Pfal. 83. 18. Exod. 6. 3. Nor is it difficult to find that name amongst the Books of the Law in the most high and full fignification; for it is moft frequently used as the name of the fupreme God, fometimes for El or Elohim, fometimes for Shaddai or the Rock, often for Adonai, and moft univerfally for Jehovah, the undoubted proper name of God, and that to which the Greek Tranflators, long before our Saviour's birth, had moft appropriated the name of Lord, not only by way of explication, but diftinction and particular expreffion. As when we read, Thou whofe name alone is Jehovah, art the most high in all the earth; and when God fo expreffeth himself; I appeared unto Abraham, unto Ifaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known unto them. In both thefe places, for the name Jehovah, the Greek Translation, which the Apostles followed, hath no other name but Lord; and therefore I know it is undoubtedly by that word which we tranflate the* Lord did they understand proper name of God Jehovah. And had they placed it there as the expoxie pro- fition of any other name of God, they had made an interpretation contrary perly answereth unto, to the manifeft intention of the Spirit: For it cannot be denied but. God was and the rea- known to Abraham by the true importance of the title Adonai, as much as was also used by the name of Shaddai; as much by his Dominion and Sovereignty, as by fer, is his Power and All-fufficiency: but by any experimental and perfonal fenfe of * the vulgar o pinion, that the ,ארני fon why it no other than because the Jews were wont to read Adonai in the place of Jehovah. Of which obfervation they make great ufe who deny the Divinity of Chrift. Quia enin Adonai pro Jehovah in lectione Hebræorum verborum fubftitui confuevit, ideo illius etiam interpretatio huic accommodatur, fays Crellias de Deo Attrib. c. 14. But firft it is not probable that the LXX. fhould think zie to be the proper interpretation of N, and give it to Jehovah only in the place of Adonai; for if they had it would have followed, that where Adonai and Jehovah had met together in one fentence, they would not have put another ward for Adonai, to which xie was proper, and place nie for Jehovah, to whom of it felf, (according to their observation) it did not belong. Whereas we read not only tranflated diavola xves, Gen. 15.2,8. and way 11787 6 dewórns xvero Zabawl, Ifa. 1.24. but also VN — xveis rỡ deỡ nμās, Nehem. 10.29. Secondly, the reafon of this affertion is most uncertain. For tho' it be confeffed that the Maforeths did read where they found and Jofephus before them expreffes the fenfe of the Jews of his age, that the Teleg regirualor was not to be pronounced, and before him Philo Speaks as much; yet it followeth not from thence, that the Jews were fo fuperftitious above 300 years before; which must be proved before we can be affured that the LXX. read Adonai for Jehovah, and for that reafon tranflated it Kie. Thirdly, as we know no reason why the Jews fhould fo confound the names of God; fo were it now very irrational in fome places to read for As when God faith, I appeared unto Abrahamn, unto Ifaac, and unto Jacob, ny tho' the Vulgar Translation renders it, in Deo omnipotente, & nomen meum Adonai non indicavi eis, and thereby make an apparent fenfe no way congruous to the intended importance of the Holy Ghost; (for it cannot be imagined either that God should not be known to Abraham by the name Adonai, or that it were any thing to the prefent intendment, which was to encourage Mofes and the Hraelites by the interpretation of the name Jehovah) yet we have no reason to believe that the LXX. made any fuch he terogeneous Tranflation, which we read to ovoμá μs Kier 8x idiλwoα aurois. Thus again, where God speaks unto Mofes, Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς τοῖς Ἰσραὴλ, Κύριο, ὁ Θεὸς ἢ πατέρων ὑμῶν, ἀπέσαλκέ με πρὸς ὑμᾶς, τότό με ἐςὶν όνομα αἰῶνιον, Exod. 3.15. whofoever thinks Kue ftands for Adonai doth injury to the Tranflators; and whosoever readeth Adonai for Jehovah, puts a force upon the Text. As alfa when the Prophet David faith, That men may know that thou, whofe name alone