« PreviousContinue »
the vuloar o
Nor is it difficult to find that name amongst the Books of the Law in the most high and full signification ; for it is most frequently used as the name of the supreme God, fometimes for Elor Elohim, sometimes for Shaddai or the Rock, often for Adonai, and most universally for Jehovah, the undoubted proper name of God, and that to which the Greek Translators, long before our Savi.
Qur's birth, had most appropriated the name of Lord, not only by way of expliPfal. 83. 18. cation, but distinction and particular expression. As when we read, I
name alone is Jehovah, art the most high in all the earth; and when God so Exod. 6. 3. expresseth himself; I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by
the name of God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known unto them. In both these 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 translate the * Lord did they understand pinion, that the proper name of God Jehovah. And had they placed it there as the expoxvevo pro- ' sition of any other name of God, they had made an interpretation contrary perly answer eth unto '17, to me manifeil IIIC
to the manifest 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 Son why ito, by the name of Shaddai; as much by his Dominion and Sovereignty, as by for. 117, is his Power and Al-fufficiency: but by any experimental and perfonal fenfe of no other than because the Jews were wont to read Adonai in the place of Jehovah. of which observation they make great use who deny the Divinity of Christ. Quia eniin Adonai pro Jehovah in lectione Hebræorum verborum substitui consuevit, ideo illius etiam interpretario huic accommodatur, says Crellias de Deo « Attrib. c. 14. But firft it is not probable that the LXX. mould think xée, ou to be the proper interpretation of "IIN, 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 sentence, they would not have put another ward for Adonai, to which rúero was proper, and place xier@ for, Jehovah, to whom of it self, (according to their obfervation) it did not belong. Whereas we read not only , TT 98 translated diapora zvest, Gen. 15. 2,8. and N Y , 717 11787 decórns rúero sabawil, isa. 1. 24. but also 19'379 7117 xveru Peg gratis Nehem. 10. 29. Secondly, the reason of this assertion is most uncertain. For tho it be confessed that the Masoreths did read Jtx where they found thi and Josephus before them expresses the sense of the Jews of his age, that the tilegan regueualor was not to be pronounced, and before him Philo speaks as much; yet it followeth not from thence, that the Fews were to superstitious above 300 years before; which must be proved before we can be assured that the LXX. read Adonai for Jehovah, and for that reason translated it Kiero.. Thirdly, as we know no reason why the Jews Mould lo confound the names of God; so were it now very irrational in some places to read 178 for 717 As when God faith, I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, 95 nyri 5: 7179 Dun 198 3 tho' the Vulgar Translation renders it, in Deo omnipotente, & nomen meum Adonai non indicavi eis, and thereby make an apparent sense no way congruous to the intended importance of the Holy Ghost; (for it cannot be imagined either that God should not be known to Abrahain by the name Adonai, or that it were any thing to the present intendment, which was to encourage Moses and the Ifraelites by the interpretation of the name Jehovah) yet we have no reason to believe that the LXX. made any such heterogeneous Translation, which we read se to ovoue jo Kúero sx idýrwca autois. Thus again, zuhere God Speaks unto Moses, ottws igers fois ejoïs 'Icegra, Kóerő, ó ofos ñ wamégwv Ojav, arisanxé re wegs upãs, Tð tó M8 ésiv ovouce aiwvlov, Exod. 3.15. whosoever thinks Kúera stands for Adonai doth injury to the Translators; and whosoever readeth Adonai for Jehovah, pues a force upon the Text. As alsa when the Prophet David faith, That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most 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 those words of Epiphanius de Ponderibus, ' adwai, siniga muerti, iowania, ir66872, essaa. which very corruptly represent part of the first verse of the 141 Psalm, 1517. TINJ 15. TWIN TONnp. 