Whatever existed before the world, may be said to be of old, from everlasting. In the eighth chapter of Proverbs, Wisdom, or Christ under the name of Wisdom, is represented as using language similar to that in the text before us- "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old: I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was." But Wisdom adds, "When there were no depths, I was brought forth"-Before the hills, was I brought forth-"Then I was by him as one brought up with him, and I was daily his delight"Brought up with him as a Son with a Father; and as a Son, was daily his delight. The Son was from-everlasting, as he was brought forth before there were either depths or hills.

Rev. i. 17. "I am the First and the Last.”

In the forty-fourth chapter of Isaiah, the Lord of Hosts adopts this title, and says, "I am the First and the Last, and besides me there is no God."

In view of these texts, Mr. Jones forms this argument-"There is no God besides him who is the First and the Last; but Jesus Christ is the First and the Last: therefore, besides Jesus Christ there is no God." If this be fair reasoning, we may draw another conclusion, viz. "The GoD and FATHER of our LORD JESUS CHRIST," is not GOD. Is it not amazing, that Mr. Jones should reason in such a manner? In several instances, his conclusions as fully exclude the FATHER from being GoD, as it is possible that language should do it.

In Isaiah, God did not say, Besides us there is no God; but, "Besides ME there is no God." His words, therefore, as fully exclude every other Person as every other Being.

When Christ said, "I am the First and the Last," he immediately added, "I am he that liveth, and was dead." He is therefore to be considered as the First and the Last in a sense which is consistent with his having been DEAD. There are several senses in which Christ may style himself "the First and the Last" He may be so called as the constituted Head and Chief of creation; and as in his glory, as well as the glory of the Father, all things will terminateHe may be so called as the Author and Finisher of faith; or, as a Son, he may bear the Divine titles of his Father.

Heb. xiii. 8. "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever."

This text on which so much reliance has been placed, has no verb in it; and, therefore, considered by itself, it contains no affirmation. For the beginning of the sentence, and the sense of the text, we have to look back to the preceding verse, "Remember them who have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow, considering the END of their conversation, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever."

It is evident, that it is as the END of Christian conversation that Christ is here brought into view. And by Jesus Christ, we may understand not merely his Person, but his interest and glory. This END of our conversation is of immutable and perpetual importance the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. Heb. i. 12. "But thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."

This text was quoted from Psalm cii. and there was used in an address to God. This circumstance is worthy of note, and in my view, is the only diffi

culty presented by the text. Why were words, which were first addressed to God, quoted and applied to the Son? Perhaps you will not find me able to answer the question; but if So, it will not hence follow that

it is unanswerable.

In the 5th verse, the apostle quoted a passage from the Old Testament, and applied it to Christ, which was originally used in respect to Solomon-"I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." These words are to be found three times in the Old Testament, and each time they are contained in a gracious promise of God to David respecting his son. Solomon. Why then did the apostle quote these words and apply them to Christ, as though they had been originally used in respect to him? The answer must probably be this, that Solomon was a type of Christ. May we not then suppose, that the words, which were first addressed to God, were quoted by the apostle and applied to Christ as the Son and "image of the invisible God P

Let us now attend to the import of the text: "But thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." Here we have exhibited a contrast between the material world and its constituted Creator. And what is the contrast? One waxes old and is liable to perisli, and the other will remain the same without end. This, it is conceived, is the most which can be supposed to be necessarily implied in the text. And what is here affirmed of Christ, agrees with what he said of himself, "I am the First and the Last. I am he that liveth and was dead; and, behold, I live forevermore.”

You suppose the text imports absolute immutability. But, sir, was it no change in the Son of Ged to pass from the form of God to the form of a servant? Was

it no change to die, and to be raised again from the dead? Is he now, at the Father's right hand, in all respects the same that he was when he cried with a loud voice, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?"

Permit me, sir, to ask, whether the Greek word autos, which in the text is translated same, is any where in the New Testament used as importing absolute immutability, unless it be in the two texts which I have been last considering? If the clause had been translated "But thou art He," meaning HE with peculiar emphasis and distinction, would it not have been a literal and correct translation?

But let the translation be as it is, only let the word same be understood in a sense which will not contradict the gospel of Divine Love.-It is my choice to believe that God has "spared not his own Son ;" and not to believe that he made a mere show of so loving the world, when he did not in reality. It affords me far greater satisfaction to believe that the Son of God was capable of personally doing and suffering according to the representations of Scripture, than I could find in believing that there is a want of strict truth and simplicity in the gospel representations of Divine Love.

SOME texts on which Mr. William Jones has placed great reliance, may now be introduced.

John iii. 29.

Bridegroom."
Isaiah liv. 5.

"He that hath the Bride, is the

"Thy Maker is thy husband, the Lord of Hosts is his name."

Mr. Jones says, "The church, which is the Bride, can, no more have two Husbands, than Christ can have two churches."

Whatever difficulty may be involved in the idea of two Husbands to the church, the difficulty cannot be diminished by supposing a greater number. Yet Mr. Jones' theory plainly supposes three distinct Persons, or agents, each of whom is the Husband of the church.

The truth is, that there is in no other sense two Husbands to the church, than there are two Creators, Saviors, or Lords. As God creates and saves by his SON, so by his Son he shows the kindness of a Husband to the church. The SON is the constituted Creator, Savior, and Lord; so he is the constituted Head and Bridegroom of the church. Accordingly, "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain KING, who made a marriage for HIS SON."

Rom. ix. 5. "Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

That Christ is, in this text, called God, will not be positively denied. But if he be, we may reasonably Suppose that it is in the same sense that the Father