Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

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 fupreme 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 Saviqur's birth, had most appropriated the name of Lord, not only

by way of expliPsal. 83. 18. cation, but distinction and particular expression. As when we read, Thou whose

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 Fehovah, the Greek Translation,

which the Apostles followed, hath no other name but Lord; and therefore *1 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 expoxueus pro- fition of any other name of God, they had made an interpretation contrary eth untoszy, 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 was also used by the name of Shaddai; as much by his Dominion and Sovereignty, as

as by for. 717, is his Power and All-fufficiency: but by any experimental and personal fenfe of m 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 fubftitui consuevit, ideo illius etiam interpretario huic accommodatur, says Crellias de Deo « Attrib.c. 14. But first it is not probable that the LXX. mould think xiciou to be the proper interpretation of 278, 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 wiera was proper, and place riera for. Jehovah, to whom of it self, (according to their observation) it did not belong. Whereas we read not only . 177 978 transated darota zúest, Gen. 15.2, 8. and 71NDY : 71.79 1987 o os crórns rúera Eabawe, Isa. 1. 24. but also 139378 7100 xveru ză Peš ninas, Nehem. 10.29. Secondly, the reason of this assertion is most uncertain. For tho it be confessed that the Masoreths did read 1998 where they found : 71 and Josephus before them expresses the sense of the Jews of his age, that the rolegen megéreualor was not to be pronounced, and before him Philo speaks as much; yet it followeth not from thence, that the Fews 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 reason translated it Kiera. Thirdly, as we know no reason why the Jews Mould so confound the names of God; fo were it now very irrational in some places to read 172 for : 71.7 As when God faith, I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, bný 5717 Sun Tu 3 tho' the Vulgar Translation renders it, in Deo omnipotente, & nomen ineum 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 Abraham by the name Adonai, or that it were any thing to the present intendment, which was to encourage Moses and the Hraelites by the interpretation of the name Jehovah) yet we have no reason to believe that the LXX. made any such heterogeneous Transation, which we read sj to ovoué jo Kiera sx idónwca autois. Thus again, zubere God Speaks unto Mofes, Ούτως ερές τους ιούς Ισραήλ, Κύριε, ο Θεός πατέρων υμών, απέςαλκέ με προς υμάς, τέτο με εσίν όνομα αιώνιον, Εxod. 3. 15. whosoever thinks Kvera stands for Adonai doth injury to the Translators; and whosoever readeth Adonai for Jehovah, puis 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, saya maene's, iourend, 166:7d, esxar: which very corruptly represent part of the first verse of the 141 Psalm, 57.775.guin Townp. 77, but plainly enough render : 717'adwa. Notwithstanding it is very observable, that they were wont to distinguish Kúesos, 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, 71.79 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 signification nini. This is fill extant in the Copy of the Text of Isaiah printed by Curterius with the Commentary of Procopius, and S. Hiero me gives an account of it in the Greck Copies of his age, Nomen 77@geog-poseclov, quod cvexipaonzov, id eft, ineffabile putaverunt, quod his literis fcribitur, jodhc 77'vau 1 he 07: quod quidam non intelligentes, propter elementorum fimilitu dinem, cum in Græcis libris repererint, Pipi legere consueverunt, Ep. 1. 36. Neither did the Greeks only place this mini in the Margin of their Translations, but when they described the Hebrew Text in Greek Characters, they used the same dinl for : 711), 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 2d Chap. 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, Crvio, Inos, xf258P, Agua, iduce gelm, (1 67x) 7176, Boris, 8traxe, unw, wd, ww0, en ayudvd, sheneb, egixão, peador Xer, which are a very proper expreliton of these following Hebrew words, according to the punctation and reading of that age, By which 'tis evident that Origen in his' Hexapla, from whence undoubtedly that ancient Scholiají 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 IT. 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 ufque hodie antiquis expreffum literis inveniinus. Ep. 106. Being then we cannot be assured that the LXX. read 1978 for777'; being they have ujed Kúesos for Jehovah, when shey have made use of the general word Odds for Adonai; being in fome places Adonai cannot be read for Jehovah, without manifested violence offered to the Text : it followerh, that it is no way probable that Kúeros should therefore be used for Jehovah, because it was taken for the proper signification of Adonai.

