Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

thing from the beginning; but this he could not have known if he had not so determined it. If, also, God be infinitely wise, it cannot be conceived that he would leave things at random, and have no plan. He is a God of order, and this order he observes as strictly in the moral as in the natural world, however confused things may appear to us. To conceive otherwise of God, is to degrade him, and is an insult to his perfections. If he, then, be wise and unchangeable, no new idea or purpose can arise in his mind; no alteration of his plan can take place, upon condition of his creatures acting in this or that way. To say that this doctrine makes him the author of sin is not justifiable. We all allow omnipotence to be an attribute of Deity, and that by this attribute he could have prevented sin from entering into the world, had he chosen it; yet we see he did not. Now he is no more the author of sin in one case than the other. May we not ask,-Why does he suffer those inequalities of Providence? Why permit whole nations to lie in idolatry for ages? Why leave men to the most cruel barbarities? Why punish the sins of the fathers in the children? In a word, why permit the world at large to be subject to pains, crosses, losses, evils of every kind, and that for so many thousands of years? And, yet, will any dare call the Deity unjust? The fact is, our finite minds know but little of the nature of divine justice, or any other of his attributes. But, supposing there are difficulties in this subject (and what subject is without ?) the Scripture abounds with passages which at once prove the doctrine, Matt. xxv. 34; Rom. viii. 29. 30; Eph. i. 3, 6, 11; 2 Tim. 1,9; 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Peter i. 1, 2; John vi. 37; John xvii. 2 to 24; Rev. xiii. 8; Rev. xvii. 8; Daniel iv. 35; 1 Thess. v. 19; Matt. xi. 26; Exod. iv. 21; Prov. xvi. 4; Acts xiii. 48. The moral uses of this doctrine are these: 1. It hides pride from man. 2. Excludes the idea of chance. 3. Exalts the grace of God. 4. Renders salvation certain. 5. Affords believers great consolation. See DECREES OF GOD; NECESSITY; King, Toplady, Cooper, and Tucker, on Predestination; Burnet on 17th Art.; Whitby and Gill on the Five Points; Wesley's Pred. considered; Hill's Logica Wesleiensis; Edwards on the Will; Polhill on the Decrees; Edwards's Veritas Redux; Saurin's Sermons, vol. v.

ser. 13; Dr. Williams's Sermon on Prédestination.

PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS CHRIST, is his existence before he was born of the Virgin Mary. That he really did exist before is plain, from John iii. 13; vi. 50, &c.; xvii, 1; viii. 58; 1 John i. 4: but there are va rious opinions respecting this existence. Some acknowledge that in Jesus Christ there is a divine nature, a rational soul, and a human body. His body, they think, was formed in the Virgin's womb; his human soul, they suppose, was the first and most excellent of all the works of God; was brought into existence before the creation of the world, and subsisted in happy union in heaven with the second person in the Godhead, till his incarnation. These divines differ from those called Arians, for the latter ascribe to Christ only a created deity, whereas the former hold his true and proper divinity; they differ from the Socinians, who believe no existence of Christ before his incarnation; they differ from the Sabellians, who only own a trinity of names; they differ, also, from the generally received opinion, which is, that the human soul began to exist in his mother's womb, in exact conformity to that likeness unto his brethren, of which St. Paul speaks, Heb. ii. 17. The writers in favour of the pre-existence of Jesus Christ's human soul, recommend their thesis by these arguments.

1. Christ is represented as his Father's messenger, or angel, being distinct from his Father, sent by his Father long before his incarnation, to perform actions which seem to be too low for the dignity of pure Godhead. The appearances of Christ to the patriarchs are described like the appearances of an angel, or man really distinct from God; yet such a one, in whom God, or Jehovah, had a peculiar indwelling, or with whom the divine nature had a personal union.

2. Christ, when he came into the world, is said, in several passages of Scripture, to have divested himself of some glory which he had before his incarnation. Now if there had existed. before this time nothing but his divine nature, this divine nature could not properly divest itself of any glory. "I have glorified thee on earth; I have finished the work thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father! glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I

had with thee before the world was."

[ocr errors]

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 rich," John xvii. 4, 5; 2 Cor. viii. 9. It cannot be said of God that he became poor: he is infinitely self-sufficient; he is necessarily and eternally rich in perfections and glories. Nor can it be said of Christ as man, that he was rich, if he were never in a richer state before, than while he was on earth.

