existence of God, and whatsoever else may be deduced from thence, as revealed by him to be signified thereby. by ὑπάρχεις in the place of Æschylus's Prometheus, ν. 330. Ζηλῶ σ ̓ ὅθ ̓ οὔνεκ ̓ ἐκτὸς αἰτίας κυρεῖς, Πάντων μετασχὼν καὶ τετολμηκὼς ἐμοί. As the Arundelian scholiast upon the Septem Thebana, κυρεῖ, ὑπάρχει, and in the same tragedy, ἐπ ̓ ἀσπίδος κυρεῖν, is rendered by the more ancient scholiast, εἶναι ἐπὶ τῆς ἀσπίδος as in the Persa, σεσωσμένος κυρεί, is by the same interpreter explained nugɛ καὶ ὑπάρχει σεσωσμένος. So the same poet in his Agamemnon, v. 1371. Ταύτην ἐπαινεῖν πάντοθεν πληθύνομαι, Τρανῶς ̓Ατρείδην εἰ δέναι κυροῦνθ ̓ ὅπως. Which the scholiast renders thus : Επαινοῦμαι διαφόρως ταύτην γνώμην, τὸ μαθεῖν ἐν οἷς ἐστὶ καταστάσει ὁ βασιλεύς. And no other sense can be imagined of that verse in Sophocles, Edip. Tyr. v. 362. Φονέα σε φημὶ τἀνδρὸς οὗ ζητεῖς κυρεῖν, than by rendering it, εἶναι or ὑπάρχειν : and Edip. Col. v. 726. —Καὶ γὰρ εἰ γέρων κυρῶ, Τὸ τῆςδε χώρας οὐ γεγήρακε σθένος· and Philoctet. v. 899. ̓Αλλ ̓ ἐνθάδ ̓ ἤδη τοῦδε τοῦ πάθους κυρῶν or of that in Euripides's Phænissæ, v. 1067. Ωὴ, τίς ἐν πύλαισι δωμάτων κυρεῖ; This original interpretation appeareth farther in the frequent use of nuge for τυγχάνω, as it signifieth no more than sum: as in Sophocles, εὐθύνων κυρεῖς for εὐθύνεις, μισῶν κυρῆς for μισῆς, ἐπεικάζων κυρῶ for ἐπεικάζω, ἂν κυρεῖς for εἷς, ἐξειδὼς κυρῶ for ἔξοιδα, κυρῶ λεύσσων for λεύσσω, δρῶν κυρεῖς for δρᾷς, ἠπατημένος κυρῶ for ἠπάτημαι, εἰρηκὼς κυρεῖ for εἴρηκεν, εἰπὼν κυρεῖς for εἶπες, ἐκύρει ζῶσα for ἔζη: and in Euripides, ἔχων κυρεῖ for ἔχει, εἰσβαίνουσα κυρεῖ for εἰσβαίνει, ἠδικημένη κυρῇ for ἀδικῆται, οἱ ἀδικηθῇ, as the scholiast. From all which it undeniably appeareth, that the ancient signification of κύρω or κυρῶ is the same with εἰμὶ, οι ὑπάρχω, sum, I am (which is much confirmed by that it was anciently observed to be a verb transitive, as it was used by the forementioned author: κυρῶ συζυγίας πρώτης τῶν περισπωμένων, τὸ περιτυγχάνω· ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ ὑπάρχω κατὰ τοὺς τραγικοὺς ἀμετάβατον. So an ancient Lexicon); and therefore κύριος immediately derived from thence must be ὁ ὤν, or ὁ ὑπάρχων: and consequently the proper interpretation of descending from the root of the same signification. And well may we conceive the LXX. for this reason to have so translated it, because we find the origination delivered by them in that notion, rendering Ην ὁ Ων, Exod. iii. 14. ἐγὼ εἰμὶ ὁ "Ων, and again, ὁ Ων ἀπέσταλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. From whence considering the name proceeding from that root, and giving relation to that sense, they made use of the word zipios for the standing interpretation of that name, as being equivalent to ὁ "Ων. We have no reason then to conceive either that they so translated it out of the superstition of the Jews (as some would persuade us, whom we have already refuted) or because they had no letters in the Greek language by which they could express the Hebrew name, whereas we find it often expressed even among the Gentile Greeks, but because they thought the Greek κύριος to be a proper interpretation, as being reducible to the same signification. For even they which are pretended to have read Adonai for Jehovah, as Origen, &c. do acknowledge that the heathens and the ancient heretics descending from the Jews had a name by which they did express the Hebrew Jehovah. We know that oracle preserved by Macrobius, Saturnal. lib. i. c. 18. Φράζεο τὸν πάντων ὕπατον θεὸν ἔμμεν Ιαά. And Diodorus hath taught us from whence that name first came, mentioning Moses in this manner, l. i. c. 94. Παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις Μωσὴν τὸν Ἰαὼ ἐπικαλούμενον θεόν. And Theodoret more expressly, Quast. 15. in Erod. Καλοῦσι δὲ αὐτὸ Σαμαρείται μὲν Ιαβὲ, Ἰουδαῖοι δὲ Ἰαώ. Porphyrius, I. iv. cont. Christian, tells us, Sanchoniathon had his relations of the Jews, παρὰ Ἱερομ βάλου τοῦ ἱερέως Θεοῦ τοῦ Ἰευώ. Eusebius (as we formerly mentioned) said, Ιασουέ ἐστιν, Ἰαὼ σωτηρία. Hesychius, Ἰωάθαμ, Ἰαὼ συντέλεια, taking i in composition for the contraction of 'Ia. Ας Ἰωνὰς ἑρμη νεύεται, ὑψίστου πονοῦντος. And the LXX. Jer. xxiii. 6. have rendered spry τη Ιωσεδέκ, id est, Dominus justus, saith St. Jerome. And as the heathens and the first Christians, so the heretics had among them the pronunciation and expression of the name Π As the Valentinian was baptized ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰαώ. Iren 1. i. c. 21. §. 3. and the Ophiani had their several gods, among the rest: ̓Απὸ μὲν μαγείας τὸν Ἰαλδαβαωθ καὶ τὸν ̓Ασταφαίον, καὶ τὸν Ωραῖον· ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ̔Εβραϊκῶν γραφῶν τὸν Ἰαὼ, Τὰ παρ ̓ Εβραίοις ὀνομαζόμενον. Οrig. cont. Cels. l. vi. §. 