A Vindication, Part 11
The laſt Scripture is now to be diſcuſſed (which he hath excepted againſt, and laboured to diſable, that it might not ſpeak that which I brought it to give witneſſe to; which was to juſtifie the deity of Chriſt) and it is Joh. 17. 5. And now, ô Father, glorifie me with thine owne ſelfe, with the glory I had with thee before the World was.
He gives his gloſs to theſe words, after this manner.
O thou Father, who doſt abound in kindneſs, and art the Fountain of goodneſs, the time being come of finiſhing my courſe in earth, and returning to thy ſelfe, glorifie me in Heaven, (who have emptied my ſelfe, taking to me a naturall and mortall body, and walking among men in forme of a ſervant, and now being ready to humble my ſelfe to the death of the Croſs in obedience to thee,) with that glory which I had in Heaven before the world was, being then with thee as heir of all things, clothed with Majeſty and glory, anſwerable to that high ſtation wherein thy pleaſure was to ſet me, and to that great domminion wherewithall thou waſt pleaſed to invest me. And then he concludes, that all lyes in darkeneſſe which I can fetch to countenance my opinion.
Repl. He knowes what is written in Rev. 22. 18, 19. in terrour to thoſe that add to the word of God; I wonder therefore how he dare interpoſe words in this prayer of Chriſt according to his owne fancy, and not fear and tremble.
1. He inſerts theſe words into the preface of Chriſts prayer, Thou, O Father, who art the fountain of goodneſs. And this he doth unneſceſſarily, for in this prayer-of Chriſt there is no preface at all, and why ſhould be frame one? this is not to interpret Scripture, but it is plainly to add to it, and it is done with a deſigne, which makes it the worſe; for he would bring Chriſt in, acknowledging the Father the ſole fountain of goodneſſe, excluding himſelfe, as Son of the Father, and excluding the Holy Ghoſt, which is a falſe thing, and full of injury to Chriſt; who was ſo far from making ſuch an acknowledgment, that he thought it not robbery to be equall with God, his aſſuming of equality with the Father, was not counted robbery by himſelfe.
2. He inſerts theſe words in the cloſe of Chriſts prayer, ſpeaking of the glory Chriſt had with God, he addes theſe words, anſwerable to that high ſtate wherein thy pleaſure was to ſet me, and to that great dominion wherewithall thou wast pleaſed to invest me. Theſe words, wherein thy good pleaſure was to ſet me, and wherewithall thou wast pleaſed to invest me, are not in the text, nor is there any thing that lookes that way, that might give him occaſion to extract them, and preſent them, as if there they might be found, or ſomething like them, which will bear them; nor doth he bring any other text to make it appear, that ſuch words are agreeable to the Analogie of faith. But by this addition he makes Chriſt a meere creature, a creature before he tooke fleſh, before the World was, while he was with God. And he makes the glory which he had to be a derived glory, and given to Chriſt of meere grace, and good pleaſure. Now this is moſt notoriouſly falſe, as I have largely and amply proved in my former Treatiſe. But this is the doctrine that fils his head, and fils his heart, and there is ſo much of this within him, that he thinks every Scripture that he lookes upon contains it, and therefore it is that he brings this Scripture, ſpeaking that which it ſpeakes not.
But ſetting aſide theſe additions, for which he muſt give an account. Be it that Chriſts prayer had this meaning, I ſhall ſhew you what an inconſiſtency there is in theſe words to his opinion, in two or three particulars.
1. Suppoſing Chriſt (before he tooke the Seed of Ahraham upon him) to be a created ſoul, made by and abiding with God, be fore the reſt of the creatures were made (for this is his opinion) how can Chriſt ſpeake to God theſe words? Who have emptied my ſelfe, taking to me a naturall, and mortall body.
If Chriſt were but a created ſoul, could it be an act of his will, and of his power, to take to him a body? did ever God leave any creature at liberty to do what he will? to chuſe or refuſe at his pleaſure? that he ſhould leave Chriſt (this created ſoul as he makes him) at liberty, to take a body, or not to take it? and if not, but that God commanded him to take it, why doth he plead it with God for reward, as if it had been done of courteſie? Have any of the Angels, when they have waited upon men (a worke below them) had liberty to plead with God after this manner? And how could it be an act of his power to take to him a body, he being but a created ſoul? can a created ſoul build a body of nothing (if by creation it be?) or build it out of a woman without the help of man (if by generation it be (as indeed it was?) and if not, how comes Chriſt to plead it as ſome meritorious act, I have emptied my ſelfe in taking to me a naturall mortall body? If God prepared him a body, why doth he ſay, I emptied my ſelfe and tooke it? So that here is abſurdity enough in this, if there were no more in reference to his opinion, in theſe very words.
