proportionably to the dignity of the Son so sent into the world; because the more worthy the person of Christ before he suffered, the greater his condescension unto such a suffering condition; and the nearer his relation to the Father, the greater his love to us for whose sakes he sent him to suffer. Wherefore to derogate any way from the person and nature of our Saviour before he suffered, is so far to undervalue the love of God, and consequently, to come short of that acknowledgment and thanksgiving which is due unto him for it. If then the sending of Christ into the world, were the highest act of the love of God which could be expressed; if we be obliged unto a return of thankfulness some way correspondent to such infinite love; if such a return can never be made without a true sense of that infinity, and a sense of that infinity of love cannot consist without an apprehension of an infinite dignity of nature in the person sent: then it is absolutely necessary to believe that Christ is so the only-begotten Son of the Father, as to be of the same substance with him, of glory equal, of majesty coeternal. By this discourse in way of explication, every Christian may understand what it is he says, and express his mind how he would be understood when he maketh this brief confession, I believe in Christ the only Son of God. For by these words he must be thought to intend no less than this: I do profess to be fully assured of this assertion, as of a most certain, infallible, and necessary truth, that Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Messias, is the true, proper, and natural Son of God, begotten of the substance of the Father; which being incapable of division or multiplication, is so really and totally communicated to him, that he is of the same essence with him, God of God, Light of light, very God of very God. And as I assert him to be the Son, so do I also exclude all other persons from that kind of sonship, acknowledging none but him to be begotten of God by that proper and natural generation: and thereby excluding all which are not begotten, as it is a generation; all which are said to be begotten, and are called sons, but are so only by adoption, as it is natural. And thus I believe in God the Father, and in JESUS CHRIST HIS ONLY SON. Our Lord. AFTER Our Saviour's relation founded upon his eternal generation, followeth his dominion in all ancient Creeds,* as the necessary consequent of his filiation. For as we believe him to be the Son of God, so must we acknowledge him to be ⚫ For though in the first rules of faith mentioned by Irenæus and Tertullian we find not Dominum nostrum, yet in all the Creeds afterwards we find those words; probably inserted because denied by the Valentinians, of whom Irenæus : Δια τοῦτο τὸν Σωτῆρα λέγουσιν, οὐδὲ γὰρ Κύριον ὀνομάζειν αὐτὸν θέλουσι. 1. i. c. 1. our Lord, because the only Son must of necessity be heir and Lord of all in his Father's house, and all others which bear the name of sons, whether they be men or angels, if compared to him, must not be looked upon as sons of God, but as servants of Christ. Three things are necessary, and more cannot be, for a plenary explication of this part of the Article; first, the proper notation of the word Lord in the Scripture phrase, or language of the Holy Ghost; secondly, The full signification of the same in the adequate latitude of sense, as it belongs to Christ; thirdly, The application of it to the person making confession of his faith, and all others whom he involves in the same condition with himself, as saying not my, nor their, but our Lord. First then we must observe, that not only Christ is the Lord, but that this title doth so properly belong unto him, that the Lord alone absolutely taken is frequently used by the evange lists and apostles determinately for Christ, insomuch that the angels observe that dialect, "Come see the place where the Lord lay." (Matt. xxviii. 