himself acknowledges, Judges ii. 1, &c. But according to divines the name of Jehovah signifies two things, either the nature of God, or the completion of his word and promises. If it signify the nature, and therefore the person of God, why should not he who is invested with his person and presence, be also invested with the name which represents them? If it signify the completion of his word and promises, why should not he, to whom words suitable to God alone are so frequently attributed, be permitted also to assume the name of Jehovah, whereby the completion of these words and promises is represented? Or if that name be so acceptable to God, that he has always chosen to consider it as sacred and peculiar to himself alone, why has he uniformly disused it in the New Testament, which contains the most important fulfilment of his prophecies; retaining only the name of the Lord, which had always been common to him with angels and men? If, lastly, any name whatever can be so pleasing to God, why has he exhibited himself to us in the gospel without any proper name at all? They urge, however, that Christ himself is sometimes called Jehovah in his own name and person; as in Isai. viii. 13, 14. sanctify Jehovah of hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread: and he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel,' &c. compared with 1 Pet. ii. 7. the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling,' &c. I answer, that it appears on a comparison of the thirteenth with the eleventh * Hominem, non angelum fuisse apparet, quod locus unde venerit exprimitur, neque disparuisse legitur, ut de aliis angelis narratur. Sic propheta angelus Dei vocatur Hagg. i. 3.' Junius in loc. verse, for Jehovah spake thus to me,' &c.-that these are not the words of Christ exhorting the Israelites to sanctify and fear himself, whom they had not yet known, but of the Father threatening, as in other places, that he would be for a stone of stumbling,' &c. to both the houses of Israel,' that is, to the Israelites, and especially to those of that age. But supposing the words to refer to Christ, it is not unusual among the prophets for God the Father to declare that he would work himself, what afterwards under the gospel he wrought by means of his Son. Hence Peter says the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling.' By whom made, except by the Father? And in the third chapter, a quotation of part of the same passage of Isaiah clearly proves that the Father was speaking of himself; v. 15. but sanctify the Lord God'—under which name no one will assert that Christ is intended. Again, they quote Zech. xi. 13. Jehovah said unto me, Cast it unto the potter; a goodly price that I was prized at of them.' That this relates to Christ I do not deny; only it must be remembered, that this is not his own name, but that the name of Jehovah is in him, Exod. xxiii. 21. as will presently appear more plainly. At the same time there is no reason why the words should not be understood of the Father speaking in his own name,* who would consider the offences which the Jews should commit * Milton attributes similar language to the Almighty, when he represents him as giving his great command concerning the Messiah in heaven: Him who disobeys, Me disobeys, breaks union, and that day Paradise Lost, V. 611. 6 against his Son, as offences against himself; in the same sense as the Son declares that whatever is done to those who believed in him, is done to himself. Matt. xxv. 35, 40. I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat,' &c. inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.' An instance of the same kind occurs Acts ix. 4, 5. Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?' The same answer must be given respecting Zech. xii. 10, especially on a comparison with Rev. i. 7. ' every eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him:' for none have seen Jehovah at any time, much less have they seen him as a man; least of all have they pierced him. Secondly, they pierced him who 'poured upon them the spirit of grace,' v. 10. Now it was the Father who poured the spirit of grace through the Son; Acts ii. 33. having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this.' Therefore it was the Father whom they pierced in the Son. Accordingly, John does not say, they shall look upon me,' but, they shall look upon him whom they pierced,' chap. xix. 37. So also in the verse of Zechariah alluded to a change of persons takes place- they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son;' as if Jehovah were not properly alluding to himself, but spoke of another, that is, of the Son. The passage in Malachi iii. 1. admits of a similar interpretation: behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me, and Jehovah, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in behold he shall come, 22 VOL. I. 6 6 saith Jehovah of hosts.' From which passage Placæus argues thus: He before whose face the Baptist is to be sent as a messenger, is the God of Israel; but the Baptist was not sent before the face of the Father; therefore Christ is that God of Israel. But if the name of Elias could be ascribed to John the Baptist, Matt. xi. 14. inasmuch as he went before him in the spirit and power of Elias,' Luke i. 17. why may not the Father be said to send him before his own face, inasmuch as he sends him before the face of him who was to come in the name of the Father? for that it was the Father who sent the messenger, is proved by the subsequent words of the same verse, since the phrases 'I who sent,' and the messenger of the covenant who shall come,' and Jehovah of hosts who saith these things,' can scarcely be understood to apply all to the same person. Nay, even according to Christ's own interpretation, the verse implies that it was the Father who sent the messenger; Matt. xi. 10. behold, I send my messenger before thy face.' Who was it that sent?-the Son, according to Placæus. Before the face of whom?-of the Son :--therefore the Son addresses himself in this passage, and sends himself before his own face, which is a new and unheard of figure of speech; not to mention that the Baptist himself testifies that he was sent by the Father, John i. 33. I knew him not, but he that sent mc....the same said unto me,' &c. God the Father, therefore, sent the messenger before the face of his Son, inasmuch as that messenger preceded the advent of the Son; he sent him before his own face, inasmuch as he was himself in Christ, or, which is the same thing, in the Son, 'reconciling the world unto himself.' 2 Cor. v. 19. That the name and presence of God is used to imply his vicarious power and might resident in the Son, is proved by another prophecy concerning John the Baptist. Isai. xl. 3. the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.' For the Baptist was never heard to cry that Christ was Jehovah,' or our God.' Recurring, however, to the Gospel itself, on which, as on a foundation, our dependence should chiefly be placed, and adducing my proofs more especially from the evangelist John, the leading purpose of whose work was to declare explicitly the nature of the Son's divinity, I proceed to demonstrate the other proposition announced in my original division of the subject -namely, that the Son himself professes to have received from the Father, not only the name of God and of Jehovah, but all that pertains to his own being, -that is to say, his individuality, his existence itself, his attributes, his works, his divine honours; to which doctrine the apostles also, subsequent to Christ, bear their testimony. John iii. 35. the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things unto him.' xiii. 3. 'Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things unto him, and that he was come from God.' Matt. xi. 27. all things are delivered unto me of my Father. But here perhaps the advocates of the contrary opinion will interpose with the same argument which was advanced before; for they are constantly shifting the form of their reasoning, Vertumnus-like,* and *Let him try which way he can wind in his Vertumnian distinctions and evasions, if his canonical gabardine of text and letter do not sit too |