is Jehovah, art the moft High over all the earth. I confess the ancient Fathers did, together with the Jews, read Adonai for Jehovah in the Hebrew Text, as appeareth by thofe words of Epiphanius de Ponderibus, Adavai, nλıxà xaesti, ioμand, 1667à, axáλ which very corruptly reprefent part of the first verfe of the 141 Pfalm, PNP, but plainly enough render. Adava. Notwithstanding it is very obfervable, that they were wont to distinguish Kóeos, in the Greek Tranflations, where it flood for Jehovah, from Kiesos, where it ftood for Adonai; and that was done by adding in the Margin the Tetragrainmaton it felf, which by the ignorance of the Greek Scribes, who understood not the Hebrew Characters, was converted into four Greek Letters, and fo made a word of no fignification ПII. This is fill extant in the Copy of the Text of Ifaiah printed by Curterius with the Commentary of Procopius, and S. Hierome gives an account of it in the Greek Copies of his age, Nomen alov, quod avexpánov, id eft, ineffabile putaverunt, quod his literis fcribitur, jod he vaut he : quod quidam non intelligentes, propter elementorum fimilitudinem, cum in Græcis libris repererint, Pipi legere confueverunt, Ep. 1. 36. Neither did the Greeks only place this пn in the Margin of their Tranflations, but when they defcribed the Hebrew Text in Greek Characters, they used the fame Пп for , and confequently did not read Adonai for Jehovah. An Example of this is to be found in that excellent Copy of the Prophets according to the LXX. collated with the rest of the Tranflators, in the Library of the most eminent Cardinal Barberin; where at the 13 verfe of the 2Chap. of Malachy thefe words are written after the Tranflation of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, out of the Hebrew Text, after the manner of Origen's Hexapla, of which there is an excellent example in that MS. Ούσωθ, ζενίθ, θησε, χερσαι, Δεμα, ἐθμαζί, (1 6ηκ) πιπι, βηκι, δανακα, μηίω, ωδ, Φεννωθ, ελ αμμωνα, δλακεθ, εαικών, με δη XEM, Which are a very proper expreffion of thefe following Hebrew words, according to the punctation and reading of that age, הזאת שנית תעשו כסות דמעה את מזבח יהוד בכי ואנקה מאין עוד פנות אל המנחה ולקר רצון מידכם 751. By which 'tis evident that Origen in his Hexapla, from whence undoubtedly that ancient Scholiaft took his various Tranflations, did not read 'Adovei in that place; but kept the Hebrew Characters, which they who understood them not formed into thofe Greek letters win. And certainly the preferving of the name Jehovah in the Greek Tranflations was very ancient, for it was defcribed in fome of them with the ancient Characters, as S. Hierome teftifieth, Et nomen Domini Tetragrammaton in quibufdam Græcis voluminibus ufque hodie antiquis expreffum literis invenimus. Ep. 106. Being then we cannot be affured that the LXX. read for; being they have used Kieses for Jehovah, when they have made use of the general word is for Adonai; being in fome places Adonai cannot be read for Jehovah, without manifefted violence offered to the Text: it followeth, that it is no way probable that Kiesos fhould therefore be used for Jehovah, because it was taken for the proper fignification of Adonai. the the fulfilling of his promifes his name Jehovah was not known unto him : for though God fpake expreffly unto Abraham, All the land which thou Gen. 13. 15. feeft, to thee will I give it, and to thy feed for ever; yet the Hiftory and 26. 3. teacheth us, and S. Stephen confirmeth us, that he gave him none inheritance Acts 7. 5. in it, no not fo much as to fet his foot on, though he promised that he would Wherefore when God faith he was not known give it to him for a poffeffion. to Abraham by his name Jehovah, the interpretation of no other name can make good that expreffion: and therefore we have reafon to believe the Word which the first Greek Tranflators, and after them the Apostles, used, may be appropriated to that notion which the Original requires; as indeed it may, being derived from a Verb of the fame fignification with the * He* It is acbrew root, and fo denoting the Effence or Existence of God, and whatfoknowledged ever elfe may be deduced