2. If Chriſt were a created ſoul, where was the Emptying to take a naturall and mortall body? is there not an habitude and naturall propenſeneſſe in the ſoul to be in the body? is it not the ſoules perfection? is not the ſoul imperfect without it? is it any more then a part of the whole, and with the body makes a perfect man? and is this the condeſcention (to be preſented as an high piece of ſelfe denyall) to be in a perfect ſtate? And doth the ſoul take the body, any more then the body take the ſoul? or doth not God take both and unite them? here is neither Divinity nor Philoſophy in this.
But it may be, this emptying was in this, that Chriſt a glorious ſoul, tooke a naturall mortall body, not a body glorified, but vile by reaſon of a naturall corruptibility; But 1. God prepared this body for him; where was then this excellent piece of ſelfe denyall, to take and accept of what God prepares, though it were an abaſing to him? Saints tread in ſuch ſteps of ſelfe denyall every day, and it is but their duty. 2. Men are and ought to be thankful to God for ſuch naturall and mortall bodies, and for every member thereof, and Chriſt, if but a created ſoul, might well ſubmit, yea be thankfull that his ſoul was not as his body; for it was of free-grace (as he ſaith, and I joyn with him in it, if he were a created ſoul) that he was ſo glorious a ſoul. 3. Lazarus was called (ſo far as concerned a naturall mortall body, and further alſo) to the like piece of ſelf-denyall: for his ſoul was in heaven, and with God, and made perfect with God, and glorified with him; and it muſt leave God, and leave heaven, and leave glory, and come into a naturall mortall body again, that muſt dye a ſecond time; yea, into a ſinfull tabernacle again; and this muſt be done at the Command of Chriſt, according to the will of God. What ſelf-denyall was this then, if Chriſt's was ſo great, when yet Chriſt was but only a glorified ſoul; And Lazarus which was ſuch, yet might not Lazarus plead it? This is another abſurdity which follows from his own words, upon his opinion: Chriſt being but a created ſoul at the firſt with God.
2. He makes Chriſt to ask of God the glory only which he had in heaven before the world was; and indeed Chriſt asked no other but it. Now this is not conſiſtent with Chriſts being a created ſoul, and a creature; for it is manifeſt from the Scripture, yea, it is confeſt by himſelfe in many places of his printed paper, That Chriſt as a creature had greater glory by donation, after his ſufferings, after his deep humiliation, then ever he had as a creature before; for that Heirſhip of all things, and dominion, and principality, and height above all principality, and that name above every name, was the reward which God beſtowed upon him in reference to the croſſe which he bore; and it was his higheſt glory as a creature; therefore it is expreſſed in theſe words, is made both Lord and Chriſt; not reſtored to what he had, but made: and what a rewarding is that, only to reſtore him to what he had at firſt? Therefore ſeeing that Chriſt prayes here in John for the glory that he had with God before the world was, and asked no more; and ſeeing it is as evident, that as a creature his greateſt glory was not before his ſufferings, but after, and was the reward of his ſufferings; it will neceſſarily follow, that he prayes for divine glory to be reſtored, and that as a creature he was not with God before the world was, nor had glory as a creature.
3. He ſaith, and the Text ſaith, that the glory that Chriſt asked of his Father, was the glory before the world was, but the glory which Chriſt had as a creature, could not be the glory before the world was; for he himſelfe confeſſeth, that that glory which he had as a creature, conſiſted in heirſhip and dominion over the world; but this heirſhip and dominion over the world, was not, nor could be before the world was: it will therefore follow, that either Chriſt was created without glory, and had no glory till the world was created, which is directly contradictory to the Text; or if he had a glory, it was not any created glory, for that conſiſted in dominion, which was not til the world was; and then what glory could it be, but that which we contend for, divine uncreated glory, which holds forth him to be an uncreated and eternal being; and by conſequence to be the moſt high God?
But he brings reaſons for his own tenent, that whole Chriſt is a creature, from this Text of John, and attempts the overthrow of my aſſertion of Chriſts Deity, which I contend for from this Text.
1. Saith he, If Chriſt were equall with the Father, why doth Chriſt direct his prayer to his Father? There had been no need, nor can cauſe be ſhewed, why he ſhould ſupplicate to his Father, and not act relyance on the Godhead.
Repl. I have rendred reaſons for it in my former Treatiſe, in my reply to his fift argument, which was this, He that acteth with dependance on another, is a creature, but whole Chriſt acteth with dependance. To which I referre the reader, becauſe it is largely diſcuſſed there; and it is a tedious unpleaſing thing to multiply repetitions, though he delights himſelfe too much therein: yet leſt that Treatiſe ſhould not be at hand, I ſhall ſatisfie the Reader thus far. It behooved the Godhead in the perſon of the Son to be veyled, for this was the Sons emptying of himſelfe; but not ſo the Godhead in the perſon of the Father; therefore the Son acts not dependance upon the Godhead that dwelt in himſelf in the perſon of the Son; or as it was in himſelf, but as it was in the Father.
