but had not asserted it in plain and express terms: upon this bare innuendo, the Jews charge him with direct blasphemy: he to evade their malice, and to keep to the truth, neither affirms nor denies that he meant it in the sense which they apprehended. However, his discourse being in general terms, and not explicit enough to found a charge of blasphemy upon, he appeals to their Law, in order to show, that it is not always blasphemy to make one's self God, or to apply the title of God even to mortal men, and men inferior to himself, considered only as man. This was answer sufficient to them; who could not from his own expressions clearly convict him of meaning more, than that he was God in the improper sense of the word, as it had been used, Psalm lxxxii. 6. Nevertheless, he leaves the point of his divinity undecided; or rather, still goes on to insinuate, in words which they could not directly lay hold on, the very thing which they charged him with. This enraged them so much the more: and therefore they again "sought to take him," ver. 39. "But he escaped out of their hand." This interpretation may suffice to take off the force of your argument. Yet the words may admit of other, and perhaps better interpretations, consistent with the principles which I here maintain f.

You proceed to cite Heb. i. 8, 9. and argue thus: "He who being God, calls another his God, and is sanc"tified by him, must needs be God in a subordinate 66 sense;" that is, God improperly so called, or no God. To an old objection, I might return an old answer, in the words of Hilary, or words to the same effect. ❝g This 66 may signify only his subordination, as a Son, or as God "of God, without any inferiority of nature. The Father "is his God, as he is God by being begotten of him.” This answer is direct and full, upon the supposition that

f See True Script. Doct. continued, p. 178. Bisterfield contr. Crell. p. 317. Surenhus. in loc. p. 359.

8 Ad nativitatem refertur; cæterum non perimit naturam; et idcirco Deus ejus est, quia ex eo natus in Deum est. Hil. de Trin. 1. iv. c. 35. p. 848.

the text cited is meant of the divine nature of Christ, or of Christ in his highest capacity. But if it be meant, as h probably it may, of his human nature only, there is no weight in the objection.

As to the Son's being sanctified, I should hardly have thought it of any importance to the cause, had it not been twice insisted on by you. May not the Father design, appoint, consecrate his Son, considered in either capacity, to the office of Mediator, without supposing him of a different and inferior nature to him? Or suppose the sanctifying may be meant of the human nature, which the Father has sanctified, by uniting it to the Aóyos, what force will there remain in your objection? Having answered your pleas and pretences for a subordinate God, I proceed to show, that Christ is not called God in a subordinate or improper sense, but in the same sense, and in as high a sense, as the Father himself is so styled.

1. Because he is called the Jehovah, which is a word of absolute signification, and is the incommunicable name of the one true God.

i He is, very probably, called Jehovah, Luke i. 16, 17. "Many shall he" (viz. John the Baptist) "turn to the Lord "their God, and he shall go before him." The Doctor owns that, in strictness of construction, the words (the Lord their God) must be understood of Christ. And therefore Christ is Lord God, or Jehovah Eloim, which comes to the same.

He is likewise called the "Lord God of the Prophets," as appears from Rev. xxii. 6. compared with ver. 16. of the same chapter. This may be farther confirmed by comparing the texts following.

Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth, Ps. cii. 25. &c. Addressed to the Jehovah.

k Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, Heb. i. 10.

h See Bennet's Discourse on the Trinity, p. 31. 33. &c.

i See this text excellently defended and illustrated in True Scripture Doctrine continued, p. 132, 133, &c. See also my Sermons, p. 203.

k See Surenhusii Conciliation. in loc. p. 600.

And the Lord (Jehovah) said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them, Zech. xi. 13.

They shall look on me (Jehovah speaking by the Prophet) whom they have pierced, Zech. xii. 10.

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, (Jehovah,) Is. xl. 3. The Lord said-I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord (Jehovah) their God, Hos. i. 6, 7.

I Then was fulfilled that which was spoken, &c. Matth. xxvii. 9, 10.

Another Scripture saith, They shall look on him (Jesus Christ) whom they have pierced, John xix.

37.

m The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, Mark i. 3.

- is born in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord, Luke ii. 11.

