Thirdly, " And because they are both comprehended " in one general name, viz. Jesus." Answ. It requires some skill to put so many falsehoods in so few words; for neither both nor either of these expressions are com prehended in the name Jesus; and that Jesus, the name of a particular person, should be a general name, is a discovery reserved to be found out by this new logician. However, general, is a learned word, which when a man of learning has used twice, as a reason of the same thing, he is covered with generals. He need not trouble him self any farther about sense; he may safely talk what stuff he pleases without the least suspicion of his reader.
Having thus strongly proved just nothing, he pro ceeds and tells us, p. 91 5 " Yet it does not follow " thence, but that if we will speak strictly and closely, " we must be forced to confess, they are of different " significations." By which words (if his words have any signification) he plainly allows, that the bishop meant as he says, that these two are but " different ex- " pressions of the same thing; " but withal tells him, that, if he will " speak closely and strictly," he must Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 365 say, " they are of different significations." My con cernment in the case being only that in the passage alleged, the reverend author said, that the Son of God, and the Messiah, were " different expressions of the " same thing." I have no more to demand after these words of the unmasker; he has in them granted all I would have: and I shall not meddle with his " speaking " closely and strictly," but shall leave it to the decisive authority of this superlative critic to determine whether this learned bishop, or any one living, besides himself, can understand the phrases of the New Testament, and " speak strictly and closely " concerning them. Per haps, his being yet alive, may preserve this eminent prelate from the malicious drivelling of this unmasker's pen, which has bespattered the ashes of two of the same order, who were no mean ornaments of the English church; and if they had been now alive, nobody will doubt but the unmasker would have treated them after another fashion.
But let me ask the unmasker, whether if either of these pious prelates, whose words I have above quoted, did understand that phrase of the Son of God to stand for the Messiah, (which they might do without holding any one socinian tenet;) he will dare to pronounce him a socinian? This is so ridiculous an inference, that I could not but laugh at it. But withal tell him, Vindic. p. 172, " That if the sense wherein I understand those " texts, be a mistake, I shall be beholden to him to set (( me right: but they are not popular authorities, or " frightful names, whereby I judge of truth or false- " hood." To which I subjoin these words: " You " will now, no doubt, applaud your conjectures; the " point is gained, and I am openly a socinian; since " I will not disown, that I think the Son of God was " a phrase, that, among the jews, in our Saviour's time, " was used for the Messiah, though the socinians un- " derstood it in the same sense. And therefore I must " certainly be of their persuasion in every thing else. " I admire the acuteness, force, and fairness of your " reasoning; and so I leave you to triumph in your " conjectures." Nor has he failed my expectation: 366 A Second Vindication of the " for here, p. 91, of his Socinianism unmasked, he " upon this erects his comb, and crows most mightily. " We may," says he, " from hence, as well as other " reasons, pronounce him the same with those gentle- " men, (i. e. as he is pleased to call them, my good " patrons and friends, the racovians;) which you may " perceive he is very apprehensive of, and thinks that " this will be reckoned a good evidence of his being, " what he denied himself to be before." " The point " is gained, saith he, and I am openly a socinian." " He never uttered truer words in his life, and they are " the confutation of all his pretences to the contrary. " This truth,, which unwarily dropped from his pen, " confirms what I have laid to his charge/' Now you have sung your song of triumph, it is fit you should gain your victory, by showing, XLIX. How my understanding the Son of God to be a phrase used amongst the jews, in our Saviour's time, to signify the Messiah, proves me to be a socinian?
Or, if you think you have proved it already, I desire you to put your proof into a syllogism: for I confess myself so dull, as not to see any such conclusion dedu- cible from my understanding that phrase as I do, even when you have proved that I am mistaken in it.
The places, which in the New Testament show that the Son of God stands for the Messiah, are so many and so clear, that I imagine nobody that ever considered and compared them together, could doubt of their meaning, unless he were an unmasker. Several of them I have collected and set down in my " Reasonableness " of Christianity," p. 17, 18, 19, 21, 28, 52.
First, John the Baptist, John i. 20, when the jews sent to know who he was, confessed he himself was not the Messiah. But of Jesus he says, ver. 34, after having several ways, in the foregoing verses, declared him to be the Messiah: " And I saw and bare record, that this " is the SON OF GOD." And again, chap. iii. 26 — 36, he declaring Jesus to be, and himself not to be the Reasonableness of Christianity > 8$c. 367 Messiah, he does it in these synonymous terms, of the Messiah, and the Son of God; as appears by comparing Nathanael owns him to be the Messiah, in these words, John i. 50, " Thou art the SON OF GOD, thou art the " King of Israel: " which our Saviour, in the next verse, calls believing; a term, all through the history of our Saviour, used for owning Jesus to be the Messiah. And for confirming that faith of his, that he was the Messiah, our Saviour further adds, that he should see greater things, i. e. should see him do greater miracles, to evidence that he was the Messiah.
