three? we reply by another-How can he be both singular and plurul? which the Old Testament distinctly implies that he is, hundreds of times.

It is objected further, that the name of God never occurs in the plural in the New Testament. To which I reply 1st, That God's nature cannot change; and therefore if he was a plurality when the Old Testament was written, he must be so still: and 2nd, That there was no necessity for it; as the doctrine of the Trinity is there stated much more fully and distinctly in other ways. That indirect way of teaching it, by the use of a plural noun with a singular verb, and other expressions about to be noticed, is much more in accordance with the general method of teaching employed in the Old Testament, than with that of the New. The light of the Jewish dispensation was but dim, compared with ours. They were taught by type and shadow, by allusion and inference: in general, truth was rather implied, than directly asserted; though implied so strongly, as to leave no doubt in the mind of a humble and sincere inquirer. Learned critics may add other reasons, but the above is quite sufficient; and we may now leave this part of the argument with an assured conviction that the proof of a plurality of persons in the Godhead drawn from the use of the word Elohim in the Old Testament, never has been, and never can be, shaken by all the learning or ingenuity that Infidelity has brought to bear upon it.†

Turn then to Gen i. 26. "And God (Elohim) said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." This is so plain, that nothing is wanted, but an examination of the way in which Unitarians attempt to get out of it. They remind us, that kings and authors say We' instead of 'I'; and Mr. Barker characteristically adds, that one child will say to another, "Come, give us a bit"! Now that God often speaks after the manner of men, no one denies; but that any human being can really believe in the bottom of his heart, that the infinite Jehovah used the above language in any of the three ways suggested, I certainly feel very much inclined to doubt. A child in common speech uses bad grammar; an author calls himself We' to avoid the egostistical sound of the word 'I'; a king does the same, to show that he acts not on his own sole authority, but either in conjunction with his parliament, or "by and with the advice of his privy council;"-and in imitation of one or all of these Jehovah says, "Let us make man in our image"!! And this before king, author, or child ever

Unitarians harp a good deal upon that word 'imply'-as if there was no such thing as proof by implication. If a Christian sees any thing plainly implied in Holy Writ, he dare no more doubt it than if it was asserted in as many words. + It may strengthen the argument to observe, that not only the word Elohim, but other words applied to God, are also used in the plural number; as for instance Is. liv. 5, is in the original, "Thy Makers is thy husband;" Eccl. xii. 1 is "Remember thy Creators in the days of thy youth;" Mal. i. 6, is, "If I be Masters, where is my fear?"; and Prov. iv. 10. is, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy Ones is understanding."

existed!!! There might have been some reason in saying that they imitated his language, however profane such imitation would have been; but that he imitated theirs before a man had ever been created-we really must be excused admitting as an explanation of the words. Besides, if in this particular expression God spoke after the manner of men, he would scarcely imitate the style of modern English, but more probably of ancient Hebrew; and here the theory altogether breaks down. For omitting the case of the child as too frivilous for notice, the Old Testament of itself affords abundant proof, that in ancient times and eastern countries, neither authors nor kings said 'we' for 'I,' or 'our' for 'my.' If any one is still not satisfied, I can only ask him as a last hope, whether he thinks any king, author, child, or any other person whatever, at any time, or in any country of the world, when speaking of himself, ever used such an expression as we find in the next chapter but one; "And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." Gen. iii. 22. If it be suggested, that God may in these expressions include angels or archangels, we reply 1st, that this would be making angels sharers in the glory of creation, which is the sole prerogative of Deity; and 2nd, that there is no hint whatever in the narrative itself of any such thing, nor could the supposition be entertained without doing violence to the evident meaning of the sacred record. "Who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

To proceed "And the Lord said, Behold the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language." Gen. xi. 6, 7. "Also, I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" ls. vi. 8. "Wherefore it shall come to pass, when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria." Is. x. 12. According to all the ordinary usages of language it should have been, either "When the Lord hath performed his work, he will punish," or "When I have performed my work, I will punish." But how is the change from 'his' to 'I' to be accounted for, since the same Lord is the speaker and the person spoken of? This mode of expression, in reference to God, abounds in the Old Testament. "Behold the Lord will carry thee away * *he will surely turn and toss thee, *** and I will drive thee from thy station." Is. xxii. 17, 19. "Neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him." Is, lxiv. 4. “And I will strengthen them in the Lord:

If it be asked, why man, being a trinity, might not use such an expression with propriety-we reply, that man is a trinity in a very inferior sense to that in which God is so. Though a striking "image" of his Maker, he is but an image; only made "after the likeness" of the Triune Jehovah,

and they shall walk up and down in his name, saith the Lord." Zech. x. 12. "For thus saith the Lord of Hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you; for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. For behold I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants; and ye shall know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me." Zech. ii. 8, 9.* Here both the sender and the sent are expressly called the Lord of Hosts: and yet Unitarians assert that Jesus Christ cannot be God, because he is sent by the Father! This argument however is seen in its strongest light in those numerous passages, where Jehovah, speaking to man, is called an angel, which means, as every one knows, a messenger, that is, one sent by, and speaking or acting under the authority of another. A few of the most prominent of these we shall now bring before you. Our only business with them at present, is to prove a plurality of persons in the Godhead: in a future Lecture it will be shown, that this angel, who when sent on errands to man so solemnly and frequently asserted his Deity, was the Son of God, appearing in human form, anticipating as it were his incarnation,† and fulfilling the office, which he had taken upon himself before the foundation of the world,-that of Mediator between God and man.