It seems needful that the soul of Christ should pre-exist, that it might have an opportunity to give its previous actual consent to the great and painful undertaking of atonement for our sins. It was the human soul of Christ that endured the weakness and pain of his infant state, all the labours and fatigues of life, the reproaches of men, and the sufferings of death. The divine nature is incapable of suffering. The covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son is therefore represented as being made before the foundation of the world. To suppose that simple deity or the divine essence, which is the same in all the three personalities, should make a covenant with itself, is inconsistent.

Christ is the angel to whom God was in a peculiar manner united, and who in this union made all the divine appearances related in the Old Testament. God is often represented in Scripture as appearing in a visible manner, and assuming a human form. See Gen. iii. 8; xvii. 1; xxviii. 12; xxxii. 24; Exod. ii. 2, and a variety of other pas

sages.

The Lord Jehovah, when he came down to visit men, carried some ensign of divine majesty: he was surrounded with some splendid appearance. Such a light often appeared at the door of the tabernacle, and fixed its abode on the ark, between the cherubims. It was by the Jews called the Shekinah, i. e. the habitation of God. Hence he is described as dwelling in light, and clothed with light as with a garment. In the midst of this brightness there seems to have been sometimes a human shape and figure. It was probably of this heavenly light that Christ divested himself when he was made flesh. With this he was covered at his transfiguration in the Mount, when his garments were white as the light; and at his as

cension into heaven, when a bright cloud received, or invested him; and when he appeared to John, Rev. i. 13; and it was with this he prayed his Father would glorify him.

Sometimes the great and blessed God appeared in the form of a man or angel. It is evident that the true God resided in this man or angel; because, on account of this union to proper deity, the angel calls himself God, the Lord God. He assumes the most exalted names and characters of Godhead., And the spectators and sacred historians, it is evident, considered him as true and proper God: they paid him the highest worship and obedience. He is properly styled "the angel of God's presence." "The (messenger or) angel of the covenant," Isa. lxiii. 9; Mal. iii. 1.

The same angel of the Lord was the particular God and King of the Israelites. It was he who made a covenant with the patriarch, who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, who redeemed the Israelites from Egypt, who conducted them through the wilderness, who gave the law at Sinai, and transacted the affairs of the ancient church.

The angels who have appeared since our blessed Saviour became incarnate, have never assumed the names, titles, characters, or worship, belonging to God. Hence we may infer that the angel who, under the Old Testament, assumed divine titles, and accepted religious worship, was that peculiar angel of God's presence, in whom God resided, or who was united to the Godhead in a peculiar manner; even the pre-existent soul of Christ, who afterwards took flesh and blood upon him, and was called Jesus Christ on earth.

Christ represents himself as one with the Father: "I and the Father are one," John x. 30; xiv. 10, 11. There is, we may hence infer, such a peculiar union between God and the man Christ Jesus, both in his pre-existent and incarnate state, that he may be properly called God-man in one complex person.

Among those expressions of Scripture which discover the pre-existence of Christ, there are several from which we may derive a certain proof of his divinity. Such are those places in the Old Testament, where the angel who appeared to the ancients is called "God, the Almighty God, Jehovah, the Lord of Hosts, I am that I am," &c.

Dr. Watts supposes, that the doctrine

of the pre-existence of the soul of Christ explains dark and difficult scriptures, and discovers many beauties and proprieties of expression in the word of God, which on any other plan lie unobserved. For instance, in Col. i. 15, &c. Christ is described as the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature. His being the image of the invisible God cannot refer merely to his divine nature; for that is as invisible in the Son as in the Father: therefore it seems to refer to his pre-existent soul in union with the Godhead. Again: when man is said to be created in the image of God, Gen. 1, 2, it may refer to the Godman, to Christ in his pre-existent state. God says, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." The word is redoubled, perhaps to intimate that Adam was made in the likeness of the human soul of Christ, as well as that he bore something of the image and resemblance of the divine nature.

On the other side it is affirmed that this doctrine of the pre-existence of the human soul of Christ, weakens and subverts that of his personality. 1. A pure intelligent spirit, say they, the first, the most ancient, and the most excellent of creatures, created before the foundation of the world, so exactly resembles the second person of the Arian trinity, that it is impossible to show the least difference, except in name. 2. The preexistent intelligence supposed in this doctrine is so confounded with those other intelligences called angels, that there is great danger of mistaking this human soul for an angel, and so of making the person of Christ to consist of three natures. 3. If Jesus Christ had nothing in common like the rest of mankind, except a body, how could this semi-conformity make him a real man? 4. The passages quoted in proof of the pre-existence of the human soul of Jesus Christ are of the same sort with those which others allege in proof of the preexistence of all human souls. 5. This opinion, by ascribing the dignity of the work of redemption to his sublime human soul, detracts from the deity of Christ, and renders the last as passive as the first active. 6. This notion is contrary to Scripture. St. Paul says, in all things it behoved him to be made like his brethren: he partook of all our infirmities, except sin. St. Luke says, he increased in stature and in wisdom, Heb. ü. 17; Luke ii. 52. See articles