Luke iv. 41, " And devils also came out of many, " crying, Thou art the Messiah, the Son of God; and " he, rebuking them, suffered them not to speak." And so again, St. Mark tells us, chap. iii. 11, 12, " That unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down " before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of " God. And he strictly charged them, that they should " not make him known." In both these places, which relate to different times, and different occasions, the devils declare Jesus to be the Son of God. It is cer tain, whatever they meant by it, they used a phrase of a known signification in that country: and what may we reasonably thing they designed to make known to the people by it? Can we imagine these unclean spirits were promoters of the gospel, and had a mind to acknowledge and publish to the people the deity of our Saviour, which the unmasker would have to be the signification of the Son of God? Who can entertain such a thought? No, they were no friends to our Saviour: and therefore desired to spread a belief of him, that he was the Messiah, that so he might, by the envy of the scribes and pharisees, be disturbed in his ministry, and be cut off before he had completed it. And therefore we see, our Saviour in both places forbids them to make him known; as he did his disciples themselves, for the same reason. For when St. Peter, Matt. xvi. ]6, had owned Jesus to be the Messiah, in these words: " Thou art the " Messiah, the Son of the living God; " it follows, ver. 20, " Then charged he his disciples, that they should 368 A Second Vindication of the " tell no man that he was Jesus the Messiah; " just as he had forbid the devils to make him known, i. e. to be the Messiah. Besides, these words here of St. Peter, can be taken in no other sense, but barely to signify, that Jesus was the Messiah, to make them a proper answer to our Saviour's question. His first question here to his disciples, ver. 13, is, " Whom do men say, that I, the " Son of man," am? The question is not. Of what original do you think the Messiah, when he comes, will be? For then this question would have been as it is, Matt. xxii. 42, " What think ye of the Messiah, whose Son is he?" if he had inquired about the common opinion, concern ing the nature and descent of the Messiah. But this question is concerning himself: Whom, of all the ex traordinary persons known to the jews, or mentioned in their sacred writing, the people thought him to be? That this was the meaning of his question, is evident from the answer the apostles gave to it, and his further demand, ver. 14, 15, " They said, Some say thou art " John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or " one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But WHOM " say ye that I am? The people take me, some for one of " the prophets or extraordinary messengers from God, " and some for another: but which of them do you take " me to be? Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art " the Messiah, the Son of the living God." In all which discourse, it is evident there was not the least inquiry made by our Saviour concerning the person, nature, or qualifications of the Messiah; but whether the people or his apostles thought him, i. e. Jesus of Nazareth, to be the Messiah. To which St. Peter gave him a direct and plain answer in the foregoing words, declaring their belief of him to be the Messiah: which is all that, with any manner of congruity, could be made the sense of St. Peter's answer. This alone of itself were enough to justify my interpretation of St. Peter's words, without the authority of St. Mark, and St. Luke, both whose words confirm it. For St. Mark, chap. viii. 29, renders it, " Thou art the Messiah; and St. Luke, chap. ix. 20, " The Messiah of God." To the like question, " Who " art thou?" John the Baptist gives a like answer, Reasonableness of Christianity, 8$c. 369 John i. 19, 20, "I am not the Christ." By which answer, as well as by the foregoing- verses, it is plain, nothing was understood to be meant by that question, but, Which of the extraordinary persons, promised to, or expected by, the jews art thou?
John xi. 27, the phrase of the Son of God is made use of by Martha; and that it was used by her to signify the Messiah, and nothing else, is evident out of the context. Martha tells our Saviour, that if he had been there before her brother died, he, by that divine power which he had manifested in so many miracles which he had done, could have saved his life; and that now, if our Saviour would ask it of God, he might ob tain the restoration of his life. Jesus tells her, he shall rise again: which words, Martha taking to mean, at the general resurrection, at the last day; Jesus there upon takes occasion to intimate to her, that he was the Messiah, by telling her, that he was " the resurrection " and the life;" i. e. that the life, which mankind should receive at the general resurrection, was by and through him. This was a description of the Messiah, it being a received opinion among the jews, that when the Messiah came, the just should rise, and live with him for ever. And having made this declaration of himself to be the Messiah, he asks Martha, " Believest " thou this?" What? Not whose son the Messiah should be; but whether he himself was the Messiah, by whom believers should have eternal life at the last day.
