"would be irresistibly confirmed." (P. 209.) He admits that it was Christ's power that "wrought with the apostles, "confirming their word by signs following."-One should think that such concessions go far towards an admission that Jesus Christ is GOD. I have been accustomed to consider omnipresence, whether virtual or actual-(in supposing that I disbelieve the latter, Mr. Yates is mistaken)—as being one of the distinguishing perfections of Deity. It is sufficiently obvious, even from its appellation, that virtual omnipresence is, in regard to the effects resulting from it, the same thing with actual omnipresence; that the possession of the latter communicates to the Being who possesses it no greater measure of knowledge, or of power, than is implied in the possession of the former. Yet a mere man, it seems, may be made to possess the former, although not the latter; —that is, a mere man may become GoD in knowledge and in power, only not in extension.—Mr. Yates may say what he will about mysteries: but this is a mystery; and a pretty considerable one too. He indeed alleges, that "this virtual "presence is merely the exercise of power." But in so saying, he only blinds his reader. The virtual presence of which he speaks, implies an unerring knowledge of all that is passing in every part of the world at the same instant, and the power of producing effects in every part of the world at the same instant;-and this too, in the case of Christ, at immeasurable distances from the place where the Being exists by whom the knowledge and power are possessed. This, I repeat, is one of the mysteries of Unitarianism; and it certainly is as near an approach to the doctrine of the union of the divine with the human nature in the person of Christ, as we can well conceive Unitarianism to make.

Mr. Yates may allege, that he does not argue for Christ's virtual omni-presence, but only for his virtual presence with his disciples in every part of this world. But, if we can conceive of a creature, although at an immeasurable distance, as present, in the exercise of knowledge and power, every successive instant, in every part of this world where there is a believer in his name; we have only to suppose the capacities of this creature further expanded, to produce what, on Mr. Yates's principles, will not at least involve a contradiction, a creature, virtually omnipresent, and actually omniscient and omnipotent.

Further: It is curious to observe, how Mr. Yates contrives to make the two parallel passages, Exod. xx. 24. and Mat. xviii. 20. comport with his system. Of the former ("in all places where I record my name, I will come unto "thee, and I will bless thee,") he says, "It is evident, that "this expression describes only a virtual omnipresence. "A spirit, extended through all space, and present every "moment in every part of it, cannot with any propriety be "said to come to a person." (P. 208.)-But in the latter there is nothing about coming. The phrase is" where two or three are gathered together in my name, "THERE AM I "in the midst of them." Yet, according to Mr. Yates, this too must mean only virtual presence; for it is Christ that speaks. Where, then, shall we find the phrase for actual omnipresence? It is surely not less incongruous for a creature, whose existence is limited to one spot, to speak of his being with his people in every place, than for the Infinite Spirit to speak of his coming to his people in every place. It is, therefore, singular, that the former should be the phrase used by JESUS, and the latter by JEHOVAH. Had the case been reversed;-had Christ used to his disciples the words of

Jehovah to Israel, and Jehovah to Israel the words of Christ to his disciples, the former would no doubt have been interpreted of Christ's coming to his people, in the exercise of the power conferred on him, to bless them; while the latter would, without hesitation, have been understood of the actual omnipresence of the infinite God. So jesuitical are the principles of Unitarian exposition.-Mr. Yates says, justly, that our Lord "having," in the preceding verse, "assured his dis"ciples of the fulfilment of their united petitions to heaven, "assigns a reason why their request should be granted; ' FOR "where two or three are gathered together in my name, "there am I in the midst of them.'" (P. 208.)-But two questions immediately suggest themselves :-The first is, How comes it, that Jesus should use such an expression as "there "am I in the midst of them," to signify, not his being present with them at all, but simply his possessing power to confer blessings upon them?--And the second is, Does his "power "of conferring the blessings for which they prayed," form, exclusively, the only possible reason for their requests being granted? Does not the reason hold equally good, when we unite with his power of conferring blessings, the assurance of his presence with them, to hear their petitions, to know their circumstances and wants, and to accomplish their desires? If the reason, so far from being weakened, is strengthened by this interpretation, and the interpretation itself accords with the plain and obvious meaning of the words" THERE AM I," &c. is it not the one which ought to be preferred ?—I believe, after all, I might have left the reader simply to compare the two passages, Exod. xx. 24. and Mat. xviii. 20.; and to say, whether they are not "equally clear declarations "of omnipresence;" whether "the reasoning which would "set aside the one, would not as effectually invalidate the

"other;" and whether "any being could make either the one "or the other, but a being who was present in all places, " and who knew all things."-Discourses, p. 92.

4. OMNISCIENCE.

The strong language which I have used on the evidence of this attribute belonging to Christ, Mr. Yates characterises as "bold assertion." But after all that he has said, I think the simple re-statement of my argument might be sufficient to show that my language is not more decided than the case warrants.-The argument stands thus:-From 1 Kings viii. 39. "Thou, even THOU ONLY, knowest the "hearts of all the children of men;" and Jer. xvii. 10. "The "heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wick"ed; who can know it? I JEHOVAH search the heart, I try "the reins; even to give every man according to his ways, and "according to the fruit of his doings;" the inference is undeniable, and it is one which accords with all our accustomed thoughts of God, that this perfect knowledge of the hearts of men is his peculiar prerogative.-But in Rev. ii. 23. Jesus Christ quotes the words of the latter passage in application to himself: All the churches shall know "that I am he that searcheth the reins and the hearts; " and I will give unto every one of you according to your "works."-May I not, then, say again," If this be not a "direct and unqualified claim of a peculiar Divine preroga"tive, there is no meaning in human language; and to "search the Scriptures for clear and satisfactory knowledge, "must be a vain and fruitless task?"

To this I had added:" Even if he had simply said, "all the churches shall know that I search the reins and "the hearts," this of itself would have been enough for "the argument; because the passages above cited, do most

emphatically appropriate the searching of the heart to God alone. But the terms in which he expresses himself are much more definite. They evidently proceed upon the ex* press assumption that this is the exclusive prerogative of *ONE BEING ONLY. They agree with, and confirm, the appropriation to God of the universal and extensive knowkedge of the heart, so distinctly marked in the former passages: All the churches shall know' (not merely that "I search, but) that I AM HE THAT SEARCHETH the reins " and the hearts.'

On this remark, Mr. Yates offers the following strictures: "But he also insists upon the expression I am he that "searcheth,' as more expressive than the simpler phrase ""I search. His argument proceeds from inattention to the "following circumstances. The want of the present tense " in Hebrew verbs is supplied by the participle, following "the pronoun, agreeing with it in number and person, and "having sometimes the definite article prefixed. From the "Hebrew, this construction has been transferred into the "Greek of the Septuagint and of the New Testament. For "example: the expression 'I am he that came' (it should be « cometh out of the army' (Εγω εἰμι ὁ ἥκων ἐκ της παρεμβολης) ❝ 1 Sam. iv. 16. means only I come out of the army.' In "like manner "I am he that searcheth' (Eyw sius ò egɛuvwv) signi"fies nothing more than I search' (eyw sgeuvw). This form of "expression is what critics call a Hebraism; and no book in "the whole New Testament has so many Hebraisms as the "Apocalypse (Marsh's Michaelis, ch. xxxiii. §. 6.) It would in "my opinion have been better if the authors of the common "translation, like the editors of the improved version, had "accommodated the words of Jesus to the idiom of the Eng"lish language. This would have prevented Mr. Wardlaw's