foretold, for the Christ; but if he had not had an existence before Abraham's days, neither could he have seen Abraham, nor could Abraham have seen him 48."

In his own liberal and gentle spirit, Dr. Price, in his Discourses upon the Person of Christ, p. 135, makes the following observations upon the Unitarian interpretation of this text:

:

"The interpretations which the Socinians give of these texts are such as cannot easily occur to any plain man. By saying that he existed before Abraham, they think that he only meant that his existence was intended before Abraham and by the glory which he had with the Father before the world was, they understand the glory which he had in the divine foresight and appointment before the world was. I must own to you that I am inclined to wonder that wise and good men can satisfy themselves with such explanations. But I correct myself. I know that Christians, amidst their differences of opinion, are too apt to wonder at one another, and to forget the allowances which ought to be made for the darkness in which we are all involved. Sensible of this truth, and hoping to be excused if I should ever express my conviction in too strong language, I proceed to recite to you some other texts 49."

It cannot, I think, be denied that the words of our Lord in this declaration to the Jews, will, when considered in their grammatical import and construction, bear the sense

“The learned prelate conjectures that the evangelist wrote Apaau εώρακε σε "did Abraham see thee?" which he thinks would best suit the connexion: but his conjecture is unsupported by any authority.

19 It is curious to observe how Dr. Clarke, Dr. Price, and Dr. Harwood are led away by the notion that the Socinian interpretation is languid, forced, and unnatural, without assigning any reason why they think so, and without reflecting that a sense which, from established associations, may appear most obvious and natural to one, may to another, whose train of associations is different, appear forced and farfetched. The bishop of Rochester (Dr. Pearce) does not fall into this

error.

which the Arian expositors annex to them, and in which the Jews appear to have understood them.

But against this interpretation it may be alleged, that the word, even when used absolutely, very rarely, if ever, expresses simple existence 50; that it is not probable that our Lord would have been so very open and explicit upon this high and mysterious subject to his enemies, when he was so reserved to his friends, and does not appear to have hinted it even to his disciples 51; that if he had intended in this instance to announce his own pre-existence so very explicitly as many believe, he would have taught this extraordinary doctrine more frequently, in a greater variety of phrase, and would have laid greater stress upon it; and finally that this fact, so solemnly declared, would have been more attended to, and would have made a more permanent and vivid impression. It would have been a subject of general conversation and scrutiny, of admiration, or offence. Whereas the idea of such a claim on the part of our Lord vanished immediately. The disciples did not notice it. The Jews did not repeat it. And it is not alleged as a charge against our Saviour that he arrogated this extraordinary attribute. It is probable therefore that Jesus did not mean to be understood in

30" By interpreting u as meaning to exist, they take it in a sense different from its most common acceptation, and from the meaning in which it is used in every instance in which it occurs in this very chapter." Simpson's Essay ix. p. 105.

"Did we not daily experience," says an excellent writer, (Mr. Lindsey) in the Comment. and Essays, vol. i. p. 408," the power of prejudice to darken our understandings, and hinder us from seeing the most palpable contradictions, one might be surprised that any could ever suppose our Lord to be so very open and familiar with those Pharisees, his most bitter adversaries, as to tell them such a wonderful secret concerning himself, that he was the I AM, Jehovah, the eternal God, as some construe his words, or according to others, that he had existed with God from the beginning, before the world was, at the same time that he kept his disciples quite in the dark about things so prodigious and extraordinary."

the

the sense in which the Jews did or pretended to apprehend him, and for which the Arian expositors contend. Another sense may be given to our Lord's declaration, which is liable to fewer objections, and which is perfectly consistent with the proper humanity of Christ.

3. "Before Abram shall become Abraham, I am he," i. e. the Christ.

It was promised to Abraham that he should be the father of many nations; and, as a pledge of the accomplishment of this promise, by special divine appointment his name was changed from Abram to Abraham. Gen. xvii. 4, 5. In this declaration to the Jews, our Lord solemnly avers, that before the accomplishment of this promise to Abraham he appears as the Messiah.

