"Mr. Le Grice in his letter of the 15th April, says- You are welcome to shew my letters to any one, to print them if you please. You desire me to name the persons to whom I shew yours. My neighbours, the clergy, or any gentlemen to whom you may have said that the clergy are incompetent to defend their cause, or that the divines of the English Church are the blind leading the blind,' which, to my knowledge, I never said, either in private or in public. "This is Mr. Le Grice's last letter, which I never answered-seeing his intentions plain enough-when 1 pereeived a determination on his part to exhibit my letters beyond the limitation of my injunction, and to apply them to a purpose for which they never were intended, as soon as our correspondence ended; which, however, are of no other consequence to me, than the manner in which they have been executed. The all-powerful operation of conscience and religious duty, I understand, Mr. Le Grice gives as the source of his late conduct. It will now be for the public to judge how far this has influenced him and I now beg leave to refer the question to the most impartial decision of an independent and enlightened neighbourhood. "I remain, Rev. Sir, "Your humble Servant, "ROSE PRICE. Trengwainton, Jan. 21, 1824." [Since the above was prepared for press, we have received another Number of "The Royal Cornwall Gazette," containing a very long letter from Mr. Le Grice to Sir Rose Price, which, with any other documents that may be published in this singular controversy, we propose to insert in the next number. A large part of the newspaper above-named is filled with the affair. Two letters are inserted from one correspondent, signing himself " Orthodoxy," whose style and spirit betray a clerical education. This Reverend unknown says, very amusingly, "Whoever presumes to innovate, alter or misrepresent any point in the articles of the faith of our Church, ought to be arraigned as a traitor to our State; heterodoxy in the doctrines of the one, naturally producing and almost necessarily inferring rebellion and high treason in the other; and is consequently a crime that concerns the Civil magistrate as much to punish and reIt is strain as the Ecclesiastical." not in Cornwall alone that this matter has excited public attention. In the Bath and Cheltenham Gazette of January 20th, appeared a paragraph announcing the fact of Sir Rose Price's removal from his Presidency, and pointing out to the wonder of the readers, the temerity of Sir R. P. in saying that the King is an Anti-trinitarian. The next paper, of Jan. 27, contains a letter from a correspondent, signing himself O, who thus concludes-referring to the rumoured royal heresy "I know nothing of the authority on which the enlightened and conseíentious baronet so confidently asserts the fact, but I can easily conceive it to be true, and that a large proportion of his Majesty's subjects are believers in the Unity of the Godhead, (a doctrine plain and intelligible to common sense, and strongly enforced and supported by the general tenor of Scripture,) and that they only want the sanction of numbers, rank and emolument to make an open profession of what they are now induced from worldly motives, and for other obvious reasons, to conceal.” Another correspondent, H, has a letter in the paper following, February 3, in which there is an appeal to public sympathy on behalf of Sir R. P. The writer quotes the generous language of Bishop Watson, with regard to the late Duke of Grafton's Unitarianism, and then remarks, "It is indeed an honour to the times to see men of rank and title stand forward, whatever may be their particular views, in the Christian cause. Let us hope that others in the elevated circles will ere long join the standard, active in its defence." ED.] published, this latter point is fully made out. We refer to Mr. Everett's "Europe." In his view of public liberty in Great Britain he is led to treat of this particular, and he asserts that there is less Deism in the United States of America than here, and no prosecutions! The assertion is the more entitled to respect, because Mr. Everett approves the principle of civil penalties in religious matters, and though a Republican by country, seems to hold the British Government in profound respect. "If, however, without being biassed by the opinions of statesmen, or the prejudices of parties, we look in detail into the present state of the principal political institutions of the country, we shall find them, I think, in a great measure, sound and healthy. The Habeas Corpus Act, and the trial by jury, which are the legal securities of personal liberty in its several branches, including the freedom of the press, are still in full vigour; nor is there any danger of their being attacked. It is true, that the Habeas Corpus Act is sometimes suspended, perhaps unnecessarily; and we hear occasional complaints of packed and special juries, which are, probably, not wholly without foundation. But from the frequency with which verdicts are given against the government in political cases, it is evident enough that the spirit of the institution still exists. The liberty of the press, though nominally restrained somewhat more than it is in the United States, is, in practice, equally extensive, as is clear from the fact, that the abuses of it are infinitely greater than with us. There has never been any appearance in the United States of the blasphemy and sedition which, for several years past, have inundated the British islands in cheap and popular forms. The suppression of such publications is, undoubtedly, an act of substantial justice; and, as it is also done according to the forms of law, there is no ground to regard it as oppression. It seems to be more reprehensible on the score of policy; for the great sensation and scandal, created by these prosecutions, do more, perhaps, to give currency to the infamous productions in question, than any intrinsic attraction belonging to Europe; or, a General Survey of the Present Situation of the Principal Powers, with Conjectures on their Future Prospects. By Alexander H. Everett, Chargé D'Affaires of the United States of America at the Court of the Netherlands. 