it is very natural for a nation or tribe, when oppressed by foreign conquerors, to remember their own ancient king's, under whose governments their fathers were prosperous, and to wish a return of their reign, if possible. If the Editor insist upon referring this prophecy to Jesus, he must wait its fulfilment; as Israel has not as yet sought Jesus, as the son of David, the Messiah, who was promised to them.

The Editor says, (page 586,) that Peter, in Acts ii. 21, applies to Jesus Joel ii., whereby he identifies Jehovah with him': but we find Peter here quoting only a part of Joel ii. 32: "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." So far from applying this to the Son, and identifying him with God, the apostle explains, in the immediately following verse, (22,) his nature, and his total subordination to God: "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you," &c. The Editor then adds, that Paul also addressed himself " to all who, in every place, call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." (1 Cor. i. 2.) I therefore quote Locke's paraphrase on this verse, as well as his note on Rom. x. 13, with a view to shew the Editor, that the phrase, "call on the name of Jesus," is not a correct translation in the English version. "To the church of God, which is at Corinth, to them that are separated from the rest of the world, by faith in Jesus

by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" &c. Here Christian saints are declared to be judges of the deeds of the whole world, and of course to be possessors of a knowledge of all events, both public and private, so as to enable them to perform so delicate a judgment. Besides, a knowledge of future events is by no means less wonderful than that of past things or present secrets of hearts; yet we find all the prophets of God were endued with the former. 1 Kings xx. 22: "And the prophet came to the king of Israel, and said unto him, Go, strengthen thyself, and mark, and see what thou doest; for at the return of the year the king of Syria will come up against thee." So we find the same gift of future knowledge granted to righteous men in numerous instances.

He then cites Daniel i. and vii., and founds upon them the following question: "If, then, by nature he was not God, by nature the creator of heaven and earth, he and his kingdom must perish from under the heavens." To this my reply is, that we find Jesus subjected to the death of the cross while on earth, and, after the general resurrection, to Him that put all things under him. (1 Cor. xv. 28.) The Son, therefore, is not by nature God, the creator of heaven and earth. As to the sophistry that attributes the death and subjugation of Jesus only to his human capacity, it might be applicable to every human individual, alleging that they, being the chil

dren of Adam, the son of God, (Luke iii. 38,) are possessed of a divine nature also, and that their death, consequently, is in their human capacity alone, but that in their divine nature they cannot be subjected to death. (Vide pp. 464-469 of this Essay.)

By applying to Jesus the epithet "most holy," found in Dan. ix. 24, the Editor attempts to prove the eternal deity of the Son, forgetting, perhaps, that the same term "most holy" is applied in the Scriptures even to inanimate things. Numb. xviii. 10: "In the most holy place shalt thou eat it." Exod. xxix. 37: "It shall be an altar most holy."

The Editor, in noticing Hosea, says, that "the evangelist's quoting this passage, (Out of Egypt have I called my son,') plainly shews that it referred to Christ as well as to Israel; but the difference is manifest: Israel was God's adopted son, constantly rebelling against his Father; Jesus was God's proper son, of the same nature with his Father, (as is every proper son,) and did always what pleased him.” This assertion of the Editor, that " Israel was God's adopted son," is, I think, without foundation; for they are declared, like Jesus, to be begotten sons of God; but were not, like Christ, entirely devoted to the will of the Father of the universe. Deut. xxxii. 18: "Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee." Exod. iv. 22: "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn." He then quotes Hosea iii. 5: "Afterward

shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king." On which he comments, that David had then been in his gravehe could be sought only in heaven :-as David, in common with other saints, could not search the heart and know the sincerity of prayers, this prophecy must be assigned to the son of David, the Messiah. I really regret to observe, that as the Jews endeavour to misinterpret such passages as are most favourable to the idea of Jesus being the expected Messiah, so Christians, in general, try to refer to Jesus any passages that can possibly be explained as bearing the least allusion to their notion of the Messiah, however distant in fact they may be from such a notion. By so doing, they both only weaken their respective opinions. The above citation, on which the Editor now dwells, is an instance. Let us refer to the text of Hosea iii. 4: "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim." Ver. 5: "Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king, and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days." Does not the poetical language of the prophet determine to the satisfaction of

every unbiassed man, that, after long sufferings, Israel will repent of their disobedience, and seek the protection of their God, and the happiness which their fathers enjoyed during the reign of David? as

it is very natural for a nation or tribe, when oppressed by foreign conquerors, to remember their own ancient kings, under whose governments their fathers were prosperous, and to wish a return of their reign, if possible. If the Editor insist upon referring this prophecy to Jesus, he must wait its fulfilment; as Israel has not as yet sought Jesus, as the son of David, the Messiah, who was promised to them.

The Editor says, (page 586,) that Peter, in Acts ii. 21, applies to Jesus Joel ii., whereby he identifies Jehovah with him: but we find Peter here quoting only a part of Joel ii. 32: "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." So far from applying this to the Son, and identifying him with God, the apostle explains, in the immediately following verse, (22,) his nature, and his total subordination to God: "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you," &c. The Editor then adds, that Paul also addressed himself " to all who, in every place, call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." (1 Cor. i. 2.) I therefore quote Locke's paraphrase on this verse, as well as his note on Rom. x. 13, with a view to shew the Editor, that the phrase, " call on the name of Jesus," is not a correct translation in the English version. "To the church of God, which is at Corinth, to them that are separated from the rest of the world, by faith in Jesus