"Before Abraham was, I am;" fuggefted to Socinus that interpretation of them, which he fays coft him fo much labour, and which God did not discover to him till after he had spent several days in prayer? And yet, it is very obfervable, that his pretended divinely revealed fenfe of the text, was never adopted by the teachers of his perfuafion. Nor is it any wonder that they fhould unanimously reject it. For if, when our Lord faid, "Before Abraham was, I am ;" he only meant, I • am, before Abraham was, what the name Abraham fignifies; that is, The father of many nations;-in other words, That Chrift exifted before the Gentilesbecame the children of Abraham; if, I fay, this be the meaning of Jefus, never any expreffions were of a more obfcure, fallacious, and enfnaring kind.-But this novel and far fetched interpretation is abfolutely void of truth. For thefe words, "before Abraham was," do notfignify, 'before that eminent patriarch was Abraham ;' but before he who was honoured with that expreffive name had a being; before he was in the world. Even as thefe words, Before Pompey the Great was ;' do not fignify, before Pompey was furnamed, or was really the Great; but before he exifted.-Befides, the glofs of Socinus renders the affertion of Jefus abfurd. For what mighty wonder was it, that He fhould exift before the Gentiles became the children of Abraham ? The very meaneft perfon, who lived at that time, might have faid the fame of himself.

But another Socinian writer gives a more plausible interpretation of the text. He fuppofes, that Jefus was before Abraham, in the fame fenfe in which he is called, the Lamb flain from the foundation of the ' world.' In anfwer to which I obferve, That the two paffages are far from being parallel. The latter is evidently figurative; as appears by the term flain, or facrificed, and by other circumftances of the text. in the former, every thing leads to the literal fenfe. It is an objection perely literal which the Jews make,

But

.

when they fay; Thou art not yet fifty years old." Nor does the text before us, which fo ftrongly denotes the pre-existence of Chrift, exprefs any thing, when fo understood, but what is contained in great numbers of others. Befides, to render thefe two paffages perfectly fimilar, we muft fuppofe it recorded in Scripture; That Jefus, being in the form of a facrifice, was afterwards pleafed to take upon him the form of a man-That he came from fuffering when he appeared in the world That he died before Abraham was-That his cruci fixion and death were from ancient times-That he fuffered from the beginning, or ever the earth was-And that, juft before he made his exit on Calvary, he thus addreffed his Father; Behold me, ready to endure the fame fufferings which I underwent with thee before the world was.' But would not fuch language be confidered as falfe, abfurd, and ridiculous ? Would not fuch a way of fpeaking, concerning Jefus Chrift, be detefted; even though it must be allowed, that the Holy Spirit does call him, "The Lamb flain "from the foundation of the world?"

Further: In the paffage quoted from the Revelation, there feems to be one of thofe tranfpofitions which are common in the Scriptures, and in all forts of authors; and if fo, it may be thus rendered: "And all that are "upon the earth fhall worship him, whofe names are not "written, from the foundation of the world, in the book "of life of the Lamb flain *." Thefe words, " from the "foundation of the world;" being connected with, "written in the book of life." For eternal predeftination to grace and holinefs, to happiness and glory, is the thing intended by thofe expreffions; and that divine purpofe, refpecting the chofen of God, is reprefented as the reafon why they fhall not worship the beaft, and perish in their iniquity. Such being the general fenfe of the text, it does not feem at all neceffary to fuppofe,

that the eternal efficacy of our Lord's atonement made on the cross, is intended by thefe words; "Slain from "the foundation of the world;" though we readily allow, that all the people of God, from the beginning, were pardoned and faved in virtue of it.-And though, according to this tranflation, the term flain is tranfpofed; yet, when it is confidered that Jefus is reprefented, in the Revelation of John, not only as a lamb, but alfo as a lamb flain and facrificed; we have no reafon to wonder that the names of the elect are faid to be written, not only "in the book of the Lamb," but in that of the Lamb Jain.

