be such as that existing between the husbandman, the vine, and its branches.

Some orthodox divines having attempted to establish the deity of Jesus, by comparing Jer. xxiii. 5, 6, ("I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and prosper-and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD Our RIGHTEOUSNESS,") with 1 Cor. i. 30, (" Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness," &c.,) I replied, in my Second Appeal, (page 286,) that "I only refer my readers again to the passage in Jer. xxxiii. 16, in which Jerusalem also is called 'THE LORD 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; and also to 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;"" to which the Reverend Editor thus replies (page 580): "This does not at all affect the question in band, which is simply, whether this righteous branch of David, this king, who shall reign and prosper, be Jesus Christ or not: and to prove this, we need only call in the testimony of the angel to Mary, Luke i, 32, 33, 'The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever.'" The Editor here overlooks again the force of the phrase, "God shall give unto him (Jesus) the throne of his father David," implying, that the.

1

"being

throne and exaltation which Jesus was possessed of, was but the free gift of God. To lessen the force of such phrases as, made of God," "God shall give unto him," &c., the Editor adds, that, "relative to his being made of God righteousness to us,' this can of course make no alteration in the Son's eternal nature." I therefore beg to ask the Editor, if one's being made by another any thing whatsoever that he was not before, does not tend to prove his mutable nature, what nature, then, can be called mutable in this transitory world? The Editor again advances, that Jesus "was Jehovah before he became incarnate," &c. This is a bare assertion which I must maintain to be without any ground, unless he means to advance the doctrine, that souls are emanations of God and proceed from the deity.

As to Jerusalem being called, "Jehovah our righteousness," the Editor says, "We may observe, that it is the church of Christ, the holy Jerusalem, who bears this name, to the honour of her glorious head and husband, who is, indeed, Jehovah her righteousness." (Page 581.) Let us reflect on this answer of the Editor. In the first place, the term Jerusalem, in Jer. xxxiii. 16, from its association with the term "Judah," is understood as signifying the well-known holy city in that kingdom, having no reference to the church or followers of Christ. In the second place, if the Editor understands by the term "Jerusalem," here, the church of Christ,

and admits of Jerusalem being figuratively called "Jehovah our righteousness," on the ground that Christ is its head, and that, consequently, it bears that name" to the honour of her glorious head," though, in reality, different from and subordinate to him, how can he reject the figurative application of the phrase "Jehovah our righteousness" to Jesus, on the same ground and same principle, which is, that as Jehovah is the head of Christ, consequently Christ bears this name "to the honour of his head," though, in reality, different from and subordinate to God? Vide 1 Cor. xi. 3: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the HEAD OF CHRIST IS GOD."

The Editor shews an instance in Isaiah, in which seven women wish to be called by the name of a husband, to have their reproach taken away. He must also know, that thousands of sons and descendants are called by the name of one of their fathers, and servants by the name of their masters, to the honour of the father or the master. Vide Isaiah xlviii. 1; Gen. xliii. 6; Hosea xi. 8, 9; Exod. xxiii. 21. The Editor then proceeds to divide the honorary names, found in scripture, into two kinds; one given by men, and the other given by God; but he must know that the names given by prophets, or by common men, if used and confirmed by God, or by any of the sacred writers, become as worthy of at

tention as if they had been bestowed originally by the Deity himself.

The Editor again uses the following words, "The incommunicable name Jehovah," the self-existent, from the verb mn hawah," to be or to exist," "which is applied to no one throughout the Scripture besides the sacred three," &c. We know very numerous instances in which the name "Jehovah" is applied to the most sacred God, but never met with an instance of applying to two other sacred persons the simple term "Jehovah." I wish the Editor had been good enough to have taken into consideration that this is the very point in dispute, and to have shewn instances in which the second and third persons of the deity (according to the Editor's expression) are addressed by this name. He further observes, that "no one supposes that Jehovah-Jireh, "God will see or provide," given by Abraham to the place where he offered Isaac, was intended to deify that place, but to perpetuate the fact that the Lord did there provide a sacrifice instead of Isaac; that Jehovah-nissi, " God, my banner," given by Moses to his altar, intended any thing more than that God was his banner against the Amalekites ;-that Jehovah-tsidkenu, "Jehovah our righteousness," the name men should call Jerusalem, or Christ's church, was intended to deify her, but to demonstrate that her Lord and head, who is righteousness, is indeed Jehovah." Here I follow the

very same mode of interpretation, adopted by the Editor, in explaining the same phrase, “The Lord our righteousness," found in Jer. xxiii. 6, referred to the Messiah; that is, the application of this phrase to the Messiah does not deify him, but demonstrates, that his Father, his EMPLOYER, his HEAD, the Most High, who is his righteousness, is the Lord Jehovah; so that the consistency cannot be overlooked which prevails through all the phrases of a similar nature; for as Christ is represented to be the head of his church, so God is represented to be the head of Christ, as I noticed in the foregoing page 533. Lastly, the Editor says, "Compound names, therefore, do not of themselves express deity, but they express facts more strongly than simple assertions or propositions." I am glad to observe, that he differs from a great many of his colleagues, in their attempt to deify the Messiah from the application of the above phrase to him; but as to the facts demonstrated by this phrase, they may be easily ascertained from comparing the application of it with that of exactly similar phrases to others, as I have just observed.

The Editor now mentions (page 583) a few more passages which, he thinks, tend to "illustrate, not so much the name as the divine nature of the Son. In Jer. v. 22, we have this expostulation; Fear ye not me? saith the Lord. Will ye not tremble at my. presence, who have placed the sand for the bound of the sea, by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: