h

and they whose 1 intereft it is moft, to have the words render'd, as in our tranflation, allow, that they may be tranflated, "begotten before all creatures." If Chrift is reprefented in this Scripture as born before all creation, it cannot be understood of any glorious angelic nature; for that was by creation, tho' we fuppofe it the first part of creation.

The other text is, in the book of the revelation, where Chrift is ftiled "the beginning of the creation of God:" but no notion can be built on a word of fuch various fignifications as Agx. The words may be render'd, "the head of the creation." Chrift is the head of the creation, as he is the active, efficient principle that produc'd it, and brought it into being. These texts appear not to countenance our author's fancy of the human foul of Chrift being a fuper-angelic fpirit, which is attended with feveral infuperable difficulties.

There is one thing which prejudices me against this scheme, and that is, it is unfcriptural; I mean, the Scripture is wholly filent about it. It is from Scripture, and only from thence, that we can have any account of Chrift's perfon; and therefore all fancies of men, which have no countenance from it, are to be rejected, as things of nought. Were the notion of Chrift's human foul being the firft of creatures, a thing to be believ'd by us, we cannot but fuppofe, it would have been revealed; and as it is not reveal'd, I can look upon it to be no better than a mere romance, and an uncertain fiction of a working brain, which every man is as much at liberty to reject,

h See Dr. Clarke's Scripture Doctrine, p. 162. Ed. 2. Η Αρχή δ' κτίσεως τῇ Θε, Rev. iii. 14.

as

as he is to disbelieve an utter fable. As the notion is not to be found in Scripture, fo I cannot fee what good purpose can be ferved by it. Our author indeed tells us, k" that this fuppofition makes it eafy to conceive, how the Logos himself might become paffible, and condescend to endure the fenfations of forrow, pain, and dying agonics." But there is no need to attribute paffibility to the divine Word; fo that this is no real advantage resulting from our author's scheme. He adds, "if we fuppofe the angelic Logos to be the human foul of Jefus Chrift, then as it was united to Godhead in its pre-exiftent ftate, and often appeared in the form and majefty of God, fo as it was united to a human body, at the incarnation, it emptied itself of its antient glories, and became fubject to the weaknesses, and painful fenfations of animal nature." an odd and fanciful turn is here given to one of the most glorious texts in the Scripture! how a created fpirit could appear in the form and majefty of God, I cannot comprehend. I am forry to find this noble Scripture given up, in effect, to the Arians, merely to make it agreeable to an hypothefis of another kind, but as unfcriptural as theirs is. The fenfe of the word is, m Chrift being God by nature, look'd on it as his right to affume equality with God; neverthelefs he veiled his awful glories, and took on him the human nature, appearing as a miserable man, that he might die for the fons of men:

1

* Page 99.

! Phil. ii. 6.

What

m See Dr. Waterland's fifth Sermon, which is on this text; and fee my true Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 190--199. See alfo a differtation on this text, in a very learned work entitled, Fortuita Sacra, p. 178---278. the author of which has not thought fit to let the world know his name, but his admirable performance has fuffer'd greatly by the careleffness of the editor.

This is indeed a glorious and unparallel'd example of humility, and amazing love; and is much better fhewed by the vulgar explications of this doctrine, as our felf-fufficient author calls them, than by any he has yet furnish'd us with: And as the condefcenfion of the Son of God is better fet off by the common explications, than by his; fo the great dignity to which the man Chrift Jefus is raifed, is better explain'd by his exaltation to glory and honour, as the reward of his fufferings, than by what Mr. Watts tells us, " "that the man Chrift Jefus, perfonally united to the divine Word, is God over all, bleffed for ever." I cannot, I confefs, make sense of this affertion, but must leave it to the reader's confideration.

Were there nothing to be advanced from Scripture in oppofition to Mr. Watts's hypothefis, it's not being found there, is reafon fufficient to reject it; but there are a few Scriptures utterly inconfiftent with it, and entirely fubverfive of it, which I fhall now confider. In the first chapter of the epiftle to the Hebrews, the Apoftle Paul has told us, that "We fee Jefus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the fuffering of death, crowned with glory and honour. It would be monftrous to affert, that a human body, united to a fuper-angelic fpirit, is made a little lower than the angels; that which is fuper-angelic cannot be lower than the angels. It cannot be here pretended, that this fuper-angelic fpirit ftooped to a ftate lower than the angels, because the words are an allufion to what is affirmed by David, P of man in general. If the words, in their native fenfe, fignify the nature of man, then the allufion made to them

19

proves, that the human nature of Chrift was of the fame kind with that of other men.

Another text which may be brought against our author is, in the next chapter. "He that fanctifies, and they that are fanctified, are all of one, therefore he is not afhamed to call them brethren." How one who was not entirely man, could call men his brethren, I know not; we are, on the contrary told, that he is made in all things like to his brethren: "In all things it behoved him to be made like to his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high prieft, in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the fins of his people." He could not be faid, in all things to be made like to his brethren, if he was like them only in his human flesh, and had a foul of a nature far more excellent than they; but that in all things he might be made like them, it was neceffary, he fhould have a foul like other men, in order to his having the tender affections of the human nature to pity the ignorant, at the fame time that he had infinite power, to rescue them from the ruin they brought on themselves.

I fhall bring but one Scripture more, which is in the fame chapter, and is as exprefs and full as can be defired. "He took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the feed of Abraham." Mr. Watts, after Caftellio, the Socinians, Grotius, and Camero", makes the

9 Heb. ii. 11.

Ibid. v. 17.

του η δήπε αγ[έλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ἀλλὰ σπέρματος Αβραάμ iziaμávα, Heb. ii. 16 these words may be thus render'd, "he partook not in the least of angels, but he partook of the feed of Abraham.” * Page 58.

u Rectiffime & doctiffime pius ille vir, Sebaftianus Caftellio, haec verba fuerat interpretatus." Non enim angelis opitulatur,

meaning

meaning of this place to be, that Chrift did not lay hold on angels, to rescue them, but laid hold on the feed of Abraham, for their rescue from bondage. This is not the meaning of the Apoftle: Chrift was to deliver fallen men, and therefore it was neceffary he should take the human nature; but as he was not to deliver angels, therefore he took not on him the nature of angels. Our author feems fenfible, there is no weight in the interpretation he and Camero have borrow'd from the Socinians and Grotius; therefore he adds another, w" that the human foul of Chrift may be called an angel, in its separate state, tho' it be a human fpirit, and might have some peculiar distinguishing properties unknown to us." Any reader will fee he was here utterly at a nonplus, otherwife he would never have faid, as he does in effect, that the foul of Christ is a human spirit, and is not a human spirit.

I do not think it is on any account neceffary, to enter into an examination of the fancy of the pre-existence of Chrift's human foul, on the fuppofition of its being of the fame kind with other human fpirits. As that hypothesis has not the least countenance from Scripture, and does not, fo far as I can perceive, answer any one good purpose, it may, I think, be difregarded as an useless fiction.

fed femini Abrahae opitulatur"

---... Nam ἐπιλαμβάνομαι faepe in eadem fignificatione ufurpatur. Enjedinus p. 399.

Nufpiam in Scriptura dici, Chriftum angelis fufcipiendis ac fublevandis (id enim hic eft ap Gávea) deftinatum a Deo, aut in eo occupatum effe, fed has ejus effe partes, ut Abrahae pofteros & filios, cura fua complectatur, eos fublevet, aeternumque fervet. Crellius, de uno Deo patre, Lib. II. Sect. 3.

See Mr. Hurrion's fermons on the knowledge of Christ crucified, p. 102,---107.

W

w Page 59.