tination and appointment of God. My commission as Messiah was fixed and determined by the Almighty, before Abraham had a being. But this is saying nothing peculiar to the Messiah; for known to God are all his works. The existence and the circumstances of the meanest creatures were as much fore-ordained as those of the highest angel. The natural meaning of the words is, that Christ had a being before the birth of Abraham. Πριν γενεσθαι εκεινον is a common classical phrase for, before his birth: and although you might rather have been expected, as he is speaking of existence in a past time, yet the present tense does affirm existence; and there is a reason for this peculiar mode of expression which will occur afterwards. This obvious interpretation of the words is very much confirmed by the circumstances in which they were spoken. Our Lord had said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad." The Jews understood from this expression that he had seen Abraham, that is, they understood him to affirm that he existed in Abraham's day; and they answered, "Thou art not fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" Our Lord had not said that he had seen Abraham, but, because it was true, he does not disavow it; and he confirms the conclusion which they had drawn from his former saying, by declaring expressly that he existed not only in the time, but before the birth of Abraham. "Before Abraham was, I am." They did not mistake his meaning; but they were filled with indignation at the presumption which his words appeared to them to discover; and "they took up stones to cast at him." Other texts, as John xvi. 28, John xiii. 3, 1 Cor. xv. 47, 2 Cor. viii. 9, also teach the pre-existence of Jesus.

To assist you in understanding the principles of that solution, by which the Socinians endeavour to evade the force of the plainest declarations concerning the pre-existence of Jesus, I shall give a particular account of the manner in which they explain John xvii. 5. "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine ownself, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Jesus appears in this place to declare explicitly, and at a most solemn time, when he "lift up his eyes to heaven," and in the hearing of his disciples prayed to God immediately before he went out to the garden where he was betrayed, that he had glory with the Father before the world was and it is very remarkable that he introduces the mention of this glory, when it was not necessary to complete the sense of any proposition; for he is praying that God would glorify him. And yet, as if on purpose to prevent the apostles who heard the prayer from supposing that he was asking that which he had not possessed in any former period, he adds, " with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." To a plain reader it would seem, that, if Jesus never had any such glory, these words, uttered in such circumstances, discover the highest presumption and impiety. But, observe the Socinian exposition: "The glory for which Jesus prays is something posterior to his sufferings; yet he speaks of it in the 22d and 24th verses as already given him, την δόξαν την εμην ήν ἔδωκας εμοι. He had not at this time received it; but the Father had promised it. And since the promise of God can never fail, he considers it as fully his own as if he had been in possession of it. In the same manner he says he

6

had glory with. God before the world was; not that he had really been in possession of it before the world was, but because it was then destined for him by God. God is said to have chosen us before the foundation of the world;' and the kingdom of heaven is said to be prepared for us from the beginning of the world, although we had then no being. And so Christ says that God loved him, and that he had glory with God before he had a being. And the glory for which he prays is not his own private advancement, but the success of that gospel by which the virtue and happiness of mankind were to be promoted. This had been his sole aim, for which he had lived, and for which he was about to die. And now, at the approach of death, he says, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, complete thine own work in the happy beneficial consequences of my death, and speedy restoration to life, as in thine all-wise eternal purpose thou hast decreed." These are the most exalted sentiments which can be conceived to animate a human breast and I doubt not you feel, as I have often felt, that admiration of these sentiments creates a kind of prejudice in favour of that interpretation, which supposes them to be uttered, in the most trying scenes, by a mere man. But we should recollect that there are many occasions in which the influence of the principle of admiration makes us overlook the simplicity of truth; and that the excellence of an object is then really known, not when it is magnified by your imaginations in a particular light, but when its whole nature is considered. The Scriptures, by teaching clearly the pre-existence of Jesus, by representing him as acting at all times under a consciousness of his original dignity, and an assurance of his exaltation, do not leave room for that enigmatical exposition of the words of this prayer, by which his sentiments at the close of his life are assimilated to the heroism of mortals. The expressions which he uses, according to the plain sense of them, are becoming him who knew whence he came and whither he was going; and, if they do not present us with an extraordinary effort of mere human virtue in the Son of man, they present us with a worthier object of our faith and hope, the Son of God, who had been made man returning to his Father.

Before I leave those passages which teach the pre-existence of Jesus, it is proper to speak of a title, the true meaning of which is intimately connected with this subject. One of the grounds of the Socinian opinion, I said, is this, that Jesus commonly designs himself the Son of man, and that the other title, the Son of God, which he sometimes assumes, admits of an interpretation not inconsistent with his being a mere man. This interpretation the Socinians derive from different passages of Scripture, where Jesus is styled the Son of God, for reasons that have no connexion with his existence in a previous state. The first is his miraculous conception. The angel said to Mary, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee," i. e. begotten of thee," shall be called the Son of God." The second is the distinguished commission which he received as Messiah, and the honour conferred upon him. For, in the language of the New Testament, the Christ, or Messiah, and the Son of God, are used as equivalent interchangeable terms. "We believe,"