6.) Now for the true notation of the word, it will not be so necessary to inquire into the use or origination of the Greek, much less into the etymology of the correspondent Latin, as to search into the notion of the Jews, and the language of the Scriptures, according unto which the evangelists and apostles spake and wrote. And first, it cannot be denied, but that the word which we translate the Lord was used by the interpreters of the Old Mar. xvi. 19, 20. Luke xii. 42. xxiv. 34. John iv. 1. vi. 23. xi. 2. xx. 2. 18. 20. 25. xxi. 7. Acts ix. 1. 6. 10, 11. 15. 17. 27. 31. 42. xi. 16. 24. xiii. 47, &c. Κύριος. For whosoever shall consider the signification of Kúpos in the Scriptures, I think he will scarce find any footsteps of the same in the ancient Greeks. In our sacred Writ it is the frequent name of God, whereas I imagine it is not to be found so used by any of the old Greek authors. Julius Pollux, whose business is to observe what words and phrases may be properly made use of in that language, tells us the gods may be called Θεοί οι Δαίμονες, but mentions not Κύριος, as neither proper, nor any name of God with them at all. Nor did they anciently use it in their economics; where their constant terms were not Kúgioc, but deσπότης and δοῦλος : and they had then another kind of notion of it, as appears by the complaint of the servant in Aristophanes. Plut. 6. Τοῦ σώματος γὰρ οὐκ ἐᾷ τὸν κύριον Κρατεῖν ὁ δαίμων, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἐωνημένον. In which words, they were interpreted by the Scripture usage, Kúpos would signify the master, and inuivos the person bought, that is, the servant; whereas the place requires an interpretation wholly contrary; for ἐωνημένος is not here ἠγορασμένος, but ἀγοράσας, or ὠνησάμενος, as the scholiast, Suidas, and Moschopulus have observed, that is, not the servant, but the master who bought him. And though those grammarians bring no other place to prove this active signification beside this of Aristophanes, by which means it might be still questionable whether they had rightly interpreted him without any authority, yet Phrynichus will suffi ciently secure us of this sense: ETUX" ἐωνημένος οἰκίαν ἢ ἀγρόν. ἐνταῦθα οὐδὲν ἐγχωρεῖ τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ πρίασθαι· μένει τὸ ἐωνημένος δόκι μον. 'Εωνημένος then here is he which buyeth, that is, the master; and consequently xúploc not the master, but the servant bought, whom he supposeth originally to have power over his own body. Indeed it was not only distinguished, but in a manner opposed to δεσπότης : as appears by that observation of Ammonius, thus delivered by Eustathius in Odyss. Ξ. Κύριος γυναικὸς καὶ υἱῶν ἀνὴς καὶ πατής, δεσπότης δὲ ἀργυρωνήτων. Testament sometimes for men, with no relation unto another than human dominion.* And as it was by the translators of the Old, so is it also by the penmen of the New. But it is most certain that Christ is called Lord in another notion than that which signifies any kind of human dominion, because as so, "there are many Lords," (1 Cor. viii. 5.) but he is in that notion Lord, (1 Cor. viii. 6. Eph. iv. 5.) which admits of no more than one. They are only "masters according to the flesh;" (Coloss. iii. 22.) he "the Lord of glory, the Lord from heaven," (1 Cor. ii. 8. xv. 47.) "King of kings, and Lord of all other lords." (Rev. xix. 16.) 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,_ sometimes for El or 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 Saviour's birth, had most appropriated the name of Lord, not only by way of explication, but distinction and particular expression. As when we read, "thou whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high in all the earth." (Psal. lxxxiii. 18.) and when God so expresseth himself, "I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the As is generally translated xúgio, when it signifieth lord or master in respect of a servant or inferior. So Sarah called her husband, Gen. xviii. 12. 1 Pet. iii. 6. so Eleazer his master Abraham, Gen. iv. frequently. Thus Rachel saluteth her father Laban, Gen. xxxi. 35. and Jacob his brother Esau, Gen. xxxiii. 8. Potiphar is the xugios of Joseph whom he bought, Gen. xxxix. 2, &c. and Joseph in power is so saluted by his brethren, Gen. 10. and acknowledged by his servant, Gen. xliv. 5. The general name in the law of Moses for servant and master is rai and xúpes, Exod. xxi. 2. 