he is not of higheſt authority, nor the original of this Revelation, but the principal inſtrument only in conveying this Revelation to the Churches. Would one think that rational perſons ſhould be taken with ſuch kind of ſottiſh and repugnant arguing which croſſeth it ſelf?
4. In reference to verſe 1. which is the text that ſeems moſt to countenance his aſſertions, there is much unſoundneſs in his collections; for either it muſt be thus underſtood, that though God the Father gave this Revelation to Chriſt, yet God the Father gave it not to Chriſt as an inſtrument ſimply conſidered; but unto Chriſt who was his fellow; for it is ſaid of Chriſt, That he ſhewed it to his ſervants, and ſignified it by his Angel to his ſervant John, ſo that Chriſt is ſet forth here in his dominion and Lordſhip, equall with the Father over the creatures; for more could not have been ſaid of the Father in reference to the creatures, then his ſervants, his Angel, his ſervant John; or elſe if Chriſt be an Inſtrument, and that God gave this Revelation to him as an Inſtrument, yet this God is God the Father, Son and Spirit that gave it to him; for the word God muſt be taken eſſentially, not perſonally; and if Father had been named, as it is not, for it is ſaid God gave unto him, yet not of the Father excluſively and dividedly from the Son and Spirit muſt it be underſtood, that he gave this Revelation to Chriſt: Nor of whole Chriſt is it to be underſtood neither, but of Chriſt according to his humane nature conſidered, and ſo God, viz. Father, Son and Spirit gave this Revelation to Chriſt, viz. to the Man Chriſt, or Chriſt conſidered in his Man-hood; and ſo Chriſt though in one reſpect he be an Inſtrument, yet in another reſpect he is the principal Authour, and original cauſe with the Father.
5. Neither is there any new matter begun in this 8. verſe, as he affirms; for if it be begun in it, it is alſo ended in it; for in the 9. verſe there is a change of the perſon ſpeaking; but it is the concluſion of the Exordium, or Preface; Chriſt was deſcribed to come in the clouds, and what an one he is that ſhall come in the clouds, Chriſt himſelf giving witneſs to what John aſſerted, declares who he is; I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, ſaith the Lord Chriſt, who will come in the clouds; for either this 8. verſe muſt have relation to verſe 7. or elſe it is independent, and hath relation to nothing.
But let the ſecond Reaſon be looked into and proved, whether there be any more ſtrength in it.
2. Becauſe (ſaith he) thoſe titles are no where in the Scripture attributed to Jeſus Chriſt; he is indeed called Alpha and Omega, the firſt and the laſt, verſe 11. but not Alpha and Omega as ſignifying the beginning and the end.
Rep. There is a great deal of untruth in this aſſertion, and much weakneſs, unworthy of one that pretends to inſtruct others, and to be a guide unto them in a way which they have not known.
1. There is untruth, for theſe titles are attributed in Scripture to Jeſus Chriſt, he is not onelyonly called Alpha and Omega, the firſt and the laſt; but he is called Alpha and Omega, as ſignifying the beginning and the ending, in Revel. 22. 13. the words are theſe, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the firſt and the laſt. Where we may obſerve, 1. The perſon ſpeaking, which is Chriſt, as may appear from verſe 12. compared with verſe 28. In verſe 12. we have theſe words, behold I come quickly; and there is no change of the perſon in ver. 13. but the ſame (I) ſaith, I am Alpha and Omega; but what perſon is it? the Father or Chriſt? he in his third Reaſon ſaith it is the Father: But firſt, the Scripture ſpeaks not of the Fathers coming, (unleſs in the Son, in Chriſt) to give rewards, but of Chriſts coming only; in 1 Theſ. 1. 9. 10. They turned from Idols to ſerve the living God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, and Acts 3. 20. he ſhall ſend Jeſus, viz. the Father ſhall ſend him; but of the Fathers coming Scripture ſpeaks nothing. 2. The Apoſtle John himſelf ends the controverſie betwixt us, verſe 20. where firſt we have the ſame words ſpoken, viz. ſurely I come quickly. 2. We have the ſenſe of them in reference to the perſon ſpeaking them, in the Apoſtle John's wiſh, and deſire, Amen, (ſaith he) come Lord Jeſus; he underſtood the perſon that ſpake thoſe words to be Chriſt, and not the Father. 3. Chriſt himſelf clears it, that it was he that ſpake thoſe words, I am Alpha and Omega, verſe 16. I Jeſus (ſaith Chriſt) have ſent mine Angel: weigh the verſes together, from verſe 13. to verſe 16. and ſee whether there be any change of perſon, but the ſame perſon, that ſaid I am Alpha and Omega, ſaid, I Jeſus have ſent my Angel: ſo that it is manifeſt that with a great deal of boldneſs he falſifies the truth, in ſaying that Alpha and Omega, as ſignifying the beginning and the end, is no where in Scripture attributed to Chriſt.
