of Chrift would teftify before hand the very circumftances in which he should expressly utter the language under confideration, to his fervants, Go ye, and teach all nations,—and lo, I am with you; and that all their strength for that work, and comfort in it, depended on this declaration.

I fhall only add, that Jefus appropriates this divine language to himself, at the very time that he commanded the difciples to baptize all nations in his Name, as well as in that of the Father and Spirit. The force of this command may be afterwards illustrated.

On other occafions, our Lord speaks of himself in the fame style. He said to the Jews, If ye believe not that I am, ye fhall die in your fins, John viii. 24. He evidently speaks in this manner, with respect to his divine origin, which he declared to be unknown to the Jews, ver. 14. Ye cannot tell whence I come. Now, he could not have faid this in truth, had he had no higher origin than his birth of Mary. For with this they were all acquainted, Matt. xiii. 55. He had faid, I am not alone, but I and the Father that fent me, ver. 16. language which we cannot conceive to be applicable, in any sense, to a creature. He had declared that they did not know his Father, and that if they had known him, they would have known his Father alfo, ver. 19. He had faid, as in the verse immediately preceding, I am from above. That this directly refpects his origin, we learn from the use of the fame language by John Baptift; who contrasts his own earthly origin with his, who, being from above, must of neceffity be above all, chap. iii. 31. In the clofe of this difcourfe, our Lord uses that remarkable expreffion, Before Abraham was, I am, ver. 58. It is clear that he proclaims himfelf to be a divine Perfon. For when Abraham is spoken of, the verb youa is ufed. But au is introduced to exprefs the existence of the Saviour. The first properly denotes fuch a being as implies beginning, and refers to

birth or creation. But the other is always used, when felfexiftence is meant. The fame diftinction is here observed, as in the introduction to this Gospel. Whereas the Evangelift fays, In the beginning mv, was the Word, the existence of all creatures is very differently expreffed; All things EYEVETO, were made by him. Thus our Lord opposes his own eternal existence to the making, or, which is the fame, to the birth of Abraham. He also speaks of his own existence in the present time, while that of Abraham is expreffed in the paft: Before Abraham was made, or, born, I am. Thus, he opposes the immutability of his existence to the changeable nature of the creature. Here there seems to be a tacit, though ftriking reply to their own teftimony concerning Abraham and the prophets, ver. 53. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets' are dead. It was a full answer to the question fubjoined, WHOM makeft thou thyfelf? It is as if he had faid, " By your own "confeffion, the most that can be faid of Abraham, is, that "he was; but, in every period of time, it may justly be "faid of me, that I am." Thefe words must be viewed in their connexion with the awful declaration he had formerly made, ver. 24. If ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your fins. They were fo to believe this, as to be affured in their minds that he existed before Abraham. This faith alone could preferve them from condemnation.

To fay, that this is a mere enallage, is ridiculous. For we cannot fuppofe fo unufual a change of the present for the past, without a very peculiar reafon. Some have pretended, that our Lord here speaks of his being before Abrabam, as to the decree. But it has been juftly urged in reply, that the word a am, when used abfolutely, denotes actual existence, and that this is confirmed by the ufe of the pronoun ɛyw, I; that there is nothing in the context to fhew that the language of our Saviour is not to be understood abfolutely; that, as the question proposed by the Jews respected his per

fonal existence, whether he had seen Abraham, if his answer did not also respect this, it was not in point; and that, as it was our Lord's defign to fhew that he was older than Abraham, if he only declared, that he was fore-ordained in the purpose of God, before Abraham's birth, it proved nothing; because, in the fame sense, every one of his hearers might have claimed a priority *.