In reference, therefore, to these words, "Before "Abraham was, I am;" our adverfaries muft either fay, that Chrift was before Abraham in the purpose of God; or, that he was before that illuftrious patriarch became the father of many nations. But thefe interpretations are contemptibly weak, and render the expreffions abfolutely unworthy of the Divine Speaker. Is it not very furprifing, think you, that Chrift fhould have existed in the decree of God, before Abraham was born? There is nothing in this which may not be faid of all men, univerfally, who have lived fince that patriarch's time. Is it not alfo aftonishing, that the Meffiah should exift, before the Gentiles were become the children of Abraham? This was true of all the apoftles, even of Judas the traitor. And was it to confirm fuch childish fancies as thefe, that the Wonderful Counsellor and the Wifdom of God, made ufe of that folemn affeveration, verily? "VERILY, VERILY, I fay unto you, before "Abraham was, I am."

But admitting there was a difficulty in this paffage, which, to us, appears fo clear, fo exprefs and peremptory; yet it would be but reafonable to explain it by many other parallel places, which evidently affert the preexistence of Jefus Chrift. It is an eafy matter for a man of learning, of genius, and of a fruitful invention, to find out a number of fubtile diftinctions; but it is not

fo easy for him to reft satisfied in them, when they are invented. When they tell me, for inftance, That • Christ was before the prophets, and before Abraham, in excellence and dignity; and that we understand of a priority in exiflence, what the Scripture fpeaks of a pre-eminence in dignity;' my judgment cannot acquiefce in it. For the word of infpiration affures me repeatedly, that the Lord Redeemer" is the First and "the Laft." Here the diftinction is of no avail, but rather tends to embarrass them. For he is the firft, in that refpect in which he ought to be the laft: for they will not fay that he is the lastin dignity. It cannot, therefore, be a priority of excellence that is here meant.-And how comes He to be reprefented to us, as " without beginning of days?" We cannot examine all thofe paffages which fpeak of the pre-exiflence and eternal Divinity of our adored Redeemer, but we fhall confider a few more of them with particular care.

CHAPTER VII.

The fame Truth evinced, from Phil. ii. 5-8.

PAUL, in his epistle to the church of Christ at Philippi, fays; "Let this mind be in you, which "was alfo in Chrift Jefus. Who, being in the form "of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: "but made himself of no reputation, and took upon "him the form of a fervant, and was made in the "likeness of men. And, being found in fashion as a 66 Iman, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto "death, even the death of the crofs."-This empha tical and admirable paffage is thus paraphrafed by the Socinians. Who being in the form of God';

⚫ commanding the creatures and controlling the elements when he was upon earth, as if he had been God; did not detain and obftinately infift on an equality with God, as one that is guilty of robbery. But he renounced this equality, to make himself of no reputation; taking the form of a fervant, in obeying, though he commanded before, being treated as a flave, and becoming like ordinary men: and this though he was before in the form of God, by the power with which he was invefted; and, fhewing himself obedient, he fubmitted to the death of the crofs.'-Such is the interpretation of our adverfaries. But, it may be. obferved, that thefe expreffions, "In the form of God

-thought it not robbery-made himself of no reputa "tion-took the form of a fervant"-fuffer manifeft violence by this explanation. The following confiderations may ferve to fhew the inconfiftency there is, between the text and the comment.

When we meet with a fingular expreffion in Scripture, it is natural to explain it by fuch as are parallel, or, at leaft, have fome likeness to it. Our opponents, therefore, if they confider this phrase, "being in the form "of God," as extraordinary, fhould compare it with thofe paffages which, in their natural import, fignify nearly the fame thing. Such, for inftance, as the following: "In the beginning was the Word-The "Word was God. All things were made by him, and "without him was not any thing made that was made. "The true God-God bleffed for ever."-Does Paul inform us, that our Lord was "in the form of God," before he made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a fervant? Conformably to this John declares, that "the Word was in the beginning, and "that the Word was God." As, according to the one, the Word was God, before he was made flesh; fo, according to the other, Chrift was in the form of God, prior to his taking the form of a fervant, or his