"serves, The idea, which has often been suggested, is far from

66

being destitute of probability, that there was in our Lord's "words an allusion, perceived by the Jews, and rendered, PER"HAPS, emphatical by his manner, to the words of God to "Moses, "I AM THAT I AM.'-As our Author here expresses "himself with becoming hesitation and modesty, I only won"der that he has introduced this passage among the direct " and immediate proofs of our Lord's divinity." (Pages 202, 203.)—This is partial quotation. The circumstance on which the probability is chiefly grounded is left out of view. The Jews conceived our Lord, in using the words, to be guilty of blasphemy. This is clear from their taking up stones to stone him. But there was no blasphemy in calling himself the Messiah; nor any blasphemy in the simple affirmation of his preexistence as a creature. The blasphemy, on this, as on other occasions, consisted in that "he being a man made himself "God." And when we recollect, that he spoke to them in their oron language; that they had the look, and emphasis, and manner of the speaker, to enable them to understand his meaning; and that our blessed Lord did not at all undeceive them, which every idea we can form of his character constrains us to think he must have done, had he perceived them to be actuated by a mistake so gross, and so unutterably revolting to his heart; we have the strongest reason to believe, that they were right in their interpretation of his words, although wrong in accounting them blasphemous.

Heb. i. 10. Mr. Yates briefly repeats the view of this text which we have already considered, pages 190,191.

Col. i. 17. "In the 15th verse of this chapter," Mr. Yates observes, "Christ is called the first-born of every "creature,' which is a direct testimony that he was not an "eternal, but a created being. Nor is this assertion contra

"dicted by the phrase he is before all things.' For even "if we suppose it to mean, not he is,' but he was before "all things,' and if we were to grant that before all things' "signifies pre-existence in time, and not pre-eminence in dig“nity, still it could only signify, that he existed before all "things except himself and God. It proves, therefore, at "the very utmost, nothing more than our Lord's existence "before the creation of the universe." (Page 203.)

66

We have in this text,

We

Here is the same indecision as before. it seems, a direct testimony that Christ is not an eternal but a created being. But, if it be at all a direct testimony against his eternal existence, it must be as direct a testimony for his pre-existence; his existence before all other creatures. ask again, then, Does Mr. Yates believe this testimony? But we ask in vain. Cautus horrescit. He sets out upon the principle of never saying what he thinks Christ is,—but only showing what he is not. And, to do him justice, he keeps it up. But let us examine his positions. And, to take the last first:-Although it were granted, it seems, that "before all things" signifies pre-existence in time, and not pre-eminence in dignity, still it could only signify " that he existed before all "things, except himself and God."-I shall not dispute the position implied in these words, that no being can exist before himself. But if the words " before all things" have any specific meaning at all, they must mean, "before all created things;" in which case, they exclude the person spoken of from being himself a creature. If he were of the number of created things himself, he could not be "before all things," for the very reason contained in the indisputable proposition that he could not exist before himself. Of no being but an uncreated being can it, with strict propriety, be said that he is "be"fore all created things."

Cc

But in the expression, "the first-born of every creature," in verse 15th, we have, it is alleged, "a direct testimony "that he was not an eternal but a created being.”—The phrase gorоronos Taong nτiews appears here, however, most naturally to mean the supremacy to which he is exalted, as the "appointed HEIR of all things,”—the "LORD OF ALL;" which the Heir is described to be, Gal. iv. 1.-In Psalm lxxxix. 27, Jehovah, speaking of the Messiah, says, "Also I will "make him MY FIRST-BORN, higher than the kings of the "earth:” of which the meaning is, that he would invest him with pre-eminent dignity and authority, "putting all things "under his feet."-This agrees well with the subsequent context in the epistle:-" And he is the head of the body, the "church; who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; "that in all things he might have the pre-eminence;"-as it does also with Heb. i. 2, 3. where Jesus is spoken of as "HEIR of all things," and at the same time as "the bright"ness of (the Father's) glory, and the express IMAGE of his per"son;" just as in Col. i. 15. he is called "the IMAGE of the "invisible God," and " the FIRST-BORN of the whole creation."

