"remark, that the terms ascribed to our Lord 'evidently "proceed upon the express assumption, that this is the ex❝clusive prerogative of one being only." (Pages 211, 212.)

It might be enough to say, in reply to all this, what Mr. Brown has said before me, that because Rev. ii. 23. is "thus "obviously an exact translation of a passage in Jer. xvii. 10, where the words are used as expressing something

peculiar to Jehovah, the expression is more emphatic "than if it had been in the ordinary Greek idiom." (Strictures, p. 59.) But I must go farther. Mr. Yates has done nothing to his purpose, when he has merely shown that the mode of expression in question accords with an idiom of the Hebrew language, unless he had, at the same time, shown, that it is not consistent with the ordinary idiom of the Greek language. Now this he has not done. When any feature of character, or circumstance of conduct, is peculiar to one individual, it is far from being an uncommon Greek idiom to introduce this peculiarity by a participle preceded by the definite article, as a descriptive designation of the individual to whom it belongs; and it then becomes equivalent to his name." Idem valet participium," (the idem refers to what precedes, which regards the effect of the article with an appellative, as marking out a person)— "Idem valet participium, Hebræorum more, * nominis loco "positum cum articulo: e. g. i rà šovinà rgápas, Stephanus,

66

qui supra dicitur ἐθνικογράφος· ὁ ποιησας τα Διονυσιακα, Nonnus "Panopolitanus, cujus libb. 48. Dionysianwn titulo Græce « extant: Αλεξανδρους ζητως ὁ τα ερωτικα παιξας Achilles Tatius qui "8 libr. lusit de Clitophontis et Leusippes amoribus: ira Bouxo

* This phrase seems here to mean no more than that the Greek idiom in this particular corresponds with the Hebrew.

σε λικα γραψας, Theocritus : ό τα Κυπρια γραψας (scilicet επη, vel σε ποιήματα) Stasimus, ὁ την πατρίδα Κύπριος· ὁ πειράζων, Diabolus.” Vigerus de Idiotismis Græcis, page 13, Glasgow edition, 1813. On this principle, I feel myself warranted to contend, that, as we are previously aware that the searching of the heart is one of God's peculiar prerogatives-the phrase ὁ ερευνων νεφρους και καρδιας is a descriptive DESIGNATION of THE DIVINE BEING and that the assertion sy 'O EPETΝΩΝ νεφρούς και καρδιας is equivalent to 6 I AM JEHOVAH.”

"It may also be observed," says Mr. Yates, "in reply to "Mr. Wardlaw's arguments from this passage, that, although Solomon, at the dedication of the temple, (1 Kings ❝ viii. 39.) addressed Jehovah as alone acquainted with the "hearts of men, this does not contradict the supposition,

that, in consequence of the all-wise procedures of the "Deity subsequent to that period, Christ will, at the day of "general judgment, be endued with all the knowledge of "men's thoughts and dispositions, which is necessary to the "discharge of his office." (Page 212.)

According to this curious remark, Solomon, it seems, in the language quoted, did not mean at all to express any exclusive attribute or prerogative of Jehovah, but merely that this knowledge of all hearts was peculiar to him at that time. What was the case, however, at the time of the dedication of the temple, may not be the case "at the day of general "judgment !"-How cautious are the words that follow!"Christ will be endued with all the knowledge of men's "thoughts and dispositions which is necessary to the discharge "of his office." If the reader is blinded by this, he is surely willing to be so.-There is a very obvious difference between judging, and merely pronouncing sentence, and between the necessary qualifications for each respectively. Any

creature, so far as appears,-an angel for example,-might do the latter, supposing the judgments already decided. But what is implied in "all the knowledge of men's thoughts "and dispositions necessary to qualify for the office" of JUDGE? Certainly nothing short of a complete and unerring acquaintance with all the thoughts of all the countless millions of mankind, that shall have existed from the beginning to the end of time;-with all the dispositions and desires, permanent or momentary, of all their hearts;— and with all the most secret motives of all their words and all their actions. If the reader can suppose such knowledge to be communicated to a creature, he is prepared for being a Unitarian: but let him not despise the humble believer in mysteries. Yet unless knowledge to the extent described be communicated, the possessor of it may be fitted to pronounce sentence, but cannot be qualified to determine, with the unerring precision inseparable from our ideas of the final judgment, the sentences to be pronounced.