the

* It is ac

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

the fulfilling of his promises his name Jehovah was not known unto him : for though God fpake expressly 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 History, and 26. 3. teacheth us, and S. Stephen confirmeth us, that he gave him none inheritance Aets 7.5 in it, no not so much as to set his foot on, though he promised that he would give it to him for a posseffiom. 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 ; as indeed it may, being derived from a Verb of the fame signification with the * Hebrew root, and so denoting the Essence or Existence of God, and whatso

knowledged ever else may be deduced from thence, as revealed by him to be signified by all that thereby

: 7171 is from

17or: 7173 and God's own interpretation proves no lefs 79.78 UN 17178 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 civas, or idézzev. Now as from 719 in the Hebrew .71.7, so in the Greek ato të xúquv Kúero, And what the proper signification of rupe is, 2:0 man can teach us better than Hesychius, in whom we read Kúze, ca dexen, tulycéves, xúę w prima longâ, xugó primà brevi. Sophocl. Oedipo Colon. σας και θύων έκυρο». Schol. Θύων έχυρών, αντί τα ακύραν, ταυτόν και τω ετύχανον. Hence it was κύροι by the Atticks used for isw fit: so I take it from the words of the Scholiajt upon Sophocles, to xugū a ec w peyi os Oncev oj ζωήθεια και 'Ατικοί, ώ και δυκλικοίς βαρώεσιν αυτο Αττικοί με κλάσεως τ8 υ, κύροι λέΓονες αντί το κυραίη. Not that they #sed it by an Apocope, taking a from xvogin but that xúogi was taken in the sense of xuogin or xvégito, from xúga, tázzu, kúegi

. sin or wordexos, as the Scholiaft upon those words of Sophocies, Achaia onda w zuers Kugais, f780 was xes. Neisher know I better how to render xuges than by itágreis in the place of Æschylus his Prometheus,

Prince o OŠvex' i'xtos antics xugas

Πάνων μελαχών και τελολμηχως εμοί. As the Arundelian Scholiaji upon the Septem Thebana, xupé, izsáę xes and in the famè Tragedy, is uwidou xugtão, is rendred by the more ancient scholiaft, eiuc ine of carido. as in the Persa, Ceo womestica xvęci, is by the same Interpreter explained rugs xj vadexe Corowo nie. So the fame Poet in his Agamemnon,

Τωτω επαιναν σάντοθεν αληθεύομαι,

Tegevãs 'Aigridh cidévou xuęšno° otws. which the scholiaf renders thus, 'Επαινέμαι Αειφόρως ταύτίω γνώμω, το μαθεν ή οία έσι κατατάτα ο βασιλεύς. And no other sense can be imagined of that verse in Sophocles. Dovéa Co Ompel tardogs ar 01766 xugev, ihan ly rendring it, eivaa or Wat tey and p. 296. r 38 6 yezav sugi, vi os 3 xácgs šyerhesse atiro. and p.415. Anacida por tot 18 Táo 985 xugã. or of that in Euripides his Phænifsæ.

Ώή τις ώ σόλαισι δωμάτων κυρά ; This original interpretation appeareth farther in the frequent use of xupéw for tulzdow as it fignifiesh no more than fum : as in Sophocles, Louw sugés for budalas, Micñv xugas for rooms, turážwo nugar for itexáśw, wo yueris for es, iudais zução for 'gorda, xução, aguaray for adhasw, dção xugars for dezes, samuel @ xygw for xnútruas, siguxa's zugez for senxev

, citav xogeis for dras, druges (wra for im and in Euripides, xav, ruçã for ixu, virsuiverde ruges for cirouret, eidempelyén, xuñ fór áðıxn), or ádounon, as the Scholiast

