only a messenger divinely inspired, and limited, although in a less degree than others, in his view of the scheme of Providence. What adds force to the difficulty too is, that in the narrative of the Acts, Christ's prediction of the same event is alluded to, and to the prediction a similar avowal is appended. "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power;" that is, set apart as his peculiar province of knowledge.

It is impossible to explain it by reference to those mysterious distinctions in the divine nature, the existence of which we infer from other parts of Scripture. For, if the terms Father and Son be used in this sentence for the first and second Persons of the Godhead, as so distinguished, it is plain that omniscience is denied to the second Person.

But Christ could not have preached contradictions; and if, in so many parts of his ministry, he has displayed undoubtedly his character

1 Acts i. 7. ἔθετο ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ. The ἰδίᾳ here gives to the assertion of the Acts the same force as St. Mark's expression, “no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

as "perfect God, and perfect man," he could not have meant now to deny it. If, on one occasion, in accordance with much besides which he did and said, he told his disciples, "All things that the Father hath are minek," by the expression, "what the Father has put in his own power," and by this similar phrase which we meet with in St. Mark, he could not have meant, that any portion of divine knowledge was withheld from him. All evidently that our Lord intended to impress on his disciples was, that the exact knowledge of the time of the coming of his kingdom was not part of the revelation which they were to receive from him. This is the only point of view in which the assertion was called for by their question. In this light it was, no doubt, addressed to them, and is to be considered by us; and not (as we may be disposed to regard it) as a revelation about the divine nature.

Nor must we suppose that the expression was at all calculated to suggest any different view at the time. For from the Gospel narratives, especially St. John's, it appears to have been not unusual with our Lord, when contrasting the manifestation

* John xvi. 15.

of God with his unperceived incomprehensible existence, to apply the term "Father," as expressive of the latter'. Thus he declares; "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father"," because, namely, He was God made visible-the manifested, in opposition to the unmanifested, unperceived, incomprehensible nature and existence of God. I should interpret in the same way the following passages, amongst others. "My Father is greater than I"," that is, what is manifested of God is not so great and glorious as what is still unrevealed to man. 66 'I go to my Father"," that is, God ceases to be manifest in the flesh. "The Comforter," (that is, the Holy Ghost,) "whom I will send unto you from the Father"," that is, when God ceases to be manifested in my human nature. It is in this sense, and in allusion to such expressions as these, that God is called in the apostolic language, "the Father of lights"." If then the term Father be employed when a denial of divine manifestation is intended, a very natural way it was to describe a portion of knowledge not revealed, by ascribing it to the Father only. It John xiv. 9. P John xv. 26.

1 John x. 30. • John xvi. 16, 28.

" John xiv. 28. 9 James i. 17.

was equivalent to saying, that it was not designed for any scheme of revelation, whether conveyed through men, through angels, or through the manifestation of God in Christ. It seems nothing strange to speak of unrevealed knowledge as attached to God's unrevealed nature; or to say of it, that it belonged not to man, to angels, nor even to the Son, the last and fullest channel of communication. Christ was here speaking of himself as the angel of the new covenant; and this information made no part of the message which, in that character, he was conveying to mankind.

THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPHETIC LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; AND ITS PROBABLE ADOPTION BY OUR SAVIOUR IN THE PRESENT IN

STANCE.

It requires but a slender acquaintance with the writings of the Old Testament prophets to enable us to observe the peculiarity of their language. It is not only figurative, but the figures are of the boldest kind, involving analogies so remote, as in some instances to be scarcely discoverable. If revolutions in empires be the subject, the prophetic representation is filled with the disturb

P

ance of the laws of the natural world, and the sun, moon, and stars, are exhibited in commotion'. If a deliverer is promised to the Jews, the prophet expresses the promise by the rising of a star, and the likes.

The origin of this style of writing is obvious. It is all, on the face of it, a hieroglyphic translated into verbal description. Supposing the

scene, instead of being described in words, to be expressed by those ancient Egyptian symbols, such probably could be the figures which you would find sculptured. That this style should have grown into use among the Israelites from the time of their captivity in Egypt, that is, from their first efforts in any kind of literature, is not surprising. But it must not be thought that hieroglyphics are the peculiar invention of the Egyptians, or the contrivance indeed of any one people. An art resembling theirs must always be the result of the first efforts to record those thoughts which have no exact counterparts in the material world. The Mexican, by painting a ship, could convey intelligence of the arrival of

See especially Isaiah xiii. 10; xxiv. 23; Jeremiah xv. 9; Ezekiel xxxii. 7; Amos viii. 9. • Numbers xxiv. 17.