sible that language could be used, which would be more decidedly against the two prevailing heresies of his day than this. What language could more clearly convey the idea of the real Deity of the Son than this declaration of John, "this is the true God?" Its connexion is so intimate with what is said of the Son, that attempts to evade its force are vain. Besides the additional appellation, "eternal life," is peculiar to the Son.

God, to distinguish himself from all the gods of the heathen, styled himself Jehovah. This name denotes independent existence. The Jews had this name in such superstitious veneration that they would not pronounce it in private or public worship; nor would they pronounce it when reading the scriptures. The observations of a certain Jewish Rabbi upon the word Jehovah are pertinent and forcible. Treating on the names or attributes, which the prophets ascribe to God, he observes, "All the names of the most High, which are found in the books (i. e. of the bible) are derived from his actions; and that, which has no derivation in it is only one, i. e. the Tetragrammaton, which is appropriated to the most High only; therefore it is called a declared name, which signifieth the very essence of the most High with clear demonstration, in which there is no equal or partner with him. But the rest of his names, i. e. Judge, Mighty, Righteous, Merciful, God, &c. are all names, which declare the effects and derivation, &c. But the Tetragrammaton name is unknown as yet as to its certain derivation; and therefore it is attributed to him only." But even this name, which is significant of the divine essence, is applied to Christ. The prophet Jeremiah, in view of the advent of Christ, observes, "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch; and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called

Jehovah our righteousness." This prophecy is believ ed generally to be applied to Christ. As this name is expressive of divine nature, it follows that Christ possesses divine nature, or the name was wrongly applied. There are many other passages in which Christ is implicitly called Jehovah. Was it not Christ, who held intercourse with the Israelites in their departure from Egypt, and in the wilderness? Did he not make himself known to them by the name Jehovah; and did he not style himself, I am?

To this it has been objected that the name Jehovah has been given to places and altars. Abraham called the place where he was about to offer his son Isaac Jehovah-jireh, the Lord will see or provide. After Moses had prevailed in battle against Amalek,. by the special interposition of divine Providence, he erected an altar unto the Lord, and called the name of it Jehovah-nissi, the Lord, my banner. After Gideon had seen an angel and had holden converse with the Lord, he built an altar unto the Lord, and called it Jehovah-shalom, the Lord send peace. From the application of this divine name to inanimate things, it is inferred by some that the application of it to Christ does not imply his divinity; and that this name might appropriately be given him, if he were but a mere man. It ought to be considered that when the name Jehovah was given to those places, it was used with some qualifying addition; it was used not to express the nature of the place or thing, but to express some circumstance which was signalized by divine presence or agency. As the cases are not parallel, the objection loses its force.

Another significant name given to Christ is Immanuel. "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." This prophecy was fulfilled. A virgin brought forth a Son, and his name was Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. The apostle Paul to the Corinthians saith, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself."

Christ saith, "the Father is in me." No language could more clearly prove that divinity was united to the man, Christ Jesus. But it is objected that this divine name is applied to Christ in no other sense than divine names were formerly applied to places and things. It has been said that when divine names were given to places and things they did not, neither were they designed to, express their nature or qualities; but they expressed the manifestation of divine presence, or some divine interposition. When Jacob had seen the vision of the ladder and angels ascending and descending, he was afraid and said, "surely the Lord is in this place." From this circumstance he called the name of the place Bethel, which signifies house of God. After Jacob had wrestled with a man and prevailed and obtained his blessing, he called the name of the place Peniel; and he gives this reason, "I have seen God face to face." Peniel signifies face of God. These distinguished places were not divine, because they had received names, made up in part of the divine name; neither did they receive these names because they were divine. But these names were given them because God was there. The name Immanuel was not given to the child of Mary, because that child was divine, (for it was not) but because God was there; because the divine Son was in the child. Allowing the objection to have all its force, it serves to prove that divinity was united with the humanity of Jesus Christ.

The name, Lord God of hosts, is applied to Christ. The prophet, adverting to the wrestling of Jacob with the angel, said, "By his strength he had power with God; yea, he had power over the Angel and prevailed; he wept and made supplication unto him; he found him in Bethel and there he spake with us. Even the Lord God of hosts; the Lord is his memorial." The original words translated Lord God signify Jehovah God. God declared to Moses, "this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." Jacob

called the Angel with whom he wrestled God. This Angel was undoubtedly Christ. Consequently his name is Lord God; or more properly Jehovah God.

