had a pre-existence, which some learned men suppose, then doubt less they believed the soul of Christ to have the same prerogative.

Besides the several expressions which our Saviour used concerning "his coming down from heaven, his returning thither again, his being sent by the Father not to do his own will, his praying for the restoration of a glory which he had before the world was, and his speaking of the love of God which he enjoyed before the foundations of the world," all these expressions might justly and naturally lead them into the idea of the preexistent soul of Christ, since it is pretty evident that they had but very little thought or belief of his divine nature before his resurrection. Some of their own expressions seem to intimate their assent to this doctrine of his pre-existent soul, when they tell him, Now we are sure that thou comest forth from God, John xvi. 28, 29, 30. And they seem to understand him in the literal sense, and without a parable or figure, when he told them, He came forth from the Father, and came into this world; but he was now leaving this world, and returning to the Father.

As for the writings of the apostles St. Peter and Paul, these seem to manifest this doctrine, if the exposition which I have given of various parts of their epistles be just and true. The apostle John speaking so often of Christ's coming in the flesh, seems to manifest that this was his conception of the matter, as as though he supposed his soul to have an existence before.

As for the primitive writers of christianity of the first two or three hundred years, they express themselves in so inaccurate and confused a manner concerning the pre-existent nature of our Lord Jesus Christ, that it is hard to say what was their sense, or whether they had any uniform, regular and settled ideas on this subject. Sometimes their language plainly denotes some pre-existent nature of Christ to be truly divine, and part of the very essence of God the Father, even his mind, his wisdom, &c. others of their speeches seem to sink it far below the

thou willing to suffer chastisements for the purging away their iniquities? And the soul of the Messiah answered, I will suffer them, and that with all my heart."

The late Dr. Thomas Burnet of the Charter-house in his book “De statu mortuorum & resurgentium," page 249 speaks thus, "Judæi & inter patres, &c, that is, the Jews and some among the christian fathers have determined, that the soul of the Messiah had an existence before his incarnation, and before the very origin of the Jewish nation, before the law, and through the whole economy of the law and the prophets." Now if they supposed this soul joined with the Logos, by which he means bis divine nature, they might well agree that this was the shekinah of the patriarchs and the prophets, and that these motions and returos from heaven from heaven to earth, and his appearances whether in human shape or not, may be attributed to the Messiah, which can never belong to mere divinity. And indeed I can scarce understand Justin Martyr and other of the fathers, who from the invisibility, infinity and omnipresence of God the Father would prove that he never appeared, neither could be descend or ascend, or change bis place: for unless the soul of the Messiah did pre-exist in union with the Logos, that is, his divinity, I cannot see how these arguments, drawn from invisibility and omnipresence, can be of any force with regard to God the Father any more than to God the Son,

dignity of godhead when they speak of his temporal generation and derivation from God as the author and cause of his being, from which the Arian writers have taken occasion to suppose they were engaged on their side. Now as this doctrine of the preexistent soul of Christ united to true godhead, happily reconciles many difficult places of scripture, so perhaps if it were wisely applied upon a diligent review of the writings of some of the fathers, this same doctrine might reconcile some of their strange expressions which seem contradictory and inconsistent: at least I am sure it would have secured them from some of the absurdities which they seem to have fallen into.

It is worthy of our notice, that many if not most of the ancient antenicene fathers, when they spake of the generation of the Son, understand by it a voluntary generation or manifestation some time before the world began, in order to create that world; though they suppose the divine Logos or Word to exist in God, or in and with the Father from all eternity. That great and zealous defender of the Athanasian faith, the learned Doctor Waterland, allows this in his citation from several of those fathers; see "Second Defence of the Queries," pages 104, 107, 283292. and his Third Defence, page 25. Particularly Ignatius had this idea of the generation of the Son. Justin Martyr speaks of no generation higher than that voluntary antemundane generation otherwise called manifestation. The Logos became a Son according to Justin, by voluntary appointment; it is the procession makes him a Son, and that was voluntary. The Son proceeded light of light in time according to Justin, and according to many more beside him, particularly Hippolytus, and perhaps even the nicene fathers. Tatian who was Justin's scholar, speaks only of a temporal generation or procession. And Athenagoras and Theophilus speak of no higher generation than this. Clemens of Alexandria and Tertullian may be both allowed to go upon the same hypothesis, and Hippolitus was undoubtedly of the same mind, for he says, "The Father begat the Son when he willed and as he willed," that is, sent or shewed him to the world. Tertullian supposes the "sonship properly to commence with his procession, so that the Logos became a Son in time, and was not yet a Son until he came out to create."