I have produced the texts again, in order to take notice of the very peculiar way which you have of evading. It is your avowed principle, that Christ is not Jehovah in his own Person, (p. 24. and elsewhere;) and that the Person called Jehovah is the Father only. What then must be said to these texts, which are so very plain and express to the contrary; insomuch that Dr. Clarke himself owns, that the name "Jehovah is given to that visible "Person (meaning Christ) who appeared as representing "the Person of the invisible God?" He does not say, it was given to the Person represented only, but to the Person representing also; which you seem to deny. But you confound yourself with your own comment upon Hos. i. 7. " (Jehovah would-save them by Jehovah their "God;)" "that is," say you, "that Jehovah himself "would save them, but not in his own Person." Well then, it is by another Person, which Person the text expressly calls Jehovah.

Upon Zech. xii. 10. compared with John xix. 37. you comment thus, (p. 26.) "The sufferings of Christ might

1 Surenhus. in loc. p. 280.

Surenhus. in Matt. iii. 3. p. 207. I refer to this author, to obviate the pretence, that these texts might be understood only by way of accommodation.

"well be called the sufferings of Jehovah, being pierced "in effigy in his Son, who is the express image of his "Person." What a fanciful turn is here, merely to elude the force of plain Scripture. Say rather, that since Christ is the effigies, the express image of the Father, he might justly be called Jehovah, which indeed he is, as well as the Father. I shall dwell no longer on so clear and indisputable a point. What you hint, that the Father and Son cannot both be Jehovah, or, as you express it, one individual being, meaning one person, is hardly deserving notice; because it is nothing but playing with the word individual, and disputing against nobody: either take the word in our sense of it, or pretend not that you oppose us. It has been observed above, that antiquity is every where full and express in this matter; never questioning, but constantly asserting, that the Son is Jehovah; and so called, in Scripture, in his own Person, and in his own right, as coessential Son of God. The next thing which I have to observe, is, that Jehovah is a word of absolute signification. The relative terms do not suit with it, as with the other. We do not read, my Jehovah, or your Jehovah, or the Jehovah of Israel, as is pertinently remarked by a learned P gentleman; and the same gentleman observes, that it is sometimes rendered by Oeds, or God: from whence we may just take notice, by the way, that the word eòs, or God, in Scripture, is not always, perhaps very rarely, a mere relative word. That Jehovah is a word of absolute signification, expressing God, as he is, may be proved both from 9 Scripture itself and the I authorities of the best critics in this case. What you have to object against it shall be here examined with all ⚫ convenient brevity. You make the import of the name

P The True Script. Doct. of the Trin. continued, p. 134.

See this proved in the Appendix to the Considerations on Mr. Whiston's History. Pref. p. 101.

See the authorities cited in the second part of the Considerations, by the same author, p. 2, 3. and referred to in True Scripture Doctrine con

tinued, p. 133, 134.

Page 19.

Jehovah to be, giving being to (i. e. performing) his promises. For reasons best known to yourself, you slip over Exod. iii. 14, 15. which might probably give us the most light into the matter, and choose to found all your reasonings upon Exod. vi. 2, 3. &c. an obscure place, on which you have made almost as obscure a comment. The words are, "I am the Lord, (Jehovah :) and I appeared "unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, (El Shaddai,) but by my 66 name Jehovah was I not known to them."

You do not, I presume, so understand this text, as if this was the first time that God revealed himself by the name Jehovah: that he had done before, Exod. iii. 14 and even long before that, to Abram, Gen. xv. 7. and Abram had addressed him, under that name, sooner, Gen. xv. 2. nay, it may be run up yet higher, even to Adam and Eve, Gen. iv. 1.t

Your meaning therefore, I suppose, must be, that God had given many instances of his power before, conformable to his name El Shaddai: but now, he was to give them instances of his veracity and constancy in performing promises, conformable to his name Jehovah. This, I think, either is or should be your sense of this obscure passage. That it is not the true sense of the place is next to be shown.

1. It appears to be a very strained and remote interpretation. The primary signification of Jehovah is Being, by your own confession, and as all know, that know any thing: and the most obvious reason of the name is, that God is Being itself, necessarily existing, independent, immutable, always the same; according to that of Mal. iii. 6. "I am the Lord, (Jehovah,) I change not." After

M. Le Clerc thinks that all this may be solved by a prolepsis. Com. in Exod. iii. 15. To which it is sufficient to answer, that it may be otherwise; and that it is highly improbable, that Moses, who was particularly careful not to introduce the name of Abraham and Sarah before the proper time, should not be as careful in respect of a more venerable name, the name of God himself.