SPIRIT OF CHRIST was in the Jewish prophets, teftifying beforehand the fufferings of Chrift, and the glory that fhould follow;" but is it poffible that the apoftle could have faid this, if he had not known, that the fpirit of Christ had an existence ages before the child Jefus was born of his mother? We are not ignorant of the very ftrange fenfe in which fome Socinians have pretended to understand this verfe, but in that fenfe, as Whitby truly obferves, the fpirit here mentioned might as well have been styled the spirit of antichrift. All the ancients, continues the fame learned commentator, understood the words in their natural sensethat Christ" fpake by his fpirit in the prophets, in Isaiah, in Elias, and in all the prophets;" and for the truth of what he fays, he refers to Ignatius, Barnabas, Juftin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, and others, whom Mr. Belfham may confult at his leifure.

Thus then have we proved, that two of the fix facred writers of whom this author affirms that they make no allufions to the pre-existence of Christ, speak of that extraordinary fact, as he calls it, in fuch a manner that no Jew could poffibly mistake their meaning. If, as he alledges," they speak of it only in an incidental way, and not as if they were introducing any ftrange and astonishing discovery;" that circumstance, fo far from weakening the force of their teftimony, certainly adds to it greatly, as it is a proof that a pre-existing Meffiah was no ftrange or aftonishing discovery to the Jews. It became, indeed, neceffary for St. John and St. Paul to teach the doctrine more explicitly to the Gentiles, efpecially after Cerinthus, Carpocrates, and other heretics, had introduced into the Church falfe notions concerning the perfon of Chrift; but to the Jews, efpecially of the fect of the Pharifees, these incidental intimations of it were abundantly fufficient,

In the gofpel by St. Luke, the pre-existence of Christ is taught in the most explicit manner; for furely none but a Unitarian, determined to resist all evidence, will contend, that when Zacharias, filled with the Holy Ghost, and addreffing his infant fon, faid" and thou, child, fhalt be called the prophet of the HIGHEST: for thou fhalt go before the face of the LORD, to prepare his ways," he meant nothing more by the HIGHEST, and the LORD, or (as he probably faid,) JEHOVAH, then the fon of Jofeph and Mary, not then born!

If the allufions by St. Mark to the pre-exiftence of Chrift, be lefs numerous and pointed than those of St, Matthew, St. Luke, and St. Peter, there may have been reafons unknown alike to Mr. Belfham and to us: but were we writing an

anfwer

answer to the work before us, we could produce at least an allufion to it even in the gofpel by St. Mark. This, however is not our object; and the paffages which we have already quoted from the writings of St. Matthew, St. Peter, and St. Luke, are fufficient, we truft, to prevent our readers from placing implicit confidence in Mr. Belfham's affertions, to make them, as Johnson would have faid, difpofed to "believe what he may prove, rather than what he may fay."

"

From these confident affertions, he proceeds to examine fome of the texts which are ufually produced from the writings of St. John and St. Paul, in proof of the pre-existence of Chrift, with the view of fetting thofe proofs afide; but before he enters upon that hopeful tafk, he thinks it neceffary to make fome remarks on the flyle of these two apoftles. It is," he fays, " in many inftances, highly figurative." "In the gofpel of John," he dares to affirm, that our Lord fometimes ufes metaphors of the most obfcure, and offenfive kind;" nay, that, on one occafion," he delivered a difcourfe which his audience could not comprehend, and of which the defign was to fhock their prejudices, to difguft their feelings, and to alienate them from his faciety!" Need we add, that he who expreffes himself thus of a public teacher, must be determined to refift every proof that can be urged for the divinity or even the pre-existence of that teacher? furely not; for as a conviction that the perfon thus deliberately charged with having spoken offenfively, and with the defign of difgufting the feelings, and alie nating from his fociety thofe very men whom he was fent to inftruct, was truly divine, or even more than human, would neceffarily be accompanied by a degree of remorse too heavy. to be born by any confcience, the proofs which lead to fuch a conviction cannot be admitted but with the greatest reluctance.

"Paul, he says, in his epiftles introduces many harsh and uncommon figures, viz. we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, to exprefs the union of true believers under Chrift as their head, (Eph. v. 30.) It is therefore reasonable to expect, that fuch writers (as St. John and St. Paul,) will ufe figurative language concerning Chrift; and it is peculiarly necef fary, in reading their writings, to diftinguish carefully between what is literal and what is figurative." P. 19.

It is needless to add, for the reader's information, that every thing which is faid, in the beginning of St. John's gofpel, of the divinity of the Aoyos, or WORD, and of the

WORD'S

WORD's being made FLESH, is by Mr. Belfham understood figuratively; but it may be proper to obferve, that of the vast variety of unitarian interpretations of these figures which he produces, there is hardly one in perfect unifon with another. On this fubject, however, we mean not to enter. It is fo fully difcuffed by Mr. E. Nares in the work already referred to; and Mr. Belham's principal objections to the literal interpretation are fo completely obviated, that hardly any thing is left for us to fay. One or two of Mr. Belfham's interpretations, however, feem to have been overlooked by our acute and learned friend*; and therefore, as all the confequences to which the reasoning, employed in their support, neceffarily lead, appear not to have occurred even to the author himself, we shall take the liberty to examine fome of these reasonings, and to point out their confequences for the benefit of all concerned.

