sent participle, preceded by the definite Greek article ỏ, signifies any part of the future in which the act of eating shall take place. The phrase, “the eating," (person,) is rendered in the English version, "he that eateth," conformably to the idiom of the English language; but this change of construction does not produce any change in the real meaning conveyed by the original Greek. As this phrase, “ he that eats," bears no allusion to the support of the doctrine of the Trinity, no one will, I presume, scruple to interpret it in its original sense; that is, he who eats at any time future with respect to the commandment of God, shall wash his clothes.

he

Secondly, I refer the Editor to the passages quoted in p. 608, to save me the trouble of selecting them. John iii. 4: "How can a man be born when he is old?" literally, "being old;" that is, at any point of time, no man being old can be born. Ver. 15: "That no man believing on him should perish;" that is, no one who may be induced to believe Jesus at any time, even up to the last day, should perish. Ver. 18: "He not believing is condemned already;" that is, he who rejects me at any time, is condemned already in the divine decree. Ver. 20: "Every one doing evil hateth light," at any time whatsoever. Ver. 29: "He having the bride is the bridegroom," at any period of time. Ver. 31: "He being of the earth, is earthly," at any period of time. Again, ch. v. 3: "In these lay a great multitude of folk impotent," &c. In the original Greek, the verb " to

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

scended from heaven, the Son of Man, whose abode is in heaven;" in which the sense of the participle is referred to an indefinite time; for a person whose abode is in London, may have his temporary residence in Paris.

Fourthly, I beg also to refer to the explanation of the article d before a participle, given by Parkhurst: ❝xi. With a participle it may generally be rendered by who, that, which, and the participle as a verb. Thus 1 John ii, 4, o λeywv, he who saith, i. e. the (person) saying. John i. 18, i wy, 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, (Matt. 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 chooses some past participle," I only beg to remind him, that in the Greek language there is no past or future participle for the verb e, to be, and, consequently, the present participle is used for those tenses under the specific rules.*

As to the second passage which he quoted to demonstrate the ubiquity of Jesus, (Matt. 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 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

* 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 heaven,† even the Son of Man, [who is in heaven.]"

↑ "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 Raphelius 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 authenticity is allowed, it is to be understood of the knowledge which Christ possessed of the Father's will. See John i. 18."

imply their presence. Luke xvi. 29: ‹ Abraham said unto him, They have Moses and the 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. 1st. "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. 1 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." 2ndly. "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