CHAPTER I.

ON THE CREATOR OF THE WORLD.

Distinguished by his name JEHOVAH -- His essence and self-existence expressed by the words I AM -- His attribute of goodness the glory of all his other perfections -- Elohim signifying a Trinity of Persons in a Unity of Essence -- The Creation ascribed to one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- The first production of matter -- The creatures made for the manifesting of God’s attributes, and that he might impart happiness to them.

As it is proposed, in the following pages to give the Mosaic account of the creation of the world, it is very natural that the mind should come to the meditation of this interesting subject, by contemplating the character of the Great Creator, according to his own revelations.

It is evident that God made himself gradually known, as the state and condition of mankind required. In the earlier ages of the world, while revelation was but dawning on the human race, he was but little known, in comparison of the subsequent diffusion of his glory and perfections. When he, according to his promise, came to deliver the children of Israel out of Egypt, he revealed himself to them by his name JEHOVAH. He had before declared himself by this name to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; but not as it imports the performance of his promises; in which sense, their posterity afterwards, in the time of Moses, well understood it.

Of all the names which the Divine Being has been pleased to designate himself by, that of JEHOVAH is the greatest. It comes from a root which imports his eternity, independency, efficacy, and truth. In the Hebrew it is written with four letters, י _yod_, ה _he_, ו _vau_, ה _he_, thus יהוה i.e. JHVH:[1] the points used in that language, make our English word consist of seven letters, J_e_H_o_V_a_H. God himself gives the interpretation of this name. “And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed יהוה YEHOVAH, the LORD GOD, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.” These different names have been considered as so many attributes of the Divine Nature. Commentators divide them into eleven, thus: 1. יהוה JEHOVAH. 2. אל EL, the strong or mighty God. 3. רחום RACHUM, the merciful Being, who is full of tenderness and compassion. 4. חנין CHANUN, the gracious One: He, whose nature is goodness itself--the loving God. 5. ארך פיםא EREC APAYIM, long-suffering, the Being who, because of his goodness and tenderness, is not easily irritated, but suffers long and is kind. 6. רב RAB, the great or mighty One. 7. חסד CHESED, the bountiful Being: He who is exuberant in his beneficence. 8. אמת EMETH, the Truth, or true One: He alone who can neither deceive nor be deceived--who is the Fountain of truth, and from whom all wisdom and knowledge must be derived. 9. חסד נצר NOTSER CHESED the preserver of bountifulness: He whose beneficence never ends, keeping mercy for thousands of generations--showing compassion and mercy while the world endures. 10. נשא עון ופשע וחטאה NOSE _âvon vapeshâ vechataah_: He who bears away iniquity and transgression and sin; properly the REDEEMER, the Pardoner, the Forgiver, the Being whose prerogative alone it is to forgive sin, and save the soul. נקה (לו) לא ינקה NAKEH _lo yinnakeh_, the righteous Judge, who distributes justice with an impartial hand; with whom no innocent person can ever be condemned. 11. And פקד עון PAKED _âvon_, &c. He who visits iniquity; he who punishes transgressors, and from whose justice no sinner can escape. The God of retributive and vindictive justice. These eleven attributes, as they have been termed, are all included in the name _Jehovah_; and are the proper interpretation of it.[2]

The Jews had a superstitious respect for this name; and, after the Babylonian captivity, discontinued the use of it, which caused them soon to forget its true pronunciation. They called it the _Tetragrammaton_, or four-lettered name of God, which, to the present day, the Jews will neither write nor pronounce. They deemed it to be ineffable; and therefore when it occurred in reading the Scriptures; substituted אדני _Adonai_.

The Jews tell us that the woman’s son, mentioned in Lev. xxxiv, 11, was accused of blasphemy and stoned to death, because he pronounced the name _Jehovah_. But I conceive, that he had spoken contemptuously of God. We read, verse 10, that he and a man of Israel strove together, and it is probable that the Israelite, in the heat of contention, would deny his being a member of the church of God, because he was the son of an Egyptian father who was an idolater; whereupon, no doubt, the son of the Israelitish woman spoke scornfully and opprobriously of the God of Israel, despising the privilege of being one of his people. This, I imagine, was the blasphemy of which he was accused, and for which he was condemned and stoned to death; and not for pronouncing the name of _Jehovah_ only.

