his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.' And from the words thus translated, you would infer, that he whose name is to be called the Mighty God, is the Mighty God himself. Then the child that is born, the babe that was in the womb of Mary, and in the manger at Bethlehem, was the Mighty God! And, the Son that was given (by Jehovah), was the Everlasting Father! Settle this matter, if you can, with pseudo-Athanasius, who warns you not to confound the persons, nor to divide the substance; 'For,' says he, 'there is one person of the Father, another of the Son;' yet Isaiah, as you say, represents the Son and the Father as the same persons. Truly, Sir, there are no obscurities, no difficulties in the orthodox system! Every thing accurately quadrates there!"

Jeremiahr xxiii. 6:—In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness. This verse is constantly pressed into the service of orthodoxy. It is a favourite text of the evangelical preachers, and is, with a triumphant air, dinned into the ears of a credulous audience. But this proof of the Deity of Jesus, like other proofs of the same doctrine, cannot stand the test of serious and candid examination. It is easy for a man from the pulpit dogmatically to assert, that Jesus Christ was Jehovah, and to accuse those of wilful blindness, who will not assent to his exposition of the language of Scripture; but confident assertions will not always pass for sound argument, nor will sweeping denunciations long continue to foster prejudices. Though "the expressions of their sentiments are as oraculous as if they were omniscient," there is a spirit of inquiry abroad, and the godlike faculties of the human mind will be called into full exercise; and many of those who now so tamely submit to the dictation of their spiritual guides, will throw off their trammels, and judge for themselves. Had Christians impartially studied the Scriptures, they would not have tolerated the frequent introduction of the text under consideration into the pulpit, as a proof of the Deity of Christ.

1st, The context clearly proves, that the verse does not refer to the Messiah. We beg our readers to turn to, and consider verses 5, 6, 7, 8. We read, "In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely;" but

in Christ's days, the Jews were in subjection to the Romans, and felt their dependent state so keenly, that they were constantly devising means to throw off the yoke, and mutinying against the exactions of their oppressors. They were anxiously expecting the Messiah, to redeem Israel from their Heathen conquerors. In 40 years from the death of Christ, their frequent resistance broke forth into general rebellion. The Romans destroyed their city, burned their temple, starved, crucified, enslaved, and exposed to wild beasts, an immense multitude, and dispersed the miserable remnant over the face of the earth. Then, there was amongst them great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world, nor ever shall be. From that time, they have lived in subjection to foreign powers, and have been scattered in every part of the world. The 8th verse refers to the return of the Israelites from their Babylonish captivity. The righteous branch, who was to execute judgment and justice in the earth, is Zerubbabel, under whose conduct the Jews returned, and rebuilt their temple. To the remarks made under the 2d head, respecting Isaiah ix. 6, we refer, as equally applicable to the verse under consideration.

2dly, But, if an argument could be adduced to favour the unauthorised reference of this passage to the Messiah, and if the common translation be correct, the frequent use in Scripture of names and titles expressive of the character and office, or of any particular circumstances, of persons, would militate against the popular interpretation of the phrase "The Lord our righteousness." Jesus might, on the principles of Unitarianism, be called the Lord, or rather, Jehovah our righteousness, as he was the minister of Jehovah, and sent to preach, and lead into the way of righteousness. Moses was a God to Pharaoh, because he declared to him the will of the Supreme Being. Magistrates, princes, and judges, are also termed gods. Abiel, the son of Zeror, means in the original, God my Father. Adoniram, the name of the person who was over the tribute, means, the Lord of might. Amazial, the strength of the Lord. Daniel, judgment of God. Elijah, God the Lord. Elisha, salvation of God, or God that saves. Eliathah, my God cometh. Eliel, God my God. Emanuel, God with us. All these names, and many more of the same import, do not, in any respect, refer to the nature of the person, but to his character or office. A name, at

first given expressive of some peculiar charge or situation, continued to be used, and given to ordinary persons. Thus, Abraham, a name given to the founder of the Jewish nation, to designate that he would be the father of a great multitude, was afterwards applied, without reference to its original use, to any of his descendants. Joshua, a name appropriately given to the distinguished leader of the armies of Israel, which signifies, the Lord, the Saviour, became a common appellation.