32. So I read it, not as it is in the edition of Hoeschelius, 'Iawia in one word, or 'laxia, as our learned countryman Nicolaus Fullerus hath endeavoured in vain to rectify it; but laà là, that is, the Ophiani took the name 'la from the Jews, among whom it signifies the same who is called lah. For that it ought so to be read, appeareth by the former Being then this title Lord thus signifieth the proper name of God Jehovah, being the same is certainly attributed unto Christ in a notion far surpassing all other lords, which are rather to be looked upon as servants unto him: it will be worthy our inquiry next, whether as it is the translation of the name Jehovah it belong to Christ; or whether though he be Lord of all other lords, as subjected under his authority, yet he be so inferior unto him whose name alone is Jehovah, as that in that propriety and eminency in which it belongs unto the supreme God it may not be attributed unto Christ. This doubt will easily be satisfied, if we can shew the name Jehovah itself to be given unto our Saviour; it being against all reason to acknowledge the original name, and to deny the interpretation in the sense and full importance of that original. Wherefore if Christ be the Jehovah, as so called by the Spirit of God; then is he so the Lord, in the same propriety and eminency in which Jehovah is. Now whatsoever did belong to the Messias, that may and must be attributed unto Jesus, as being the true and only Christ. But the Jews themselves acknowledge that Jehovah shall be known clearly in the days of the Messias, and not only so, but that it is the name which properly belongeth to him. And if they cannot but confess so much who only read the prophecies, as the eunuch did, without an interpreter; how can we be ignorant of so plain and necessary a truth, whose eyes have seen the full completion, and read the infallible interpretation of them? If they could see "Jehovah the Lord of hosts" to be the name of the Messias, who was to them "for a stone of stumbling and rock of offence," (Isa. viii. 13, 14.) how can we possibly be ignorant of it, who are taught by St. Paul, that in Christ this prophecy was fulfilled, “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone, and rock of offence, and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." (Rom. ix. 33.) It was no other than Jehovah who spake these words, "I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord (Jehovah) their God, and will not save them by bow nor sword." (Hos. i. 7.)+ Where not only he who is described as the original and principal cause, that is, the Father who gave his Son, but also he who is the immediate efficient of our salvation, and that in opposition to all other means or instrumental causes, is called Jehovah; who can be no other than our Jesus, because "there is no other name words of Origen: Οἴονται τὸν διελθόντα τὸν Ἰαλδαβαωθ καὶ φθάσαντα ἐπὶ τὸν τὰ δεῖν λέγειν, Σὺ δὲ κρυπτομένων μυστηρίων υἱοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἄρχαν νυκτοφανής δεύτερε Ἰαώ. Ibid. §. 31. In the printed copy indeed it is ladeiv, and in the Latin Iadin, but without sense: whereas dividing the words, the sense is manifest, and the reason of the former emendation apparent. Being then there were so many among the Greeks, which Q did in all ages express the Hebrew name, it can be no way probable that the LXX. should avoid it as inexpressible in their language. As Midrasch Tillim on Psal. xxi. Echa Rabati Lam. i. 6. + Where it is farther observable that במימרא דיי the Chaldee paraphrase hath for by the word of Jehovah, for Jehovah. under heaven given unto men whereby we must be saved.” (Acts iv. 12.) As in another place he speaketh, "I will strengthen them in the Lord (Jehovah), and they shall walk up and down in his name saith the Lord (Jehovah);" (Zech. x. 12.) where he which strengtheneth is one, and he by whom he strengtheneth is another, clearly distinguished from him by the personal pronoun, and yet each of them is Jehovah, and "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." (Deut. vi. 4.) Whatsoever objections may be framed against us, we know Christ is the Two adversaries we have to the exposition of this place, the Jew and the Socinian; only with this difference, that we find the less opposition from the Jew, from whom, indeed, we have so ample a concession as will destroy the other's contradiction. First, Socinus answers, the name belongeth not to Christ, but unto Israel: and that it so appears by a parallel place in the same prophet, Jer. xxxiii. 