this, in the natural order, he may be considered as the fountain of being, or giving being to all other things: so that this seems but a secondary notion of Jehovah. Yours is more remote still: it is giving being, not to the world, to angels, or to men, but to words and promises; that is, fulfilling them. And this metaphorical sense, of giving being, you would put upon us, for the proper and special import of the name Jehovah, expressing Being. Who does not see that this is strained and far-fetched?

2. The reason which you assign for this interpretation, is as lame as the interpretation itself. God, it seems, was now coming to fulfil the promise made to Abraham; and therefore reminds his people of the name Jehovah, as importing one faithful and punctual to his word. But what if Jehovah should import one eternal and immutable God, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever; might not the consideration thereof be very proper to raise in men's minds the greatest confidence and assurance imaginable, that he should never fail of his word?

3. Besides, what account will you give of many other places of Scripture, where God reminds his people, that he is Jehovah, and where there is no reference at all to promises or the like?

Thus, in this very chapter, Exod. vi. 29. "I am the “Lord, (Jehovah :) speak thou unto Pharaoh king of "Egypt all that I say unto thee." Again; "Against "all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am "Jehovah," Exod. xii. 12. "None of you shall approach ❝to any that is near of kin to him-I am Jehovah," Lev. xviii. 6. "I am the Lord, (Jehovah :) that is my "name; and my glory will I not give to another, nei"ther my praise to graven images," Is. xlii. 8. u Many more places of like nature might be cited; but I choose

■ Mons. Le Clerc, upon the place, endeavours by quirk and subtilty to turn several passages, wherein the Jehovah is mentioned, to one particular sense, in favour of the Sabellians. But that author and his manner are well known, and with what bias he writes. The very instances which he brings are enough to confute him.

What I intend

to refer you to a concordance for them. from them is this; that if yours be the true account of the special import of the name Jehovah, it will be hard to find any sense or pertinency in those, or other frequent repetitions of it. But understanding the word as it has been generally understood by persons of the greatest learning and judgment, all is clear, pertinent, and con

sistent.

But, you will say, why then does God so particularly take notice, that by his name Jehovah he was not known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Exod. vi. 3. Did not they know him, and worship him, as the true, eternal, independent, immutable God, the Creator of all things? Yes, certainly they did, and under the name Jehovah too; and probably understood the import of it. The most probable solution of the whole difficulty is this; that the words, in the latter part of the text, ought to be understood by way of interrogation, thus: But by my name Jehovah was I not also known unto them? that great and venerable name, which expresses more than El Shaddai, or any other name, and which I have chosen for my memorial to all generations?

If you please to consult the critics, you will find this interpretation supported by such reasons as will bear examining. It has been observed by the learned, that some of the Greek writers read the words, Καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου, Kúgios, dýλwσa aurois; that is, "My name, Jehovah, I "made known unto them;" which interpretation is likewise favoured by the Arabic version. This at least we may say; that from a passage so obscure, and capable of several constructions, no certain argument can be drawn, for the special import of the word Jehovah, in opposition to the best critics in the language, whether ancient or modern. Now, to resume the thread of our argument, since it appears that Christ is, in his own proper Person,

* Just. Martyr reads, Tò ovoμá μov ovx idńλwon avros. Dial. p. 266. Jebb. vid. Gen. xxxii. 29. comp. Pseud. Athanas. tom. ii. p. 499, 503, 505.

called Jehovah, a word of absolute signification, expressing the Divine nature or essence, it must follow, that he is God, strictly so called, and not in the relative or improper sense, as is pretended.

This will appear farther, if it be considered that Jehovah is the incommunicable name of the one true God. This may be proved from y several texts, which I shall only point to in the margin; referring you to a learned author, who has abundantly made good the assertion. I may remark, that this and the foregoing observation serve to support and confirm each other: for if Jehovah signify the eternal, immutable God, it is manifest that the name is incommunicable, since there is but one God; and if the name be incommunicable, then Jehovah can signify nothing but that one God to whom, and to whom only, it is applied. And if both these parts be true, and it be true likewise that this name is applied to Christ, the consequence is irresistible, that Christ is the same one God; not the same Person with the Father, to whom also the name Jehovah is attributed, but the same substance, the same Being; in a word, the same Jehovah; thus revealed to be more Persons than one. So much for my first argument, to prove that the word God, when applied to the Father and Son, in Scripture, does not bear a double meaning, one proper, and the other improper; but is to be understood in one and the same true and proper sense in respect of both.

