“They shall be astonished, and shall humble their countenances: and trouble shall seize them, when they shall behold the Son of _Woman_ sitting upon the throne of his glory. Then shall the kings, the princes, and all who possess the earth glorify him who has dominion over all things--him who was _concealed_: for, from the beginning, the Son of Man existed _in secret_, whom the Most High preserved in the presence of his power, and _revealed to the elect_.”[543] So speaks one of the most extraordinary productions that has ever appeared in England, in the shape of literature! And the commentary of its translator[544] is as follows:-- “In both these passages,” says he, “the _pre-existence_ of the Messiah is asserted in language which admits not the slightest shade of ambiguity--nor is it such a pre-existence as the philosophical cabalists attributed to him, who believed the souls of all men, and, consequently, that of the Messiah, to have been originally created together, when the world itself was formed; but an _existence antecedent_ to all creation, an existence previous to the formation of the luminaries of heaven; an existence prior to all things visible and invisible, before everything concealed.--It should likewise be remarked, that the pre-existence ascribed to him is a divine pre-existence.”[545] As to the _pre-existence_ of the Messiah, in the only way in which the Archbishop affirms, I did not think that the doctrine was so obscure as to require so much stress! Everybody acquiesces, who acquiesces in Christianity--that its Founder had existence and dominion with His Father before all worlds. And, therefore, when His Grace offers this as an _illustration_ of our opening extract, he either _unconsciously contradicts himself_, or, else, by dealing _in generalities, evades_ an _exposition, which he was not at liberty to communicate_! I am quite ignorant as to whether or not Dr. Lawrence belongs to the order of _Freemasons_, but I confess that when first I glanced at the above remarks I fancied he did. The care with which the two words “_secret_” and “_concealed_” were distinguished by him in _italics_, led me to this conjecture. But the _indefinite unsubstantiality_ into which he afterwards wandered, made the fact of his _initiation_ become, itself, a _secret_. Let me, however, prove the above _dilemma_. His Lordship has asserted, that the _uninspiration_ of “the author” will admit of no dispute:[546] and yet that “author,” whom the Archbishop himself acknowledges to have written, at the very lowest, _antecedently_ to the _Advent_, speaks of the _Messiah_ as the “_Son of Man_” and the “Son of _Woman_.”[547] Either, therefore, the author was _inspired_, speaking _prospectively_ of an occurrence _not then consummated_! or else, _uninspired_, he historically transmits the record of an _incarnation vouchsafed before his time_.