fections, powers, or attributes? Or is it a plurality of persons? And if of persons, then of how many? To these questions, I answer, first, that it is a personal plurality; and secondly, that it is a plurality of three persons, such as is believed by the Catholic Church.

1. The plurality in the divine nature, which is taught in the Old Testament, is a plurality of persons. We need require no other proof of this than the words of God in the book of Genesis. "And Jehovah, the Gods, said, Behold the man is become as one of us1." That these words, "one of us," were anciently understood to imply plurality of persons, can be proved by the confessions of the Jewish writers 2. The modern Jews have endeavoured to evade the proof which these words afford of the doctrine of the Trinity, by saying that they were addressed to the angels. But this is

1 Gen. iii. 22.

2 "Dixit R. Eleasar, ubicunque in sacra Scriptura dicitur Et Dominus, intelligitur de ipso, et de domo judicii sui." Midrasch Schir Hasschirim, in R. Mart. Pug. Fid. fol. 391.

plainly to concede, that they imply a plu

rality of persons.

In truth, if they do not

mean this, it is difficult to imagine what they can mean; and no less difficult to imagine, how any formula could be contrived which should express the notion of personal plurality more distinctly. “Here,” to use the words of one whose writings have done much service to the cause of Christianity," here a plurality of powers, or perfections, or attributes, is completely excluded. The solution of a majestatic plural cannot be applied. It is impossible to say that this plural is for honour, or in the regal style. The language one of us is numeric, and personal, and is in itself sufficient to prove a plurality of persons. Every attempt to twist, turn, explain it away, is vain. It can have one signification only, and that one confirmatory of Christian doctrine. As surely as the word ONE in the passage, Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one,' signifies unity, and teaches that there are not two Gods, nor three Gods, so certainly does this same word ONE, in the context

6

' one of us' teach us that there is a plurality of persons. It does not tell us how many, but it implies, beyond the possibility of contradiction, that there is more than one 1."

It is needless to multiply passages of the Old Testament merely in proof of a plurality of persons, because this must appear in every place which is brought to prove the particular number of persons in the divine unity. It will be sufficient, therefore, to lay before you one more testimony to this fact. So early as the sixteenth chapter of Genesis, a being is introduced, who appears all through the Old Testament, under the title of "the Angel of the Lord.” The word "Angel," is the same as "Messenger." Now, plainly, a messenger is one person, and he that sends him is another. And thus the Lord saith to Moses; "Behold I send an Angel before thee." So that, whoever this angel may be, he, and the Lord who promises to send him, are

'Dr. M'Caul, Answer to Orobio, Part II. p. 124-5.

different persons.

But no less plain is it, that this angel is God, and not any created being. For, on the one hand, there is but one being to whom this title “the Angel of Jehovah" is ever applied. It is never once used in Scripture in the plural number to denote those beings whom we understand by the Holy Angels. And on the other, this being who is called "the Angel of Jehovah," is likewise repeatedly, and in the same immediate context, called by the incommunicable name of God, even "Jehovah" itself. Thus, in the history of Hagar in the book of Genesis1, and in the history of Gideon in the book of Judges, it is plainly the same person who is called both "Jehovah" and the "Angel of Jehovah." And this is admitted by the Jewish writers. In the beginning of the book of Exodus we are told, that the Angel of Jehovah appeared to Moses in the burning bush. But immediately after, we find this angel called "Jehovah." He is also called "Elohim;" a name which in no

1 Gen. xvi.

2

* Judges vi.

instance is attributed to any single angel whatever1 and when he speaks to Moses

1 To escape the argument from the use of the plural Elohim, it has been said that the word is sometimes applied to judges and to angels. Now even granting this to be true, it would not avoid the argument for the Trinity. For no one pretends, that any particular judge or angel is called Elohim; but, that Elohim is applied to several judges or several angels. Consequently, if it be applied to signify Angels or Judges, it is in such a manner as implies plurality of persons; and therefore the presumption is plainly, that when applied to God, it signifies that more persons than one are included in the Godhead, and thus this objection really strengthens the argument it is brought to overturn. Now in this place (Exod. iii.) the angel of Jehovah calls himself "Elohim ;" and, as this name is never pretended to signify any one individual of the angels, he must, by assuming it to himself, signify that he is God. "Neque judicibus qui sunt in terra, neque angelis qui versantur in cœlo, usquam datur nisi communiter, et ita ut eorum nemini singulariter assignetur." Amyraldi Probatio Trinitatis ex V. T. Vide Wagenseil. Tela Ignea Satanæ, p. 147. Altdor. Nori. 1681. With regard to the word Elohim signifying "Judges," the Jews themselves confess that the word cannot be applied to fewer than three. Thus Jarchi: "Syn

nomen

אלהים

edrium non vocatur

cibus."

Mosis

nisi tribus constet judiOn which Edzard observes; "E quo mani