from thence, as revealed by him to be fignified by all that thereby. is from יהודה היor היה and God's own interpretation proves no less N TUN TAN Exod. 3.14. And though some contend that futurition is effential to the name, yet all agree the root fignifieth nothing but effence or existence, that is, to ecivou, or wages. Now as from in the Hebrew, fo in the Greek & T xúges Kies. And what the proper fignification of age is, no man can teach us better than Hefychius, in whom we read Kiges, ágya, Tulxáves, xuga prima longa, xve primâ brevi. Sophocl. Oedipo Colon. παρ' ὦ θύων ἔκυρον. Schol. Θύων ἔκυραν, ἀντὶ τῇ σκύρων, ταυτὸν ἢ τῷ ἐτύχανον. Hence it was κύρος by the Atticks used for is fit: fo I take it from the words of the Scholiaft upon Sophocles, o xug wet wipes Onoir in Γιήθεια και Αττικοί, εν ἢ οὐκλικοῖς βαριώεσιν αὐτὸ Αττικοί μὴ ἐκλάσεως το υ, κύροι λέγοντες ἀντὶ τὸ κυρgίη. Not that they afed it by an Apocope, taking n from xvogin but that xogi was taken in the sense of xvegin or xvigiro, frem zięw, iwπάρχω, κύροι. on or υπάρχοι, as the Scholiaft upon thole words of Sophocies, Δειλαία δειλαίων κυρεῖς· Κυρεῖς, ἔχειν ὑπά xes. Neither know I better how to render zuges than by wúgxes in the place of Æfchylus his Prometheus, Ζηλῶ σ ̓ ὅθ ̓ ἕνεκ ̓ ἐκτὸς αἰτίας κυρείς Πάντων μεταχὼν καὶ τε]ολμηκὼς ἐμοί. As the Arundelian Scholiaft upon the Septem Thebana, uge, ágxes and in the fame Tragedy, in did nugu, is rendred by the more ancient Scholiaft, sivas ini & david as in the Perfa, Ceowopií xvçeš, is by the fame Interpreter explained xvge indexes Coowo. So the fame Poet in his Agamemnon, Ταύτίω ἐπαινεῖν πάντοθεν πληθυσομαι, Which the scholiaft renders thus, Επαιν μαι Διαφόρως ταύτίω γνώμίω, τὸ μαθεν ο δίᾳ ἐςὶ κα]ατάτε ὁ βασιλούς. And no other fenfe can be imagined of that verfe in Sophocles. Dovéa Cε Onui rávdogs & Cnleg xugev, than by rendring it, evas or image and p. 296. x 18 ei vézwv nugữ, to †ÿ Xúnges & yeynogue Dér· and p.415. 'Aax' cilud' edn r&de To WÚDus nuga or of that in Euripides his Phoeniffe. Ωὴ τίς ἐ πόλαισι δωμάτων κυρεί ; This original interpretation appeareth farther in the frequent use of xvgéw for rulxdow as it fignifieth no more than fum: as in Sophocles, εὐθεύων κυρείς for ευθιαύεις, μισῶν κυρῆς for μισῇς, ἐπεικάζων κυρῶ for ἐπεικάζω, ὢν κυρεὶς for εἷς, ἐξειδὼς κυρῶ for ἔξοιδα, κυρῶ λούσων for λούσω, δρῶν κυρείς for δρᾷς, ἠπωλημών, κυρῶ for ἠπάτημαι, εἰρηκὼς κυρῷῖ for είρηκεν, εἰ πῶν κυρεῖς for εἶπας, σκύρει ζῶσα for ἔζη and in Euripides, ἔχων, κυρῶ for έχει, εἰσβαίνεσα κυρά for εἰσβαίνει, αδικημέρη xvgn for adin, or adinon, as the Scholiaft. From all which it undeniably appeareth, that the ancient fignification of xúew or xuga is the fame with eius or waxw, fum, I am; (which is much confirmed by that it was anciently obferved to be a Verb tranfitive, as it was ufed by the forementioned Author, κυρῶ (υζυγίας πρώτης δε πειπσωμθύων, το ανεπτυγχάνω ἀντὶ ἢ τὸ ὑπάρχω και τις τραγικὲς ἀμετάβαλον. So an ancient Lexicon) and therefore κύρι@ immediately derived from thence must be av, or go and confequently the proper interpretation of defcending from the root of of the fame fignification. And well may we conceive the LXX. for this reafon to have so tranflated it, because we find the origination delivered by them in that notion, rendring TN "W, Exod. 3. 14. égáim v; and again, ¿“Qv áñésaλxé me wegs vμäs. From whence confidering the name proceeding from that root, and giving relation to that fenfe, they made ufe of the word xves for the standing interpretation of that name, as being equivalent to Sv. We have no reafon then to conceive either that they fo tranflated it out of the fuperftition of the Jews (as fome would perfuade 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 expreffed even among the Gentile Greeks, but because they thought the Greek nues to be a proper interpretation, as being reducible to the fame fignification. For even they which are pretended to have read Adonai for Jehovah, as Origen, cc. do acknowledge that the Heathens and the ancient Hereticks defcending from the Jews had a name by which they did express the Hebrew Jehovah. We know that Oracle preferved by Macrobius, Saturnal. 