needs to be convinc'd. And therefore, those who acknowledge the Divine Nature of Chrift to be the very God, must be forc'd, in confequence of their own Principles, to acknowledge, that 'twas the human Soul of Chrift. For there is no other intelligent Being in the God-man, befides his Divine Nature, and his human Soul.

And indeed, I am amaz'd to think, that this Expofition has not been univerfally given by all the Patrons of the Orthodox Doctrin of the Trinity. As for the Preexiftence of human Souls in general, I am fully perfuaded, that 'tis (in the Words of a (i) late judicious Writer) mere Sufpicion and Conjecture, without any poffibility of Proof; and there is this plain Reafon against it, that no Man can be punished for his Amendment, who knows nothing of it. For it is inconfiftent with the Nature and End of Punishment, that the Offender fhould not be made fenfible of his Fault, especially when the Punishment is defigned for his Amendment, as it is faid to be in the prefent Cafe. But as for the Preexiftence of Chrift's human Soul in particular, as it can't be charged with the leaft appearance of any one ill Confequence; as it can't be faid, that 'tis upon any one Account improbable, or that it clashes with any one Text of Scripture: fo the bare Admiffion of it as an Hypothefis, folves many Difficulties, which 'tis otherwife impoffible to give any tolerable Account of upon any Principles whatfoever, without making the Holy Scriptures inconfiftent with themselves..

I need not observe to you, what Influence this fingle Confideration has had upon diverfe learned Perfons, who have diftinguished themselves by

(i) Dr. Jenkins's Reasonablenefs and Certainty of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2. Chap. 13.

their Writings on the Holy Trinity. The Course of that very Controverfy, which your own Scri pture Doctrine of the Trinity has occafion'd, affords us fufficient Inftances of it. The prefent Bishop of Chester frankly (k) declares, That there feems to be great Reafon to believe the human Soul of Christ to bave exifted before the World; many Texts of Scripture being easily explain'd upon the Hypothefis, which 'tis diffi cult to account for any other Way. And the Author of the Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity Vindicated (which Book was usher'd into the World, and recommended, by my late excellent Friend Mr. Nelson's truly Chriftian Letter to you (1) fays, That the Angel or Christ is a diftinct Subject, or fubftantially different from the Name of God in him, not in refpect of his Divine Nature, but of a created Nature affumed by the WORD at the Beginning of all Things, as the first Fruits of the Creation, and in refpect of which he may be more properly and accurately denominated an Angel; may be readily af fented to as a strong Probability, not a little favor'd by the Sacred Writings. The fame Gentleman repeats the fame Notion (m) afterwards.

་་

'Tis true, these your Antagonists have not enter'd into the Detail of that Difpute; and confequently they have not oblig'd you to return an Answer to thofe Arguments by which the Preexistence of Chrift's human Soul is evinc'd: But yet thefe occafional Affirmations do abundantly fignify their respective Opinions; and demonftrat the Neceffity of this Notion, in their Judgments, for the clearing of many Texts of Scripture.

(k) Bp. Gaftrell's Remarks on Dr. Clarke's Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 47.

- (1) p. 65.

(m) p. 103:

Ifhall take the liberty of inftancing in but one, which as it does not affect the Controverfy depending between your felf and me; fo it affords a pregnant Proof of what thofe your learned Adverfaries have justly noted. St. Peter fays, For Chrift also bath once fuffered for fins, the just for the unjuft (that he might bring us to God) being put to death in the flesh, but quickned by the (Power of the) fpirit: By which (Power) also he went and preached unto the fpirits in prifon; Which fometime were disobedient, when once the long-fuffering of God waited in the days of Noab, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight fouls were faved by water,, 1 Pet. 3. 18, 19, 20. In thefe Words the Apoftle affirms, 1. That Chrift went and preached to thofe Sinners in Noah's Days; 2. That Chrift did fo by the Spirit, that is, by the Affiftance of the Holy Ghoft. I defire therefore to be informed, how, or in what Senfe, the WORD or Divine Nature of Chrift, which not only the Orthodox, but your felf alfo, do own to be at least equal to the Holy Ghoft, could go and preach to thofe ancient Sinners, by the Affiftance of the Holy Ghoft. That Chrift's human Soul might do it as God's Angel (upon Suppofition of its Preexistence) will easily be allowed.

