He is said to be the first-born of every creature. There has been much labour and art of criticism employed to apply these words merely to the divine nature of Christ, by giving them a metaphorical or some unusual sense: But if we suppose this soul of Christ to exist thus early, then he is properly the first-born of every creature in the literal sense of the words; and in this sense he may be literally called the beginning of the creation of God, as he stiles himself; Rev. iii. 14.

If we join the expressions of the first and second chapters to the Colossians together we may explain the one by the other. He is the image of the invisible God; by him and for him were all things created, and in him all things consist, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence, &c. for it pleased the Father that in him should dwell all the fulness of the godhead bodily. All the godhead dwelt in him as a spirit, or spiritually before the incarnation, and bodily since: thus the nineteenth verse of the first chapter comes in properly as a reason for all those attributions both supreme and inferior, viz. because, God was pleased to ordain that the divine nature should be united to this glorious being, the human soul of Christ, now appearing in a body.

Dr. Thomas Goodwin was a learned, a laborious and a successful enquirer into all those scriptures that treat of our Lord Jesus Christ in order to aggrandize his character; and when he interprets these verses in volume II. "Of the knowledge of God, &c." he finds himself constrained to explain the expressions concerning the divine nature of Christ, as united to man by way of anticipation, or as considered in its future union with the man Jesus, and argues strongly for this exposition: But there is no need to bring in such a figure as "prolepsis" or the anticipation of things future, since the real and actual existence of the soul of Christ before the creation makes all this language of scripture just and plain in the literal sense. And what that pious and ingenious author declares upon this subject almost persuades me to believe that had he lived in our day, he would have been a hearty defender of the doctrine which I propose.

II. The next scripture I shall cite for this purpose is that illustrious description of our Lord Jesus in the first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, wherein there are sufficient evidences of his divine nature: but there are some such expressions as seem to imply also a nature inferior and dependent. He is represented as laying the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of his hands; he upholds all things by the word of his power: which expressions carry in them an idea foo sublime for any mere created nature. And the citation of the first of them from the hundred and second Psalm, proves yet farther that Christ is Jehovah the Creator.

But when he is called a Son, a begotten Son, this seems
VOL. VI.

Q &

to imply derivation and dependency and perhaps the sonship of Christ, and his being the only begotten of the Father, may be better explained by attributing it to his human soul existing by some peculiar and immediate manner of creation, formation, or derivation from the Father before other creatures were formed; especially if we include in the same idea of sonship, as Doctor Goodwin does, his union to the divine nature, and if we add also his exaltation to the office of the Messiah as King and Lord of all; which some zealous Trinitarians suppose to be the chief thing meant when God saith, verse 5. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Now this matter being set in a fair and full light, and established by just arguments from scripture, would take off the force of many Arian pretences against the Trinity, viz such pretences as arise from the supposed derivation of one person from another in pure godhead, and a supposed eternal act of generation producing a co-essential son, which things are not plainly expressed in any part of the bible, and which are acknowledged on all sides to be great and incomprehensible difficulties.

Heb. i. 3. Perhaps these words, the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person, may be better explained, if we suppose the divine nature of Christ to be united to his pre-existent soul, when it was first created: This human soul of Christ was then like a glass through which the godhead shone with inimitable splendor in all the perfections of it, wisdom, power, holiness and goodness; thus Christ was his Father's most perfect image, or copy, both in his own native excellencies, bearing the nearest resemblance to God as an only-begotten Son, and he was also the brightness of his glory; because the perfections of the Father shone through him with more illustrious rays than it was possible for any mere creature to represent or transmit them, who was not thus united to a divine nature.

I cannot forbear to illustrate this by a similitude which I think has been somewhere used by Doctor Goodwin: Suppose it possible for a hollow globe of chrystal to be made so vast as to inclose the sun; this globe of chrystal considered in itself, would have many properties in it, perhaps resembling the sun in a more perfect manner than any other being: but if it were also inhabited by the sun itself, and thus transmitted the glories of the sun to men, how express an image would it be of that bright luminary, and would it not be the most happy medium by which the sun could exert its powers of light and heat? Such is Jesus the man, who is the Son of God inhabited by the divine nature, and the fairest image of God."

Besides, let it be yet further considered, that when Christ is called in Colossians i. 15. the image of the invisible God, and

in Heb. i. 3. the express image of his Father's person, it must be understood either of his divine nature or his human. If it be understood of his divine nature, it must mean that he is the image of the Father's essence or of his personality, for the personality together with the essence, make up the complete character of God the Father.

But the divine nature of Christ cannot properly be the image of his Father's nature or essence; for the essence of godhead, or the divine nature both in the Father and in the Son, is one and the same individual nature or essence, which cannot properly be the image of itself, nor can the same individual. essence be both the original and the image at the same time. When we conceive of the self-same body, or the self-same man, or the self-same angel, in different positions or situations, circumstances, relations, or appearances, we never say that the self-same thing is the image of itself. Thus Christ in his divine essence cannot be the image of the Father's essence, when it is the same individual essence with that of the Father. The essence of God in the person of the Son cannot properly be the image of that essence in the person of the Father, since it is the same individual essence.