1. 1. c. 18. ε & wávlar ixator Dear Eμ law. And Diodorus hath taught us from whence that name first came, mentioning Moles in this manner, ὰ ἢ τοῖς Ιεδαίοις Μωσίῳ τ Ἰαὼ ἐπικαλέμθμον θεόν· and Theodoret more exprefly, Quæft. 15. in Exod. Kano auto quasi μlat. 'ledaios 'Ida, Porph. 4. 4. cont. Chriftian. tells us, Sanchoniathon had his relation of the Jews leggubúry to iegéws des T 'Io. Eufebius (as we formerly mentioned) faid, 'Iwos ish, 'Law Carrera Hefychius, Iwatau, iad Culérea, taking iw in compofition for the contraction of iná. As 'lava's igulusức), vviso over. And the LXX. Jer. 23.6. have rendred y Iwoedix, id eft, Dominus juftus, faith S. Hierom. And as the Heathens and the first Chriftians, fo the Hereticks had among the pronunciation an expreffion of the name . As the Valentinian was baptized es s ovóμals T 'la Iren. l. 1. and the Ophiani had their feveral Gods, among the rest, dadi maléias 'Iandabaw 'Asapatov, Sleator and Ebogïxav vexpwv 'lew, 'lè παρ' Ἑβραίοις ονομαζόμθμον. Orig. cent. Celf. 1. 6. So I read it, not as it is in the Edition of Hoefchelius, 'Iawia in one word, or 'lawa, as our learned Countryman Nicolaus Fullerus hath endeavoured in vain to rectific it; but la là, that ss, the Ophiani took the name 'law from the Jews, among whom it fignifies the fame who is called Jah. For that it ought fo to be read appeareth by the former words of Origen, Οἵον 9 * διελθόν]α ἳ Ἰαλδαβαώθ κὶ φθάσοντα ἐπὶ ἢ ἱὰ δὲν λέγειν, Σὺ ἢ κρυπτομθρων μυτηρίων 4ς καὶ πατρὸς ἄρχων νυκτοφανής δεύτερε Ιαώ. In the printed Copy indeed it is ἰαδῶν, and in the Latin ladin, but without fenfe: whereas dividing the words, the fenfe is manifeft, and the reason of the former emendation apparent. Being then there were fo many among the Greeks which did in all ages express the Hebrew name, it can be no way probable that the LXX. fhould avoid it as inexpreffible in their language. Being Tillim. on Rabati, Lam. 1.6. Being then this title Lord thus fignifieth the proper name of God Jehovah, being the fame is certainly attributed unto Chrift in a notion far furpaffing all others Lords, which are rather to be looked upon as Servants unto him: it will be worth our enquiry next, whether as it is the Tranflation of the name Jehovah it belong to Chrift; or whether though he be Lord of all other Lords, as fubjected under his authority, yet he be fo inferior unto him whose name alone is Jehovah, as that in that propriety and eminency in which it belongs unto the fupreme God it may not be attributed unto Chrift. This doubt will eafily be fatisfied, if we can fhew the name Jehovah it felf to be given unto our Saviour; it being against all reafon 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 fo called by the Spirit of God; then is he fo the Lord, in the fame propriety and eminency in which Jehovah is. Now whatsoever did belong to the Meffias, that may and must be attributed unto Jefus, as being the true and only Chrift. But the Jews themselves acknowledge that Jehovah fhall be known clearly in the As Midrafch days of the Meffias, and not only fo, but that it is the * name which properly belongeth to him. And if they cannot but confefs fo much who only 21 Pfal. Echa read the Prophecies, as the Eunuch did, without an interpreter; how can we be ignorant of fo plain and neceffary a truth, whofe eyes have feen the full completion, and read the infallible interpretation of them? If they could fee Ifa.8.13, 14. Jehovah the Lord of hofts to be the name of the Meffias, who was to them for a stone of ftumbling and rock of offence, how can we poffibly be ignorant of it, who are taught by S.Paul, that in Christ this Prophecy was * Rom. 9. 