Jesus is the Son of God, because these expressions are applied to the same person, and because they are both comprehended in one general name, viz. Jesus. Answ. The question is, Whether these two expressions, "the Son of God," and "the Messiah," in the learned bishop's opinion, signify the same thing? If his opinion had been asked in the point, I know not how he could have declared it more clearly. For he says, they are "Expressions of the same thing;" and that it is the very same thing to believe, "that Jesus is the Messiah," and to believe that he is the Son of God;" which cannot be so, if Messiah and Son of God have different significations: for then they will make two distinct propositions in different senses, which it can be no more the same thing to believe, than it is the same thing to believe, that Mr. Edwards is a notable preacher, and a notable railer; or than it is to believe one truth, and all truths. For by the same reason, that it is the same thing to believe two distinct truths, it will be the same thing to believe two thousand distinct truths, and consequently all truths. The unmasker, that he might seem to say something, says, that "the reverend author represents these as the same thing." Answ. The unmasker never fails, like Midas, to turn every thing he touches into his own metal. The learned bishop says very directly and plainly, that "to be the Son of God, and to be the Messiah, are expressions of the same thing:" and the unmasker says, he "represents these expressions as one thing :" for it is of expressions that both the bishop and he speak. Now, expressions can be one thing, but one of these two ways; either in sound, and so these two expressions are not one; or in signification, and so they are. And then the unmasker says, but in other words, what the bishop had said before, viz. That these two, "to be the Son of God, and to be the Messiah, are expressions of the same thing." Only the unmasker has put in thẹ word represents, to amuse his reader, as if he had said something; and so indeed he does, after his fashion, i. e. obscurely and fallaciously; which, when it comes to be examined, is but the same thing under show of a

difference; or else, if it has adifferent meaning, it is demonstratively false. But so it be obscure enough to deceive a willing reader, who will not be at the pains to examine what he says, it serves his turn.

But yet, as if he had said something of weight, he gives reasons for putting "represents these two expressions as one thing," instead of saying "these two are but different expressions of the same thing."

The first of his reasons is, Because the reverend author is here "speaking only in a general way." Answ. What does the unmasker mean by a general way? The learned bishop speaks of two particular expressions applied to our Saviour. But was his discourse ever so general, how could that alter the plain signification of his words, viz. that those two are but "different expressions of the same thing?"

Secondly, "Because these expressions are applied to the same person." Answ. A very demonstrative reason, is it not? that therefore they cannot be different expressions of the same thing!

is

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 comprehended in the name, Jesus; and that Jesus, the name of a particular person, should be a general name, 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 himself 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 proceeds; and tells us, p. 91, "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 expressions of the same thing:" but withal tells him, that, if he will "speak closely and strictly," he must

say, "they are of different significations." My concernment 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. Perhaps, 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 falsehood." 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 understood 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:

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 gentlemen (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 deducible 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

Messiah, he does it in these synonymous terms, of the Messiah, and the Son of God; as appears by comparing ver. 28, 35, 36.

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 certain, whatever they meant by it, they used a phrase of a known signification in that country: and what may we reasonably think 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. 16, 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