A Vindication, Instance 11
Inſt. 11. If Christ be a meer creature, then Prayer to him (being now in heaven) is altogether vain and frivolous, in as much as perſons may cry aloud long enough before Christ hear them at that distance; but the Saints have bin wont not onelyonly to pray to God in Christs name, but to pray to Christ directly and immediately; in Acts 7. 57. Rev. 22. 20. Lord Jeſus receive my ſpirit. Come Lord Jeſus.
His anſwer is,
By the rule of the Goſpel we are to pray to God, or the Father, in the name of Christ Jeſus; you have nothing to countenance prayer to Chriſt but the two Texts you mention: If Stephen did pray directly to Jeſus Chriſt, his act might be warranted by the viſible appearance of Jeſus Chriſt, as Lot prayed to the Angel being viſible. That in Revelation is no prayer, but an intimation of the Churches deſire after Chriſt's coming: the like manner of ſpeaking we have Rev. 6. 16. which is no prayer.
Repl. Here is a bundle of concluſions, and monſtrous untruths packed up together. 1. He ſaith, By the rule of the Goſpel we are to pray to God, or the Father, in the name of Jeſus Chriſt, which being taken excluſively (as he muſt needs underſtand it, elſe he ſpeaks at randome, and not to the thing) viz. that prayer to Chriſt is againſt the rule of the Goſpel, is very falſe; and herein he condems the generation of Gods children, and Stephen more eſpecially, who prayed to God the Son; for every Text of Scripture that enjoyns prayer to God, enjoyns it to the whole Trinity, to Father, Son, and Spirit, and not to the Father only; becauſe there is no God but he, who is one in Eſſence, and three in perſons, as hath been proved before. And let him ſhew that rule that enjoyns prayer to God, viz. the Father, excluding the Son and the holy Ghoſt, if he can; and if he cannot, let him bluſh for ſhame becauſe he hath aſſerted it; and he hath offended here againſt the generation of the ſaints, who have been wont to pray to God in the perſon of the Son, not excluding the Father and the Spirit. Stephen is an example of ſuch a practiſe, and many more beſides him; in Act. 7. 59. They ſtoned Stephen, calling upon God and ſaying, Lord Jeſus receive my ſpirit. It was the ſecond perſon, the Son who took fleſh, and is God in fleſh, that was called upon, and prayed unto, and muſt he be made a Tranſgreſſor?
But he ſaith, I have nothing to countenance prayer to Chriſt but theſe two Texts which I mention, this of Stephen, and that other of John. But this is as groſs an untruth as the former, yea more palpable to all mens eyes then the former, for in 1 Cor. 1. 2. all ſaints are deſcribed to be ſuch who call upon the name of the Lord Jeſus. And the Apoſtle Paul prayed familiarly to Chriſt, in 2 Cor. 12. 8, 9. For this I beſought the Lord; what Lord was this? It was the Lord Chriſt: How may that appear? From the anſwer that he received, and the uſe he made of it; the anſwer was, My grace is ſufficient for thee, My power is made perfect in weakneſs: the uſe that he makes of it is this, moſt gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Chriſt may reſt upon me. The power that is made perfect in weakneſs, is the power of Chriſt. And in 2 Theſ. 2. 16, 17. Now the Lord Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, and God, even our Father, comfort your hearts, &c. The Apoſtle if he pray to the Father, he prays to the Son alſo, for he joyns them both together, and gives Chriſt in this place, herein the preheminence, that he mentions Chriſt before the Father in this prayer.
But he excepts againſt theſe two examples of Stephen and John; firſt he makes a queſtion of it, whether Stephen did pray directly to Chriſt or not; for he expreſſeth himſelf with an (if) as if he doubted; but to doubt in plain things is fooliſhneſs, and to ſtumble where there is no ſtone to ſtumble at, is perverſneſs. It will be granted (I hope) that he prayed to him to whom he ſpake; but he ſpake to Chriſt; and the words in the Greek make it clear, They ſtoned Stephen, calling upon and ſaying, Lord Jeſus receive my ſpirit; there is none other mentioned but the Lord Jeſus upon whom he called, and to whom he ſaid, receive my ſpirit; and he warrants it by Chriſts viſible appearance, as Lots prayer unto the Angels being viſible; but what viſible appearance was there when Paul prayed to Chriſt in the forementioned places? or when all the Saints prayed to Chriſt, as the Apoſtle intimates the practiſe to be in the primitive times? what ſight had they firſt of Chriſt before they prayed? did Chriſt appear viſibly to every one of them firſt? what a groundleſs conceit is this, and how far from truth? beſides, what did ſuch a viſible ſight advantage him, when he ſaw him in heaven; for unleſs it were in a viſion that he ſaw him, it was in heaven that he ſaw him; and if ſo, the diſtance was as great as if he had not ſeen him, therefore it could not be bottomed upon that ground; for Chriſt was never a whit the more preſent becauſe Stephen ſaw him: And ſo the example of Lots praying to the Angel is no whit ſutable, becauſe the Angel was not onelyonly viſible, but preſent.