. From all which it undeniably

, appeareth, that the ancient signification of xúew or xução is the same with us or waxw, 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, xução Cusurias agástris * DEAT w gelewer, to cellulzeévea vai ģ' rõ vágta Tg's goafond's eyebalov. So an ancient Lexicon) and therefore xýera immediately derived from thence muft bei w, or owoczor and consequently the proper interpretation of 1717 descending from the root of 1717 of the fame signification. And well may we conceive the LXX. for this reason to have fo translated it, because we find the origination delivered by them in that notion, rendring 777N • "Sv, Exod. 3. 14. éjá osjes o Dv; and again, ó 'Nv årésudné He sees épās. From whence considering the name .71779 proceeding from that root, and giving relation to that sense, therg made ufe of the word xúero for the standing interpretation of that name, as being equivalent to o "S2v. We have no reafon 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 xúcim to be 4 proper interpretation, as being reducible to the same fignification. For even they which are pretended to have read Adonai.for Jehovah, as Origen, oc. do acknowledge that the Heathens and the ancient Hereticks descending 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. seasso i war? #alov grov é seule lau. And Diodorus hath taught us from whence that name first came, mentioning Mofes in this manner, ago tons 'Isoclóis Mwow * 'low itixanópolvov Seóv: and Theodoret more exprefly, Quæst. 15. in Exod. Kanšoo je auto Eduagua y la Pla6l. Plodatos goldá, Porph. 1.4. cont. Christian. tells us, Sanchoniathon had his relation of the Jews ang leeguerens irgias Jig 78 'Idé. Eufebius (as we formerly mentioned) said, 'locsé ise, 'law Curreia Hesychius, 'Iwédau, i cech CwTinere, taking is in composition for the contraction of iud. As 'lava's èqulu súe Ji ifise dovev70. And the LXX. Jer. 23: 6. have rendred 13779717'laridir, 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 u to óvó Meck 71 78 Placó: Iren. l. 1. and the Ophiani had their several Gods, among tbe rest, do v pases ces À 'lunda baw'd sờ T Asupañor, sej ? 'Region and 5 * 'Eregirão resowo lew, lec Tag" 'Eegaíos óvona sójfuor. Orig. cont. Celf. 1.6. so I read it, not as it is in the Edition of Hæschelius, 'Izwüa in one word, or 'lowing as our learned Countryman Nicolaus Fullerus hath endeavoured in vain to rectific it; bist iawid, that ss, the Ophiani took the name 'law from the Jews, among whom it signifies the same who is called Jan. For that it ought so to be read appeareth by the former words of Origen, Olong dienora i 'landeszewo x peécorsa ini e le dév λέξεων, Σν 5 κρυπτομείων μυστηρίων και και παρος άρχων νυκτοφανής δεύτερε Ιαώ. In the printed copy indeed it is inder, and in the Latin ladin, but without sense: whereas dividing the words, the sense is manifest, and she 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. should avoid it as inexpreffible in their language,

V z

Being

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

1. 6.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

b Hof. 1. 7.

where it is

F

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 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 fo 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 Chrift.

This doubt will easily be satisfied, if we can fhew 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 fo the Lord, in the fame 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 thall be known clearly in the * As Midrasch days of the Messias, and not only so, but that it is the * name which

pro-
Tillim. on perly belongerh to him. And if they cannot but confess so much who only
21 Pfal. Echa
Rabati, Lam.

read the Prophecies, as the Eunuch did, without an interpreter; how can we
be ignorant of fo plain and necessary a truth, whose eyes have seen the full

completion, and read the infallible interpretation of them? If they could see ifa. 8. 13, 14. Jehovah the Lord of hosts to be the name of the Meffias, who was to them for a stone of stumbling and rock of offence, how

can we possibly be ignorant of it, who are taught by S: Paul, that in Christ this Prophecy was a Roon. 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

was no other than Jehovah who spake those words, b I will have mercy upfarther obfer- on the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord (Jehovah) their vable what the God, and will not save them by bow.nor sword. Where not only he who Chaldee Paraphrase 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 by the word that in opposition to all other means or instrumental causes, is called Jehoof Jehovah, vah; who can be no other than our Jesus, because there is no other name for Jehovah. under heaven given unto men whereby we must be saved. As in ano. : Zach. 10.12. ther 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) 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 * Tavo Adver. Jehovah, 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 Few from whom indced we have so ample a concession as will destroy the other's contradiction. First Socinus answers, che 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. Carech. Racov. de Pers