[ocr errors]

JESUS CHRIST, and INDWELLING SCHEME; Robinson's Claude, vol. i. pp. 214, 311; Watts's Works, vol. v. pp. 274, 385; Gill's Body of Div., vol. ii. p. 51; Robinson's Plea, p. 140; Fleming's Christology; Simpson's Apology for the Trin. p. 190; Hawker's Sermon on the Divinity of Christ, pp. 44, 45.

PRE-EXISTIANI, a term applied to those who hold the hypothesis of the preexistence of souls, or the doctrine that, at the beginning of the world, God created the souls of all men, which, however, are not united to the body till the individuals for whom they are destined are begotten or born into the world. This was the opinion of Pythagoras, Plato, and his followers, and of the Kabbalists among the Jews. The doctrine was taught by Justin Martyr, Origen, and others of the Fathers, and has been the common opinion of mystics, both of ancient and modern times. Such as hold the immediate creation of the human soul at the moment of the production of the body, are called Creatiani; and those who believe in its natural propagation by the parents, Traduciani.

PREMONSTRANTES, or PREMONSTRATENSES, a religious order of regular canons, instituted in 1120 by S. Norbert, and thence called Norbertines. The rule they followed was that of St. Augustin, with some slight alterations, and an addition of certain severe laws, whose authority did not long survive their founder.

They first came into England a.d. 1146. Their first monastery, called New-house, was erected in Lincolnshire, by Peter de Saulia, and dedicated to St. Martial. In the reign of Edward I. this order had twenty-seven monasteries in England.

PRESBYTER. See next article ; and articles DEACON, ELDER.

PRESBYTERIANISM. The title Presbyterian comes from the Greek word IIpeoBUTEpos, which signifies senior, or elder, intimating that the government of the Church in the New Testament was by presbyteries, that is by association of ministers and ruling elders, possessed all of equal powers, without any superiority among them, either in office or order. The Presbyterians believe, that the authority of their ministers to preach the Gospel, to administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, and to feed the flock of Christ, is derived from the Holy Ghost by the im

position of the hands of the presbytery; and they oppose the independent scheme of the common rights of Christians by the same arguments which are used for that purpose by the Episcopalians. They affirm, however, that there is no order in the church as established by Christ and his apostles, superior to that of presbyters; that all ministers, being ambassadors of Christ, are equal by their commission; that presbyter and bishop, though different words, are of the same import; and that prelacy was gradually established upon the primitive practice of making the moderator, or speaker of the presbytery, a permanent officer.

These positions they maintain against the Episcopalians by the following arguments. They observe, that the apostles planted churches by ordaining bishops and deacons in every city; that the ministers which in one verse are called bishops, are in the next, perhaps, denominated presbyters; that we nowhere read in the New Testament of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, in any one church; and that, therefore, we are under the necessity of concluding bishop and presbyter to be two names for the same church officer. This is apparent from Peter's exhortation to the elders or presbyters who were among the Jewish Christians. "The elders (presbyters) which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof (επισκοπούντες, acting as bishops thereof,) not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being LORDS Over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock," 1 Pet. v. 2, 3. From this passage it is evident that the presbyters not only fed the flock of God, but also governed that flock with episcopal powers, and that the apostle himself, as a church officer, was nothing more than a presbyter or elder. The identity of the office of bishop or presbyter is still more apparent from Heb. xiii. 7, 17; and 1 Thess. v. 12; for the bishops are there represented as governing the flock, speaking to them the word of God, watching for their souls, and discharging various offices, which it is impossible for any man to perform to more than one congregation.

"From the last-cited text it is evi

dent that the bishops (πPOLOTаμLEVOVS) of the Thessalonian churches had the pastoral care of no more souls than they could hold personal communion with in God's worship; for they were such as all the people were to know, esteem, and love, as those that not only were over them, but also closely laboured among them, and admonished them. But diocesan bishops, whom ordinarily the hundredth part of their flock never hear nor see, cannot be those bishops by whom that flock is admonished; nor can they be what Peter requires the bishops of the Jewish converts to be, ensamples to the flock. It is the opinion of Dr. Hammond, who was a very learned divine, and a zealot for episcopacy, that the elders whom the apostle James desires (Jas. v. 14) the sick to call for, were of the highest permanent order of ecclesiastical officers; but it is self-evident that those elders cannot have been diocesan bishops, otherwise the sick must have been often without the reach of the remedy proposed to them.