15, 16. Socin. refut. Jac. Wieki, cap. 6. Catech. Racov. de Pers. Christi, c. 1. Crellius de Deo et Attrib. 1. i. c. 11. To this we first oppose the constant interpretation of the Jews, who attribute the name Jehovah to the Messias from this one particular text. As in the Sepher Ikkarim. l. ii. c. 8. von xiph Jehovah to be the name of Israel, which ,being, iste qui vocabit eam וזה אשר יקרא לה צדקנו -The Scripture call שם המשיה eth the name of the Messias " Jehovah our righteousness." And in Misdrasch Tillim וקורא למלך המשיח בשמו ומהו .on Pial. xxi שמו יהיה שם" יהיה איש מלחמה יהוה שמו ובמלך המשיח כתיב וזה שמו אשר יקראו יהוה PTY God calleth the Messias by his own name, and his name is Jehovah; as it is said (Exod. xv. 3.) "The Lord is a man of war, Jehovah is his name." And it is written of the Messias, (Jer. xxiii. 6.) "And this is the name which they shall call him, Jehovah our righteousness.” Thus Echa Rabati, Lam. i. 6. של משוח אל" אבא יהוה שמו שנ' וזה שמו אשר What is the name of the יקראו יהוה צדקנו Messias? R. Abba said, Jehovah is his name; as it is said (Jer. xxiii. 6.) "And this is the name which they shall call him, Jehovah our righteousness." The same he reports of Rabbi Levi. The Rabbins then, though enemies to the truth which we deduce from thence, constrained by the literal importance of the text, did acknowledge that the name Jehovah did belong to the Messias. And as for the collection of the contrary from the parallel place pretended, there is not so great a similitude as to enforce the same interpretation. For whereas in Jerem. xxiii. 6. it is expressly said, n my this is the name, in the xxxiii. 16. it is only without any mention of a name; and surely that place cannot prove As he which calleth Jerusalem, is the Lord righteous branch raised unto David, the King that shall reign and prosper, in whose days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely ;" (Jer. xxiii. 5, 6.) we are assured that "this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our righteousness" (Ibid.) "the Lord," that is, Jehovah, the expression of his supremacy; and the addition of "our righteousness" can be no diminution to his majesty. If those words in the prophet, "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Sion; for lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord (Jehovah)," (Zech. ii. 10.) did not sufficiently of themselves denote our Saviour who dwelt amongst us, as they certainly do; yet the words which follow would evince as much; And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people; and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee:" (Ibid. 11.) for what other Lord can we conceive dwelling in the midst of us, and sent unto us by the Lord of hosts, but Christ? And as the original Jehovah was spoken of Christ by the holy prophets; so the title of Lord, as the usual interpretation of that name, was attributed unto him by the apostles. In that signal prediction of the first age of the Gospel, God promised by Joel, that "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord (Jehovah) shall be delivered:" (Joel ii. 32.) and St. Paul hath assured us that Christ is that Lord, by proving from thence, that "whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed;" and inferring from that, "if we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus, we shall be saved;" (Rom. x. 9. 11.) For if it be a certain truth, that whosoever "confesseth the Lord Jesus shall be already proved it actually given: and our adversaries who teach that the name Jehorah is sometimes given to the angels representing God, must acknowledge that it may be given unto Christ, whom they confess to be above all angels, and far more fully and exactly to represent the Father. Secondly, That which is the addition in those names cannot be truly predicated of that thing which bears the name. Moses could not say that altar was his exaltation, nor Gideon that it was his peace. And if it could not so be predicated by itself, it could neither be by apposition, and, consequently, even in this respect, it was necessary to make the name a proposition. But our righte ousness may undoubtedly be predicated of him, who is here called by the name of "the Lord our righteousness:" for the apostle hath expressly taught us, that he is made unto us righteousness," 1 Cor. i. 30. And if it may be in itself, there can be no repugnancy in its predication by way of apposition. Thirdly, That addition of our righteousness doth not only truly belong to Christ, but in some manner properly and peculiarly so, as in that notion it can belong to no other person called Jehovah, but to that