We might ask here now, whether all these expressions may not be reconciled, if we suppose the deity of the second person of the trinity, as some persons have done, to be an eternal divine principle in godhead, which is represented in scripture as a person called his Logos or sophia, his word or his wisdom: And that sometime before the creation of the world, God created, generated, or caused to exist the human soul of Jesus Christ in an immediate union with this word or divine principle, and gave the whole complexum the same name, viz. The Logos or Word, and ordained this glorious Being, viz. his own divine Word or

Logos united to the human spirit, to operate in creating and adorning the world, the human spirit having a subserviency herein to the divine principle, so far as it was possible for any thing beneath God to be employed in an inferior or ministerial manner in such sublime and divine work. Does not this give a fair, a natural and easy explication of these glorious expressions of scripture concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, that by him God made the worlds, and created all things by him, and without him was nothing made that was made? For the naine Jesus Christ seems to imply something more than the mere divine power or principle called the Word.

But I retreat, and mention no more of any attempt to give a particular idea of the divine nature of Christ, since this doctrine of his human soul's early existence is consistent with any known scheme of explaining his true and real deity.

Origen seems to be a believer of the pre-existent soul of Christ, when he says, "Perhaps the soul of the Son in its perfection was in God and his fulness, and coming out thence when he was sent by the Father, took a body of Mary;" and again, upon these words of John the baptist, after me cometh a man which is preferred before me, for he was before me; John i. 30. He says thus, that it is spoken of Christ," that we may learn that the man (or manhood) also of the Son of God, mixed with his divinity, had a prior subsistence to his birth of the virgin.” Origen also seems to allow this human soul to be the first-created; for speaking of the formation of wisdom before the world, be says, God created Exo pa, "An animated wisdom, or wisdom with a soul." And this opinion appeared so very rea sonable, that we find some marks of it in the later centuries. For the author of the "Meditations, called St. Austin's," distinguishes between eternal wisdom the Son of God, and the first-created wisdom;, which he makes to be a rational and intellectual mind. See more of this kind in the learned Dr. Knight's "Primitive Christianity Vindicated," in answer to Mr. Whis ton, page 45.

But after all, though it be a doctrine, that has so many happy advantages attending it, yet it is not necessary in order to make a man a christian, and therefore many primitive christians might not believe it. It casts a beauty indeed upon the whole christian faith, but it does not make a part of the essence of it. Now there are many such beautiful doctrines which might have a veil of darkness or confusion thrown upon them very early in the christian church, especially amidst the reign of antichrist, and again after some ages may emerge into light and entertain the christians of such a later age with the brightness and pleasure of them: How was the doctrine of the millennium long obscured, that is, "the happy state of the church before the end of the world?" It was known and believed in the first centuries, but after the third it was counted a sort of heresy for several ages;

and yet now it has arisen into further evidence, and has obtained almost universal assent, so this doctrine of Christ's pre-existent soul, though it might have lain dormant several ages, yet since that excellent man Dr. Henry More has published it near threescore years ago in his "Great Mystery of Godliness," it has been embraced, as Bishop Fowler asserts, "by many of our greatest divines, as valuable men as our church can boast of; though most of them have been too sparing in owning it, for fear, I suppose, of having their orthodoxy called in question."

