No conclusion can be more unfounded.

The word

Jeλw, I will,' expresses nothing more than simple desire, I request.' Matt. xii. 38, "Master, we desire (Jɛλoμɛv) to see a sign from thee." See also Mark vi. 25; x. 35.

Father, I request that they whom thou hast given me be with me where I am;' or, as Dr. Campbell renders it, ' where I shall be.' The present tense is used for the future, to denote the certainty of the event.

That they may behold my glory which thou hast given me.' That glory is described as actually given, which it was the purpose and determination of God to bestow: See ver. 5.

This glory, it has been proved already, was that of instructing and reforming the world. Our Lord prays that his apostles may be witnesses to the great success of his Gospel.

How low and unworthy of our Saviour's character, to suppose that he prays thus earnestly for nothing more than that his apostles might be admitted to see some personal honour with which he was to be hereafter adorned!

"For thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." 9. d. In thine eternal counsels thou didst select

But this is nothing to the language of Dr. Guyse, whose exposition would lead us to conclude that the Father wished to be off his bargain, if the Son had not held him closely to the terms of the bond. "The upshot, O my Father, of my will and pleasure, which I insist on as matter of right, according to my purchase and thy agreement, is, that all whom thou hast given me may be admitted into my immediate presence in heaven, where I already am in my divine nature, and for ever shall be in my entire person," &c.

The learned Calvin, whose disciples these pious expositors professed to be, would have taught them better if they had consulted his Commentary: "Velle pro optare positum est: neque enim præcipientis, sed rogantis, est oratio." "This argument," says Dr. Campbell, "is built upon an Anglicism in their translations, for which the sacred author is not accountable."

me

me to the high honour of being the messenger of peace and good-will to mankind".

To love, in Scripture phraseology, is to select to peculiar privileges. Rom. ix, 11-13," Before the children were born, having done neither good nor evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, it was said, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated;" i. e. I have chosen, without regard to personal merit, to grant privileges to Jacob which will be denied to Esau.

XII.

1 Cor. xv. 47. "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven 70.

"He came originally from the heavenly world to which he is now returned." Doddridge.

The Polish Socinians, who believed that Christ after his ascension was advanced to a dignity superior to that of the highest angel, and was constituted vice-regent of the whole created universe, understand this text as asserting that the body of Christ was of celestial substance and origin 71.

'The

69 He prays that his apostles and followers may be partakers of his spiritual gifts, and contribute to the spreading of the Gospel, and promoting the virtue and happiness of mankind, in which he himself had been destined before all ages to be the prime instrument, and they to have the honour of being inferior workmen under him." Lindsey's Sequel, p. 257.

το ὁ δεύτερος ανθρωπος ὁ Κύριος εξ εραν8. The words & Κυρίος are wanting in the Ephrem, Clermont, and four other manuscripts in the Coptic, Ethiopic, Vulgate, and Italic versions; in Origen, Basil, Gregory Nyssen and Nazianzen, Tertullian, Cyril, and others. It is said that they were introduced by Marcion. The words i apavios are added at the end of the verse in two uncial MSS. and in the Vulgate and Ethio ic version: and they are cited by Ambrose, Augustin, Jerome, &c. The genuine reading perhaps is ὁ δεύτερος ανθρωπος εξ έρανε, ὁ δράνιος. See Griesbach." Primus homo de terra, terrenus: secundus homo de cœlo, cœlestis." Vulgate.

71" Quasi dixisset apostolus, Secundus homo, nimirum, Dominus ille, ex cœlo, scilicet, est: habita nempe ratione corporis." Crellius.-

• The second man will be the Lord from heaven,' i. e. will descend from heaven to raise the dead. This is the interpretation of Newcome, Whitby, Alexander, and others, who, though themselves believers in the doctrine, do not regard this passage as asserting the pre-existence of Christ.

The Vulgate reads the text, "The first man was of the earth, earthy. The second man will be from heaven, heavenly."

This is not improbably the true reading; and the sense is, The first man, taken from the earth, was frail and mortal; the second man will descend from heaven in a heavenly form, and with immortal radiance and vigour.'

XIII.

2 Cor. viii. 9. "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be

rich."

No person, whose mind was not wholly pre-occupied with a persuasion of the pre-existence of Christ, would

This ingenious and learned writer proceeds to state the expedience and necessity that the body of Christ should be of heavenly substance. "So great a being," says he, "than whom no one is more nearly united to God, who is raised above all celestial spirits, so as to govern them all, God only excepted, annon decuit, immo annon etiam necesse fuit, celestem etiam naturam et angelicam, si non præstantiorem saltem parem, Dei autem ipsius naturæ simillimam et proximam adipisci ?"

