unless this had been its commonly received interpretation when they wrote: and unless they designed to give unequivocal sanction to that interpretation. By their uniform practice of ascribing the creation of the universe to the Messiah, they put the seal of their approval to the faith of the Jewish Church. By their constant ascription of the names and attributes of God to the Son and the Holy Ghost, they gave the most solemn possible confirmation to the theology of their fathers. The Apostles were Jews. They addressed their letters and discourses to Jews; sometimes to none others. To suppose, therefore, that they could have used the language of the Old Testament as they did, unless they meant to sanction that belief of a personal plurality in the Godhead, which was the foundation of their national faith, is plainly incredible. One example will be sufficient. In the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews St. Paul thus applies the language of the Psalms to our blessed Saviour. "Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness

is the sceptre of thy kingdom: Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works 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'." Unquestionably such an application of the Old Testament, without the shadow of an attempt at argument or proof to justify the application, is demonstrative not merely of the mode in which the Jews understood the Old Testament, but of the formal sanction which the Apostles gave to their interpretation.

To conclude this part of the subject. It is evident that neither our blessed Saviour nor his Apostles, although professedly recalling the Jews to the faith delivered to

Heb. i. 8-12.

their ancestors, have in the slightest degree attempted to correct the popular doctrine of the plurality of Persons in the divine nature. On the contrary, they have given it the highest possible encouragement and sanction; not only by the mere fact of their leaving it uncorrected, but also by using such language and making such applications of Scripture as could have no other intention or effect. We have also seen various proofs, that this was the current and received faith of the Jewish Church, at the time of our Saviour's birth. And, in fine, we have found, that their theology was deduced from the tenor of the Old Testament; in which the doctrine of plurality in the divine nature, and specially the coexistence of three distinct persons in the unity of God, is taught in such a variety of ways, and in language so distinct and unequivocal, as to render it impossible for plain and unsophisticated readers to arrive at any other conclusion.

Consequently, to object against the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity, that it runs counter to the tenor and design of

Revelation, is plainly to contradict fact and evidence. The whole tenor of Scripture inculcates such a notion of the divine unity as consists with the notion of personal plurality; in other words, such a notion of the divine unity as is signified by the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Therefore the objection, in any sense, which is pertinent to the question, is false.

III. I proceed, in the last place, to observe, that in as far as this objection is true, it is a proof of the Catholic faith. A very few observations will suffice to make this apparent. It is unquestionable that the main design of revelation is to impart true notions of the divine nature. It is even conceded by our opponents. Nay (unless when they have a turn to serve by maintaining the reverse), it is asserted, as a main ground of their opposition, that right notions on the subject are indispensable to truth in religion and purity in morals. Plainly, therefore, the question is reduced to such a shape as to involve the authority of Holy Scripture itself. The Bible professes to contain a series of miraculous

communications from the Almighty. It lays claim to inspiration. It propounds its sentence as the only tribunal which is to decide religious questions. We are, therefore, reduced to this. If the doctrines of the Holy Trinity be not true, the Scriptures cannot be a divine revelation. And if the Scriptures be not a divine revelation, we must be compelled to reject as an imposture, the only guide which can offer any plausible pretensions to authority.

To suppose, that a divine revelation could be so constructed as to convey, by its general tenor and spirit, false and preposterous notions of the nature of God, is plainly absurd. If the doctrine derived from Scripture be that of a plurality of Persons existing in the Unity of God, if this be the impression, which it is calculated to make, and which it actually has made on the mass of mankind in all ages, then plainly, either the doctrine is true, or the book is not inspired. Nay, more than this; the book must be an imposture, and a fiction from beginning to end. For even if it did not lay claim to inspiration, yet