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, concerning the nature and descent of the Messiah. But this question is concerning himself: Whom, of all the extraordinary persons known to the Jews, or mentioned in their sacred writings, 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,

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 obtain 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 thereupon 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. nd having made this declaration of

4

The

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." 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

VOL. VII.

BB

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 doctrine of his deity (which is that which the unmasker accuses me for waving) was that which the Jews designed 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, Matth. xxvii. 54. Here are Jews, heathens, friends, enemies, men, women,

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 Messiah, or, (as the unmasker would have it) in a quite different 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 unmasker 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 necessarily 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 believed. 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 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 member of Christ's church: 'I be

lieve 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:

66

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 subtile 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 believe, 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 believed 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