and the Messiah whom he sent, just as much as we do between Cyaxares and Cyrus, employed to lead his armies, between Vespasian and Titus, between George the Third and his son, now George the Fourth." In this passage, it must be confessed that we have something like a clear definition or exposition of the nature of the Trinity, in which the Editor professes his belief;-that is, he conceives the Godhead to constitute a genus like angel, man, fowl, fish, &c., God the Son being of the same nature with God the Father, just as the man George the Third is of the same nature with the man George the Fourth, though of a separate will, inclination, and passion, and distinct existence-a conception which is certainly compatible with an idea of unity of nature between the Father and the Son, but which is entirely inconsistent with that of coevality between them; and implies, that, as the difference of existence, &c., between man and man is the origin of the plurality of mankind, so the difference of existence, &c., between God and God, must cause plurality in the Godhead. Can there be any polytheistical creed more clear and more gross than this? Yet the Editor will take it amiss if charged with Polytheism. It is worth observing, that the orthodox, so far from establishing the unity of the Messiah with God by means of the above passage, "I will set one shepherd over them, even my servant David," can at most but prove unity between the Messiah and God's servant David. In the course of this argument, the Editor says, that "he had adduced many other passages in which the Son is called Jehovah." I wonder at this assertion. I find hitherto only two places in which he applies the word Jehovah to Jesus, "Thy throne, O God!" &c., "And thou, Lord, in the beginning," &c. The Editor takes upon himself to use the term Jehovah instead of "God" in the former, and instead of "Lord" in the latter instance, as before noticed, and now he gives out his own perversion of those texts as authority! Mr. Jones having attempted to deduce the deity of Jesus by a comparison of Ephes. iv. 18, with Psalm lxviii. 18, "Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwell among them,"-I observed, (page 297, Second Appeal,) that, " from a view of the whole verse, the sense must, according to this mode of reasoning, be as follows-The person who ascended on high, and who received gifts for men, that the Lord God might dwell among them, is the Lord God, an interpretation which, as implying that the Lord God ascended, and received gifts from a being of course superior to himself, in order that he might dwell among men, is equally absurd and unscriptural." The Editor entirely omits to notice the foregoing observation, and only refers to the context, inferring thence that different persons of the Godhead are addressed in the course of the Psalm. - (Page 564.) "The Psalm," he observes, (lxviii.,) 66 commences with an address to God in the third person. At verse 7th he is addressed in the second person: the second person is retained till verse 11th, and is resumed again in this, the 18th, verse. If one person be not addressed from the beginning, therefore, it is certain that he who ascended on high, identified by Paul as Christ, is God, who went forth before the people through the wilderness." How is it possible that the Editor, a diligent student of the Bible for thirty or forty years, should not know that, in addressing God, the third person and also the second are constantly used in immediate sequence, and that this variation is considered a rhetorical trope in Hebrew and Arabic, as well as in almost all the Asiatic languages, from being supposed to convey notions of the omnipresence and pervading influence of the Deity? To prove this assertion, I could quote a great many instances even from the single book of Psalms, such as Psalm iii. 3—5, &c., and in a single ch., 2 Sam. xxii. 3, 49, in which God is addressed both in the second and third persons; but as the Editor might, perhaps, allege in those cases, though in defiance both of the idiom of the Hebrew and of common sense, that in all these instances, David in spirit meant the first and the second persons of the Godhead by the variety of persons, I shall quote the translation of some lines of the Qoran, by Sale, and of a Jewish prayer, in which the same variety of persons is used, and where it cannot be imagined that different persons of the Godhead are meant to be therein addressed. Alqoran, ch. i.: " Praise be to God the Lord of all creatures, the most merciful, the King of the day of judgment. Thee do we worship, and of thee do we beg assistance. Direct us in the right way, in the way of those to whom thou hast been gracious; not of those against whom thou art incensed, not of those who go astray." Can Mohummud here be supposed to have alluded in spirit to the first and second persons of God, or has he not rather used those phrases according to the common practice of the language? The following lines are from a Jewish book of prayers, written in Hebrew, and translated into English.* "Sabbath morning service. Therefore, all whom God hath formed, shall glorify and bless him; they shall ascribe praise, honour, and glory, unto the King who hath formed all things, and who, through his holiness, causeth his people Israel to inherit rest on the holy sabbath. Thy name, O Lord our God! shall be sanctified.'" Morning service. His words also are living, permanent, faithful, and desirable for ever, even unto all ages; as well those which he hath spoken concerning our ancestors, as those concerning us, our children, our generations, and the generations of the seed of Israel, thy servants, both the * Compiled by the Rev. Solomon Hirschell, translated by Messrs. Justins, Barnet, and Joseph, and printed in London by E. Justins, 1803. first and the last."" A thousand similar instances might be adduced. In the Qoran, it is further remarkable that the same change of person is adopted when God is represented as speaking of himself. Alqoran, ii. 5 : "Set not up, therefore, any equals unto God against your own knowledge. If ye be in doubt concerning that revelation which we have sent down unto our servant, produce a chapter like unto it, and call upon your witnesses besides God, if ye say truth." Moreover, we find in the Jewish Scriptures, that in speaking of a third party, both the second and the third personal pronouns are sometimes used. Hosea ii. 15 -17: "And I will give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope; and she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt. And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali. For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name." Ver. 19: " And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and in mercies." The public may now judge what weight the argument of the Editor ought to carry with it, and whether I adduced only a "Jewish dream" in applying verse 18 originally to Moses, or whether the Editor rather |