To fuppofe that Jefus meant to evade a direct answer to their question, is to do him the greatest injury. It is to charge him with the profanation of a folemn oath. For he prefaces his declaration with these words, Amen, amen; which he never ufes, but on the most important occafions and interefting fubjects. For this was the Jewish mode of fwearing; and as ufed by him, expreffes his most folemn testimony, as the Amen, the faithful and true witness. Here also we find him expreffing himself in language never employed, either by prophets, or by apoftles; Verily, verily, I SAY unto you. The prophets had always exhibited God as the speaker. Their common introduction was, Thus faith the Lord. The apostles never delivered a meffage in their own name. But Jefus ftill expreffed himself in this

manner.

The vanity of another Socinian fubterfuge, that our Lordmeans to affert his existence, before Abraham was made, -the father of many nations, has been fully illuftrated by Dr Whitby, in his expofition of this paffage. But it is fo egregiously mean, that the Jews themfelves, though, for the honour of their father Abraham, they had inclined to torture our Saviour's language, would have blushed to have used it.

“The mean

Dr P. gives another view of these words. "ing of this paffage," he says, " clearly is, that Abraham 46 forefaw the day of Chrift, and that Chrift was the fubject

of

* Vide Lampe in loc.

"of prophecy before the times of Abraham." It is fometimes of great ufe, in a bad caufe, for a man to feem confident of its goodness. But matters are not quite fo clear as the Doctor apprehends. For the question, to which this was the answer, was not, "Hath Abraham seen thee?" but, Haft thou Jeen Abraham? And furely, there is a confiderable difference between the two. What Abraham faw, was the day of Chrift. But if Chrift's reply has any relation to the question, or any meaning; what he saw, was Abraham himself. The learned gentleman, in his view, blends two things totally different. The Jews feem to have at first misunderstood our Saviour, when he faid, Abraham faw my day; as if he had afferted, that he had seen Abraham's day. Therefore they faid, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and haft thou feen Abraham? But Jefus, in his reply, fhews them that what they inferred by mistake, was true in itself. Had he faid, " Before Abraham was, I was," it would have been lefs ridiculous to have explained it of his being "the subject of prophecy." But what does our author make of that expreffion, I am? However, though it had been, I was, the sense impofed by him would still be extremely unnatural. What would the Jews have thought of John Baptift, had he told them that he was before Jeremiah, fecretly meaning that he had been prophefied of by Ifaiah? If the learned writer have no clearer illustrations of scripture to offer to the public, for the honour of the word of God, and for the credit of his own understanding, which perhaps weighs as much with him, he had better confine himself to studies that feem more fuitable to his genius.

He adds; "This faying of our Lord is illuftrated by "what the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews fays con"cerning all the ancient worthies, viz. that they all died in "faith,

Famil. Illuftr. p. 40.

faith, not having received the promises, but having feen "them afar off. In this manner, therefore, Abraham faw "the day of Chrift." This quotation, indeed, illustrates the first" saying of our Lord."—He faw it, and was glad. But what comes of the fecond? Before Abraham was, I am. Though Abraham faw the day of Chrift afar off, what is this to the purpose of Christ's seeing Abraham, though he did not seem to be fifty years old?

Dr Prifiley's objection to the argument from the use of the title, I AM, confidered.

TH

HE only notice that our author directly takes of this remarkable expreffion, is in the following obfervation. "As to those who think that our Lord meant to in"timate that he was truly and properly God because he "used that expreffion I am, by which the true God announ"ced himself to Mofes, they will perhaps be fenfible how "little ftrefs is to be laid upon it, when they are informed, "that, though the fame phrafe occurs very often in the hiftory of Chrift, our tranflators themselves in every place excepting this, render it by I am he, that is, I am the "Christ. It is used in this fenfe in the 24th verfe of this "Chapter, If ye believe not that I am be, ye shall die in 'your fins. And again in the 28th verse, When ye shall

66

66

66

(have) lift up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I "am be." This, then, is the mighty proof of "the "little ftrefs to be laid upon it,"-the authority of a tranflation. Can this be the fame perfon, who, in the page immediately preceding, quarrels with the tranflation of that expreflion in Phil. ii. 6. rendered equal with God. Quan

* Famil. Illuftr. p. 41.

tum