77, but plainly enough render : T17 Padovas. Notwithstanding it is very observable, that they were wont to distinguish Kúeros, in the Greek Translations, where it stood for Jehovah, from Kúeros, where it stood for Adonai ; and that was done by adding in the Margin the Tetragrainmaton it self, 71779 which by the ignorance of the Greek Scribes, who understood not the Hebrew Characters, was converted into four Greek Letters,, and so made a word of no fignification ninh This is Sill extant in the Copy of the Text of Isaiah printed by Curterius with the Commentary of Procopius, and s. Hierome gives an account of it in the Greek Copies of his age, Nomen teleg cego.clov, quod cvexpámlov, id eft, ineffabile putaverunt, quod his literis fcribitur, jod. he ol'vau 1 he 17: quod quidam non intelligentes, propter elementorum fimilitudinem, cum in Græcis libris repererint, Pipi legere consueverunt, Ep. 1.36. Neither did the Greeks only place this linlin the Margin of their Transations, but when they described the Hebrew Text in Greek Characters, they used the same dial for • 110, and consequently 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 Translators, in the Library of the most eminent Cardinal Barberin; where at the 13 verfe of the 2dChap of Malachy these words are written after the Translation 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. Ovowo, Cavio, 9n08, Xeasyf, Afra, čovce Sebu, (1 6nx) WIT1, bnrl, 8 Avaxa, unlw, wd, peal, appeava, shaneb, egexão, muiden Xer, which are a very proper expression of these following Hebrew words, according to the punctation and reading of that age,
ואת שנית תעשו כסות רמעה את מזבח יהוד בכי ואנקה מאין עור פנות אל המנחה ולקרר רצון מירכם
By which 'tis evident that Origen in his' Hexapla, from whence undoubtedly that ancient Scholiast took his various Translations, did not read 'Adwood in that place; but kept the Hebrew Characters, which they who understood them not formed into those Greek letters 75176. And certainly the preserving of the name Jehovah in the Greek Translations was very ancient, for it was described in some of them with the ancient Characters, as 's. Hierome testifieth, Et nomen Domini Tetragrammaton in quibusdam Græcis voluminibus usque hodie antiquis expressum literis invenimus. Ep. 106. Being then we cannot be assured that the LXX. read 197for : 777; being they have used Kúeros for Jehovah, when they have made use of the general word Ofàs for. Adonai; being in some places Adonai cannot be read for Jehovah, without manifested violence offered to the Text : it followeth, that it is no way probable that Kieros mould therefore be used for Jehovah, because it was taken for the proper signification of Adonai.
is from יהוד
the fulfilling of his promises his name Jehovah was not known unto him : for though God fpake expreffly unto Abraham, All the land which thou Gen. 13. 15. reeft, to thee will I give it, and to thy feed for ever; yet the History and 26. 3. teacheth us, and S. Stephen confirmeth us, that he gave him none inheritance Aets 7. si in it, no not fo much as to fet his foot on, though he promised that he would give it to him for a posesion. Wherefore when God faith he was not known to Abraham by his name Jehovah, the interpretation of no other name can make good that expression: and therefore we have reason to believe the Word which the first Greek Translators, and after them the Apostles, used; may be appropriated to that notion which the Original requires ; may, being derived from a Verb of the fame signification with the * Hebrér root, and so denoting the Essence or Existence of God, and whatsotuisas ever else may be deduced from thence, as revealed by him to be signified by all that thereby.
:7970r: 7175 and God's own interpretation proves no lefs :7978 N 71.79 Exod. 3. 14. And though some contend that futurition is effential to the name, yet all agree the root signifieth nothing but essence or existence, that is, to sivou, or iwdexey. Now as from 7107 in the Hebrew 777', so in the Greek dri rõ xúquv Kúere. And what the proper signification of súpery is, r:0 man can reach us better than Hesychius, in whom we read Kuge, iwág xe, tuíxoves, xúgw prima longâ, xupă primâ brevi. Sooboel, Oedipo Colo. T 8 96 on ixua99. Scao. Đó con xong, vi 18 xs8y, sau Tv 3 T ask@y ey. Heace it cua xuaát by the Atticks used for isw sit: so I take it from the words of the Scholiast upon Sophocles, só xugū esat we ws Oncina Custra xj A=7oxoi, bxloxois Baguusalv auto 'At7ıxos fem encoews Tð v, xóage aéfoyles enti tô xvegin. Not that they afed it by an Apocope, taking , from xvegin but that xúegi was taken in the sense of xvegin or xvegito, from xúęw, ia Faxw, xúogi. en or whexos, as the Scholiaft upon those words of Sophocles, Annaba dhabw xugas Kugris, rysy tware xhts. Neither know I better how to render xupes than by céexeis in the place of Æschylus his Prometheus,
Erna o 0° švex' i'ntis aétics xugtis .