33. fulfilled, a As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a ftumbling stone, and rock of offence, and whosoever believeth on him fhall not be afhamed? It was no other than Jehovah who fpake those words, I will have mercy upfarther obfer- On the house of Judah, and will fave them by the Lord (Jehovah) their vable that the God, and will not fave them by bow nor fword. Where not only he who raphrafe hath 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 oppofition to all other means or inftrumental causes, is called Jehoof Jehovah, vah; who can be no other than our Jefus, because there is no other name for Jehovah. under heaven given unto men whereby we must be faved. As in anod Zach. 10.12, ther place he fpeaketh, I will ftrengthen them in the Lord (Jehovah) and they hall walk up and down in his name, faith the Lord (Jehovah) where he which strengthneth is one, and he by whom he strengthneth is another, clear* Deut. 6.4. ly diftinguished from him by the perfonal Pronoun, and yet each of them is † Two Adver- Jehovah, and Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. Whatsoever † objections to the expofition of this place, the Jew and the Socinian; only with this difference, that we find the less oppofition from the Few from whom indeed we have fo ample a conceffion as will deftroy the other's contradiction. First Socinus answers, the name belongeth not to Chrif, but unto Ifrael; and that it fo appears by a parallel place in the fame Prophet, Jer. 33. 15,16. Socin. refut, Jac. Wieki. cap. 6. Catech. Racov. de Perf. Chrifti, c. I. Crellius de Deo er Attrib. lib. 1. cap. 11. To this we first oppofe the conftant interpretation of the Jews, who attribute the name Jehovah to the Meffias from this one particular Text. As in the Sepher Ikkarim, 1. 2. c. 8. pymun van "The Scripture calleth the name of the b Hof. I. 7. where it is Chaldee Pa במימרא י ביהוה for by the word c Acts 4. 12.. faries we have e C וקורא למלך המשיח בשמו ומהו שמו יהודה שנ' יהודה: 21.Mefias Jehovah our righteouinefs. And in Midrafch rillim on Pfal God calleth the Mefias by his own איש מלחמה יהוה שמו ובמלך המשיח כתיב וזה שמו אשר יקראו יהודה צדקנו. name, and his name is Jehovah; as it is faid (Exod. 15. 3.) The Lord is a man of war, Jehovah is his name. And it is written of the Meffias, (Jer. 23.6.) And this is the name which they fhall call him, Jehovah our Righteousness. Thus What is the name מה שמו של משיח אל אבא והוה שמו שנ" וזה שמו אשר יקראו יהוה צדקנו .1.6 .Echa Rabati, Lam of the Meffias? R. Abba faid, Jehovah is his name; as it is faid (Jer. 23.6.) And this is the name which they fhall call him, Jehovah our righteoufnefs. The fame 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 Meffias. And as for the collection of the contrary from the parallel place pretended, there is not fo great a fimilitude as to inforce the fame interpretation. For whereas in Jerem. 23. 6. it is expreffly faid, on this is the name, in the 33, it is only M without any mention of a name; and furely that place cannot prove Jehovah to be the name of Ifrael, which speaks not one word of the name of Jerufalem: for where we read in Crellius, hoc fcilicet nomen eft, all but hoc is not Scripture, but the glofs of Crellius, and hoc it felf cannot be warranted for the Interpretation of nor quo for TN the fimpleft interpretation of those words an being, ifte qui vocabit eam, he which calleth Jerufalem: is the Lord our righteoufnefs, that is, Chrift. And thus the first answer of Socinus is invalid: which he easily foreseeing, hath joined with the Jewish Rabbins in the fecond anfwer, admitting that Jehovah our righteousness is the name of the Meffias, but withall denying that the Chrift is that Jehovah. To which purpose they affert thefe words, words, Jehovah our righteousness, to be delivered by way of propofition, not of appofition: and this they endeavour to prove by fuch places of Scripture as feem to infer as much. As Mofes built an Altar, and called the name of it Jehovah Nifli, Exod. 17.15. Gideon built an Altar unto the Lord, and called it Jehovah Shalom, Judg. 6. 