Jer. xxiii 5. Christ is the righteous Branch raised unto David, the King that shall reign and prosper, in whose days Judah shall be saved, 6. one particular text. As in the Sepher Ikkarim, 1. ii. c. 28. being, iste qui vocabit אשר יקרא לה ויקרא הכתוב שם צדקנר The Scripture calleth המשיח יי" the name of the Messias, Jehovah our righteousness. And in Midrash Tillim וקורא למלך המשיח *.2 .on Psal. xxi יהוה שנ" יהוה איש שמו בשמו ומה מלחמה יהוה שמו ובמלך המשיח כתיב God וזה שמו אשר יקראו יהוה צדקנו calleth the [king] Messias by his own name, and his name is Jehovah; as it is said (Exod. xv. 3), The Lord is a man of war, Jehovah is his name. And it is written of the [king] Messias, (Jer. xxiii. 6.) And this is the name which they shall call him, Jehovah our righteousness. Thus Echa Rabbathi, Lam. i. 16. [fol. 58. col. 2. ed. 1556.] מה שמו של מלך המשיח רבי אבא אמר ה' יקראו ה' אשר שמו וזה שנאמר שמו p What is the name of the Messias? R. Abba said, Jehovah is his name; as it is said (Jer. xxiii. 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 similitude as to inforce the same interpretation. For whereas in Jerem. xxiii, 6. it is expressly said, mw nn this is the [his] name, in the xxxiii. 16. it is only 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 scilicet nomen est,' all but hoc is not Scripture, but the gloss of Crellius, and hoc itself cannot be warranted for the interpretation of nor quo for wx; the simplest interpretation of those words n 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 second answer, admitting that Jehovah our righteousness is the name of the Messias, but withal denying that the Christ is that Jehovah. To which purpose they assert those words, Jehovah our righteousness, to be delivered by way of proposition, 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 Nissi, Exod. xvii. 15. Gideon built an altar unto the Lord, and called it Jehovah Shalom, Judg. vi. 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, whose verb substantive or copula 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 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 *The citation from the Midrash Tillim as here given is taken from Martini's Pugio Fidei, p. 652. In the editions of Constantinople, 1512; Venice, 1546; and Amsterdam, 1730, the passage is found in a more abrupt and condensed form. 149 6. and Israel shall dwell safely; we are assured that this is his Jer. xxiii. 5, 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 righteousness: for the apostle hath expressly 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 (Jehovah) shall be delivered: 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 Rom. x. 9,11. if we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus, we 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 shall not be ashamed; and the certainty of that in relation to Christ deRom. x. 13. pend 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 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. Mal. iii. 1. Isai. xl. 3. way. 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 Matt. xi. 10. Malachi), I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the 150 way before me: we are sure he which spake those words was (Jehovah) the Lord of Hosts; and we are as sure that Christ is that Lord before whose face John the Baptist prepared the The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, (saith Matt. iii. 3. Isaiah,) Prepare ye the way of the Lord (Jehovah): and this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saith St Matthew, this is he of whom his father Zachariah 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 ways. Where Christ is certainly the Lord, and the Lord undeniably Jehovah1. Luke i. 76. 1 I say therefore undeniably, because it is not only the undoubted translation of the name in the prophet (which of itself were sufficient); but also is delivered in that manner which is (though unreasonably) required to signify the proper name of God, προπορεύσῃ γὰρ πρὸ προσώπου Κυρίου, not τοῦ Κυρίου, that is, without, not with, an article. For now our Saviour's Deity must be tried by a new kind of school divinity, and Nor is this the only notation of the name or title Lord taken in a sense divine, above the expression of all mere fit in voce Kúpios cum pro Jehovah ponitur.' Ibid. Thirdly: 'Hæc est causa, cur in Novo Testamento, maxime apud Lucam et Paulum, vox Kúpios, cum Deum summum designat, articulo libentius careat; at cum de Christo subjective usurpatur, raro articulus omittitur.' Ibid. What strange uncertainties are these, to build the denial of so important an article as Christ's Divinity upon? He does not say absolutely Jehovah is the proper name of God, but only that it doth more follow the nature of proper names than the other names of God. And indeed it is certain that sometimes it hath the nature of an appellative, as Deut. vi. 4. bæ The Lord our God is one Lord; and yet if it be not always and absolutely 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 libentius subtrahitur, it is rather omitted than affixed: which yet is far from a certain or a true rule, especially in the language of the New Testament. 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 'Inooûs without it. And in the Acts of the Apostles, written in a more Attic style, St Paul is oftener styled ὁ Παῦλος 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, o Kúpios is so often used for that God who is the Father with an article, and Kúpios 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. 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. Acts ii. 36. x. 36. Rom. i. 7. x. 9. xvi. 2. 8. 11-13. 17. vii. 22. 25. 39. xx. 44. John i. 23. xi. 16. 21. xv. 11. 12. xiv. 6. 8. 14. 22. 1 Cor. i. 3. iv. ix. 1. 2. x. 21. xi. 11. xii. 3. xiv. 37. xv. 58. xvi. 10. 19. 2 Cor. i. 2. ii. 12. iv. 5. x. 17. xi. 17. xii. 1. Gal. i. 3. v. 10. Eph. i. 2. ii. 21. iv. 1. 5. 17. v. 8. vi. 1. 4. 10. 21. 23. Phil. i. 2. 14. ii. 11. 19. 24. 29. iii. 1. 20. iv. 1. 2. 10. Col. i. 2. iii. 17. 18. 24. iv. 1. 7. 17. 1 Thess. i. 1. iii. 8. iv. 1. 15. 17. v. 2. 12. 2 Thess. i. 1. 2. ii. 13. iii. 4. 1 Tim. i. 1. 2 Tim. ii. 24. Tit. i. 4. Philem. 3. 16. 20. Jam. i. 1. 2 Pet. iii. 8. 10. 2 John 3. Jude 14. Rev. xiv. 13. xix. 16. I say, they are thus so often used), 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 article-distinction. Nay, it is most evident that the sacred penmen intended no such distinction, because in the same place speaking of the same person, they usually observe the indifferency of adding or omitting the article. As Jam. v. 11. Τὴν ὑπομονὴν Ἰὼβ ἠκούσατε, καὶ τὸ τέλος Κυρίου εἴδετε, ὅτι human power and dominion; for as it is often used as the interpretation of the name Jehovah, so is it also for that of Psal. cx. 1. Adon or Adonai. The Lord said unto my Lord, saith David, Mal. iii. 1. that is, in the original, Jehovah unto Adon; and that Adon is the Word', that Lord is Christ. We 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 appeareth by that prophecy, The Lord3 whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in. Now this notation, as it is the interpretation of Adon, 151 signifieth immediately and properly dominion implying a right of possession, and power of disposing. Which doth not only agree with that other notion of Jehovah, but presupposes it, as following and flowing from it. For he who alone hath a being or existence of himself, and thereby is the fountain of all things beside himself, must be acknowledged to have full πολύσπλαγχνός ἐστιν ὁ Κύριος καὶ Vulgar edition, Rev. i. 8. hath Meyeɩ 1 Chaldee paraphrase*. 2 [Prophet, in the third Edition.] *Bp. Pearson has taken this citation from Martini's Pugio Fidei [p. 705]; "notandum autem |