The Seventy who translated the Old Testament into Greek, at the desire of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, about the 124th Olympiad, were also very sparing in the use of this name _Jehovah_; and therefore did not render it according to the sacred import of the Hebrew, but changed it into the word Κυριος, _Lord_, which is of the same signification with _Adonai_ in the Hebrew. Origen, Jerome, and Eusebius, testify, that, in their time, the Jews left the name _Jehovah_ written in their copies with Samaritan characters, instead of the common Chaldee or Hebrew characters. And those divines, who at the command of King James translated the Scriptures anew into English, have very rarely used the word _Jehovah_, but rendered it _Lord_. Yet we may observe, that when this word _Lord_ is substituted for _Jehovah_, it is printed in large Roman letters. It is to be wished, that the name _Jehovah_ had been preserved in the English translation of the Scriptures, and especially in those passages whose sense entirely depends on the meaning of the word.

After the appointment of Moses, by Jehovah, to deliver the children of Israel from the tyranny and oppression under which they groaned, and to conduct them from Egypt to worship God at Horeb, he was anxious to obtain a particular revelation of the Divine nature and attributes, that he might be able to regulate, direct, and superintend their worship; and this he deemed necessary on account of the Israelites having been long conversant among the Egyptians, who were idolaters and polytheists, and called their gods by a variety of names. Hereupon he said to God, “Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say unto me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?” Intimating, that it was expedient God should call himself by an appropriate name, to distinguish himself from all the gods of the heathen. For men did not, at this time, as Dr. Shuckford observes, know the works of creation well enough to demonstrate from them the attributes of God; nor could they, by speculation, form proper and just notions of his nature. Though he had revealed himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by the name אני אל שדי _Ani El shaday_, “I am God all-sufficient,” and likewise that of יהוה _Jehovah_; yet a further knowledge of him was sincerely desired and earnestly requested.[3]

Whereupon, says God to Moses, I AM _that_ I AM, אהיה אשר אהיה EHEYEH _asher_ EHEYEH. The Vulgate translates these words--EGO SUM QUI SUM, _I am who am_. The Septuagint--Εγω ειμι ὁ Ων, _I am he who exists_. The Arabic paraphrases them--_The Eternal, who passes not away_. Not _I was_, but I AM and WILL BE: a name that expresses his own essence, and signifies independency, immutability, and necessary existence. As if he had said, You may inquire who I am, and by what name I would be distinguished: know then that I AM HE who has being from himself, and has no dependence on any other.[4] This contains in it the whole plenitude and possibility of being, all that is, or can be, or, as the Apostle expresses it, παν το πληρωμα της Θεοτητος “all the fulness of the Godhead.” By this name he is distinguished not only from all false gods, but from all other beings whatsoever; implying, that he exists after some very eminent and peculiar manner, and that nothing else besides him truly and essentially is.[5]

The self-existence of God proves that he always was, and evidently shows that he cannot cease to be. “He is, and was, and is to come.” His necessary existence comprehends a duration which has neither beginning, succession, nor end. He can have no succession in his duration, because wherever this is there must be priority, and wherever there is a priority there must be a beginning. He is in the complete possession of an endless life, all at once. He exists in one eternal _now_. He is unchangeable in his essence or manner of existence, so that no perfection can be added to him, nor any excellency taken from him, but he remains invariably the same.

All natural perfections are essential to him as an infinite being, such as eternity, omnipotence, immensity, omniscience, spirituality, and immutability; and all moral perfections belong to him as a good Being, such as wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, faithfulness. These latter are communicable, because there are some rays of them in his creatures, but none of them in that transcendent degree that are in him, nor ever can be. The former we call his _natural_ and _incommunicable_ perfections, for the sake of distinction; though it is certain the latter are equally as natural to him, and incommunicable, in that infinite degree possessed by himself.

God being unchangeable in his essence, must also be so in all his perfections, because they are no other than his essence, and are not distinguished in him, either from his essence, or from one another; but are one and the same Being, revealed and manifested to us, under various notions, which we call _attributes_, to help us the better to conceive of him, who are not able to apprehend what may be known of him, under any one name, or by any one act of our understanding.

The combination of all his perfections renders him a glorious Being; and that fixed and invariable state of contentment and satisfaction, complacency and delight, which result from the secure possession and enjoyment of all that is good and desirable, or, in other words, of all possible excellencies and perfections in the highest degree, constitutes him infinitely blessed.