This explanation of the text was proposed, though not absolutely adopted, by Slichtingius, Wolzogenius, Stegman, and others of the old Socinians. It has been revived and defended by a writer in the Theological Repository, vol. iv. p. 348; and Dr. Carpenter, in his Letters to Mr. Veysie, p. 246, expresses his approbation of it. In favour of this interpretation it is stated, 1.) That the original word (yeverba) does not necessarily refer to past time, but much more frequently, and in the writings of this evangelist uniformly, to that which is future 52. 2.) That as the second clause is allowed to be elliptical, so probably is the first; and the ellipsis cannot be better supplied than by this hypothesis. 3.) That this interpretation retains the proper sense of the present tense (I am) in the second clause, a sense which it bears uniformly in

"The word yɛverbal occurs 38 times in the New Testament. In five passages only it signifies past time. Luke iii. 22; ix. 36. Acts xxii. 17. Phil. i. 13. 1 Thess. i. 7. In John xiii. 19, the phrase po TH YEvotai is found, which is properly rendered before it shall come to pass.' And John xiv. 29, the very same words occur which are used in ch. viii. 53; πply YEYECαl, where they must refer to future time. I have now told you before it come to pass." Theol. Rep. vol. iv. p. 348.

all

all other places where the words are used absolutely. That nothing but absolute necessity will justify a departure from this usage. And though it cannot be denied that in some instances the present indicative, I am, has the sense of the preterperfect, I have been, it does not appear that it is ever used for I was 53. 4.) This interpretation connects well with the tenor of our Lord's discourse: Your father Abraham desired to see my day: he did see it, and rejoiced. "And verily I say, that the time for the accomplishment of what he foresaw is not yet arrived for before Abram shall be Abraham, i. e. become the father of many nations, according to the import of his name, I am the Christ your Messiah 54." 5.) This declaration of his superiority to Abraham best accounts for the violent rage of the Jews, who would rather have been disposed to treat our Lord with contempt, as a lunatic, if they had understood him as meaning nothing more than that he existed before Abraham was born.

To these arguments it is replied, 1.) That this solution is not necessary; for it is universally admitted that the common interpretation of the first clause is fully justifiable and it is generally agreed that the authorities for giving a preterite signification to the latter clause are competent and satisfactory. 2.) If the proposed interpretation is just, the text ought to have stood thus: "before Abram shall become Abraham." The present ellipsis is too harsh, and the mode of supplying it quite arbitrary. 3.) The word Abraham always in the New Testament occurs

53 See Note 46, p. 49.

Theol. Repos. vol. iv. p. 351. See also Slichtingius and Wolzogenius in loc. The latter seems to give the preference to this interpretation, which the former does not. Both these learned critics state at large the two Unitarian interpretations of this text, and neither of them seems to feel any difficulty in assigning to μ a preterite signification.

as

as a proper name, and is never used in a mystical sense 55. 4.) It is a trifling proposition, and unworthy of the solemnity with which it is introduced, that Christ existed as the Messiah before an event which it was known was not to happen till many years or ages afterwards 56. 5.) The connexion with the preceding context is not very obvious. It is no reply to the objection of the Jews. Nor does it at all illustrate or vindicate our Lord's own assertion, "that Abraham had seen his day." The declaration, "I am the Messiah before the promises are fulfilled to Abraham,” seems both insulated and irrelevant. 6.) It is an interpretation altogether novel, and unheard of till it was proposed by the Polish Socinians 57.

4. "Before Abraham was born, I was he:" i. e. the Christ.

5666

55It being evident that the discourse is of Abraham's person, it is incongruous here to introduce a mystical sense of the word, which the Jews never thought of, and which had Christ intended, he would in all likelihood have said πριν Αβραμ γενεσθαι Αβρααμ." Whitby. Ipsa Græca phrasis vel sola, satis refutat Socinianos, qui mirè torquent hæc verba, quasi Salvator id dicere voluerit, se jam esse antequam Abram factus sit Abraham, id est pater multarum gentium: quod contigit post ascensionem Christi. Solent isti homines valde ingeniosi et acuti haberi. Sed vere dicam in hujus loci explicatione ita versantur, ut acumen omne perdidisse, et obtusissimi esse videantur. Quid enim jejunius dici cogitarive potest, quam Salvatorem hoc sensisse, se jam esse, antequam ea fierent, quæ aliquot annis post futura erant? Nam quis sanus ita loquitur? Et quid hoc ad istud, propter quod Judæi Jesum, quasi blasphema locutum lapidibus obruere volebant." Raphel. Annot. tom. i. p. 651.

Now, without adopting the hard words of this learned and orthodox eritic, it may surely be permitted to remark, that when our Lord thought fit publicly and plainly to announce to the Jews the offensive truth that he was himself their Messiah, it was hardly consistent with the dignity of his character, with the greatest solemnity of language to announce another fact, which every one present must have known as well as himself, viz. that if he really was the promised Messiah, he was such antecedently to an event which was then future. What would be thought of a certain great personage, if he should say, solemnly aver that even before the princess Charlotte becomes queen of England, I am now prince of Wales." Num quis sanus ita loquitur?

"I

This interpretation is contrary to all antiquity, as their (the Socinian) expositions in these cases use to be." Whitby.

q. d.