removed out of the way of weak believers; for then we should have no need of dark proleptical figures in order to explain what must for ever remain unexplained while pre-existence is denied. In paragraph 2, you seem to favour the idea of souls descending from Adam, as well as the bodies of men. If this is your sentiment, how is it that Christ could have a soul at all, since he was not by ordinary generation, but by miraculous formation of the virgin by the Holy Ghost? If the soul of our Lord was virtually created in Adam, then it was his right, as man, to have been begotten by man in order to have possessed a soul. This idea you will not admit. If it was created with the body by the Holy Ghost, then it was not created within the first six days either virtually or really. I find I must still hold to the pre-existence in order to shun the labyrinth. Besides, whatever is generated with the body, must die with the body; if therefore the traduction of souls be true, the soul of man is not immortal. I therefore cannot see with my venerable friend upon this point neither, although I grant much may be said in favour of it. But it militates not against the pre-existence, for if the soul of Christ was not brought into being this way, it must have been in some other way. But I pass on to your questions. "In what part of divine revelation is it declared that the spirits or souls of any were created before the first six days spoken of in Genesis? Hath not the scriptures declared that in six days God created the heavens, and earth, and all things that are therein ?" I answer, the scriptures certainly do say so, nor do I wish to contradict it. But what heavens does Moses speak of in the first of Genesis? Are you sure he means the empyreal or third heavens, where the apostle Paul was caught up, and heard things unutterable, (2 Cor, xii. 2-4.) and where holy angels and the redeemed dwell? We read Gen. i. 1. "God created the heavens and the earth." What is meant by heaven here? God called the firmament "heaven.” ver. 8. "And God set them (sun, moon, and stars) in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth." ver. 17. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them.” ii. 1. What can be more plain, than that the visible or starry heavens only are meant by this account? They are represented also as seen, Isa. xl. 26. as declaring God's glory, Psal. xix. 1. and finally are to be dissolved and burnt up. 2 Peter iii. 10. In reply to the other question, I might ask, where is it said that angels were created on the first six days? They are as deserving a place in this account which Moses gives, as any thing else that is mentioned, yet they are not mentioned. We read of such creatures in being, and that some of them had fallen from their high abode, when Adam stood in pristine bliss, and Satan tempted man to sin; but we are not told when they were created. Allowing you this, it proves nothing against the preexistence; for if the soul of our Lord was created within the limits of the six days, it might exist before either Adam or angels. But we read of "the beginning or ever the earth was." Prov. viii. 23. Does not this imply there was a date of time more ancient than the earth, or the first six days? Yet time must have had a beginning, and I think my friend will agree with me, that the first of created intelligent beings must have been the commencement. Then where shall we find it but in him whom Jehovah possessed in "the beginning, before his works of old," as it is clearly stated in Prov. viii. 22. ? Who among the armies of heaven dare stand forth and claim the honour of primogeniture? It belongs to none but Jesus Christ; he claims it as his sole prerogative, saying, "I am the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God." Rev. iii. 14. From this view of the subject I conclude, that the pre-existence is exempt from the charge my friend Love Truth has brought against it, viz. "that it flatly contradicts the first part of divine revelation." The remaining part of this paragraph, with the following one, contains sentiments which I highly approve, but which by no means support your conclusion. That Christ was set up in the divine decree as future man I readily admit; but then all mankind were in this respect set up to fill their various stations in the church and in the world. The decree takes in the order of persons and things as they appear in time, as well as the certainty of their existence. Now if Christ had no real existence as man until 4000 years after the creation of the world, he must have been seen as such in God's decree; therefore he could not in God's decree be the first-born or brought forth of his many brethren, or his spiritual seed. As soon might Adam have appeared in God's decree, the first-born or brought forth of the human family, and yet not have had any real existence until 4000 years after the world began. For Christ to be in the divine decree what he never was or can be in time, is to me quite unintelligible; as it destroys the harmony of God's operations in time, with his decree before