3dly, But, although the phrase " Jehovah our righteousness" might be, according to the style of Scripture, appropriately applied to him who was a man approved of God, by miracles and signs which God did by him, yet the passage under consideration, does not refer to Christ, nor is it properly translated in our common version. We shall give the translation of Blaney, and his remarks upon it:"And this is the name by which Jehovah shall call him, Our Righteousness. I doubt not, but some persons will be offended with me, for depriving them by this translation, of a favourite argument for proving the divinity of our Saviour, from the Old Testament. But I cannot help it. I have done it with no ill design, but purely because I think, and am morally sure, that the text as it stands, will not properly admit of any other construction. The LXX. (the Greek version, called the Septuagint,) have so translated before me, in an age when there could not possibly be any bias of prejudice either for, or against, the before mentioned doctrine, a doctrine which draws its decisive proofs from the New Testament only. In the parallel passage, chap. xxxiii. 16. the expression is a little varied, but the sense, according to a just and literal translation, is precisely the same; And this is he whom Jehovah shall call, Our Righteousness."

SIR,

(To be Continued.)

To the Editor of the Christian Pioneer.

I HAVE learned from the public prints, that the Committee of the General Assembly has petitioned Parliament against any alteration in the present Corn Laws; and, that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has sanctioned the illiberal policy of its deputies. During the discussion, respecting the propriety of this

appeal to the Legislature, some of the members of the Assembly, manifested towards those who have censured their petition, a degree of asperity, ill concealed under the mask of contempt, not very becoming those who preach the Christian law of benevolence. The following remarks are the result of as dispassionate a view of the question as I am able to take. I wish neither to extenuate nor to set down ought in malice. The present restrictions respecting the importation of grain, render the price of the staff of life too exorbitant for the plentiful supply of the population. They enable the landed proprietor to make an extravagant demand for the most wholesome article of food, and, what is still more pernicious, render the comfort, the health, almost the very existence, of the most numerous portion of the community, dependent on the avarice and cupidity of a few gamblers and reckless speculators. Those who have taken a comprehensive view of the subject, are of opinion, that an abandonment, or at least a considerable abatement, of the present restrictive Corn Laws, would not deteriorate the interests of the landholders, whilst it would materially benefit all other classes, and be of incalculable advantage to our operatives.

Bread strengtheneth man's heart; but a sufficient supply of this most nutritious, and generally palatable diet, is, according to the present system, often beyond the means of the labouring class, and especially of that portion, who have a large and increasing family, crying out perpetually, Give, give. The established clergy of Scotland know full well the distresses which the population of Scotland have of late endured; they know that multitudes have not been able to procure a proper supply of bread; and they know, that the deprivations which they have suffered, are in no small degree to be attributed to the present restrictive Corn Laws, which, apparently, benefit one portion of the state, at the expense of another-the most useful-the most necessary. But the established clergy, imagining that a plentiful supply of the staff of life would diminish the profits of their lands that "their rank, and mellow glebes fertile of corn," would not yield them the same lucrative return, if the poor were liberally supplied with bread, petition Parliament to prevent the introduction of foreign corn, or, in other words, to keep up the high prices of the staff of life, and thus deprive the poor of an adequate supply. The principle of the petition

is, that the poor may starve in order that the clergy may enjoy the comforts and luxuries of life. The Scotch clergy cannot apprehend any serious inconvenience which ever way the Parliament should decide; in their own apprehension, they might be losers to the amount of a few pounds a-year, but they are placed above all chance of losing the comforts or the luxuries of the world, by the removal of the present restrictions. No body of clergy is so comfortably and amply remunerated, as that of the Church of Scotland. Though none enjoy livings equivalent to some of the English bishoprics, yet their livings are much less unequally divided; and none, we believe, have an income amounting to less than £200 a-year, whilst the benefices of some nearly approach £1000 per annum. Parliament amply supplies the deficiencies of Scotch glebes.

The established clergy are, indeed, wholly without excuse for their petition for the continuation of the present restrictions. Had they deemed it proper to interfere with the deliberations of Parliament on this subject, one might reasonably expect, that their address would have been in behalf of poverty-that their voices would have been raised to befriend those who have few to help them, and who are sometimes unable to procure the necessaries of life. Had the Scotch clergy come before Parliament on this question, they should have appeared as the earnest advocates of a starving population, and have implored the Legislature to take compassion on those, whose honest industry could scarcely enable them to keep life and soul together. They should have urged, In the discharge of our pastoral duties, our steps are often conducted to the roof of sordid poverty; we enter miserable dwellings which do but ill defend the squalid inhabitants from the inclemencies of winter; and we behold faces lean and wasted, from a scanty and unwholesome diet-" Meagre and lank from fasting grown." Oh! have compassion upon the poor. We cheerfully risk the sacrifice of a small part of our income, that they may be satisfied with bread. At this time, the voice of distress is heard in our land; and we cannot, we dare not-as we value our reputation, as we value the usefulness of our ministerial services, as we value the testimony of our consciences, and the approbation of him who came not to be ministered unto but to minister-we dare not, by petitioning you to protect