assigns to Christ (a subject which must be considered in its place ;) but it is valid on all hypotheses relative to that question. Be the time, the kind, and the manner of the judgment what they may, HE who shall execute it IS GOD. From these considerations, there appears to me sufficient reason for regarding the passage now considered, as a prophecy and designed representation of the Messiah. The interpretation proposed by Faustus Socinus, and generally adopted by his followers, is perspicuously stated by Dr. Priestley. "The judgment-seat of Christ, and that of God, are the same, not because Christ is God, but because he acts in the name and by the authority of God, which is fully expressed when it is said that God will judge all the world by Jesus Christ; so that being judged by Christ and by God is in effect the same thing." By this gratuitous assertion the difficulty is evaded; but whether it is not advanced to serve the purpose, whether it is not far-fetched while the other sense is near and obvious, and whether it duly comports with the terms and the scope of the passage, and with the argument of the citation, the reflecting and candid reader will judge. All the notice which the Calm Inquiry takes of these two passages of the New Testament, is in two summary annotations; which are undoubtedly true, 8 10 Resp. ad Vujek. cap. iii. Arg. 9. " Notes on Script. vol. iv. p. 330, on Rom. xiv. 12. 10" Rom. xiv. 9.-Christ is Lord of the dead, as he will be invested with authority to raise them to life, and to judge them according to their works. He is Lord of the living, as the whole human race will ultimately profess subjection to his gospel."—Calm Inq. p. 272. "Phil. ii. 9, 10.-The learned Peirce, whose system coun so far as they go, but they are totally silent on that which is the main point of the case, the reference to the prophet and thus they leave the argument untouched. tenanced the worship of Christ, explains this text in his paraphrase as not bearing upon that question. Upon this account God has advanced him higher than before, and freely bestowed on him an authority that is superior to whatever he granted to any other that by virtue of the authority of Jesus all should be constrained to submit to God.'"-P. 365. SECTION XXVI. JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Jerem. xxiii. 5, 6. 5. "Behold! the days are coming, saith Jehovah, "And Israel shall rest in security; "And this is his name, which they shall call him, "JEHOVAH Our righteousNESS." A passage parallel, or nearly so: ch. xxxiii. 15, 16. 15. "In those days, and in that time, "I will raise unto David a righteous progeny, "And he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. 16. "In those days Judah shall be saved, "And Jerusalem shall rest in security: THE Connexion and manifest scope of these two passages point their reference to the Messiah: and in this reference they have been understood by the general consent of Jewish and Christian interpreters. Unless it be denied that such a reference is the intention of the passages, it will remain that the Messiah is explicitly called by the incommunicable name of 1 See Note [A], at the end of this Section. 2 See very ample collections of these authorities in Dassovii Diss. Rabbin. Philol. and Frischmuthi Diss. de Nom. Mess. (in the Sylloge Dissertationum Eleg. vol. i. Amst. 1701.) Rosenmüller, jun., decidedly considers the phrase in both the passages as an appellation of the Messiah.-Schol. in Jes. the self-existent One,-JEHOVAH. To avoid this con clusion, different methods are resorted to. 3 Abrabenel maintains that the title in question is the nominative of the verb, so that the sentence should be construed;" And this [viz. righteous branch] is "his name, which Jehovah our righteousness shall call "him." Grotius adopts this interpretation. Faustus Socinus makes, not the Messiah, but Israel or Judah to be the object to which the name is given, in the first instance; and Jerusalem, in the second.* The Rabbis Kimchi, Salomon, and Moses Gerundensis adopt a solution in which they are followed by the generality of Arian and Socinian commentators, and by some others who have no prepossession in favour of Antitrinitarian doctrines: that the title is indeed given to the Messiah, but not as a personal appellative. These writers understand it as a descriptive name, declaring the blessings which Jehovah would confer under the reign and by the instrumentality of the Messiah. Of such descriptive names examples are frequent: an altar was called by Jacob, El-Elohe-Israel, God, the God of Israel; another by Moses, Jehovah-nissi, Jehovah my banner; the name of the predicted city in Ezekiel is Jehovah-shammah, Jehovah is there; and such names of persons occur as Elijah, my God Jah, the abbreviation for Jehovah, and with a resemblance to the appellation before us, Zedekiah, the righteousness of Jah3 3 4 Comm. in Proph. quæst. 4. ap. Frischm. c. i. § 23. Resp. ad Vujek, c. vi. § 2. 5 Gen. xxxiii. 20. Ex. xvii. 15. Ezek. xlviii. 35. But there is a considerable etymological difference between Jehovah-tsidkenu and Tsidkijahu the literal Hebrew form of Zedekiah. To the first and second of these opinions it may be justly replied, that they are unnatural constructions, contrived and forced upon the words for the mere purpose of evasion. But the third is entitled to more respectful consideration. The fact is unquestionable that the gratitude or hope of individuals, in the ancient scriptural times, was often expressed by the imposition of significant appellations on persons or other objects, in the composition of which divine names and titles were frequently employed: these are, therefore, nothing but short sentences declarative of some blessing possessed or expected. When such names were given, the nature of the subject indubitably suggested the sense intended. It was impossible for a structure of earth or stones, or a merely human being, ever to be mistaken for the Deity; though the one might be honoured with the epithet, equivalent to the inscriptions of later times, JEHOVAH IS MY BANNER; or the other, as in the instance of Elijah, with the distinguished title, JEHOVAH IS MY GOD. Such names could never be regarded as any other than the memorials of piety, because the KNOWN nature of the subject precludes misapprehension. If, then, the person of the Messiah were indubitably ascertained to be only human, this appellation would be merely a descriptive proposition, and would be properly read with the supplement of the substantive verb, JEHOVAH is our righteousness: but if, from other evidence, it were satisfactorily determined that the person of the Messiah includes a divine subsistence, the title would be applicable in its direct and strict signification, as a clear description of his person |