"In the Harbinger for September, 1869, and copied in our last issue, is an article from the pen of Bro. Pendleton on 'John iii: 8.' The first reading of this article left the impression on my mind that the Bethany President had nodded, that he was not fully awake, but a second and third reading dispelled this impression. Right or wrong, the effort of the esteemed author is worthy of the head that conceived it, and that is praise enough. He discusses his subject under the following heads: 1. What is the translation? 2. What is the meaning?

      "1. What is the translation? Under this division the President says that the word pneuma occurs five times in four verses; that in four of these it is in the common version, translated spirit, and in one, wind. He then raises the question whether a translator is ever warranted in taking such a liberty, and decides it rightly, in the affirmative. That is, he decides that we are not bound to [688] translate a Greek word always by the same English word. This is no doubt true. Indeed, I never knew a scholar who thought differently. But still, the President will not claim that in a case such as is now before us, we are bound to translate by different words. Neither does he nor will he deny that when a Greek word occurs several times in close connection and must be translated by a given English word in every case but one, it is exceeding presumable that it should be so translated in that instance also.--The fact is, pneuma occurs here five times in four consecutive verses. It must be translated spirit four of these times. Spirit is, therefore, claimed for the fifth also, unless there are exceedingly strong reasons against it. To this add the fact that pneuma occurs in the Greek New Testament 386 times, and always signifies spirit, except, possibly, in two instances.

      "Will not the President allow that the aforesaid presumption grows strong on our hands? Nor is it at all certain that there is even one exception. It is claimed that Rev. xiii: 15, is an exception, where in the common version pneuma is translated life. Well it is not wind at least, so nothing is gained for wind, in John iii: 8, thereby. But I submit to Bro. Pendleton whether pneuma of Rev. xiii: 15 ought not to be translated spirit. I will not argue this question now. The other claimed exception to translating pneuma uniformly by spirit, is Heb. i: 7. I venture the suggestion, with, in my mind, more than a possibility of its truth, that pneumata in this passage should be rendered as in the common version, spirits. I cannot think it a settled point, by any means, that winds should have a place in this verse. If there is in all the 386 occurrences of pneuma, one exception to translating it uniformly spirit, it is here and here only; and here it is doubtful. But even admitting one exception, which I do not, it would have so small a bearing on the main question that I do not at present think it necessary to discuss it. But if the translation is, in this case, as I suggest and believe it is, we have this state of things: We have the word pneuma occurring 386, times, rightly translated spirit in every case, unless in the one under consideration.--Every writer of the New Testament uses the word. It occurs in didactic, polemic, poetic and prophetic composition, stretching over a space of more than fifty years, and always in the sense of spirit. I thus learn what was almost if not quite the universal sense of pneuma in the mouth of the revealing Spirit of God.--Would it be unphilosophic it I should take this fact with me to assist in translating John iii: 8? This lesson I learned at an excellent school, under a President and Professors whose memories [689] are fondly cherished. But what is the value of this fact? It is this: If the passage may be rendered so as to make good sense, in harmony with the connection and with the other Scriptures, translating pneuma, spirit, it must be done. The fact, if it be a fact, that wind will harmonize the passage, is no proof for that translation, unless the presumption in favor of spirit be set aside.

      "The law of uniformity is not in high esteem with Bro. Pendleton--he denies it. He thinks the seventy thought nothing of it and that the king's translators wholly disregarded it. But no one knows better than does Bro. Pendleton, that any given word must, in the same composition, have very generally the same meaning; otherwise, language has no force or utility. The ruling is such that the meaning of a word once ascertained, must be held to be uniform; and departure from this is to be made only when the context forces it. We, in translating, go into every sentence with the ascertained current meaning of a word assumed.--Nor must we be often disappointed, else language loses all significance. We therefore enter upon the translation of John iii: 8, assuming that pneuma is to be translated spirit, and we shall abandon this assumption only when forced to do so.

      "The honored President suggests that the conversation between Nicodemus and the Savior took place in the Hebrew language; that in that language, the word ruach, stands for both wind and spirit; and that Jesus after using it in the sense of spirit four times, 'if, in the 8th verse he intended to speak of the wind, and to institute a comparison between it and the spirit, had no alternative but to, repeat the same word (ruach) which he had already used in the sense of spirit, and then indicate the change of sense by other words which he would associate with it.' Ruach being a word of very frequent occurrence in the Hebrew language, and Nicodemus being accustomed, on hearing or reading it, to easily distinguish its wind and spirit senses from each other, would be ready to see its meaning in this connection from the words predicated of it.