"There is nothing in Scripture upon which the Episcopalian is more ready to rest his cause than the alleged episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, of whom the former is said to have been bishop of Ephesus, and the latter bishop of Crete; yet the Presbyterian thinks it clear as the noon-day sun, that the presbyters of Ephesus were supreme governors, under Christ, of the Ephesian churches, at the very time that Timothy is pretended to have been their proper diocesan.

In Acts xx. 17, &c., we read, that, 'from Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the elders (presbyters) of the church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons. And now, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to

declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (EπLOKOπOus, bishops), to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing

the flock. Also of your ownselves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. There fore watch, and remember that, by the space of three years, I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace,' &c.

"From this passage it is evident that there was in the city of Ephesus a plurality of pastors of equal authority, with out any superior pastor or bishop over them; for the apostle directs his discourse to them all in common, and gives them equal power over the whole flock. Dr. Hammond, indeed, imagines that the elders whom Paul called to Miletus, were the bishops of Asia, and that he sent for them to Ephesus, because that city was the metropolis of this province. But, were this opinion well founded, it is not conceivable that the sacred writer would have called them the elders of the church of Ephesus, but the elders of the church in general, or the elders of the churches in Asia. Besides, it is to be remembered, that the apostle was in such haste to be at Jerusalem, that the sacred historian measures his time by days; whereas it must have required several months to call together the bishops or elders of all the cities of Asia; and he might certainly have gone to meet them at Ephesus in less time than would be requisite for their meeting in that city, and proceeding thence to him at Miletus. They must, therefore, have been either the joint pastors of one congregation, or the pastors of different congregations in one city; and as it was thus in Ephesus, so it was in Philippi; for we find the apostle addressing his epistle to all the saints in Jesus Christ which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons. From the passage before us it is likewise plain, that the presbyters of Ephesus had not only the name, but the whole power of bishops given to them by the Holy Ghost; for they are enjoined to do the whole work of bishops ποιμάνειν την εκκλησίαν του θεου which signifies to rule as well as feed the church of God. Whence we see that the apostle makes the power of governing inseparable from that of preaching and watching; and that, according to him, all who are preachers of God's word, and watchmen of souls, are necessarily rulers or governors of the church,

without being accountable for their management to any prelate, but only to their Lord Christ, from whom their power is derived.

"It appears, therefore, that the apostle Paul left in the church of Ephesus, which he had planted, no other successors to himself than presbyter-bishops, or Presbyterian ministers, and that he did not devolve his power upon any prelate. Timothy, whom the Episcopalians allege to have been the first bishop of Ephesus, was present when this settlement was made, Acts xx. 5; and it is surely not to be supposed that, had he been their bishop, the apostle would have devolved the whole episcopal power upon the presbyters before his face. If ever there were a season fitter than another for pointing out the duty of this supposed bishop to his diocese, and his presbyter's duty to him, it was surely when Paul was taking his final leave of them and discoursing so pathetically concerning the duty of overseers, the coming of ravenous wolves, and the consequent hazard of the flock. In this farewell discourse he tells them, that he had not shunned to declare unto them all the counsel of God.' But with what truth could this have been said, if obedience to a diocesan bishop had been any part of their duty, either at the time of the apostle's speaking, or at any future pe riod? He foresaw that ravenous wolves would enter in among them, and that even some of themselves should arise speaking perverse things; and if, as the Episcopalians allege, diocesan episcopacy was the remedy provided for these evils, is it not strange, passing strange, that the inspired preacher did not foresee that Timothy, who was then standing beside him, was destined to fill that important office; or, if he did foresee it, that he omitted to recommend him to his future charge, and to give him proper instructions for the discharge of his duty.

"But if Timothy was not bishop of Ephesus, what, it may be asked, was his office in that city? for that he resided there for some time, and was by the apostle invested with authority to ordain and rebuke presbyters, are facts about which all parties are agreed, and which, indeed, cannot be controverted by any reader of Paul's epistles. this the Presbyterian replies, with confidence, that the power which Timothy exercised in the church of Ephesus was

Το

« ForrigeFortsett »