66

Yates says, "In both cases, the application of the words 'first " and last' to our Lord, is so guarded as to exclude the idea of " his supreme Divinity. In the first chapter, after being describ "ed as the first and the last,' he is immediately stated to have "died. This shows, that he is not the Being who alone hath immortality." (Page 201.) With such obstinate determination does Mr. Yates presist in forgetting the simple principle, that the same person, possessing two natures, may speak of himself, nay cannot but speak of himself in terms that will seem contradictory, if the distinction of natures is not kept in view. It so happens, however, that in this passage of the first chapter, Jesus applies to himself a third epithet, which fixes the meaning of the other two, and renders still more striking and conclusive the correspondence between what is thus said of HIM, and what is said of JEHOVAH in the Old Testament Scriptures, as before referred to:-" I am the first and the last, and THE “ LIVING ONE,” (εγω ειμι ὁ πρωτος, και ὁ έσχατος, και Ο ΖΩΝ.) This shows "that He is the Being who alone hath immortality.”— Rev. xxii. 13. will come to be noticed afterwards.

II. ALMIGHTY POWER.

On the appellation " Mighty God" given to Christ, in Isa. ix. 6. the reader is referred to pages 148-153.

Rev. i. 8. "THE ALMIGHTY."

"If any credit," says Mr. Yates, "is due to the assertion "of the sacred writer, these were the words of the Lord God,' ❝ and not of Jesus Christ." This is Mr. Yates's favourite stile of logic-begging the question. We simply answer, that, giving all credit to the assertion of the sacred writer, and to Griesbach's version of his language, we believe these words to be the words of the Lord God, and yet the words of Jesus Christ notwithstanding.

Those who wish to judge of the correctness of Mr. Yates's assertion, about its being "generally agreed by the fathers of

"the first four centuries, that the word (Tavrongarwg) here trans"lated Almighty, is the peculiar designation of the Father," (p. 206) may consult the works that have been written, to ascertain the opinions of the early fathers. For my own part, as I have no idea of settling such a question by an appeal to the fathers, or founding my faith in "the wisdom of men;"-I satisfy myself with repeating on this text what I have before said in my Discourses; and the observations made upon it in former parts of this Treatise will add force, it is presumed, to the conclusion: "The connexion in which the words stand, ❝and the manner of the writer in other parts of the same "book, concur to show, that Jesus is the speaker. And ❝even if it were otherwise, the clear and frequent applica❝tion of a part of these expressions to Christ is sufficient to "justify us in the application of the whole. He who is the "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first " and the last," the Living One,' we may be well assured is "also THE ALMIGHTY." (Pages 91, 92.)-As Mr. Yates, however, has occasionally appealed to Origen, the reader is presented with the following sentence from that celebrated father, as his opinion of the passage under discussion. I give it, as it is introduced by Jones, on the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity:

"Origen, who certainly was no Arian, though often repre"sented as such by some who would be pleased to have the "vote of so celebrated a genius, has the following observa❝tion • Ut autem unam et eandem omnipotentiam Pa"tris et Filii esse cognoscas, sicut unus atque idem est cum "Patre Deus et Dominus, audi hoc modo Joannem in Apo"calypsi dicentem: Hæc dicet Dominus Deus qui est, et ❝qui erit, et qui venturus est, omnipotens. Qui enim ven"turus est omnipotens, quis est alius nisi Christus?" "Now,

"that you may know the omnipotence of the Father and the "Son to be one and the same, as he is one and the same God "and Lord with the Father, hear what St. John has said "in the Revelation. These things saith the Lord, who is, " and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.' For who "is the Almighty that is to come but Christ?" *

On Phil. iii. 21. after quoting my words, that "such "language cannot with propriety be used respecting any "being who is not possessed of omnipotence," Mr. Yates says:

"The reader must make his choice between this unsupport❝ed assertion, and the declarations of Paul in other parts of "his epistles, that the same God who raised Jesus from the "dead, will also raise mankind, through the instrumentality "of Jesus, and that it is God who shall put all things un"der his feet; (2 Cor. iv. 14. 1 Cor. xv. 27.)" But the judicious reader will perceive, that it is only on Unitarian principles that he requires to make any choice in the case. A choice supposes the cases stated to be incompatible with each other. But, on Trinitarian principles, there is no inconsistency between the Father raising up the dead "by Jesus" as Mediator, and the Mediator himself being, at the same time, possessed of Divine power.