      "This I can readily understand. But what bearing it has in settling the sense of pneuma, I do not see. The Apostle John, many years after this conversation, tells it to us in Greek. Here he has no use for ruach, but guided by the Holy Spirit he gives us the Savior's lesson in beautiful and accurate Greek. In this verse, the spirit is admitted to have intended to signify either wind or spirit. Suppose, for a moment, that wind is the idea. Couple with this the idea of blow, and predicate of it whence and whither, as the President does, and we have wind in motion, with a determinate [690] direction more or less violent. These are the conditions which demand the use, always, of anemos, and never of pneuma. That this is the rule, Bro. P. himself teaches. In trying to account for the troublesome fact, that pneuma occurs so often in the New Testament, and never in the sense of wind, with one or two exceptions as he supposes, he says: 'In every other case but these two (Heb. i: 7, and John iii: 8), where they (the writers of the New Testament) speak of wind, the word anemos was more specifically appropriate, because they were cases in which there was a violent or determinate form of atmospheric motion meant.'--Thus the probabilities grow and thicken around us that spirit and not wind is the translation in this passage.

      "It is conceded that in classic and Septuagint Greek, pneuma often signifies wind; but this is not the case in New Testament Greek. But, holding in abeyance, any conclusion, let us now proceed to determine, if possible, what the translation should be. I confess the President has laid his hand upon the key that must, if it ever be done, unlock the door that has seemed to bar a clear understanding of this confessedly difficult passage. He examines the words predicated of pneuma. Assuming nothing, now, concerning pneuma except that it certainly means either wind or spirit, I proceed to examine the predicates in order.

      "1. Pnei. Bro. Pendleton says that 'this word is used seven times in the New Testament, and is never predicated of any thing but the wind. In classic Greek it is limited to express either the natural motion of the air, or physical breathing.' This is true, except as to the passage in hand, and I confess that with me it has some force. But he ought not to claim it; for it is the 'arithmetical method' which Bro. P. says is a most unphilosophic one.--But pneo occurs three other times in the New Testament, in composition with en and ek, (Acts ix: i; Mark xv: 37; and Luke xxiii;) and in the classics, in the sense of breathe, modified only by the force of the preposition. This shows us that pneo coming into the New Testament, did not lose its original but not exclusive sense of breathe. If it be asked why the Holy Spirit did not oftener use the word pnei in the sense of breathe, I answer, I suppose it was because he did not have occasion to do so. Use, so far as pneuma is concerned, is in favor of spirit and against wind, in the ratio of 385 certain, to one doubtful, Now, upon this Conclusion, there is only a feeble suspicion thrown by the fact that pnei occurs seven times in the New Testament, and that in six of these it means blow, which would harmonize a little better with wind than spirit, as the rendering of pneuma. With this state [691] of facts, I now proceed to consider the next word in the predicate.

      "Thelei. Bro. Pendleton teaches us that this verb is to assist in determining the translation of pneuma. What light does it throw on the question? It is found in the Greek New Testament 211 times. It is never in a single instance, predicated of wind. Nor is it ever predicated of any other inanimate or irrational being.--It is a word of will, and is never affirmed in the Scriptures, of any thing which has not a will. The same is true of the word in its noun form. Theleema is the noun. It is found sixty times in the New Testament, and is always connected with things of life and will. A Greek, knowing this, even should he be in doubt of the meaning of pneuma, which a Christian Greek could hardly be, would at once see, on predicating thelei of pneuma, that pneuma does not mean wind, it never being predicated of wind, not even of wind personified, but always of rational beings.

      "There is a little arithmetic in this, I grant. Howbeit, Bro. Pendleton has himself indulged the luxury of this 'most unphilosophic method ' in four or five instances in his own article; as often, indeed, as it would serve his purpose. It seems to me, that the very small opposition to the spirit translation, offered by the appearance of pnei in the passage, is many times more than counter-balanced by the facts above, and that there remains almost no doubt that pneuma should have its uniform meaning in John iii. 8.

      "Akoueis signifies 'thou hearest.' 'It expresses a physical sensation through the ear--this and nothing more--readily understood of the wind.' Yes, and as readily understood of the Spirit, who talks and speaks.