And to this she gives this direct and apposite answer: " Yea, Lord, I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son " of God, which should come into the world." The question was only, Whether she was persuaded, that those, who believed in him, should be raised to eternal life; that was in effect, " Whether he was the Messiah?" And to this she answers, Yea, Lord, I believe this of thee: and then she explains what was contained in that faith of hers; even this, that he was the Messiah, that was promised to come, by whom alone men were to re ceive eternal life.
What the jews also understood by the Son of God, is likewise clear from that passage at the latter end of 370.-• A Second Vindication of the Luke xxii. They having taken our Saviour, and being very desirous to get a confession from his own mouth, that he was the Messiah, that they might be from thence able to raise a formal and prevalent accusation against him before Pilate; the only thing the council asked him, was. Whether he was the Messiah? v. 67. To which he answers so, in the following words, that he lets them see he understood, that the design of their question was to entrap him, and not to believe in him, whatever he should declare of himself. But yet he tells them, " Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right " hand of the power of God:" Words that to the jews plainly enough owned him to be the Messiah; but yet such as could not have any force against him with Pilate. He having confessed so much, they hope to draw yet a clearer confession from him. "Then said they all, " Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, " Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we " any further witness? For we ourselves have heard of " his own mouth." Can any one think, that the doc trine of his deity (which is that which the unmasker accuses me for waving) was that which the jews de signed to accuse our Saviour of, before Pilate; or that they needed witnesses for? Common sense, as well as the current of the whole history, shows the contrary. No, it was to accuse him, that he owned himself to be the Messiah, and thereby claimed a title to be king of the jews. The Son of God was so known a name amongst the jews, to stand for the Messiah; that having got that from his mouth, they thought they had proof enough for treason against him. This carries with it a clear and easy meaning. But if the Son of God be to be taken, as the unmasker would have it, for a declaration of his deity, I desire him to make common and coherent sense of it.
I shall add one consideration more to show that the Son of God was a form of speech then used among the jews, to signify the Messiah, from the persons that used it, viz. John the Baptist, Nathanael, St. Peter, Martha, the sanhedrim, and the centurion, Matt, xxvii. 54. Here are jews5 heathens, friends, enemies, men, women, Reasonableness of Christianity, <fyc. 371 believers and unbelievers, all indifferently use this phrase of the Son of God, and apply it to Jesus. The question between the unmasker and me, is, Whether it was used by these several persons, as an appellation of the Mes siah, or (as the unmasker would have it) in a quite dif ferent sense? as such an application of divinity to our Saviour, that he that shall deny that to be the meaning of it in the minds of these speakers, denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. For if they did speak it without that meaning, it is plain it was a phrase known to have another meaning; or else they had talked unintelligible jargon. Now I will ask the unmasker, " Whether he " thinks, that the eternal generation, or, as the un- " masker calls it, filiation of Jesus the Son of God, " was a doctrine that had entered into the thoughts of " all the persons above mentioned, even of the Roman " centurion, and the soldiers that were with him watching " Jesus?" If he says he does, I suppose he thinks so only for this time, and for this occasion: and then it will lie upon him to give the world convincing reasons for his opinion, that they may think so too; or if he does not think so, he must give up his argument, and allow that this phrase, in these places, does not neces sarily import the deity of our Saviour, and the doctrine of his eternal generation: and so a man may take it to be an expression standing for the Messiah, without being a socinian, any more than he himself is one.
" There is one place the unmasker tells us, p. 87, " that confutes all the surmises about the identity of " these terms. It is, says he, that famous confession " of faith which the Ethiopian eunuch made, when " Philip told him, he might be baptized, if he be- " lieved. This, without doubt, was said, according to " that apprehension, which he had of Christ, from " Philip's instructing him; for he said he preached " unto him Jesus, ver. 35. He had acquainted him, " that Jesus was the Christ, the anointed of God, and (t also that he was the Son of God; which includes " in it, that he was God. And accordingly, this noble " proselyte gives this account of his faith, in order to " his being baptized, in order to his being admitted a 372 A Second Vindication of the " member of Christ's church: " I believe that Jesus is " the Son of God:" or you may read it according to the Greek, " I believe the Son of God to be Jesus Christ." Where there are these two distinct propositions: " 1st, That Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah.
" 2dly, That he is not only the Messiah, but the Son « of God."
