who was not so from all eternity. But Jesus Christ, being in the nature of man, is frequently in the facred Scriptures called God; and that name is attributed unto him in such a manner, as by it no other can be understood but the one Almighty and Eternal God. Which may be thus demonftrated. It hath been already proved, and we all agree in this, That there can be but one Divine Essence, and so but one fupreme God. Wherefore were it not faid in the Scriptures, there are many Gods; did not he himself who is fupreme, call others fo; we durft not give that name to any but to him alone, nor could we think any called God to be any other but that one. It had been then enough to have alledged that Christ is God, to prove his fupreme and eternal Deity: whereas now we are anfwered, that there are Gods many, and therefore it followeth not from that name that he is the one eternal God. But if Christ be none of those many Gods, and yet be God; then can he be no other but that one. And that he is not to be numbred with them, is certain, because he is clearly diftinguished from them, and opposed to them. We read in the Pfalmist, I have faid ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the most High. But we must not reckon Christ among those Gods, we must not number the only begotten Son among those Children. For they knew not, neither would they understand, they walked on in darkness: and whosoever were Gods only as they were, either did, or might do fo. Whereas Christ, in whom alone dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, is not only diftinguisi'd John 16. 30. from, but opposed to, fuch Gods as those, by his Disciples, faying, Now we John 8 12. are fure that thou knowest all things; by himself proclaiming, I am the light 1 Cor. 8. 5, 6. of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness. S. Paul Pfal. 82. 6. 5. Col. 2. 9. hath told us, there be gods many, and lords many; but withal hath taught us, that to us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. In which words as the Father is oppofed as much unto the many Lords, as many Gods, so is the Son as much unto the many Gods, as many Lords; the Father being as much Lord as God, and the Son as much God as Lord. Wherefore being we find in Scripture frequent mention of one God, and beside that one an intimation of many Gods, and whosoever is called God, must either be that one, or one of those many; being we find our blessed Saviour to be wholly oppofed to the many Gods, and confequently to be none of them, and yet we read him often styled God, it followeth, that that naine is attributed unto him in fuch a manner, as by it no other can be understood but the one Almighty and Eternal God. Again, Those who deny our Saviour to be the fame God with the Father, have invented rules to be the touchstone of the eternal Power and Godhead. First, where the name of God is taken absolutely, as the subject of any proposition, it always signifies the supreme Power and Majefty, excluding all others from that Deity. Secondly, where the fame name is any way used with an Article, by way of excellency, it likewise signifieth the fame fupreme Godhead as admitting others to a communion of Deity, but excluding them from the fupremacy. Upon these two rules they have raised unto themselves this observation, That whensoever the name of God absolutely taken is placed as the fubject of any proposition, it is not to be understood of Chrift: and wheresoever the same name is spoken of our Saviour by way of predicate, it never hath an Article denoting excellency annexed to it; and confequently leaves him in the number of those Gods who are excluded from the Majesty of the eternal Deity... > Now though there can be no kind of certainty in any fuch observations of the Articles, because the Greeks promifcuously often use them or omit them, without any reason of their ufurpation or omission, (whereof examples are innumerable:) though if those rules were granted, yet would not their Con 2 clufion clusion follow, because the fupreme God is often named (as they confefs) without an Article, and therefore the fame name may fignify the fame God when spoken of Chrift, as well as when of the Father, fo far as can concern the omiffion of the Article: yet to compleat my demonftration, I shall fliew, first, that the name of God taken fsubjectively is to be understood of Christ, secondly, that the fame name with the Article affixed is attributed unto him; thirdly, that if it were not so, yet where the Article is wanting, there is that added to the predicate which hath as great a virtue to fignify that excellency as the Article could have. 17.3, S. Paul, unfolding the mystery of Godliness, hath delivered fix Propofitions together, and the subject of all and each of them is God. Without 1 Tim. 3. 