Nor is Christ in his divine nature an express image of the personality of the Father. Sonship is no image of paternity: A derived property or subsistence is no image of an underived property or subsistence, but just the reverse or directly contrary to it. Since therefore Christ in his divine nature is neither the image of his Father's essence, nor of his Father's personality, these words must be spoken with regard to Christ's human nature; and in this respect he is the express image of his Father, or the image of the invisible God; and that, these three ways:

1. As the human soul of Christ is a creature, which has the Dearest likeness to its Creator. This Son of God is a most glorious Spirit, the brightest and nearest image to the Father, the eternal glorious Spirit; far nearer than the angels who are also the sons of God, or than Adam who was the Son of God too; for his properties and perfections are much greater than their's, and bear a much nearer resemblance to the properties and perfections of God the Father.-2. The human nature of Christ is the image of the invisible God the Father, as he often assumed a visible form under the Old Testament, and appeared, and spake, and acted as God in a visible glory; and so he is the proper image of the invisible God, Col. i. 15.-3. As he took upon him, in the fulness of time, a visible body of flesh and blood, and therein appeared as one in whom the fulness of the godhead dwelt bodily, the visible image of his invisible Father.

But I procced. The holy writer in Heb. i. 3. adds further, that he was appointed heir of all things, which seems to be not so applicable to the pure godhead of Christ; for godhead has an original and eternal right to all things, and does not come at it by way of inheritance or derivation, much less by being an appointed heir. Doctor Goodwin is so well persuaded of the sense of these words, that they are not properly applicable to pure godhead, that he again supposes the holy writer to speak by way of anticipation, and to view the divine nature of Christ in union with the man, though he acknowledges the things which are now spoken of, were transacted before the world was.

There are other expressions in this chapter which seem to refer to some being inferior to godhead. Verse 4. Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. Verse 9. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, and therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows; that is, has given thee the holy Spirit as a comforter, in a superior measure. These things cannot be supposed to be spoken of the godhead of Christ: and yet they seem to be spoken concerning Christ before his incarnation, and then they point out to us the pre-existence of his human soul; whereas if they are spoken of him after his incarnation, then they prove nothing of his pre-existent glory, which seems to be the design of this chapter.

Since the design of the second chapter to the Hebrews is, to prove the incarnation of Christ, and his taking upon him a human body, I might here ask, whether the design of the first chapter may not be to represent our blessed Lord in his preexistent state, both divine and human, that is, to set forth the glory of this human spirit both in its own excellencies and in its original union with the divine nature. And this appears the more probable, because the author in the first chapter is frequently Comparing him with angels, and sets him above them in several comparisons; now this would be but a low and diminutive account of the godhead of Christ, to raise him above angels; but it is a glorious and sublime account of his hunan soul, considered as united to godhead, and one with God.

And since there are so many expressions in the first chapter which ascribe ideas to Christ which are inferior to godhead, as well as some sublimer expressions which appear incommunicable to any but God; I would enquire whether the introduction of this pre-existent soul of Christ here may not be a happy clue to lead us into the very mind and meaning of this portion of scripture, rather than to suppose the godhead of Christ is al

ways intended here: For by so doing we embarrass ourselves with this difficulty, which the Arians frequently fling upon us, of attributing something derivative and dependent to the divine nature, and ascribing something too low and mean to the god head of Christ. I might add also in confirmation of this thought, that had the sacred writers' only design been to prove the divine nature of Christ, there are several passages in the Old Testament which are of equal force and significancy with any which he has cited, and which are more evidently applied to the Messiah by the prophets themselves: But if we suppose him to speak of the whole pre-existent glory of Christ, then the citations seem to be well chosen and well mingled to represent his two natures, both divine and human, and the glory of his sacred person resulting thence.

That noble expositor on the epistle to the Hebrews, Dr. Owen, being sensible that all these expressions in this chapter can never be applied to the divine nature of Christ, asserts, that, "it is not the direct and immediate design of the apostle in this place to treat absolutely of either nature of Christ, either divine or human, but only of his person: And though some things here expressed belong to his divine nature, some to his human; yet none of them are spoken as such, but are all considered as belonging to his person.' See his "Exposition on the Hebrews, verse 3. page 52." So that I have those two excellent writers Dr. Goodwin and Dr. Owen concur→ ring with me in this sentiment, that it is not the prime design of this first chapter to the Hebrews to prove the deity of Christ, but the glory of his person considered as God-man: And in this view several expressions of the apostle are most appositely adapted to represent the glory of the human soul of Christ in its pre-existent state, and in its union to the divine

nature.

III. Another difficult scripture which is made more easy and plain by this doctrine, is the eighth of Proverbs, ver. 22, &c. where wisdom is represented as brought forth, and dwelling with God before the world was. May not this be happily attributed to Christ's pre-existent soul united to the divine nature, or the person of the Mediator God-man? For it is said, the Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before his works of old: I was set up from everlasting: Before the hills was 1 brought forth: I was by him, and was daily his delight. These words admit of two or three remarks:

1. These expressions, "I was possessed or acquired, I was set up, I was brought forth, seem to express and imply something inferior to pure godhead, which is underived and independent; yet it seems to be the proper description of a