withstanding of far more worth and greater dignity than I am; even so much greater, that I must acknowledge myself unworthy to stoop down and unloose the latchet of his shoe: and the reason of this transcendent dignity is, from the excellency of that nature which he had before I was; for though he cometh after me, yet he was before me.' Now as Christ was before John, which speaks a small, so was he also before Abraham, which speaks a larger, time. Jesus himself hath asserted this pre-existence to the Jews: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am," (John viii. 58.) Which words, plainly and literally expounded, must evidently contain this truth. For, first, Abraham in all the Scriptures never hath any other signification than such as denotes the person called by that name; and the question to which these words are directed by way of answer, without controversy, spake of the same person. Beside, Abraham must be the subject of that proposition, " Abraham was;” because a proposition cannot be without a subject, and if Abraham be the predicate, there is none. Again, as we translate "Abraham was," in a tense signifying the time past; so it is most certainly to be understood, because that which he speaks unto, is the pre-existence of Abraham, and that of long duration; so that whatsoever had concerned his present estate or future condition had been wholly impertinent to the precedent question. Lastly, The expression," I am," seeming something unusual or improper to signify a priority in respect of any thing past, because no present instant is before that which precedeth, but that which followeth; yet the* use of it *So Nonnus here more briefly and plainly than usual: c. viii. v. 187. ̓Αβρὰμ πρὶν γένος ἔσχεν, ἐγὼ πέλον. So John xiv. 9. TоσоUTOV Xрóvov pee ὑμῶν εἰμὶ, καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με; Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me? and John πν. 27. ὅτι ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς μετ ̓ ἐμοῦ ἐστὲ, because ye have been (or continued) with me from the beginning. Thus Nonnus: v. 110. Εξ ἀρχῆς γεγαῶτες ὅλων θηήτορες ἔργων. John vi. 24. ÖTε ovv Eldev o öxλos ὅτι ̓Ιησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκεῖ, When the people saw that Jesus was not there. Nor only doth St. John use thus the present tense for that which is past, but as frequently for that which is to come. For as before, roσovrov xpóvov μɛd' vμŵv ɛiμì, so on the contrary, ễrɩ μικρὸν χρόνον μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμὶ, John vii, 33. and ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ, ἐκεῖ καὶ ὁ διάκοvos à éμòs čorai, John xii. 26. xiv. 3. xvii. 24. Wherefore it is very indifferent whether (John vii. 34.) we read öñov eiμì ¿yw, or bπоv εlμ. For Non nus seems to have read it elμ by his translation, v. 130. εἰς ἀτραπὸν ἥν περ ὁδεύσω· and the Jews' question, v. 35. πoũ οὗτος μέλλει πορεύεσθαι, shows they understood it so: for this elμ, though of a present form, is of a future signification. Hesych. Εἶμι, πορεύσομai. And so it agreeth with that which follows, John viii. 21. öπov ¿yw ὑπάγω, ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν. If we read εἰμί, as the old translation, ubi ego sum, it will have the force of tooμαι, and agree with the other, ἵνα ὅπου ɛipi yw, kai vμɛïç тe. Howsoever, it is clear, St. John useth the present siμì either in relation to what is past, or what is to come, and is therefore to be interpreted as the matter in hand requireth. And certainly, the place now under our consideration can admit no other relation but to the time already past, in which Abraham lived. And we find the present tense in the same manner joined with the aorist elsewhere; as Psal. xc. 2. πpò sufficiently maintaineth, and the nature of the place absolutely requireth, that it should not here denote a present being, but a priority of existence, together with a continuation of it till the present time. And then the words will plainly signify thus much: Do you question how I could see Abraham, who am not yet fifty years old? Verily, verily, I say unto you, before* ever Abraham, the person whom you speak of, was born, I had a real being and existence (by which I was capable of the sight of him), in which I have continued until now.' In this sense certainly the Jews understood our Saviour's answer, as pertinent to their question, but in their opinion blasphemous; and therefore" they took up stones to cast at him." (John viii. 59.) This literal and plain explication is yet farther necessary; because those who once recede from it, do not only wrest and pervert the place, but also invent and suggest an answer unworthy of and wholly misbecoming him that spake it. For (setting aside the addition of the light of the world, which there can be no show of reason to admit),† whether they interpret the former part (" before Abraham was") of something to come, as the calling of the Gentiles, or the latter ("I am") of a pre-existence in the divine foreknowledge and appointment; they represent Christ with a great asseveration, highly and strongly asserting that which is nothing to the purpose to which he speaks, nothing to any other purpose at all; and they propound the Jews senselessly offended and foolishly exasperated with those words, which any of them might have spoken as well as he. For the first interpretation makes our Saviour thus to speak: 'Do you so much wonder how I should have "seen Abraham," who am "not yet fifty years old ?" (John viii. 57.) Do ye imagine so great a contradiction in Tov õρn yevniñvai, kai πdaodñvai Tv Yñv Kai Tηv oikovμévny, kaì ảπò aivog, ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος, σὺ εἶ. What can be more parallel than, πρò ro≈ opn yεvnIñvai, to πρiv 'Aßpaàμ yɛvéolai, and où εl, to ¿yw ɛiu; in the same manner, though by another word; ρò To≈ ὄρη ἑδρασθῆναι, πρὸ δὲ πάντων βουνῶν, yεvva μɛ. Prov. viii. 25. *So the Æthiopic Version: ‘Amen dico vobis, priusquam Abraham nasceretur, fui ego;' and the Persian: 'Vere, vere vobis dico, quod nondum Abraham factus erat, cum ego eram.' + This is the shift of the Socinians, who make this speech of Christ elliptical, and then supply it from the 12th verse. “I am the light of the world." 