The most modern authors and writings which have professed this doctrine publicly, are these that follow.*

1. Doctor Henry More, of " the Mystery of Godliness." 2. Dr. Edward Fowler, Bishop of Gloucester, in his " Discourse of the Descent of the Man Christ Jesus from Heaven," and his "Reflections on the Examiner of this Discourse," (Dr. William Sherlock, Dean of St. Paul's.) 3. "A Defence of the Bishop's Discourse, by a Presbyter of the Church of England." 4. "A Second Defence, by the Publisher of the First." 5. "Mr. Robert Fleming in his First and Third Volumes of "Christology." 6. A very great man cited, but nameless, by Bishop Fowler in his Reflections, &c. page 111.-7. Mr. Joseph Hussey, in his Treatise of "the Glory-man." 8, Dr. Francis Gastrell, Bishop of Chester, in his "Remarks on Dr. Clarke's Scripture-doctrine of the Trinity," page 47. 9. Mr. Nelson's learned friend, Dr. Knight, in Auswer to Dr. Clarke, pages 65, 103. 10. Dr. Thomas Bennet, in his "Discourse of the Trinity in Unity." 11. The learned Dr. Thomas Burnet of the Charter-house, in his book, " De statu mortuorum & resurgentium," published after his death. 12. "The Doctrine of the Trinity intelligibly explained, by Dr. Thomas Burnet, rector of Westkington in Wiltshire, and prebendary of Salisbury." 13. Dr. Knight's" Primitive Christianity Vindicated," in answer to Mr. Whiston's bold assertions.

In three of these books I confess this opinion is but just mentioned, as the certain and probable opinion of the author, but in the rest it is strenuously asserted and maintained, and in some of them with great degrees of assurance : And I think every one of them do profess and maintain the real and proper deity of Christ in that or other parts of their works, so that there is no Arian among them all.

After authors of such learning and reputation in the world, as some of these which are named, I have ventured to propose this doctrine once more to the public. It is attended with a variety of arguments drawn from the holy scripture for the support of it, and I have stated much stronger objections than I have ever met with in opposition to it from any

*Note, This was written at least twenty or thirty years ago, many more persons may be now found who have acknowledged it.

English or foreign writers, and 1 do not find them impossible to be answered.

I dare not assume that air of assurance which Bishop Fowler has done in several parts of his writings on this subject, when he tells us," that there is no christian doctrine more clearly delivered than this, and even immediately by our Saviour himself, and often repeated by him; and let the opposers of it be as magisterially positive as they will, yet there is not more plain and undeniable evidence for any one article of faith than there is for this doctrine; and that this is the sense in which most certainly the disciples of our Lord understood his declarations." See bis Reflections on his Opposer, Dr. William Sherlock, pages 3, and 23." Yet I think I can join with him when he asserts that our Saviour never said a syllable which so much as seems to contradict the plain literal natural sense of the words by which he chose to express this doctrine; and that it is worthy of our observation that there is no one text in the bible, that the Bishop knows of, whose plain and natural sense so much as seems to thwart the plain sense of those scriptures that he has produced to support it; and he adds, what controverted point is there in religion of which we can say the like?"

I easily persuade myself that most christians will agree with me thus far, That if this doctrine be true, it gives a natural and easy solution of a great number of difficulties in the word of God, it adds beauty as well as clearness to many expressions in the New and Old Testament, and it enables us to answer many inconveniencies and appearing absurdities which the Arians fling upon the common explications of the Trinity.But if there be any sufficient argument to refute this doctrine and to prove it false, I am not so fond of it as to persist obstinately in the defence, nor make all things truckle and yield to this supposition.

The great doctrine of the deity of Christ, and his sacred office of mediator, may perhaps be maintained without it; but then we must return again to explain some of these difficult texts of scripture by hard tropes and figures; we must speak of Christ as God-man before his taking our nature upon him by way of "prolepsis," or anticipation. We must apply many inferior expressions of scripture to the divine person of Christ, considered in his office as mediator, which might otherwise and much better be applied to his human soul; we must construe some phrase into truth economically which can never be true in their real and natural sense. We must indulge some catachresis or improprieties of language in the bible, which might be literally and properly expounded by the scheme now proposed: We must solve other expressions by the doctrine of communication of properties between the divine and human natures of Christ, in the same manner as we did before; some of which solutions, I confess, are certainly necessary and always will be so, to ex