24. And the name of the City in the last words of Ezekiel is Jehovah Shammah. In all which places it is most certain, that the Jehovah is not predicated of that of whose name it is a part; but is the Subject of a Propofition, given by way of nomination, whofe Verb fubftantive or copula is understood. But from thence to conclude, that the Lord our righteousness can be no other wife understood of Chrift than as a Propofition, and that we by calling him fo, according to the Prophet's prediction, can understand no more thereby than that God the Father of Chrift doth justifie us, is most irrational. For first, it is therefore neceffary to interpret those names by way of a propofition of themselves, because Jehovah cannot be the Predicate of that which is named; it being most apparent that an Altar or a City built cannot be God: and whatsoever is not Jehovah without addition, cannot be Jehovah with addition. But there is no incongruity in attributing of that name to Chrift, to whom we have already proved it actually given: and our Adverfaries, who teach that the name Jehovah is fometimes given to the Angels reprefenting God, must acknowledge that it may be given unto Chrift, whom they confefs to be above all Angels, and far more fully and exactly to reprefent the Father. Secondly, That which is the addition in those names cannot be truly predicated of that thing which bears the name. Mofes could not say that Altar was his Exaltation, nor Gideon that it was his Peace. And if it could not fo be predicated by it felf, it could neither be by appofition, and confequently, even in this respect it was necessary to make the name a Propofition. But our Righteousness may undoubtedly be predicated of him who is here called by the name of the Lord our Righteoufnefs; for the Apostle hath exprefly taught us, that he is made Righteousness unto us, 1 Cor. 1. 30. And if it may be in it felf, there can be no repugnancy in its predication by way of appofition. Thirdly, That addition of our righteousness doth not only truly belong to Chrift, but in fome manner properly and peculiarly fo as in that notion it can belong to no other person called Jehovah but to that Chrift alone. For he alone is the end of the Law for righteoufnefs to every one that believeth, Rom. 10. 4. and when he is faid to be made unto us righteoufnefs, 1 Cor. 1. 30. he is thereby distinguished from God the Father. Being then Chrift is thus peculiarly called our Righteousness in the Gospel, being the place of the Prophet forementioned fpeaketh of this as a name to be used under the Gospel, being no other perfon called Jehovah is ever exprefly called our Righteousness in the Gospel; it followeth, not only that Chrift may be fo called, but that the Prophecy cannot otherwise be fulfilled, than by acknowledging that Chrift is the Lord our Righteoufnefs and confequently that is his name, not by way of propofition, but of appofition and appropriation; so that being both Jehovah and our Righteoufness, he is as truly Jehovah as our Righteousness. b a may be framed against us, we know Christ is the righteous branch raiseda Fer. 23. 5,6. unto David, the King that shall reign and profper, in whose days Judah fhall be faved, and Ifrael fhall dwell fafely; we are affured that this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness: the Lord, that is, Jehovah, the expreffion of his fupremacy; and the addition of Our Righteoufnefs can be no diminution to his Majefty. If those words in the Prophet, Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Sion; for lo, I come, and Ib Zech. 2. 10; dwell in the midst of thee, faith the Lord (Jehovah) did not fufficiently II. of themselves denote our Saviour who dwelt amongft us as they certainly do; yet the words which follow would evince as much, And many nations fhall 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 hofts hath sent me unto thee: For what other Lord can we conceive dwelling in the midst of us, and fent unto us by the Lord of Hofts, but Christ? And as the original Jehovah was spoken of Chrift by the holy Prophets; fo the title of Lord, as the ufual interpretation of that name, was attributed unto him by the Apostles. In that fignal prediction of the firft Age of the Gospel God promifed by Joel, that who foever shall call on the name of the Lord (Je- Joel 2. 32. hovah) shall be delivered: and S. Paul hath affured us that Chrift is that Lord, by proving from thence, that whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed, Rom. 10. 