that they should be as frontlets between their eyes. The other prophets adopted similar language. Christ supported the same sentiment, and the apostles copied his example.

Notwithstanding the unity of God is a prominent doctrine in the Scriptures; yet both the Old and New Testament contain many terms and phrases, which evidently convey an idea of plurality in the divine nature. The original word in the Old Testament, for the name God, is used in the plural number. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." This is the first time the divine name is used in the Bible; and it is used in the plural number, connected with a singular verb. When God was about to form man, he said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." After the apostasy of our first parents, "The Lord God said, behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." When God looked down from heaven and beheld the tower, which the children of men builded, he said, "Go to, let us go down and there confound their language." God speaking by the mouth of his prophet inquires, "Whom shall I send? Who will for us?" Other passages contain the name of God in the plural number. God is jealous for the honor of his name. He will not give his glory to another. He will have no other gods before him. He has ever manifested the greatest abhorrence of idolatry. Why then did God reveal himself by a name of the plural number, when he knew that the heathen, and even his peculiar people were exceedingly prone to idolatry; and would greedily catch at every circumstance, which appeared to countenance their favorite worship? Why was the doctrine of one God guarded with such precision and circumspection; and the name of God expressed in the plural number, as if there were gods many? His name was first communicated in the plural number; and lest men should, from this circumstance, infer a multiplicity of gods, it was expressly declared that

go

the Lord God was one Lord; and that they should have no other gods. Moses was undoubtedly aware what use the people would make of the plurality contained in the divine name; and it is not probable he would have used this term excepting under the sanction of divine authority.

Some have attempted to explain away the meaning of the plurality in the divine name by considering it an imitation of the royal style. But there is no evidence that kings applied to themselves the plural number in the days of Moses. We find no instance, in the sacred scriptures, of this royal mode of expression till about a thousand years after Moses wrote his history. Artaxerxes, king of Persia, in answer to a letter sent to him by his chancellor, scribe and the rest of their companions, says, "The letter which ye sent unto us, hath been plainly read before me." Is it probable that God borrowed his titles, Majesty, most High, Prince, Sovereign, King, from earthly potentates? Is it probable that the Author of language is indebted to marks of royal honor for the formation of his own name, or for the mode of his expression? Is it probable that the Creator copied the creature? When it is considered how prone people were to deify works of art, animals, and departed spirits, it is easy to account for the origin of the custom of giving divine titles and divine honors to men in the most elevated stations. Repeated instances are found in history, in which men, who were distinguished for heroism, and more distinguished for vain conceit, pretended to be descendants of the gods; and assumed divine prerogatives. It was natural for them, when speaking in the first person, to use the plural number in imitation of the name of God. It is not a little surprising that Christian people should perpetuate this heathenish practice. But while it proves the power of example, it likewise proves that there is a certain plurality in the divine original, which gave rise to this custom.

In the New Testament the divine name is used in the singular number. When the individuity of divine plurality was distinctly revealed, the more obscure Hebrew mode of expressing the divine name ceased. If the name of God in the New Testament be not used in the plural number, a plurality of singulars is used, to which divine nature is ascribed. This gives a clearer view of plurality in God than the ancient Hebrew form of expression. The New Testament was to be circulated among the Jews for the purpose of converting them to Christianity. As they believed in only one God, no form of speech would unnecessarily be used by the writers of the Christian religion, which would convey to them the idea of a multiplicity of deities. As it was also to be circulated among heathen, it was necessary to use the greatest care in the choice of words, lest encouragement should be given to their idolatry. As the forms of speech used in the scriptures naturally suggest the idea of more gods than one, or of a plurality in the divine nature; and as the scriptures declare in the plainest and strongest terms that there is but one God, it follows that there is a plurality in his nature.