time. so. I proposed an argument upon this point in my first reply, and hoped my respected friend would have made an attempt to obviate the force of it, but he passed it by in silence. Christ, as the head of his church, is not only called God's elect, God's servant, and the first-born among many brethren; but he is called so because he is If he is Christ the anointed, through whom his church from her first appearance in time received the unction of his grace, then he must have possessed a nature capable of being so anointed and blessed. The holy oil was first poured upon Aaron's head, (blessed type of Zion's great High Priest!) and then it ran down to the bottom of his garments; but my brother" Love Truth" is for having it flow down the body of Jesus for ages before it was poured upon the head of that body. Either this must be admitted, or the divine person of our Lord, abstractedly considered, was anointed and blessed with a communicated fulness of grace for his church. Now, it was a standing axiom with the apostle Paul, that the less is blessed of the better, Heb. vii. 7. Who does not see the arianism contained in such a sentiment ? I believe my correspondent utterly rejects the idea. How then does he explain the matter? By having recourse to proleptical figures, or anticipation. Admit but the pre-existence and all is plain: even a babe in grace may walk here and find no stumblingblock in his way. You further ask me if I can bring forth a " thus saith the Lord," to confirm the doctrine. Why, my dear Sir, the scriptures contain a vast number of passages which abundantly support the doctrine which is known by the name of pre-existence. But if you mean, where is the term found in scripture ?-I answer, no-where. Again I ask, where do you find in scripture, the trinity, merits of Christ, covenant of grace, divinity of Christ, person of the Spirit, God-man, triune God, &c.? You must answer as above, no-where. And yet you would think yourself justified in the free use of such terms without supposing you erred in so doing, because the bible contains an abundance of passages in support of the sentiments which are fully implied in such terms. Why then should you require the ancient scriptures to state the sentiment in modern language, before you will believe it? It is evident you must reject all the above-mentioned truths upon the same ground. You see I am not pleading for words and phrases, but for sentiment. Bear with me a little further while I recommend to your consideration at least one "thus saith the Lord," Col. i. 15-19. The following observations, as founded upon this scripture, I would offer in support of the pre-existence. 1st. We are told, Christ is the image of the invisible God. John Baptist tells us also, "no man hath seen God at any time, (whether in the Mosaical or gospel time) the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," John i. 18. From this statement it is plain, that the only Mediator, the man Christ Jesus, ever was, now is, and ever will be, the only medium through whom the glory of God was, now is, or ever will be, revealed to creatures, angels, or men, in all the operations of power, wisdom, or love, in creation, providence, and grace. Now if God was revealed and his glory manifested under the old testament dispensation, then the revealing medium must have existed through which that glory shone. But with your views I should be in a most perplexing difficulty to know, who or what was the visible image of invisible Deity before Christ came in the flesh. Here I find a stumbling-block in the way which nothing but the pre-existence can remove. This revelation of Jehovah in ancient time was either 1st, without a revealing medium of any kind; or 2nd, by means of some temporary medium which vanished, and became a mere non-entity when Christ appeared on earth; or, 3rd, that the divine person of Christ (being begotten, and as such inferior to the Father) became that medium; or, 4th, that the divine person of our Lord is equal with the Father, being unbegotten, unoriginate, self-existent, and independent, possessing the sameness of nature with the Father and the Holy Ghost: but also that he possessed the human nature in personal union with his divine nature, and as such was the only begotten Son of God, the only revealer of the glorious Deity. Here, my respected brother, you have your choice. Which do you prefer? The 1st contradicts the plainest scripture testimony. (Matt. xi. 27. John i. 18. 1 Tim. iv. 16. 1 John iv. 12.) The 2nd is not only without scripture evidence, but is contrary to it; for we read of but one Revealer, and it is very absurd to suppose the old testament saints had not the same revealing medium as we have; and still more so, that a shadow, long since vanished, which never was or will be any part of our blessed Mediator's person, should be called “the man of Jehovah's right hand,” and “the angel of his presence." Ps. lxxx. 17. Isa. lxiii. 9. The 3rd you will reject as well as I, as being far more suited to the arian, than the trinitarian. So that inexplicable difficulties present themselves to strong christians as well as weak ones; and after all we must welcome the pre-existence if we would have our path made clear. 