9, and inferring from that, if we confess with our mouth the Lord Jefus, we 11, 13. fhall be faved. For if it be a certain truth, that whofoever confefseth the Lord Jefus fhall be faved; and the certainty of this truth depend upon that foundation, that whofoever believeth on him shall not be afhamed; and the certainty of that in relation to Chrift depend upon that other promife, Whofoever shall call on the name of the Lord fhall be faved: then must the Lord in the thirteenth verfe of the tenth Chapter to the Romans be the fame with the Lord Jesus in the ninth verfe; or elfe S. Paul's Argument must be invalid and fallacious, as containing that in the Conclufion which was not comprehended in the Premiffes. But the Lord in the ninth verfe is no other than Jehovah, as appeareth by the Prophet Joel from whom that Scripture is taTherefore our Saviour in the New Teftament is called Lord, as that name or title is the interpretation of Jehovah. ken. If we confider the Office of John the Baptist peculiar unto him, we know it was I he . Mat. 11. 10. he of whom it is written in the Prophet Malachi, I will fend my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: we are fure he which fpake thofe Malac. 3. 1. words was (fehovah) the Lord of hofts; and we are fure that Chrift is that Lord before whofe face John the Baptift prepared the way. The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, faith Isaiah, prepare ye the way of the Lord (Jehovah :) and this is he that was spoken of by the Prophet Ifaiah, faith S. Matthew: This is he of whom his Father Zechariah did divinely prefage, Thou child fhalt be called the Prophet of the Higheft, for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways. Where Christ is certainly the Lord, and the Lord * undeniably Jehovah. Mat. 3. 3. * I fay there fore undenia- For the undoubted tranflation of the name in the Prophet, (which of it felf were fufficient ;) but also is delivered in that manner which is (though unreasonably) required to fignifie the proper name of God, wegroesion go way wgowns Kveis, not r Kveis, that is, without, not with, an Article. For now our Saviour's Deity must be tried by a kind of SchoolDivinity, and the most fundamental Doctrine, maintained as fuch ever fince the Apostles times by the whole Catholick Church, must be examined, cenfured and condemned, by o,, . Socinus first makes use of this obfervation against Wiekus; and after him Crellius hath laid it as a grave and ferious foundation, and spread it out into its feveral Corners, to uphold the fabrick of his fuperftructions. First, Vox Jehovah magis quam cætera Dei nomina propriorum naturam fequitur; ideo etiam Græca Koe, cùm pro illa ponitur, propriorum indolem, quâ licet, æmulatur. Secondly, Propriis nominibus articulus libentiùs fubtrahitur, licet eum etiam fæpè concinnitatis potius quam neceffitatis causâ admittant. Idem fit in voce Kies cùm pro Jehovah ponitur. Thirdly, Hæc eft caufa cur in Novo Teftamento, maximè apud Lucam & Paulum, vox Kue, cùm Deum fummum defignat, articulo libentiùs careat; at cùm de Chrifto subjectivè ufurpatur, rarò articulus omittitur. What strange uncertainties are thefe to build the denial of fo important an Article as Chrift's Divinity upon? He does not fay abfolutely 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 fometimes it hath the nature of an appellative, as Deut. 6.4. be the Lord our God is one Lord, and yet if it be not always and abfolutely a proper name, though all the reft were granted to be true, the Argument must be of no validity. Again, he cannot fay an Article is never affixed to a proper name, but only that libentiùs fubtrahitur, it is rather omitted than affixed: which yet is far from a certain or a true rule, especially in the language of the New Testament. no man can deny Jefus to be the proper name of Christ, given him according to the Law at his Circumcifion, » cxanên rò övoμa auto 'Incas, Luke 2.21. and yet whosoever shall read the Gospel of S. Matthew, will find it ten times & Inos with an Article, for once 'Ince without it. And in the Acts of the Apostles, written in a more Attick ftyle, S. Paul is ofEner ftyled a than fimply Пa. So Balaam, Gallio, ec. Some perfons we find in the New Teftament, whom, if we fhould stay till we found them without an Article, we should never call by their names at all; as Apelles, Balak, &. Thirdly, Kue is fo often used for that God who is the Father with an Article, and Kue for the Son without an Article, (For the Father, Mat. 1. 