The Hebrew language is remarkable for its simplicity, and for its significancy. Proper names, as well as the names of a genus and species, are often expressive of the nature or properties of the person or thing named. Various names are given to the Supreme Being; and each name is significant of his nature, office, or of some of his attributes. In the first verse in the Bible the Hebrew name of God is expressive of his power. When he is represented in the act of creation there is a striking propriety in giving him a name expressing his might. When God commissioned Moses to lead Israel out of bondage, he made himself known to him by a name signifying independent existence. At other times he revealed himself by names signifying government and excellence. From the peculiar significancy of Hebrew names,

especially the names of God, an appropriate sense is undoubtedly to be given to the divine name, when used in the plural number. It is hard to conceive what appropriate sense can be extracted from this mode of expression, unless it be a certain plurality in the divine nature.

The principal Jewish cabalistic authors, both ancient and modern, believed a plurality in the nature of God. In one of the most ancient Jewish books, a book said to be as ancient as Abraham himself, there is this passage. "They are three lights, an ancient light, a pure light, and a most pure light; nevertheless all these are only one God." In another place, the same author, on the same subject says, "And know ye, the three high nominations all are united together; and never are divided." Another cabalistic author observes, "The three highest no eye ever saw, and there is not there either separation or division."*

A passage in Deuteronomy, 6:4, offers its aid in support of the sentiment under consideration. In our translation it is, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord, our God is one Lord." A modern Jew,† who was a considerable critic in the Hebrew language translates this passage probably more justly. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is one." After some explanation of this interpretation,the author adds, "Do not mistake me and think that there are three Gods of three different essences, neither one God without the plurality of persons; but yet there is one only God in nature and essence, and three distinct persons, all equal in power and glory; and coequal and coeval from all eternity." The opinion of the Jewish rabbies is of no inconsiderable weight in this argument. They were expert in the Hebrew scriptures; and they well understood the idiom and the peculiar force of their own language.

The different works of the Supreme Being, which are recorded in the sacred scriptures, form an argu

ment in favor of a plurality in his nature. It is recorded that God created the world; that he gave a law to the human race; that the blood of God was `shed to purchase his church;* and that those who are born again are born of God. Here are three distinct kinds of work, the formation and government of man, an expiation for sin, and a reparation of ruined human nature. God formed and published a law for the regulation of human life, and sanctioned it by threatening punishment for disobedience. The Son of God magnified and honored this law by humbling himself and bearing the sins of men in his own body on the accursed tree. The Spirit of God sanctifies the human heart, and restores unto it the divine moral likeIf there be no kind of plurality, no kind of individuality in the divine nature, then the same, who threatened, made satisfaction to himself to support his own authority; the same, whose authority was violated, paid the ransom and gives willingness to accept its benefits. Should the supreme ruler of a nation adopt this method of government; should he suffer the evil consequences incurred by his rebellious subjects; and then restore them to his favor, would he support his authority? would he manifest disapprobation of rebellion? The same difficulties would seem to lie against divine government, if there were entire singularity in the divine nature. In the whole economy of redemption there is abundant evidence that there is a ground in the divine nature for mutual

ness.

*Acts 20:28. There are found five different readings of this passage, beside that of the received text, which is το θεῖ, viz. το Κυρίω, το Χριστό, το Κυρίω θεῖ, τῷ θεῷ καὶ Κυρίs, and τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ θεῖ. Wetstein and Griesbach consider the evidence to be in favor of 7 Kugis. Wakefield, who was not disposed to give his aid to support the doctrine of Christ's divinity, prefers the received reading T 0; but he is careful to explain away all the natural meaning of the text. He states that Griesbach's testimony respecting the Ethiopic version is "infamously false." "The MSS. in which it" (i. e. T ) is found amounts to fourteen, and it is quoted or referred to by a great many of the fathers." See Middleton on the Greek article, pp. 227-232.

In five exemplaribus legitur Kugis na Oes. Beza. Illustris sententia de Deitate Christi, et unione duarum naturarum, qua uni tribuitur proprietas alterius. Sanguis Jesu est sanguis Dei proprius, vi κοινωνίας ἰδιωμάτων. See Poole on

the place.