But what doth he mean by bringing in ſuch an inſtance of Lots praying to an Angel? will he ſet on foot the doctrine of invocation upon ſaints and Angels by it? If he would do it, that inſtance which he brings of Lot, will not help, him at all, it was neither of the two Angels that Lot prayed to, that he received into his houſe and lodged, but the third Angel before whom Abraham ſtood, who was now come to the other two, and this was Jehovah in the perſon of the Son, who often appeared as an Angel, which appeareth from, Gen. 19. ver. 17. When they had brought them forth abroad, he ſaid eſcape for thy life; that is when the two Angels which came firſt to Lot had brought Lot, and his wife and daughters out, he ſaid, that is, netiher of the two Angels, for they are mentioned joyntly all along, and neither of them ſingled out from the other, but it was the third Angel, or Jehovah (as he is called) that appeared now to Lot, and this was he to whom he prayed. This appears further from ver. 22. 23, 24. I can do nothing ſaith this Angel to whom Lot prayed, till thou come thither and afterward it is ſaid, the Lord rained &c. in the Hebrew Jehovah rained &c. from Jehovah, the Son from the Father: It was he that rained fire and brimſtone that ſaid before to Lot, in anſwer to his prayer, I have accepted thee in this thing; haſte thee thither, for I can do nothing till thou come thither: and this is called Jehovah, and it is ſaid he rained from Jehovah. So that he is groſly miſtaken in this alſo, about Lots praying to a creature Angel, by which he would prove it warrantable to pray to a creature Chriſt, but puts it upon the viſibleneſs of him, when yet this Angel was not only viſible, but preſent; and Jehovah in the perſon of a man.
He alſo excepts againſt John's prayer, he ſaith it was an intimation of the Churches deſire after Chriſts coming, but no prayers, and he quotes Rev. 6. 16. as a parallel place where ſuch expreſſions are uſed, yet no prayer: But there is a different reaſon when one ſpeaks, to irrationall things, which have no underſtanding, nor knowledge, and which are not capeable of a prayer, and when ſpeech is directed to perſons that are capable thereof: had thoſe words been ſpoken to God, let the mountains and the hills fall on us, they would have been an imprecation, which is one kind of prayer. And whereas he ſaith, if is but an intimation of deſire, and no prayer, he ſhewes himſelf ignorant of the nature of prayer; for what is prayer, but an intimation of the deſire of a perſon, to one that is able to anſwer him in it. And what are thoſe expreſſions of the Apoſtles, in their Epiſtles to the Churches, but prayers for them & yet they are intimations of the Apoſtles deſires; Grace be with you, and Peace from God the Father, and from Jeſus Chriſt our Lord. And the Grace of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; the love of God the Father &c, and Grace be with you, and Peace from him that is, was, and which is to come, and from Jeſus Chriſt &c. 1 Cor. 1. 3. 2 Cor. 13. 14. 2 John. 2. Rev. 1 4, 5.
But he goes on and tells me,
I cannot (ſaith he) but looke on that as vain and frivolous, which you ſet up as the wals and bulworkes of your Argument, viz if Chriſt wer… but a meer creature, being in heaven, we might cry loud and long enough before he could hear us.
I would only aſk you this queſtion, whether Chriſt could not hear as far as Stephen could ſee? Stephen could ſee from earth to heaven, though he was but a man, what will hinder the man Chriſt from hearing as far?
Repl. I would alſo demand of him, and ask a queſtion or two, and if he anſwer me, he may anſwer himſelf. 1. Whether can any man on earth, and whether could Adam in his inocency hear as far as he can ſee? or whether ſuch a thing be poſſible in nature? whether the care be not ſlower in diſcerning its obiect, then the ey is in diſcerning its obiect? 2. Whether Stephen ſaw Chriſt by the ſtrength of his own natural ey ſight? if ſo, why did not all the reſt ſee Chriſt as well as he? if not, then he was ſtrengthned to ſee that which he ſaw, and ſo it was no leſs then wonderfull, that he ſaw Chriſt; God, by the greatneſs of his power made Stephen to ſee Chriſt; and ſo it may be granted that God by the exceeding greatneſs of his power, might inable the man Chriſt, or Chriſt according to his manhood to hear Stephen, but then it is a thing above nature, and ſo it comes to this, that Chriſt as man is not able but is only capable of being made able, and prayer to Chriſt is not to be bottomed upon that. 3. Whether it was the voice that Stephen uttered that was the cauſe of Chriſts hearing Stephen? or whether if there had been no voice, Chriſt could not have heard the voice of the heart, the motions of it, the cry of it? if Chriſt could notwithſtanding have heard, as is apparent from other Scriptures, then it was not the eare of the body, or the fleſhly eare with which Chriſt heard Stephen, but it was by that vaſt boundleſs knowledge, which Chriſt had, as the Son of God, and as God, and by which the diſciples told him that he knew all things: and then the compariſon which he makes betwixt Chriſt and Stephen, the one's ſeeing, and the other's hearing, might have been ſpared, for the things are not alike in which the compariſon was made. And this ſhewes the abſurdity of his imagination, viz. that the knowledge that Chriſt hath, being in heaven, of the prayers that are made on earth to him, by the hearing of the eare.
But I ſhall conſider what anſwers he gives to the laſt arguemnt, or inſtance, which is this.