"I have formerly observed," Mr. Yates concludes, "that "the question respecting the power of Christ is, whether it "belonged to him originally by his own Divine nature, or "whether it was conferred upon him by a superior. By pro66 ducing in order all the passages in the New Testament "which relate to the power of Christ, I proved the Unitarian "doctrine it that was given. Mr. Wardlaw has not even "attempted to prove the contrary." (Page 207.)

* Jones on the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, page 12th, 8th edition.

It would not be very reasonable in Mr. Yates, to expect me to argue against myself. That power was ferred upon Christ, is not with us a matter of question. It is a necessary part of what we conceive to be the Scripture scheme of redemption, that, having finished his work, he was, in his mediatorial capacity, invested with "all power "in heaven and in earth." We see no inconsistency between this, and his, at the same time, possessing the inherent power of Deity. We reckon the admission of both these views the only principle, on which the consistency and harmony of the language of the Scriptures respecting Christ can possibly be maintained. I may say, with truth, that Mr. Yates" has not even attempted to prove the contrary;" for this general principle, which it would have been most of all to his purpose to undermine, he has, throughout his work, left untouched. But more of this, when we come to notice Mr. Yates's ideas about derived and communicated power. I only further observe at present, that his assertion, "Mr. Wardlaw has not even ATTEMPTED to prove the con"trary," must have looked, when he saw it fairly down upon his paper, very much like-something that should have made him blush, and blot it out. Whatever success

Mr. Yates may think he has had, in proving the attempt abortive, he knew that the attempt had been made; that I had brought forward direct proofs of Christ's possessing inherent Divine power, as "the mighty God," "the Almighty;" and that all the evidences of his Supreme Divinity together were proofs of the same thing.

3. OMNIPRESENCE.

Mr. Yates's strictures on this part of the subject, form one of the most curious" morsels of criticism" in his volume. The passages on which he animadverts are so

plain, that he may run who reads them. Let us see how he contrives to involve them in obscurity.

has no

So far

1. "In treating of omnipresence as an attribute of Christ, "Mr. Wardlaw seems to have forgotten, that he "distinct conception of it as an attribute of God. "as can be inferred from his language, he believes only in "the virtual omnipresence of God, or in his power of pro"ducing effects in every part of space. In the same sense, I presume, he understands the doctrine of the omnipresence "of Christ. If so, he is not far from Scripture truth." (P. 207.)

66

66

On the subject of the Divine omnipresence, enough has already been said; and I had not at all "forgotten" it, when I wrote of the omnipresence of Christ. Without resuming the subject before discussed, I have now only to ask, Is Mr. Yates a believer in the virtual omnipresence of Jesus?—The expressions just quoted nearly imply as much: and we are justified in the conclusion by what he afterwards adds. He considers the words of Christ, Mat. xxviii. 20. and xviii. 20. when "properly understood," as a promise that, "wherever any of his disciples assembled to offer up their "prayers to God, or in whatever part of the earth they were employed in the service of the gospel, Jesus would accomplish their requests, and supply them with all requisite "encouragement and support:" (P. 207.)-and again (onthe former passage)" as an assurance that, during their whole ministry, Jesus would watch over them with a tender 66 guardianship and affection, and that his care would extend "to them in every place, preserving them from the dangers "to which they would be exposed, and enabling them to ❝exhibit the miracles by which the truth of their preaching

Dd