the People and Protection on the Part of the King is broken on the Peoples Part if they set up or own any other Person as King besides him who of Right is so But come we now to the true Strength of his Book the Texts that he hath alledged On his first Proposition from the Words of his Text. HE chooseth for his Subject or Text the Words of St. Paul Phil. 6. 7. Who being in the Form of God thought it not Robbery to be equal with God but made himself of no Reputation and took upon him the Form of a Servant and was made in the Likeness of Men. He saith these Words present us with three Propositions 1. That Jesus Christ was before he was in the Form of Man 2. That he was in the Form of God before he was in the Form of Man 3. That he thought it not Robbery to be equal with his heavenly Father The first of these that Jesus was before he was in the Form of Man he proveth thus The Text says that being in the Form of God he humbled himself or as 't is in the Original he emptied himself But what Sense shall we make of the Words saith he if it be not true that our Saviour before his Birth of the Blessed Virgin was in a more glorious State than was that State upon which he entred at his Nativity 'T is an Impiety that runs through our Author 's whole Book that the Scriptures have not spoken Sense if they do not always mean as he would have them I pray Sir see the seventh Chapter of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn and then tell me whether the Socinians have not made Sense of St. Paul's Words without supposing as Trinitarians here do that Paul advanceth another or a second God! It is shown there that to be in the Form of God is common to our Saviour with all other Men all Men say the Scriptures are made in the Similitude Form or Likeness of God Jam. 3. 9. But our Blessed Saviour was more in the Form or Likeness of God than any other Man or Men because he had a more perfect Holiness and a miraculous Power and Authority over the Devils Diseases the Sea the Winds for the Confirmation of that Doctrine which he was to deliver to Men in the Name of God Our English Translation adds he thought it not Robbery to be equal with God But 't is now known even to School-boys that the Greek Words should have been rendred to a just contrary Purpose their Lexicon upon the Greek Testament made by the industrious and learned G. Pasor teaches them to read here Non rapuit aequalitatem cum Deo he assumed not to himself to be equal with God So that the Sense is though the Lord Christ was in a greater Likeness to God than ever any other Creature was yet he was far from imitating the Pride and Ambition of Lucifer he took not on him to be equal with God but on the contrary he took on him the Form of a Servant that is to set us an Example of Humility and mutual Toleration he submitted to Reproach and even to Blows without reviling again or other ways avenging himself on those that wronged him Every one knows what Great Erasmus hath said upon this Text that though the Fathers were wont to urge it against the Arians to prove that the Son is God equal with the Father yet the Apostle saith he had no such Intention Therefore he approveth the Explication of St. Ambrose Non defendit sibi aequalitatem Christ did not defend himself to be equal with God M. Luther the first Reformer lib. de duplici just admonishes his Reader that we must not understand this Text affirmatively but negatively not as saying that Christ made himself equal with God but as denying that he is equal with God which I mention only that the less learned Reader may know that besides the Socinians some of the principal Interpreters and Criticks among our Opposers themselves have been aware that this is not a Context to be insisted on as a Proof of our Saviour's Divinity Our Translation goes on and took on him the Form of a Servant and was made in the Likeness of Men. I could never yet see any Greek Testament that so reads the Words and I dare affirm that no Greek Copy whether Printed or Manuscript so reads All the Original Copies with one Consent read thus But made himself of no Reputation taking the Form of a Servant being made in the Likeness of Men and found in fashion as a Man that is being a Man like to all other Men so the Trinitarian Interpreters themselves understand the Words he humbled himself and became obedient to Death even the Death of the Cross i. e. he submitted to the unjust Powers that then were and chearfully underwent Death even the painful and ignominious Death of the Cross This all learned Men know and own is the true Reading of this Text and it blows away at once all the little Devices that Monsieur Lamoth uses to pervert its plain and obvious meaning But in pursuance of this first Proposition from his Text that Christ was before he was made Man he urges divers other Texts nine in all 1. He saith that Jesus Christ declares that he was come down from Heaven and that he was in Heaven before ever he ascended thither We answer Mr. Lamoth makes use of a peculiar Bible of his own he will never be able to show us such a Text in any Bible but that which is in his private Custody 2. John the Baptist saith John 1. 