      "Phone. 'Its primary and common sense is an audible sound of the voice, corresponding, sensibly, to akoueis. Specifically, it indicates the sound of the voice, whether of man or animals--and here falls in most naturally with the other words predicated of pneuma, to signify a sensible impression made by it upon the ear.' This word occurs about 140 times in the Greek New Testament and is never predicated of wind. It is, in the common version translated voice in all but 6 or 8 of its occurrences, and in some, of these it ought to be so translated. It may mean sound, simply, but it nearly always, in the New Testament, means voice, which is sound articulated, 'and here falls in most naturally with the other words predicated of pneuma, to signify' a voice made for the human ear. But Bro. Pendleton says that Nicodemus did not [692] know of any such fact of the Spirit; that he never heard its voice. If Bro. Pendleton means that Nicodemus never heard the Spirit speaking in his own person, I answer, he was never accustomed so to speak. The Spirit, generally, if not always, spoke through agents. Its voice Nicodemus had thus heard.

      "The word of God in the prophets and through them was always the word of the Spirit; and hearing this word was and is hearing the voice of the Spirit. 'Holy men of old spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.' So spoke the apostles. Whoever heard their utterances then, heard the voice of the Spirit.--So it is even now. Nicodemus, no doubt, so understood it.--Now, the Spirit speaks or utters voices-the wind does not.--The Spirit wills--the wind does not. The voicing and willing of the passage harmonizes with spirit, but not, naturally, with wind.--Indeed, every word in the predicate, except pnei, harmonizes most naturally, if not exclusively, with the Spirit hypothesis.--Even it offers only a feeble objection. It means breathe. If asked why it is not elsewhere so used in the New Testament, my answer is easy. Because the 'Holy Spirit had no occasion to use it elsewhere in this sense,' if it did not. But as, shown in the fore part of this paper, pnei is used at least three times, out of ten occurrences, in the sense of breathe, and that in the New Testament.

      "Bro. Pendleton thinks that Nicodemus did know the whence and whither of the spirit, but that he did not know the whence find the whither of the wind; therefore, Jesus did not mean spirit, but wind. The whence and whither of the passage signify either direction or place; if direction, then Nicodemus knew much more of the wind's whence, than of the Spirit's. Of the former he knew everything: of the latter, nothing. But if place or locality be the thought, then it may be said he did not know anything of either; nor do we. I submit: Do we not know and did not Nicodemus know as much of the wind's whence as of the Spirit's? We say the wind is from the West and goes to the East, and our conception is as sharp as when we say of the Spirit, it is from God and returns to God, or it is from God and goes into the mind of the one whom it inspires. The place of God's dwelling is not better known than the 'couch of the wind's uprising or the chamber of its rest.'

      "It may be said that while thelei and phone are, neither of them, ever affirmed of wind, in the New Testament, the same is true of spirit. This is true, excepting the passage in band. But the difference is wide and marked, nevertheless, in favor of [693] spirit. 1. The word pneuma means spirit, and nothing else, in the New Testament. 2. Thelei is restricted, in the New Testament to things of reason and will. 3. Phone is nearly always connected with things capable of articulate sound--such as is addressed to reason's ear. Of course, if we might assume that wind is personified, some of these difficulties would vanish. But this can not be done. It must be proved. Bro. P. did not attempt this.

      "It seems to me, from the premises now before us, that we are constrained to translate as follows: The Spirit breathes where it will, and you hear his voice, but you do not know whence he comes or whither he goes; so (or in this manner) is every one who is begotten of the Spirit. There are difficulties about this passage still, but they belong to the department of exegesis rather than of translation.

      "On the second division, What does it mean? Bro. P. has not said much, and that little does not give us much light. He was intent upon the translation, and did not purpose, I suppose, to say much on the second head. My article is now too long. I reserve further remarks to another time.

      "My respected President will believe me truly his,

W."      

      It is with unaffected pleasure that we lay before our readers the foregoing able and scholarly review of our article on John iii. 8. It is from the pen of our beloved Brother Wilkes, of the Apostolic Times. It is dignified, courteous, closely reasoned, and full of reverence for truth and the laws of criticism. If it does not carry the air of absolute conviction of the correctness of his conclusions, it at least presents a most plausible apology for holding them. None better, we presume to think, can be given. It may not seem necessary to go into any very detailed reply to Bro. W.'s review, because both his readers and mine have read the reasonings on which we respectively rely for our conclusions; and the whole matter is fairly before their judgment. He and I could keep up an interesting and sharp logomachy for months, if we were disposed to write for so poor a purpose as to hack at each other's points; but this is evidently not his spirit, and I should blush to show in any way that it is mine. When Sir William Hamilton wrote his exhaustive review of Cousin's Philosophy of the Absolute and Unconditioned, the illustrious Frenchman only replied that he was gratified to discover that there was one [694] Philosopher in Great Britain who fully understood him and had fairly represented him. We feel like imitating this generous example, and letting Bro. Wilkes be heard in silence. But I think he will expect something more than this from us, and we shall accordingly pay such special attention to some points in his criticism as may tend to bring us into nearer agreement upon the general issue--"Wind or Spirit--which?"

