soul as well as a body; or at least should tell us that he assumed human nature, which might include both flesh and spirit; but that it should always use such words as chiefly denote the body:-such terms, as no man without the prejudices of educa tion, would ever apply to any thing else. This carries an evident intimation that his soul existed before. There is an objection which many think takes off the strength of this argument, viz. That the word flesh in many places of scripture, signifies mankind, or human nature, by the figure synecdoche, including the soul also. The reader will see that all the opposition made to this doctrine is founded on figures, which are never to be introduced but in cases of necessity. But that there is none here is plain, for though it is granted that flesh sometimes signifies mankind, yet this objection cannot be admitted till it is proved that flesh in scripture, is always put to denote human nature, and that the flesh and the soul are never distinguished. But as there are a great number of texts where the flesh or body is distinguished from the soul or spirit of man, it is reasonable at least to expect, there should be one text in all the bible, wherein the divine nature of CHRIST is said to assume a soul, as well as a body or flesh, when he came into the world; but till that text be found, we may safely conclude his spirit or soul existed before his incarnation. But it will take off the force of this objection, and further confirm the doctrine contended for, if we consider, that there is mention made of the soul of CHRIST himself on other occasions in many places of scripture. "Thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.-He shall see of the travail of his soul.-Father, into thy hands I recommend my spirit. His soul was not left in hell.-Now is my soul troubled.-My soul is exceeding sorrowful.Jesus rejoiced in spirit.-Jesus was troubled in spirit,* &c. Now since we have the soul of CHRIST mentioned so often on other occasions, and yet never once mentioned with relation to his incarnation, but always find that his coming into the world is described by taking FLESH and BLOOD, BODY, the FASHION OF A MAN, the LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH, &c. how can we ward off the evidence of CHRIST having a soul before? An argument in favor of this doctrine might be drawn from the sentiments of the most learned Jews, as well as the common belief of their vulgar. Whatever confused notions they had of the Messiah, they seem clear in belief of his pre-existent soul. Philo, who lived near the time of our Savior, interprets several texts in the old testament as we do. He says, 'This glorious spirit is the most honorable Logos, the arch-angel, prince of the angels and stars, high priest in the temple of God the world, who stands in the limits between the creator and the creature, the eldest, the first-begotten of the sons of GOD, who under God governs the world, and who doth humbly mediate for us mortals with him that is immortal.' It was the general opinion of the ancient Jews, that there was one glorious angel superior to all the rest, by whom GOD made his visits to the patriarchs, and declared his will to them. And though there is some confusion in what they say on such subjects, not understanding the union betwixt God and a creature; yet christians who have revelation complete, may much better know the Isa. liii. 10, 11. Luke xxiii. 46. Acts ii. 31. John xii. 27. John xi. 33, and xiii. 21. character of this glorious being, the LORD JESUS CHRIST. It might also be argued in favor of this doctrine, that since it pleased the Father to prepare a body for our LORD JESUS CHRIST, by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, and by a peculiar manner of conception, that his body might have some peculiar prerogative, and that he might be the Son of GOD in a superior sense with regard to his body, as Luke speaks,* so we may reasonably conclude, that the soul of GHRIST also, which was to be united to Deity, should have this peculiar prerogative, to be derived immediately from GoD before any creature was made, and to enjoy this union with Deity, and glories suitable thereto before its union with the earthly body in which it was to suffer.-And thus in consideration of its formation before all creatures in a most immediate manner by the will' of GOD, as well as its nearer resemblance to GoD above all spirits, this soul might be called also the Son of GOD, and his only begotten Son, in a manner above all men or angels, who are sometimes called sons of GOD: but this particular will receive illustration from what follows. HEAD III. Shewing the good consequences and various advantages which attend the Knowledge and Belief of this Doctrine. THIS doctrine has not only the recommendation of many texts which plainly point it out to the candid reader, and the force of many conclusive arguments in its favor; but receives additional confirmation from a consideration of the manifold good consequences and various advantages which attend it. * Luke i. 35, 1. This doctrine casts a surprising light upon many passages of the scriptures, which taken with any other view, remain very dark and obscure. It easily explains and reconciles many difficult places, which cannot be accounted for any other way. Some of the texts I have already considered, and I hope they appear in a clearer light by the assistance of this doctrine. But there are other texts which speak of CHRIST as the true God, and yet in the context attribute such properties and characters to him as are hard to be reconciled to pure Deity; but are understood with the utmost ease, and the greatest honor to CHRIST, by supposing his soul united to Deity. The first text I shall mention of this sort is, where the apostle describes CHRIST in the following manner: "Who is the image of the invisible GOD, the first-born of every creature; for by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible- all things were created by him and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things exist: and he is the head of the body, the church, the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence; for it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell",* or as it is expressed in another place, "for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." There are some things in this description too sublime to be applied to any mere creature, as his creating and preserving all things. And there are others that cannot be applied to pure Deity; as his being "the image of the invisible GoD," &c. which must refer to his creature nature in union with Deity. In that sense he is the brightest, fairest, and most glorious image of the invisible GoD; and so he appears to * Col. i. 15.-Chap. ii. 9. the world of angels above, and by his frequent appearances in visible shape, became the image of the invisible GOD to men. He is also called, "The first-born of every creature." It cannot be imagined what criticism has been used to apply these words to the Deity of CHRIST. How many have labored among metaphors to bring out an unusual sense for them; and after all, it is what no person can understand. But by supposing the creature nature of CHRIST to exist this early, then he is properly the "first-born of every creature," in the most literal sense of the words; which are of the same import with what he literally calls himself, "The beginning of the creation of GOD."* Take the apostle's description in connection, and he gives the reason why, with propriety, these things proper only to Deity are attributed to him who was the image of GOD; "For, (says he) it pleased the Father that in him should dwell all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." The fulness of Deity, dwelt in his creature nature which existed anciently, and continued to dwell bodily in him when he took a body of flesh. Thus it is plain why the supreme and inferior attributes were made to the same person who was possessed of a nature suited to each. And there is no other way yet devised for clearing this matter, but such as involve the whole in perplexity, darkness, and doubt. The most feasible method of reasoning this case, is taken by those who allow that the sublime expressions must be interpreted of the divine nature of CHRIST, but, say they, it must be as united to manhood, by way of anticipation, or as considered in * Rev. iii. 14. |