Moses was favored with another remarkable and interesting manifestation of the Divine Being; for perceiving God’s merciful condescension in answer to his prayers offered up for his people, he persevered in the holy exercise, and even asked him for a manifestation of his glory: “Show me,” said he, “I beseech thee, thy glory,” or, according to the original, “make me see it.” He could not mean an open view of the unclouded majesty of God, but only such a display of the Divine glory as a mortal is capable of beholding. God answered, “I will make all my _goodness_ to pass before thee:” intimating, that his _goodness_ is his glory, and that he could not bear the infinite splendor of his holiness and justice. _Goodness_ is the true and genuine character of God, and the glory of all his other perfections, and by it they are all rendered engaging. Without this they would be terrible: for wisdom without goodness degenerates into insidious cunning; and power without it is the character of a tyrant. Were God destitute of this amiable perfection, he would have such a defect in his nature, as infinite perfection itself, in every other attribute, could not sufficiently compensate.

All nations have acknowledged this perfection of the Divine Being. Plato calls him the ιδεα του αγαθου, the idea or essence of goodness. In the three principles of the Platonic Trinity--το αγαθον _goodness_, νους _intelligence_, and ψυχη _vitality_.--The first place is assigned to the το αγαθον _goodness_, which the Platonists conceive to be like an immense and most pure light, continually diffusing and communicating its invigorating beams. To this the Platonist Boctius alludes, in that celebrated description of God, where he calls him _Fons Boni Lucidus_, the lucid fountain of goodness.--There is an ancient cabalistical table, supposed to be borrowed from the Pythagoreans, which represents, in a visible scheme, the order of the Divine perfections: wherein it is observable that _goodness_ presides over, and gives laws and measures to all the other attributes of God.

Philo says, God is the name of _goodness_; and our English word, adds a late author, seems to be a contraction of the word _good_; or, however, is the same with the German _Got_, or _Godt_, which came, as is thought, from the Arabic word _Gada_, of the same signification. So that the German and the English name of the Supreme Being, in common use, is taken from the attribute of his _goodness_. “The word itself is pure Anglo-saxon,” says Dr. Adam Clarke, “and, among our ancestors, signified not only the Divine Being, now commonly designated by the word, but also _good_; as in their apprehension it appears, that _God_ and _Good_ were correlative terms; and when they thought or spoke of him, they were ever led from the word itself to consider him as THE GOOD BEING a fountain of infinite benevolence and beneficence towards his creatures.” The word GOD, expressed in the old Saxon, is _bona res_, a good thing.

That God is _good_, is the constant language of Divine revelation; for this attribute is every where celebrated, both in the Old and New Testament. It may be distinguished as _natural_, _moral_, and _communicative_. The first of these is the absolute perfection of his nature, which is goodness itself in its very essence. He is originally good, and that of himself; which is a property peculiar to no other creature, for all the goodness of the creature is derived from God. He is infinitely and therefore incomprehensively good to men and angels; hence his goodness knows no limits. We read of the “riches of his goodness,” which are as “unsearchable,” as is his “greatness.” He is immutably good, for “the goodness of God endureth continually.” And as his dependence on no one admits not of his being changed by others, so neither does his immutability admit of it by himself; for if he alter for the better he was not God before, and if for the worse, he then would not be God. Thus he is essentially, originally, infinitely, incomprehensibly, and unchangeably good.

The _moral_ goodness of God is his perfect purity or holiness; therefore his goodness and holiness are united--“good and upright is the Lord.” According to any rational opinion we can form of him, he is a Being possessed, not only of every natural power and perfection, but of every moral excellence. The holiness of his nature removes him to the greatest possible distance from all moral evil, and makes him necessarily approve of moral good. All his designs are pure and upright, and worthy of himself: he always acts according to the perfect rectitude of his own nature. Though he is not under the direction of any superior, yet his own rectitude always determines him to pursue what is right to be done towards his creatures. This property of the Divine Being greatly heightens our idea of his excellence, and naturally points him out as the Governor of mankind. And as he adheres to it in his own conduct and administration, and likewise approves and loves it in his rational creatures, whom he governs; so he disapproves and hates the reverse in them, and will most certainly animadvert upon the temper and behavior of those who act contrary to his divine admonitions, and make them most sensibly feel the effects of their wickedness.

The _communicative_, or relative goodness of God, or his goodness to his creatures, is his inclination or self-propension to deal well and bountifully with them. As the notion of God includes goodness, so the idea of goodness implies holy diffusiveness. Therefore, says the Psalmist, “Thou art good, and doest good.” All that we are, have, or hope for, that is good, proceeds from God as its fountain; hence he is called, “the fountain of living waters.” This communicative goodness implies, that, from his all-sufficiency, he is ready to impart to his creatures whatever their necessities require. This attribute is universal: “he is good to all” his creatures from the highest angel to the meanest reptile; especially, to his people, “Truly,” says the Psalmist, “God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart.” But, though God is good to all his creatures, yet he is not equally so in the same kind and degree of blessings. His munificence is regulated by his wisdom, and the different capacities with which he has formed his creatures makes this inequality necessary.