8vo. them, since they can rarely be written with talent. The works of Payne [Paine] may serve as an example. It appears from the proceedings at the trial of the bookseller Carlile, that two or three editions of them have been printed in the United States; a fact which I should not have known without, for I never saw a copy of them in a bookseller's shop in America, and very few in private collections. There is no law, however, to prohibit the printing or the selling them there; nor would any attempt be made to molest a printer who should undertake it. In point of fact, they are never heard Their existence would probably have been of amongst us, and excite no interest. forgotten, were it not that from time to time an account arrives in the British papers, of the trial of a bookseller for selling the Age of Reason. I see no cause why a similar system should not produce the same effect in Great Britain; and the operation of the contrary one is far from being equally fortunate. The book, by being continually kept in view, retains its hold upon the public attention. It is read by the people more because the printer has been prosecuted, than for any other reason. At every fresh trial, the most scandalous matter is urged in defence; which must be either repressed by a very unpopular exertion of authority, mage to the public than could ever arise or be tolerated, with much greater dafrom the work itself. Not only this, but the most obnoxious passages of the book form a part of the defence, and are reprinted, upon these occasions, in all the newspapers, and obtain more publicity by this means in a single day, than they could have obtained in a century in their ordinary form. If, by this process, the be said in favour of it; but the next work were finally suppressed, more might bookseller of daring character and desperate fortunes reprints it, and must be indicted with further scandal, and another publication in the newspapers. Can it be seriously maintained, that this is the best way of diverting the public attention from a dangerous work? At the same time, I acquit the British government of tyrannical intention in these proceedings. Such excesses are, in fact, far more dangerous to liberty, than they are to power. The freedom of the press, within and even beyond the bounds of decency, is unfettered. Journals and books are daily published without notice, which, in France or Germany, would plunge their authors into a dungeon, or bring them to the block. The plan of a preliminary inspection of manuscripts would, I am persuaded, be rejected with as much contempt by the government, as by the opposition. I conclude, that personal liberty, in its several branches, is still protected by all its ancient legal securities; and that, in this essential point, the principles and practice of the constitution have suffered no corruption. Indeed, the last permanent alteration connected with this subject, was the one effected, at the instance of Mr. Fox, in the law of libel, and was highly favourable to liberty."Pp. 236-239. and Aristobulus (Best Counsellor) is a name which is familiar to every reader of Jewish history. The most celebrated Hebrew scholars, however, have felt at a loss in what manner to translate this passage: "The word " says Dodson, being an adjective, cannot properly stand alone: and, as it is placed before the word ', it cannot, according to the rules of the Hebrew grammar, be joined in con 66 Mr. Wallace's Remarks on Isaiah ix. struction with it, though these words IN 6, 7. No. II. N some former remarks upon Isaiah ix. 6, 7, (pp. 21-24,) it was shewn that the date usually assigned as the period of Hezekiah's birth is erroneous, and that he was probably born in the year B. C. 741, that is to say, about one year after the delivery of the prophecy. I shall now enter upon a critical examination of the passage; and shall endeavour to make it appear, in a future communication, that the terms of the prophecy were strictly fulfilled in the person of Hezekiah, and no one else. "Unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder." From this description it is evident that the child was to become, not figuratively but actually, the future ruler of the Jews. By the government" is meant "the ensign of government; the sceptre, the sword, the key, or the like, which was borne upon, or hung from the shoulder." (See Lowth in loc.) There is great difficulty in rendering the words which immediately follow, and, judging from the various translations of this passage which are found in the Ancient Versions, it would appear that these words have from the earliest period been involved in considerable obscurity. The following is the authorized version: "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." In the epithets Wonderful and Counsellor, separately considered, there is nothing to call forth particular attention, similar epithets being frequently applied as proper names, both in sacred and profane history. One of the sons of Reuben, for instance, is called Phallu or Wonderful, (Gen. xlvi. 9,) have been often so connected, and particularly by Coverdale, whose ver sion, printed in 1550, is, The wonderous gever of counsayl."" Now, whenever a difficulty of this kind arises in the Hebrew text, recourse must first be had to the evidence of manuscripts: if these afford no light, the Chaldee Paraphrases and Ancient Versions must be consulted: and, if the difficulty still remains, we are at liberty to call in the aid of critical conjecture. This liberty, however, should be exercised with extreme caution, and resorted to only when every other source of information fails. As I have no means of consulting a copy of Kennicott's Hebrew Bible, or De Rossi's Various Readings, I am, of course, unable to state positively whe ther any reading has yet been found which would clear up the difficulty; but I think I may venture to assert, with some degree of confidence, that, if any such reading had existed, it would long since have been withdrawn from its concealment, and employed in the elucidation of this confessedly difficult passage of Scripture. Till such reading, therefore, is actually produced, I shall take it for granted that there is none, and proceed now to examine the Chaldee Paraphrases and Ancient Versions. But the Paraphrases, in the present case, furnish no information, and the Versions none which is at all satisfactory. Jerome, in his Latin Translation, commonly called the Vulgate, evidently conscious of the difficulty of the passage, has translated the words literally, and in the very order in which they stand in the present Hebrew text; thus, leaving the difficulty precisely as he found it. In the Septuagint these words are translated, Μεγαλης βελης αγγελος, Messenger of the great design. But this rendering, which is likewise found in Origen, Tertullian and Novatian, appears to take in the next word, (God,) and does not by any means convey a correct idea of the words as they at present stand in the Hebrew text. Dodson; in the Notes subjoined to his "New Translation of Isaiah," has proposed a very ingenious emendation of the original, by means of which he has brought the Hebrew to a correspondence with the Greek; but, instead of adopting his conjecture, I shall here take the liberty of proposing one which, as far as I know, is entirely new, and which appears to me to explain the difficulty upon a much simpler principle. All the remaining epithets in this prophecy, it will be observed, are compound expressions; from which I infer that the words under consideration were originally joined together in grammatical construction, and formed likewise a compound expression, similar to that which is applied to the Deity in Isaiah xxviii. 29, “This also cometh from the Lord of hosts, who is wonderful in counsel (y) and excellent in working." Now, this very expression may be obtained in the case before us, by simply changing pp (counsellor) into my (counsel); a change which is sanctioned by the introduction of the word Bouλns into the Septuagint Version, and one which has assuredly taken place in Prov. xi. 14, where the words now rendered "multitude of counsellors" ought, agreeably to the rendering of the Septuagint, to have been "much counsel." With this slight alteration, the passage before us will stand thus, "His name shall be called Wonderful in Counsel," &c. and I do not see that the application of this epithet to the Deity, in the passage above quoted, can in the slightest degree affect any interpretation of the prophecy found ed upon Unitarian principles, whether it be supposed to relate to Jesus' Christ, or King Hezekiah; because in that passage the word D, (Wonderful,) is preceded by the emphatic , whereas in the present case it is omitted, a distinction which is no less remarkable than it is decisive and satisfactory. : The next title will require a more particular consideration. The words translated "the Mighty God," have been regarded by many as exclusively applicable to Jesus Christ, and upon " these, therefore, the orthodox lay peculiar stress; but with what propriety' will be seen hereafter. It is a remarkable fact that the word is not translated God in any of the Greek Versions. The Seventy either do not translate it all, or render it, as we have already seen, by the term ayyeλos (Messenger); and Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, as appears from the fragments of Origen's Hexapla, edited by Montfaucon, (Vol. II. p. 404,) agree in translating 1, ισχυρος and δυνατος, or δυνας της, (strong and mighty,) and in this respect follow the Alexandrine copy of the Septuagint. But Dr. Owen, in his “ Inquiry into the present State of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament," says, (p. 50,) that "the Jews expunged the original translation very carly out of some copies, and substituted in its place what we now read in the Vatican, with a view to extort out of the hands of Christians one of the principal arguments for the divinity of Christ." Now, all this, I can safely take upon myself to say, is mere gratuitous assertion, unsupported by a single atom of evidence, or any thing in the shape of evidence. No