which bear a most inauspicious aspect on his own cause. I now allude particularly to John i. 1, 2.; which asserts, not, as Mr. Yates designs to represent it, that Jesus Christ (i. e. the man Christ Jesus) was with God; but, that THE WORD, before being made flesh, existed "in the beginning," and was then "with God," and, in the same breath, with the same laconic simplicity, that this Word "was God"—of which enough has already been said:-the latter affirmation proving his divinity, and the former his personality in the Godhead.

66

66

Mr. Yates illustrates his argument from such passages by a supposed parallel case. "To illustrate this phrase by a sim"ple example: It has been conjectured, that Luke, the E"vangelist, was the same man who is called in Paul's Epistles, Sylvanus. We may conceive of the question being settled "in the following manner. Suppose we were to find in any part of the New Testament this expression, Luke was "with Sylvanus;' we should immediately conclude that "Luke was not Sylvanus, but a different person. In like 66 manner, when we find it asserted, that the Word was with "God,' or that God was with Christ,' we draw the obvious "inference, that Jesus Christ was not God, but, though fa"voured with an intimate communion with him, a totally dis"tinct being." (Pages 67, 68.)-But this imaginary parallel proceeds on the assumption of there being no difference between the constitution of the person of Christ, and that of Luke or Sylvanus; and of there being no sense in which it could be said that "the Word was with God," except that sense which would imply the same kind of distinction between the Word and God, as between one man and another, which is begging the question;-taking it for granted, either on the one hand, that Jesus was a mere man, which is the thing to be proved; or, on the other, that the unity of Deity is of the same nature with the unity of a man, which is also the thing

Tt

to be proved.-As to God being "with Christ," there is no other distinction implied in such expressions, than that which has been already noticed,—namely, the distinction between Jesus as the Divine Mediator, in the assumed form of a servant, and the Father, or the Godhead, as giving testimony to his doctrine and his work.

The same general remarks apply to those passages in which Jesus is spoken of, as coming from God, and going to God. Indeed, these passages are also unfortunate, at least for the Socinian hypothesis. For they seem very clearly to denote a pre-existent state. If coming from God meant, in such connexion, merely having his commission from God, then going to God, should mean his resigning that commission; but, if this be a forced and unnatural interpretation of the latter phrase, if it evidently means something local, his going to heaven, represented as the place of the peculiar residence of God, then must his coming from God, his "coming forth "from the Father, and coming into the world," have a corresponding signification. It must mean, his having come down from a pre-existent state of heavenly glory. The question is, What was that state? Was it a state of Divine glory? The phrases in question do not imply the contrary; for God, although infinite, is often spoken of in language, such as, when applied to creatures, indicates change of place;among other expressions, as coming down. And, seeing an inspired writer teaches us, that the WORD's being with God, before he appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh, was not inconsistent with his being God-neither, surely, are such declarations of his coming from God, and going to God.

Jesus Christ is called "the image of God," "the image of "the invisible God," (2 Cor. iv. 4. Col. i. 15.) "the express "image of his person," (Heb. i. 3.) and in Phil. ii. 6. is said to have been "in the form of God." "To say any person is

"the image of himself, or in the form of himself," Mr. Yates alleges, "would be absolute nonsense."-But may not Christ be styled the "image of the invisible God," because his character, as "the Word made flesh," presents to mankind an embodied exhibition of the perfections of Deity? In one of the passages where he is so denominated, it is said of him, in terms formerly discussed, that "all things in heaven' and "earth, visible and invisible, were created by him, and for "him, and that he is before all things, and that by him all "things consist."-And, without entering into any critical examination of the precise import of the original terms translated "the express image of his person," it may be sufficient to observe, that, in the same verse, he is represented as "uphold❝ing all things by the word of his power."

On the phraseology of Phil. ii. 6. enough has been said before.

On the whole, the arguments adduced in this chapter, with a view to prove that Jesus Christ is not God, but a distinct being from him, instead of proving this, prove no more than that he is distinct; that the Eternal Word, or the Incarnate Mediator, is distinct from the Father. Distinction between the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,-between the Godhead and the Mediator, belongs to both systems. But the distinction affirmed in each, is materially different in kind. It behoved Mr. Yates to show not only that the language of the passages he has quoted, was consistent with the Unitarian hypothesis, but that it was not consistent with the Trinitarian. But this he has not attempted. And, while he has adduced a great many passages which, as proofs of mere distinction, are not at all to his purpose, he has, amongst them, brought forward some, which, in certain other views of them, afford strong evidence of the equality of Christ with the Father.

2

to be proved.-As to God being "with Christ," there is no other distinction implied in such expressions, than that which has been already noticed, namely, the distinction between Jesus as the Divine Mediator, in the assumed form of a servant, and the Father, or the Godhead, as giving testimony to his doctrine and his work.

The same general remarks apply to those passages in which Jesus is spoken of, as coming from God, and going to God. Indeed, these passages are also unfortunate, at least for the Socinian hypothesis. For they seem very clearly to denote a pre-existent state. If coming from God meant, in such connexion, merely having his commission from God, then going to God, should mean his resigning that commission, but, if this be a forced and unnatural interpretation of the latter phrase, if it evidently means something local, his going to heaven, represented as the place of the peculiar residence of God, then must his coming from God, his "coming forth "from the Father, and coming into the world," have a corresponding signification. It must mean, his having come down from a pre-existent state of heavenly glory. The question is, What was that state? Was it a state of Divine glory? The phrases in question do not imply the contrary; for God, although infinite, is often spoken of in language, such as, when applied to creatures, indicates change of place;among other expressions, as coming down. And, seeing an inspired writer teaches us, that the WORD's being with God, before he appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh, was not inconsistent with his being God:-neither, surely, are such declarations of his coming from God, and going to God.

Jesus Christ is called "the image of God," "the image of "the invisible God," (2 Cor. iv. 4. Col. i. 15.) "the express "image of his person;" (Heb. i. 3.) and in Phil. ii. 6. is said to have been "in the form of God." "To say any person is

"

"the image of himself, or in the form of himself," Mr. Yates alleges, "would be absolute nonsense."-But may not Christ be styled the image of the invisible God," because his character, as "the Word made flesh," presents to mankind an embodied exhibition of the perfections of Deity? In one of the passages where he is so denominated, it is said of him, in terms formerly discussed, that "all things in heaven and "earth, visible and invisible, were created by him, and for ❝him, and that he is before all things, and that by him all "things consist."-And, without entering into any critical examination of the precise import of the original terms translated "the express image of his person," it may be sufficient to observe, that, in the same verse, he is represented as "uphold"ing all things by the word of his power."

On the phraseology of Phil. ii. 6. enough has been said before.

On the whole, the arguments adduced in this chapter, with a view to prove that Jesus Christ is not God, but a distinct being from him, instead of proving this, prove no more than that he is distinct; that the Eternal Word, or the Incarnate Mediator, is distinct from the Father. Distinction between the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,-between the Godhead and the Mediator, belongs to both systems. But the distinction affirmed in each, is materially different in kind. It behoved Mr. Yates to show not only that the language of the passages he has quoted, was consistent with the Unitarian hypothesis, but that it was not consistent with the Trinitarian. But this he has not attempted. And, while he has adduced a great many passages which, as proofs of mere distinction, are not at all to his purpose, he has, amongst them, brought forward some, which, in certain other views of them, afford strong evidence of the equality of Christ with the Father.