are enumerated, one, who remembered the days of old when he brought them through the Red Sea; a second, who is called “the Shepherd of his flock'," and "his glorious arm; and, by the confession of the Jews, the same person, who had before been called the Angel of his presence2; and, a third, "The Spirit of his holiness." "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the Shepherd of his flock? Where is he that put his Holy Spirit within him? That led them by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm, dividing the water before them, to make himself an everlasting

1

Comp. Ps. lxxx. 1. and Exod. xiv. 19. Num. xx. 16.

2 Qui fecit incedere ad dextram Moysis BRACHIUM SUUM MAGNIFICUM.] Hæc vera est verborum versio, a qua qui discesserunt, sententiæ multum venustatis detraxerunt. Aben-Ezra ad verba, Brachium ejus magnificum; sive brachium decoris ejus, &c. Hic EST ANGELUS DEI, QUI PRÆCESSERIT CASTRA ISRAELIS. Docte sane. Filius Patris, per quem consilia sua exequitur et populum Judæum vindicavit, ex Ægypto, est ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ μεγάλη. Vitringa in loc.

name? That led them through the deep, as an horse in the wilderness, that they should not stumble ?" In fine, this remarkable passage concludes with a third enumeration of these three persons. (1.)

66

Jehovah;" (2.) "the Spirit of Jehovah ;' and, (3.) "the leader of God's people." "The angel of his presence." "As a beast. goeth down into the valley, the Spirit of the Lord caused him to rest; so didst thou lead thy people, to make thyself a glorious name." So that, in this short context of eight verses, we have the three persons of the Godhead, three several times enumerated, and each time clearly distinguished. from each other'.

1 Is. lxiii. 8-14. See also lix. 15-19, where we have (1.) the Lord; (2.) the Messiah, under the names of the Arm," 66 the righteousness of the Lord;" and, "the name of the Lord;" and, (3.) "the Spirit of the Lord." In the two following verses, we have (1.) "The Lord" speaking: (2.) "the Redeemer," that is, the Messiah. (3.) The Spirit of the Lord, "My Spirit." See also Joel ii. 28---31. In verse 28, we have (1.) "The Lord" (2.) "the Spirit of the Lord :" and in verse 32, we have (3.) the Messiah, under the title,

speaking

Let me here observe also, that the language of these passages is utterly irreconcileable with every theory which attempts to explain away the doctrine of the Trinity to mean no more than, one person sustaining different characters or offices in different dispensations. The three persons are represented as co-existing and co-operating, each by his own distinct and proper office, at one and the same time; in one and the same act; in one and the same dispensation whether it be in the Creation of the Universe, in the deliverance and government of the Israelites, or in the dispensation of the Messiah.

There are some, however, who prefer conceding the Old Testament altogether. They consider the doctrine of the Trinity a peculiarity of the New Testament. They argue, that, possessed as we are of the light which the New Testament has thrown

"the name of the Lord." Comp. Is. iii. 9. and see Raym. Mart. fol. 337.

have, (1.) Messiah, who afterwards

xxx. 27. Zeph. In Is. lxi. 1. we (verse 8.) calls

himself Jehovah. (2.) "The Spirit of the Lord ;" and, (3.) "the Lord," by whom Messiah is anointed.

on the divine nature, we may indeed discover in the Old Testament traces of a doctrine, which from the New Testament we know to be true: but, that it is quite another matter to say, that the doctrine is taught in the Old Testament: or that we are at liberty to make use of the intimations of it which we conceive are to be found there, as independent proofs of its truth.

Now, to any reflecting mind, this must appear a very strange mode of speaking. I might, doubtless, answer, that the number and variety of proofs which have been adduced, even in this discourse, of the existence of the doctrine of the Trinity, renders the testimony of the Old Testament not quite so easy to be disposed of as these persons seem to assume. But, taking the objection on its own showing, it is plain, that, in those places where it allows that hints or traces of the doctrine are contained, either these intimations are really given by the grammatical sense of the text, or they are not. If they be not, I should be sorry to see them alleged for

any such purpose; but if they be, then the question is, with what reason can we pretend to say, that the text does not teach a doctrine which is allowed to be contained in the plain grammatical sense of the words. This is certainly a strange mode of arriving at the meaning of any document.

But to come more closely to this question. There was once a period, when the Church must have found it most embarrassing to understand in what manner the redemption of mankind was to be effected. To us, who have been instructed in the Christian faith, there appears no difficulty in understanding, that which to them must have been an inexplicable mystery :-that Christ, whose throne is for ever and ever, must first suffer, and afterwards enter into his glory. But, though the ancient Church may not have understood how this was to be accomplished, yet it was its duty to believe, that it would be accomplished: because it was its duty to receive the statements of the word of God in their