Πάνων με αχών και τελολμηκώς έμοί. As the Arundelian Scholias upon the Septem Thebana, augti, izráexetand in the same Tragedy, it arida xuptive is rendrerd by the more ancient Scholiast, rivau iti a carid q. as in the Persa, Ceowohl a xuga, is by the same Interpreter explained sugái xj wadę xe Cooworla. So the fame Poet in his Agamemnon,
Tύτω επαινείν σάντοθεν αληθώομαι, ".
Tegevās 'Appridlu sidérau xvęõv6° 7W5. Which the scholiaft renders thus, 'Erouvõucu Alepozws to'rlw yvarelw, so vabziv i ozge isi xepaskru ó Betiabus. And no other fenfe can be imagined of that verse in Sophocles. Dovéce Co Omul cardegis Encio xugar, ihan ly rendring it, even at seexey' ind P. 26. Yếpy woạ8, Tò + 3 xoad: 8 YY10% • and P.45: AA cả da da 18 18 8 • 985 xogã. or of that in Euripides his Phænifræ.
Ώή τις ώ πύλαισι δωμάτων κηρεί ; This original interpretation appearesh farther in the frequent use of xugéw for surxdow as it fignifiesh no more than fum : as in Sophocles, Ldrów sugüis for acabats, Mirūv xugas for permis, inuxá?W xuga for inhxdZW, suv yupris for ois, çudas xugő for gorda, xugão noua w for nocow, ogão xugtis for değs, twin pelle xupã for rúrruas, signsw'; zupes for menxev, esπών κυράς for έπας, ακύρω ζώσα for έζη" and in Euripides, έχων, κυρά for έχα, είσταίνεσα κυρά for άσταίνει, αδικημένη xugn for dixn), or Adornom, as the Scholiaft. From all which it undeniably appeareth, that the ancient signification of rúgw or xução is the same with chui or isázxw, sum, I am; (which is much confirmed by that it was anciently observed το be a Verb tranfirive, as it was sfed by the forementioned Author, κυρώ Cυζυγίας πρώτης και σεισω μείων, το α υτχάνω aby ti jl rõ wauzxw x 785 tpofons's autóbalov. So an ancient Lexicon) and therefore uvera immediately derived from thence muft bei w, or o izászon and consequently the proper interpretation of in descending from the root of 1717 of the fame fignification. 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, rendring -7178 "12v, Exod. 3. 14. éjábijes óny; and again, ny dzésxaxé He wegs inãs. From whence considering the name 71779 proceeding from that root, and giving relation to that sense, theng made use of the word xúero for the standing interpretation of that name, as being equivalent 10 o "Sv. 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 xúer 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, r. do acknowledge that the Heathens and the ancient Hereticks defcending from the Jews bad a name by which they did express the Hebrew Jehovah. We know that Oracle preserved by Macrobius, Saturnal. l. 1. c. 18. Deázso távous #alov geovém pelle 'lau. And Diodorus hath taught us from whence that name first came, mentioning Moles in this manner, aggi ö Tois Irôniors Market 'law mixanópolvor Jeóv. and Theodoret more exprefly, Quæft. 15. in Exod. Kanšoo autó Lauapeig Pla@l. 'Isdato. j 'ldá, Porph. 1. 4. cont. Christian. tells us, Sanchoniathon had his relation of the Jews ago 'le 29mbar Tš irgios Jeg rõ 'Isuá. Eufebius (as we formerly mentionedfaid, 'Iwosé isiv, 'Law C resce. Hesychius, 'Iwades, iceci (w7énech, taking iw in composition for the contraction of ice. As 'love's iguelwory, ufisa wover70. And the LXX. Jer. 23. 6. have rendred 13poy 17.79 'Iwpedix, id est, Dominus juftus, faith S. Hierom. And as the Heathens and the firf Christians, so the Hereticks had among the pronunciation an expression of the name 717. As the Valentinian was baptized ' TEN óvópa76 Tð 'lad. Iren. l. 1. and the Ophiani had their several Gods, among obe reft, dio ū Malebas À load of will be t 'Asaparov, ryj 'slegiori di ģ' * 'Elegirõv yegpão law, 'lus gap Epaiors ivoria sólov. Orig. cont. Cell. 1.6. So I read it, not as it is in the Edition of Hærchelius, 'Irwic in one word, or 'lewish, as our learned Countryman Nicolaus Fullerus hath endeavoured in vain to rectifie it; but inci ia, that 15, the Ophiani took the name 'law from the Jews, among whom it signifies the same who is called Jah. For that it ought so to be read appeareth by the former words of Origen, Olong • diensórce t 'landa bawl sy Obécoria iti go 'Ia dove aéte, xqualo ufuwy musnews ojō xj Walegs vexw vuxloqara's doutega'lam. In the printed copy indeed it is indãy, and in the Latin ladin, but without sense : whereas dividing the words, the sense is manifeft, and the reason of the former emendation apparent. Being then there were so many among the Greeks which did in all ages express the Hebrew name; is can be no way probable that the LXX. jould avoid it as inexpreffible in their language.
