Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Christ in a notion far surpassing all other lords, which are rather to be looked upon as servants unto him: it will be worth our inquiry next, whether as it is the translation of the name Jehovah it belong to Christ; or whether though he be Lord of all other lords, as subjected under his authority, yet he be so inferior unto him whose name alone is Jehovah, as that in that propriety and eminency in which it belongs unto the supreme God it may not be attributed unto Christ.

This doubt will easily be satisfied, if we can shew the name Jehovah itself to be given unto our Saviour; it being against all reason to acknowledge the original name, and to deny the interpretation in the sense and full importance of that original. Wherefore if Christ be the Jehovah, as so called by the Spirit of God; then is he so the Lord, in the same propriety and eminency in which Jehovah is. Now whatsoever did belong to the Messias, that may and must be attributed unto Jesus, as being the true and only Christ. But the Jews themselves acknowledge that Jehovah shall be known clearly in the days of the Messias, and not only so, but that it is the name which properly belongeth to him. And if they cannot but confess so much who only read the prophecies, as the eunuch did, without an interpreter; how can we be ignorant of so plain and necessary a truth, whose eyes have seen the full completion, and read the infallible interpretation of them? If they could see" Jehovah the Lord of hosts" to be the name of the Messias, who was to them" for a stone of stumbling and rock of offence," (Isa. viii. 13, 14.) how can we possibly be ignorant of it, who are taught by St. Paul, that in Christ this prophecy was fulfilled, "As it is written, Behold, I lay in Ŝion a stumbling-stone, and rock of offence, and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." (Rom. ix. 33.) It was no other than Jehovah who spake these words, "I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord (Jehovah) their God, and will not save them by bow nor sword." (Hos. i. 7.)+ Where not only he who is described as the original and principal cause, that is, the Father who gave his Son, but also he who is the immediate efficient of our salvation, and that in opposition to all other means or instrumental causes, is called Jehovah; who can be no other than our Jesus, because" there is no other name under heaven same who is called Iah. For that it Being then there were so many ought so to be read, appeareth by the among the Greeks, which did in all former words of Origen: Olovrai Tòv ages express the Hebrew name, it διελθόντα τὸν ̓Ιαλδαβαωθ καὶ φθάσαντα can be no way probable that the ἐπὶ τὸν Ιὰ δεῖν λέγειν, Σὺ δὲ κρυπτο- LXX. should avoid it as inexpresμένων μυστηρίων υἱοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἄρχων sible in their language. νυκτοφανὴς δεύτερε Ιαώ. Ibid. §. 31. In the printed copy indeed it is ladeiv, and in the Latin Iadin, but without sense: whereas dividing the words, the sense is manifest, and the reason of the former emendation apparent. of Jehovah, for Jehovah.

As Midrasch Tillim on Psal. xxi. Echa Rabati Lam. i. 6.

Where it is farther observable that the Chaldee paraphrase hath for by the word

given unto men whereby we must be saved." (Acts iv. 12.) As in another place he speaketh, "I will strengthen them in the Lord (Jehovah), and they shall walk up and down in his name saith the Lord (Jehovah)," (Zech. x. 12.) where he which strengtheneth is one, and he by whom he strengtheneth is another, clearly distinguished from him by the personal pronoun, and yet each of them is Jehovah, and “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." (Deut. vi. 4.) Whatsoever objections* • Two adversaries we have to the pretended, there is not so great a siexposition of this place, the Jew and militude as to enforce the same interthe Socinian; only with this diffe- pretation. For whereas in Jerem. rence, that we find the less opposition xxiii. 6. it is expressly said, m from the Jew, from whom indeed we this is the name, in the xxxiii. 16. it have so ample a concession as will is only without any mention of a destroy the other's contradiction. name; and surely that place cannot First, Socinus answers, the name be- prove Jehovah to be the name of longeth not to Christ, but unto Israel: Israel, which speaks not one word of and that it so appears by a parallel the name of Jerusalem for where place in the same prophet, Jer. xxxiii. we read in Crellius,hoc scilicet 15, 16. Socin. refut. Jac, Wieki, cap. nomen est,' all but hoc is not in Scrip6. Catech. Racov. de Pers. Christi, c. ture, but the gloss of Crellius, and hoc 1. Crellius de Deo et Attrib. 1. i. c. itself cannot be warranted for the in11. To this we first oppose the con- terpretation of nor quo for WN; stant interpretation of the Jews, who the simplest interpretation of those

