with, the true doctrine of the gospel, I am decidedly of opinion, may be reckoned that of the preexistence of Christ's human soul. No advocate of this strange sentiment will be bold enough to affirm that it is expressly taught in either the Old or New Testament, and a sentiment or doctrine which cannot be found in the inspired writings, can have little claim upon the attention of Christians. One of the most strenuous advocates for this doctrine was the pious Dr. Watts, who, in his WORKS, VOL. VI. Octavo edition, Leeds, 1813. has an elaborate Discourse, the design of which is to" trace out the early existence of Christ's human nature as the first-born of God, or as the first of all creatures, before the formation of the world." p. 581. The Doctor has furnished his readers with the names of thirteen other divines of modern times who have also "professed this doctrine publicly, among whom are Dr. Henry More - Bishop Fowler Mr. Robert Fleming Joseph Hussey-Dr. Gastrell-Dr. Burnett, &c. &c. and as Dr. Watts appears to have read all their Treatises on this subject, it is not unfair to presume that he has carefully gleaned the strength of all their arguments, and presented his readers with whatever can fairly be said on that side of the question. His work now lies before me; but upon an impartial examination of it, I do not find one single argument adduced in behalf of the pre-existence of Christ's human soul that merits attention-nor a single text of scripture brought forward which necessarily implies that sentiment, or which does not admit of an easy and natural solution on the Trinitarian hypothesis, without having recourse to this strange doctrine. Dr. Watts lays down a series of Propositions, such as he thinks lead to the Proof of the doctrine which he proposes to establish, and illustrates those Pro. positions at considerable length, For instance, Proposition I." It is evident from many places of seripture, that Christ had an existence before he came into this world." In proof of this he quotes John i. 1, 3, 14. ch. xii. 41. with Is. vi. 1-4. John viii. 48. ch. iii. 30, 31. and vi. 33. cum multis aliis. Now no consistent Trinitarian denies the thing contended for in this first proposition. The simple testimony of scripture, that “God was manifest in flesh"-that Jesus was 'Immanuel—God with us”—that the "Child born, and the Son given," Is. ix. 6. was the “ Mighty God," necessarily implies all that is contended for in this primary proposition; but not one of the texts quoted by the Doctor contains the smallest allusion to the principle for which he is contending. 66 His second and third Propositions merely go to shew that the scriptures contain evidence that Jesus was a divine person, or truly God. The fourth and fifth are intended to show that those texts which refer to Christ's divine nature, seem to refer to his possessing some intelligent, nature inferior to Godhead, prior to his incarnation but (mark the Doctor's dexterity) having merely hinted at the sentiment he wishes to establish, he declines producing any evidence, but proceeds to PROP. V. that "Whatever scriptures represent Christ as existent before his incarnation in a naturé inferior to Godhead, (the very point to be proved!) do most naturally lead us to the belief of the pre-existence of the human soul." Thus the reader will perceive how adroitly the learned Doctor has shaped his course, step by step, to the thing which is to be proved. Let us now attend him in his progress, and examine his proofs. In the 3rd SECTION of his Discourse, he adduces " Argu ments for the pre-existence of Christ's human soul, drawn from various considerations of something inferior to Godhead ascribed to him before and at his incarnation." The first consideration, is, that it was Christ who appeared of old to the Patriarchs, and that such appearances are likened to that of an Angel, or a man, a glorious man distinct from God, and yet such an one in whom Jehovah had a peculiar indwelling, or with whom the divine nature had a personal union. were attributed to Jehovah, Exod. vii.-xiii. Ps. Ixxviii. 43-52. yet JEHOVAH is distinguished from the destroyer, Exod. xii. 23. and we are told the Lord did those things, by sending evil angels among them. Ps. lxxviii. 49. The redemption of Israel out of Egypt is almost every where ascribed to Jehovah's immediate hand, Ex. xiii, 6. and this is asserted in the very preface of their law, ch. xx. 2. yet Moses ordered his Messengers to say to the King of Edom "When we cried unto the Lord he heard our voice, and sent an Angel, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt." Numb. xx. 16. In delivering the law, Jehovah is said to speak with Moses, Exod. xix. 6. to speak all these words, ch. xx. 1. to talk with Israel from Heaven, ver. 22. yet, we are expressly told that the word was spoken by angels, Heb. ii. 2. that it was an Angel that spake to Moses in Mount Sinai, and delivered to him the lively oracles, Acts viii. 38, 53. How, now, shall we reconcile these things? We cannot say that a created angel was Jehovah, or that Jehovah was his own angel: and to affirm that any of these angels was the Son of God, or the human soul of Jesus That it was the Son of God who appeared of old unto the fathers, who is termed " the angel of Jehovah's presence." Is. lxiii. 9.—who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, Exod. iii. 6. who brought Israel out of Egypt, Exod. xx. 23. -and who went before the camp of Israel, Exod. xiv. 19. &c. &c. is an opinion that has been held by many learned men, but it is a mere opinion, and, as I humbly conceive, utterly incapable of any proof-nay, unless I be greatly mistaken, it is an opinion quite at variance with what Paul teaches when he says Heb. ii. 5. that, "Unto the angels God hath not put in subjection the world to come" (or state of the gospel church) of which he was discours-Christ in his pre-existent state, is ing: as well as with several other texts of the New Testament scriptures, such as, Acts viii. 38, 53. Gal. iii. 19. Heb. ii. 2. and others. Certain it is, that many things are ascribed to Jehovah in one place, which are in another said to be done by angels. Thus, he who spake unto Hagar is called "The angel of the Lord;" yet we are told "She called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou God seest me." Gen. xvi. 11, 13. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is expressly ascribed to Jehovah, Gen. xix. 24. yet the angels say to Lot "JEHOVAH hath sent us to destroy it," ver. 13. The plagues inflicted upon Egypt to subvert the whole of the apos- shall content myself for the present with noticing what he is pleased to denominate SECT. V. "A confirmation of the doctrine by Arguments drawn from the happy consequences and the various advantages of it." He is of opinion that the supposed pre-existence of Christ's human soul casts a surprising light upon many dark passages in the word of God, and helps us easily to explain and reconcile several difficult places in the Old and New Testament, which are very hard to be accounted for any other way, p. 608. The next class of scripture texts | it at all necessary to do so; but I to which the Doctor directs us for proofs of his sentiment, is that which speaks of Christ as humbling himself at his incarnation and so becoming a pattern of humility to his people. Thus Phil. ii. 5-7. "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus; who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation," or, as he very properly translates it emptied himself, (namely of the form or majesty of Godhead which he had with the Father before his incarnation.*) The Doctor's gloss upon this text is so extremely curious that I beg leave to cite it. Having quoted the apostle's words "Who being in the form of God, &c." he adds, "that is, his human soul, which is the chief part of the man, being in union with his godhead [the very point which he had to prove!] was vested with a godlike form and glory in all former ages; thus he oftentimes appeared to the Patriarchs as the angel of the Lord, and as God or Jehovah, &c. This seems to be the form of God, which the apostle speaks of." p. 591. This gloss requires no refutation-for I have already shewn that the notion so current in the religious world, that it was the Son of God who appeared of old to the fathers, and who personated the angel of the Lord, is an unfounded supposition, and inconsistent with Paul's doctrine in Heb. ii. and other parts of scripture. All the Doctor's elaborate reasoning, therefore, on this and similar texts, such as 2 Cor. viii. 9. beingly confirmed. Some persons, by founded on false premises, turns out a mere castle in the air. Indeed it were easy to follow him through the whole chain of his argumentation, and evince its futility, did my limits allow, and were Now on this I remark that, were the principle in question ever once clearly and expressly taught by the inspired writers, it would be our duty to receive it submissively, and to abide by it at all hazards; but to invent an hypothesis unknown to the Scriptures, and, having assumed it as a first principle in our reasonings, then to make the word of God bend to it, is a most unwarrantable procedure, and pregnant with dangerous and destructive consequences. I may add, that it is in flat opposition to the excellent rules for investigating truth which the Doctor himself has given us, both in his Treatise on the art of Logic, and also in his Improvement of the Mind. "Take heed," says he, "lest some favourite hypothesis, be made a test of the truth or falsehood of all other propositions about the same subject. Dare not to build much upon such a notion or doctrine till it be very fully examined, accurately adjusted, and sufficient. indulging such a practice, have been led into long ranks of errors; they have found themselves in a train of mistakes, by taking up some petty hypothesis-upon slight and insufficient grounds, and esta *See Dr. Macknight's Note on this text, where the reader will find a grand illustration of it, in perfect harmony with the scope of the New Testament, without having recourse to the pre-existent scheme, "As they are disposed can prove it, Below the moon or else above it." blishing that as a test and rule to applied to him in all the Scrip- dence." Eph. i. 8. whether we regard the plan of our salvation or the means by which that greatest of all the divine works was carried into effect.* But I must desist from further enlarging on this sub ject, and therefore only add, that both Dr. Watts and Mr. Stevens appear to me to err egregiously in their use, no less than in their interpretation of many texts of scripture, when they apply them to this their favourite hypothesis. I particularly refer to such passages as the following, viz. Col. i. 15-19. Rev. i. 5. Heb. i. 3. Rev. iii. 14. and others of similar import. These texts speak of Christ as "the first born of every creature"" the first-begotten from the dead""the beginning" (or chief)" the head of his body the church""the beginning of the creation of God." Now all these expressions, which are nearly synonymous in their import, have a manifest reference to that dominion which has been conferred upon the Son of God as the reward of his obedience unto the death in accomplishing the redemption of his elect-and in virtue of which he is constituted THE HEIR, or Lord of all things, Heb. i. 2. which compare with ch. ii. 7-9. It was in virtue of his deep bumiliation and bitter sufferings that God not only raised his Son Jesus from the dead, but also exalted him to his own right hand, and made him both Lord and Christ, Acts ii. 36. constituting him "Lord of all," ch. x. 36. giving him all power and authority both in heaven and on earth, Matt. xxviii. 18. angels, authorities and powers being made subject unto him, yea commanded to worskip him. 1 Pet. iii. 22. Heb. i. 6. Thus we not only behold him as the first who rose from the dead to inherit immortal life-and constituted head over all things to his body the church-but vested with universal dominion over the creation of God-" the Prince of the Kings of the earth," Rev. i. 5. "King of kings and Lord of lords," 1 Tim. vi. 5. Rev. xvii. 14. But all this is wholly independent of the strange and unscriptural doctrine of the preexistence of his human soul. Sic sensit, SYPHAX. To the Editor of the New Evangelical Magazine. SIR, IN your Number for September, you have an extract of a Letter from Halifax, Nova Scotia, in which is the following passage. "The pews in the Methodist Meeting are sold, to the almost total exclusion of the poor; and also the exclusion of the poor blacks from the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, with the whites." You candidly observe, that this is contrary to our general practice as a body; and it is indeed so much so, that the charges in the above extract are as new to us, as to your readers. The Committee for the management of our Missions have no knowledge of such exclusions either at Halifax, or any other Missionary Stations. * I remember, some years ago, perusing a work written by an old Baptist minister to illustrate the book of the Revelation, and was surprised to find how the good man made out the doctrine of Believers' baptism from almost every chapter in it! Mr. Stevens's optic faculty is scarcely less acute and penetrating, who can find the human soul of Jesus Christ in the book of Proverbs, |