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 furpassing 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 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 into the supreme God it may not be attributed unto Christ.
This doubt will easily be satisfied, if we can shew the name Jehovah it self 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 Mefias, 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 * As Midrasch days of the Messias, and not only fo, but that it is the * name which proTillim, on, perly belongeth to him. And if they cannot but confess so much who only Rabati; Eam. read the Prophecies, as the Eunuch did, without an interpreter; how can we 1.6. 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 isa. 8.13, 14. Jehovah the Lord of hosts to be the name of the Mefias, who was to them
for a stone of stumbling and rock of offence, how can we possibly be igno
rant of it, who are caught by S. Paul, that in Christ this Prophecy was Rom. 9. 33. fulfilled, a 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? It 6. Hol. 1: ?: was no other than Jehovah who spake those words, I will have mercy upfarther obfer- on the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord (Jehovah) their
le shat the God, and will not save them by bow nor word. Where not only he who bhdee beach is described as the original and principal cause, that is, the Father who gave " On his Son, but also he who is the immediate efficient of our Salvation, and by the word that in opposition to all other
ť in opposition to all other means or instrumental caules, is called teboof Jehovah, vab; 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 saved. As in ano. c Afts 4. 12. d Zach. io. 1z. ther place he speaketh, d I will strengthen them in the Lord (Jehovab) and
they shall walk up and down in his name, saith the Lord (Jehovah) where
.. he which strengthneth is one, and he by whom he strengthneth is another, clearDeut. 6.4. ly distinguished from him by the personal Pronoun, and yet each of them is
Two adversaries we have Jenovan, and Jan
wer: Fehovah, and e Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. Whatsoever f objections 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 fo ample a concession as will destroy the other's contradiction. First Socinus answers, zhe name belongeth not to Christ, but unto Israel; and that it so appears by a parallel place in the same Prophet, Jer. 33. 15,16. Socin. refut. Jac. Wieki. cap.6. Catech. Racov. de Pers. Chrifti, c. 1. Crellius de Deo o Attrib. lib. i.cap. 11. To ihis we first oppose the constant interpretation of the Jews, who attribute the name Jehovah to the Meffias from this one parsicular Text. "As in the Sepher Ikkarim, l. 2. c.8. 1778 ", niwan w2112 N 711 The Scripture calleth the name of the Messias Jehovah our righteousness. And in Midrasch Tillim on Psal.21., 71700 , 71713 17piipwa miunn 127 .1778 1779 1877] UN IDW 711 212 MINDA TDi Inw .71.79 79 bp. We God calleth the Messias by his own name, and his name is Jehovah; as it is said (Exod. 15. 3.) The Lord is a man of war, Jehovah is his name. And it is written of the Messias, (Fer. 23.6.) And this is the name which they shall call him, Jehovah our Righteousness. Thus Echa Rabati, Lam. 1.6. 1778 07171 1877" OWN IDW TO "IV inw71 NN N siwn Swinu JD What is the name of the Messias? R. Abba said, Jehovah is his name; as it is said (Jer. 23.6.) 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 fimilitude as to inforce the same interpretation. For whereas in Jerem. 