Rom. v. 8: viii. 32. 10. the infinite love of God appearing in the sending of his onlybegotten Son into the world to die for sinners. This love of John iii. 16. God is frequently extolled and admired by the apostles. God so loved the world, saith St John, that he gave his only-begotten Son. God commendeth his love towards us, saith St Paul, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us: in that he 1.John iv. 9, spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. In this, saith St John again, was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. If we look upon all this as nothing else, but that God should cause a man to be born after another manner than other men, and when he was so born after a peculiar manner, yet a mortal man, should deliver him to die for the sins of the world; I see no such great expression of his love in this way of redemption, more than would have appeared if he had redeemed us any other way. It is true indeed that the reparation of lapsed man is no act of absolute necessity in respect of God, but that he hath as freely designed our redemption as our 144 creation; considering the misery from which we are redeemed, and the happiness to which we are invited, we cannot but acknowledge the singular love of God even in the act of redemption itself; but yet the apostles have raised that consideration higher, and placed the choicest mark of the love of God, in the choosing such means, and performing in that manner our reparation, by sending his only-begotten into the world; by not sparing his own Son, by giving and delivering him up to be scourged and crucified for us: and the estimation of this act of God's love must necessarily increase 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 so 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 co-eternal. 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 so 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 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 com 1 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 PEARSON because denied by the Valentinians, of whom Irenæus: Διὰ τοῦτο τὸν Σω τῆρα λέγουσιν, οὐδὲ γὰρ Κύριον ὀνομάζειν αὐτὸν θέλουσι. 1. i. c. r. [3 3. p. 7.] 18 pared to him must not be looked upon as sons of God, but as Three things are necessary, and more cannot be, for a 145 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 evangelists and apostles determinately for Christ1, insomuch Matt. xxvii. that the angels observe that dialect, Come, see the place where the Lord lay. Now for the true notation of the word, it will not be so necessary to inquire into the use or origination of the 6. 1 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. Kúpios. 2 For whosoever shall consider the Τοῦ σώματος γὰρ οὐκ ἐᾷ τὸν κύριον vos the person bought, that is, the servant; whereas the place requires an interpretation wholly contrary; for ἐωνημένος is not here ἠγορασμένος, but ἀγοράσας, οι 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 sufficiently secure us of this sense: Ἔτυχον εωνημένος οἰκίαν ἢ ἀγρόν. ἐνταῦθα οὐδὲν ἐγχωρεῖ τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ πρίασθαι· μένει τὸ ἐωνημένος δόκιμον. Εωνημένος then here is he which buyeth, that is, the master; and consequently Kúpιos 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 deoTÓTηs as appears by that observation of Ammonius, thus delivered by Eustathius in Odyss. E. 146. Kúpios γυναικὸς καὶ υἱῶν ἀνὴρ καὶ πατήρ, δεσπότης δὲ ἀργυρωνήτων. : 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 Testament sometimes for men, with no relation unto any other 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, 1 As x is generally translated Kúpios, 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 Eliezer his master Abraham, Gen. xxiv. frequently. Thus Rachel saluteth her father Laban, Gen. xxxi. 35. and Jacob his brother Esau, Gen. xxxiii. 8. Potiphar is the Kúpios of Joseph whom he bought, Gen. xxxix. 2, &c. and Joseph in power is so saluted by his brethren, Gen. xlii. 10. and acknowledged by his servant, Gen. xliv. 5. The general name in the law of Moses for servant and master is παῖς and κύριος, 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 on the name of man so translated, as 1 Sam. xvii. 32. της στο 25 50 μὴ δὴ συμπεσέτω καρδία τοῦ κυρίου μου ἐπ' αὐτόν. [The LXX. here have obviously misread □ for [אדני: • For kúptos is used with relation and in opposition to παιδίσκη, Acts xvi. 16, in the sense which the later, not the ancient, Greeks used it: Пaudiσκη, τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῆς θεραπαίνης οἱ νῦν τιθέασιν· οἱ δὲ ἀρχαῖοι ἐπὶ τῆς νεάνιδος, as Phrynichus observes. As it is opposed to olkerns, Luke xvi. 13. (according to that of Etymol. Κύριος τῶν πρός τι ἐστίν, ἔχει δὲ πρὸς τὸν οἰκέτην.) to doulos, Matt. x. 24. and xviii. 25, &c. And in the apostolical rules pertaining to Christian economics, the master and servant are δοῦλο and κύριος. Ας also by way of addition κύριος τοῦ θερισμού, Matt. ix. 38. κύριος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος, Matt. xx. 8. κύριος τῆς oixías, Mark xiii. 35. Insomuch as Kúpte is sometimes used by way of address or salutation of one man to another, (as it is now generally among the later Greeks, and as Dominus was anciently among the Latins: 'Quomodo obvios, si nomen non succurrit, Dominos salutamus.' Sen. Epist. 3. § 1.) not only of servants to masters, as Matt. xiii. 27. or sons to parents, as Matt. xxi. 30. or inferiors to men in authority, as Matt. xxvii. 63. but of strangers; as when the Greeks spake to Philip, and desired him, saying, Κύριε, θέλομεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ideîv, John xii. 21. and Mary Magdalene speaking unto Christ, but taking him for a gardener, Kúpie, el où ¿ßáoTaσas avтór, John xx. 15. And it cannot be denied but this title was sometimes given to our Saviour himself, in no higher or other sense than this; as when the Samaritan woman saw him alone at the well, and knew no more of him than that he appeared to be one of the Jews, she said, Kúpɩe, οὔτε ἄντλημα ἔχεις, καὶ τὸ φρέαρ ἐστὶ Balú, John iv. 11. And the infirm man at the pool of Bethesda, when he wist not who it was, said unto him, Κύριε, ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἔχω, John v. 7. The blind man, to whom he had restored his sight, with the same salutation maketh confession of his ignorance, and his faith, Tís eori, Kúpie; and TOTEúw, Kúpte, John ix. 36, 38. 1 Cor. viii. 5. there are many Lords, but he is in that notion Lord, which 1 Cor. viii. 6. admits of no more than one. They are only masters according to the flesh; he the Lord of glory, the Lord from heaven, King of kings, and Lord of all other lords. Eph. iv. 5. 1 Cor. ii. 8; Rev. xix. 16. Nor is it difficult to find that name amongst the books of 146 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 Psal. Ixxxiii. and particular expression. As when we read, Thou whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high in all the earth; Exod. vi. 3. and when God so expresseth himself, 1 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 undoubtedly by that word which we translate the Lord' 18 1 I know it is the vulgar opinion, that Kúpios properly answereth unto , and the reason why it was also used for m 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 Jehova in lectione Hebræorum verborum substitui consuevit, ideo illius etiam interpretatio huic accommodatur,' says Crellius de Deo et Attrib. c. 14. [p. 35. Opera. vol. v.] But first it is not probable that the LXX. should think kúpios to be the proper interpretation of 78, 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 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 ôéσжота kúρie, Gen. xv. 8edrooms 8 האדון יהוה צבאות and .28 Kúpios Zaßawe, Isai. i. 24. but also , and Josephus before them ex- though the ,שדי ושמי יהוה לא נודעתי להם Vulgar translation render it, In Deo |