15. controversie great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. And this God which is the subject of all these Propofitions must be understood of Christ, because of him each one is true, and all are so of none but him; He was the Word which was God, and was made flesh, and confequently God manifested in the flesh. Upon him the Spirit defcended at his Baptifim, and after his Afcenfion was poured upon his Apostles, ratifying his Commiffion, and confirming the Doctrine which they received from him: wherefore he was God justified in the Spirit. His nativity the Angels celebrated, in the difcharge of his Office they ministred unto him, at his Refurrection and Afcenfion they were present, always ready to confefs and adore him: he was therefore God feen of Angels. The Apostles preached unto all Nations, and he whom they preached was Jefus Christ. The Father feparated S. Paul Acts 8.5,35from his Mother's womb, and called him by his grace, to reveal his Son 9.20. 118.20. unto him, that he might preach him among the heathen; therefore he 19. 13. was God preached unto the Gentiles. John the Baptift spake unto the peo- Rom. 16. 25. ple, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that 11. 4. is, on Christ Jesus. d We have believed in Jesus Christ, faith S. Paul, Phil. 1. 18. who so taught the Gaoler trembling at his feet, • Believe in the Lord Jesus Acts 19. 4. Christ, and thou shalt be saved: he therefore was God believed on in the à Gal. 2. 16. world. When he had been forty days on earth after his Refurrection, he Acts 16. 31. was taken visibly up into Heaven, and fat down at the right hand of the Father: wherefore he was God received up into glory. And thus all these fix Propositions, according to the plain and familiar language of the Scriptures, are infallibly true of Christ, and so of God, as he is taken by S. John, when he speaks those words, the Word was God. But all these cannot be understood of any other, which either is, or is called, God. For though voluntas ipfiwe grant the Divine Perfections and Attributes to be the fame with the Di- us de fervanvine Effence, yet are they never in the Scriptures called God; nor can any bus, per hoof them with the least shew of probability be pretended as the subject of mines infirthese Propofitions, or afford any tolerable interpretation. When they tell mcs & morus that God, that is the * Will of God, was manifested in the flesh, that is, patefacta eft, was revealed by frail and mortal men, and received up in glory, that is, † was &c. Catech. received glorioufly on earth, they teach a language which the & Scriptures ueft. 59. 2 Cor. 1. 19. b Gal.1.15,16. * Deus, i. e. dis homini tales perfectè Racov, ad † Infignem in modum & fumma cum gloria recepta fuit 16. † For Θεὸς is not θέλημα Θεῖ, much less is ἀναλήφθη received or embraced. Elias speaketh not of his reception, but his ascension, when he faith to Elisha, Τί ποιήσω (οι πρίν ἢ ἀναληφθίῶαι ἀπὸ (8; 2 Kings 2. 9. and Ἐὰν ἴδης με ἀναλαμβανόμθμον ἀπὸ (8, κὶ ἔσαι, (οὶ ὅτως. When he actually afcended, as the original, it is no otherwise translated by the Septuagint, than ἀναλήφθη Ἠλις ἐν (νοσεισμῷ ὡς εἰς τ έρανόν. Which language was preserved by the Hellenizing Jews: ̔Ὁ ἀναληφθεὶς ἐὐ λαίλαπι πυρός, Sirac. 48. 9. and again, ἀναλήφθη ἦως εἰς τ γρανὸν, 1 Mac. 2. 58. Neither did they use it of Elias only, but of Enoch also. Οὐδὲ εἷς ἐκλίθη οἷο ὁ Ἐνῶχ, κὶ γὸ αὐτὸς ἀναλήφθη Σπὸ ὁ γης. The same Language is continued in the New Testament of our Saviour's Ascension, ἀναλήφθη εἰς ἢ ἐρανὸν, Mar. 16. 19. ὁ ἀναληφθεὶς ἀφ ̓ ὑμῶν εἰς ἢ ἐρανὸν, Acts 1. 11. and fingly, ἀναλήφθη, Acts 1.2. and ἀναλήφθη ἀφ ̓ ἡμῶν, Acts 1.22. As therefore ἀνάληψις τῷ Μωσέως, in the Language of the Jews, was not the reception of Moses by the Ifraelites, but the assumption of his body; so ἀνάληψις το Χρισ8 is the Ascension of Christ, Luke 9. 