23. 6. it is exprefly said, inw yn this is the name, in the 33, it is only on without any mention of a name; and surely that place cannot prove Jehovah to be the name of Israel, which speaks not one word of the name of Jerusalem : for where we read in Crellius, hoc fcilicet nomen est, all but hoc is not Scripture, but the glofs of Crellius, and học it self cannot be warranted for the Interpretation of 177 nor quo for TVN the fimpleft interpretation of those words 95 N i WN 1 being, ifte qui vocabit eam, he which calleth Jerusalem: is the Lord our righteousness, that is, Chris. And thus the first answer of Socinus is invalid: which he easily foreseeing, hath joined with the Jewish Rabbins in the second answer, admitting that Jehovah our righteousness is the name of the Messias, but withall denying that the Christ is that Jehovah. To which purpose they assert these
words, Jehovah our righteousness, to be delivered by way of proposition, not of apposition : and this they endeavour to Seague bn uch places of Scripture as seem to infer as much. As Moses built an Altar, and called the name of it Tehovah 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 Proposition, given by way of nomination, where Verb fubftantive or cupula is understood. But from thence to conclude, that the Lord our righteousness can be no otherwise understood of Christ than as a Proposition, and that we by calling him so, according to the Prophet's prediction, can understand no more thereby than that God the Father of Christ doth justifie us, is most irrational. For first, it is therefore necessary to interpret ihose names by way of a proposition 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 lehovah without addition, cannot be Jehovah with addition. But there is no incongruity in attributing of that name to Chrill, to whom we have already proved it actually given : and our Adversaries, who teach that the name Jehovah is sometimes given to the Angels representing God, muft acknowledge that it may be given unto Chrit, whom then confers 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 Exaltarion, nor Gideon that it was his Peace. And if it could not so be predicated by it self, it could neither be by apposition, and consequently, even in this respect it was necessary to make the name a Proposition. But our Righteousness may undoubtedly be predicated of him who is here called by the name of the Lord our Righteousness; for the Apostle hath exprefly taught us, that he is made Righteousness unto us, I Cor. I. 30. And if it may be in it felf, there can be no repugnancy in its predication by way of apposition. Thirdly, That addition of our righteousness doth not only truly belont to Chrit, but in rome manner properly and peculiarly so as in that notion it can belong to no other person called lehovah but to tha: Chrift alone. For he alone is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth, Rom, 10. 4. and when he is said to be made unto us righteousness, i Cor. 1. 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 exprellly called our Righteoufness 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. may be framed against us, we know Christ is the a righteous branch raised" Jer. 23. 5;6. unto David, the King that shall reign and prosper, in whose days Judab Mall be saved, and Israel shall dwell Safely; we are assured that this is his name whereby be Mall be called, The Lord our Righteousness: 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, "b Šing and rejoice, o daughter of Sion; for lo, I come, and I b Zech. 2. 10; dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord (Jehovah) did not fufficiently 11. 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 Mall be joined to the Lord in that day, and Mall be my people; and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou Jhalt know that the Lord of bolts hath sent me unto thee : For what other Lord can we conceive dwelling in the midit of us, and fent unto us by the Lord of Hosts, but Christ?
