An account of Mr. Lock's religion, out of his own writings, and in his own words together with some observations upon it, and a twofold appendix : I. a specimen of Mr. Lock's way of answering authors ..., II. a brief enquiry whether Socinianism be justly charged upon Mr. Lock.

CHAP. XI. Of the Son of God, and the Messiah.

BElieving Jesus to be the Son of God, and to be the Messiah, was the same thing. The Jews, Luke 22. 70. asking Christ, Whether he was the Son of God; plainly demand of him, Whether he were the Messiah: which is evident by comparing that with the three preceding Verses. They ask him, ver. 67. Whe∣ther he were the Messiah? He answers, If I tell you, you will not believe: but withal tells them, that from henceforth he should be in possession of the Kingdom of the Messiah; express'd in these words, Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit at the right hand of the Power of God. Which made them all cry out, Art thou then the Son of God? i. e. Dost thou then own thy self to be the Messiah? To which he replies, Ye say that I am. This was the common Signification of the Son of God. Mr. Lock, Reasonab. of Christian. p. 34, 35. Confessing Jesus to be the Son of God, is the same with confessing him to be the Messiah; those two Ex∣pressions being understood among the Jews to signifie the same thing. Ibid. p. 96. Messiah and Son of God were synonymous Terms at that time among the Jews. Ibid. p. 50. The Son of God and the Messiah are one in Signification. Second Vindicat. of the Reasonab. of Christian. p. 353. The Answer of our Saviour, set down by S. Matthew chap. 26. 64. in these words Thou hast said; and by S. Mark chap. 14. 62. in these I am; is an Answer only to this Question, Art thou then the Son of God? and not to that other, Art thou the Messiah? which preceded, and he had answer'd to be∣fore; though Matthew and Mark contracting the Sto∣ry, set them down together, as if making but one Question, omitting all the intervening Discourse: Whereas 'tis plain out of S. Luke, that they were two

distinct Questions, to which Jesus gave two distinct An∣swers. In the first whereof, he, according to his wonted Caution, declin'd saying in plain express words, that he was the Messiah; though in the latter he own'd himself to be the Son of God. Reasonab. of Christian. p. 144, 145. Thus Mr. Lock.

OBSERVATIONS.

Here I conceive it will not be very easie to recon∣cile that which Mr. Lock says p. 34, 35. and other∣where, with that which he hath p. 144, 145. He says p. 34, 35. That the Jews asking Christ whether he were the Son of God, plainly demand of him whether he was the Messiah; and again, They cry out, art thou the Son of God? i. e. Dost thou then own thy self to be the Messiah? So that here Mr. Lock plainly makes Art thou the Son of God? and, Art thou the Messiah? one and the same Question. And yet p. 145. he says expresly, that they are two distinct Questions, to which Jesus gave two distinct Answers. Yea, he ap∣peals to one and the same Evangelist, S. Luke, for the truth of both these. It is evident by comparing Luke 22. 70. with the three preceding Verses, that the Jews asking whether he were the Son of God, demand∣ed of him whether he were the Messiah; says Mr. Lock p. 34. It is plain out of S. Luke, that they are two distinct Questions, says he p. 145. And indeed it is very plain out of S. Luke, that they are two distinct Questions, not only from our Saviour's giving two distinct Answers to them, but also from hence, that they ask'd the former Question touching his being the Messiah of their own accord; the latter, whe∣ther he was the Son of God, upon occasion of his mentioning his sitting at the right hand of the Power of God, S. Luke 22. 69. I might add, That I que∣stion whether they would have accounted it Blasphe∣my, if he had answer'd affirmatively to the former

Question, as they did when he own'd himself to be the Son of God. This directly overthrows all that Mr. Lock saith about the Son of God, and the Messiah, as being synonymous terms, or one in signification; for if they be Expressions of one and the same signi∣fication, these two, Art thou the Messiah? and Art thou the Son of God? cannot be distinct Questions, as (according to Mr. Lock) 'tis plain out of S. Luke that they are. No man will say that Art thou the Christ? and Art thou the Messiah? are two distinct Questions, because Messiah and Christ are known to signifie the same thing; and if the Son of God and the Messiah did likewise signisie the same thing, those other could not be said to be two distinct Questions. And therefore Mr. Lock must either re∣tract this, that 'tis plain out of S. Luke that Art thou the Messiah? and Art thou the Son of God? are two distinct Questions; or else renounce his beloved Notion, which takes up a great part of his Reaso∣nableness of Christianity, that the Son of God, and the Messiah, are synonymous terms, and one in sig∣nification, though not in sound.

The truth is, the account which Mr. Lock himself gives of the signification of the Son of God, and of the Messiah, is sufficient to overthrow that Notion of his. In his Reasonah. of Christian. p. 30. Mr. Lock having alledg'd those word, The Messias, which is, being in∣terpreted, the Christ, John 1. 42. tells us, that Christ is but the Greek name for the Hebrew Messiah, and that both signifie the Anointed. So p. 216. he says, The Faith required was, to believe Jesus to be the Messiah, the Anointed. He was anointed to three great Offices, viz. of Priest, Prophet, and King; see him p. 217. Concerning the other Title, the Son of God, he says, p. 303. Who being conceiv'd in the Womb of a Virgin (that had not known Man) by the immediate Power of God, was properly the Son of God; for which he cites Luk. 1. 35. According to

Mr. Lock then, the Son of God signifies our Saviour's having been conceived in the Womb of a pure Virgin by the immediate Power of God, whereas Messiah signifies his being anointed to the Offices of a Priest, a Prophet, and a King. Since then, by his own confession, these Titles have two so different Signifi∣cations, how he can say, and defend, that they are one in signification, I know not.

If when he says that they are synonymous Terms, Expressions of the same thing, one in Signification, &c. his meaning was only this; that the same Person is ex∣press'd or signify'd by them; that both these Titles agree to the same Person; or, that the same Person is both the Son of God and the Messiah; there would be no Controversie as to it: for, it is that which was never question'd. But Mr. Lock will not be satisfied with this, as appears from his Reasonableness of Christianity, and the two Vindications of it, especi∣ally the latter. For it was acknowledg'd more than once, that the Titles agree, or are apply'd to the same Person; and yet he is so far from acquiescing, that he disputes the Point as earnestly as ever. See Second Vindication, p. 349, &c.