For the Panoplist. ON THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST.

It is the opinion of some, that the human nature of Christ was formed antecedently to that of all other creatures; that, as man, the Lord Jesus had an existence, not only before men, but before angels. That he was indeed a man, possessed of all the properties of innocent human nature, when he appeared on earth and died on the cross, is most clearly and fully taught in the word of God. It was early promised, after the fall of man, that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. This seed is universally acknowledged, by Christians, to be that Jesus, who was conceived in the womb, and born of the virgin Mary. It was afterwards promised to Abraham, Gen. xxii. 18, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed and this seed, the apostle tells us, Gal. iii. 16, is Christ. We are, accordingly, told, that HE, who laid the foundations of the earth, and the

work of whose hands the heavens are, took on him the seed of Abraham, Heb. i. 10, and ii. 16. To David it was promised, 2 Sam. vii. 16, that his house and kingdom should be established forever; that his throne should be established forever; and the Lord said, Ps. lxxxix. 3, 4. "I have sworn unto David my servant, thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations." Peter, on the day of Pentecost, speaking of David, says, that being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne, Acts ii. 30. And the Lord Jesus himself, says, Rev. xxii. 16, that he is the offspring of David. Therefore, when the Pharisees said that Christ was the Son of David, the Saviour admits it, and on this ground reasons with them, Mat. xxii. 42, 43.

From these passages of scripture we have evidence, that Jesus of Nazareth was the seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham, the seed, the offspring, the Son of David, and the fruit of David's loins according to the flesh. It must, hence, be manifest, either that the human nature of Jesus did not pre-exist his being born of the virgin; or, that he had nothing more belonging to him of the characters and relations of seed, son, offspring, &c. of the persons, from whom it was promised he should descend, than simply a human body.

If the human nature of Jesus, a nature possessed of all the moral powers and qualities of holy, innocent man, were the first fruit of the creative power

the creation of man, it seems clearly to follow, that this Jesus could not be the seed of Abraham, the son and offspring of David, and the fruit of his loins. This conclusion cannot easily be avoided, if, in the holy scriptures, as well as in common language, seed, son, offspring, &c. import a human moral being proceeding from a man, like unto the father, and, in existence, posterior to him. To quote passages to evince this to be the import of the terms, seed, son, offspring, in the language of scripture, will be tedious, and probably, unnecessary; as it is apprehended, no one will deny it. And if this be the import of those terms, not only in common language, but in that of the scriptures; the man Jesus, on supposition of that pre-existence of which we are speaking, was no more the seed of Abraham, the son, the offspring of David, than Noah was; or, even Adam himself. Not one of the properties of seed, sonship, or offspring, in relation to, either Abraham or David, are to be found in the man Jesus: Nor do either Abraham or David bear the relation of father to him, any more than to the first human pair. We see no more propriety in terming any created being or nature, who had existence before the world was, the seed of Abraham, the son and offspring of David, than in applying the same terms to the first man created on earth, in relation to these eminent patriarchs.

According to the sentiment we are examining, Jesus was, not only so far from being the seed, the son, and the offspring

persons, that, in the opinion of some, who advocate the doctrine of his pre-existence, God originally formed his created nature as a pattern after which man was to be made. What need, by the way, the great God stood in of such a pattern, it will be difficult for us to conceive. But to term this pattern, being itself a holy and absolutely perfect and complete human nature in kind; a pattern, which was copied into man as originally created on earth; to term this the seed, the son, the offspring of persons, who existed not till ages after the pattern by which they were formed, must be such a perversion of terms, as tends to render all language uncertain and unintelligible.

It being implied in Christ's being the son of David, that David was his father; on supposition of the pre-existence under consideration, we here see a son, who not only existed before his father, and even before the heavens and the earth were made; but a son, who himself was the pattern after which his father was made, and who was in union with the second person in the Trinity in creating his father. It seems, thus, to appear, that Christ's being the seed of Abraham, the son of David, &c. is incompatible with the idea, that his human nature pre-existed his appearing in flesh.

Should it be said, in reply to these observations, that the human body of Jesus was formed of the virgin, conceived in her womb and born of her; and, that this is a sufficient ground for his being termed the seed of Abraham, and the son of David;

it may be noticed, that the reply will very evidently tend to support the opinion advanced in the early days of Christianity, that Jesus had nothing of human nature belonging to him but the mere body of a man. If having a body formed in the womb of the virgin be sufficient to denominate him a man; unless there be clear proof from the word of God, that a moral human nature, which pre-existed, came and inhabited this body, it will be incapable of proof, that Jesus had any thing more of proper humanity than a mere human body. And if this were all that was meant by Christ's being the seed of Abraham, the son, the offspring of David, &c. other important predictions and promises concerning him, might be, and, for aught appears, were accomplishea simply by his being manifest in a human body; a body formed of flesh and bones; such as that by Moses, Deut. xviii. 15. "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like 'unto me;" and by the prophet Isaiah ix. 6. "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shail be upon his shoulders." Again, Isa. xxxii. 2. “And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest." A prophet, of a body like that of Muses; a son, a proper human body, on whose shoulders shall be the government; a human body, which shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest. Nothing further can be inferred from these predictions and promises, if those to Abraham and David were accomplished by the body of Jesus

being human, formed of flesh and bones. Not only so, but according to this construction of the terms seed, son, offspring, &c. when Jesus made his soul an offering for sin, the whole of the sacrifice was, that of the mere animal life.