51. Wherefore this being the constant notion of the word, it must so be here likewise understood, ἀναλήφθη ἐν δόξῃ· as the vulgar Latin, (whose authority is pretended against us,) assumptum eft in gloria; rendring it here by the fame word by which he always translated ἀναλήφθη. know know not, and the Holy Ghost never used, and as no Attributes, so no perfon but the Son can be here understood under the name of God: Not the Holy Ghost, for he is diftinguished from him, as being justified by the Spirit; not the Father, who was not manifested in the flesh, nor received up in glory. It remaineth therefore that, whereas the Son is the only person to whom all these clearly and undoubtedly belong, which are here jointly attributed unto * For being God, as fure as the name of God is expressed universally in the *Copies of the Epiftle the Original Language, so thus absolutely and fubjectively taken must it be was written understood of Chrift. in the Greek Language, it : is enough if all those Copies do agree. Nor need we be troubled with the observation of Grotius on the place: Suspectam nobis hanc lectionem faciunt interpretes veteres, Latinus, Syrus, Arabs & Ambrofius, qui omnes legerunt à ἐφανηρώθη. I confess the vulgar Latin reads it otherwise than the Greek, Quod manifestatum eft in carne; and it cannot be denied but the Syriac, however translated by Tremellius, agreeth with the Latin; and both seem to have read ὃ instead of Θεὸς. But the joint consent of the Greek Copies and Interpreters are above the authority of these two Tranflators; and the Arabick set forth in the Biblia Polyglotta agreeth expressfly with them. But that which Grotius hath farther observed is of far greater confideration: Addit Hincmarus opufculo 55. illud Θεὸς hic pofitum a Neftorianis. For if at first the Greeks read ὁ ἐφανηρώθη, and that ὃ were altered into Θεὸς by the Nettorians, then ought we to corrett the Greek Copy by the Latin, and confess there is not only no force, but not so much as any ground or colour for our Arguments. But first, it is no way probable that the Nestorians should find it in the Original, d, and make it Θεός, because that by so doing they had overthrown their own Affertion, which was, that God was not incarnate, nor born of the Virgin Mary; that God did not ascend unto Heaven, but Christ by the Holy Ghost remaining upon him, o τ' ἀνάληψιν αὐτῷ χαρισάμθμον, Concil. Ephef. part. 1. cap. 17. Secondly, it is certain that they did not make this alteration, because the Catholick Greeks read it Oeds before they were fuch Hereticks, fo called, Neftoriani à Nestorio Epifcopo, Patriarcha Constantinopolitano, Aug. Hares. Nestorius, from whom that Herefie began, was Patriarch of Constantinople after Sifinius, Sifinius after Atticus, Atticus after Nectarius, who succeeded Joannes, vulgarly called Chryfoftomus. But S. Chryfoftome read not 8, but Θεός, as appears by his Commentaries upon the place; Θεὸς ἐφανηρώθη ἐν (αρκί, τελέσιν, ὁ δεμιαργός. And S. Cyril, who by all means opposed Nestorius upon the first appearance of his Herefie, wrote two large Epistles to the Queens Pulcheria and Eudofia, in both which he maketh great use of this Text. In the first, after the repetition of the words as they are now in the Greek Copies, he proceedeth thus; Tiscἐν (αρκὶ φανερωθείς; ἢ δῆλον, ὅτι πάντη τε κὶ πάντως ὁ ἐκ θεῦ πατρὸς λόδου· ὅτω γὸ ἔσαι μέγα τὸ ὁ εὐσεβείας μυςήριον, θεὸς ἐφανηρώθη ἐν (αρχί. Wherefore in S. Paul he read Θεός God, and took that God to be the Word. In the second, repeating the same Text verbatim, he manageth it thus against Nestorius; Εἰ θεὸς ἂν ὁ λόδος ἐνανθρωπήσαι λέδοιτο, κή & δήπε μεθεὶς τὸ εἶναι θεὸς, ἀλλ ̓ ἐν οἷς ἐὼ ἀεὶ Σαπύων, μέγα δὴ τότε κὶ ὁμολοΓεμθύως μέγα ἐςὶ τὸ ὃ οὐσεβείας μυσήριον· εἰ ἢ ἄνθρωπος νοεῖ) κοινὸς ὁ • Χρισος, πῶς ἐν (αρχί πεφανέρω), και τοι πῶς ἐχ ἀπατιν ἐναργές, ὅτι πᾶς ἄνθρωπο ἐν (αρκί τε ἐξὶ, κὶ ἐχ αν ἑτέρως ὀρώτο τισι. And in the explanation of the second Anathematism he maketh use of no other Text but this to prove the Hypoftatical Union, giving it this gloss or exposition: Τί ἐσι τὸ, ἐφανηρώθη ἐν (αρκὶ; τελέσι, γέδονε (άρξ ὁ ἐκ θεῦ πατρός λόδου, &c. The same he urgeth in his Scholion