"Who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Ch. xiv. 12: "That keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Ch. xxi. 23: "For the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." John in ascribing to the Lamb most honorary epithets, those generally printed in capitals, takes great care in the choice of words. Ch. xix. 16: "He (the Lamb) hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords. Ch. xvii. 14: "For he (the Lamb) is Lord of lords, and King of kings." The apostle never once declares him to be "God of Gods," the peculiar epithet of the Almighty Power. So the most holy saints sing first the song of Moses, and then that of the Lamb; having perhaps had in view the priority of the former to the latter in point of birth. Ch. xv. 3: "And they (the holy saints) sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb."

In answer to one of the many insinuations made by the Editor in the course of his arguments, to wit, "If this be Christ, what must become of the precepts of Jesus?" (page 576,) I most reluctantly put the following query in reply: If a slain lamb be God Almighty, or his true emblem, what must be his worship, and what must become of his worshippers?

On the attempt to prove the deity of Jesus Christ by comparing Isaiah xlv. 23, (“ Unto me," i. e. God, every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear,") with Rom. xiv. 10-12, ("But why dost thou judge

thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgmentseat of Christ For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So, then, every one of us shall give account of himself to God,") I observed in my Second Appeal, (page 288,) that "between the prophet and the apostle there is a perfect agreement in substance, since both declare that it is to God that every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess through him before whose judgment-seat we shall all stand at the same time both Jesus and his apostles inform us, that we must stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, because the Father has committed the office of final judgment to him." To which the answer of the Editor is this, "We here beg leave to ask our author, where the phrase through him is to be found? It must be in the author's copy of the prophet and the apostle-it is not in ours." By these words the Editor clearly means to insinuate, that the words in question are gratuitously inserted in my explanation, and without any authority in the Holy Scriptures. At least I am otherwise at a loss to understand what he means by saying that the words of my paraphrase are not to be found in his edition of the Bible; for it would be unworthy to suppose of him that he wished to impress his readers with the idea, that I was quoting a particular passage falsely, instead of the fact that I was only giving my idea of its import. That I was fully warranted in

my interpretation, I hope to convince the Editor himself, by referring him to the following passages, in which it is expressly declared that it is through Jesus that glory and thanks are to be given to God, and that we have peace with God; and also that it is BY Jesus Christ that God judgeth the world. Rom. xvi. 27: "To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen." Ch. v. i. "We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Ch. i. 8: "I thank my God through Jesus Christ.” Ch. ii. 16: “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." 2 Cor. v. 18: "All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ." John v. 22: " For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." After considering these texts, no one can, I think, refuse to admit the correctness of my assertion, that it is to God every knee shall bow through Christ, before whose judgment-seat we shall stand," because the Father has committed the office of final judgment to him," as being founded upon the best authority that man can appeal to.

Upon the interpretation of the above-mentioned passage of Isaiah, to wit, " It is Jesus that swears here by himself," I observed in my Second Appeal, "How can they escape the context, which expressly informs us that Jehovah God, and not Jesus, sware in this manner?" To this the Editor replies, that "the Son was Jehovah before he was Jesus," &c. Is not this merely a begging of the question, inas

much as one may equally assert that Moses or Joshua was Jehovah before he was Moses or Joshua?

He further says, that "Jesus is so preeminently Saviour, that there is salvation in no other." I agree with the Editor so far as to declare Jesus to be, under God, the only Saviour mentioned in the records of the Christian dispensation; but previous to his birth there were many saviours raised by God to save his servants, as noticed already in pages 402, 409.

The Editor adds, that in [Isaiah xlv.] ver. 24, righteousness is used in such a sense as is principally applicable to the Son. I therefore transcribe the verse, that the reader may judge whether or not his position has any foundation : "Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed."

Respecting the attempt to prove the deity of Jesus from the circumstance of his being figuratively represented as the husband or the supporter of his church, John iii. 29, Eph. v. 23, and also God's being called the husband of his creatures, Isaiah liv. 5-I requested in my Second Appeal, (pages 292, 293, that " my readers would be pleased to examine the language employed in these two instances. In the one, God is represented as the husband of all his creatures, and in the other, Christ is declared to be the husband, or the head of his followers: there is,

therefore, an inequality of authority evidently ascribed to God and to Jesus. Moreover, Christ himself shews the relation that existed between him and his church, and himself and God, in John xv. 1: 'I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.' Ver. 5: 'I am the vine, ye are the branches,' &c. Would it not be highly unreasonable to set at defiance the distinction drawn by Jesus between God, himself, and his church ?" The Editor has not taken the least notice of this last argument; he only glances over the former, saying, (page 579,)" Had our author examined the context with sufficient care, he would have found that those to whom God declares himself the husband, are so far from being all his creatures, that they are only one branch of his church, the Gentiles, the children of the desolate, in opposition to the Jews, the children of the married wife." I wonder how the choice of the designation

thy Maker," in Isaiah liv. 5, in preference to others, and its true force, could escape the notice of the Editor, as the phrase "thy Maker is thy husband" implies in a general sense that whosoever is the maker is also the preserver, and, consequently, God is the husband, or the preserver, of all his creatures, including the Jews more especially as his chosen people. I, however, wish to know how the Editor justifies himself in concluding real unity between God and Jesus from the application of the term husband to them, while Jesus declares the relation between God, himself, and his church, to