,being וזה אשר יקרא לה attribute the name Jehovah to the words

Messias from this one particular text. As in the Sepher Ikkarim. 1. ii. c. 8. " TUDT DU " PT The Scripture calleth the name of the Messias "Jehovah our righteousness." And in Misdrasch Tillim on Psal. xxi.

iste qui vocabit eam, he which calleth Jerusalem, is the Lord our righteousness, that is, Christ. And thus the first answer of Socinus is invalid: which he easily foreseeing, hath joined with the Jewish Rabbins in the 55 second answer, admitting that “Je

hovah our righteousness is the name בשמו. ומהו שמו יהוה שנ" יהוה of the Messias, but withal denying איש מלחמה יהוה שמו ובמלך that Christ is that Jehovah. To which המשיח כתיב וזה שמו אשר יקראו

PM God calleth the Messias purpose they assert these words, “Jeby his own name, and his name is Jehovah our righteousness," to be delihovah; as it is said (Exod. xv. 3.) vered by way of proposition, not of “The Lord is a man of war, Jehovah apposition: and this they endeavour is his name." And it is written of the to prove by such places of Scripture Messias, (Jer. xxiii. 6.) " And this is the name which they shall call him, built an altar, and called the name as seem to infer as much. As Moses Jehovah our righteousness," Thus of it " Jehovah Nissi," Exod. xvii. Echa Rabati, Lam. i. 6. 15. Gideon built an altar unto the

-Lord, and called it Jehovah Sha משוח אל" אבא יהוה שמו שנ" וזה

UPTY TIT IN U What lom," Judg. vi. 24. And the name

is the name of the Messias? R. Abba of the city in the last words of Ezekiel said, Jehovah is his name; as it is said is "Jehovah Shammah." In all (Jer. xxiii. 6.) "And this is the name which places it is most certain, that which they shall call him, Jehovah the Jehovah is not predicated of that our righteousness." The same he of whose name it is a part; but is the reports of Rabbi Levi. The Rabbins subject of a proposition, given by way then, though enemies to the truth of nomination, whose verb substanwhich we deduce from thence, con- tive or copula is understood. But strained by the literal importance of from thence to conclude, that "the the text, did acknowledge that the Lord our righteousness" can be no name Jehovah did belong to the Mes- otherwise understood of Christ than sias. And as for the collection of as a proposition, and that we by callthe contrary from the parallel place ing him so, according to the prophet's

[ocr errors]

may be framed against us, we know Christ is the "righteous branch raised unto David, the King that shall reign and pros per, in whose days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely;" (Jer. xxiii. 5, 6.) we are assured that "this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our righteousness:" (Ibid.) "the Lord," that is, Jehovah, the expression of his supremacy; and the addition of" our righteousness" can be no diminution to his majesty. If those words in the pro phet, "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Sion; for lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord (Jehovah )," (Zech. ii. 10.) did not sufficiently of themselves denote our Saviour who dwelt amongst us, as they certainly do ; yet the words which follow would evince as much; "And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people; and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee:" (Ibid. 11.) for what other Lord can we conceive dwelling in the midst of us, and sent unto us by the Lord of hosts, but Christ?

And as the original Jehovah was spoken of Christ by the holy prophets; so the title of Lord, as the usual interpretation

[ocr errors]

prediction, can understand no more teousness:" for the apostle hath exthereby, than that God the Father of Christ doth justify us, is most 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, must acknowledge that it may be given unto Christ, whom they confess to be above all angels, and far more fully and exactly to represent the Father. Secondly, That which is the addition in those names cannot be truly predicated of that thing which bears the name. Moses could not say that altar was his exaltation, nor Gideon that it was his peace. And if it could not so be predicated by itself, it could neither be by apposition, and, consequently, even in this respect, it was necessary to make the name a proposition. But our righteousness may undoubtedly be predicated of him, who is here called by the name of the Lord our righ

pressly taught us, that he “is made unto us righteousness," 1 Cor. i. 30. And if it may be in itself, there can be no repugnancy in its predication by way of apposition. Thirdly, that addition of our righteousness doth not only truly belong to Christ, but in some manner properly and peculiarly so, as in that notion it can be. long to no other person called Jehovah, but to that Christ alone. For he alone is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,” Rom, x. 4. And when he is said to be "made unto us righteousness," 1 Cor. i. 30. he is thereby distinguished from God the Father. Being then Christ is thus peculiarly called our righteousness in the Gospel, being the place of the prophet forementioned speaketh of this as a name to be used under the Gospel, being no other person called Jehovah is ever expressly called our righteousness in the Gospel; it followeth, not only that Christ may be so called, but that the prophecy cannot otherwise be fulfilled, than by acknowledging that Christ is "the Lord our righteousness:" and, consequently, that is his name, not by way of proposition, but of apposition and appropriation; so that being both Jehovah and our righteousness, he is as truly Jehovah as our righteousness.

