Chapter XIX: Part 19

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.