safety, as far as regarded their connexion with the Romans, the Jews resolved to kill him. (John. xi. 47, 48, 53.)

The Editor says, that "Jesus himself, meek and lowly as he was, although he knew precisely in what sense they understood him, rather chose to work a miracle for his own safety, than to deny his divinity." From what I have just stated, and from all that I mentioned in pp. 589, 562, it obviously appears that neither the Jews understood his deity from the assertion, "Before Abraham was, I am," nor was it usual with Jesus to correct them whenever they mistook his meaning. The Editor might further perceive, in John v. 20, and its context, that Jesus, though charged with having a demon, omitted to correct fully their mistaken notion; and also, in John viii. 48, 49, that, on the Jews reproaching him with 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, pp. 175, 176,) and numerous other instances. John xi. 8: "His disciples say unto him," instead of said unto him. Ver. 38: "Jesus cometh to the grave," that is, came to the grave. Ch. xiii. 6: "Then cometh he to Simon Peter," that is, he came to Simon Peter. Do these come under the denomination 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 reader's 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 ground, 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 verse 3: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Ver. 8: " So is every one that is born of the Spirit." Ver. 13: "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven," &c. Ver. 14: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even 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 regulated 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 its 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

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, pp. 175, 176,) and numerous other instances. John xi. 8: "His disciples say unto him,” instead of said unto him. Ver. 38: "Jesus cometh to the grave," that is, came to the grave. Ch. xiii. 6: "Then cometh he to Simon Peter," that is, he came to Simon Peter. Do these come under the denomination 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 reader's 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 ground, 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 verse 3: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Ver. 8: "So is every one that is born of the Spirit." Ver. 13: "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven," &c. Ver. 14: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even 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 regulated 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 its 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