in the hands of another, puts them both on a footing of equality, then, in the Editor's estimation, the clay is equal to the potter; the rod with which Moses performed his miracles was equal to that great prophet; and Moses himself, by whom, and for whom, God exhibited so many wonderful works, was equal to the Deity.

CHAPTER V.

Remarks on the Replies to the Arguments found in Chapter the Third of the Second Appeal.

The Editor now comes (p. 602) "to the last, and by far the easiest part of his work," that of meeting my objections to the seven positions formerly advanced in support of the deity of Christ. The first of these is, that Jesus was possessed of ubiquity, deduced from John iii. 13, "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man, who is in heaven." The ubiquity of Jesus is by the Editor grounded on the phrase, "who is in heaven," found in the present tense, while Jesus was at that time on earth. I in the first place observed in my Second Appeal, (page 175,) that this argument might, perhaps, carry some weight with it, were not the frequent use of the present tense in a preterite or future sense observed in the sacred writings; and were not a great number of other passages to determine that the term "is" in this instance must be understood in the past tense; and to support this assertion, I quoted several passages, a few of which the Editor has discussed, leaving the rest quite unnoticed. One of these is John viii. 58: "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." To

I

weaken its force, the Editor says, "Why must this declaration, Before Abraham was, I am,' be taken in a preterite sense? Because if it be not, our author's cause dies." No; but because it would bear no sense unless thus understood, "Before Abraham was, I was.” The Editor further says, " Did the Jews, however, understand it thus? So far from it, that they esteemed it a decided declaration of Jesus's equality with the Father, and took up stones to stone him as a blasphemer." The Jews understood Jesus as declaring himself to be more ancient than Abraham, which they first inferred from his assertion "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad." (John viii. 56.) But there is nothing in the context that can convey the least idea of the Jews having esteemed the phrase "Before Abraham was, I am," a "decided declaration of Jesus's equality with the Father," or of their having, in consequence, taken up stones to stone him. Nor can the circumstance of their attempt to stone Jesus be considered as a proof of their viewing the above declaration respecting his priority to Abraham, as blasphemy against God, for they sought to slay Jesus once on account of his having healed a man on the sabbath day, which they considered as a breach of their law, and not as a claim to equality with the Deity; (John v. 16;) and they wanted again to destroy Jesus merely from his affirming, "I know him, for I am from him, and he hath sent me; (John vii. 29, 30;) and finally from motives of political

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