far the instances thus characterized as "remote deductions," and "complicated arguments," deserve to be so denominated. To me they appear, on the contrary, to be such as the simplest and most untutored mind must be able instantly to apprehend. A person is called Jehovah in the Old Testa"ment. The passage in which this person is spoken of is, " in the New Testament, expressly referred to Christ: there"fore he is Jehovah. To be deduction at all, we can con"ceive nothing further from being remote.” *

The first instance of the application of the name Jehovah to Jesus Christ, and which Mr. Yates classes amongst remote deductions, is found in a comparison of Luke i. 16, 17. with Isa. xl. 3. John i. 23. Matth. iii. 3. John iii. 28. John i. 31. and Mal. iii. 1.; for the illustration of which I refer the reader to pages 78-80, of my former volume. Let us see for a moment the remoteness of the deduction, the complexity of the argument, in this instance. The prophets predict the coming of One, to whom they give the name of JEHOVAH :-They call him, at the same time, "the Lord "whom the people sought," "the Messenger of the Covenant, " in whom they delighted;" and they testify that he should come to "his temple." It is also predicted, that a messenger should go before him, to prepare his way.In due time, John the Baptist makes his appearance; and he comes in the character of a precursor, a preparer of the way. That he is the person referred to by Isaiah and Malachi, is admitted. He, then, before whom before whose faceJohn the Baptist came, is "the Lord, the Messenger of "the Covenant," the object of Jewish expectation, who was to come to "his temple," the temple of JEHOVAH. Now, John came to introduce THE CHRIST-to prepare

* Brown's Strictures, p. 55,

for his "manifestation to Israel," John i. 31. He speaks of himself as "sent before him," John iii. 28.; and of Jesus under the emphatic designation, " He that cometh after me :" -and it is remarkable how the terms in which he speaks of Christ accord with the elevated and Divine appellations previously given him by the prophets:-"This is he "of whom I said, after me cometh a man who is preferred "before me; for he was before me." John i. 30.-I am aware that the words or rgwros mov v &c. have been proposed to be rendered "for he was my chief," or "my superior." But, without disputing the possibility of the words bearing this rendering, it is most unnatural to suppose John to have used the past tense, if such was his meaning: “He " is preferred before me, for he was my superior." The use of this tense fixes the phrase to the meaning given it by our translators;-and then we have, in John's words, a clear and striking declaration of the pre-existence of Christ. -He came after John;-and yet he was before him :-a pointed, and obviously designed antithesis.—In all this there is perfect harmony.-Jesus Christ is the person before whom, before whose face the predicted messenger is sent:-He is "the Lord, the Messenger of the Covenant, who was to come to his temple"-" Jehovah, whose way was to be "prepared."—I appeal to the impartial reader, if this be a "remote deduction," or a "complicated argument."-Mr. Yates alleges, that the principle of my argument is "that it is "impossible for the same thing to be asserted in Scripture

66

66

concerning two different beings.” (P. 194.)—He shows thus how logically he can generalize, and, by "remote deduction," infer a universal principle from a particular case, as if it could not be made out, in that particular case, that the thing asserted is asserted of the same person under different

appellations, unless the universal impossibility stated in his general principle is admitted, that in no case can the same things be affirmed of two different beings.

66

On this ground, however, Mr. Yates thus reasons: "The argument may be thus summed up. John went before "Jehovah; and John went before Christ; therefore Christ "is Jehovah.-1 Sam. ii. 12. The sons of ELI were sons of "BELIAL; therefore ELI was BELIAL.-Exod. xx. 2. and "Deut. v. 6. He who brought the Israelites out of Egypt was "JEHOVAH but, by Exod. xxxii. 7. xxxiii. 1. He who "brought the Israelites out of Egypt was MOSES; therefore "MOSES was JEHOVAH.-Such are the endless absurdities "which would be derived from the Scriptures by proceed66 ing upon the principle of Mr. Wardlaw's argument, "that it is impossible for the same thing to be affirmed in "Scripture concerning two different beings." (P. 194.)