30. After me cometh a Man who is preferred before me for he was before me We answer with his learned Country-man Th. Beza the Lord Christ was preferred before John because though he was after John in Time yet he was before him in Merit and Dignity 3. But St. Paul says 1 Cor. 10. 9. Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them the Israelites in the Wilderness tempted and were destroyed of Serpents This Text were indeed to the Purpose of our Saviour's Pre-existence if it had been said here that the Israelites in the Wilderness tempted i. e. murmured against Christ But this is not said and 't is certain they tempted God not the Lord Christ 4. It is said of Moses Heb. 11. 26. He preferred the Reproach of Christ before the Treasures of Egypt We answer with almost all the Commentators on the Scriptures the Israelites were reproached by their Oppressors the Egyptians with their Hopes of a Saviour or Messias or Christ but Moses preferred this Reproach as the Egyptians counted it before all the Treasures of Egypt 5. Our Saviour again saith John 8. 58. Before Abraham was I am It is to be understood as when 't is said of the same our Lord Christ Rev. 13. 8. The Lamb who was slain from the Beginning of the World Christ was and was slain before Abraham and before the Foundation of the World not
him should have obliged the Holy Ghost not to speak of him Or at least seeing it was not possible to teach his Doctrine without speaking of his Person to make use of such Expressions as might make it evident that he is not God It was necessary in most express Terms and on several Occasions to tell Men this Jesus whom you worship is not God for all that Neither can any thing be said in the Case he meaneth that the Holy Ghost has not spoke as Mr. Lamoth here directs but only this that the Holy Ghost was willing to deceive us Hold Jehu lest instead of hearing that thou drivest furiously they call to thee that thou drivest madly Declamations did I call these Sermons they are Debacchations For I will affirm that no Example or Instance can be given of a bold and heady Writer who hitherto ever durst exalt his Opinion or the Opinion of his Party above the Apostles the Scriptures and the Holy Ghost it self so that if the former were not allowed or supposed to be true the other must be mere Blasphemies Blasphemers and Fools If the hundred and fifty Sects or more into which Christianity is divided should all fall to scribling and should be as extravagant in their Imputations on the Bible as this Frenchman has dared to be what would become of the Christian Religion It would be turned into Ridicule by all that heard us magnifying so much our own Glosses Interpretations or Opinions and regarding the Text it self and the Authors of it so little Our present Author's Book is vouched or licensed by two French Ministers who tell us that being appointed by the rest of their Brethren to read it they find it entirely conformable to the constant Doctrine of the French Protestants I will not believe them though they gave it upon Oath for it never was the Doctrine of the French Protestants nor of any Protestants no nor of any Christian that if their Creed be not true the Apostles were Mad-men the Scriptures Blasphemies and the Holy Ghost knew not how to speak as he ought which are Words often repeated by Mr. Lamoth But you will say Sir but Mr. Lamoth has perhaps some particular and especial Grounds for his unusual Confidence he hath advanced something that is wholly new and very forcible in behalf of the Doctrines of the Trinity and our Saviour's Divinity Nothing less I assure you you may meet with as much in every Catechism and with much more in every little System I mean setting aside his gaudy Flourishes and childish Exaggerations upon mere Nothings his Exclamations and other Schemes of School-boys and Preachers Rhetoric with which the World has been so long tired as to nauseate them But this you will better see when we come to the Examination of his Texts 2. To his own ridiculous Confidence of his Opinion he adds as a farther Strength to it some impertinent Quotations out of the Fathers particularly from Tertullian and Gregory surnamed Thaumaturgus He says farther at p. 61. that the Doctrine he has asserted in these Sermons is the Doctrine of the Primitive Church And at p. 162. that Christians have been in possession of it above these sixteen Centuries I suspected all along what an observant Reader of Fathers and Church-History Mr. Lamoth is but here he himself has shewed us he considers not so much as how many Years he is to reckon from this present Year to our Saviour