66

said the disciples, "that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." The High Priest asked Jesus at his trial, " Art thou the Son of the blessed?" and John concludes his gospel with saying, "These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." There is still a third reason upon account of which Jesus is called in Scripture the Son of God, and that is his resurrection. For Paul says, Acts xiii. 33, " God hath fulfilled the promise which was made unto the fathers, in that he hath raised up Jesus again, as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee:" and he says in his Epistle to the Romans, "Jesus was declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead." It appears undeniably from these passages that there is an intimate connection in the language of Scripture between this title, the Son of God, and these three circumstances, the miraculous conception, the office, and the resurrection of Jesus. But none of these three necessarily imply that he existed in a previous state; and, therefore, it appears to me, that although it be natural to form the most exalted conceptions of a person called the Son of God, yet, if no other premises were given us, we should not be warranted to infer the pre-existence of Jesus from his bearing that name. You must first establish, by other evidence, that he did preexist, and then you infer from his being called the Son of God, that the meaning of that name is not exhausted by his miraculous conception, his office, and his resurrection, but that it serves farther to intimate the manner of his pre-existence. This reasoning would be fair and conclusive, if our Lord were called simply the Son of God. But its conclusiveness appears more manifest, when you consider those discriminating epithets which are joined to this name. God is our father by creation, and by the grace of the Gospel, and they who partake of that grace are often called his sons. But Jesus Christ is styled his own Son, the Son of his love, his beloved Son in whom he is well pleased; and in the Gospels and Epistles of John, the only begotten Son of God; all which imply, that the highest meaning of this title belongs to Jesus. It has been said that the phrase, only begotten Son, which is peculiar to John, means nothing more than beloved. But these two phrases are not synonymous amongst men. A child may be only begotten without being beloved, and he may be beloved without being only begotten. It is irreverent to suppose that so significant a phrase would be employed by John upon such a subject, in a sense so inferior to its natural import. And it is known that the Christians, from the earliest times, adopted in their creeds this phrase, his only begotten Son, or his only Son, as distinguishing Jesus from every other son of God.

Now, you will observe, that although the name of the Son of God is connected in Scripture with the miraculous conception of Jesus, his office, and his resurrection, none of these three come up to the meaning of this phrase, the only Son of God. Not his miraculous conception, he was indeed conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. But Adam also is called the Son of God; and unless you deny that Jesus was truly the son of Mary, you must admit that there was in this respect still greater propriety in giving the name of the Son of God to a person, who, being formed without father or mother out

of the dust of the earth, was still more immediately the workmanship of God.-Not his office as Messiah; for many special messengers had been sent by God to men in former times. In allusion to them, Jesus is often styled a prophet, a messenger, the sent of God. But the mark of distinction between him and them, which some prophecies of the Old Testament announce, and which the books of the New Testament often express, is this, that he is the Son of God, his only begotten Son; words which have no meaning, if they refer purely to that commission which he received in common with others, and which are always so introduced as to lead our thoughts to a character which he had before he received the commission. Neither does the resurrection of Jesus come up to the meaning of the phrase, the only begotten Son of God. He was indeed brought by the Father out of the bowels of the earth. But we are taught that all who are in their graves shall rise; and he himself hath said that they who are accounted worthy to obtain the world to come, are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection, υίοι εισι του Θεού, της αναστάσεως υίοι οντες. According to the views given in Scripture, Jesus is the first that rose from the dead never to die any more, and the resurrection of good men is the effect of his. He is thus, in respect of his resurrection, the first among many brethren. "Every one in his own order, Christ the first fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's." His resurrection was indeed the demonstration, that that name which he had taken to himself during his life did really belong to him; and therefore it is said, he "was declared to be the Son of God with power by his resurrection." But to say that his resurrection made him the Son of God, is to confound the evidence of a thing with the thing itself.

These few remarks may satisfy you, that neither the miraculous conception of Jesus, nor his office, nor his resurrection, contains the full import of this name, the only begotten Son of God. But there is a more ancient and a more exalted title to this name, which is inseparable from his nature. I enter not at present into the various and intricate speculations to which this subject has given occasion. We shall be better prepared afterwards for touching them slightly. I meant only, by connecting the mention of this name with those passages which teach the pre-existence of Jesus, to make you bear in your minds during the progress of our researches, that the peculiar reasons of a name which you will find uniformly appropriated to Jesus, are to be sought for not in the history of his appearance upon earth, but in those passages which contain the revelation of his pre-existent

state.

CHAPTER IV.

ACTIONS ASCRIBED TO JESUS IN HIS PRE-EXISTENT STATE.

Creation.

HAVING drawn from explicit declarations of Scripture sufficient evidence that Jesus existed before he was born of Mary, I am next to direct your attention to those passages which ascribe to him different actions in his pre-existent state. The nature of the actions, and the manner in which they are narrated, will unavoidably lead us to form some conception of the character and dignity which belonged to Jesus before he appeared upon earth; so that, if this branch of the examination shall confirm the belief of the pre-existence of Jesus, it will not only destroy the first opinion, but will assist us in comparing the grounds upon which the second and third opinions rest.

As no action in which we have any concern can be more ancient than creation, it is natural to begin with those passages in which creation is ascribed to Jesus. The Apostle Paul says, Eph. iii. 9, "God, who created all things by Jesus Christ." But as the last words, di Inoov Xgorov, are not found in the most ancient MSS. and were not quoted by any of the Christian writers before the Council of Nice, it is conjectured by Mill, in whose valuable edition of the Greek Testament all the various readings are collected, that these words were first written in the margin, as a commentary suggested by expressions in the other epistles, and were afterwards adopted by the transcribers of the New Testament into the text. The conjecture appears plausible, and the most zealous defender of the pre-existence of Jesus need not hesitate to subscribe to it: for our faith in this important article, that he is the Creator of the world, does by no means rest upon this incidental expression, which, supposing that it was not originally written by the apostle, would never have obtained a place in the text, had it not been literally derived from the more full declarations contained in other passages of Scripture.

These full declarations are found in the beginning of the gospel of John, in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, and in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. All the three appear to teach, explicitly and particularly, that Jesus is the Creator of the world. Yet they have received different interpretations, of which you ought not to be ignorant; and your being able to deduce with certainty that which we account the true meaning of the words, and to defend it against the objections by which it has been attacked,