It must be a strong prejudice indeed, that will make one deny this to be the language of CHRIST'S human soul, and not of pure Deity.

But there are more texts which corroborate this sentiment, viz. such as represent CHRIST'S coming into the world, and being sent by the Father, in such a manner as plainly lead the impartial to believe he had a real and proper dwelling in another place, and in another manner before he came into the world in flesh, and that he then changed his place, and company, and manner of life; all which seem more agreeable to a human spirit, than to proper Deity. The bare reading of Christ's own language leads naturally to these ideas. "I came down from heaven not to do my own will," &c. "I am the living bread which came down from heaven," alluding to the manna "What and which came down from the clouds. ye shall see the son of man* ascend up where

if

divine nature. The whole of the terms in the context as the apostle has them, shews that CHRIST was there speaking in his inferior character to JEHOVAH, who had anointed him the great high priest of his people, and being the sacrifice himlsef, it was necessary he should have blood to make an atonement for sin. For this purpose a body was prepared for him, and he shews his willingness to take this body, and use it for the sacred purpose of fulfilling the will of JEHOVAH in the redemption of his people.

To the application of this text where CHRIST is called the son of man, some may object, That it cannot mean the human soul, as that cannot be called the son of man.' Auswer, 1. That the name son of mun ordinarily signifies no more than man, or some considerable man: and when applied to CHRIST it means the Messiah. 2. If CHRIST's human soul may not be called son of man, how will it do to call his Deity son of man? And what sense can be made of the text read thus, What if ye shall see the son of man, that is, the human nature, ascend where the son of man, that is, the Deity was before? And yet this must be the exposition of the text, if CHRIST had no pre-existent soul; and whether this, or the way I have applied it, be most plain and consistent, let every reader judge.

he was before.* I know whence I came and whither I go. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father." His being with the Father, and his being in the world, are opposite states, and represented as inconsistent with each other in the sense which CHRIST speaks of his Father's company and absence: but pure Deity cannot be absent from the Father even while it is in this world, nor can it return to him afterwards. It is very observable, that when CHRIST had spoken these words, his disciples said, "Lo, now thou speakest plainly, and speakest no parable;" that is, there is no difficulty or obscurity in the words. But are there not difficulty and obscurity in them, if we must construe them by figures, and not in the plain and obvious sense? especially if his coming from the Father as GOD, must be taken in a figurative sense, as is contended for, and his going to the Father, as man, in a literal sense; the whole is rendered utterly unintelligible.

There are several other texts to the same purpose." No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man, who is, or was, in heaven.§ He that is of

John vi. 38, 51, 62.

+ Ibid. viii. 14.

✰ Ibid. xvi. 28.

§ Johu iii. 13. The original word may be either rendered is or was, and is made either present or past, as most suitable to the sense of the passage where it occurs. Such as would have it rendered is here, must make it to mean the Deity of CHRIST which was in heaven at the time he was speaking on earth; but how this will tally with the terms son of man is not so clear. (See the last note.) But if it be rendered was, which it may properly be, and is so rendered in John ix. 25. Eph. ii. 1, 5. where the sense will agree with no other construction, then the text is plainly a proof of the sentiment we presently contend for, and makes the passage itself easy to the most simple reader.

1

the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth. He that cometh from heaven is above all.* JESUS knowing that he came from GOD, and was going to God. Now that he ascended, what is it, but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth.+

To those texts may be added what the apostle says, "The first man is of the earth, earthly; the second man is the Lord from heaven." This the apostle speaks of CHRIST's original in opposition to Adam's, whose soul was created on earth, after a body was made out of the earth for it: but the soul of CHRIST was created in heaven, and therefore he is called the LORD from heaven. This is abundantly more intelligible than how the eternal GOD should come down from heaven, any other ways than as in union with the soul of CHRIST; since the eternal GOD ever filled all things with his presence, and therefore could never for moment leave heaven really and properly, which is the plain sense of the texts, and not in an allegorical sense, which at once destroys the plainness and propriety of the texts, and leaves us to grope in the dark for a meaning, to which, when found, we can prefix no rational ideas that

a

Eph. iv. 9, 10. This text appears plainer when interpreted of CHRIST's descent into the womb of the virgin, than into the grave, for David uses the same expression, Psa. cxxxix. 15. “My substance was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lower parts of the earth." Besides it was the soul of CHRIST that descended from heaven, but not into the grave. "Now," says the apostle," he that descended thus, is the same also that ascended up far above the heavens," that is, the soul descended to assume the body, and being embodied it ascended above the heavens.

§ 1 Cor. xv. 47.

will correspond with the proper sense of the terms which are used, and consequently, we are obliged to consider the whole as an allegory.

But that the above plain sense is what the apostle intends, is still more evident from what he adds, "As we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.* Intimating, that our souls are made now on earth, and joined to frail feeble bodies, subject to disease and corruption: but as the soul of CHRIST came down from heaven, and assumed a body on earth, so the souls of the saints shall come down from heaven at the resurrection, and assume their immortal bodies upon earth: and in this sense, CHRIST, the Second Adam, the LORD from heaven, is the pattern of the saints' resurrection much rather than the first Adam; and the parallel which the apostle represents of our bearing the image of the earthly and the heavenly Adam, is more just, perfect, and natural, by taking in this part of the resemblance as well as others.

I know some interpret these words, the LORD from heaven, to signify the Deity of CHRIST: but how inconsiderably do such lose sight of the apostle's design? which is to shew how the man CHRIST JESUS shall be the pattern of saints raised to glory: but can any suppose it as any part of his meaning, that the saints shall bear the image of Deity? It is certainly more plain and agreeable to scripture, to say, that they shall bear the image of CHRIST'S glorified human nature, and consequently these glorious expressions in the texts refer to his human soul. And if all these things are impartially laid together, we will find it hardly possible to conceive how our blessed LORD and his apostles should ex

* 1 Cor. xv. 49.

press his real and proper descent from heaven in plainer words than those cited above; or in words better fitted to lead every common reader into this plain and easy sense.

But before we proceed, it will be necessary to remove an objection, which perhaps some may lay weight upon, viz. There are some expressions in the old testament which represent GoD as coming down upon earth to visit the affairs of men; and in this analogical sense the Deity of CHRIST may be said to ascend and descend, so that these words need not be applied to any pre-existent soul of Christ.

1. I answer, it must be acknowledged, that when this manner of speech is used concerning GOD, it is to be interpreted figuratively or analogically, because the literal sense cannot be true: but where the literal sense is just, plain, and easy, and not inconsistent with the scope of scripture, where is the necessity to fly to the use of figures in the interpretation of scripture?

2. When God is said to descend from heaven, or to ascend thither in the old testament, it is so expressed to shew that this GoD, is JESUS CHRIST, or the human soul of CHRIST united to Deity in the pre-existent state, by whose service GOD managed all the affairs of ancient ages, and more especially such as had relation to the welfare of the church, or the holy seed.

3. When we consider the frequency of those expressions, Christ's coming down from heaven, coming from the Father, coming into the world, &c. they evidently bear a plain and just antithesis to his departing from the world, his returning to the Father, his ascending into heaven, &c. which are