Slichtingius and Brennius, both of them men of great learning and ability, adopt the same strange interpretation. It is chiefly in this extravagant notion of the advancement of a human being to the government of the universe, and making him the object of religious worship, a doctrine which, as Dr. Price says, "would make Christianity itself incredible," that the Unitarians of the present day differ from the old Socinians; to whom, notwithstanding their gross error in this particular, they nevertheless look with great veneration, as the most enlightened critics and expositors of the age in which they lived.egave, i. e. spavios, " cœlestis: habens jam corpus cœleste." Grotius.

ever dream of finding it in this text. If the fact were antecedently established, this passage might indeed be admitted as a graceful allusion to it: but it can never with any propriety be alleged as a proof. For when it is said of any man, that though he is rich he spends nothing, who in his senses infers from it that he existed before he was born? Upon this principle, every miser would have a claim to pre-existence. Dr. Clarke, with great propriety, takes no notice of this text in his arguments for the preexistence of Christ. Others, with less judgement, have held it up as a decisive proof of this favourite doctrine, and have indulged to no little asperity of reflection upon those who thought differently.

"He was rich"-" rich," says Dr. Doddridge, “in the glories of the heavenly world, and in supreme dominion and authority there, yet for your sakes he became poor."

"Rich," says archbishop Newcome," in the glories of the divine nature, he became poor by taking on him human nature, and appearing even in a humble state of life."

"Rich," says Dr. Harwood (Soc. Sch. p. 46,)" in his pre-existent state in glory, honour, and happiness, with a greatness of soul which can never be sufficiently extolled, he abdicated all this, and became poor. The apostle's argument upon this scheme only is cogent, apposite, and very elegant and persuasive. To interpret this of our Lord being rich in miracles, and becoming poor in them at his crucifixion, is such a jejune and forced criticism, as I imagine was never used to explain any author."

This lofty language is now become too familiar to excite alarm: and, as inquirers after truth, we are to consider not what the apostle's expositors are pleased to say for him, but what he has actually said himself; which is this:

"Ye know the kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, that

though

though he was rich, yet for your sakes he lived in poverty", that ye through his poverty might be rich."

Observe here, that the apostle does not say that having been rich he became poor; that he passed from an antecedent state of opulence to a subsequent state of poverty; much less does he insinuate that the riches which our Lord possessed consisted in the dignity and felicity of a pre-existent state. The apostle affirms the existence of two contemporary events, that Christ was rich, and, at the same time, that he lived in poverty. That this is the proper primary meaning of the apostle's words, no person acquainted with the original can doubt. Whether the genius of the Greek language will even admit of the sense

72 The only shadow of argument which can be adduced from this text in favour of the pre-existence of Christ, is from the words EπTWXEUTE TR80105 Wv in the public version, though he was rich he became poor. But 1.) The verb TTXEυw does not properly signify 'to become poor,' but to be poor.'--Stephan. Thes. TTXEUw, ' mendicus sum,' 'mendicus vivo.' He translates the text' q. vestri causâ mendicans vixit.'-Constantin. Lex. πTXEυw, inops dego,'' mendico.' In the New Testament it only occurs in this place, in the LXX., six times. See Trommii Concord. in verb.

For

2.) The construction requires that the two states should be simultaneous. The aorist expresses a perfect action, in past definite time; which time is ascertained by the connexion. Christ ETTWXEUGE,' was poor.' When ?—πλ000105_wv, ' at the time that he was rich.' this observation I am indebted to the late reverend and learned James Pickbourn, who distinguished himself by the accuracy of his remarks upon the English verb, and by some other learned publications. It is objected that πλέσιος ων may refer to past time, as τυφλος ων, John ix. 25, signifies having been blind.' But the adverb aρti, now I see,' which immediately follows, shows that the participle which precedes is to be understood in a preterite sense. And had the apostle intended to express that the state of poverty was subsequent to that of affluence, he would probably have introduced the word ειτα, or ύστε ρον, before the verb επτωχευσε.

The most accurate critics and commentators translate and expound the words as expressing simultaneous and not successive states. "Cum vi ita polleret omnis generis miracula patrandi, personam tamen gessit, tam humilem, ut ne domum quidem haberet propriam." Grotius in loc. To the same purpose Slichtingius and Brennius. "Consider the kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, being rich, he was poor on account of you." Wakefield's Inquiry, p. 176.

commonly