For fettling the controverfy concerning the perfon of Chrift. it is of great importance, fays this author, (and we heartily agree with him,) to understand rightly John iii. 13: "No man hath afcended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man, who is in heaven." We shall not enumerate the various interpretations of this text which he rejects, nor follow him through that kind of criticism and reasoning which leads him to what he calls the best fupported expofition of the two first claufes, the is inclined, moft naturally to reject the third claufet,) but merely flate that expofition itself, together with one short paragraph, which he very judiciously adds in illustration of it.

"No man hath afcended up to heaven;" i. e. "No man is inftructed in the divine counfels:" " but he that came down from beaven, even the Son of Man? i.e." excepting the Son of

* We call Mr. Edward Nares our friend, and we are proud to call fuch a man our friend; but for reafons which will readily occur to many of our readers, it is proper to fay, that the writer of the prefent article never had the pleasure of being in his com pany but once, and that it is from no biafs of perfonal or private friendship, that he declares Mr. Nares's Remarks on the Unitarian Verfion to contain as able a defence of the catholic faith against modern Unitarians, as he has ever feen within fo narrow a compafs. Rev.

་་

3

This he does on the authority of the improved version! He refers, indeed, to Griefbach, but Griefbach does not reject it.

Man,

Man, who had a commiffion from God to reveal his will to mankind.

"This is a form of expreffion which is unquestionably used in fcripture to express what is of divine origin or authority, Matt. xxi. 25. The baptifm of John, was it from heaven or of men? And they reafoned with themfelves, faying, if we fhall fay, from heaven, he will fay unto us, why did ye not then believe him?" This question our Lord put in reply to the queftion of the chief priests and elders. "By what authority doeft thou these things?" So that in the language of our Lord himself, coming from heaven is equivalent to coming with divine authority." P. 48.

Thus then we fee, that, in this author's opinion, John the Baptift came from heaven in the very fame way in which our Lord came from heaven. John himself, however, feems to have thought otherwife. When his difciples and fome of the Jews came to him with information which they certainly expected would excite his jealoufy of Jefus, John anfwered and faid, "Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I faid, I am not the Chrift, but that I am fent before him. He must increase, but I must decrease. He that cometh from above, is above all: he that is of the earth, is earthly, and fpeaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all *."

-

This laft verfe Mr. B. tearing it from the context, explains thus:

"He that cometh from above, or from heaven, is he who cometh with a divine commiffion or authority. He that is of the earth, is a teacher who has no pretenfions to fuch authority, the priests and Levites, who inftructed the people, and expounded the law. Their inftructions were fallible and imperfect: those of Jefus, the prophet of the Moft High, were infallible and di. vine." P. 55.

The Unitarians are perpetually declaiming in favour of free enquiry; but furely Mr. Belfham relied on the implicit confidence of his readers, when he published this paraphrase on the text. The moft illiterate man who can barely read, has only to open his New Teftament at the place, to find that the comparifon or contraft, here drawn by John, is not between JESUS and the Priests and Levites, but between JESUS and himfelf. John therefore fays exprefsly, that Jefus was from heaven in the fame sense that he himfelf was of the earth; but John as certainly came with a divine commiffion to

St. John iii. 28, 30, 31.

preach

preach the baptifm of repentance and to baptize, as Jefus came with a divine commiffion to preach the gofpel, and to Jay the foundation of his Church. It cannot, therefore, be in confequence of the different authorities by which they taught, that these two great prophets, as our author admits them to have been, are faid to have been, the one from above, and the other of the earth, but from fomething which placed them as far from each other as heaven is conceived to be from the earth; but what could this be, if not the pre-exiftence and fuperior nature and dignity of Jefus? By their mothers, Jefus and John were of equal dignity, while the dignity of John's father was certainly greater than that of Jofeph; but, in truth, no diftinction of civil rank could have given rife to fuch a contraft as this, even in the figurative language of the evangelift St. John!

Mr. Belfham affirms, that every thing faid by our bleffed Lord in the fixth chapter of the gofpel by St. John, of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, is univerfally underflood of receiving, digefting, and practically improving his divine and heavenly doctrine; and this may be admitted, if in the divine and heavenly doctrine be included the doctrine of atonement, with every pofitive duty resulting from it. It is, however, a mere begging of the question, and a begging of it against the voice of all antiquity, as well as of fome of the most eminent modern divines, to interpret this chapter of the doctrine of Chrift, excluding the atonement, with all its confequences*. But whatever be the meaning of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man, none but a determined Unitarian will admit the fenfe put by this author on the fixty-fecond verse of the chapter; whilft all, who believe in the atonement, must confider that verfe as a declaration by our Lord himself, that he exifted in a prior state, and in a fuperior nature, before he was born of the Virgin Mary. The words are,-" Doth this offend you? What and if ye fhall fee the Son of Man afcend up where he was before?"

"The fenfe of which," fays our author, appears to be this: are you offended at what I have already taught: what would you fay if I were to reveal truths ftill more foreign to your conceptions, and more offenfive to your prejudices?" P. 6.

* On this fubject the reader may confult Bifhop Cleaver's Sermons on eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of the Son of Man.