being a Samaritan, and with being possessed by a demon, the saviour only denied the second and omitted to notice the former, which was the grossest charge that one Jew could ever prefer against another.

The Editor seems doubtful as to the force of the arguments he has adduced in turning the above verse to his purpose, as he thought it proper to have recourse to "the body of evidence previously adduced" in his attempt to prove "Christ's ubiquity" but my readers may be able to judge from a calm examination of this body of evidence whether or not it has any weight in proof of the ubiquity of the son.

The Editor now lays down a rule for those instances where the present tense is used in the scriptures for the past, saying "in poetry and sometimes in lively narrative, the present is with strict propriety used for the past, because the transaction is narrated as though passing before the reader's eyes" I therefore beg the Editor to explain, conformably to this rule, the instances I noticed (Second Appeal p. 32) and numerous other instances-John XI. 8" His disciples say unto him" instead of " said unto him" 38" Jesus cometh to the grave" that is came to the grave XIII-6. " Then co

meth he to Simon Peter," that is he came to Do these come under the deno

Simon Peter. mination of poetry or lively narration? If not, the Editor's rule must fall to the ground. If the Editor insists upon their being lively narration, because the circumstances are "narrated as though passing before the readers eyes,' how can we be prevented in that case from taking the assertion in John III. 11 also for a lively narration, on the same grouud that the circumstances are narrated in the verse in question "as though passing before the reader's eyes," although Jesus had in reality meant by present the past tense.

The Editor further observes that "it is a didactic discourse, on the clearness and accuracy of which depended the salvation of a man (Nicodemus) who had hazarded much in coming to Jesus for instruction." It is true that Jesus as the greatest prophet of God, (or an omniscient being according to the orthodox creed) though well aware of the slow apprehension of Nicodemus, instructed him in a language far from being clear and comprehensible to him both in the preceding and following verses. Vide v. the 3rd Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" 8th "So is every one that is born of the spirit."

દ

13 No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, &c." 14" And. as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness éven so must the son of man be lifted up" foretelling him of his death on the cross by these. ambiguous words.-Nay moreover he, in his discourse with the Jews and the multitude, very often expressed his ideas in such a manner that not only the Jews but his own disciples mistook his meaning; but he always regulates his instructions as he was guided by his and our heavenly Father. It would be therefore presumptuous in us to lay down rules for his conduct maintaining that "common humanity therefore demanded that in further discourse with him, no word should be used but in it's direct and proper sense."

In answer to his assertion" if then, he would only tell us, how Jesus was regarded in those realms of light and truth previously to his descent on earth, he would himself settle this point." I beg to refer the Editor to such authority as no Christian can ever deny; I mean 1. Peter I. 20. "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world but was manifested in these last times for you." And also to II Timothy I. 9. "Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works,

"

but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." If this plain explanation fall short of convincing the Editor of the real sense in which the preexistence of Jesus and of his followers was meant my endeavour to correct his notion on this head must be of no use.

In order to weaken the force of the argument I founded on John VI. 62 "the son of man ascend up where he was before" shewing the absense of Jesus from heaven while he was talking to men on earth, the Editor quotes Genesis XI. 5 XVIII. 33 XXXV. 13 in which Jehovah is stated to have moved from one place to another though possessed of Omnipresence. But the Editor overlooked, or thought it judicious to omit to notice, the real point of my argument, in the Second Appeal which I now repeat for, the attribute of Omnipresence is quite inconsistent with the buman notions of the ascent and descent effected by the son of man." It is not impossible for the Omnipresent God should manifest himself wherever he without violating his Omnipresence; but the notion of occupying two very distant places at one time by a son of man is of course contrary to the ideas acquired by human experience, unless this extraordinary circumstance be ascribed

that he

chooses,

to the power of performing miracles bestowed on man by God.

Jesus however took every precaution in wording his discourse with Nicodemus by the use of the term man in the very same verse 13th, thus establishing his humanity; but notwithstanding this the prejudices of a great number of his followers have induced them to infer his ubiquity and thereby his deity from the same verse.

I will not recar to the examination of such passages as "who made all things" s who upholds all things &c." alluded to here by the Editor, having often noticed them in the former part of this work.

Let us now come to the real point and ascertain whether or not the word in the original Greek which is rendered "is" in the English version in the phrase "who is in heaven" actually sig nifies the present tense, as a candid inquiry into this very point will bring us to a satisfactory deeision at once. The word in the original is v a participle and not a verb, and all that I said in my Second Appeal may be compressed into three remarks. In the first place that the time of the participle is referred to the time of the verb found in the sentence, and to corrobate this