E 7 } Without the Suppofition of a divine Authority for what was believed and done, what a poor Opinion mutt we entertain of the Faith and Pra&ice of the molt an- tient Patriarchs, fuch as Abel and Enoch for inftance ; ifwe fuppofe them ufing Inttítutions which they couldnot comprehend the Meaning of, or calling upon GOD by Names of various Forms and Sounds which they did not underftand, or which were not intended to give them a proper Intelligence of him ? If the feveral Words, which, in our Bible, are tranflated GOD and LORD (and there are feveral, different in Sound and Conftru&ion, which are fo tranflated) be merely fynoni- mous, and have no particular diftinét Senfe but what is common to each ; there would be many Texts in the Old Teftament full of unmeaning, if not ufelefs, Tau- tology. What are we to underftand,in that Cafe, by fuch Expreílions as thefe; Who is GODfave the LORD ? -1 he LORDheistheGOD And,backagain,GOD is theLORD= The LORDwholeName is the GODof JP' Would not this be playing upon Words, unbecomingeven a profane, much more the Diginity of a facred Penman, and utterly irreconcileable to every Idea ofadivine Revelation? Such quibbling upon Terms, or fuch a pompous Ufe of vague and arbitrary Names, might indeed be prac`tifed by the injudicious among the Heathen Sophists ; but, if we at- tentively, confider the whole Matter, we fhall find no fuch Condufi in the Deity, or in thofe who fpake as they were moved by the Holy Ghofl. But if thofe Words, rendered LORD and Gon, have, in the Original, a Signification and Import different from each other, however predicable both may beof eachdivine Perfon, fub diverfd 6x£Pn ; then the facred Penmen both underftood what they wrote refpefting each of thefe Names, and meant to convey intelligible Ideas of them to others. There was a peculiar diftincc Senfe to every Name; or one Name would have ferved the Purpofe of a thoufand. Nor can it be well explained, why JE- Amos v. 27. B 4 HOVAH
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=