[ocr errors]

of that name, was attributed unto him by the apostles. In that signal prediction of the first age of the Gospel, God promised by Joel, that " whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord (Jehovah) shall be delivered:" (Joel ii. 32.) and St. Paul hath assured us that Christ is that Lord, by proving from thence, that "whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed;" and inferring from that, "if we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus, we shall be saved." (Rom. x. 9. 11.) For if it be a certain truth, that whosoever confesseth the Lord Jesus shall be saved ;" and the certainty of this truth de. pend upon that foundation, that "whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed;" and the certainty of that in relation to Christ depend upon that other promise, "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved:" (Ibid. 13.) then must the Lord in the thirteenth verse of the tenth chapter to the Romans be the same with the Lord Jesus in the ninth verse; or else St. Paul's argument must be invalid and fallacious, as containing that in the conclusion which was not comprehended in the premises. But the Lord in the ninth verse is no other than Jehovah, as appeareth by the prophet Joel from whom that scripture is taken. Therefore our Saviour in the New Testament is called Lord, as that name or title is the interpretation of Jehovah.

If we consider the office of John the Baptist peculiar unto him, we know it was "he of whom it is written (in the prophet Malachi, iii. 1.) I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:" (Matt. xi. 10.) we are sure he which spake those words was (Jehovah) "the Lord of hosts;" and we are sure that Christ is that Lord before whose face John the Baptist prepared the way. "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, (saith Isaiah, xl. 3.) Prepare ye the way of the Lord (Jehovah):" and "this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah," saith St. Matthew (iii. 3.) this is he of whom his father Zechariah did divinely presage," Thou, child, shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest, for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his way." (Luke i. 76.) Where Christ is certainly the Lord, and the Lord undeniably Jehovah.*

I say therefore undeniably, be- times by the whole Catholic Church, cause it is not only the undoubted must be examined, censured, and contranslation of the name in the demned, by ò, ǹ, ró. Socinus first prophet (which of itself were suffi- makes use of this observation against cient); but also is delivered in that Wiekus; and after him Crellius: hath manner which is (though unreason- laid it as a grave and serious foundaably) required to signify the proper tion, and spread it out into its several name of God, πpoжopεúσy yàp pò corners, to uphold the fabric of his suTрorrov Kupiou, not rov Kupiov, that perstructions. First: Vox Jehovah is, without, not with, an article. For magis quam cætera Dei nomina pronow our Saviour's Deity must be tried priorum naturam sequitur; ideo etby a kind of school divinity, and the iam Græca Kúpios, cum pro illa ponimost fundamental doctrine, maintain- tur, propriorum indolem, qua licet, ed as such ever since the apostles' æmulatur.' Lib. de Deo, c. 14. Se

Nor is this the only notation of the name or title Lord taken in a sense divine, above the expression of all mere human

7. 2 Cor. v. 11. Eph. v. 17. 19. Col. iii. 16. 20. 23. 2 Thess. iii. 3. 2 Tim. i. 16. Heb. viii. 2. 11. xii. 14. Jam. iv. 10. 15. 1 Pet. ii. 3. For the Son, Matt. iii. 3. xxii. 43. 45. Mark i. 3. Luke i. 76. ii. 11. iii. 4. xx. 44. John i. 23. Acts ii. 36. x. 36. xi. 16. 21. xv. 11. Rom. i. 7. x. 9. 12. xiv. 6.