I have said, "Mr. Yates reasons." But I believe I have used a wrong word. There are some things which are so very unreasonable, that it is difficult to show them to be so. There is the same difficulty in refuting a self-evident absurdity as there is in demonstrating a self-evident truth. If the reader is convinced by Mr. Yates's wit, (in which, if there is any salt, it wants the Attic poignancy) I cannot help him. I shall only say, in the words of Mr. Brown,

"It is almost unnecessary to remark, that the true prin"ciple of Mr. Wardlaw's argument is, and it is strange that "his opponent did not perceive it, that if it is plainly said "in the New Testament that Jesus Christ is the person ❝ mentioned in a particular passage of Old Testament Scrip"ture, the name used in that passage properly belongs "to him." (Strictures, p. 56.)-Whether it be not "plainly "said in the New Testament," that JESUS CHRIST was THE

PERSON before whose face, according to the prophets, the messenger was to be sent, to prepare his way; and whether the various designations and names by which that person was prophetically distinguished, and JEHOVAH among the rest, do not fairly and evidently belong to him, I leave the reader to judge. The figurative nature of the language used by some of the prophets, on which Mr. Yates enlarges, in pages 194-196, has nothing whatever to do with the argument.

The next passage is Heb. i. 10. "And, thou, Lord, "in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; "and the heavens are the works of thine hands."

With regard to this passage, Mr. Yates makes the following important admissions:-"I shall grant to Mr. Ward"law, that the word LORD ought here to be considered "as equivalent to JEHOVAH; nor am I disposed to con"sider this passage as a sudden apostrophe to God, because,

66

although this interpretation is very suitable to the idiom ❝of our language, I know of nothing parallel to it in the "Scriptures. The only question, therefore, is, whether this "quotation was intended by the writer as an address to "Christ." (P. 196.)

I am satisfied that the question should stand as thus stated. The sole reason assigned by Mr. Yates for not understanding the words as, in the application of them by the apostle, an address to the Son, is what I have already noticed, page 176, with regard to the meaning of the prepo sition ПPOΣ in verse 8. Taking my observations on that criticism of Mr. Yates along with him, let the reader now remark:

1. The former quotation, as was then noticed, in whatever way you render IIPOZ, is an address to the Son, and can

be nothing else. It is admitted to be so by Mr. Yates, who translates it, "Thy throne, O God,"-calls it an "invo"cation," and contends that in this invocation of the Son, God is used in its inferior sense. Such is the ground he takes as to the first address.

Now, the second quotation is an address too. Is "LORD," then, to be also taken in its inferior sense? No. Mr. Yates admits that it means JEHOVAH. He says, the words are an "address to Jehovah, referring to the government of "Christ.”—(P. 217.) Mr. Yates shows us in this, how well he can at times satisfy himself with a "remote deduction." The words in the quotation, under the form of an address to Jehovah, contain no more then a simple declaration of his power in the creation of heaven and earth, of his immutability, and his eternal existence. To the government of Christ there is, in the words themselves, no sort of reference, direct or remote.-Socinian ingenuity has framed a reference, by connecting the power, and immutability, and eternity of Jehovah with the perpetuity of the reign of Christ; and this they think quite natural and easy. But it is bringing out of the passage what is not in it. The reference is entirely gratuitous. It is truly a "remote de“duction." But besides, such an interpretation deprives the passage of all peculiarity of application to the apostle's purpose. His purpose is, to show the superiority of Christ to angels. But, unless the words quoted are considered as addressed to Christ, what are they to this purpose? How is a declaration that JEHOVAH created the heavens and the earth, that he is immutable, and everlasting, to be made to bear upon this point?-For my own part, I can see nothing in the words, on this interpretation, to prevent them being prefaced with "concerning the angels hè saith,”