'Quod vero ea verba, Ego sum, sint ad eum modum supplenda, ac si ipse subjecisset iis, Ego sum lux mundi, superius e principio ejus orationis, ver. 12., et hinc quod Christus bis seipsum iisdem, Ego sum, lucem mundi vocaverit, ver. 24. et 28. deprehendi potest.' Catech. Racov. Sect. iv. c. 1. p. 57. Whereas there is no ground for any such connexion. That discourse of the light of the world was in the treasury, ver. 20. that which followeth was not, at least appeareth not to be so. Therefore the ellipsis of the 24th and 28th verses is not to be supplied by the 12th, but the 24th, from the 23d, ¿yw ik twv ävwdev sip, and the 28th, either from the same, or that which is most general, his office, yw eiμi ò Xplorós. Again, ver. 31. it is very probable that a new discourse is again begun, and therefore if there were an ellipsis in the words alleged, it would have no relation to either of the former supplies, or if to either, to the latter; but indeed it hath to neither. . this? I tell you, and be ye most assured that what I speak unto you at this time, is most certainly and infallibly true, and most worthy of your observation, which moves me not to deliver it without this solemn asseveration ("Verily, verily, I say unto you"), before Abraham shall perfectly become that which was signified in his name," the father of many nations," (Gen. xvii. 4.) before the Gentiles shall come in, "I am." Nor be ye troubled at this answer, or think in this I magnify myself: for what I speak is as true of you, as it is of me; before Abraham be thus made Abraham, ye are. Doubt ye not therefore, as ye did, nor ever make that question again, whether I have seen Abraham". The second explication makes a sense of another nature, but with the same impertinency: Do ye continue still to question, and that with so much admiration? Do you look upon my age, and ask, "Hast thou seen Abraham?" I confess it is more than eighteen hundred years since that patriarch died, and less than forty since I was born at Bethlehem; but look not on this computation, for before Abraham was born, I was. But mistake me not, I mean in the foreknowledge and decree of God. Nor do I magnify myself in this, for ye were so.' How either of these answers should give any reasonable satisfaction to the question, or the least occasion of the Jews' exasperation, is not to be understood. And that our Saviour should speak any such impertinences as these interpretations bring forth, is not by a Christian to be conceived. Wherefore being the plain and most obvious sense is a proper and full answer to the question, and most likely to exasperate the unbelieving Jews; being those strained explications render the words of Christ, not only impertinent to the occasion, but vain and useless to the hearers of them; being our Saviour gave this answer in words of another language, most probably incapable of any such interpretations: we must adhere unto that literal sense already delivered, by which it appeareth Christ had a being, as before John, so also before Abraham (not only before Abram became Abraham, but before Abraham was Abram), and consequently that he did exist two thousand years before he was born, or conceived by the Virgin. Thirdly, We shall extend this pre-existence to a far longer space of time, to the end of the first World, nay, to the beginning of it. For he which was before the flood, and at the creation of the World, had a being before he was conceived by the Virgin. But Christ was really before the flood, for he preached to them that lived before it; and at the creation of the World, for he created it. That he preached to those before the flood, is evident by the words of St. Peter, who saith, that Christ" was put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit; by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometimes were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the Ark was a preparing.” (1 Pet. iii. 18-20.) From which words it appeareth, that Christ preached by the same Spirit, by the virtue of which he was raised from the dead: but that Spirit was not his soul, but something of a greater power. Secondly, That those to whom he preached, were such as were disobedient. Thirdly, That the time when they were disobedient, was the time before the flood, while the Ark was preparing. It is certain then that Christ did preach unto those persons, which in the days of Noah were disobedient, all that time" the long-suffering of God waited," and consequently, so long as repentance was offered. And it is as certain that he never preached to them after they died; which I shall not need here to prove, because those against whom I bring this argument deny it not. It followeth therefore, that he preached to them while they lived, and