de Unigeniti Incarnatione. So also Theodoret contemporary with S. Cyril: Θεὸς τὸ ἐν κὶ θεῖς φὸς, νὰ ἀόρφλον ἔχων – φύσιν, δῆλο ἅπασιν ἐνανθρωπήσας ἐλλύετο, (αφῶς ἢ ἡμᾶς δύο Φύσεις ἐδίδαξεν, ἐν (αρκὶ γὰ ἢ θείαν ἔφη φανηρωθίῶαι φύσιν. Thirdly, Hincmarus does not say that the Neftorians put Θεὸς into the Greek Text, but that he which put it in was cast out of his Bishoprick for a Neflorian. His words are these: Quidam nimirum ipfas Scripturas verbis inlicitis imposturaverunt: ficut Macedonius Constantinopolitanus Episcopus, qui ab Anaftafio Imperatore ideo a Civitate expulfus legitur, quoniam falfavit Evangelia, & illum Apoftoli locum ubi dicit, quod apparuit in carne, justificatum est in Spiritu, per cognationem Græcarum literarum, o in hoc modo mutando falfavit. Ubi enim habuit Qui, hoc est ΟΣ monosyliabum Græcum, litera mutata Oin vertit; & fecit ΘΣ, id eft ut esset, Deus apparuit per carnem. Quapropter tanquam Neftorianus fuit expulfus. Hincm. Opuf. 55. c. 18. Now whereas Hincmarus says expulfus legitur, we read not in Euagrius, or the Excerpta of Theodotus, or in Joannes Malala, that Macedonius was caft out of his Bishoprick for any such falsation. It is therefore probable that he had it from Liberatus, a Deacon of the Church of Carthage, who wrote a Breviary, collected partly out of the Ecclefiaftical Histories and Acts of the Councils, partly out of the relations of such men as he thought fit to believe, extant in the fourth Tome of the Councils. In which, chap. 19. we have the same relation, only with this difference, that O is not turned into O, but into 2, and so ΟΣ becomes not ΘΣ, but ΩΣ. So that first the Greek Copies are not faid to have read it d, but os, and so not to have relation to the mystery, but to the perfon of Christ; and therefore this makes nothing for the vulgar Latin. Secondly, whereas Hincmarus says there was but one letter changed, no such mutation can of OΣ make ΘΕΟΣ, it may ΩΣ, as we read in Liberatus; and then this is nothing to the Greek Text. Thirdly, Macedonius was no Nestorian, but Anaftafius an Eutychian, and be ejected him not as he did other Catholick Bishops under the pretence of Nestorianism, but for other reasons. However Macedonius could not falsifie all the Greek Copies, when as well those which were before his time, as those which were written fince, all acknowledge Θεός. And if he had been ejected for substituting Θεος, without question Anaftafius would have taken care for the restoring ὃs, which we find not in any Copy. It remaineth therefore that the Neftorians did not falsify the Text by reading Θεὸς ἐφανηρώθη, but that the ancient Greek Fathers read it so; and consequently, being the Greek is the Original, this Lection must be acknowledged authentical. Aits 20. 28. Again S. Paul speaketh thus to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus; Take heed unto your selves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. In these words this doctrinal Propofition is clearly contained, God hath purchased the Church with his own blood. For there is no other word either in or near the Text which can by any Grammatical Construction be joined with the Verb, except the Holy Ghost, to For though Christ, Mat. a We were not re- 1. 24. and in the plural we 16. 16. as we I Cor. 14. yet & cx whom the Predicate is repugnant, both in respect of the act, or our Redemption, and of the means, the Blood. If then the Holy Ghost hath not purchased the Church; if he hath not blood to shed for our Redemption, and without blood shed there is no remission; if there be no other word to which, according to the literal construction, the act of purchasing can be applied; if the name of God, most frequently joined to his * Church, be im- * των εκκλή mediately and properly applicable by all rules of Syntax to the Verb which σίαν τῷ Θεῷ. followeth it: then is it of necessity to be received as the subject of this Pro- the Church be position, then is this to be embraced as infallible Scripture-truth, God hath properly the purchased the Church with his own blood. But this God may and must be Church of understood of Christ; it may, because he hath; it must, because no other 16. 