§ 2. AS A PRE-EXISTENT BEING, OR EVEN AS THE CREATOR OF THE WORLD, CHRIST NOT NECESSARILY GOD.

The most of his [Dr. BUSHNELL's] proofs [of the Divinity of Christ] do not reach the point at all. They merely prove that our Saviour was superhuman, perhaps superangelic, but not that he was properly divine. For example, he first argues the Divinity of Christ from his pre-existence. But this obviously does not prove it. An Arian would say that our Saviour was pre-existent. If he had been no more than an incarnate æon or angel, he must have existed previous to his incarnation. DR. ENOCH POND: Review of Dr. Bushnell's "God in Christ," p. 15.

The remark of this writer, that pre-existence does not prove Divinity, is evidently and undeniably correct. But, if so acute and liberal a reasoner as Dr. BUSHNELL loses sight of this simple truth, we may expect that others of stronger prejudices and less judgment will regard all texts which seem to imply Christ's existence before his appearance on earth as equivalent to proofs of his divine nature.

It appears to me upon all occasions most unbecoming and presumptuous for us to say what God can do, and what he cannot do; and I shall never think that the truth or the importance of a conclusion warrants any degree of irreverence in the method of attaining it. The power exerted in making the most insignificant object out of nothing by a word is manifestly so unlike the greatest human exertions, that we have no hesitation in pronouncing that it could not proceed from the strength of man; and when we take into view the immense extent and magnificence and beauty of the things thus created, the different orders of spirits, as well as the frame of the material world, our conceptions of the power exerted in creation are infinitely exalted. But we have no means of judging whether this power must be exerted immediately by God, or whether it may be delegated by him to a creature. It is certain that God has no need of any minister to fulfil his pleasure. He may do by himself every thing that is done throughout the universe. Yet we see that in the ordinary course of providence he withdraws himself, and employs the ministry of other beings; and we believe, that, at the first appearance of the gospel, men were enabled, by the divine power residing in them, to perform miracles, i.e. such works as man cannot do, to cure the most inveterate diseases by a word, without any application of human art; and to raise the dead. Although none of these acts imply a

power equal to creation, yet, as all of them imply a power more than human, they destroy the general principle of that argument upon which creation is made an unequivocal proof of Deity in him who creates; and it becomes a very uncertain conjecture, whether reasons perfectly unknown to us might not induce the Almighty to exert, by the ministry of a creature, powers exceeding in any given degree those by which the apostles of Jesus raised the dead. — DR. GEORGE HILL: Lectures in Divinity, pp. 333-4.

We perfectly coincide in these sentiments, but, with the writer, think "there is a strong probability," as will be shown in a future volume, "that the work of creation was not accomplished by any creature." If, however, it be necessary to understand the Introduction to John's Gospel, and other passages, to refer personally to Jesus Christ as the Creator of the material universe, we are led to think, from the general acceptation of the Greek preposition DIA, " through," in the New Testament, and from numberless places which represent our Lord as the agent or instrument of the Almighty, that he must have acted in this work as indeed a being extraordinary in power, but still infinitely subordinate to his God and Father, whom he uniformly exhibited in the character of a Superior, and of whom he was the Servant and the Messenger. See "Scripture Proofs and Scriptural Illustrations of Unitarianism," part i. chap. 2, sect. 1 (8), and sect. 2 (10–13).

I think I have a right to demand, that, unless you can show cause to the contrary, you should adopt the translation of dià as the instrumental cause in John i. 3, Heb. i. 2, and Col. i. 16; and, if so, confess that Christ was instrumental in the creation of the world, and therefore that he pre-existed at least. BISHOP LONGLEY: The Brothers' Controversy, p. 49.

This passage [Col. i. 16, 17] is somewhat stronger than the others [1 Cor. viii. 6, and Heb. i. 3]. Yet not any of them seem decisive as to the question whether full and supreme Divinity, like that of the Father, belongs to the Son; for it is certainly not impossible to conceive of the power to create and to govern being conferred, and exercised instrumentally; an idea which the form of expression dià ["through"] seems to indicate. JOSEPH HAVEN, Jun., in New Englander for February, 1850, vol. viii. (new series, vol. ii.) p. 9.

The passages of Scripture referred to above, and others supposed to teach or to imply the agency of Christ as the Creator of the universe, or as a pre-existent being, will be afterwards treated of in the order in which they occur in the Bible.

§ 1. CHRIST NOT THE LORD GOD, OR THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH, WHO APPEARED TO THE PATRIARCHS AND THE PROPHETS.

The question as to the pre-existence of our Lord has but little bearing on the inquiry, whether he be an infinite being, and one of the persons in the Godhead; for, however high in rank, nature, or qualifications, no one could be underived, or be absolute in his perfections, unless he had been prior to all creation, or to production of any kind. But, when texts of Scripture that are thought to imply the existence of Christ prior to his birth are read and explained as if they involved the dogma of his divine nature, it may be well to show, that some, if not all, of them are susceptible of an interpretation which harmonizes better with the unequivocal language of Peter and Paul, and of Jesus himself, that he was, not only in appearance, but in reality, a man."

Whenever it is said that God appeared to Jacob, or redeemed him, the meaning is, that God operates, not immediately, but by the instrumentality of an angel. . . . Some, who look very superficially on Sacred Scripture, assert that this is to be understood of the Messiah. Abridged from BISHOP TOSTAT on Gen. xlviii. 15, 16.