      1. Whatever may be the presumption created by the arithmetical method, we take it as conceded, first, that at the time the Savior spoke, the Hebrew word ruach, which our Savior most probably used, was the only word he could employ for both wind and spirit. Second, That at the time at which John wrote, the Greek word pneuma was familiarly known to him, (a) as employed in the Septuagint to convey the idea of 'wind' or I spirit' indifferently, according to the sense of the passage; and (b) as employed in classic Greek and the vernacular of his day, almost exclusively to convey the idea of 'wind,' or 'breath,' and these only. Third, That though pneuma occurs 386 times in the New Testament, and is everywhere else, save in two passages, (Heb. 1:7; Rev. 13:15,) translated--and by concession, rightly translated--by 'spirit,' yet it is so translated not because of any predetermining arithmetical rule, but simply because the sense--the idea of the passage--the thing, or agent, meant, as determined by the accompanying adjuncts, predicates, &c., was 'spirit,' and not 'wind.'--The translators, when they came to the two or three hundredth recurrence of pneuma, did not say, "We have so far uniformly rendered this word by 'spirit,' and we will, to keep up uniformity, continue to do so here;" but knowing that it had two meanings, they would proceed to determine which of the two should be given to it in the last case, by the same method which they employed in the first, and render it accordingly. The fact that pneuma is used only two or three times in the New Testament in its sense of 'wind,' is an accident of ideas, not a change of Greek. Suppose the writers of the New Testament had never introduced the idea of 'wind,' (expressed so commonly in Greek by pneuma,) would that fact have destroyed the meaning of the word, or so changed the Greek language as to have rendered it improper to use it when occasion required? Surely not. Let us reverse the case. Suppose, instead of this uniformity of its use in the sense of 'spirit,' it had been 381 times employed clearly and unequivocally [695] in the sense of 'wind,'--but we then came to this passage in 1 Cor. 11:10: "But God hath revealed them to us by his (pneuma) spirit: for the (pneuma) spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." Would we say, Uniformity must be observed; the Arithmetic of the case is as 384 to 2; we must translate pneuma by I wind'! We let the question furnish its answer.

      These things being so, and they are not denied, what is Bro. W.'s 'presumption' worth in legitimate criticism? I need not remind so practiced a logician, that there is not, in any case, any proof or argument in 'presumption.' It only determines on which side lies the burthen of proof. But in this case, where the Hebrew had but one word for 'wind' and 'spirit,'--where the Septuagint used pneuma indifferently in both senses, and the classic and vernacular Greek, almost exclusively in the primary sense of 'wind' or 'breath,' the presumption vanishes into nothing, and the translator is perfectly free to look to the sense and decide accordingly. "We, therefore," must not "enter upon the translation of John iii. 8, assuming that pneuma is to be translated spirit, and determined not to abandon this translation until forced to do so;" but we must enter upon it with the pre-established knowledge that it means 'wind' and 'spirit' both, and we must not decide which, till we have ascertained by the words in construction with it, the sense--the idea in the mind of the writer.

      2. Pnei--'blows' or 'breathes.' Bro. W., in discussing this word, quotes me as saying, "It is used 7 times in the New Testament, and is never predicated of anything but the wind. In classic Greek it is limited to express either the natural motion of the air, or physical breathing;" and whilst he concedes the truth of this statement, and admits that it has some force, he thinks I ought not to claim it, for "it is the arithmetical method," &c. I beg my acute brother's pardon, but I do not so understand myself. My position is not, that of two admitted meanings of the word 'pnei,' we should adopt one in preference to the other, because it occurs more frequently--by no means. On the contrary, I attempted to show by an exhaustive statement, that the word pnei has no meaning that can be properly predicated of the Holy Spirit. It is not a question with me between 'blow' and 'breathe' as two admitted meanings, but a question or rather a peremptory denial that either meaning can at all be predicated, in the literal [696] meaning of our passage, of pneuma in the sense of spirit--and that, therefore, pneuma must be taken in its sense of wind, of which pnei in both of its meanings can be, and, as I showed, in fact is predicated in every instance in which it occurs in the New Testament. I willingly admit that the reason why 'pnei' is not used in the New Testament more frequently in its sense of to 'breathe,' is that there was no occasion for so using it. If Bro. W. prefer it, I am willing to accept 'breathe'--in its proper physical sense--as its translation in John iii. 8; but I cannot admit that this meaning, any more than the other, can be properly predicated of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is never spoken of as blowing or breathing, in the physical sense of this word.