If our interpretation of Rev. ii. 23. has, as I think, been decidedly established;-it will put beyond cavil the meaning of John ii. 24, 25.-" He knew all men, and need"ed not that any should testify to him of man; for he "knew what was in man."

These words Mr. Yates considers as expressing "a pro❝ found and intimate knowledge of human nature," which was "absolutely necessary to the character of Christ as a moral "and religious instructor," and in which " he was tran"scendently eminent."--A plain reader, however, whose mind is unsophisticated by prejudice, will recollect, that no other moral and religious instructor, sent by God to men, is ever spoken of in terms at all like these; and that the terms

E e

σε λικα γραψας, Theocritus : ό τα Κυπρια γραψας (scilicet επη, vel σε ποιήματα) Stasimus, ό την πατριδα Κύπριος· ὁ πειράζων, Diabolus.” Vigerus de Idiotismis Græcis, page 13, Glasgow edition, 1813. On this principle, I feel myself warranted to contend, that, as we are previously aware that the searching of the heart is one of God's peculiar prerogatives—the phrase ὁ ερευνων νεφρούς και καρδιας is a descriptive DESIGNATION of THE DIVINE BEING and that the assertion ɛyw 'O EPETΝΩΝ νεφρους και καρδιας is equivalent to “ I AM JEHOVAH.”

"It may also be observed," says Mr. Yates, "in reply to "Mr. Wardlaw's arguments from this passage, that, al"though Solomon, at the dedication of the temple, (1 Kings "viii. 39.) addressed Jehovah as alone acquainted with the "hearts of men, this does not contradict the supposition, "that, in consequence of the all-wise procedures of the "Deity subsequent to that period, Christ will, at the day of general judgment, be endued with all the knowledge of "men's thoughts and dispositions, which is necessary to the "discharge of his office." (Page 212.)

According to this curious remark, Solomon, it seems, in the language quoted, did not mean at all to express any exclusive attribute or prerogative of Jehovah, but merely that this knowledge of all hearts was peculiar to him at that time. What was the case, however, at the time of the dedication of the temple, may not be the case "at the day of general ❝ judgment !"-How cautious are the words that follow !— "Christ will be endued with all the knowledge of men's "thoughts and dispositions which is necessary to the discharge "of his office." If the reader is blinded by this, he is surely willing to be so.-There is a very obvious difference between judging, and merely pronouncing sentence, and between the necessary qualifications for each respectively. Any

creature, so far as appears,-an angel for example,-might do the latter, supposing the judgments already decided. But what is implied in "all the knowledge of men's thoughts " and dispositions necessary to qualify for the office" of JUDGE? Certainly nothing short of a complete and unerring acquaintance with all the thoughts of all the countless millions of mankind, that shall have existed from the beginning to the end of time;-with all the dispositions and desires, permanent or momentary, of all their hearts;— and with all the most secret motives of all their words and all their actions. If the reader can suppose such knowledge to be communicated to a creature, he is prepared for being a Unitarian: but let him not despise the humble believer in mysteries. Yet unless knowledge to the extent described be communicated, the possessor of it may be fitted to pronounce sentence, but cannot be qualified to determine, with the unerring precision inseparable from our ideas of the final judgment, the sentences to be pronounced.

If our interpretation of Rev. ii. 23. has, as I think, been decidedly established ;-it will put beyond cavil the meaning of John ii. 24, 25.-" He knew all men, and need❝ed not that any should testify to him of man; for he "knew what was in man."

These words Mr. Yates considers as expressing "a pro❝ found and intimate knowledge of human nature," which was "absolutely necessary to the character of Christ as a moral "and religious instructor," and in which "he was tran"scendently eminent."--A plain reader, however, whose mind is unsophisticated by prejudice, will recollect, that no other moral and religious instructor, sent by God to men, is ever spoken of in terms at all like these; and that the terms

E e