When God is said to "appear" to any of the patriarchs, we are not so to understand it as if they had, or could have, a visible representation of him; but only that he signified his will unto them either in a vision, or by some sign, or by an angel. If they understood that the message was from heaven, the "Lord God" was said to have "appeared" to them; but that appellation respects not the appearance itself, the visible representation, but is the title of the Supreme Being, whose will was revealed unto them. Or, if the [Arian] translation may be admitted, then "the Jehovah of God" can mean only the angel of the Lord, without any foundation for supposing it to mean the Lord Christ. DR. BENJAMIN DAWSON: Illustration of Texts, p. 8.

It is often said, that the Lord, the Most High God, "appeared" to the patriarchs, to Moses, and to the prophets, the ancestors of the

Jews; but, according to Jesus Christ's rule [John v. 37], the appearance, form, or shape which they saw was not the appearance of the Lord God himself; for never, at any time, did they see his shape. Again, it is often said that the Most High God spake to the patriarchs, to Moses, and to the prophets; but our Lord affirms that they never heard his voice at any time. How shall we reconcile this seeming inconsistency? The true solution, according to the Scriptures, is this; that the Lord God never spake or appeared in person, but always by a proxy, nuncius, or messenger, who represented him, and spake in his name and authority. It was this messenger of Jehovah, or angel of Jehovah, who appeared unto Moses, Exod. iii. 2, and who is called, in ver. 4, "Jehovah " or Lord (whence it is evident that he was no created human being); and who spake to Moses, in ver. 5, saying, "Draw not nigh hither," &c.; "I am the God of Abraham," ver. 6; and “I am that I am," ver. 14. All which words were pronounced by an angel, but are true, not of the angel, but of God, whom he represented. So a herald reads a proclamation in the king's name and words, as if the king himself were speaking. The word "Angel,” both in the Greek language and in the Hebrew, signifies "a messenger," or nuncius, "an ambassador;" one who acts and speaks, not in his own name or behalf, but in the name, person, and behalf of him who sends him. Thus the word is frequently rendered in our authorized translation; and if it had always been rendered "the messenger of the Lord," instead of "the angel of the Lord," the case would have been very plain. DR. T. HARTWELL HORNE: Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures, part ii. book ii. chap. 7, sect. 6, 12.

Many of the Christian fathers, who unfortunately caught the passion of allegorizing the Holy Scriptures, or of converting them on all occasions into spiritual mysteries, from the later Platonists, the example of Philo, and the practice of the Jewish Rabbis, have considered "the angel,” in this remarkable passage [Exod. iii. 2], as the second person of the Holy Trinity; and this opinion seems to have been too hastily adopted by some of our best commentators and old divines. On a critical examination of the text, it will appear perhaps that there is nothing to favor this mode of interpretation but the zealous desire of proving, on all possible occasions, the pre-existent state of the eversacred Messiah. To the usual interpretation of this passage, there are, among others, the following objections: 1. The prepositive article, or emphatic prefix,♫, in Hebrew is omitted before 3.2. In referring to this remarkable incident, the proto-martyr Stephen says, Acts

vii. 30, "There appeared to him," i.e. Moses, " in the wilderness of Mount Sina, an angel of the Lord." The definite article "the," therefore, has, on this and other occasions, been improperly used in our translation. 3. Much stress has been laid on the words of the

מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה,original

an angel of Jehovah;" but it is used also to denote the angel that "smote the Assyrians," 2 Kings xix. 35, whose destruction all commentators now ascribe to the operation of a physical cause in the hand of God; and it is employed to designate the angel “that came up from Gilgal to Bochim," Judg. ii. 1, where our translators have properly rendered it "an angel of the Lord," and put "messenger" in the margin. - 5. A more powerful objection arises from the reference which our blessed Lord himself makes to this very passage, where he tells the Jews, that the declaration, "I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob," was spoken by God, that is, by divine communication, without precisely defining the manner in which the Jews understood that form of expression. Now, had the Messiah himself been the speaker on this occasion, in his pre-existent state, would he have said to the Sadducees, "Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God?” Matt. xxii. 31; and would he thus have identified himself in name and character with the Father? Those who think this probable will not find a similar example throughout the whole of the Bible. It has been said in favor of the usual interpretation of this and other divine appearances in the Old Testament, that the ancient Jewish Rabbis explained them by a reference to their expected Messiah. But it should be recollected, that the oldest of their comments on the Hebrew Scriptures are comparatively of very modern date, and, with respect to doctrines, are of no authority. They imported from Babylon, and the regions of their captivity, many notions respecting appearances, angels, demons, and other matters, which belonged not to their ancient Scriptures. On many points of doctrine, therefore, they were prone to error and superstition, but more particularly on all occasions that related to their promised Messiah. — It is not the object of these remarks to controvert in the least the acknowledged doctrine of the pre-existence of the heavenly Messiah. The reality of this doctrine forms no part of the present question; which is, whether our blessed Lord, as the second person of the Holy Trinity, appeared in his individual and appropriate character to Moses on the present occasion, or to any of the patriarchs before him. Those who think there is no sufficient ground for believing this will feel their opinion