original is JEHOVAH SABAOTH, for Isaiah says that the name of our Redeemer is Jehovah Sa

baoth: 1 "Behold! I will send my Messenger before ME." - Messenger is here proper: it evidently alludes to Elias, or rather to his representative, John the Baptist, as our Lord himself applied it: "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."-"And the LORD (that is, JEHOVAH ADONAI, the same whom David called his Lord, as our Saviour remarked), HE shall come to HIS Temple, the Temple of Jerusalem, that is, the Temple of God, the Temple of the Lord of Hosts!" 2

Att. Gen. My Lord, as this is a point of the greatest importance, I beg permission of the Court to call up the witness Horsley again, to put one question to him upon this matter.

Court. You have leave to do so, provided your question bears upon this subject, and this subject only.

Att. Gen. Call again the witness Horsley.I would beg to ask you one question more, sir: do you consider the Jehovah of the Old Testament to be the Messiah of the New; if so, how do you show it?

Horsley. I will prove it from the passage of

1 Ch. xlvii. 4.

2 Nares's Reply, p. 94.

Malachi which is so well taken up by the witness Nares, the consideration of which is now before the Court. A Covenant is o be established between JEHOVAH and his people; proposed on the part of God, and to be embraced by the people. The Messenger of the Covenant can be no other than the Messenger sent by JEHOVAH to make this proposal. The Messenger of the Covenant is therefore JEHOVAH'S Messenger;-if his Messenger, his Servant; for a message is a service: it implies a person sending, and a person sent. In the person who sendeth, there must be authority to send ; submission to that authority in the person sent. The Messenger, therefore, of the Covenant is the servant of the Lord JEHOVAH but the same person who is the Messenger, is the Lord JEHOVAH himself; not the same person with the sender, but bearing the same name, because united in that mysterious nature, and undivided substance, which the name imports. The same person, therefore, is Servant and Lord; and, by uniting these characters in the same person, what does the Prophet but describe that great mystery of the Gospel, the union of the nature which governs and the nature which serves; the union of the divine and human nature in the person of the Christ? This doctrine, therefore, was no less than that of the divinity of the Messiah; a novelty, as we are told, in the third and fourth century after the birth of

Belsham. I do not understand how he that said, "I will send my Angel," can be the Angel whom he said he would send.

Att. Gen. The Father is only known through the Son; but the Son as Jehovah, speaks as Jehovah, though not unfrequently with a marked distinction of persons. Is not this what you mean to say?

Priestley. I admit it in this instance."

Horsley. Permit me to explain myself further by stating, that the ancient Jews had a persuasion, which their descendants retain at this day, that the true pronunciation of the word "JEHOVAH" was unknown; and lest they should miscal the sacred name of God, they scrupulously abstained from attempting to pronounce it 4; insomuch, that, when

1 Horsley's Sermons, vol. iii. p. 24.

2 Nares's Reply, p. 85. note.

Compare Exod. xxiii. 22. and xxxii. 34. and xxxiii. 2.

3 Dr. Priestley admits that "though the angel here be spoken of by the Divine Being as a third person, and distinct from himself, they must, nevertheless, in effect have been one.” Priestley, as quoted by Nares, p. 86. n.

4 Among the Hindoos, O-M is a mystic emblem of the Deity, forbidden to be pronounced but in silence. It is a syllable formed of the Sanscreet letters ă, ŏ, ŏ, which, in composition, coalesce, and make ō with the nasal consonant m.

the sacred books were publicly read in their synagogues, the reader, wherever this name occurred, was careful to substitute for it that other word of the Hebrew language which answers to the English word "Lord." The learned Jews who were employed by Ptolemy to turn the Scriptures of the Old Testament into Greek have every where, in their translation, substituted the corresponding word of the Greek language. Later translators have followed their mischievous example, — mischievous in its consequences, though innocently meant: and our English translators, among the rest, in innumerable instances, instead of the original "JEHOVAH," which ought upon all occasions to have been religiously retained, have put the more general title of "the LORD." A flagrant instance of this occurs in that solemn proem of the Decalogue, in the twentieth chapter of Exodus, "I am the LORD thy God," so we read in our English Bibles, "who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." In the original it is, "I am JEHOVAH thy God, who have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Another example of the same unhappy alteration we find in that famous passage of the

(AUM.) The first letter stands for the Creator, the second for the Preserver, and the third for the Destroyer of the Evil Spirit, or Regenerator. Dr. Adam Clarke on John i,

hundred and twentieth Psalm, "The Lord said unto my Lord;" which is, in the Hebrew, "JEHOVAH said unto my Lord."- If translators have used this unwarrantable licence of substituting a title of the Deity for his proper name in texts where that name is applied to the Almighty Father, --and in one particular, when the Father seems to be distinguished by that name from Jesus as man, — it is not to be wondered at that they should make a similar alteration in passages where the Messiah is evidently the person intended. One among many other examples of this kind is found in Joel, where the prophet, speaking of the blessings of the Messiah's day, saith, “And it shall come to pass, that whoever shall call on the name of the LORD (in the original, Jehovah), shall be delivered." Here, the Holy Spirit has vouchsafed to be his own interpreter; and his interpretation, one would think, might be decisive. St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, alleges this passage of Joel, to prove that all men shall be saved by believing in Christ Jesus. But how is the Apostle's assertion, that all men shall be saved by faith in Christ, confirmed by the prophet's promise of deliverance to all who should devoutly invocate JEHOVAH, unless Christ were, in the judgment of St. Paul, the JEHOVAH of the prophet Joel?1

1 Horsley's Sermon xxx. vol. 3. p. 6.