themselves plainly express a universal and intuitive acquaintance with all the secrets of men's hearts.

"According to his own account," adds Mr. Yates, "it was "imparted to him by the Father. P. II. ch. 6."-But in P. II. ch. 6. of his work, to which he thus refers, he has adduced no evidence whatever of such knowledge as is here described having been represented by Jesus as imparted to him,but merely of the doctrine taught by him having been de livered agreeably to a commission from the Father.

Mr. Yates speaks with mighty confidence of the force of the argument from the words of Peter to Christ, "Lord “thou knowest all things," (John xxi. 17.) being "entirely "destroyed by the application of the very same language "to Christians in general by the author of this gospel, "1 John ii. 20. Ye have an unction from the Holy One, "and ye know all things.'" (P. 212.)

But the meaning of words and phrases depends greatly on the connexion in which they occur. A very slender portion of acumen is requisite, to discover the essential difference between the passages thus quoted as parallel. Every reader may at once perceive, that, in the latter, John is speaking of the full and experimental acquaintance with the doctrine of the gospel possessed by those whom he addresses, in distinction from apostates, who had gone out from the society of Christians because they were not of them, and in distinction from antichristian opposers of the truth. He adds accordingly, (intimating his confidence in them, that their knowledge of the truth was such, in its heavenly origin, in its extent and correctness, and in its inward operation, as effectually to secure them against seduction)" These things have 1 written unto you "concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing,

" which ye have received of him, abideth in you; and ye "need not that any man teach you: but as the same "anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is "no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide " in him."

But what shall we say of the other case? Mr. Yates affirms, that in both cases," the knowledge of all things "means only a very extensive and various knowledge." But how will such a view as this suit Peter's argument? "Lord," says he, "thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I "love thee:".

1st. Here is one thing which Peter was confident his Master knew; and his assurance that he knew this thing is founded in his assurance that he knew all things. But, without noticing for the present the nature of the one thing spoken of, unless the term all be here used in its universal sense, the inference of the apostle is a complete non-sequitur, and his confidence rests on no solid ground. How foolishly would the venerable penitent reason, on Mr. Yates's exposition of his words; "Lord, thy knowledge is very various and "extensive; therefore thou knowest that I love thee."

But, 2dly. Mr. Yates (whether designedly or not I cannot tell) has taken no notice of the particular description of knowledge to which Peter more immediately refers:-" Lord, thou "knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee." While the terms used by the apostle, connected with the nature of his argument, convey an unqualified ascription of omniscience, his own case shows, that he had a more especial reference to his knowledge of the secrets of all hearts. If this was not implied, never were words more nugatory. His appeal respects the state of his own heart:-external evidence was against his professions; strong grounds existed for suspecting their sincerity;-these

grounds were impressed on his remembrance, and the reasonableness of the suspicion more than insinuated, in the threefold repetition of the question, "Lovest thou me?" with a look and emphasis, no doubt, which at once wrung his heart with remorse, and melted it to tenderness.-In this state of mind, to whom but to the Searcher of all hearts, to what knowledge short of omniscience, could he make his confident appeal?—I am not fond of the paraphrastic mode of exposition. The following paraphrase of the words by Dr. Guyse, however, seems to convey very correctly their true import:-" Lord, I "know there is no deceiving thee, who art fully acquainted "with all things, even to the most secret dispositions of the "heart: but my great comfort is, that, how justly soever I may suspect myself, and deserve to be suspected by thee "and others, thy omniscient eye sees the principle of love "which is in my soul towards thee, and the uprightness of "my appeal to thee about it."

66

The reader, then, must be very weak, who is misled by the mere similarity, or even sameness, of phraseology, in circumstances so totally different, or by Mr. Yates's formal reference to Schleusner's Lexicon, for the needless establishment of what every body knows, that the word "all" is in numerous instances used to signify a very great number and variety.

Mr. Yates is much displeased with me for having affirmed, in substance, that all that the Socinians have to say in support of their peculiar versions of disputed texts (that is, of texts which they find it necessary to dispute) is, "not that the new "rendering is more consistent with the rules of syntax, or "with the ordinary usage of the original language, than the "old; but only that the words are capable of bearing it,— "that it is possible for them to be so translated." "If the "cause of orthodoxy," says he, " requires to be supported by

"such assertions as these, no honest man will engage in its "defence." (Page 213.)—I have re-considered the assertions; -I have compared them anew with the specimens of Unitarian criticism to which they refer;—and, taking into account the nature of these criticisms, the general agreement of translators and critics against them, the disagreement, in some instances, of Unitarians themselves, as to the proper alteration of the received version, and, in general, the negative kind of style in which they treat these texts,-I have been tempted to say, like the Roman governor, "What I have written, "I have written."-Mr. Yates, however, declares, (and I must believe him,) that "it is his deliberate opinion" (an opinion in which, he says, "all Unitarians who think themselves ca"pable of understanding the original will probably agree with " him) that, in the very few instances in which they depart "from the common translation, they think their versions at "least equally fair, natural, and obvious with those of Trini"tarians.” (P. 213.)-This declaration I am bound to believe, and, at any rate as far as respects Mr. Yates himself, do believe. It obliges me to take other ground, and to marvel at the illustration which it furnishes of the influence of prejudice and attachment to system in biassing even a sound and enlightened judgment.

My wonder is not diminished by the following closing sentences of the chapter:-"Since we find the doctrines of the strict unity " of God, the inferiority of Jesus Christ, and the derivation of ❝ his knowledge and power, clearly asserted in many hundred "passages of Scripture; and since we think the doctrines of the "Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, as now held by the ortho"dox, both absurd in themselves, and contrary to the general "tenor and plain language of the Bible; we should be justified "in rendering four or five difficult passages in any allowable

"manner, which made them consistent with our primary and "indisputable principles. The fact, however, is, that we are "not reduced to this necessity." (Page 214.)-These sentences, I say, do not abate my wonder:-because I cannot help thinking, that the "necessity," actually felt and operating, has led to the adoption of the principle of criticism here avowed. It is a principle, which, to say the least, requires to be guarded, and applied to practice, with very great jealousy indeed. Of this Mr. Yates seems to have been sensible: for the principle is here very cautiously stated. It is confined to the "rendering of four or five difficult passages," as if this were the whole extent of embarrassment and difficulty which the Unitarian system had to clear away; whereas the principle is as directly applicable to the interpretation of multitudes of other passages, as it is to the translation of these.-The "many hundred plain passages of Scripture," indeed, which are here opposed to four or five difficult ones, assert what all Trinitarians hold, as a part of their system, namely, "the strict "unity of God, the inferiority of Jesus Christ, and the deri"vation of his knowledge and power." The proper interpretation of these passages leaves, on their system, no difficulty in the interpretation of the smaller number. The difficulty exists on Socinian principles: it exists to a vastly greater extent than "four or five" passages;-and the principle which is here vindicated in the rendering of these four or five in any allowable manner, is actually applied both in the translation and interpretation of many more than these, in a way which will be considered as allowable only by those who are strongly sensible that the natural rendering, and obvious explanation, of such passages, would overturn their system.