for proving the divinity of our Saviour "from the OLD TESTAMENT; but I cannot

help it. I have done it with no ill design, "but purely because I think, and am mo

66

rally sure, that the text, as it stands, will “not properly admit of any other construc

tion: the Septuagint have so translated "before me; in an age where there could "not possibly be any bias or prejudice, either *for or against the before-mentioned doc"trine: a doctrine, which draws its decisive proofs from the NEW TESTAMENT only.”

And surely every Orthodox Churchman must be "offended" at an attempt to invalidate this most illustrious attestation to the divinity and sovereignty of CHRIST, and to rob them of the "decisive" proofs thereof, furnished by the OLD TESTAMENT, and only recognized, explained, or illustrated, by THE NEW and every sacred critic must be disgusted at such miserable mis-translation, both of the Hebrew text and Septuagint version; doing justice to neither, but incongruously jumbling both together: for

1. The present Hebrew text will admit of no other construction than either that which

66

is given, NP, they shall invoke," or "call," (meaning the faithful remnant of Judah and Israel,)" in his days," or second coming, 66 in power and great glory," to establish the kingdom of God, or (the kingdom of the saints upon earth, Dan. vii. 27, Matt. xxiv. 30, 31, Rev. xx. 4)—or else p'," they shall call him,” as read and rendered by all the ancient versions, except the Septuagint; both which are equivalent our public translation," he shall be

to our

66

"called."

2. The Septuagint version is, nas TYTO TO ονομα αυτε, ὁ καλεσει αυτον Κυριος, ΙΩ-ΣΕΔΕΚ. And this is his name, which THE LORD shall call him, THE LORD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. For 10 is evidently here the abridgment of IAN or IAHOH, as we saw before; and the title thus absolutely expressed, corresponds to MEAXI-EEAEK, "KING OF "RIGHTEOUSNESS," attributed also to CHRIST, PS. cx. 4, Heb. vii. 2. But the concurrence of the Arabic version (that close copier of the Septuagint) with the other ancient versions, and Jerom, in rendering relatively, "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUS

66

NESS," makes it almost morally" certain, that the Hebrew copy, followed by the Septuagint, originally corresponded with the

rest.

3. In the first clause, this Christian professor adopts the Septuagint rendering," and "this is the name which the Lord shall call "him," which has been repeatedly reprobated as incorrect by the ablest of the Jewish commentators and editors, according to De Rossi: "Notat etiam Norzius, ex accentua“tionis lege, connecti non posse cum "', (ut Sensus sit,-DOMINUM vocatu"rum MESSIAM, PT, JUSTITIA NOSTRA')—quemadmodum inepte connectit quidam Agaon; quem Aben Ezra confu

66

66

6

tat; et ex recentioribus R. Menasseh ben Israel, in Conciliador, t. iii. p. 50. Confer "Weimar, Usus Accent. Bibl. p. 134."

Not recognizing, perhaps, the Hebrew title, IN-EEAEK, in the disguise of a Grecian dress," THE LORD OF RIGHTEOUS"NESS," (which sufficiently accords with the foregoing part of the Septuagint rendering) he unskilfully substitutes, from the Hebrew text," OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS;"

which indecorously seems to include THE SUPREME LORD himself, under the pro

66

noun OUR," along with Judah and Israel! for which, therefore, the pronoun "your," if any, ought to have been substituted.

66

VI. 118, or 78. Kupios, LORD, or REGENT: Δεσποτης, MASTER: Μεσιτης, ΜεDIATOR, or ARBITER.-The term 17 is promiscuously applied to God and Man: It denotes master; as Gen. xxxix. 20, “ Joseph's “Master (1178) took him and put him into "prison.”—Or superintendant of a house; or regent of a kingdom, as Gen. xli. 40, "Pharaoh appointed Joseph over (by) his “house, and over (y) the land of Egypt;" which corresponds to Gen. xlv. 8. "GOD

appointed me for a father (*) to Pha“raoh, and for a superintendant (185) to "all his house, and (1) for a regent to "all Egypt." And in this sense it appears to be applied to the SON OF GOD, Ps. cx. 1. “THE LORD (77) said unto THE REGENT

66

(*185), sit thou at my right hand, until I “ make thine enemies a stool for thy feet."

Here the Septuagint renders τω κυρίω με, “unto my Lord," and is followed, not only

by all the ancient versions, but also by the three Evangelists, in their citations of this unequivocal attestation to the delegated dominion of JESUS CHRIST, Matt. xxii. 44, Mark xii. 36, Luke xx. 42, Acts ii. 34. But that this rendering is incorrect notwithstanding, though so powerfully supported, may appear from the following remarks:

1. That the final Jod is not the affix of the first person, we may collect from the context, in which no speaker is introduced but IAHOH, THE LORD SUPREME. And our Saviour, in his citation of this passage, convicted the Jewish doctors of not understanding the spirit of their own Scriptures, when attesting the divine character of THE MESSIAH; "How then doth David, when

inspired, call him LORD?" (Kupiov); and this, in a case where David himself was not the speaker, but the relater; thus establishing the propriety of the appellation, by our Lord's application.

2. Neither is the final Jod significant of the plural, in regimen; for the plural is never used in the absolute form to denote a single. person, except once, Mal. i. 6.

* A