      Thelei--'wills.' Brother Wilkes says, "Thelei is a word of will, and is never affirmed in the Scriptures of anything which has not a will." This needs some qualification. We have two exceptions to this rule in the New Testament--Acts 2:13 & 17:20--where theloi (in the optative) is used in connection with an (an), and has the force of a conditional future--translated by the English word 'to mean':--"What meaneth this?" or literally, "What does this will to be?" Similar examples are not wanting in classic Greek. It could scarcely be otherwise, since it is so natural to personify anything that is conceived of as having power or as producing effects. This was one of the striking features of the Savior's style. He speaks of the sycamine tree as obeying the mandate of his disciples; of the rocks, as crying out in his praise;--he rebukes the winds and the waves, and the people cry, "What manner of man is this, that the winds and the sea obey him?" This is New Testament style,--the style of the common people,--and when our Savior said, "The wind blows where it listeth," there was no more seeming incompatibility in the predicate, to Nicodemus than to a scholar of the present day. Brother Wilkes says, If we assume that wind is personified, his difficulties will mostly vanish; but adds, that "this must be proved, and Bro. P. did not attempt it." What proof does my scholarly brother demand?--What proof of personification can be given, other than that which I adduced? Must not the association of words determine the matter? When I show that 'pnei' (blows), the primary and descriptive predicate of pneuma instantly determines its meaning to be 'wind,'--what further proof can be asked for a [697] personification, than to show that of this inanimate thing the attribute of a power is predicated.

      Akoueis, 'thou hearest. "This," Bro. Wilkes says, "is readily understood of the Spirit, who talks and speaks." Will my respected brother take it amiss, if I express the conviction that he did not duly consider the import of this sentence? He does not believe that Nicodemus ever heard (much less commonly heard, as akoueis, implies,) physical sounds articulated and uttered by the Holy Spirit. He expressly says he does not. Yet this is what his translation makes the Savior say; for it is not the voice of some one else speaking for the Holy Spirit, that is heard, but that of the Holy Spirit himself. The assertion is, 'thou hearest its voice, or sound,' which could not have been true of Nicodemus, if the Savior meant by pneuma, the Holy Spirit. Akoueis, like pnei, is utterly inapplicable to the Holy Spirit in any literal or real sense of this word. Can it be that the Savior meant the Spirit, in the beginning of the sentence; the voice of inspired men, in the middle; and the mystery of the coming and going of the Spirit, in the end? We can hardly think that he would be the author of so mixed and confused a sentence as this would make of this beautiful and apt illustration.

      Phone, 'sound or voice.' Brother W. says, phone, 'sound or voice' though occurring 140 times, is never predicated of wind in the New Testament. He should have said, never elsewhere, for to include the present case is to beg the question. I say the word pneuma, in the sense of spirit, occurs 386 times in the New Testament, and phone is never predicated of it. Bro. W.'s assertion amounts to this: The word pneuma, in the sense of wind does not occur in the New Testament at all; and phone, though it occurs 140 times, is never predicated of it! Of course not. But upon the arithmetical method, the argument is on my side by 386 to 0. But as linguistic critics, Bro. W. knows as well as I do, that the true question here is not whether phone has been used in other places in connection with wind as a predicate, or not,--but whether it may be so used here, in harmony with its literal meaning.--Was it common to predicate phone in the sense of audible sounds of inanimate things? This cannot be denied. We have the sound of a trumpet; the sound or voice of many waters; the noise (phone) of thunder; the sound of wings; the sound of chariots; and if the Savior wished to say, "sound of the wind" in this [698] case, what law of usage or common sense forbade it? If he chose to say it this once, and never again, why not? Let us distinguish between arithmetic and the laws of language.