Why Man the Socinians will give to thee and thy Fellow Tritheists the whole 16 Centuries which thou here insistest on and are content with the seventeenth of which it should seem thou knowest nothing The Century of our Saviour and the Apostles the seventeenth from us is to us instead of all the rest and in the Opinion of all true Protestants that alone is worth more than all the rest if they were never so many Sixteens more But we are ready to contest it in the Presence of all the learned World from the genuine Writings of the Fathers before the Nicene Council that the Doctrine of the present Church of three equal consubstantial and co-eternal Persons now called the Trinity was expresly rejected by them that is to say as consubstantial co-eternal and co-equal are now understood by the Church and opposed by the Unitarians Trinitarians boast in vain of the pretended Consent of the antient Church with them till they can answer the first Dissertation the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Quaternio of Dissertations written by S. Curcellaeus against S. Maresius concerning the Judgment of the Fathers and the Primitive Church in the Questions of the Divinity of our Saviour the Words Trinity Consubstantial c. Neither Maresiuâ— though an able and learned Person nor any for him have offered to reply and the more learned of the Trinitarians among the rest D. Petaviâ—s and the learned and exact Dr. Cudworth have owned the Dissent of the ancient Church from the present about the Sense of the Words Consubstantial Co-eternal and Co-equal in which the whole Controversy concerning the Trinity doth consist 3. From p. 55 to p. 61. he considers the Difficulties advanced by the Socinians or Unitarians on behalf of the Unity of God and against the imagined Divinity of our Saviour he learnedly distinguishes them into Heart-Difficulties Wit-Difficulties and Scripture-Difficulties Heart-Difficulties being a new sort of Cant he explains by saying p. 55 56. that such is the Temper the Heart of Man hath received from the Impressions of Sin that whatsoever comes from Heaven is suspected though indeed there be no other Reason to suspect it but that it comes from Heaven And again Heaven saith it this is sufficient for Man to doubt deny it contradict it This is a Slander upon humane Nature 't is inconsistent with our rational Faculty or Power of Reasoning and the Experience of Mankind contradicts it For every Body knows that the general Fault of the World is not Vnbelief but Inconsideration and an Omission or Neglect of Duty from a vain Hope and Expectance that we have yet time enough and to spare in which to amend all Faults and make our Peace with Heaven But if Mr. Lamoth is indeed acquainted with any who therefore will not believe because Heaven hath said it as he affirms my Advice to him is to let those resolute People alone for if they will not believe Heaven they will much less believe him But as to all these Difficulties the Heart-difficulties Wit-difficulties and Scripture-difficulties which he hath pursued in divers Pages he hath represented them so meanly as well as answered them so weakly that the Socinians own them not for theirs We define the Reader to inform himself of the Diffiâ—â—â—â— or Arguments advanced by the Socinians not from Mr. Lamoth but from our own Writings that is to say from the Brief Notes on the Creed of Athanasius the first Letter in the brief History of the Vnitarians the Letter of Resolution concerning the Trinity and Incarnation the
actually but in the Ordination and Decree of God Accordingly St. Peter saith of him 1 Pet. 1. 20. Who verily was fore-ordained not only before Abraham but before the Foundation of the World but was manifest in these last Days 6. We are assured by St. Peter 1 Pet. 3. 19. Jesus Christ preached to the Spirits that were disobedient in the Time of Noah Here again he maketh use of his own private Bible when he puts the Text in the Words of the known and authentick Bibles we will give him an Account of it In the mean time he may see it explained and the Explication warranted by the Authority of thirty Fathers in the fourth Letter of the Brief History of the Vnitarians 7. 'T is affirmed by the Evangelist John ch 1. 1. In the Beginning was the WORD We answer In the Beginning of the Gospel-State Christ was 8. The same Evangelist saith John 1. 