lie," is in the imperfect tense, and consequently the participle may be thus rendered, "Who were impotent up to that time." Ver. 5: "And a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty and eight years." In this verse the participle is not preceded by the article: this, however, signifies that a certain man had an infirmity when he was present at the pool-not at the time when St. John narrated this circumstance. But with a view to expose my argument to ridicule, the Editor puts his own words into my mouth, saying, (p. 608,) "In this chapter, ver. 4, we have, 'How can a man be born when he is old?' literally, being old,' on our author's plan, having been old, and now not being so ;"" and so on in all the above-stated verses. But I wonder how he could mistake what I have advanced in my Second Appeal in explanation of a present participle preceded by the article in the following words: "The offering (person) for him shall be the right shoulder :-the eating (person) shall wash his clothes. These present participles are referred to a time present with respect to the act of the verbs connected with them, but future with respect to the command of God." Now my reader may judge whether I confined the meaning of a present participle to the past tense, as the Editor, no doubt inadvertently, misrepresents my arguments.

Thirdly, I beg to refer the Editor to the translation of that verse by the celebrated Dr. Campbell : "For none ascendeth into heaven, but he who de

from time to time, and named Saviours in the Scriptures; but that the use of this appellation does not serve to prove the deity of any of them. Vide pages 402 and 405.

The Editor expresses his despite of Hindoo Polytheism, triumphing in his own pure profession. I wonder how it could escape the notice of the Editor, that the doctrine of plurality in unity maintained by him, and that professed by Hindoos, stand on the same footing, since the Editor, as well as the Hindoos, firmly declares the unity of God, while at the same time both acknowledge the plurality of persons under the same Godhead, although they differ from each other in the exact number. The following passage quoted by the Editor, "The gods who have not made the heavens and the earth, shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens," is equally applicable to several of the divine persons of both parties.

In answer to the Editor's query, Where does the unity of mankind exist? I entreat to be allowed to ask the Editor, where the unity of the Godhead exists? If he say, that it is one divine nature that exists between the three sacred persons, I answer, that the unity of mankind is one human nature, and exists between so many individual persons.

In answer to his question, When were all mankind one even in design and will? I shall say that mankind has always been one, and shall be one even in will and design, in the glorious and prosperous

reign of Christ; and that present difference in will and design, or in rank and situation among its persons, does not preclude them from unity of nature, as the Editor himself admits that "one equal in nature to another may yet be subordinate in office." Besides, we find that the will of God the Father was sometimes at variance with that of God the Son. Matthew xxvi. 39: "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." Mark xiv. 36: "And he (Jesus) said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt."

66

The Editor appeals to common sense, saying, that "she sees around her every day," that one man

equal in nature to another is yet subordinate in office." She sees so indeed; but when she sees one man equal in nature to another, she reckons them two men, whether one is subordinate in office to the other or not. To this part of the evidence, I beg the Editor will pay some attention. It is indeed astonishing, that in all his illustrations the Editor brings the Godhead to a level with any genus, including various species under it, but feels offended if any one should observe this fact to him.

The Editor says, (page 601,)" Nor is it true that it was the constant practice of the Saviour to pray to the Father for the power of working miracles; for he never did them in his Father's name, as was the

invariable practice of the ancient prophets." In reply to this, I only refer the Editor to John xi. 41, to Mark viii. 6, where we find Jesus had actually prayed to the Father in raising the dead, and breaking the bread; and especially to John xi. 42, in which Jesus, by saying "thou hearest me always," avows that, during the whole period of his executing the divine commission, God heard his supplications, though in several instances of performing miracles he had not used verbally the name of God, in imitation of the practice of some of the ancient prophets. See 2 Kings v. 27, in which Elisha is said to have made Gehazi a leper without verbal supplication to God; and in chap. ii. 10, Elijah bestowed on Elisha his power of performing miracles, without praying verbally to the Most High. As to the Editor's assertion, that " he never did them (miracles) in his Father's name," I again refer him to John x. 25, "The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me." Ver. 43: "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." Here Jesus rests his divine commission on the name of God, and rejects the claims of any one who comes in his own name. He certainly sent his disciples to work miracles in his own name, as the Messiah sent from God, that his apostles might procure faith in him from Jews and Gentiles, whereby they both might have their access to God through him. Mat

thew x. 40-42: "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that

sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man's reward. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward." These shew evidently that man should be rewarded for any act that he may perform in the name of a disciple, even in the name of a righteous man. How much more is he to be approved in the sight of God, if he acts in the name of the Messiah of the Most High!

I do not wonder at the idea of Christ's empowering his apostles to work miracles when we find other prophets doing the same at their own choice, as I have often noticed. The Editor says, "If it be declared in scripture, that the Father created all things by and for the Son, it proves only that the Son is equal to the Father," and that the passages, "He hath given to the Son to have life in himself,' 'the first-born of every creature,' place the equality of the Son with the Father beyond all dispute." This must be a new made of proof, invented for the support of the Trinity, founded on mystery, far beyond my understanding. For if a creature's being endowed with life by, or employed as an instrument