1

But to return. Since this Notion of the Preexistence of Chrift's human Soul is fo perfectly free from all Poffibility of doing Mischief; certainly, if the Arguments alleg'd to prove, that the WORD, or Chrift's Divine Nature, is the very God, are unanswerably ftrong (as I hope to fhew they are), and there is no ground of Objection against them, but what may fairly be remov'd upon Suppofition of this most innocent Affertion; we are indifpenfably bound to em

brace

brace it, as being virtually taught in all those Texts, which can't be clear'd without it.

I confefs, it fo effectually undermines and deftroys the Opinion of thofe, who affirm the WORD, or Chrift's Divine Nature, to be different from, and inferior to, the very God; that I can't wonder at your (n) calling it a mere Fiction without any Ground (tho' I am perfuaded, could you at any time get quit of a ftrong Objection against a plaufible Opinion, by making fuch an Hypothefis, you would readily come into it, and no reasonable Perfon would blame you for afferting and maintaining it) But 'tis ftrange, that tho' feveral great Men have pufpofely afferted it, yet a greater Number have not efpy'd a Truth, which fo effectually fupports their own Caufe, and ruins that of their Adverfaries. And yet I believe a good Reason might be affign'd (were it worth while) for this Inadvertency.

However, waving bare Suppofals (which this Doctrin does not ftand in need of) let us endevor after Certainty. Since the Bleffed Jefus has but two Natures, and confequently but two intelligent Beings, united in his Perfon, viz. the WORD, and his human Soul; 'tis plain, that that Being of which St. Paul here affirms, that 'twas er pogon der, and, and afterwards emptied or debased it felf by Incarnation, was either the WORD, or his human Soul. That it was not the WORD, if the WORD be the very God, is agreed between us. For tho' the WORD was certainly Incarnat, and the Incarnation of the WORD was unspeakable Condefcenfion in him (and fo is God's vouchfafing to be reconcil'd to fallen Man) yet the Incarnation

(z) Answer to the Bishop of Chester, P. 244.

can't

can't be that Humiliation by emptying or debafing bimfelf, which St. Paul here speaks of, and declares to have been rewarded with an exceeding Exaltatation, upon Suppofition that the WORD is the very God.

Let us inquire therefore, whether the WORD might here be meant by St. Paul, upon Suppofition, that the WORD were inferior to the very God. For tho' I do by no means grant, that the WORD muft be inferior to the very God, if the Apostle may be fuppos'd to mean the WORD here (because I have other Arguments to prove, that the WORD is the very God, and confequently that this Expofition is impoffible; and I think the Evidence of that Truth fo great, that it obliges us to admit any other poffible Expofition of this Paffage) But I fay, let us make Experiment, for your farther Conviction, whether the Apoftle can be understood to speak of the WORD's being rugî Mî and Je, and afterwards emptying or debafing himself by Incarnation, and thereby meriting an exceeding Exaltation; upon Suppofition that your own Opinion, viz. that the WORD is inferior to the very God, be true. For if it be made appear, that the Apostle can't mean all this of the WORD; even tho' the WORD be fuppos'd inferior to the very God: then you muft neceffarily grant, upon your own Principles, that the Apoftle fpeaks of the human Soul of Chrift. And confequently we have Scripture Evidence of the Preexiftence of Chrift's Human Soul, upon your Principles, as well as our own; that is, in fhort, Chrift's human Soul did certainly preexift, whether your Notion of the Trinity be true, or no. And therefore you can't pretend, that his Preexiftence is invented and afferred merely to ferve a Turn.

Well