3. All things were made by him by the WORD and without him was not any thing made that was made We grant it in that Sense in which only 't is consistent and reconcilable with those innumerable Texts which assure us that only God was the Maker of the first or old Creation But St. John speaks here of the new Creation or the Gospel-Oeconomy and State that new Heavens and new Earth wherein dwelleth Righteousness This Creation was begun by the Ministry and perfected by the Directions of the Lord Christ who hath made all things new by abolishing Judaism and Paganism Ceremony and Idolatry and introducing in their room moral Righteousness and the Knowledg of the one true God All these great things were made by him or as the Original may be rendred done by him and without him was nothing done that was done But of this I have spoken fully and I hope satisfactorily and effectually with respect to considering Men at Chap. 3. of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn 9. He finds too the Pre-eternity of our Saviour even in the Proverbs of Solomon who introduceth Wisdom as saying When there were no Depths before the Mountains were settled before the Hills was I brought forth Prov. 8. 24 25. It falls out here somewhat unluckily for our Author and such learned and judicious Interpreters as he is that if this Wisdom must needs be not a Quality or Property but a real and a divine Person she was a Goddess not a God For 't is undeniable that Solomon speaks of her as a Female She begins her Discourse at the first Verse of this Chapter Doth not Wisdom cry and Vnderstanding lift up HER Voice SHE standeth at the Top of the High Places SHE crieth at the Gates On his second and third Propositions HIS second Proposition from his Text is our Saviour was in the Form of God before he was in the Form of a Servant which he taketh to be the same with this he was in the Form of God before he was Man He giveth two Reasons 1. Because 't is said here being in the Form of God he emptied himself So he translates the Words instead of the Vulgar English He made himself of no Reputation 2. Because otherways the Opposition here plainly intended by the Apostle will not be exact for if the Form of God must be taken figuratively so as only to make this Sense he was like unto God was the Similitude or Likeness of God as all other Men are it will not answer to the other Member of the Opposition which is not Figure but Reality for the Form of a Servant and the Likeness of Men was intended to signify that Christ was a real Man and not only that he was like to Men. 'T is a very thin Sophistry this When our Author left off to speak to the Vulgar and would needs undertake in this Passage to speak to the Learned he should have brought something that was more substantial wherewith to blind such Eyes as theirs First he saith Jesus Christ was in the Form of God that is he was really God before he was Man because this Text adds that he emptied himself Methinks that very Translation which our Author has affected should have minded him of the Absurdity and absolute Impossibility of his Doctrine for can he that is true God empty himself can he lessen much less evacuate himself To what Labyrinths to what Mazes and Wildernesses does Error lead Men God they are forced to say emptied himself their next News will be he ceased to be or was annihilated But God is not only necessarily existent as Philosophers speak but he is always necessarily the same no Change much less any emptying himself as they have learned to cant can befal to him And why is this Preacher so hard to understand that our Lord Christ might indeed as he calls it empty himself though he were not God Why cannot he call it an emptying himself that our Saviour submitted to Apprehension Persecution Scourging and Death at that very time when he could by his miraculous Power have destroyed all his Enemies both Jews and Romans Why must we say Christ was in the Form of God and interpret it thus that he was God before he was Man on the Account that he emptied himself when the very contrary is so obvious and easy to be discerned even this that he was not God because he could and did empty himself Secondly But the Opposition intended by the Apostle he saith will not be exact if the Form of God must not signify Reality as well as the Form of a Servant Who told our Author that the Form of a Servant here must be taken in Reality Was our Saviour really a Servant to any Person Do not all Men know that he was only in the Form of a Servant by his voluntary bearing of Injuries and Blows without answering again or avenging himself that he might teach us by his Example as well as by his Doctrine to forgive one another The Opposition is most exact for as he was in the Form of God without being really God so he was in the Form of a Servant without really being Servant to any But Mr. Lamoth would clap together these two was in the Form of a Servant and was in the Likeness of Men as if they were one or signified the same thing and it is upon this Mistake that his Argument proceeds But the Form of a Servant and the Likeness of Men are most different things and he ought also to have been aware that a new Sense begins at these Words Being made in the Likeness of Men as I have shown before His last Proposition from his Text is that Jesus Christ did not think it Robbery to be equal with God so he words his Proposition at p. 9. I have observed before that now the very Boys know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be rendred he thought it not Robbery to be equal with God but non rapuit aequalitatem cum Deo he assumed not to himself to be equal with God If
Monsieur Lamoth knew of this Translation but dissembled it he prevaricated with his Hearers and sought disingenuously to impose upon them if he knew of it but disliked it why did he not give his Reasons against it Here our Author takes leave of his Text and falls to proving our Saviour's Divinity from the 5th Chapter of St. John's Gospel the Words he picketh out are these As the Father raiseth up the Dead and quickneth them even so the Son quickneth whom he will That all Men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father The Hour is coming and now is when the Dead shall hear the Voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live For as the Father hath Life in himself so hath he given to the Son to have Life in himself And as if these Words had ended the whole Controversy between him and the Socinians he falls to his French Rhodomontades and Paedagogical Triumphs He tells us 'T is impossible for any to equal himself more positively with God than our Saviour here doth in these Words They do not in the least need a Commentary to warrant us to say with St. Paul that our Saviour thought it not Robbery to be equal with God his Father He takes no notice that in what Sense soever we are to understand it that the Son quickneth whom he will and is to be honoured as the Father and will make the Dead to hear his Voice and hath Life in himself yet he professeth here that the Father hath given them to him that is he professeth that himself is not God because he hath not these Powers of himself but by the Goodness and Gift of another Person Our Author too passes it over that as a farther Caution against being mistaken by any our Saviour solemnly prefaces his whole Discourse here with these Words Verily verily I say to you the Son can do nothing of himself nothing by his own proper Power and Authority and that he concludeth them with another Antidote against being either misunderstood or misrepresented even with this the Works which the Father hath given me hath given me Command and Power to finish bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me i. e. that I am the Father's Messenger and Ambassador Finally he omitteth too that all these Expressions are so interpreted by the more Learned even of his own Party as that they suppose that our Lord Christ here speaks of himself only as a Man for they say the Son quickneth whom he will in that he raised from the dead Lazarus the Widow's Son and some others and could have raised many more even as many as he should please And all Men should honour the Son as they honour the Father because the Ambassador representing the Majesty of him that sends him his Person is sacrosanct and in divers Respects to be honoured as his Principal is by the Law of Nations Again the Dead shall hear the Voice of the Son of God for he would call divers from the Dead as former Prophets had done 'T is added last of all he hath Life in himself all agree that the meaning is he so possesseth the Fountain of Life by the Gift of God as that he restoreth Life to whomsoever he will If Mr. Lamoth was not aware of these Interpretations 't is his Dulness or his Negligence if he was that he dissembles them is his Dishonesty out of respect to his Coat I am desirous to think the former I see nothing further that is considerable in his first Discourse but an impious Reflection on the Person of our Saviour and another on the Scriptures Of our Saviour he saith at p. 19. that if he is not God the Sum of the Christian Religion will be this that a certain Teacher is come to instruct Men by exact Morality and by a perfect Example with regard to those Vertues that we ought to practise in our Lives but against whom are some things to be objected with regard to those Vertues that are of use at the Point of Death This usual Scandal of some Trinitarians upon our Saviour that he was pusillanimous or fearful at the Point of Death is fully answered at Chap. 11. pag. 55. of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn But I wonder that they should not consider that this false Charge of theirs against our common Master is much more colourable on their Hypothesis and much less excusable than on ours For we say the Lord Christ was a Prophet they say he was also God Now that a Man should have quick Apprehensions of approaching Death especially of a Death shameful painful and undeserved is no wonder be sure is not sinful but that a God-man as they think him should be disturbed at Death is altogether unaccountable As to the Scriptures he says at p. 20. If Jesus Christ was no more than a Man those Texts of Scripture that speak of that wonderful Mercy and Love of God in