[There is one vast and awful question which must occur to every reflecting mind--_What is God?_

As it regards his _Nature_, the Scriptures say, He is a _Spirit_. We must therefore, conceive the Creator to be, a _Living_, _Rational_, _Benevolent_, and _Spiritual_ ESSENCE; absolutely, necessarily, and naturally _perfect_, and, therefore, _immaterial_, _uncompounded_, _indivisible_, and _eternal_.

It is necessarily understood that this essence is _peculiar_: that there is nothing in its nature which has any resemblance to _created_ substances, whether material or spiritual; and that it is _underived_, and consequently, _independent_.

This Divine Essence being immaterial, impalpable, simple and indivisible, cannot have _body_ or _parts_: nor can it be said to be a _whole_, for this would imply an _aggregation_ of parts: but is itself a perfect, absolute, single, and eternal INDIVIDUALITY, incapable of self-multiplication, or increase; or of diminishing itself, or endangering its existence.

This essence is a _living_ essence; and, therefore, has inherently the power and principles of _action_: It is a _rational_ essence, and therefore, must act according to the eternal principles of _reason_ and _right_: It is a _benevolent_ essence, and therefore, all its actions must be infinitely _good_ and _kind_. Absolute _perfection_, _infinitude_, and _sovereignty_ in all these respects, constitute the Being we call God.

As God is a single, indivisible, independent, and eternal UNIT, we cannot ascribe _different_ perfections, or attributes to him, so as to suppose one attribute _separate from, and independent of_ another, capable of acting _per se_, or participating _conjunctively_ with other attributes _as an integer_. Nor can we suppose this eternal, and independent Unit to act by being _operated upon_ in any degree, by other agents, nor can he operate on himself. All his actions, therefore, spring from himself, and are performed _without excitement, effort, means, or previous ratiocination_.

It will follow from the preceding reasoning, that every action of the Divine Being, in regard to himself, is precisely the same in _nature_: so that we cannot say of one act it is an effort of his _power_ to the _exclusion_ of his wisdom: nor of his wisdom to the exclusion of his goodness: nor of his goodness to the exclusion of his holiness: and so of the rest. Strictly speaking we cannot say the power _of_ God; the wisdom _of_ God; the goodness _of_ God, &c.; because the power of God _is_ God; the wisdom of God _is_ God; the goodness of God _is_ God.

In contemplating this awful subject _abstractly_, we should say there are no such things as _attributes_ in the Divine Being, _as they are commonly understood_. What we call his attributes, are only different modes of the operations of the same eternal, undivided, and independent Unit. Indeed, God is one entire perfection which exerts itself in different ways and actions.

But as we cannot comprehend this single entire perfection; nor understand _how_ it exerts the whole of itself, as a single indivisible agent, _in each particular act_, as it really does, mankind have always been in the habit of assisting their contemplations by regarding the _nature_ of the acts of this single, indivisible, and eternal agent, and thus _infering_ the nature of the Divine Being. And as these acts appear to differ in _quality_, we infer a quality in the agent, corresponding with the quality of the actions which we see: we call this quality by a _name_, and _thus derive the doctrine of attributes_.

For example: When we see this single, indivisible agent manifesting himself in such a manner as to give us the idea of _unlimited power_, we ascribe _omnipotence_ to him, as an attribute. When we see a manifestation indicating _infinite wisdom_, we ascribe _omniscience_ to him as an attribute. In the same manner in reference to the manifestations which indicate justice, goodness, mercy, truth, holiness, faithfulness, righteousness, kindness, &c, all of which we ascribe to him upon such indications.

Although _this rationale_, in contemplating the Divine Being, is necessary to _creatures_, yet it is calculated to lead the mind into error. We am insensibly inclined to ascribe the divine actions to those attributes _exclusively_ which we suppose they indicate. This, probably, has been the most fatal error of mankind, and, doubtless, laid the foundation of darkness and idolatry. We must never conceive that any act of the Divine Being proceeds from _one_ or more attributes to the _exclusion_ of others; or that one attribute participates _more_ in one act than another. This is the fatal mistake. Hence theologians have become blind and foolish, bewildering the multitude by building up theories on the consideration of a single attribute; thus making the Divine Being to consist of parts, and these parts independent too. Instances of this awful mistake might be given, but it scarcely comes within the design of this paper. It is sufficient to say; if we conceive correctly of the divine acts, _we will ascribe each equally to all the Divine Attributes_.