Christ alone. For he alone "is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth," Rom. x. 4. And when he is said to be "made unto us righteousness," 1 Cor. i. 30. he is thereby distinguished from God the Father. Being then Christ is thus peculiarly called our righteousness in the Gospel, being the place of the prophet forementioned speaketh of this as a name to be used under the Gospel, being no other person called Jehovah is ever expressly called our righteousness in the Gospel; it followeth, not only that Christ may be so called, but that the prophecy cannot otherwise be fulfilled, than by acknowledging that Christ is "the Lord our righteousness:" and, consequently, that is his name, not by way of proposition, but of apposition and appropriation; so that being both Jehovah and our righteousness, he is as truly Jehovah as our righteousness. saved;" and the certainty of this truth depend upon that foundation, that "whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed;" and the certainty of that in relation to Christ depend upon that other promise, "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved :" (Ibid. 13.) then must the Lord in the thirteenth verse of the tenth chapter to the Romans be the same with the Lord Jesus in the ninth verse; or else St. Paul's argument must be invalid and fallacious, as containing that in the conclusion which was not comprehended in the premises. But the Lord in the ninth verse is no other than Jehovah, as appeareth by the prophet Joel from whom that scripture is taken. Therefore our Saviour in the New Testament is called Lord, as that name or title is the interpretation of Jehovah. If we consider the office of John the Baptist peculiar unto him, we know it was "he of whom it is written (in the prophet Malachi, iii. 1.) I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me " (Matt. xi. 10.) we are sure he which spake those words was (Jehovah) "the Lord of hosts ;" and we are sure that Christ is that Lord before whose face John the Baptist prepared the way. "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, (saith Isaiah, xl. 3.) Prepare ye the way of the Lord (Jehovah):" and "this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah," saith St. Matthew (iii. 3.) this is he of whom his father Zechariah did divinely presage, "Thou, child, shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest, for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his way." (Luke i. 76.) Where Christ is certainly the Lord, and the Lord undeniably Jehovah.* I say therefore undeniably, because it is not only the undoubted translation of the name in the prophet (which of itself were sufficient); but also is delivered in that manner which is (though unreasonably) required to signify the proper name of God, προπορεύση γὰρ πρὸ προσώπου Κυρίου, not τοῦ Κυρίου, that is, without, not with, an article. For now our Saviour's Deity must be tried by a kind of school divinity, and the most fundamental doctrine, maintained as such ever since the apostles' times by the whole Catholic Church, must be examined, censured, and condemned, by ô, ǹ, ró. Socinus first makes use of this observa. tion against Wiekus; and after him Crellius hath laid it as a grave and serious foundation, and spread it out into its several corners, to uphold the fabric of his superstructions. First: Vox Jehovah magis quam cætera Dei nomina propriorum naturam sequitur; ideo etiam Græca Kúgios, cum pro illa ponitur, propriorum indolem, qua licet, æmulatur.' Lib. de Deo, c. 14. Secondly: Propriis nominibus articulus libentius subtrahitur, licet eum etiam sæpe concinnitatis potius quam necessitatis causa admittant. Idem fit in voce Kúpos cum pro Jehovah ponitur.' Ibid. Thirdly: Hæc est causa cur in Novo Testamento, maxime apud Lucam et Paulum, vox Kúgios, cum Deum summum designat, articulo libentius careat; at cum de Christo subjective usurpatur, raro articulus omittitur.' Ibid. What strange uncertainties are these, to build the denial of so important an article as Christ's Divinity upon? He does not say absolutely Jehovah is the proper name of God, but only that it doth more follow the nature of proper names than the other names of God. And indeed it is certain that sometimes it hath the nature of an appellative, as Deut. vi. 4. MÒN M "the Lord our God is one Lord;" and yet if it be not always and absolutely a proper name, though all the rest were granted to be true, the argument must be of no validity. Again, he cannot say an article is never affixed to a proper name, but only that libentius subtrahitur, it is rather omitted than affixed: which yet is far from a certain or a true rule, espe |