justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name whereby he shall be called, the Lord (Jehovah) our righteousness. (Chap. xxiii. 5, 6; xxxiii. 15, 16.)" Do you seriously think that when Jehovah says that he will raise up a branch to David, he meant that he himself was the branch to be raised to David by himself? You observe that there are two references given by Clowes above. If you have turned to them, you have found that the second is not the same as the first, butis thus, " In those days shall Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely, and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, the Lord (Jehovah) our righteousness."

Here the very appellation is given to Jerusalem. Make then your own application of the passage, only be consistent, and fairly allow that whatever it means in reference to Jesus, it also means in reference to Jerusalem.

One more passage and I will close these remarks. P. 29, "To the same purpose it is written in Malachi, Behold I will

send my messenger, and he shall preparé the way before me, and Jehovah whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple; but who may abide the day of his coming?' &c. (Chap. iii. 1, 2.)"

I have given this passage exactly as quoted by Mr. Clowes, and I confess I was completely astonished when I read it.

I now give it as it stands in our translation. "Behold I will send

ger, and he shall prepare the

my messen

way before me; and the Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple; even the MESSENGER of the covenant, whom ye delight in : behold he shall come saith the LORD OF HOSTS. But who may abide the day of his coming?" &c.

You cannot fail of making the following observations:

That the first time the word Lord is used in this verse, it is given by Mr. Clowes Jehovah, whereas in the original it is not Jehovah, but Adon.

That, the Messenger of the covenant" is omitted in the quotation.

That the word Messenger is precisely

the same as that applied to John in the first clause of the verse.

That, "behold he shall come saith the LORD OF HOSTS," is likewise omitted. That, this last expression is JEHOVAH OF HOSTS.

Nor can you fail of remarking the striking distinction between "JEHOVAH OF HOSTS," and "ADON, the Messenger of the covenant, who shall stand in the temple."

Suffer me now to invite your serious attention to a few plain questions.

1st, What do you understand by the terms Christ and Christian? You call yourselves Christians, that is, the disciples of Christ. But what is meant by Christ? You are probably well aware that it means a person anointed. Amongst the Jews, kings at their coronation, had oil poured upon their heads, after which they were called the Lord's Christs, or the Lord's anointed. Now, Jehovah of Hosts may be the anointer, but he never could be the anointed. None could anoint Jehovah. If therefore Jesus were Christ, he could not have been Jehovah of Hosts.

2d, Have you any clear and distinct ideas attached to the phrase "divine humanity?" The words certainly appear to me to imply a contradiction. What is divine cannot be human; what is human cannot be divine.

3d, What do you mean by a "glorified humanity?" Or, by successively putting off an infirm humanity, and successively putting on a divine or glorified humanity?

You acknowledge that Jesus the anointed, was at first a mere human being, the offspring of a woman. Do you mean that he gradually ceased to be flesh and blood, till he became no longer the son of his mother? Did this take place before his death? Or was it merely after his resurrection? If it were after his resurrection, and before his ascension, how do you understand his "eating fish" with his disciples, his desiring Thomas to "handle" him, and his assertion that he was "not a spirit," but "flesh and blood?"

4th, What is the difference between your "divine," and our logos, or divine inspiration? We believe that divine powers were imparted to the man Jesus, that

the spirit was given to him without measure, that he was enabled to suspend or controul the established laws of nature, What difference is there between this and your" divine" appearing in a human form? 5th, Have you any clear or definite idea annexed to the expression, that a proceeding operation" forms a part of the person or nature of man or God? I acknowledge, I cannot understand it.

6th, Why are you so anxious to retain the word Trinity among the professed articles of your creed. You are aware that your Trinity is totally different from that of any other denomination of Christians; you are aware that it is an unscriptural word. Can you then point out any solid advantages arising from the continued use of the terms?

7th, Are there not many, and very se rious, disadvantages attending its continued use? Do you not lead others into mistakes and deceptions? Do you not, in your hearts, believe that many (if not most,) of your illiterate followers, cannot explain it away, as you do, but attach to it the same ideas as others who belong