The humanity which our Saviour thus derived from his Virgin Mother has been well described, as "a humanity with tears, but not with stains-accessible to anguish, but not prone to offend-allied most closely with produced misery, but infinitely removed from the producing cause."

But I pass on to a third and most distinguished peculiarity attributed to our Lord; viz. pre-existence.

The Scriptures unequivocally declare that he was in being, before he was born into this lower world. Let me refer you to one such passage in the Gospel of St. John,* where we shall find our Lord disputing with the Jews on points connected with his divine mission. "Your Father Abraham," he observes, "rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am." The meaning of this passage is sufficiently obvious. Indeed it would seem to be trifling with our Lord's integrity, and gravity of purpose, to suppose, that he meant to signify any thing less, than that he was prior in existence to the Patriarch Abraham.

The majority of Unitarians, rejecting altogether the doctrine of our Lord's pre-existence, do not, of course, thus interpret it. But they must give the passage some meaning; and the meaning which they usually give is this: "Before Abraham was, I was ordained by God's decree to be the Messiah, and designated to fill the office which I now sustain." Strange interpretation, and absurd as it is strange! The whole construction of the passage is utterly at variance with it. Admit such a principle of interpretation to prevail in our dealings with the Sacred Volume, and there is no one truth that can be established against the gainsayings of the sceptic.

. John, viii. 56-58.

In quoting this declaration of our Lord respecting his pre-existence, I waive all consideration of the force which many very learned critics* put upon the expression "I AM," as referring to the Divine appellation announced to Moses, "I AM THAT I AM;" and content myself, on the present occasion, with the following simple rendering: -"Before Abraham existed, I have existed."

And what language can be formed, more clearly, to denote both prior and continued existence-that Jesus Christ had an existence before the time of Abraham, and that he still existed in the same nature, whatever that nature might be? Nor are there wanting numerous passages, to prove, that Christ's pre-existence was not only more distant than the time of Abraham, but coeval with the origin of all things,-nay, before all things. He was "in the beginning"-before the world was. He is at once the Alpha and the Omega-the beginning and the ending—the first

* The following observations of Michaelis, on this passage, are very striking, "Jesus had not said that he had seen Abraham. This was another perverse construction, by which the Jews endeavoured to hold up his discourse to ridicule. Jesus might very properly have replied accordingly: but he allows the inference which they had drawn from his words, and he accepts it, in order to say of himself something still greater :-' Before Abraham, I AM.' Thus he proclaims himself to be more than a mere man, even one in whom dwells a superior and celestial nature. I AM, sounds somewhat harsh in our language: but I have retained it, as Luther did; for in the Greek itself this is not the usual form of expression, but it intimates something emphatical, something resembling the style in which the unchangeable God speaks of himself. The Jews well understood what Jesus meant they regarded it as a blasphemy, and they wished to stone him. They considered the guilt of blasphemy as so indubitable, that they were desirous of putting him instantly to death, in an extra-judicial manner. Yet, I do not maintain that these words are of themselves a complete proof of the eternal Deity of Christ; for he might have been before Abraham, yea, before the creation of the world, without being IN THE BEGINNING, as is said of the Word in John, c. i. 1, 2. Nevertheless, considering that passage with this, I believe that Christ here speaks of his eternal divine nature."-Anmerkung. See Smith's Scripture Testimony.

and the last. "He is before all things, and by him all things consist."

There is also an extensive class of Scriptural testimonies, referring to Christ's advent in the flesh, which serve to throw much light upon the mysterious character of his pre-existence, inasmuch as they intimate where, as well as when, he previously existed. Your time will permit me to do little more than quote some of them, with a few brief and passing observations.—And let our blessed Lord himself be the speaker. I refer you, first of all, to his discourse with Nicodemus, (John iii. 12, 13.) in which, after alluding to those heavenly things which he alone had power to reveal, he says; "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven."

I refer you, in the next place to his discourse with the multitudes who had followed him, after partaking of his miraculous bounty. John vi. 32-35. "My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. ***** Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life." At v. 38. "I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me." Again, at verse 41. "The Jews then murmured at him because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I come down from heaven." And then, after further discoursing upon the subject, and perceiving that many of his auditors were stumbled at this doctrine, he asks them at the 61st verse, "Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?" Can language, I demand, be more explicit

han this? Or can its obvious meaning be repudiated by by any candid inquirer after revealed truth?

Dr. Priestley's notice of this passage in his letters to Dr. Price is remarkable, and sufficiently exhibits the indocile state of mind with which he studied the Inspired Pages. Whilst he is constrained to confess that he was not satisfied with any interpretation of this passage which had been offered by the writers of his own party, he distinctly affirms that, "rather than believe that our Saviour existed in any other state before the creation of the world, he was willing to doubt the correctness of St. John's representation of his Lord's language, or to conclude that the aged apostle dictated one thing, and his amanuensis wrote another."

In a subsequent discussion which our Lord had with the Pharisees, recorded in St. John, chap. 8, we meet with intimations of a kindred character. "Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go." But how, I would ask, on the supposition that Jesus proceeded only from the womb of Mary, or possessed a merely earthly and carnal origin, were the Pharisees unable to tell whence he came?

At the 23d verse he un

"And he said unto them,

folds something of his meaning. Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.”

But at the 42d verse he is still more explicit. "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth, and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me."

Whether he addressed an individual, or a multitude,the captious Pharisees, or his obedient disciples-he bore a similar testimony. In his last discourse with his chosen

twelve, previously to his sufferings, he alluded to the same subject in very clear and pointed terms. Chap. xvi. 27, 28.-"The Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father."

And here I would pause for a moment, to inquire if this language does not, at first sight at least, appear to intimate that Christ previously existed with the Father, before he was born into this lower world; and whether, if this be not its obvious meaning, the signification must not be pronounced very enigmatical and obscure? But what was the reply of the apostles to our Lord when he uttered those memorable words? Not an intimation of their inability to comprehend his meaning, but, on the contrary, a thankful acknowledgment of his goodness in speaking to them so intelligibly and clearly. "His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.". Verses 29 and 30.

I will add one, and only one, more passage from the lips of our blessed Saviour, which he spake not unto men, but unto God; not in his discourses with those from whom he purposely withheld much that was afterwards to be revealed, but in his filial and confidential addresses to his heavenly Father. Chap. xvii. 5.-"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

Were it my object, brethren, to express in the strongest possible terms the pre-existence of Christ, in happiness and glory, I confess I should find it difficult to select language more suitable to my wishes, than that which is