vestige of the word God now remains in any of the Greek Versions, and all Dr. Owen's attempts to prove that it was ever found in them, proceed upon the most groundless and unwarranted assumptions. Whether this word was contained in the original Hebrew text is another and a totally distinct question; but, in the name of all that is charitable and Christian, let us not attempt to fix an unmerited stigma like this upon the poor Jews, in addition to the calumnies which are already so profusely heaped upon them. "Let us accuse and convict them, when we have sufficient evidence against them; but let us not make such heavy charges on fanciful conjecture only.' (Dodson's Notes on Isaiah, p. 209.) We need not fear, however, to take the Hebrew text as we now find it, and still apply the prophecy to King Hezekiah.There are four passages in the Old Testament, and I believe four only, in which these words are predicated of God; Isa. x. 21, Jer. xxxii. 18, Deut. x. 17, and Nehem. ix. 32. But three of these can hardly be considered cases in point, the word', (God,) being in these preceded by the emphatic 7, to render it more suitable to the dignity of the Being to whom it is applied. There remains, then, only one example of the application of these words to the Supreme God, and this is found in the writings of the prophet Isaiah (x. 21), "The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the Mighty God." Does this, then, amount to a proof that the words under consideration are used with reference to Jesus Christ as the Supreme God? By no means. Instances, it is well known, frequently occur in the Old Testament, in which, titles and epithets commonly applied to the Deity are transferred in an inferior sense to human beings; and, vice versa, others, in which God is spoken of in the character of a man, endowed with human feelings, and subject to human passions. Thus, in Exod. xv. 3, Jehovah is styled a man of war." The Samaritans, offended, as it would seem, with the use of the word man as applied to the Deity, have exchanged the expression, in their copies of the Pentateuch, for "mighty in war;" and the Seventy, doubtless from the same fastidious motives, have ridded themselves of the offensive epithet by a similar contrivance. But this excess of refinement, if generally acted upon, would destroy the effect of some of the most striking passages in the Sacred Volume. The expression is, no doubt, highly figurative, and somewhat unusual; but, though offensive to nice ears, the following reasons induce me to think that it was not adopted by Moses and the Israelites without some attention to propriety. In Hebrew, three separate words are used to denote man. The first of these (7) relates to his condition as a frail and perishable being, formed out of the dust of the ground, and corresponds with the Latin word homo, derived from humus, the ground; the second man as subject to inevitable distresses and distempers," and is derived from a root which means to be sick and infirm; and the third, (,) which denotes valour and dignity, corresponds with the Latin vir, derived from vis; quòd viribus præstat. Of course, therefore, standing completely opposed, as wis does in its etymology to TN and wis, (see Taylor's Hebrew Concordance, under signifies (אנש) the different roots,) there is a peculiar propriety in the epithet, as applied in this connexion, which would not have been the case, had either of the other two words been adopted. Since, then, by a comparative mode of speaking, familiar to every reader of the Jewish Scriptures, the Deity is represented in the character of a human being, and sometimes actually called a man ; what should prevent the sacred writers from occasionally reversing this order of things, and applying to human beings, in a subordinate sense, epithets which are strictly applicable to the Deity alone? That such applications are frequently made in the Sacred writings, is a fact which stands in need of scarcely a moment's illustration. The general term for God in Hebrew is be. This term, however, is frequently applied to men in authority, (Exod. xv. 11, xvi. 6, &c.,) and particularly to Moses, who is styled a god to Pharaoh. (Exod. viii. 1.) Ano ther familiar appellation of the Deity is '178, or Lord. This, too, is repeatedly applied to human beings; to Abraham, Pharaoh, Potiphar, Joseph, Moses, Sisera and others. But there are certain epithets, which are peculiarly applicable to God, and, therefore, never extended to human beings. Among these may be enumerated Jehovah, Jehovah God, God of Hosts, the Living God, the Blessed God, the Only Wise God, and the Most High God. These, and others of the same kind, being, in the strictest sense, characteristic designations of the true God, there would be the same impropriety in applying them to human beings, as in extending to the Deity the terms and was, which are peculiarly descriptive of man as an inferior and dependent being. The Deity, when considered as invested with the attribute of almighty power, is styled God Almighty, or God of Hosts; and, accordingly, the Seventy have translated these epithets by the word IIarTaxpaTwp, (Almighty,) in all, about a hundred and twenty times: but they are never applied to any except the Supreme Being. There is an obvi "We have no reason," as Mr. Yates well observes, "to consider the word 'mighty' as implying the same with 'Almighty; there being no less a difference between the significations of these two |