22. 2.15. 5. 33. 22. 24. Mark 12. 36. Luke 1. 6, 9, 15, 25, 46. 2. 15, 22.23. 10. 2. Acts 2.25, 34. 3.19. 17.27. Rom. 15. 11. 1 Cor. 10. 26. 16.7. 2 Cor. 5. 11. Eph. 5. 17, 19. Col. 3. 16, 20, 23, 2Theff. Mark 1.3. 3. 3. 2 Tim. 1. 16. Heb. 8. 2, 11, 12. 14. Jam. 4. 10,15. 1 Pet. 2. 3. For the Son, Mat. 3. 3. 22. 43, 45. I. 76. 2. 11. 3.4. 20.44. John 1. 23. Acts 2. 36. 10. 36. 11. 16, 21. 15. 11. Rom. 1.7. 10. 9, 12, 14. 6, 8, 14. 16. 2, 8, 11, 12, 13, 22. 1 Cor. 1. 3. 4. 17. 7. 22, 25, 39. 9. 1,2. 10.21. 11.11. 12.3. 14.37. 15.58. 16. 10, 19. 2 Cor.1.2. 2. 12. 4. 5. 10. 17. 11. 17. 12.1. Gal. 1.3. 5. 1o. Eph. 1. 2. 2. 21. 4. 1,5, 17. 5.8. 6. 4, 10, 21, 23. Phil. 1. 2. 14 2. 11, 19, 24, 29. 3. 1, 20. 4, 1, 2, 10. Col. 1. 3. 3. 17, 18.24. 4.7, 17. 1 Theff. 1. 1. 3.8. 4. 1, 15, 17. 5.2, 12. 2 Theff. 1.1, 2. 2.13. 3.4, 1Tim. 1. 1. 2 Tim. 2. 24. Tit. 1. 4. Philem. 3. 16. 20. Jam. 1. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 8, 10. 2 John 3. Jude 14. Rev. 14. 13. 19. 16.) I fay, they are thus fo often used, that though they equal not the number of their contrary acceptions, yet they come fo near, as to yield no ground for any fuch obfervation, as if the Holy Ghost intended any fuch Article-diftinction. Nay, it is moft evident that the facred Pen-men intended no fuch diftinétion, because in the fame place Speaking of the fame person, they usually observe the indifferency of adding or omitting the Article. As Jam. 5. 11. Thi ὑπομονω Ἰὼβ ηκέσατε, καὶ τὸ τέλου Κυρία έδεξε, ὅτι πολυπλαχνός ἐσιν ὁ Κύριθ καὶ οἰκτίρμων· 2 Tim. 1. 18. Δώῃ αὐτῷ ὁ Κύριθ οὑρεῖν ἔλεσε παρὰ Κυρία ο ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρα. 1 Cor. 7. 17. Εκασον ὡς κέκλησεν ὁ Κύριος, ὅτω πριπατείτω· 22' To go in Kveiw randeis done, dreadiesgos Kueis isi. See Rom. 14. 6, 7, 8. Wherefore being Jehovah is not affirmed abfolutely to be a proper name; being if it were, yet it appears that it is not the custom of the New Teftament to use every proper name oftner without an Article than with one; being Kuenos is fo often taken for him whom they acknowledge God, and Keios for him whom they cannot deny to be the Chrift: it followeth that Chrift, acknowledged to be the Lord, cannot by any virtue of an Article be denied to be the true Jehovah. We must not then think to decide this Controverfie by the Articles, of which the facred Pen-men were not curious, and the Tranfcribers have been very careless: nor is there fo great uncertainty of the ancient MSS. in any thing as in the words and Articles of Kuesos and Ocès. The Vulgar Edition, Rev. 1.8. hath xeyd ò Kúgios only, the Complutenfis xeyd Kugios Oros, Plantine, Aéyd i Kúgios ¿ Oròs against the Socinian Rule, who will have an acceffion by i to Oeds, and a diminution by i from Kúgios. As Rev. 4. II. "Agios ei, xúριε, λαβῶν τ' δόξαν. in other MSS. "Αξιος εἶ ὁ Κύριος καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν ὁ ἅδιος, λαβῶν ἢ δόξαν. 1 Cor. 11. 27. τὸ ποτήριον τῶ Κυρία αναξίως· others with an addition, τὸ ποτήριον τὸ Κυρίω αναξίως τα Κυρίε. 1 Cor. 14. 37. the Vulgar Edition, ὅτι τῇ Κυρία εἰσιν αντολαί • the Complutenfis, ὅτι Κυρίω. So where we ufually read Xetsos, divers ancient MSS. have Κύριος. Lafily, it is obfervable that even in these words of the Creed, which we now expound, Kies is fpoken exprefly of Chrift without an Article, for fo we read it, Kai eis 'Inosv Xessor, & you auto & μovogfun, Kúerov ýμäv. Luke Nor is this the only Notation of the Name or Title Lord taken in a fenfe Divine, above the expreffion of all mere human power and dominion; for as it is often ufed as the interpretation of the name Jehovah, fo is it also for that of Adon Pfal. 110. 1. or Adonai. The Lord faid unto my Lord, faith David, that is, in the Original, +Chaldee Pa- Jehovah unto Adon; and that Adon is the Word, that Lord is Chrift. We raphrafe. know the Temple at Jerufalem was the Temple of the most High God, and the Lord of that Temple in the emphasis of an Hebrew Article was Chrift, as ap 4 t peareth |