2. He ſaith, We do not uſe to pray, but praiſe for things we have, if we know that we have them. Now Chriſt could not want the higheſt glory in any ſenſe, if he were a perſon in the Trinity, coequall with the Father, eſpecially not be without it, with the Father, nor in heaven in any ſenſe whatſoever, as by the clouding, darkning, or obſcuring of it; therefore the glory which he had with the Father, was not the higheſt glory, but a glory proceeding from the higheſt; and by conſequence, Chriſt was but a creature.
Repl. It is true, that the higheſt glory (he being a perſon in the Trinity coequall with the Father) could not be ſeparated from him, for it follows the divine eſſence, and cannot be divided from it; but it might be, and indeedwas obſcured, and clouded, not to the Father, nor to the Son himſelfe; for the Father ſaw it, and gave witneſſe to it, and ſo did the Son, and comprehended it fully: but to the creature it was darkned and obſcured, and but ſome ſmall beams and rayes of it appeared; the Son was incarnate, or in fleſh, but the glory of the Son appeared not in fleſh in fulneſſe of luſtre, like the glory of the Son; but the form of God in the Son was veyled and hidden in the form of a ſervant; Now Chriſt prayes that that eſſentiall divine glory might be manifeſted in fleſh, that he the Son in fleſh might appear in glory, when he ſhould come to heaven, as he did before he took fleſh; that as the Godhead was hidden in the manhood, ſo the manhood might be glorified with the Godhead, that the fleſh might be taken up into the fellowſhip of the glory of the Divinity, by the ſhining forth and breaking out of the glory of the Divinity in the fleſh.
3. It appears (ſaith he) that the glory which he had with the Father was not divine, or the higheſt glory, becauſe it was to be communicated. Glorifie me, O Father, with that glory, &c. Now the higheſt glory being infinite, could not be given or communicated to the humane nature, which was finite, and ſo uncapable of it, &c.
Repl. Though the divine glory cannot be communicated to humane nature, ſo as that it ſhould be inherent in the humane nature; yet it may gloriouſly ſhine forth upon it, and appear in it, which it did not before: yea by reaſon of the hypoſtaticall union betwixt the divine nature and the humane nature, the glory of the divine nature becomes the glory of the whole perſon, ſo as that when the glory of the Son ſhines forth in its greateſt ſtrength in the fleſh, it may be predicated and aſſerted of the man Chriſt, that he is glorified with the glory which the Son had with the Father before the world was; Becauſe the man Chriſt is the ſame perſon with the eternall Son of God.
Thus all the Scriptures which I drew witneſs to, that Jeſus Chriſt is the true God, and the moſt high God, notwithſtanding all his endeavours to ſuffocate their teſtimony, and his attempts by violence to ſilence them, that they ſhould not ſpeak what they would ſpeak, yet they have with open mouth, with one conſent, given glory unto Chriſt, by witneſſing to his Godhead, and to his coeſſentialneſs, and to his coequality with the Father.
I ſhall conclude my Vindication of them with theſe words, Let God be true in what he hath teſtifyed of his Son in Scripture, and every man that oppoſeth let him be a lyer.
My next undertaking muſt be the defence of the Arguments which I produced, and drew up from Scripture, by which I attempted to prove the deſtructiveneſſe of the Doctrine which he holds (making whole Chriſt a creature) to the true Goſpel, and oppoſiteneſs of it to the Scripture in many main points and truths of it.
My Aſſertion was, That the doctrine which makes Chriſt a meer creature, brings in (as it were) another Goſpel, and deſtroyes the true Goſpel in many parts thereof; and brings in another Scripture in many main points.
He cals this a reaſon againſt his doctrine of Chriſt a meere creature; and ſo it is, not onelyonly to ſhew the falſeneſſe of ſuch doctrine, but alſo to diſcover the horridneſſe and hideouſneſs of the doctrine, that all might be warned of it, and with fear and trembling may decline it.
But he wiſheth him to be Anathema that holds any ſuch doctrine, that deſtroyes the Goſpel or the Scripture, and falls upon the examination of the inſtances or Arguments which I produced to confirme that generall reaſon.
Therefore becauſe he is ſo confident, that his doctrine will not prove ſuch; and becauſe he hath poſſeſſed the people, that though there ſhould be a miſtake in it on his part, yet it is not ſo dangerous as I would make it; and that the ſalvation of mens ſoules is not ſo nearly concerned in it, as I would have men to conceive; and that Chriſt is never a whit leſs a ſufficient Saviour, though but a creature; and that it is enough to beleeve unto Salvation that Chriſt is Lord, viz. made Lord; and that God raiſed him from the dead; by which means perſons have become leſſe ſolicitous what doctrine they entertain, they ſee it hath a ſpecious ſhew, and conceive it will not prove deſtructive, though it ſhould prove falſe; therefore I think it expedient to fortifie my poſition, which reſpects the oppoſiteneſſe of this doctrine of his, both to the Goſpel, and the teſtimony of other Scriptures, with ſome further proofes, not purpoſing at all to deſert my former grounds, (which I confide in as much as ever) but intending in my following diſcourſe to free them from his evaſions, by which he would elude the ſtrength of them.
And thus I argue: