And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, [that] thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.
Ver. 16. And it shall be in that day] A sweet promise of a thorough reformation, much like that Zechariah 13:2. God will turn to his people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord to serve him with one shoulder, Zephaniah 3:9, for which end he forms their speech for them, and tutors them here how to term him. Ishi they must call him, but not Baali, my husband, but not my lord: not that there was any hurt in the word, my Baal or Lord; but because it had been abused and given to idols, God would have none of it (so Tyrannus, fur sophista); or because it was grown among the better sort a name of contempt: like as for the same reason the word burden is rejected, Jeremiah 23:36. Or lastly, lest the people, while they spoke of one thing, should think of another; and naming Baal, should be put in mind of an idol. This is Jerome's reason. Some distinguish thus between the two words, that Ish is a name of love, Baal of fear (Lyra). Others observe that Ish signifieth an excellent man, and is therefore made choice of as every way better than Baal, or Lord (Oecolamp.). Augustus forbade men to call him Lord; and desired rather that more amiable name of Father of his country. It is wisdom, when we call upon God, to make choice of fit titles, not only such as he in his word hath warranted, but also such as may be suitable to our requests, and helpful to our faith in prayer; such as wherein we may see the thing prayed for coming towards us, as it were. This will notably excite devotion. Instances of it, see Psa 80:1 Acts 1:24; Act 4:24-30 Note there and in the next verse, that there is no small danger in words and names. What a deal of mischief hath the word Huguenot done in France, and Puritan here. In 1572, Cardinal Allen at Rheims instructed his emissary seducers, sent over hither, to divide the people under the names of Protestant and Puritan: provoking them thereby to real and mutual both hate and contempt. His Rheimists in their annotations on 1Ti 1:20 warn their readers of using the words of heretics (so they call us), though they have no great hurt in them, and hold to their old terms of mass, penance, priest, &c. They call us innovators, but we may call them so bettor. The truth is, we may not teach nova, new truths nor yet nove novelties. Castalion cannot be excused in his Iana Genius Respublica for ecclesia and other affected novelties. Melancthon's wish was that men would not only teach the same things, but in iisdem verbis, in iisdem syllabis, in the same words, yea, in the same syllables; for he that feigneth new words brings in new doctrines (it may be thought), as did Arminius. And yet it is not many years since here, among us, that he that would not be an Arminian was held no better than a practical Puritan. But let us keep our old words (said those veterans), and we shall easily keep our old faith. The devil doth sometimes speak the truth for his own ends. But was Winchester well advised when he made the Lord, and not to say our Lord, to be symbolum haereticorum, a note of a heretic. Or Dr Story, whose rule to know a heretic was this, they will say the Lord, and we praise God, and the living God. This was not Novum nomen, new name but Novum crimen, new fault, Gaius Caesar. Much like that of Pope Paul II, who pronounced them heretics that did not name the name academy either in earnest or in jest; and another pope made it heresy to hold that there were any in direct opposition to.