And as the original Jehovah was spoken of Christ by the holy Prophets; fo 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 Mall call on the name of the Lord (Je- Foel 2. 32.. hovah) Mall be delivered: and S. Paul hath assured us that Christ 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 Jesus, we 11, 13. Mall be saved. For if it be a certain truth, that whosoever confefseth the Lord Jesus shall be saved; and the certainty of this truth depend upon that foundation, that whosoever believeth on him thall not be ashamed; and the certainty of that in relation to Christ depend upon that other promise, Whofoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved: 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 S. Paul's Argument must be invalid and fallacious, as containing that in the Conclusion which was not comprehended in the Premisses. But the Lord in the ninth verse is no other than
Jehovah, as appeareth by the Prophet Joel from whom that Scripturel 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
Mar. 11. 10. be of whom it is written in the Prophet Malachi, I will send my messenger,
and he shall prepare the way before me : we are sure he which fpake those Malac. 3. 1. words was Fehovah) the Lord of hosts; and we are sure that Christ is that
· Lord bcfore whose face John the Baptist prepared the way. The voice of him
that crieth in the wilderness, faith Isaiah, prepare ye the way of the Lord Mat. 3. 3. (je
(Jehovah :) and this is he that was spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah, faith Luke 76. S. Matthew: This is he of whom his Father Zechariah did divinely presage.
Thou child shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest, for thou Jhalt 80 * 1 say there before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways. Where Christ is certainly fore undeniabv. because the Lord, and the Lord * undeniably Jehovah. it is not only the undoubted translation of the name : 117' in the Prophet, (which of it self were sufficiens ;) but also is delivered in that spanner which is (though unreasonably) required to signifie the proper name of God, weg op buon go weg wegrawy Kveis, not zg Kvers, 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 Catholick Church: must be examined, censured and condemned, by ó, to. Socinus first makes use of this obfervation 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 fabrick of bis superstructions. First, Vox Jehovah magis quam cætera Dei nomina propriorum naturam fequitur: ideo etiam Græca Kóero, cùm pro illa ponitur, propriorum indolem, quâ licet, æmulatur. Secondly, Propriis nominibus articulus libentiùs subtrahitur, licet eum etiam læpè concinnitatis potius quam neceflitatis causà admitPant Idem fit in voce Kúero cùin pro Jehovah ponitur. Thirdly, Hæc eft causa cur in Novo Testamento, maximè aud Lucam & Paulum, vox Kverc, cùm Deum summum defignat, articulo libentiùs careat; at cùin de Christo subjestive ufurpatur, raro articulus omittitur. What strange uncertainties are these to build the denial of ro important an
Article as Chrift's Divinity upon? He does not say absolutely Jehovah is the proper name of God, but only that it doth were folienu the nature of proper names than the other names of God. And indeed it is certain that sometimes it bath the nature et an appellative, As Deut. 6.4. 7 71771 121778, 797) the Lord our God is one Lord, and yet if it be not always and abiolutely a proper name, though all the rest were granted to be true, the Argument must be of no validity. Acain. be cannot say an Article is never affixed to a proper name, but only that libentiùs fubtrahitur, it is rather omisted than affixed: which jet is far from a certain or a true rule, especially in the language of the New Testament. For no man can deny Felis to be the proper name of Christ, given him according to the Law at bis Circumcifion, rj xaños ro
