John therefore ought to be considered as the forerunner of both, in the same manner as a commander sent in advance to occupy a strong post in the country of the enemy, may be said to be preparing the way for the battles of his king, or of the general whom the king places at the head of his army.

They also refer to Isaiah vi. 5, "For mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts"-comparing it with John xii. 41, " These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." The passage in the evangelist is more correctly explained by referring to John viii. 56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day;" which cannot be understood of ocular vision, but prophetic anticipation; whereas the glory seen in the vision of Isaiah was that of God himself in the delivery of the commands given to the Prophet on that occasion.

Corinthians i. 30, "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness,' &c. is compared with Jeremiah xxiii. 6, "He shall be called Jehovah our righteousness." In reply to which I only refer my reader again to the passage in Jeremiah xxxiii. 16, in which Jerusalem also is called "Jehovah our righteousness," and to the phrase "is made unto us of God" found in the passage in question, and expressing the inferiority of Jesus to God. Also 2 Cor. v. 21, "That we might be made the righteousness of God in him," where St. Paul says, that all Christians may be made the righteousness of God.

Mr. Brown, a celebrated Trinitarian Commentator, retains the common version of Jeremiah xxiii. 6, and applies it to Jesus, whom he supposes to be "Jehovah our righteousness." But in ch. xxxiii. 16, where the construction in the original Hebrew is precisely the same, he

alters the version, and thus renders it in the margin, "he who shall call her is Jehovah our righteousness," instead of applying the phrase "Jehovah our righteousness" to Jerusalem, in the same manner as he had applied it to Jesus in the former passage.-I therefore deem it necessary to give the original Hebrew of both texts, and a verbal translation of them. The reader will judge how strongly the judgment of the learned Commentator was biassed in support of a favourite doctrine. Jer. xxiii. 6, ¬¬¬› ywin 1’D'a

In his » וישראל ישכן לבטח וזה שמו אשר יקראו יהוה צדקנו

days shall be saved Judah, and Israel shall dwell in safety, and this his name which (man) shall call him, Jehovah our righteousness."

בימים ההם תושע ,16 .Jer. xxxiii יהודה וירושלם תשכון לבטח וזה אשר יקרא לה יהוה צדקנו

"In those days shall be saved Judah, and Jerusalem shall dwell in safety, and this (name) which (man) shall call her, Jehovah our righteousness."

In altering the common translation of the latter passage, Mr. Brown first disregards the stop after ♬ p1 that is, "shall call her;" which, by separating the two parts of the sentence, prevents Jehovah from being employed as the agent of the verb "shall call." 2ndly, He entirely neglects the established mode of construction, by leaving or "this," untranslated, and by omitting to point out the name by which Jerusalem should be called. 3dly, He totally overlooks the idiom of the Hebrew, in which verbs are often employed unaccompanied with their agent, when no specific agent is intended, as appears from the following passages :

ואחרי כן וצא [יצא] אחיו וידו אחזת בעקב עשו 26 .Gen. xxv ויקרא שמו יעקב

"And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel, and (man) called his

name Jacob." 2 Samuel ii. 16, 1271 172 wa wik ipin"i

בצד רעהו ויפלו יחדו ויקרא למקום ההוא חלקת הצרים אשר בגבעון

"And they caught every one his fellow by the head, and thrust his sword in his fellow's side; so they fell down together: wherefore (man) called that place Helkath Hazurem, which is in Gibeon." Genesis xvi. 14,

Wherefore (man) called » על כן קרא לבאר באר לחי ראי

the well Beer-lahai-roi."

They again adduce Isaiah xlv. 23, "Unto me (God) every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear"-compared with Romans xiv. 10, 12, "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Between the Prophet and the Apostle there is a perfect agreement in substance, since both declare that it is to God that every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess, through him before whose judgment-seat we shall all stand :—for at the same time both Jesus and his Apostles inform us, that we must stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, because the Father has committed the office of final judgment to him.-From this passage, they say, it appears that Jesus swore by himself, and that thereby he is proved to be God, according to the rule, that it is God only that can swear by himself. But how can they escape the context, which expressly informs us, that "the Lord" (Jehovah), and not Jesus, swore in this manner? We must not however overlook what the Apostle says in his epistle to the Philippians, ch. ii. 9-11, where he declares, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall

bow and every tongue shall confess; but neither must we forget, that Jesus is declared to have been exalted to these honours by God, and that the only confession required is that he is Lord, which office confession of his dignity is to the glory of God the Father. 9, "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; 10, That at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11, And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Some have adopted a most extraordinary way of establishing the deity of Jesus. Any epithet or act, however common it may be, ascribed to God in the Sacred Writings, and also to Christ in the New Testament, is adduced by them as a proof of his deity; and I observe with the utmost surprise, that the prejudice of many Christians in favour of the doctrine of the Trinity induces them to lay stress upon such sophisms. For instance, Isaiah xliii. 3, "For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy one of Israel, thy Saviour"-compared with 2 Peter iii. 18, "Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." The conclusion they draw from these passages is, that unless Jesus were God, he could not be a Saviour: but how futile this reasoning is will clearly appear from the following passages: Nehemiah ix. 27, "Thou gavest them saviours, who saved them." Obad. 27, " And saviours shall come up on Mount Zion." 2 Kings xiii. 5, " And the Lord gave Israel a Saviour, so they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime." Isaiah xix. 19, 20, " In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord. And it shall be for a sign

U

and for a witness unto the Lord of Hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a Saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them." If this argument possesses any force, then it would lead us to acknowledge the deity not only of Jesus, but that of those different individuals to whom the term 66 Saviours" or "Saviour" is applied in the above citations. The phrase in Isaiah, "Besides me there is no Saviour," is easily accounted for by considering, that all those who have been instrumental in effecting the deliverance of their fellow-creatures from evils of whatever nature were dependent themselves upon God, and only instruments in his hands; and thus all appearance of inconsistence is removed.

Again, Ps. xxiii. 1, “Jehovah is my Shepherd"-compared with John x. 16, "And other sheep I have, which are not of his [this] fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one Shepherd." In the former text, David declared God to be his shepherd or protector; in the latter, Jesus represents himself as the one shepherd of the one fold of Christians, some of whom were already attached to him, and others were afterwards to become converts: but Trinitarian writers thus conclude from these passages: if Christ be not one with Jehovah, he could not be called a Shepherd, and thus there would be two shepherds: but a little reflection on the following passages will convince every unbiassed person, that Moses is called a shepherd in like manner, and his followers a flock; and that the term 66 shepherd" is applied to others also, without conveying the idea of their unity with Jehovah. Isaiah lxiii. 11, "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of