18. Col. person which is called God hath so purchafed the Church. deemed with corruptible things, as filver and gold, but with the precious read once a blood of Christ. With this price were we bought; and therefore it may well ἐκκλησίαι το be faid, that Christ our God hath purchased us with his own blood. But Xe158. Rom. no other person which is, or is called, God, can be faid so to have purcha- do of the fed us, because it is an act belonging properly to the Mediatorship; and Churches of there is but one Mediator between God and man: and the Church is b God, San-11.16. Etified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Nor 2 Theff. 1.4. can the expression of this act, peculiar to the Son, be attributed to the Father, and 1 Theff.2. because this blood signifieth death: and though the Father be Omnipotent, κλησία τῶΘεό; and can do all things, yet he cannot die. And though it might be faid that is frequently used; as he purchased us, because he gave his Son to be a ransom for us, yet it cannot 1 Cor. 1. 2. be faid that he did it by his own blood; for then it would follow, that he and 10. 32. gave nor his Son, or that the Son and the Father were the fame Person. Be-and 15.9.and fide, it is very observable, that this particular phrase of his own blood, is in 1.1.1 Tim.3. the Scripture put by way of opposition to the blood of another and how-5. 15. but n soever we may attribute the Acts of the Son unto the Father, because fent by εκκλησία him; yet we cannot but acknowledge that the blood and death was of ano- once named. ther than the Father. Not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own And therefore blood be entred in once into the holy place; and whereas & the High-Priest reason to alter entred every year with the blood of others, Chrift appeared once to put it in this Text, away fin by the facrifice of himself. He then which purchased us wroughtonen fanfie it it by his own blood, as an High-Prieft opposed to the Aaronical, who made xš, and then atonement by the blood of others. But the Father taketh no Prieftly Office, made 98 neither could he be opposed to the legal Prieft, as not dying himself, but gi- often written ving another. Wherefore wheresoever the Father and the Son are described is, not xextogether as working the Salvation of man, the blood by which it is w wrought ss. Some MSS. is attributed to the Son, not to the Father: as when S. Paul speaketh of the andrian, Can• redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a pro-tabrigian, and pitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness; his, that New Coll is, his own righteousness, hath reference to God the Father; but his, that të Kveis, and is, his own blood, must be referred to Christ the Son. When he glorifieth the InterpreGod the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, attributing unto him, that he us, regere hath blessed, elected, predeftinated, adopted, accepted us, made known Eccletiam unto us the mystery of his will, and gathered us together in one; in the Domini, 1. 3. midst of this acknowledgment he brings in the beloved in whom we have others repre 11.22.2 Cor. το we have no when it is fo as the Alex MSS. read it ter of Irenæ ८. 1.4. Sent Kveis Oss, followed by the Arabick Interpreter; which makes not at all against our Argument; but, because in this particular unusual, not like to be true. The Syriack translating it Chrifti,)דמשיחא not Domino, as it is in the Latin Tranflation) gives rather an Exposition than a Version. a 1 Pet. 1. 18, 19.. 6 Heb. 10. 10. †" ιδιον αἷμα is opposed το αἷμα ἀλλότριον. And therefore it is obfervable that the Author of the Rocovian Catechism, in his Answer to this place of Scripture, doth never make the least mention of idrov or proprium, but only affirms that the blood of Chrift may be called the blood of God the Father; & totidem verbis did Socinus answer to Wiekus before, but in his whole Answer concealed the force of idrov, whereas the strength of our Argument lies in those words, 2/α τις ίδιες ακμάζου, or, as the Alexandrian MS. and one mentioned by Beza, 2ὰ τῷ αἵματα τὰ ἰδία. c Heb. 9. 12. d Ver. 25, 26. • Rom. 3.25. Ον πορέθεῖο ὁ Θεὸς ἱλαςήριον 21ὰ ὁ πίσεως ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ αἵμπλι. εἰς ἔνδειξιν ο δικαιοσιώης αὐτῶ. Eph. 1. 6, 7. 1 S redemption Atts 3. 26. Eph. 1. 