self-existence or distinct substance. When it is applied to the Son, it signifies face or presence. These instances, therefore, afford no argument for the term persons; and as many view the expression, when applied to one God, as a contradiction, it is preferable to adhere as closely as possible to the language of divine inspiration in representing a doctrine so mysterious..

The greatest care needs to be used in the choice of terms to express our ideas of the divine Nature. If we have clear ideas of any truth, we can clearly communicate them. But when we have confused ideas of a doctrine, or no ideas at all, it is in vain to attempt to supply the deficiency by any selection of words. From the inspired writings we have a distinct idea that there is a plurality, a trinity in the divine nature. But when we pursue our inquiries respecting the mode of this three-fold substance, ideas fail and language also fails.

The words plurality and Trinity are not found in the sacred writings. But as the divine name is repeatedly used in the plural number; as the appellations, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are given to the divine Being, it is conceived there is just ground for the use of these terms.

Some have attempted to illustrate this doctrine by comparing it with the union of the human body, soul and spirit; and likewise by comparing it with the three principal faculties of the human mind. These comparisons may go so far, perhaps, as to shew that the doctrine is not contradictory or absurd. But they fall far short of illustrating the doctrine. The human body, soul and spirit have properties peculiar to themselves. What is predicated of one cannot be predicated of the others. Neither do these three constitute one essence. The understanding, will and affections are simple qualities of the mind. They not only sustain different offices in the human intellect, but they are entirely different. Some suppose there is no need of

admitting any distinction in the divine nature; that he, who is the same in all respects, acts in different offices. But the divine law and the nature of the atonement do not admit this illustration.

It is in vain to draw comparisons from the material, or from the intelligent world for the explanation of the doctrine of divine plurality. There may be some points of contact in the comparison; but there is no parallellism between the creature and the Creator. "Who in the Heaven can be compared unto the Lord; who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord?***

It is worthy of remark, that the same name of plural number, which is applied to God, (b) is also applied to Dagon, the god of the Philistines; to Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians; and to Moses. Another plural name of God () is also applied to individual men. The names of some individual things are expressed by nouns of the plural number. But does this prove that there is either no plurality in the divine Being, or that there is a plurality in human nature, or in particular things? This conclusion would be hardly logical. The first name in the Bible given to God is a noun of plural number. The same name is frequently given to him in the Old Testament. The idolatrous nations, which lived not very remote from the Jews, were un⚫ doubtedly acquainted with the name of the God they worshipped. They applied the same plural name to individuals of their deities; and when they applied other names, they sometimes applied them in the plural number. It was natural for them to give a name to their deities as honorable as that, which the Hebrews gave to their God. If there was an appropriate significaney in the plural num. ber, when applied to the true God, it is not incredible that heathen should use the same number in giving names to their idols, designing to equalize them with him; as far as names could do it. Nor is it a striking peculiarity of the Hebrew language, that a name of masculine termination should be given to a goddess. For the Latin Deus and the Greek Oos, are used to signify both god and god. dess. Besides, there were many idols of the same name, which justifies the use of the plural number.

The divine name of plural number was given to Moses. I have made thee a God,, to Pharaoh. Ex. 7:1. 8, the root of this word, signifies, to interpose, intervene, mediate, come or be between, for protection, prevention, &c. (Parkh. Lex.) There was great pertinence in giving a name, from this root, to Moses; because he interposed, intervened, mediated between the king of Egypt and God. As God in plurality interposed in behalf of fallen man for protection and prevention; as the name of God, from this root, was used frequently, if not generally, in the plural number, there was a propriety in applying to Moses this name in the same number. The name was not designed to be significant of the nature of the Hebrew leader, but to express his office and work. A plural name of God is also given to Joseph by his brethren. But reasons similar to the foregoing will justify its application. This style is not peculiar to the Hebrew language. In the English tongue a similar dialect is used. Some of the names of God are applied to men; and the royal style is of plural number. Names of plural number, applied to individual things, are not peculiar to the Hebrew language; nor do they invalidate the argument drawn from the plurality of the divine name. The same usage is known in our own language. Because some of our plural names are applied to singular things, it does not follow that there is not a peculiar significancy in the royal style. Because some Hebrew names of plural number are applied to individual things, it does not follow that

there is not a peculiar significancy in the plural name of God. Besides, those Hebrew plurals, applied to singulars, which have been offered to invalidate the argument of divine plurality, are of such a complex nature, or of such connexion, that they appear to contain or imply a plurality.

In Ps. 45:6, 7, the plural name of God is applied to the Son and to the Father. This, instead of proving that there is a plurality in each, serves to confirm the opinion that there is such a union between them, that the name of one may be applied to the other; and the plural name, embracing the Trinity, may be applied to the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; for one implies the other. "The ancient idolaters in general called the material heavens, or their representatives. And although the heavens are eminently distinguished into fire, light, and spirit, and many actions or operations are immediately performed by one or two of these, yet, as the whole celestial fluid acts jointly, or all its three conditions concur in every effect; hence it is that the ancient heathen called not only the whole heavens, but any one of its three conditions, denoted by a name expressive of some eminent operation it performs, b. For they meant not to deny the joint action of the whole material Trinity, but to give it the glory of that particular attribute." Parkh. Lex. p. 20.

n signifies "a denouncing of a curse, a curse denounced either upon one's self or others, or both, so an oath taken or given." (Parkh. Lex. p. 18.) The plural of this word, applied to God, easily suggests the idea of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, entering into an oath, or covenant between themselves, and denouncing a curse on those, who continue not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Besides, the Son himself was made a curse. In this view, the plural noun, has peculiar significance and perti

nence.

ON THE FATHER.

WHEN the doctrine of the Trinity is discussed, little is said distinctly respecting the Father. The cause of this neglect probably is, that all parties on this subject acknowledge that God is Father; and that the Father is God; and discussions respecting the nature of the Son imply the existence of the Father. But in taking a general view of the divine nature, as it is revealed, it is necessary to notice every character and office attached to it. The sacred scriptures represent the Father as having a distinct name, a distinct character, a distinct office. There is no reason that this part of the subject should be omitted.

God claims the relationship of Father to the human race. He is the Author of their beings; and on this gruond it is proper to call him their Father. The prophet Malachi saith, "A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master; if then I be a Father, where is mine honor, saith the Lord of hosts." Again he inquires, "Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us?" Christ taught his disciples, saying, "Be ye perfect, even as your Father, which is in heaven, is perfect." Again he said, "Pray to thy Father, which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." The apostle Paul saith, "To us there is but one God, the Father." The phrase, "God the Father," is frequently used in the New Testament. When the title, Father, is applied to God, importing his relationship to the

human race, it does not designate distinction in the divine nature. Its import is, God in plurality. When Christ teaches us to pray, "Our Father, who art in heaven," he designs that we should address the one only living and true God without the distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

them sons.

God is in a more special manner, the Father of believers. He claims a nearer and more endearing relationship to them. He calls them children; he calls "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God. Beloved, now are we the sons of God. Ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The union and affection, which subsist between them, are a just ground for giving them the appropriate names Father and sons. When God takes to himself the name Father in relation to the human race, or to believers, it is not designed to mark a distinction in his nature; but it conveys the idea of divine nature generally. The terms Father and God are frequently used as synonymous.

In all those divine works, which do not involve the work of redemption, God in plurality is brought to view. But when the work of redemption is exhibited, then the Trinity distinctly appears. When one of the sacred Three is exhibited, performing a certain part in the work of salvation, he takes the name of Father, not from the relationship, which he bears toward the human family; but from the relationship, which he bears toward the Son. In the divine nature and in the divine works there is perfect order. In divine offices there is priority and posteriority.. By unanimous consent one of the Trinity holds the first place. By unanimous consent he holds authority over the Son, and over the Spirit. As a father is the head of his family, and holds the reins of authority, there appears to be propriety in calling Him Father,