The Editor advances, that "even son" implies an equality of nature with the Father: certainly it does so, when referred to one carnally begotten, but otherwise, it signifies a distinguished creature. 1 Chron. xxviii. 6: "And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father." Job i. 6: "When the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord," &c. Is Solomon, because he is called a son of God, to be considered a partaker of the divine nature? Are the angels, designated "the sons of God," considered to be of the same nature with the Deity? The Editor, however, adds, (page 594,) "Our author hints, that in the sacred writings others have been termed the sons of God: this, however, only proves, that Christ is, by nature, the Son of God, while all others are the sons of God by adoption, or metaphorically.” To establish Christ's being the only Son of God, he quotes Rom. viii. 32, in which Christ is termed God's own son; and John i. 16, where he says, that "the Holy Spirit also terms him, not merely the only son, but the only-begotten son of the Father." I therefore quote here verse 32 in question, with the preceding

xxviii. 1, Isaiah lviii. 11, Psalm lxv. 9, lxxv. 7; in which last passage, is used for that part of the heavens whence the solar light cometh forth, i. e. the east. Comp. Psalm xix. 6, 7." Parkhurst also rejects the popular meaning, saying, "Not his (Messiah's) eternal generation from the Father, as this word has been tortured to signify."

verse of the same chapter of Romans: "What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" Here St. Paul proves, beyond doubt, the unlimited mercy of God towards men, as manifested by his appointment of his own Son to save mankind from death, at the risk of the life of that son, without limiting the honour of a spiritual birth to Jesus, and denying to others the same distinction, who, in common with Jesus, enjoy it according to unquestionable sacred authorities. Deut. xxxii. 18: "Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful." Exod. iv. 22: "Israel is my son, even my first-born.” 2 Sam. vii. 14: "I will be his (Solomon's) father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men." Did St. Paul mean to destroy the validity of these, as well as of many other texts to a similar effect, by representing Christ as the only being distinguished by the title of Son of God, and excluding angels, Adam, Israel, Solomon, and David, from this spiritual dignity? I firmly believe he did

not.

If a king, who had several children, sent one of them to fight battles against those who committed depredations on his subjects, and his son so sent, gained a complete victory in that war, but with the

loss of his own life; and if, with a view to exalt or magnify the attachment of this sovereign to his people, one of his subjects declares that his sovereign was so deeply interested in the protection of his people as to send his own son, even the most beloved, to repel the enemies at the hazard of his life, and that he had not spared his own son in securing the lives of his people: does he confine the royal birth to that son, or does he degrade other sons of the king from that dignity? I beg my readers will read Rom. viii. 31, 32, and reflect upon their purport.Besides, we find in the original Hebrew, Gen. i. 27, "God created man in his image," and in the English version," in his own image."

Did the original writer of Genesis mean, that God created man in some fictitious or adopted image resembling that of God? Did the authors of the English version violate the original construction by adding the word "own," to the phrase "in his image"? Or did they add it only for the energy of expression? Psalm lxvii. 6: “ God, even our own God, shall bless us." Does the writer here exclude God from being the God of the world, by the use of the word own in the verse, against the declaration of Paul? Rom. iii. 29, "Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also." Or does he use this word to shew the Israelites' especial attachment to God? In 1 Tim. i. 2, Paul uses the expression, "Timothy, my

own son in the faith." Did he thereby exclude his thousands of spiritual disciples from being his sons in the faith?

In reply to his allusion to John i. 16, in which Jesus is said to be "the only-begotten Son of the Father," I beg to refer the Editor to Heb. xi. 17: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only-begotten son." Whence he may perceive that the phrase "only-begotten," implies only most beloved among the children, as Abraham had, at that time, another son beside Isaac, namely, Ishmael, by Hagar, given to him as his wife, Gen. xvi. 3, 15. Were we to take the word of John, "onlybegotten," in its literal sense, in defiance of Heb. xi. 17, we must discredit the express word of God, declaring Israel his begotten and first-born son, and describing David to be his begotten son.

It is worth noticing, that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, applies the last phrase, "begotten son," in an accommodated sense to Jesus, Heb. i. 5. I say, in an accommodated sense, since, in Psalm ii. 7, it is David that declares, during the prosperous time of his reign, "The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee." Besides, how can the orthodox Christians, who consider Jesus as the begotten Son of God from eter nity, with consistency maintain the opinion, that God had begotten him, at a particular day, during the reign of David? They may, perhaps, apply

foundation of the world, a man, or of a two-fold nature, human and divine? If he was God almighty before the foundation of the world, how could that God implore another being for the restoration of the glory, which he at one time had, but lost subsequently?

2ndly. In John viii. 42, Jesus declares, that he came not of himself, but that God sent him. Does not he avow here, that his coming to this world was not owing to his own will, but to the will of another being? Was he not entirely at the disposal of God, the Most High, even before his coming into this world? In Heb. x. 5-7, the apostle declares, that Jesus, at the time of his coming to the world, saith, that God had prepared him a body, and that he comes to the world to do the will of God. Had he been God before he had come to this world, how could he, in common with all other creatures, attribute his own actions to the will of the Supreme Disoposer of all the events of the universe?

The Editor next quotes a part of Heb. i. 12, "Thou art the same." This I have fully noticed in page 452.

The Editor disapproves highly of my assertion, in the Second Appeal, "Christ was vested with glory from the beginning of the world." I therefore beg to quote one or two scriptural passages, which, I hope, will justify that assertion. 1 John ii. 13: "I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning." Rev. iii. 14: "These things

1