9. redemption through his blood, as that which cannot be attributed to the Fa ther. Chrift hath blessed us; and the Apostle faith, the Father hath blessed us: which is true, because he fent his Son to bless us. Chrift hath made known unto us the will of his Father; and the Apostle faith, the Father bath made known unto us the mystery of his will; because he sent his Son to reveal it. Col. 1. 13. Chrift hath delivered us; and the Father is faid to deliver us from the power of darkness: not that we are twice delivered, but because the Father delivereth us by his Son. And thus these general acts are familiarly attributed to them both; but still a difference must be obferved and acknowledged in the means and manner of the performance of these acts, For though 'tis true, that the Father and the Son revealed to us the will of God; yet it is not true that the Father revealed it by himself to us; but that the Son did fo, it is. They both deliver us from fin and death: but the Son gave himself for our fins; that he might deliver us; the Father is not, cannot be faid to have given himself, but his Son: and therefore the Apostle giveth thanks unto the Col. 1.13, 14. Father, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and bath tran flated us into the kingdom of his dear Son, in whom we have redemption through his blood. Now this blood is not only the blood of the new Covenant, and confequently of the Mediator: but the nature of this Covenant is such, that it is alfo a Teftament, and therefore the blood must be the blood of the Gal. 1. 4. Heb. 9. 16. Teftator; for where a Testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the Teftator. But the Teftator which died is not, cannot be, the Father, but the Son; and confequently, the blood is the blood of the Son, not of the Father. It remaineth therefore that God, who purchased the Church with his own blood, is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or any other which is called God, but only Jesus Christ the Son of God, and God. And thus have I proved the first of the three Affertions, that the name of God abfolutely taken and placed subjectively, is sometimes to be understood of Chrift. Εμμανδήλ, ὁ The second, That the name of God invested by way of excellency with an Article, is attributed in the Scriptures unto Chrift, may be thus made good. He which is called Emmanuel is named God by way of excellency; for that Mar. 1. 23. name, faith S. Matthew, being interpreted, is God with us, and in that inter* Καὶ καλήσεις pretation the Greek * Article is prefixed. But Christ is called Emmanuel; τὸ ὄνομα αὐτὸ a that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, έσι, μεθ Saying, Behold, a Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son. μίωσυόπρον, and they shall call his name Emmanuel. Therefore he is that God withus, Μεθ ̓ ἡμῶν ὁ which is expressed by way of Excellency, and diftinguished from all other a Verse 22, 23. who are any ways honoured with that name: For it is a vain imagination to think that Christ is called Emmanuel, but that he is not what he is called: Exod. 17. 15. as Mofes built an Altar, and called the name of it Jehovah Niffi, and Gideon Judzes 6.24. another called Jehovah Shalom; and yet neither Altar was Jehovah; as FeruFer. 33. 16. falem was called the Lord our righteousness, and yet that City was not the Θεός. Lord. Because these two notions, which are conjoined in the name EmJohn 1. 14. manuel, are severally true of Chrift. First, he is Emmanu, that is, with us, εἰμί. for he hath dwelt among us: and when he parted from the earth, he faid to his Mat. 28. 20. Disciples, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world. Secondly, Ἐδῶ μεθ' ὑμῶν He is El, and that name was given him, as the fame Prophet teftifieth, For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and his name shall be called אל גבור Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God. He then who is both properly called El, that is, God, and is also really Emmanu, that is, with us, he must infallibly be that Emmanuel who is God with us. Indeed if the name Emmanuel were to be interpreted by way of a propofition, God is with us, as Ezek. 48. 35. the Lord our righteousness, and the Lord is there, must be understood where they are the names of Jerusalem; then should it have been the name not of Chrift, 2 |