U Úršiness, Luke 2.21. and yet whosoever fall read the Gospel of s. Matthew, will find it ren times o 'inošs with an Article, for once 'locos without it. And in the Acts of the Apostles, written in a more Attick style, s. Paul is oftner ftyled • llaüic than fimply Ilavaa. So Balaam, Gallio, ec. Some persons we find in the New Testament, whom, if we hould stay till we found them without an Article, we should never call by their names at all; aş Apelles, Balak, o. Thirdly, á Kúeio is so often used for that God who is the Father with an Article, and Kúere 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. iCor. 10. 26. 16.7. 2 Cor. 5. II. Eph. 5.17, 19. Col. 3. 16,20,23, 2 Thesi. 2. 2. 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. Mark 1.3. Luke 176. 2. 11. 3.4. 20. 44. John 1.23. Acts 2. 36. 10. 36. II.16, 21. 15. II. Rom. 1.7. 10. 9, 12, 14, 6, 8, 14. 16. 2, 8.112, 13, 22. I Cor. 1. 3. 4. 17. 7.22, 25,39. 9. 1, 2. 10. 21. II.II. 12. 3. 14. 37. 15:58. 16. IO, 19. 2 Cor.1.2. 2.12. 4. 5. 10. 17. 11. 17. 12. I. Gal. 1.3. 5. 10. Eph. 1. 2. 2. 21. 4. 1,5,17. 5.8. 6. 4, 10, 21, 23. Phil. 1. 2. 14. Ź. II, 19, 24, 29. 3. I, 20. 4, 1, 2, 10. Col. 1. 3. 3.17, 18. 24. 4. 7,17. iTheff. 1. I. 3.8. 4. 1,15,17. 5.2, 12. 2 Theft. 1. I. 2. 2.13. 3.4. Tim. 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 say, they are thu's so 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 observation, as if the Holy Ghost intended any such Article-distinction. Nay, it is most evident that the facred Pen-men intended no fuch difin&tion, because in the same place speaking of the same person, they usually observe the indifferency of adding or omitting the Article. As Jam. 5. 11. The wowow 1w6 mx6m7, xey
Kvery 6067€, oto wo nucarnal.próg isov • Kúera rejoixliquewe • 2 Tim. 1. 18. Aún a TIN • Kéer optré de O TOG Kveis os creion mõnusoge. 1 Cor. 7.17. "Exasov a's rérancev • Kúera, šta wert alerto 22 Og er Kvehw weddeis döng, áterobsgos Kveis isi. See Rom. 14. 6, 7, 8. Wherefore being Jehovah is not affirmed absolutely to be a proper name; being if it were, yet it appears that it is not the custom of the New Testament to use every proper name ofrner without an Article than with one ; being • Kúgros is so often taken for him whom they acknowledge God, and Kuesos for him whom they cannot deny to be the Chrift: it followeth that Christ, 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 controversie by the articles, of which the sacred Pen-men were not curious, and the Transcribers have been very careless: nor is there re great uncertainty of the ancient MSS. in any thing as in the words and Articles of Kúeros and Oeds. The Vulgar Edition, Rev. 1.8. hath xéyd • Kógios only, the Complutenfis aéry Kógios Oeds, Plantine, néyd • Kúgros • Oros' against the Socinian Rule, who will have an accession by o to Ords, and a diminution by • from Kógios. As Rev. 4. II. "Agros es, xóa ere, hoboty dobavo in other MSS. "Ağios a Kógros ry • Odos in não ó ösuos, aabrity dobar. 1 Cor. 11. 27. oo Tolágrov 78 Kveir ovabiwa. other's with an addition, to solagros Tð Kveir bražiaus tä Kveis. 1 Cor. 14. 37. the Vulgar Edition, TI TË Kveis ricin 70Xc6• the Complutensis, To Kveis. So where we ufually read Xexsòs, divers ancient MSS. have Kúeses. Lastly, it is observable that even in these words of the Creed, which we now expound, Kúeros is Spoken exprelly of Chrijl without an Article, for so we read it, Kai as 'Incão Xessor, i vàr autós novogfen, Kúens skär.
Nor is this the only Notation of the Name or Title Lord taken in a fenfe Divine, above the expression of all mere human power and dominion; for as it is often
ufed as the interpretarion of the name Jehovah, fo is it also for that of Adon Pfal. 110.1. Or Adonai. The Lord said unto my Lord, faith David, that is, in the Original,
Chaldee Pa- Jehovah unto Adon; and that Adon is the Word, that Lord is Christ. We raphrase. know the Temple at Jerusalem was the Temple of the most High God, and the Lord of that Temple in the emphafis of an Hebrew Article was Christ, as ap