360 A Second Vindication of the socinian, because the unmasker thinks these the worst and most invidious he can give me: and labours to fix them on me for no other reason, but because I will not take him for my master on earth, and his system for my gospel: I shall leave him to recommend himself to the world by this skill, who, no doubt, will have reason to thank him for the rareness and subtilty of his discovery. For I think, I am the first man that ever was found to be at the same time a socinian, and a factor for Rome. But what is too hard for such an unmasker? I must be what he thinks fit; when he pleases, a papist; and when he pleases, a socinian; and when he pleases, a mahometan: and probably, when he has considered a little better, an atheist; for I hardly escaped it when he writ last. My book, he says, had a tendency to it; and if he can but go on, as he has done hitherto, from sur mises to certainties, by that time he writes next, his discovery will be advanced, and he will certainly find me an atheist. Only one thing I dare assure him of, that he shall never find, that I treat the things of God or religion so, as if I made only a trade or a jest of them. But let us now see, how at present he proves me a socinian.
His first argument is, my not answering for my leav ing out Matt, xxviii. 19, and John i. 1, page 82, of his Socinianism unmasked. This he takes to be a con fession, that I am a socinian. I hope he means fairly, and that if it be so on my side, it must be taken for a standing rule between us, that where any thing is not answered, it must be taken for granted. And upon that score I must desire him to remember some passages of my Vindication, which I have already, and others, which I shall mind him of hereafter, which he passed over in silence, and had nothing to say to: which there fore, by his own rule, I shall desire the reader to ob serve, that he has granted.
This being premised, I must tell the unmasker, that I perceive he reads my book with the same understanding that he writes his own. If he had done otherwise, he might have seen, that I had given him a reason for my omission of those two, and other " plain and obvious " passages, and famous testimonies in the evangelists/' as he calls them; where I say, p. 166, " That if I have " left out none of those passages or testimonies, which " contain what our Saviour and his apostles preached " and required assent to, to make men believers, I " shall think my omissions (let them be what they will) "no faults in the present case. Whatever doctrines " Mr. Edwards would have to be believed, to make a " man a Christian, he will be sure to find them in those " preachings, and famous testimonies, of our Saviour " and his apostles, I have quoted. And if they are not " there, he may rest satisfied, that they were not pro-" posed, by our Saviour and his apostles, as necessary " to be believed to make men Christ's disciples." From which words, any one, but an unmasker, could have understood my answer to be, that all that was neces sary to be believed to make men Christians, might be found in what our Saviour and his apostles proposed to unbelievers for their conversion: but the two pas sages above mentioned, as well as a great many others in the evangelists, being none of those, I had no rea son to take notice of them. But the unmasker having, out of his good pleasure, put it once upon me, as he does in his " Thoughts of the causes of atheism," p. 107, that I was an " epitomiser of the evangelical " writings," though every one may see I make not that my business; yet it is no matter for that, I must be always accountable to that fancy of his. But when he has proved, XL VIII. That this is not as just a reasoning for my omitting them, as several other obvious passages and famous testimonies in the evangelists, which I there mention, for whose omission he does not blame me; I will undertake to give him another reason, which I know not whether he were not better let alone.
The next proof of my being a socinian, is, that I take the Son of God to be an expression used to signify the Messiah, Slichtingius and Socinus understood it so; A Second Vindication of the and therefore I am, the unmasker says, a socinian. Just as good an argument, as that I believe Jesus to be a prophet, and so do the mahometans; therefore I am a mahometan: or thus, the unmasker holds, that the apostles creed does not contain all things necessary to salvation; and so says Knot the Jesuit; therefore the unmasker is a papist. Let me turn the tables, and by the same argument I am orthodox again. For two or thodox, pious, and very eminent prelates of our church, whom, when I follow authorities, I shall prefer to Slichtingius and Socinus, understand it as I do; and there fore I am orthodox. Nay, it so falls out, that if it were of force either way, the argument would weigh most on this side; since I am not wholly a stranger to the writings of those two orthodox bishops; but I never read a page in either of those socinian s. The never sufficiently admired and valued archbishop Tillotson's words, which I quoted, the unmasker says, " do not " necessarily import any such thing." I know no words that necessarily import any thing to a caviller. But he was known to have such clear thoughts, and so clear a style, so far from having any thing doubtful or falla cious in what he said, that I shall only set down his words as they are in his sermon of sincerity, p. 2, to show his meaning: " Nathanael," says he, " being " satisfied, that he [our Saviour] was the Messiah, he " presently owned him for such, calling him THE SON " OF GOD, and the King of Israel."
The words of the other eminent prelate, the bishop of Ely, whom our church is still happy in, are these: " To " be the Son of God, and to be Christ, being but " different expressions of the same thing:" witness p. 14. And p. 10, " It is the very same thing to believe " that Jesus is the Christ," and to believe, " that Jesus " is the Son of God, express it how you please." " This " alone is the faith which can regenerate a man, and " put a divine Spirit into him, that it makes him a " conqueror over the world, as Jesus was." Of this the unmasker says, that this reverend author, " speaking " only in a general way, represents these two as the " same thing," viz. that Jesus is the Christ, and that Reasonableness of Christianity, fyc.
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 opi nion 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 pro positions 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 con sequently all truths. The un masker, 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 expres sions that both the bishop and he speak. Now, expres sions 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 the 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 364 A Second Vindication of the difference *, or else, if it has a different 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 expres-" sions 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 au thor 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 ap plied 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 ex-" pressions of the same thing?"
Secondly, " Because these expressions are applied to " the same person." Answ. A very demonstrative rea son, is it not? that therefore they cannot be different expressions of the same thing.
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 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 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