2. We are here told, “ Christ is the first-born of every creature,” and also," he is before all things." This evidently puts him amongst the creatures, as well as gives him a priority to any of them. Such language is infinitely too low to apply to his divine person. Would you apply it to the divinity of the Father, or the Holy Ghost, and think it a proper definition of their eternity, independence, and selfexistence? Certainly not! Then it cannot be allowed to belong to the divine person of our Lord abstractedly, but it properly belongs to him in his complex person, God-man. But my friend Love Truth will not admit that he was complex before he became incarnate, nor yet that he was the first-born, save only in decree. This however I have shewn to be inconclusive, and must still think so until I am shewn I am in an error. If the words above cited do not declare, that his creature nature existed before any other creature did, I see not what they can mean. I solemnly declare I dare not explain this plain declaration of scripture so as to make it express any other sentiment. 3. He is called, "the beginning." This must refer to that nature in our Lord's person which had a beginning, and so cannot mean his Godhead: it must then mean his manhood. But he cannot be the beginning, if thousands of intelligent creatures began their existence before him, who is "the beginning.” 4. We are told, our blessed Lord, as the beginning and first-born, possesses a fulness by the will of the Father; for he ever was, and is, the store-house of all grace unto all his needy brethren. The apostle shews that he must needs therefore have pre-existed, and assigns this as a reason, “ for it pleased the Father that in him all fulness should dwell." Therefore, he must be such a person as he describes, seeing such a communicated fulness was to reside in him for all the younger branches of the family, in due order to possess, from the days of Adam down to the end of time. 5. We are told also, " He is the first-born from the dead.” He has a pre-eminence in all things as the head of his body the church, and consequently it is his right, not only to be first in time, but in the resurrection also. I have often admired the view which the apostle gives of this subject in 1 Cor. xv. Here we may sing with the poet, "Behold him rising from the tomb, In victory over all; The first-born son of nature's womb, Now if we admit with pleasure the one, why not the other? Does not the apostle say, he is "the first-born of every creature," as truly as "the first-born from the dead? Yes, he certainly does say so, and he has used great plainness of speech for predestination is not more clearly stated in the first of Ephesians, than is pre-existence in the first of Colossians. I might easily refer you to other parts of the word, but it would make my present paper too large, I therefore pass on to the next paragraph. I certainly do think the pre-existence glorifies the Saviour, as it gives him the full honour which is his due as Mediator; and although you differ from me and others upon this point, yet you have not shewn us our error. As to the person you refer to, I assure you I know him not, I keep no company with men of that sentiment. But that he should have been taught the pre-existence by man, is no argument against others being taught it of God: and why you should call it a stepping-stone" towards the denial of the trinity I know not, as you have not shewn that it leads to such a denial. This, I am aware many have supposed, but none as yet have proved. No, my brother, the pre-existence, no more makes people anti-trinitarians, than it makes them papists. But suppose it is found in an arian or unitarian's creed, it is none the worse for that. A diamond is of the same intrinsic worth if it is found on a duħghill, as when it is set in a ring of gold. If I were to examine the creed of a mahometan or papist, I should find some things that I myself believe. Am I partly a mahometan or papist therefore? Or must I discard those truths, for fear they should prove a stepping-stone from which I should advance until I became either one or the other? I thank you however for naming this as a friendly caution, but I am not apprehensive of danger; I hope I feel the ground solid where I stand. And although you cannot see the use of this sentiment, either in glorifying God or edifying the church, it would be highly improper in me to give you the appellation of "poor dim mortal." I wish ever to be thankful that my Father has given me to see this part of the "mystery of his will," although he has withheld it from you. And what if he has given you clearer and deeper discoveries of some other points of truth which at present may be concealed from me, shall not our Father do as he please in his own family? The wisest of men know but in part while here," but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." It gives me pleasure to think, that when the remain |