. Christi, c. 1. Crellius de Deo @ Attrib. lib. i.cap. II. To ihis we first oppose the constant interpretation of the Jezus, who attribute the name Jehovah to the Messias from this one parsicular Text. As in the Sepher Ikkarim, l. 2. c. 8. 927Y"TWO 2N2 ND The Scripture calleth the name of the Messias Jehovah our righteousness. And in Midrasch Tillim on Pfal. 21., 71.7" "30.717 w inni ina niunn 750) Aripi

3 . 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. is written of the Messias, (Jer. 23. 6.) And this is the name which they shall call him, Jehovah our Righteousness. Thus

1.6 of the Messias? R. Abba said, Jehovah is his name; as it is said (Jer. 2 3. 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 expressly said, in this is the name, in the 33, it is only 701 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 gloss of Crellius, and hoc it self cannot be warranted for the Interpretation of .I nor quo for TUN the simpleft interpretation of those words in Unn being, iste qui vocabit eam, he which calleth Jerusalem: is the Lord our righteousness, that is, Chrift. 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 Melias, but withall denying that the Christ is that Jehovah. To which purpose they affert these

words,

[ocr errors]

במימרא וו

And ir

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

words, Jehovah our righteousness, to be delivered by way of propofition, not of apposition : and this they endeavour to prove by such places of scripture as seem to infer as much. As Moses 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 Jehovaht is not predicated of that of whose name it is a part; but is the subject of a Proposition, given by way of nomination, whose' verb substantive or cupula is understood. But from thence to conclude, that the Lord our righteousness can be ne otherwise understood of Christ than as a Proposition, and that we by calling him fo, according to the Prophet's prediction, can understand no more thereby than that God the Father of Christ doch justifie us, is mosi irrational. For first, it is therefore necessary to interpret those 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 Jehovah without addition, cannot be Jehovah with addition. But there is no incongruity in attributing of that name to Christ, 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 Chrift, 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 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 expressly taught us, ihar he is made Righteousness unto us, 1 Cor. 1. 30. And if it may be in it self, there can be no repugnancy in its predication by way of apposition. Thirdly, That addition of our righteousness doth not only truly belong to Chrift, but in some manner properly and peculiarly so as in that notion it can belong to no other person called Jehovah but to shar Christ 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, 1 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 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 Chrijt 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. 536. unto David, the King that shall reign and prosper, in whose days Judah Jhall be saved, and Israel Mall 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 of themselves denote our Saviour who dwelt amongst us as they certainly do; yer 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 shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee: For what other Lord can we conceive dwelling in the midit 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; 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 shall call on the name of the Lord (Je- Joel 2. 32. hovah) shall 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. shall be saved. For if it be a certain truth, that whosoever confesseth 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, Whosoever 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 fame 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

he

II.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

tänt.

For

Mar. 11. 10. he of whom it is written in the Prophet Malachi, I will send my messenger,

and be shall prepare the way before me : we are sure he which spake those Malac. 3. 1. words was (fehovah) 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, faith Ifaiah, prepare ye the way of the Lord Mar. 3. 3. (Jehovah :) and this is be that was spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah, faith Luke 7. 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 shalt go * 1 say there before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways. Where Christ is certainly biy

, because the Lord, and the Lord * undeniably Jehovah. it is not only the undoubted transation of the name : 7.7' in the Prophet, (which of it self were sufficient ;) but also is delivered in that manner which is (though unreasonably) required to signifie the proper name of God, *reg togoon 78 Breg regruty Kveix, not 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 Doétrine, maintained as such ever since the Apostles times by the whole Catholick Church, must be examined, censured and condemned, by •; s; to. Socinus first makes use of this observation 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 etiain Græca Kvera, cùin pro illa ponitur, propriorum indolem, quâ licet, æmulatur. Secondly, Propriis nominibus articulus libentiùs subtrahitur, licet eum etiam tæpè concinnitatis potius quam necesitatis causà admit