giving this Saviour to Mankind have no Sense at all He affirms moreover that for God to make only a Creature that by his Means he might save so many Millions of Men was no more than if he had given a Straw to save them I had thought I confess that French Ministers would nâ—â— have licensed such Outrages to the Press And if it was with so little Regard to the Honour of our Saviour and to the Holy Scriptures that they managed their Controversies in France I had almost said they were deservedly banish'd To his Objections concerning the Names of God which he saith are also given to the Lord Christ in Holy Scripture MR. Lamoth's second Discourse begins with an Acknowledgment that to mistake a Man for God is the most dangerous of all Errors whatsoever Is it so then why has he said so often that nothing can excuse the Socinians for opposing the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity For if that Doctrine is an Error he himself has confess'd 't is the most dangerous of all Errors whatsoever But he saith that Doctrine is no Error for that our Saviour is true God is made evident by these three Observations 1. He hath the Names of God given to him by the Writers of Holy Scripture 2. Besides the Names of God he hath also the Attributes of God ascribed to him 3. And to put the whole Matter out of doubt the Worship due only to God is also given in Scripture and there required to be given to him First The Lord Christ hath the Names of God given to him John 1. 1. The WORD was God Nay he is called the true God and the great God 1 John 5. 20. Titus 2. 3. He saith moreover that St. Paul writing to Titus called our Saviour God at least four or five times and after a Line or two forgetting himself he saith in that short Epistle Christ is called God three or four times Finally he citeth some Texts in which he thinketh the Name Jehovah is bestowed on our Lord Christ
But because we are sure he cannot shew us that Jesus Christ is once called God in the Epistle to Titus but only out of that single Bible which is in his own keeping and because the Words of St. John the true God and of St. Paul the great God are evidently spoken not of our Saviour but of God and because what he saith of the Name Jehovah that 't is applied to our Saviour Christ is abundantly answered at Ch. 2. of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn therefore here I shall only consider what he hath offered on the other Texts in which as 't is commonly supposed our Saviour hath the Name God given to him He takes notice that we answer that our Saviour is called God sometimes because he represented the Person of God bringing to us the Commands of God for which Reason Moses is called God and that by God himself Exod. 7. 1. See I have made thee a God to Pharaoh Solomon also is in this Respect called God Psal 45. 6 and 11. and so are the Magistrates Princes and Judges of Israel not only at Psal 82. 6. but by our Saviour John 10. 34 35. Nay it appears by 1 Sam. 28. 11 13 14. that the Prophets who spoke in the Name and Person of God were therefore called Elohim Gods To the Examples of Solomon and Samuel Mr. Lamoth saith nothing I suppose because he saw that neither of his two Shifts would serve him at all against those evident Instances But to that of Moses he saith his being a God is limited to Pharaoh 't is said of him by God I have made thee a God to Pharaoh not to others But our Saviour is called God absolutely without any Limitation to this or that Person or Persons To the Example of the Princes and Judges of Israel he saith 't is not any Magistrate in particular who is ever called God but all of them in general but our Saviour is in particular called God Let us begin with his second Answer that no Prince or Magistrate in particular is called God but it is said of them in general only Ye are Gods But why has Mr. Lamoth parted with such a Secret that he understands not Grammar no nor common Sense For does not every sensible Man know that Generals include in them Particulars If I say to many Ye are Gods do I not thereby say to every one of those many Thou art a God When the King saith to his House of Peers My Lords or to the other House Gentlemen doth he not acknowledg every one of the former to be a Lord and every one of the other to be a Gentleman And why hath our Author so unadvisedly said that no Magistrate Prince or Angel is ever in particular called God or a God in Holy Scripture Samuel and Solomon are so called in particular Psal 45. 6 11. 1 Sam. 28. 11 13 14. The Angel that spoke to Moses in the burning Bush is called God and so is Moses himself Exod. 3. 2 4. Exod. 7. 