CHAPTER III.

THE general principles laid down in the preceding chapter, are, in their full force, applicable to all that Mr. Yates advances in Chapters VI. and VII. of the Second Part of his "Vindication," respecting the wisdom, and knowledge, and power, of Christ, being derived from the Father.

Mr. Yates thus states the difference between Trinitarians and Unitarians, in answering the ancient question, “Whence "hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works?". "The Trinitarians maintain that, as Jesus Christ was really and "truly God, he required no communication of knowledge "or power from any other being, but was, from all eternity, "and by his own nature, infinitely wise, omniscient, and "omnipotent. The Unitarians, on the contrary, assert, that ❝he derived his wisdom, his knowledge, and his power, from "the same Being who brought him into existence, from the "one eternal and almighty God, the Father." (Page 78.) But in this statement, he has been as careful as before to leave out of sight the double view of the person of Christ maintained by Trinitarians. Jesus Christ appears, as Mediator, "in the likeness of sinful flesh." In these circumstances, how were those, to whom he made his appearance, to be assured, that he came, that he taught, and that he acted, by divine authority? How, but by his announcing himself possessed of a commission from the Father,—and proving that commission by miraculous works? This he did. He declared that all that he taught was according to the commission he had received; that all that he did was according to the will of Him that sent him; and he appealed to his miracles, as works which the Father had given him to do, and indi

cations of his sanction and approbation. But what of this? The great general principle of the distinction of natures, and the official character of Jesus Christ, leaves no difficulty here. This general principle it should have been Mr. Yates's business to overthrow. But, instead of doing this, he has taken one side only of the Trinitarian view of the Saviour's person. He states that, as God, Trinitarians consider his knowledge and wisdom as eternal and underived; in which he is right: but he entirely forgets, that they view him also as man, and, officially, as Mediator; that, in the human nature, all the knowledge and wisdom of his human soul must of necessity have been derived; and that, in his official capacity, he taught and acted by commission, communicating what he had received to communicate, and doing what he had been charged to do.-There is surely no great difficulty in making the distinction between a personal and an official character. An ambassador from a prince, charged with a certain commission, may possess a vast deal of knowledge, even of the mind of his sovereign, beyond what is involved in his commission, and he may possess a large measure of general knowledge besides. Even of the substance of his commission he might have full knowledge in his personal capacity, before he received it in his official.But, as an ambassador, he is charged with a commission. That commission he delivers as from him that sent him. And he who, from the circumstance of this ambassador speaking of his commission in his official language, should conclude that he could have no knowledge of it except in his official capacity, and no personal knowledge, no underived acquaintance with any thing else;-would commit the same error with those, who argue, that because Jesus Christ, in his official capacity (which he had voluntarily assumed,) speaks of him

self as delivering what he was commissioned to deliver,-therefore all the knowledge and wisdom he possessed, were, and must have been, derived, and not inherent. The sophism arises from not distinguishing between Jesus Christ, considered simply as God, and Jesus Christ, considered in his official capacity as Mediator between God and men-the voluntary servant of the Godhead.

Chapter VII. Part II. in Mr. Yates's "Vindication," is one of the most laboured in the volume. Its object is to prove the Unitarian doctrine, "concerning the origin of Christ's "power, viz. that it was given to him."-As might have been expected, a great proportion of the reasoning is characterized by the same species of sophism as the reasoning in proof of the derivation of Christ's wisdom and knowledge. "To prove that any person is a God, no method can be "more direct than to show that he is possessed of underived "and independent power. I conceive, therefore, that we "might reduce the whole question concerning the Deity of "Christ within this short compass. Did our Saviour pos66 sess his power without having received it from any other

σε

being, and did he exert it without being subject to the "pleasure and control of any other? Or were his authority, "his glory, and his majesty, conferred upon him by a supe"rior? The former side of the question is espoused by the "Trinitarians, who affirm, that Jesus Christ was omnipotent "from eternity, and by his own nature, and that his power " is incapable of any increase as well as of any diminution. "The latter opinion is espoused with equal firmness by the "Unitarians, who assert, that all the power of Christ was "given to him. It is, therefore, my intention in this chapter,

by bringing forward all the passages in the New Testa"ment, which relate to the power of Jesus, to enable every

"reader to decide for himself the principal question at issue, "viz, whether the power of Christ was given, or whether it "was underived." (Pages 81, 82.)

of

In this general statement, it will appear to the intelligent reader, that, as before, the Trinitarian distinction between Christ as God, and Christ in his complex person and official character, as Emmanuel, is kept entirely out of sight. While the Unitarian doctrine is stated to be, that all the power Christ was given to him, was derived and not inherent,-the reader is left to conclude, that Trinitarians deny his having possessed any power of this description,-any power, that was, in any sense, given or derived; and that all the power which the Scriptures ascribe to him, is underived and inherent;—than which, as Mr. Yates himself must know, nothing can be farther from truth.

The chapter is divided into three parts:-the first, examining the question of our Lord's independent power "before his birth of the Virgin Mary :"-the second, contemplating the exercise of his power during his abode upon earth and the third, the exercise of his power subsequently

to his ascension to heaven.

The first part of the inquiry proceeds on the hypothetical assumption of the existence of Christ before his appearance on earth. "The question is, whether, granting the pre-existence of "Christ, he enjoyed before his incarnation, underived power?"

Having already considered the principal passages on this head, namely, those in which the creation of all things is ascribed to Christ, and particularly examined the ground taken by Mr. Yates respecting the import of the prepositions AIA and 'rпo, it would be impertinent to resume this discussion; and I think it quite unnecessary to enlarge it. I re fer the reader to my Fourth Discourse, pages 104-112,

and to pages 229-236, of this work, and leave it to himself to judge, whether Mr. Yates has made good his assertions, "that these passages are decisively favourable to the Unita❝rian doctrine, that if Jesus was concerned in the formation "of the heavens and the earth, he was only employed as an "instrument in the hands of God his Father:" (page 83.)and that, "when we direct our view to the first supposed "period of our Lord's existence, that preceding his in"carnation, we find that every passage of the New Testament "which ascribes to him power in that period, ascribes it "to him as a being inferior to, and dependent upon, the Father." (Page 88.)

66

Of the exercise of our Lord's power during his abode on earth, Mr. Yates says, "In the course of his public ministry, he exhibited the astonishing and awful proofs " of supernatural power, by giving sight to the blind, and "reason to the insane, by healing the sick, raising the dead, ❝and by many other stupendous miracles. Here again, "the question to be decided is, Whether he performed "his mighty acts by underived and independent power, " or whether he was enabled and authorised to exhibit them "by God the Father? We may ascertain the truth, partly from the opinions of those who saw our Lord's miracles "performed, but chiefly from his own clear declarations." (Page 88.)

On the argument derived from the manner in which Jesus performed some of his miracles,-I refer the reader to pages 223-226, of this treatise, and shall offer very few additional observations on the way in which this argument is treated in this part of Mr. Yates's work.

1. The first is, that Mr. Yates renders it necessary to remind the reader, that the argument is derived, not from