2. My second argument for it shall be from John i. 1. pursuant to the words of the Query. "In the beginning "was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the "Word was God," ver. 1. "All things were made by "him," &c. ver. 3. Here we find the Son expressly called God; and the only question is, whether in a proper or improper sense. The circumstances of the place must determine us in this inquiry. Here are three marks to

y Exod. iii. 14, 15. Deut. xxvi. 17, 18. Psal. lxxxiii. 18. Is. xlii. 8. Hosea xii. 5.

2 Second Letter to the Author of the History of Montanism, p. 5. &c.

direct us how to form a judgment. 1. The word eòs, God, is used in a proper sense in the very same verse. 2. The Word was God in the beginning, that is, before the creation. 3. The work of creation is attributed to him.

I say, first, the word Oes, God, is once used, in a proper sense, in the very same verse. I have before shown, that the pretended relative sense is only an improper and figurative sense of the word God, according to the Scripture notion of it; and therefore, certainly, that cannot be the meaning of it here, being applied to the Father, who, without dispute, is properly God. Besides, that since Oòs in the Septuagint is frequently the rendering of Jehovah, as you may readily see by turning to Trommius's Concordance; and since St. John himself follows that rendering, as you may observe by comparing John vi. 45. with Is. liv. 13. we may reasonably think that is, in the text, is of the same signification with Jehovah which is a farther proof, that it is to be understood absolutely, and not relatively, as you term it, or as I, improperly. If therefore the word eòs, God, be once used by St. John in the strict and proper sense, how can we imagine, that immediately after, in the very same verse, he should use the same word in a sense very different from that of the former? You remark, that "the "article is prefixed before eòs, in an absolute construc❝tion, when spoken of the Father; but omitted when "predicated of the Aoyós." But if the want of the article be sufficient to prove that Oòs, God, when applied to the Word, is of a different meaning; by the same argument you might prove that the same word, eòs, without an article, in no less than four places more of this chapter, (ver. 6. 12. 13. 18.) is not to be understood of the one true God. I cannot help thinking a remark trifling, which signifies so little, as either to prove too much, or to prove nothing. Could you show that eos, without the article, was always taken in a relative or improper sense, you would do something. All that you attempt to show is,

that ó eos is no where, in the New Testament, predicated of the Word in an absolute construction. And what if it is not? then it is not: for that is all you can make of it. Oeds without the article, in many places, confessedly means as much as Oeds with the article; which is enough for our purpose. Or, admitting that there is some reason and significancy in it, that the Son is not styled & Oeds in an absolute construction, but that the title is generally reserved to the Father, as the title, i Пarp; all that it signifies is, that the first Person of the Holy Trinity is eminently distinguished by an article; but not that the addition, or the omission, of an article makes any alteration in the sense of the word Oós. You say, that "three "of the most learned Ante-Nicene Greek Fathers insist "upon this remark about the article; a Clemens of Alex"andria, Origen, and Eusebius." But what do they gather from it, or what do they mean by it? Do they mean that the Son is not God in the proper sense? Nothing like it. Do they mean that the article can never be properly applied when the Son is spoken of, or that the Scripture observes it as an invariable rule? That does not appear, but rather the contrary: for they understood many texts of the Old Testament, where Oeds occurs with the article, of Christ, as may appear, in some measure,

* Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. p. 558. ed. Ox. Clemens does not make his remark on John i. 1. nor does he mention, that the article is put to distinguish the Father's supereminent dignity of nature above the son; as your reader, or perhaps yourself, might imagine. His design was only to prove, against Tatian, that the true God (and not the Devil) was the author of conjugal procreation; for which he cites Gen. iv. 25. observing, that Oss in that place has the article before it; and therefore must be understood of the true God, the avrozpárwg. By the very same rule, Christ must be true God, in the same sense, according to Clemens. He is Ots. See p. 72, 132, 251, 273, 436, 832; and likewise Tavrozgárwg, p. 277. See also p. 148, 647.

In Joh. p. 46. Origen means no more than that the Father is Auródios, God unoriginated; the Son, God of God.

Eccl. Theol. 1. ii. c. 17. Eusebius makes no farther use of the observation than to prove, against Marcellus, that the Ayos is a distinct real Person; and not the Father himself.