course of explaining the force of the word * Says he "Mic. V. 1, or 2. ns and his (the Messiah's) goings forth have been from of old, from the days of antiquity." 3dly from the English version Isaiah LXIII. then he remembered the "days of old" or 'D', exactly as is found Micah V. 2. 1 Samuel XXVII. 8. "those nations were of old" for the same Bebrew term. Deut. XXXII. 7. "remember the days of old" for the same Hebrew word. Genesis VI. 4. " which were of old men of renown" for the same term Psalm LXXVII. 5. "I have considered the days of old and the years of ancient times;" here the term p which is rendered in Micah V. 2. " of old" and the term by translated in the same verse "everlasting" are both meutioned. 4thly The context is verse 2. 3. and 4. "whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting; therefore will he give them up until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth; the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel; and he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God &c." Can the phrases" his God" "in the strength of the Lord," and “his brethren" be consistently used for one who is the everlasting God? If so, how can

we reconcile to our understanding the idea of the everlasting God's reigning in the strength of another, having the Jews as his brethren and looking up to another superior who is designated by "his God"? If a body of men distinguished for their talents, learning, and situation in life, from time to time, be determined to support their long established inventions in defiance of scripture, reason, and common sense; how can truth make it's appearance, when so violently resisted? In fact verse the 2d. of Micah thus correctly stands. "Out of thee" (Bethlehem) shall he (the last expected Messiah) come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel whose sources of springing forth have been from of ancient, from the days of old."

The Editor advances that "even son" im. plies an eqality of nature with the father certainly it does so, when referred to one carnally begotten, but otherwise it signifies a distin

These are the seed of Abraham and that of David through which God declares by the mouths of the ancient prophets that he will raise the Messiah to save the World-vide Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon "3. the place whence any thing comes Job. XXVIII. 1. Isaiah LVIII. tt. Psalm LXV. 9. LXXV. 7 in which last passage rip is used for that part of the heavens whence the solar light y cometh forth i. e. the east. Comp Ps. 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."

guished creature. 1 Chro. 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 the 32nd. in question, with the preceding 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 not he with him also freely give us all things?" Here St. Paul proves beyond doubt the unli

mited 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." Exodus IV. 22. Israel is my even my first born. 2 Samuel 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 poeple, one

of his subjects declares that his sovereign was so deeply interested in the protection of his peaple as to send his own son, even the most be loved, 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 Romans VIII. 31. and 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 expres sion? 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."