Turn to Gen. xvi. 7, 13. There "the angel of the Lord" appears to Hagar, and says, "I will multiply thy seed exceedingly," and Hagar "called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me.' Again, in Gen. xxii. 11, 12, "The angel of the Lord called me to him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me." In Gen. xxxi. 11, 13. "The angel of God" speaks unto Jacob in a dream, and says, "I am the God of Bethel."-And in the following chapter Jacob wrestles with " a man," who puts his thigh out of joint with a touch, who refuses to give his name, but tells Jacob that he had had "power with God and with men." When it is all over, his own comment on the affair is, "I have seen God face to face;" and the prophet Hosea's is By his strength he had power with God: yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed-he wept and made supplication unto him he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us; even the Lord God of Hosts; the Lord is his memorial." Ch. xii. 3, 5. So that the person Jacob wrestled with was in the form of a man, an angel or messenger sent by some one, and the Lord of Hosts. Well might Jacob on his death-bed ascribe his daily preservation and sustenance to this Angel Jehovah, saying, "God, before whom my fathers, Abraham

66

*Read to the end of the chapter.

+ Incarnation means entering the flesh, taking upon him human nature.

and Isaac, did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads." Gen. xxviii. 15, 16. Again, in Ex. iii. 2, 6, “The angel of the Lord" appears to Moses in the burning bush, and says, “I am the God of thy father;" and in Judges ii. 1, "An angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you into the land which I sware unto your fathers."

Two passages from the book of Daniel will conclude this part of the argument,

"Dan. iv. 26. And whereas THEY commanded to leave the stump of the tree-roots,' &c. At the 13th verse of this chapter we read only of one watcher or holy one coming down from heaven, of whom it is said that HE cried-leave the stump of his roots in the earth. Yet the number is here very remarkably changed from he said to they commanded. And though the words of the curse upon Nebuchadnezzar were pronounced by A watcher and An holy one in the singular; nevertheless, at the close of the speech, this matter is declared to be by the decree of the WATCHERS, and the demand by the word of the HOLY ONES. (Compare this with Prov. ix. 10.) Now it is very certain that the judgments of God are not founded upon the decree and word of Angels, or of any created beings: therefore this watcher could be no created angel, but a person in the Lord Jehovah, who condescends to watch over (Jer. xxxi. 28) his people, and is called the keeper of Israel, that neither slumbereth nor sleepeth. The change of these verbs and nouns from the singular to the plural, can be accounted for upon no other principle: it is a case to which there is no parallel in any language, and such as can be reconcileable only to the being of God, who is one and many. We are to collect from it, that in this, as in every act of the Godhead, there was a consent and concurrence of the persons in the Trinity; and though there was one only who spake, it was the word and decree of all.

“Dan. v. 18 20. "The most high GOD gave to Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom and majesty and glory and honour. And THEY took his glory from him.' Here again the word they is a plain relative to the most high God. Nor can it otherwise be agreeable to the sense of the history, or the reason of the thing itself, considered as a matter of fact. For who was it that took away the glory of the king? It was not the work of men, but a supernatural act of the most high God; to whom Nebuchadnezzar himself hath ascribed it-those that walk in pride HE is able to abase."†

It would not be to the purpose to press the full meaning of this expression ; any meaning will equally well suit our present argument.

Jones on the Trinity.

(To be continued.)

LECTURE VIII.

THE TRINITY.

(CONTINUED.)

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Matt. xxviti. 19.

HAVING proved our first point, namely, the plurality of persons in the Godhead, the next question is, How can it be shewn that the number of persons is three, and no more; in other words, that God is a Trinity? We reply, that one person is spoken of under the name of the Father, a second under the name of the Son, a third under the name of the Spirit; and that no mention is made of any others. On the Godhead of the Father we need say nothing. The proof of the Son's Godhead will be given at large in the lecture on the Deity of Christ. Not to pass it over entirely, however, we will just refer to one passage in the Old Testament, which speaks of the Son without reference to his future incarnation : Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling, Kiss the Son lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." Psalm ii. 11, 12. Now, without pressing the connection between " serve the Lord' and "kiss the Son," compare the words "blessed are all they that put their trust in him" with the solemn warning in Jer. xvii. 5, "Cursed

be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord," and you will have what the Unitarian may, if he likes, call an inference about the person of the Son-but such a one as cannot well be mis. taken.*

Before passing on, a word or two may be useful on the eternal sonship of Christ. It is argued that a son must come into existence after the father who begat him; therefore, that the Son of God cannot be co-eternal with the Father. Now

The following passage, though not a direct proof of the Son's Deity is too remarkable to be omitted: "Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?" Prov. xxx. 4.

G