were disobedient; for in the refusing of that mercy, which was offered to them by the preaching of Christ, did their disobedience principally consist. In vain then are we taught to understand St. Peter of the promulgation of the Gospel to the Gentiles after the Holy Ghost descended upon the apostles, when the words themselves refuse all relation to any such times or persons. For all those of whom St. Peter speaks, were disobedient in the days of Noah. But none of those to whom the apostles preached, were ever disobedient in the days of Noah. Therefore, none of those to whom the apostles preached, were any of those of whom St. Peter speaks. It remaineth therefore, that the plain interpretation be acknowledged for the true, that Christ did preach unto those men which lived before the flood, even while they lived, and consequently that he was before it. For though this was not done by an immediate act of the Son of God, as if he personally had appeared on earth, and actually preached to that old World; but by the ministry of a prophet,+ by the sending of Noah, the eighth preacher of righteousness: (2 Pet. ii. 5.) yet to do any thing by another not able to per * Απειθήσασί ποτε, ὅτε ἅπαξ ἐξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ μακροθυμία ἐν ἡμέραις Νώε. + Prophetæ ab ipso habentes donum in illum prophetaverunt. Barnaba Epist. c. 4. al. 5. † I have thus translated this place of St. Peter, because it may add some advantage to the argument: for if Noah were the eighth preacher of righteousness, and he were sent by the Son of God; no man, I conceive, will deny that the seven before him were sent by the same Son: and so by this we have gained the pre-existence of another thousand years. However, those words, a' oydoov Ne δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα ἐφύλαξε, may be N better interpreted than they are, when Τὸ γὰρ τεκόντων σέβας, Δίκας γέγραπται μεγιστοτίμου, in form it without him, as much demonstrates the existence of the principal cause, as if he did it of himself without tervening instrument. any The second part of the argument, that Christ made this World, and consequently had a real being at the beginning of it, the Scriptures manifestly and plentifully assure us. For the same Son, "by whom in these last days God spake unto us, is he, by whom also he made the worlds." (Heb. i. 2.) So that as "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God," (Heb. xi. 3.) so must we also believe that they were made by the Son of God.* Which the apostle doth not only in the entrance of his epistle deliver, but in the sequel prove. For shewing greater things have been spoken of him than ever were attributed to any of the angels, the most glorious of all the creatures of God; amongst the rest he saith, the Scripture spake, "Unto the Son, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. And not only so, but also, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thine hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest: and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” (Heb. i. 8. 10-12.) Now whatsoever the the three remarkable laws left at Eleusis by Triptolemus. So Porphyrins: Þaoì dè kai Tρitróλeμov 'ÀInναίοις νομοθετῆσαι, καὶ τῶν νόμων αὐτοῦ τρεῖς ἔτι Ξενοκράτης ὁ φιλόσοφος λέγει διαμένειν Ἐλευσῖνι τούσδε Γονεῖς τιμᾷν Θεοὺς καρποῖς ἀγάλλειν· Ζῶα μὴ oiveolai. De Abstinent. ab Anim. Esu, 1. iv. ad fin. Which words are thus translated by St. Jerome, who hath made use of most part of that fourth book of Porphyrius : Xenocrates Philosophus de Triptolemi legibus apud Athenienses tria tantum præcepta in Templo Eleusina residere scribit; Honorandos Parentes, Venerandos Deos, Carnibus non vescendum.' adv. Jovinian. 1. ii. col. 528. Where we see honour due to parents the first precept, though by Eschylus called the third, not in respect of the order, but the number. Thus Dinarchus the orator: Kai ràc Zeμvàs Θεὰς αἷς ἐκεῖνος ἱεροποιὸς καταστὰς δέKATOS AUTÓS. From whence we must not collect that the person of whom he speaks, was the tenth in order of that office, so that nine were necessarily before or above him, and many more might be after or below him; but from hence it is inferred that there were ten ἱεροποιοὶ waiting on the Σεμναὶ θεαὶ, and no more, of which number that man was one. After this manner speak the Attic writers, especially Thucydides. And so we may understand St. Peter, that God preserved Noah (a preacher of righteousness) with seven more, of which he deserveth to be named the first, rather than the last or eighth. But, secondly, the original oydoov may possibly not belong to the name or person of Noah, but to his title or office; and then we must translate, õydoov Nwe dikaloσúvns кýρvкa, Noah the eighth preacher of righteousness. For we read at the birth of Enos, that men began to call upon the name of the Lord," Gen. iv. 26. which the ancients understood peculiarly of his person: as the LXX. οὗτος ἤλπισεν ἐπικαλεῖodaι rò ovoμa Kvpíov тov Oɛoỡ, and the vulgar Latin, Iste cœpit invocare nomen Domini. The Jews have a tradition, that God sent in the sea upon mankind in the days of Enos, and destroyed many. From whence it seems Enos was a preacher or prophet, and so the rest that followed him; and then Noah is the eighth. * It being in both places expressed in the same phrase by the same author, δι ̓ οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησεν, Heb. i. 2. πίστει νοοῦμεν κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῥήματι Θεοῦ. |