"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 Osos, or God from whence we may just take notice, by the way, that the word sòs, or God, in Scripture, is not always, perhaps very rarely, à 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

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.

I. 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.

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, ¿òýλwσa avтoïs; 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 voμá pov ovn idńλwoa avrois. 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.

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