said he, at any time, Sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool"? Here common sense dictates, that if such expressions as "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth," &c.; "As a vesture shalt thou fold them up ;" and "Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail," had been meant by the apostle as applicable to Jesus, he would not, in setting forth the dignity of the Son, have added the words, "Sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool ;” which imply a much inferior nature to that attributed in the preceding passage, and which, indeed, may be paralleled by other expressions found in scripture, applied to mere human beings. Deut. xxxii. 10: "He (Jehovah) kept him as the apple of his eye." Isaiah xlix. 16: "Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands." Psalm xlvii. 3: "He (Jehovah) shall subdue the people under us, and the nations under our feet." In describing the superior courage and strength of a man who is reported to have overpowered a lion, and also a dog, no one endued with common sense would, after stating the former fact, adduce the latter as an additional proof of courage and strength, as it is evident that to kill a dog is a feat by no means of so wonderful a nature as that of overcoming a lion. My reader may recollect Matt. xxii. 45: "If David then call him (the Messiah) Lord, how is he his son?" which tells us that Jesus disproves the assertion of the Messiah

being the son of David, on the ground that no father could consistently call his son " Lord," much less could he apply to his son the term " my Lord." Were we to admit the first interpretation, upheld by the Editor, and to consider the passage, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning," &c., as a part of the address of Jehovah to Jesus, we must, in conformity to the argument used by Jesus himself, in Matt. xxii. 45, relinquish the commonly-received doctrine, that Jesus is the Son of God, and actually admit his superiority to the Father of the universe, who, according to the Editor, addresses him as "Lord" in Heb. i. 10. Either, therefore, the Editor must abandon the opinion that God the Father addresses Jesus as Lord, in the passage referred to, or he must cease to consider him as the "Son of God."

The Editor again uses the word Jehovah in verse 10, and reads, "Thou, Jehovah, in the beginning," &c., instead of "Thou, Lord, in the beginning," &c., without assigning any reason for his deviating from the English version, as well as the Hebrew and Greek originals. For in the original Hebrew there is no "Jehovah" mentioned in Psalm cii. 25, and, consequently, in the Greek passage, Heb. i. 10, which is a quotation of the same verse of the above Psalm, the term xugie cannot be supposed to be intended as a translation of the word Jehovah. So in the English version the verse stands thus, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning," &c. I shall, however, feel

obliged to the Reverend Editor, if he can point out to me any authority for his substitution of the word "Jehovah" for Lord, in the verse in question.

With a view to weaken the strength of the evidence found in 1 Cor. xv. 24, as to the changeable nature of Christ, the Editor says, (page 562,)" His original throne as Jehovah God, is for ever and ever; his mediatorial throne remains for a season, and then ceases." I have already noticed, in pages 170 and 277 of the Second Appeal, and in the foregoing chapter of this work, that the term for ever, or similar terms, when used for a creature, or a begotten son, signify, in scriptural idiom, long duration of time. My reader, therefore, by referring to those instances, will be convinced that neither Solomon, to whom Psalm cii. 25, is directly applied, nor Jesus, to whom the apostle applies the said verse in the above Psalm, in an accommodated sense, can be supposed to be endued with a throne or kingdom that never will cease; a question which St. Paul decides in the most plain and positive terms, in 1 Cor. xv, 24, 25: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have laid down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet." (Verse 28): "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." Here the apostle declares, that Jesus

will in the end deliver up his kingdom to God the Father, and not to God composed (as the Editor maintains) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and that the Son himself, unlimited to any particular capacity, whether mediatorial, human, or divine, shall be subject to the Father, that God alone may be all in all. Is there in this passage, or in any other part of the Scriptures, any authority for saying that the Son's mediatorial throne alone shall be delivered up to the Father? On the contrary, neither he nor any one, can in a mediatorial capacity exercise a kingdom; but Jesus, as the king of our faith, the anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, has a kingdom and throne, and that kingdom only can he deliver up in the end of the world, that God may be all in all. Besides, the above verse (28) asserts, that he, as the Son, the highest title that Jesus is honoured with, will be subject to him who has exalted him above all creatures. No one, besides, unbiassed by early prejudice, can ever venture to pronounce such an opinion as, that a being can lose his kingdom in any capacity whatsoever, and yet be unchangeable.

As some orthodox divines had attempted to prove the deity of Jesus from the circumstance of the term shepherd" being applied to God, in Psalm xxiii. [1], and to Jesus, in John x. 16, I pointed out (pp. 290, 291 of the Second Appeal), that the same term " shepherd" is used for Moses, (in Isaiah lxiii. 11, "With the shepherd of his flock,") and for the

leaders of Israel, (Jer. xxiii. 4, “I will set up shepherds over them,") yet that none of those persons is supposed to have been united with God.

The Reverend Editor, although he acknowledges the accuracy of my above assertion, yet tries to draw from it an argument against me by means of one or two strange questions. One is, (page 562,) “But did he" (the author) "never read of a chief shepherd, who, when he shall appear, will give the under shepherds a crown of glory?" The other is, "But was our author ignorant that David was also one of Christ's fold, and Moses, and Abraham ?" In answer to which, I must confess that I am ignorant of David, Moses, and Abraham, having been of Christ's fold: and although Jesus is styled "a chief shepherd," yet such avowal of his superiority above other messengers of the Deity neither places him on a level with Jehovah, nor does it prove his unity with the Most High God. Can a chief among the generals of a king, be ever supposed equal to, or identified with, the king, his employer? With respect to the argument founded on referring to Jesus Christ Ezek. xxxiv. 23, "I will set one shepherd, even my servant David," I observed in my Second Appeal, (p. 291,) that, even in this case," they must still attribute his shepherdship over his flock to divine commission, and must relinquish the idea of unity between God the employer, and the Messiah his servant." To which the Editor makes reply, "We must relinquish a unity of nature between the Divine Father