The unmasker is every-where steadily the same subtle arguer. Whether he has proved that the Son of God, in this confession of the eunuch, signifies what he would have, we shall examine by and by. This at least is demonstration, that this passage of his overturns his principles; and reduces his long list of fundamentals to two propositions, the belief whereof is sufficient to make a man a Christian. " This noble proselyte, says " the unmasker, gives this account of his faith, in order " to his being baptized, in order to his being admitted " a member of Christ's church/' And what is that faith, according to the unmasker? he tells you, " there " are in it these two distinct propositions, viz. I be- " lieve, 1st, That Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah; " 2dly, That he is not only the Messiah, but the Son of " God.". If this famous confession, containing but these two articles, were enough to his being baptized; if this faith were sufficient to make this noble proselyte a Christian; what is become of all those other articles of the unmasker's system, without the belief whereof, he, in other places, tells us, a man cannot be a Christian? If he had here told us, that " Philip had not time nor " opportunity," during his short stay with the eunuch, to explain to him all the unmasker's system, and make him understand all his fundamentals; he had had reason on his side: and he might have urged it as a reason why Philip taught him no more. But nevertheless he had, by allowing the eunuch's confession of faith sufficient for his admittance as a member of Christ's church, given up his other fundamentals, as necessary to be be lieved to make a man a Christian; even that of the Holy Trinity; and he has at last reduced his necessary articles to these two, viz. " That Jesus is the Messiah;" and that " Jesus is the Son of God." So that, after his ridi- Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc. 373 culous calling mine a lank faith, I desire him to con sider what he will now call his own. Mine is next to none, because, as he says, it is but one article. If that reasoning be good, his is not far from none; it consists but in two articles, which is next to one, and very little more remote from none than one is. If any one had but as much wit as the unmasker, and could be but as smart upon the number two, as he has been upon an unit, here were a brave opportunity for him to lay out his parts; and he might make vehement complaints against one, that has thus " cramped our faith, corrupt- " ed men's minds, depraved the gospel, and abused " Christianity." But if it should fall out, as I think it will, that the unmasker's two articles should prove to be but one; he has saved another that labour, and he stands painted to himself with his own charcoal.
The unmasker would have the Son of God, in the confession of the eunuch, to signify something different from the Messiah: and his reason is, because else it would be an absurd tautology. Ans. There are many exegetical expressions put together in scripture, which, though they signify the same thing, yet are not absurd tautologies. The unmasker here inverts the proposi tion, and would have it to signify thus: " The Son of " God is Jesus the Messiah;" which is a proposition so different from what the apostles proposed, every- where else, that he ought to have given a reason why, when, every-where else, they made the proposition to be, of something affirmed of Jesus of Nazareth, the eunuch should make the affirmation to be of something con cerning the Son of God: as if the eunuch knew very well, what the Son of God signified, viz. as the un masker tells us here, that it included or signified God; and that Philip (who, we read, at Samaria preached TOV Xpij-ov, the Messiah, i. e. instructed them who the Messiah was) had here taken pains only to instruct him that this God was Jesus the Messiah, and to bring him to assent to that proposition. Whether this be natural to conceive, I leave to the reader.
The tautology, on which the unmasker builds his whole objection, will be quite removed if we take 37$ A Second Vindication of the Christ here for a proper name, in which way it is used by the evangelists and apostles in other places, and par ticularly by St. Luke, in Acts ii. 38, iii. 6, 20, iv. 10, xxiv. 24, &c. In two of these places it cannot, with any good sense, be taken otherwise; for, if it be not in Acts iii. 6, and iv. 10, used as a proper name, we must read those places thus, "Jesus the Messiah of Nazareth.'* And I think it plain in those others cited, as well as in several other places of the New Testament, that the word Christ is used as a proper name. We may easily con ceive, that long before the Acts were writ, the name of Christ was grown, by a familiar use, to denote the person of our Saviour, as much as Jesus. This is so manifest, that it gave a name to his followers; who, as St. Luke tells us, xi. 26, were called Christians; and that, if chronologists mistake not, twenty years before St. Luke writ his history of the apostles: and this so gene rally, that Agrippa, a jew, uses it, Acts xxvi. 28. Arid that Christ, as the proper name of our Saviour, was got as far as Rome, before St. Luke writ the Acts, appears out of Suetonius, 1. 5; and by that name he is called in Tacitus, Ann. 1. 15. It is no wonder then, that St. Luke, in writing this history, should sometimes set it down alone, sometimes joined with that of Jesus, as a proper name: which is much easier to conceive he did here, than that Philip proposed more to the eunuch to be be lieved to make him a Christian, than what, in other places, was proposed for the conversion of others, or than what he himself proposed at Samaria.
His 7th chapter is to prove, that I am a socinian, because I omitted Christ's satisfaction. That matter having been answered, p. 265, where it came properly under consideration, I shall only observe here, that the great stress of his argument lies as it did before, not upon my total omission of it out of my book, but on this, that " I have no such thing in the place where the " advantages of Christ's coming are purposely treated " of;" from whence he will have this to be an un avoidable inference, viz. " That I was of opinion, that " Christ came not to satisfy for us." The reason of my omission of it in that place, I told him, was because Reasonableness of Christianity, $c. 375