Those, who deny the divinity of Christ contend that divine names have been frequently given to men. The Lord said unto Moses, see, I have made thee a god unto Pharaoh. When God gave laws to Israel he commanded him saying, "Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." The apostle Paul acknowledges that there be that are called gods, for there be lords many and gods many. It is true some divine names have been given to men and things. But all divine names have not been given to them. The unqualified name Jehovah was never given to any man or place. No created being is called in the scriptures mighty God, Lord God, true God, great God, God over all blessed forever more, Almighty, Lord of glory, King of kings, Lord of lords, Alpha and Omega, Lord God of hosts. But these names, without any qualification, without any intimation that they are to be understood in a reduced sense, are given to Christ. God, by his apostle saith he has given him a name, which is above every name. If no other

divine names were given to Christ but those, which have been given to men, there would be some ground for denying that his names prove his divinity. But other and higher titles are given to him. The same exalted names, which were given to the one God of Israel are given to him. If these names do any thing toward proving the divinity of Israel's God, they do the same toward proving the divinity of Christ. If the divine names have no meaning, they are useless. If they have an unappropriate meaning, they are worse than useless; they lead to error.

"What is his name and what is his Son's name?" The manner of this question implies that it is equally difficult to give a fully characteristic name to one, as to the other. The names of the Father and the Son are significant and characteristic; but they do not con

vey to our finite minds adequate ideas of the divine nature, nor of the mode of divine subsistence. God has not left himself without witness, nor his Son without witness that he is God. When the magicians wrought, or feigned to work miracles in imitation of those, which God wrought by the hand of Moses, God was pleased to give a visible superiority to his own miracles, that it might appear that the power was of God. So when God suffered his creatures to be called by divine titles, to prevent misapprehension of the nature and dignity of his Son, he gave him decidedly superior titles; he gave him a name, which is above every name.

*In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1: 1. It appears that one design of John in writing his Gospel was to confute the heresies, which had sprung up in the churches. The most prominent of which were those of the Docete, and the Ebionites. The former believed the divinity of Christ, but denied his humanity. They maintained that he had a body only in appearance; that he did not actually suffer and die; that he only seemed to do those things, which were related of him. The latter admitted the history of Jesus was founded on reality; but they denied his divinity. "For the most part looked on Jesus Christ as a mere man, born of Mary and her husband, though a man of a most excellent character." "The opinions of the Docetæ, on the one hand, and of the Corinthians on the other," (who were nearly coincident with the Ebionites) concerning the person and offices of Christ, make it probable that the apostles taught, and that the first Christians believed Christ to be both God and man. For if the Docetæ had not been taught the divinity of Christ, they had no temptation to deny his humanity. And if the Corinthians had not been taught the humanity of Christ, they would have been under no necessity of denying his divinity." (See Mosheim's Eccles. hist. Milner's Chh. hist. Macknight's pref. to the 1st Epis. of John.) In opposition to these heresies St. John positively declared that the Word was God; and that the Word was made flesh.

By some it is denied that John used the word Logos to signify Christ; but admit, that if the Logos were Christ, it would prove his divinity. In the revelation of St. John he is called the Word of God. There is a peculiar significancy in calling him the Word, or the Word of God. For as words are the medium of conveying thought, so Christ was the medium of conveying the will of God to man. When the Evangelist asserts that the Word was made flesh, it appears to be proved as clearly as language can prove it, that the Word was Christ. When he asserts that this Word was God, it appears equally clear that Christ is truly divine. If the Evangelist had designed to express his divinity in an inferior sense, he would undoubtedly have employed some qualifying term. But as he did not, we are not authorized to make the addition. The absence of the article before Oos in this place does not affect its meaning.

After St. John had represented the Word existing in the beginning; existing with God; and asserted that it was God, he adds, "The Word was made EVETO or became flesh. By this assertion he did not mean that the nature of the Word was changed into the nature of flesh. He undoubtedly meant that the Word appeared in the likeness of flesh. "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh-God sent forth his own Son, made of a woman. Who being in the form of God,-took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." The phraseology of John, and also of the apostle, in the quotations just made, naturally conveys the idea that the Word existed sepa rate from, and before the flesh.