3dly. A parallel case or two will serve to show the inconclusiveness of the Unitarian argument.-We have already seen that Jesus Christ is called "the true God," as well as the Father, and that therefore by the phrase "the only true "God," he cannot intend to exclude himself from the claims and honours of Deity.-Speaking of " the appearing of our "Lord Jesus Christ," Paul says, in 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16. "Which in his times He shall show, who is the blessed and "only POTENTATE, the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS; "who only hath immortality."-Supposing this to refer to THE FATHER, as Unitarians must of course interpret it;-we know that there is another “ POTENTATE," even He who "hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING "OF KINGS, AND Lord of LORDS;"-and that the Lord Jesus is called "the FIRST and the LAST, and THE LIVING ONE;" who "in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth, and of "whose hands the heavens are the workmanship;" that there is therefore another who "hath immortality.”—The word only, then, does not, either when put before "Potentate," or before "immortality," exclude Christ from the possession of these attributes.-Again: Solomon says to Jehovah, "Thou only "knowest the hearts of all the children of men;" 1 Kings viii. 39.; yet Jesus says of himself, "I am He that searcheth the "reins and the hearts;" Rev. ii. 23.—If the exclusive particle only, does not, in this case, although not less explicit, deny to Jesus the attribute of omniscience; neither does the phrase "the only true God," applied to the Father, divest him of his proper divinity. Suppose Jesus to have addressed the Father, as "the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, "and Lord of lords, who only hath immortality;" or as the Being "who alone knew the hearts of all the children of "men;"-these forms of adoration would not, we have seen,

have excluded himself from the possession of the same attributes; for of himself the same things are actually affirmed:-and yet these forms are in effect equivalent to that by which he does address him-" the only true God."

Another favourite text which is here particularized by Mr. Yates, is Mark xiii. 32. where our Lord, speaking of the day of judgment, says, "But of that day and that hour "knoweth no one, no not the angels which are in heaven, "neither the Son, but the Father."

It is foolish to talk of such passages as if they contained no difficulty. Let us rather frankly admit the difficulty which the mode of expression involves, and endeavour to weigh it in an even balance." If any other being besides "the Father were God," says Mr. Yates," he would have "known the day of judgment. Since, therefore, the Father "alone knew this day, it is manifest that He alone is the "omniscient God:-(pages 61, 62.)—and afterwards, when the same passage is introduced on another branch of his subject; "The Scripture teaches us that the knowledge of Christ "was not only derived, but also limited. For he himself as"serted, that he did not know the day of general judg"ment, Mark xiii. 32. The Father, who alone knew this "day, must be the only God. The Son, who knew it not, "could not be the supreme God, being inferior to him in "knowledge." (Page 81.)—On these statements I observe,—

1st. It is admitted, and forms a part of our scheme, that the Lord Jesus Christ, in his official capacity, delivered his instructions to men, according to a commission which he had received.-This idea is expressed in the following, amongst other passages: "God, who, at sundry times, and "in divers manners, spoke in times past unto the fathers "by the prophets, hath in these last days, spoken unto us

"by his own Son." "My doctrine is not mine, but his that "sent me."—" He that sent me is true; and I speak to the "world those things which I have heard of him."-" For I "have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me "he gave me a commandment what I should say, and what "I should speak:-and I know that his commandment is life "everlasting; whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father “said unto me, so I speak." In this sense we have no objections to saying that his knowledge was derived. He receives his official commission:-he is charged with the message he is to deliver.-But then,

*

2dly. There are other passages which as plainly describe this same person as the Searcher of hearts, and as knowing all things, the government and judgment of the world are ascribed to him, to which functions omniscience is requisite ; and all the proofs together of his supreme Deity, are evidences of his possessing this attribute. Here, then, is a solitary text, the only one which Unitarians have been able to produce as, in direct terms, asserting the limited extent of his knowledge. "He did not know," we are for ever reminded, "the day of judgment." It will surely be acknowledged a singular thing, that this should be the sole limitation. The Governor and Judge of the world must of necessity be possessed of infallible prescience. Without this, the administration of affairs could not be managed for an hour. How then are we to limit this prescience? It seems strange to think, that He who is to conduct the government of mankind, with a view to the final judgment, and who is himself, in the close, to occupy the throne as universal Judge, should be in absolute ignorance of the time when the end was to come. He himself describes the solemn transactions of that approach

*Heb. i. 1. John vii. 16. viii. 26. xii. 49, 50.

ing day, when the "Son of man shall come in his glory, and "all the holy angels with him, when he shall sit on the "throne of his glory, and when all nations shall be gathered to

66

gether before him." He tells us, that "the hour is coming, in "which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall "come forth, they that have done good to the resurrection of "life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of con"demnation." Yet, according to the Unitarian hypothesis, he did not know any more than mán or angel, when these things were to be. Nay, more; if the final judgment be meant in the text in question, then he gives a prophetic view of the general state of the world to the close of its history, yet knows not at all when that close is to arrive;-he describes himself as prescribing to his servants their respective charges "to occupy till he should come," and yet not merely leaving them in ignorance of the time of his return, but as ignorant of it himself as they. Such considerations render it probable, a priori, that the ignorance of which he speaks in the text under discussion, was not absolute; but that he speaks of himself in his official capacity, and affirms, that the time of the final judgment, the precise period of the duration of the world, did not come within the limits of that commission which he had received of the Father,-formed no part of his official instructions, as a messenger to mankind.,

3dly. In Acts i. 7. in reply to the question of his apostles, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom "to Israel?"-Jesus says, more generally," It is not for 66 you to know the times and the seasons, which the Father "hath put in his own power."-Are we hence to infer, that our blessed Lord was unacquainted, not merely with the day of judgment, but with the times and seasons in general? This is not pretended, and would be contrary to fact; the very chapter in which the controverted words occur, demon

strating the contrary. But these "times and seasons" "it

66

was not for them to know." The Father had " put them in "his own power." Not that he himself was ignorant of them, and on that account unable to give the information desired; but it formed no part of his instructions at that time to make them known. They were secret things which belonged to God. May not our Lord, then, in the passage under controversy, be understood as affirming the same thing with respect to the day of judgment, which he here affirms respecting "the times and seasons" in general?

That

4thly. It is plain that if angels had known "that day and "that hour," it must have been by communication;-that if men had known it, it must also have been by communication. neither man nor angel knew it, is equivalent to-that God had not communicated the knowledge of it to them. It is of knowledge received by communication that our Saviour speaks:-and as, in the passages before referred to, and in many others, he is represented, and represents himself, as sustaining an official character, and bearing a commission from the Father to men; the whole of the difficulty consists in considering him in Mark xiii. 32. as speaking of himself in this, his official capacity, and declaring that the time of the judgment was not among the things communicated to him as the commissioned messenger of the Father;-that it was to remain a divine secret.*

* In these observations, I have taken no notice of the criticism of Dr. Macknight, who thinks that the verb oidev has here the force of the Hebrew conjugation Hiphil, and signifies to make to know, or to declare, To avoid the obvious inference, that if" knoweth" means maketh known, when it is used of men and angels, and the Son, it must have the same meaning as to the Father; which would make the text affirm, in opposition to fact, that the Father made known the day of judgment:- -to avoid this inference, a second "that is" becomes necessary: "none maketh you to know," that is, "none hath power to make you know it." So that the verb "to know," is first made to signify to make known; and then, to make known means to have power to make known. This seems rather too much.