1. Other particular Angels are called Gods it may be twenty times in the Scriptures by Confession of the ablest Criticks and Interpreters of our Author 's own Party Nor is his first Answer a-whit better than the second but rather less considerate and advised He saith Moses is not called God simply and absolutely but with Limitation he is said to be a God to a particular Person a God to Pharaoh not absolutely God or a God Now either he will abide by this Reply as sound and good or he will not If he will not then our Answer that Moses as well as Christ is called God remains in its full Force But if he saith he will abide by it as a good and sufficient Reply to us then he hath given up to us that only Text in which the Name God is bestowed on our Saviour For the Socinians easily satisfy the more learned of their Opposers that all the other Texts in which 't is by some supposed that our Lord Christ is called God were indeed intended not of the Lord Christ but of the Almighty Father whom all acknowledg to be God but the Words of St. Thomas at John 20. 28. Thomas said to him to Jesus my Lord and my God are generally allowed as well by Socinians as others to be spoken to and of the Lord Christ To this Text therefore Socinus answers in the same manner that Mr. Lamoth doth here concerning Moses that the Lord Christ is not called God simply and absolutely but with Limitation to a particular Person he was a God to Thomas Thomas doth not say absolutely O Lord God but my Lord and my God the personal Pronoun my limits the Sense of the Words to Thomas and suffers us not to extend them or take them in an absolute or a general Sense For my part I always thought this to be a frivolous shift but it should seem Mr. Lamoth approves of it he thinks a Person is not really called a God or hath not the Name God really given to him if he is not called God absolutely without Limitation to a particular Person I say therefore let him take his Choice either let him say he will not abide by this Answer and then our Answer also that Moses too is called God will be sufficient and home or let him abide by it and then he has given up to us that only Text in which the Name God is given to the Lord Christ even these Words of Thomas My Lord and my God But I desire you Sir to remember also how clearly I have satisfied that Text the Words of Thomas at Chap. 6. p. 32 33. of the Answer to Mr. Milbourn To his Proofs that the Attributes of God are ascribed to Christ. HIS second Proof or rather his second Class of Proofs that the Lord Christ is God is this that the Attributes of the Divine Nature are ascribed to him no less than to God And I will make choice saith he of six of the Divine Attributes to verify my Argument Eternity Immensity Holiness Knowledg Power and Mercy These Properties saith he are in the Lord Christ in such manner as belongs to God only therefore the Lord Christ is also God First For Eternity he saith 't is proved to be in Christ because the Author to the Hebrews Ch. 1. 11. applies to our Lord Christ what had been said by the Psalmist concerning God namely these Words of Psal 102. 26 27. They the Heavens 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 have no end He quoteth this Text to prove the Eternity of our Lord Christ that I may use his own Words not only the Eternity which is to come but his Pre-eternity or the Eternity which is past If he had alledged it to prove the fifth Attribute the Power of the Lord Christ because 't is
or his Secrets to these new Believers he did not judg them fit to be trusted till they were well grounded and setled in the Faith he knew what all Men are how sickle and uncertain nay oft-times designing and malicious so he needed not that any should bid him be cautions or aware of Men Himself knew better than all Men the Infidelity Treachery Variableness and all other Infirmities of Men therefore he would not confide in Persons not known to him by some Experience first had of them This is the natural and obvious Sense of St. John's Words they are very evidently a Testimony of our Saviour's Prudence as a Man not of his Omniscience as a God There is no more Force to Mr. Lamoth's Purpose in St. Peter's Words to our Saviour Thou knowest all things The Lord Jesus had said to Peter Peter lovest thou me Peter grieved that such a Question should be put to him answers Lord thou knowest all things thou knowest I love thee His undoubted meaning is There is no Secret hid from thee thou fore-sawest my Fall my unhappy Weakness in denying thee but neither is it hid from thee that I love thee and then also loved thee though for a Moment Fear overcame Love What is there in this Answer to perswade any reasonable Man that Peter made his Master to be God or believed another a second God Thou knowest all Secrets but was not Peter aware that it was by Revelation from God by God's inhabiting Spirit or Inspiration that our Saviour and so many other Prophets knew all the Secrets of the Persons with whom they conversed Let us see whether we cannot even wrest it from our Opposers that all our Saviour's Knowledg whether of Secrets or of things to come was by Revelation from God not from his own proper and natural Omniscience as God! St. John speaking of our Saviour in his present State of Exaltation has this Passage Rev. 1. 