-Schleusner says, 6 Christus vocatur πρωτότοκος πασης κτίσεως, "princeps et dominus omnium rerum creatarum:"-and Parkhurst: "Christ is called, Col. i. 15. IgwroTOKOS TRONS NTIÓEWS, "the First-begotten, or First-born of the whole creation, because "he was begotten to be heir and Lord of all things; (comp. "Heb. i. 2, 8. Acts x. 36.) and in all things, or over all per"sons, to have the pre-eminence. (Comp. Psal. lxxxix. 27.) And "because all things were created EIΣ avrov, FOR him, as well as “di avrov, by him, in the same view he is styled absolutely TON TgWTOTONOV, THE First-born, Heb. i. 6."

Rev. i. 8.; i. 17.; xxii. 13.-On these three passages I refer the reader back to pages 34-36.

Having repeated Griesbach's version of the first of these texts-" saith the Lord GOD," instead of "saith the Lord," Mr. Yates here says: "Since St. John attributes, these words "to the Supreme God, they cannot prove any thing respect

ing Jesus Christ."-If the reader is prepared to allow to Mr. Yates's bare assertions the force of conclusive proofs, he may be satisfied with this begging of the question.

According to Mr. Yates, "when the Almighty is said to "be the first and the last,' the meaning is, that he is con"temporary with the earliest and the latest events in that "chain of causes and effects, by which he accomplishes his "stupendous counsels. This remark is beautifully adapted "to the series of occurrences referred to by the prophet I"saiah. It appears equally suitable at the commencement of "a prophetical narration of the successes and calamities "which were appointed by the Almighty for the Christian "church." Page 204.-In the passage referred to, however, in the prophecies of Isaiah, JEHOVAH applies the epithets to himself, in distinguishing himself from the false gods of the heathen; and they are evidently intended to describe him as, in opposition to these "Vanities," the LIVING and ETERNAL God.—The prophet Jeremiah contrasts Jehovah with idols in the following terms; and if the reader will compare with them the language of Isaiah in the passages referred to, especially chap. xlviii. 12, 13. he will at once perceive their parallelism and equipollence: "But the LORD "(JEHOVAH) is the true God, he is THE LIVING GOD, and an "EVERLASTING KING:-thus shall ye say unto them, The gods "that have not made the earth and the heavens, even they shall "perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. He "hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the "world by his wisdom, he hath stretched out the heavens by

with just as much propriety as "concerning the Son he "saith."

Mr. Yates adopts the ordinary Unitarian method of setting aside that most plain and convincing proof of Jesus being JEHOVAH, derived from comparing Isa. vi. 1—5. with John xii. 37-41. He may, if he please, call it a "remote de"duction" by which this proof is obtained. I still deny, as before, that it is a deduction at all. It is as plain and pointed a declaration as the Evangelist could have made, that the GLORY OF JEHOVAH, seen by the prophet, on the occasion referred to, was the GLORY OF CHRIST. "He saw "his glory," says the Evangelist, "and spake of him." Let the reader look at Isa. vi. and he will find in it a description of the GLORY which, on the occasion referred to, the prophet saw. But, according to Mr. Yates and his brethren, the glory which the Evangelist says Isaiah saw, was not at all the glory which Isaiah describes as having been seen by him, but something entirely different ;—and something too, it is remarkable, of which there is no mention whatever made in the whole of the vision there recorded. "He contemplated," says Mr. Yates, "the future glory of "Christ displayed in the performance of miracles." This, it seems, was the glory which he "saw,”-i. e. which he " "fore"saw." Yet of this glory no notice is taken by the prophet in the passage:-not a word is said about it.

Can any thing, then, be more arbitrary than this? Isaiah tells us of the glory which he saw,-viz. the glory of JEHOVAH; and the Evangelist says, "These things said Esaias "when he saw his glory." Yet we must not suppose the glory mentioned in the two passages to be the same; but the glory mentioned by John to be something entirely different; and glory too which the prophet does not in