4. It is indeed so plain that the ancient Jews used this word to signify no more than human power, that we find ox the name of man so translated, as 1 Sam. xvii. 32. bx τη στα 15 μὴ δὴ συμπεσέτω καρδία τοῦ κυρίου μοῦ ἐπ' αὐτόν. For mig is used with relation and in opposition to wasdioun, Acts xvi. 16. in the seuse which the latter, not the ancient Greeks used it: Παιδίσκη, τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῆς θεραπαίνης οἱ νῦν τιθέασιν· οἱ δὲ ἀρχαῖοι ἐπὶ τῆς Mind, as Phrynichus observes. As it is opposed to dixins, Luke xvi. 13. (according to that of Etymol. Κύριος τῶν πρός τι ἐστίν, ἔχει δὲ πρὸς τὸν οἰκέτην.) to δοῦλος, Matt. x. 24. xviii. 25, &c. And in the apostolical rules pertaining to Christian economics, the master and servant are δοῦλος and κύριος. As also by way of ad dition κύριος τοῦ θερισμοῦ, Matt. ix. 38. name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH, was I not known unto them." (Exod. vi. 3.) In both these places, for the name Jehovah the Greek translation, which the apostles followed, hath no other name but Lord; and therefore undoubtedly by that word which we translate the Lord* did they understand I know it is the vulgar opinion, that xúpos properly answereth unto N, and the reason why it was also used for is 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 enim Adonai pro Jehovah in lectione Hebræorum verborum substitui consuevit, ideo illius etiam interpretatio huic accommodatur,' says Crellius de Deo et Attrib. c. 14. But first it is not probable that the LXX. should think xúpos to be the proper interpretation of 8, 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 to. gether in one sentence, they would not have put another word for Adonai, to which κύριος was proper, and place κύριος for Jehovah, to whom of itself (according to their observation) it did not belong. Whereas we read not only translated dioTora xúgie, Gen. xv. 2. 8. and ΜΕΝΟΥ ΠΙΠ' ΤΗΝΠ ὁ δεσπότης κύριος Σαβαώθ, Isa. i. 24. but also xugiOU TO DEOD u, Nehem. x. 29. Secondly, the reason of this assertion is most uncertain. For though it be confessed that the Masoreths did read where they found, and Josephus before them expresses the sense of the Jews of his age, that the TEτpaypaμMarov was not to be pronounced, and before him Philo speaks as much; yet it followeth not from thence, that the Jews were so superstitious above three hundred years before; which must be proved before we can be assured that the LXX. read Adonai for Jehovah, and for that reason translated it Kúgios. Thirdly, as we know no reason why the Jews should so confound the names of God; so were it now very irrational in some places to read name Jehovah); yet we have no reason to believe that the LXX. made any such heterogeneous translation, which we read, καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου Κύριος οὐκ ἐδήλωσα αὐτοῖς. Thus again, where God speaks unto Moses, Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ, Κύριος, ὁ Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν, ἀπέσταλκέ με τους ὑμᾶς, τοῦτό μου ἐστὶν ὄνομα αἰώνιον, Exod. ui. 15. whosoever thinks Kúpis stands for Adonai, doth injury to the translators; and whosoever readeth Adonai for Jehovah, puts a force upon the text. As also when the prophet David saith, "that men may know that thou whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth." Ps. lxxxiii. 18. 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, §. 6. 'Adaval, inxi, καριθὶ, ἰσμαὴλ, ἰεββετὰ, ἀκώλ· which very corruptly represents part of the first verse of the 141st psalm, nw TAXIPAT יהוה but plainly enough render האזינה קולי Adaval. Notwithstanding it is very observable, that they were wont to distinguish Kúgies, in the Greek translations where it stood for Jehovah, from K where it stood for Adonai; and that was done by adding in the margin the tetragrammaton itself, which by the igno rance of the Greek scribes, who understood not the Hebrew characters, was con verted into four Greek letters, and so made a word of no signification, П. This is still extant in the copy of the text of Isaiah printed by Curterius with the Commentary of Procopius, and St. Jerome gives an account of it in the Greek copies of his age : • Nomen τετραγράμματον, quod avExpávrov, id est, ineffabile, putaverunt, quod his literis scribitur, jodhen vaur he, quod quidam non intelligentes, propter elementorum similitudinem, cum in Græcis libris repererint, pipi legere consueverunt.' Epist. 