1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to shew to his Servants things that must shortly come to pass and he Christ sent and signified it by his Angel or by his Messenger to his Servant John What Artifices what Elusions or Shifts will Mr. Lamoth betake him to to get rid of this Text which indeed putteth an End to the Question of our Saviour's Divinity For were he indeed God were his Knowledg of all Secrets and of things to come from his own Omniscience as God it could never have been said of him the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to shew to his Servants Our Opposer's last Hope is in the Words of our Saviour I search the Reins and Heart He ought to know that to search the Heart and Reins is an Hebrew and Scripture-Phrase or Form of speaking and signifies no more but this to know the most secret Thoughts and Purposes of the Mind and Heart This Knowledg is originally in none but God but it may be in others derivatively by Derivation or Revelation from God Only God knoweth the Reins and Heart originally of himself or by his own proper and natural Omniscience but Prophets and more especially our Saviour search and know the Hearts secondarily derivatively by God's Revelation to them or by his inhabiting Spirit in them We are assured that only this last was our Saviour's meaning in these Words I search the Heart by the first Words of this Book of Revelation before quoted even these the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him There could be no need that God should make a Revelation to him if he himself knew the Reins and Heart by a natural Omniscience of his own In one Word we ought not to stick at the mere Syllables I search the Heart but should consider the Import or Sense of that Phrase in the Scripture-Language If it signifies only thus much to know the Thoughts of the Heart or Mind it will not prove the Person of whom they are spoken to be omniscient or God unless it be also said he knoweth the Heart by his own Omniscience and not as 't is said of our Saviour by Revelation from God or God's inhabiting Spirit The fifth Attribute of God is his Power and this Author fears not to say at p. 40. the Lord Christ is as powerful as God I marvel that a sensible Man could say such a thing for as powerful as God is plainly to say two Almighties and two Gods 'T is impossible for Mr. Lamoth to evade this contradictory and blasphemous Consequence but by another which will be as silly as this is impious He cannot escape it but by saying that the Lord Christ himself is that God but then as powerful as God amounts to this as powerful as himself Hath Mr. Lamoth taken a Journey from France into England to bless us with such a Discovery that the Lord Christ is as powerful as himself or is as powerful as he is powerful But here too we must examine his Proofs our Saviour saith of himself John 5. 19. What things soever the Father doeth those also doeth the Son Again he saith John 6. 40. He that believeth on me hath eternal Life and I will raise him at the last Day And St. Paul saith of him Phil. 3. 21. Who shall change our vile Body that it may be like his glorious Body according to the Working whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself Lastly we have this Argument of our Saviour's Almighty Power that St. John saith Without him was not any thing made that was made John 1. 3. Which thing St. Paul dilates more largely in these Words For by him were all things created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth visible and invisible all things were created by him and for him Col. 1. 16. 'T is the perpetual Method Sir of our Opposers to argue from imperfect broken Passages of Holy Scripture concealing what goes before and what follows after as also how those Expressions are elsewhere interpreted by the Scriptures themselves But the Reason of this is never so little Sincerity in quoting the Scriptures would ruine their Cause Be you Judg Sir whether this be not a just Charge The Lord Christ saith Mr. Lamoth is as powerful as God for he himself saith Whatsoever things the Father doeth those also doeth the Son but he conceals what goes before in the same Verse Verily verily I say to you the Son can do nothing of himself And what again follows at ver 30. I can do nothing of my self He was aware that these explicatory Expressions would destroy his Argument from that part of the Verse which he alledged to prove that our Saviour is another Almighty therefore he was resolved only to quote the Part of the Verse which being separated from the rest and repeated by it self would seem to make for his Purpose But if you add to these Words which he hath dislocated from the rest even to these What things the Father doeth those