2. There is weakneſs in this Aſſertion of his, unworthy of a Teacher in Iſrael. (1.) Becauſe Alpha and Omega as ſignifying firſt and laſt, are equivalent to Alpha & Omega as ſignifying beginning and end; for that whis is firſt is of it ſelf, and hath no cauſe, and is eternal, and without beginning, and is the beginning of other things; and this the very Heathens from the light of Reaſon within them will confeſs: and that which is laſt muſt needs be the end. (2.) Becauſe firſt and laſt (which he grants to be attributed to Chriſt) are Attributes of the moſt high God, as he is diſtinguiſhed frō the creature; See Iſai. 41. 4. and 48. 12. but eſpecially 44. 6. The words are, I am the firſt and the laſt, and beſides me there is no God. Here the moſt high God (his deſign being to declare himſelf to be the moſt high God) doth aſſume this title firſt & laſt, as proper to him who is God alone, and there is none beſides him. (3.) Becauſe the true Engliſh of Alpha and Omega (being Greek letters) is firſt and laſt, beginning and end, for Alpha is the firſt, and the beginning of the letters, and Omega is the laſt, and the end of the letters; and theſe two letters do equally ſignifie beginning and end, as firſt and laſt; therefore we find theſe letters ſometimes interpreted beginning and end, Rev. 1. 8. which is the Text in controverſie: ſometimes firſt and laſt as ver. 11. ſometimes beginning and end, and firſt and laſt, Rev. 22. 13. therefore his attempting to make a difference betwixt Alpha and Omega, as ſignifying beginning and end, and as ſignifying firſt and laſt, is very frivolous and ſenſeleſs.
I ſhall now examine his third Reaſon, and ſee whether that will ſpeed any better.
3. Becauſe (ſaith he) the terms in the Text are elſewhere apparently and profeſſedly given to God the Father, diſtinct from the Son; he is called Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end Rev. 21. 5. 6. And he that ſate upon the Throne ſaid, I am Alpha and Omega: The Angel uſeth the ſame phraſe, Rev. 22. 13. and doubtleſs in the ſame manner.
Repl. Suppoſe it ſhould be granted, that theſe terms Alpha and Omega be given to God the Father dinſtinct from the Son, Rev. 21. 6. yet they are not attributed to the Father, Rev. 22. 13. but to the Son, as hath been evidently proved already; and it is not his (doubtleſs the ſame phraſe Rev. 22. 13. is uſed in the ſame manner) that will carry it againſt ſuch uncontroulable reaſons that have been brought for it, viz. that Chriſt diſtinct from the Father, is called Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
And hence I would draw an Argument.
If theſe termes, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, be profeſſedly given to the Father diſtinct from the Son Rev. 21. 5. 6. and the ſame termes be given to the Son, diſtinct from the Father, Rev. 22. 13. then the Father and the Son are one and the ſame God, and diſtinct only in their perſonality; for he confeſſeth himſelf that theſe termes, Alpha and Omega, as ſignifying beginning & end, areproper to the moſt high God, and denies that they are given to Chriſt: if then they be given to both the Father and to Chriſt, then it will follow that the Father and Chriſt are this high God, and this is the conſequence of his own premiſes. Oh that he might once come to ſee the ſadneſs of his ſtate, to be left to ſuch blindneſs and darkneſs, as not to be able to ſee, or elſe to ſuch pertinacie and obſtinacie of ſpirit, that he will not ſee when ſuch clear palpable (not one but many) texts are before him, which have the truth of the coeternity, coeſſentially and coequality of Chriſt, with the Father written & engraven upon them, which every ingenuous Reader muſt & will acknowledge. Truly, if there were no more Texts, nor Arguments for Chriſts Diety, but theſe which do denominate Chriſt to be Alpha and Omega, the firſt and the laſt, the beginning and the end: And the Arguments which may be drawn from theſe, they may be able, being throughly weighed, to convince any perſon that is rational, and acknowledgeth the Scriptures, that Chriſt is the moſt high God, unleſs God have ſhut him up under that curſe of Iſaiah, viz. Seeing they ſhall ſee and not underſtand, and hearing they ſhall hear and not perceive, &c.
That which he ſpeaks of theſe words, viz. He that is, he which was, and he which is to come, as referring to the Father in verſ. 4. of this firſt Chapter is true, but impugneth not our Poſition, viz. That the ſame words in verſ. 8. of the ſame Chapter are referred to Chriſt, who is elſewhere called Jehovah frequently; the proper ſignification of which word is, He which is, he which was, and he which is to come.