136. Neither did the Greeks only place this m in the margin of their translations, but when they described the Hebrew text in Greek characters they used the same for .As when God saith, Exod : יהוה for אדני vi. S. "I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob," • "Dww bra -though the Vulgar transla לא נודעתי להם tion renders it, In Deo omnipotente, et 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 Abraham by the name Adonai or that it were any thing to the present intendment, which was to encourage Moses and the Israelites by the interpretation of the , and consequently did not read Ado nai 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 13th verse of the 2nd the proper name of God, Jehovah. And had they placed it there as the exposition of any other name of God, they had made an interpretation contrary to the manifest intention of the Spirit: for it cannot be denied but God was known to Abraham by the true importance of the title Adonai, as much as by the name of Shaddai; as much by his dominion and sovereignty, as by his power and all-sufficiency: but by any experimental and personal sense of the fulfilling of his promises his name Jehovah was not known unto him: for though God spake expressly unto Abraham, "All the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever," (Gen. xiii. 15. xxvi. 3.) yet the history teacheth us, and St. Stephen confirmeth us, that "he gave him none inheritance in it, no not so much as to set his foot on, though he promised that he would give it to him for a possession." (Acts vii. 5.) (Acts vii. 5.) Wherefore when God saith 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 same signification with the Hebrew root,* and so denoting the essence or chapter of Malachi 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. Ουζωθ, σηνιθ, θέσου, χεστουθ, δέμα, εθμαζίην, (1. βηκ) πιπι, βεχι, ουανακα, μην, ως, φεννωθ, ελ, αμμανα, φυλακεθ, ρακων, μειδεχεμ, which are a very proper expression of these following Hebrew words, according to the punctuation וזאת שנית תעשו,and reading of that age כסות דמעה את מזבח יהוה בכי ואנקה מאין פנות אל המנחה ולקחת רצון מידכם עוד By which it is evident that Origen in his Hexapla, from whence undoubtedly that ancient scholiast took his various translations, did not read 'Adaval in that place; but kept the Hebrew characters, which they who understood them not, formed into those Greek letters II. 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 St. Jerome 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 to the text: it followeth, that it is no way probable that Kúgos should therefore be used for Jehovah, because it was taken for the proper signification of Adonai. *It is acknowledged by all that is from or, and God's own interpre .Exod אהיה אשר אהיה tation proves no less iii. 14. And though some contend that futurition is essential to the name, yet all agree the root signifieth nothing but essence or existence, that is, Tò elva, or index. Now as from in the Hebrew ', so in the Greek ἀπὸ τοῦ κύρειν Κύριος. And what the proper signification of xús is, no man can teach us better than Hesychius, in whom we read Κύρει, ὑπάρχει, τυγχάνει, κύρω prima longa, κυρῶ prima brevi. Sophocl. Edip. Colon. v. 1158. Παρ ̓ ὦ Θύων ἔκυρον Schol. Θύων ἔκυρον, ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἐκύρουν, ταὐτὸν τῷ ἐτύγχανον. Hence was κύροι by the Attics used for or sit; so I take it from the words of the scholiast upon Sophocles : τὸ κυρῶ περισπωμένως φησὶν ἡ συνήθεια καὶ ̓Αττικοί, ἐν δὲ εὐκτικοῖς βαρύνουσιν αὐτὸ ̓Απο τικοὶ μετὰ ἐκτάσεως τοῦ υ, κύροι λέγοντες, ἀντὶ τοῦ, κυροίη. Not that they used it by an apocope, taking from nugon, but that κύροι was taken in the sense of κυροίη or κυροῖτο, from κύρω, ὑπάρχω, κύροι, εἴη or ὑπάρχοι, as the scholiast upon those words of Sophocles, Electr. v. 849. Duraia deλαίων κυρεῖς· Κυρεῖς, ήγουν, ὑπάρχεις. Neither know I better how to render xuge than |