condly: Propriis nominibus articulus libentius subtrahitur, licet eum etiam sæpe concinnitatis potius quam necessitatis causa admittant. Idem fit in voce Kúpos cum pro Jehovah ponitur.' Ibid. Thirdly: 'Hæc est causa cur in Novo Testamento, maxime apud Lucam et Paulum, vox Kúpoc, cum Deum summum designat, articu- 8. 14. xvi. 2. 8. 11-13. 22. 1 Cor. i. lo libentius careat; at cum de Christo 3. iv. 17. vii. 22. 25. 39. ix. 1, 2. x. subjective usurpatur, raro articulus 21. xi. 11. xii. 3. xiv. 37. xv. 58. xvi. omittitur.' Ibid. What strange uncer- 10. 19. 2 Cor. i. 2. ii. 12. iv. 5. x. 17. tainties are these, to build the denial of xi. 17. xii. 1. Gal. i. 3. v. 10. Eph. i. so important an article as Christ's Di- 2. ii. 21. iv. 1. 5. 17. v. 8. vi. 1. 4. 10. vinity upon? He does not say abso- 21. 23. Phil. i. 2. 14. ii. 11. 19. 24. lutely Jehovah is the proper name of 29. iii. 1. 20. iv. 1, 2. 10. Col. i, 2. God, but only that it doth more follow iii. 17, 18. 24. iv. 7. 17. 1 Thess. i. 1. the nature of proper names than the iii. 8. iv. 1. 15. 17. v. 2. 12. 2 Thess. other names of God. And indeed it i. 1, 2. ii. 13. iii. 4. 1 Tim. ì. 1. 2 is certain that sometimes it hath the Tim. ii. 24. Tit. i. 4. Philem. 3. 16. nature of an appellative, as Deut. vi. 20. Jam. i. 1. 2 Pet. iii. 8, 10, 2 John 4. 8 "the 3. Jude 14. Rev. xiv. 13. xix. 16.) Lord our God is one Lord;" and yet I say, they are thus so often used, if it be not always and absolutely a that though they equal not the numproper name, though all the rest were ber of their contrary acceptions, yet granted to be true, the argument they come so near, as to yield no must be of no validity. Again, he ground for any such observation, as cannot say an article is never affixed if the Holy Ghost intended any such to a proper name, but only that liben- article-distinction. Nay, it is most tius subtrahitur, it is rather omitted evident that the sacred penmen inthan affixed: which yet is far from a tended no such distinction, becausecertain or a true rule, especially in in the same place speaking of the the language of the New Testament, For no man can deny Jesus to be the proper name of Christ, given him according to the law at his circumcision, καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς, Luke ii. 21. and yet whosoever shall read the Gospel of St. Matthew, will find it ten times ὁ Ἰησοῦς with an article, for once Ἰησοῦς without it. And in the Acts of the Apostles, written in a more Attic style, St. Paul is oftener styled & Hauλog than simply Παῦλος. So Balaam, Gallio, &c. Some persons we find in the New Testament, whom, if we should stay till we found them without an article, we should never call by their names at all; as Apelles, Balak, &c. Thirdly, ò Kúpos is so often used for that God who is the Father with an article, and Kupios for the Son without an article, (for the Father, Matt. i. 22. ii. 15. v. 33. xxii. 44. Mark xii. 36. Luke i. 6. 9. 15. 25. 46. ii. 15. 22, 23. x. 2. Acts ii. 25. 34. iii. 19. xvii. 27. Rom. xv. 11. 1 Cor. x. 26. xvi.

[ocr errors]

same person, they usually observe
the indifferency of adding or omitting
the article. As Jam. v. 11. Tyv
ὑπομονὴν Ἰὼβ ἠκούσατε, καὶ τὸ τέλος
Κυρίου εἴδετε, ὅτι πολύσπλαγχνός ἐστιν
ò Kúpos kai oikτipμwv, 2 Tim. i. 18.
Δῴη αὐτῷ ὁ Κύριος εὑρεῖν ἔλεος παρὰ
Κυρίου ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. 1 Cor. vii.
17. "Εκαστον ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ Κύριος, οὕτω
Tεpirarɛirw, ver, 22. O yàp iv Kupių,
κληθεὶς δοῦλος, ἀπελεύθερος Κυρίου ἐστί.
See Rom. xiv. 6-8. Wherefore
being Jehovah is not affirmed abso-
Jutely 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 oftener with-
out an article than with one; being
& Kúpoc is so often taken for him
whom they acknowledge God, and
Kúpos for him whom they cannot
deny to be the Christ: it followeth
that Christ, acknowledged to be the
Lord, cannot by any virtue of an
article be denied to be the true Je-
hovah. We must not then think to

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »