self, merely to declare his mind more regis, he would have done it always, at least he would have done it often. However, it would unavoidably have been the form of speech used in that kingly act of giving the law at Sinai; for that, if any thing, required the kingly style pretended. But the absolute contrary is observed. God, in that whole transaction with his peculiar people and subjects, speaks of himself constantly in the singular number.

There are two sorts of persons, who, with all their strength and artifices, oppose our opposition of this place; namely, the Jews and the Socinians, with whom we have to do perpetually, in whatever concerns the person and office of Christ the Messiah.

The Jews are at no small loss, as to the intention of the Holy Ghost, in this expression. Philo (de Opificio Mun.) knows not on what to fix, but after a pretence of some satisfactory reason, adds; "The true reason "hereof is known to God alone." The reason which he esteems most probable, is taken out of Plato, in his Timaus; for whereas, he saith, that there was to be in the nature of man a principle of evil, it was necessary that it should be from another author, and not from the most high God. Such woful mistakes may be passed over in Plato, who had no infallible rule to direct him in his disquisition after truth; but in him who had the advantage of the scriptures of the Old Testament, it cannot be excused, seeing this figment riseth up in opposition to the whole design of them. Some seek an evasion in supposing the verb (wys) to be the first person singular in Niphal; and not the first person plural in Kal; (homo factus est) man, or Adam, was made in our image and likeness; that is, of Moses and other men. Of this exposition Aben-Ezra says plainly, "It is an interpretation for a fool;" and well refutes it

from these words of God himself, Gen. ix, 6. Joseph Kimki would have it, that God speaks to himself, or the earth, or the four elements. Some of them affirm that God, in these words, consulted "with his family "above;" that is, the angels. Others say it is God and "his house of judgment." Other vain and foolish conjectures of theirs, in this matter, I shall not repeat. These instances are sufficient; for hence it is evident into what uncertainty they cast themselves, who are resolved upon an opposition to the truth. They know not what to fix upon, nor wherewith to relieve themselves. Although they all aim at the same, yet, what, one embraceth another condemns, and those that are wisest reckon up all the conjectures they think of together, but fix on no one, as true, or as deserving to be preferred before others. For error is no where stable or certain, but fluctuates like the fabled isle of Delos, beyond the skill of men or devils, to give it a fixation.

$12. Georgius Eniedinus, whose writings, indeed, gave the first countenance to the Antitrinitarian cause, urges several objections (in his Explicationes locorum Veteris & Novi Testamenti) mostly borrowed from the Jews, invented by them out of hatred to the Christian faith. But these gentlemen always think it sufficient to their cause, to put in cavilling exceptions to the clearest evidence of any Divine testimony, without caring to give any sense of their own, by which they will abide as the true exposition of them.

He, therefore, first pleads: "If there is any strength in this argument, it only proves that there are many gods." Sophistical and vain cavil! Is not the unity of the Divine nature always supposed in our disquisition concerning the persons subsisting therein? Nor do we plead for three distinct persons in the Trinity, from this place. What we contend for here is, that there is 39

VOL. I.

a plurality of subsistences in the Divine nature; but that these are three, neither more nor less, we prove from other places of scripture, without number. Without a supposition of this plurality of persons, we say, no tolerable account can be given of the reason of this assertion, by any who acknowledge the unity of the Divine nature. And we design no more, but that there is implied mutual counsel, which, without a distinction of persons, cannot be imagined. This whole pretence, therefore, founded on vain and false supposition, that the testimony is used to prove a certain number of persons in the Deity, is altogether vain and frivolous. It is granted, that one speaks these words, not more together; but he so speaks them, that he takes those to whom he speaks into the society of the same work with himself; nor is the Divine Speaker otherwise concerned in, "let us make," and "in our like"ness," than those to whom he speaks. And, indeed, it is not the speaking of these words before many concerned, that Moses expresseth, but the concurrence of many to the same work, with the same interest and concernment in it. And whoever is concerned (whether speaking, or spoken to) in the first word, "let us "make" is no less respected in the following words: "in our image and likeness." They must, therefore, be of one and the same nature, which was to be represented in the creature to be made in their image.

Again, he objects, "That writers often introduce a person deliberating and debating with himself." But the whole of this, and what he would insinuate by it, is merely petitio principii, accompanied with the neglect of the argument which he pretends to answer. For he only says, that "One may be introduced, as it were, deliberating and consulting with himself," whereof yet he gives no parallel instance, either from scrip

ture, or other sober writer; but he takes no notice that the words directly introduce more than one consulting and deliberating among themselves, about creating man in their image.

Again, what he concludes from his arbitrary supposition, that hence "it doth not follow, that God took counsel with others besides himself," is nothing to the argument in hand; for do we ever plead hence, that God consulted with others besides himself? But this the words evince, that he who then consulted with himself, is, in some respect, more than one. But to invent exceptions against our interpretation of any testimony of scripture, and never care to give one of their own which they will adhere to and defend, is contemptibly perverse.

He next appeals to Isa. i; "Hear, O heavens, and “give ear, O earth!" But in such rhetorical apostrophes, they are, in truth, men that are spoken to, and that scheme of speech is used merely to make an impression on them of the things that are spoken. Apply this to the words of God, in the circumstances of the creation of man; and it will appear shamefully ridiculous. The scripture expressly denies, that "God "took counsel with any besides himself in the whole "work of the creation,' Isa. lx, 12-14. Creation is a pure act of infinite monarchical sovereignty, wherein there was no use of any intermediate instrumental causes; nor can God be represented, as consulting with any creatures in that stupendous work, without a disturbance of the true notion of it.

Again, man was made in the image and likeness of him that speaks, and all that are, as it were, conferred with. "Let us make man in OUR image;" but man was made in the image and likeness of God alone, as it is expressed in the next verse. And the image here

mentioned doth not denote that which is made to answer another thing, but that which another is to answer to. "Let us make man in our image;" that is, conformable to our nature. Now, God, and any other beings, as angels, have not one common nature, that should be the example, and prototype in the creation of man; their nature and properties are infinitely distant; and that likeness which is between angels and men, doth no way prove, that man was made in the image of angels, although angels should be supposed to be made before them. For more is required to that end than mere similitude; as an egg is like another, but not the image of another. A design of conforming one to another with its dependance on that other, is required; and so was man made in the image of God alone.

This opponent makes no inquiry why, seeing in all the antecedent work of creation, God is introduced speaking constantly in the singular number, the phrase of speech is here changed, and God speaks as consulting, or deliberating in the plural number. And he says, not only, "let us make,” but adds "in our image, and in our likeness." To imagine this to be done without some peculiar reason, is to dream, rather than to inquire into the sense of scripture. And it is not enough to prove, that a plural word may be used in a singular sense, except it be also shewn to be so in this place, seeing the proper import of it is otherwise. Nor can such an expression, concerning God, be used ho noris gratia, seeing it is no honor to him to be spoken of as many Gods; for his glory is, that he is one only. It hath, therefore, another respect, viz. to the persons in the unity of the same nature.

§13. The foundation of our design from this place being thus established, we may safely build upon it;