Idem fit in voce Kúero cùm pro Jehovah ponitur. Thirdly, Hæc eit causa cur in Novo Testamento, maximè apud Lucam & Paulum, vox Kúero, cùm Deum fummum defignat, articulo libentiùs careat; at cùin de Chrifto fubjectivè ufurpatur, raro articulus omittitur. What strange uncertainties are these to build the denial of so important an úrricde as Christ's Divinity upon ? He does not say absolutely Jehovah is the proper name of God, but only that it doth marc folioru 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.6.4. 772, 1717171752. Th the Lord our God is one Lord, and yet if it be not always and abiclutely. 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 libentiùs subtrahitur, it is rather omisteil 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 Fts15 to be the proper name of Christ, given him according to the Law at bis Circumcision, rj (xañen to ovoueze owrs Incós, Luke 2.21. and yet whosoever fhall read the Gospel of S. Matthew, will find it ren rimes Inošs with an Article, for once 'Incês without it. And in the Acts of the Apostles, written in a more Attick style, S. Paul is ofiner styled o llaüro than fimply llawao. So Bulaain, Gallio, ers. Some persons we find in the New Teftament, whom, if we jhould stay till we found them without an Article, we should never call by their names at all; as Apelles, Balak, cc. Thirdly, ó Kúero is so often used for that God who is the Father with an Article, and Kúer@ 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. 1Cor. 10. 26. 16.7. 2 Cor. 5. 11. Eph. 5.17, 19. Col. 3.16,20,23, 2 Thell. 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. Mark 7.3. Luke 1.76. 2. 11. 3.4. 20. 44. John 1. 23. Acts 2. 36. 10.36. 11. 16, 21. 15. II. Rom. 1.7. 10.9, 12, 14. 6, 8, 14. 16. 2, 8,11,12, 13, 22. I Cor. I. 3. 4. 17. 7. 22, 25,39. 9.1, 2. 10. 21. II.II. 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. 5.10. 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. i Theff. 1. 1. 3.8. 4.1, 15, 17. 5.2, 12. 2 Theft. 1.1, 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 thus fo often useid, that though they equal not the number of their contrary acceptions, yet they come so near, as to yield no ground for any such observation, as if the Holy Ghost intended any such Ariicle-difinition. Nay, it is most evident that the sacred Pen-men intended no fuch diftinétion, because in the same place Speaking of the same person, they usually observe the indifferency of adding or omitting the Article. As Fam.s. Ir. Tu

σομον ω Ιως ηκέσατε, και το τέλο Κυρίε άδελε, ότι πολυαν λαχνός εσιν ο Κύριο και οικτίρμων . Τim. Ι. 18. Δώη αυτο ο ΚύρμG- ουράν έλες παρα Κυρία και εκείνη την ημέρα. 1 Cor. 7. 17. "Εκασον ως κέκλησεν ο Κύριος, ότω αειπαλάτω: 21 'Ogos cs Kuehue . deis doncs, ársnobosgos 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 • Kéesos is so often taken for him whom they acknowledge God, and Kvesos 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 sacred Pen-men were not curious, and the Transcribers have been very careless: nor is there so 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 Kúzios only, the Complutensis aéyd Kuçios o Osos, Plantine, négd Kúpios Osos: against the Socinian Rule, who will have an accession by o to Oeds, and a diminution by from Kúgros. As Rev. 4. 11. "Agros ci, róeis, dabar m do&rin other MSS. "Agios ei Kógios sj Odos nueño o ärios, hachy T sótar. I Cor. 11. 27. wolucion to Κυρία αναξίως" others with an addition, το ποτήριον τη Κυρία αναξίως το Κυρίε. 1 Cor. 14. 37. the vulgar Edition, ότι τα Kueix eion concé the Complutenfis, őt. Kveis. So where we usually read Xersos, divers ancient Mss. have Kúeses. Lasily, it is observable that even in these words of the Creed, which we now expound, Kieros is spoken expreßly of Chrijf without an Article, for so zue read it, Kai eis Incón Xersor, i vàr autó 1 Movogfun, Kúess ojuãr.

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

used 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 Ådon 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 emphasis of an Hebrew Article was Christ, as ap

pear ech

« PreviousContinue »