      Whence and whither. Bro. W. says, "The whence and whither of the passage signify either direction or place." Do they not rather look to origin, primary source? The Savior was accustomed to use pothen, 'whence,' in this sense. "The baptism of John--whence was it? From heaven or from men?" So the Jews say, "We know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. "But the Savior says, "I know whence I came and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come." In the proximate sense of the whence or whither, the people did know, but in the ultimate sense they did not know. So here, proximately, Nicodemus knew the direction of the wind. He could say, "It is from the West and goeth to the East." But what are West and East? Of the ultimate whence and whither he knew nothing. This was not so of the Spirit. As the Savior afterwards told those who did not know whence he came and whither he would go, that he came from the Father and would go to Him, so Nicodemus, as a learned Jew, already knew that the Spirit came from God. If the Savior did not use whence and whither in the ultimate sense, then his assertion was not true of Nicodemus either as to the wind or the Spirit. For he did know proximately, as Bro. W. shows, the direction of the wind; and upon Bro. W.'s hypothesis, he also knew that the voice of the Spirit came through holy men of old, who spoke as they were moved by Him.

      The Translation. Of course, differing in the detail, we cannot agree in the whole. Bro. W.'s translation has objectionable features, that are not in his criticisms. "The Spirit breathes where it will." Here 'will,' evidently used as an auxiliary verb, is given as the translation of thelei, which is the third pers. singular of thelo, and ought to be rendered 'wills,' according to Bro. W.'s own opinion. We conclude this is a typographical error--an oversight in proof reading. But when we say, "The Spirit breathes where he wills," it implies that the Holy Spirit acts independently of the Father and the Son, and prepares the way for those superstitious views, as to his fitfulness in coming and going, in the work of conversion, which we have found it so hard to remove from the popular mind. In the second clause the pronoun 'his' is used, whereas in the first, 'it' is employed. I must [699] suppose so accurate a writer and thinker as Bro. W. has a reason for this, but we cannot imagine it. We are constrained to think it an error.

      We are sorry that Bro. W, has not attempted an explanation of the passage on the basis of his translation. He promised it, but it is now several weeks since, and he has not yet spoken. We are assured, from our efforts in this direction, that he will find many reasons to doubt his reasonings in reference to the translation, when he comes to reason about the meaning. But for this we shall wait, not without hope that the fearlessly honest mind of my respected and beloved brother will come to see, as I myself have come to see in reference to this passage, that the first opinion, is not always the best.

      Meantime, as elucidative of this style of illustrating the hidden things of God by the mysteries of nature, we invite attention to two beautiful parallels--one from a Jewish and the other from a Greek philosopher. The first is found in Ecclesiastes xi. 4, 5, where Solomon the wise says: "He that observeth the wind (ruach), shall not sow, and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap. As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit (ruach), nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so (houtos) thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all." How like the reasoning of the Savior to Nicodemus--and in what close proximity the two recurrences, of ruach in its several senses of wind and spirit! The second passage is from the Memorabilia of Xenophon. Socrates is arguing with the deist Euthydemus to teach him the reasonableness of worshiping the gods though they are themselves invisible, and he says: "You will find that the servants of the gods are invisible; for, that the lightning is sent from above is evident, and that it subdues everything it meets with;--but it is not seen, either when it goes forth, nor when it strikes, nor when it departs. And the winds themselves are not seen, but their effects, (literally, what they do,) are evident to us, and we can perceive their coming (lit. them coming): so also the soul of man, which, if anything else belonging to man [does], partakes of the divine [nature] that rules in us, is evident, but itself is not visible. Which things observing, [i. e. the visible manifestations,] we ought not to despise (so as to deny) the unseen things, but learning their power from the [700] visible manifestations (ek ton gignomenon), honor the divinity"--Xen. Mem. iv. 3, 14.

      All of which, in the love of the truth, and we trust with no pride of opinion, we respectfully submit to the fair and candid consideration of all students of the words of Jesus.

W. K. P. [701]      

[The Millennial Harbinger 40 (December 1869): 688-701.]

      L. B. Wilkes' "Wind or Spirit--Which?" (first printed in the Apostolic Times, 1869) and W. K. Pendleton's "Comments" were published in The Millennial Harbinger, Vol. 40, No. 12, December 1869. The electronic version of the essays has been produced from the College Press reprint (1976) of The Millennial Harbinger, ed. W. K. Pendleton (Bethany, WV: W. K. Pendleton, 1869), pp. 688-701.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained; however, corrections have been offered for misspellings and other accidental corruptions. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 694:    whither or [ or whither
 p. 699:    nothing  This [ nothing. This
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
373 Wilson Street
Derry, PA 15627-9770
stefanik@westol.com

Created 7 February 1999.