"

hurst XI. with a participle it may generally be rendered by roho, that, which, and the parti ciple as a verb. Thus 1 John II. 4 xay he who saith i. e. the (person) saying. John I. 18 w who is or was,

As to the assertion of the Editor that were the time of the participle "being" found in the phrase "being in heaven" referred to the verb.

to ascend up to heaven," it would completely prove the ubiquity of Christ or involve perfect absurdity, I presume there would be neither of these difficulties, in the event of the participle being referred to the verb mentioned in the verse; for, one's being in heaven or having his abode in heaven does not render his ascent to heaven impossible, nor does it tend to prove his deity. Let us apply these circumstances as they stand literally to Moses and Elias, who descended from their heavenly abode and appeared with Jesus Christ to his apostles; Mathew XVII. 3 and again ascended, would it prove their ubiquity or involve absurdity? But is there any thing more absurd than an attempt to prove the ubiquity of a son of man capable of occupying only a certain small space on earth?

In reply to his assertion, that "when John wishes to describe a past state of action or being,

he chuses some past participle." I only beg to remind him, that in the Greek language there is no past or future participle for the verb h to be, and consequently the present participle is used for those tenses under the specific rules.*

ειμα

As to the second passage which he quoted to demonstrate the ubiquity of Jesus (Mathew XVIII. 20" for where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them ") I observed in my Second Appeal Is it not evident that the Saviour meant here by being in the midst of two or three of his

The true explanation of the verse is given in the IMPROVED VERSION as follows: "Now no man hath ascended up to heaven but he who came down from heavent even the Son of Man who is in heaven.]

66

He who came down from heaven.] This clause is correlative to the preceding, If the former is to be understood of a local ascent, the latter must be interpreted of a local descent, But if the former clause is to be understood figuratively, as Raphelins and Doddridge explain it, the latter ought in all reason to be interpreted figuratively likewise. If to ascend into heaven," signifies to become acquainted with the truths of God, "to descend from heaven," is to bring down, and to discover those truths to the world. And this text clearly explains the meaning of the phrase, wherever it occurs in this evangelist. "Coming down from heaven" means coming from God, (see ver. 2) as Nicodemus expressed it, who did not understand this of a local descent, but of a divine commission. So Christ interprets it ver. 17" Sn,

Who is in heaven] This clause is wanting in some of the best copies. If its anthenticity is allowed, it is to be understood of the Knowledge which Christ possessed of the Father's will. See John I. 18.

disciples, his guidance of them when joined in searching for the truth, without preferring any claim to ubiquity?-We find similar expressions in the scriptures wherein the guidance of the prophets of God is meant by words that would imply their presence. Luke XVI. 29" Abraham said unto him, They have Moses and Prophets, let them hear them." No one will suppose that this expression is intended to signify that the Jews actually had Moses and the prophets in person among them, or that they could hear them speak in the literal sense of the words; nor can any one deduce the omnipresence of Moses and the prophets from such expressions."

The Editor, to avoid entering into the main argument puts the following questions to which I shall now reply. "Ist. If Christ guided them, must he not have been with them for that purpose?" Yes, he has been with them in the same manner as Moses and the prophets have been with the Israelites, as is evident from the above quoted passage of Luke; as well as from another which I shall now cite. I. John III. 24. "And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him and he in him, and hereby we know that he abideth in us by the spirit which he hath given us." 2dly If there were only two such little companies searching for the truth at the

same moment, must he not have possessed ubiquity to guide them both?" I reply, by two other questions. If the Jews of Galilee and of Jerusalem have Moses and the Prophets" at the - same time for their guidance, are Moses and the Prophets to be supposed to have been possessed of ubiquity? After Elijah went up to heaven (2 Kings II-11) and his spirit was seen resting on Elisha who remained on earth (15), does the circumstance of Elijah's being in heaven and being with his servant Elisha on earth in spirit at the same time, prove the ubiquity of Elijah? 3rdly The Editor asks, “If he (Jesus) was with Christians to guide them, has he left them now?" I reply, neither Jesus nor Moses and the Prophets have now forsaken those that sincerely search into truth and are not fettered with early acquired human opinions. 4th." How then can he be the same yesterday, to-day and forever." My reply is, he has been the same in like manner as David has been, in

keeping the law continually forever and ever" (Psalm CXIX-44) 5th. "Does our author need to be told that this meant the writings of Moses and the Prophets." I reply, that this expression means their words preserved forever by means of writing as the statutes of God. Psalm CXIX 152"Concerning thy testimonies I have known of old that thou hast founded them forever."

89" Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heav en;" and Deut. XXXII. 1 Moses cxclaims "Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak, and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth; my doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew" &c. 6th. "Did Jesus mean that they had his writings with them?" I reply, he meant of course that they had his lowly spirit, and his words which were afterwards published and preserved in writing. 7th. "Where were the writings of Jesus at that time?" I said not a word of his writings in my Second Appeal: why the Editor puts this question to me I know not. It is however evident that Jesus himself while on earth, like other prophets of God, never omitted to express his doctrines and precepts, which have been handed down in writing up to this day.

SECOND POSITION.

"No

The Editor quoted Mathew XI 27. man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him,"-to shew that Jesus ascribes to himself a knowledge and an incomprehensibility of nature equal to that of God. I consequently asked the Editor in my Second Appeal "if he, by the term 'in