Unless, as has been observed, clear and evident proof be produced from the word of God, that Jesus possessed a proper moral human nature previously to his being born of the virgin; and, that this human nature came and took possession of the body, which had been conceived in her; the proof must be extremely defective, if not entire ly fail, that he ever had any thing more of proper manhood than simply a human body.

But there are other considerations, which render the supposition of the pre-existence of Christ's human nature, at least very doubtful. The evangelist tells us, when he had given an account of the birth of Jesus, that "the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom. That he increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." Luke ii. 40, 52. These passages naturally lead us to suppose, that his infant state, considered as a proper human child, was like that of others, sin only excepted. That he made improvements and came to maturity in wisdom and knowledge as a man, as others do, excepting only that as he was free from all prejudice and moral blindness, he made swifter advances and more rapid improvements than others.

It may be observed, further, that the supposition of the preexistence of his human nature,、

will imply that this human nature emptied itself, and was reduced, on being born of the virgin, to a level with that of common infants when first brought into the world; and will, of course, lead us to apprehend, that this was all the condescension of the Redeemer designed to be expressed, when it is said Philip. ii. 6, 7, that being in the form of God, and thinking it no robbery to be equal with God, he made himself of no reputation. It must, also, import, that all that vast extent of knowledge, and those high and great improvements, which the human perfect mind of Jesus had made, for four thousand years, on his being born an infant into the world, were as entirely lost and gone, as though they had never existed: consequently, that afterwards, they were of no manner of use, any more than if they never had been. Such an opinion as this, a sentiment so extraordinary ought to be considered as inadmissible, unless there be either a manifest necessity for it, or very clear and certain evidence of its truth. As to the evidence of it, we have not the least shadow, either from reason, or from the word of God. If there be any necessity for adopting such an opinion, it must arise from some advantage to be derived from it, and the light it reflects on some, or all the doctrines in general of the gospel of Christ.

It cannot be pretended, that the Lord Jesus was not as perfectly qualified, both to be an example to men, and a sacrifice for their sins, without this supposed pre-existence of his human nature, as with it. That this pre-existence, as to any adVol. I. No. 10.

Kkk

vantage to be derived from it for accomplishing the work, upon which he came into the world, was unnecessary and useless. That he was every way as completely qualified to be the Saviour of sinners without as with it. Had it not been so, we may rationally conclude, the only scriptures would have furnished us with clear and indubitable proof that, as a man, Jesus had this pre-existence. And as we can see, neither any necessity for it, nor any advantage it would be of to Christ as the Saviour of sinners; nor, yet, any proof of it from the word of God, we can be under no obligation to adopt the sentiment.

But it is urged, that valuable ends may be answered by the pre-existence of the human nature of Christ; and, that the sentiment reflects light on many passages of the holy scriptures. As it is admitted, that it was Christ, who often appeared to Abraham, and to other pious men of old, it is said, that the supposition of the then present existence of his human nature ren

ders it more easy and natural to conceive, that he should appear in human form and as a man. But why, it may be asked, is it easier to be conceived, that a created than an uncreated Spirit should put on a human form, and become visible to men? It cannot reasonably be pretended that it is.

The supposition that the human nature of Christ had preexistence, it is said, renders the construction of certain passages of scripture more easy and natural than they would otherwise be. Such, for example, as this, Philip. ii. 6, 7, where the apostle

says of Christ, "Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." It cannot be, it is urged, that the Logos, the real divinity, should make himself of no reputation, empty himself, and take upon him the form of a servant : that this, therefore, must be asserted of some created being; and, therefore, unquestionably, of the human nature of Christ, implying its pre-existence. But, it is to be recollected, the human na ture of Christ, whenever it be gan to exist, whether before the world was, or at his birth into it, not only necessarily had the form, but in fact was a servant : nor could he with any more propriety, be said to take upon him this form, than to take upon him existence. If making himself of no reputation and taking upon him the form of a servant are to -be attributed to a creature, we may conclude, also, that his being in the form of God, and thinking it no robbery to be equal with God, is predicable of the created nature of Christ: for it was he, who, in fact, is in the form of God, &c. who made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant. What an advantage will it give to those, who deny the divinity of Christ, to admit that, in scripture language, a creature, a created nature may be said to be in the form of God, and to think it no robbery to be equal with God. In support of the opinion, that the human nature of Christ had pre-existence, it is also urged, that he is represented as having

divested himself, when he came into the world, of some glory he had before his incarnation. Thus, John xvii. 5. "And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self, with the glory I had with thee before the world was." It may not be admitted, it is said, that the divine nature ever divested itself of any glory; of course, if the human nature of Christ divested itself of glory, it must have been, of a glory it possessed in a pre-existent state.

But if this be the whole import of the prayer of Christ, on that solemn occasion, with what plausibility may it be urged, that the glory, which it is supposed his created nature put off, when he came into the world, was all the glory he ever possessed? What reason for supposing he ever had any other or higher glory, than that which he here prays may be restored to him? Why may we not rather suppose, he here prays for that glory, which we are told, 1 Peter i. 11, should follow his sufferings? And this is a glory infinitely exceeding that of any creature.

Again; the apostle says, 2 Cor. viii. 9. "Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be made rich." It cannot, it is urged, be said of GoD, that he became poor; and therefore it must be supposed, that the created or human nature of Christ divested itself of riches, which he possessed before he came into the world. But if the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ here spoken of, imply nothing more than the grace and condescension of a creature, what other grace may