the man Christ Jesus, both in his pre-existent and incarnate state, that he may be properly called God-man in one complex person. Sometimes the great and blessed || with the Father: Iand the Father God appeared in the form of a are one, John x, 30. xiv, 10, 11. man or angel. It is evident that There is, we may hence infer, such the true God resided in this mana peculiar union between God and 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) an-peared to the ancients is called gel of the covenant, Isa. lxxii. Mal. iii, i. The same angel of the Lord was the particular God and King of the Israelites. It was he who made a covenant with the patriarchs, 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, assum ed 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 Among those expressions of scripture which discover the preexistence 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 ap 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 preexistent soul in union with the Godhead. Again: when man is said to be created in the image of God, Gen..i, 2. it may refer to the God-man, to Christ in his preexistent 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 shew the least difference, except in name.-2. The pre-existent 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 this 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. ii, 17. Luke ii, 52. See articles JE SUS CHRIST, and INDWELLING SCHEME; Robinson's Claude, p. 214, 311, vol. i; Watts's Works, vol. v., p. 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 Ser. on the Divinity of Christ, p. 44, 45. PREMONSTRANTES, or PRÆMONSTRATenses, a religious order of regular canons, instituted in 1120 by S. Norbert, and thence called Norbertines. The rule they followed was that of St. Augustine, with some slight alterations, and an addition of certain severe laws, whose authority did not long survive their founder. They came first 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. PRESBYTERIANS. The title Presbyterian comes from the Greek word Πρεσβυτερος, 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 taking the oversight thereof (επισκο πουνlες 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,' 1st Pet. v, 2, 9. 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 el Ghost by the imposition 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 der. The identity of the office of prelacy was gradually established bishop and presbyter is still more upon the primitive practice of apparent from Heb. xiii, 7, 17. making the moderator or speaker and 1st Thess. v, 12; for the biof the presbytery a permanent officer. shops 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 imposssible for any man to perform to more. than one congregation. These positions they maintain against the Episcopalians by the following scriptural 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 no where read in the New Testament of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, in any one church; and that, therefore, we are under the necessity of conclud-and love, as those that not only ing 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 aslo a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of God which is among you, "From the last cited text it is evident that the bishops (προισαμε vous) 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, 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 learn ed 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 high est 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. you overseers (επισκοπους 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 own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore 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. "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 as 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 them equal power over the whole pretended to have been their pro-flock. Dr. Hammond, indeed, per diocesan. "From this passage it is evident that there was in the city of Ephesus a plurality of pastors of equal authority, without any superior pastor or bishop over them; for the apostle directs his discourse to them all in common, and gives 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 the 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 " 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 your-bishops or elders of all the cities selves, and to all the flock over of Asia; and he might certainly which the Holy Ghost hath made 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 Christ Jesus 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-ποιμαίνειν την εκκλησιαν του θεου - which signifies, to rule as weil 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; VOL. II. Ss 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 presbyters 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 period? 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 alle ge, diocesan episcopacy was the remedy provided for those evils, is it not strange, passing strange, that the inspired preacher did not foresee that Timothy, who was 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 in |