As we conceive this single, indivisible, underived, independent, and eternal agent, or perfection to be absolutely infinite, and illimitable in all possible ways, or manner, of exerting Himself, we, of course, conceive all the qualities, indicated by the divine acts, which we call attributes, to be absolutely infinite, perfect, and eternal: and thus we derive the doctrine of the absolute perfection, and infinitude of all, and each of the Divine Attributes.

From the foregoing reflections, the reader will readily conceive of the Divine Being, as a Living, Rational, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence, existing as a single, underived, independent, Unit: a Unit, not in reality consisting of attributes, or perfections, but itself one single, entire perfection: exerting itself not by attributes, but as an individual Unit or Agent, in such a manner that each action is the action of the Divine Being, and not of one or more of his attributes: that the existence of this single, underived, independent, and eternal Agent, was, and is _necessary_, and, therefore, he could not but have existed, and cannot cease to be; that He is absolute, and infinite in all possible ways and manner of acting, and consequently we conceive Him possessed of all possible perfections in an infinite degree.]

By the assistance of Divine revelation we are enabled further to pursue our inquiries concerning this very important subject; and without which, we should be involved in great darkness and uncertainty, not only respecting his moral perfections, but the _mode_ of his existence. And this must be a matter of superior interest to mankind, or our adorable Creator would not have communicated it, which he evidently has done through the medium of the Scriptures, written by Divine inspiration.

Moses, having received by Divine revelation instruction concerning the origin and formation of the world, conducts us at once to its great and adorable Architect. “In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.” Here he adopts a phraseology to express the supreme Being, which is generally used in the Old Testament for the same purpose, and is very important and necessary to be understood, as it gives us information after what _manner_ he exists. ‘The original word אלהימ _Elohim_, God,’ says a great linguist, ‘is certainly the plural form of אל _el_, or אלה _eloah_, and has long been supposed, by the most eminently learned and pious men, to imply a _plurality_ of persons in the divine nature.’ As this plurality appears in so many parts of the sacred writings to be confined to _three_ Persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, hence the doctrine of the TRINITY.

It is very remarkable that we no sooner open the Bible, than this doctrine is presented to our view. The laws and ordinances established among the Jews were designed to guard that people from idolatry, which in Abraham’s time had become very general. On the recollection of this circumstance it appears extraordinary that Moses, when he is describing the creation of the world, should, in order to express his conceptions of the Divine Being, introduce a term which implies _plurality_; and, frequently connecting it with verbs and persons singular, should use that term _thirty_ times in the short account of the creation, when the language afforded other words in the singular number that would have answered his purpose equally well; nay, if he did not wish to express a _plurality_, that grammatical accuracy should have led him to adopt. When he made use of a plural noun for the name of God, which he has done, perhaps, _five hundred_ times more in one form or other in the five books of his writings, this _plurality_, I apprehend, was the idea he meant to convey to mankind. He, or rather the HOLY SPIRIT, by whom he was inspired to write his history, meant to give some hints and intimations of a doctrine more clearly to be revealed in future ages.[6]

The ancient Jews understood _Elohim_ as conveying the idea of a plurality in the Godhead. “Come,” says one of them, “and see the mystery of the word _Elohim_: there are _three degrees_, and each degree by itself _alone_, and yet notwithstanding they are all _one_, and joined together in one, and are not _divided_ from each other.”[7]

R. Bechai, a celebrated author among the Jews, discoursing of the word _Elohim_, and of the import and signification of it, adds these words:--“According to the cabalistical way, this name _Elohim_ is two words, namely, _El him_, that is, _they are God_. But the explanation of the Yod is to be fetched from Eccles. xii, 1, _Remember thy_ CREATORS. He that is prudent will understand it.” These words do sufficiently prove the Cabala among the Jews, says Bishop Kidder, that though the Divine Nature was but _one_, yet there was some kind of _plurality_ in this Divine Nature; and this is fairly insinuated in the _Bara Elohim_, which we find in the beginning of Genesis.[8]

John Xeres, a Jew converted in England some years ago, published a sensible and affectionate address to his unbelieving brethren, wherein he says, that “the word _Elohim_, which we render GOD in Gen. i, 1, is of the plural number, though annexed to a verb of the singular number; which,” says he, “demonstrates as evidently as may be, that there are several persons partaking of the same Divine nature and essence.”[9]

It is clear too, how sensible the Jews have been that there is a notion of _plurality_ plainly imported in the Hebrew text, since they have forbidden their common people the reading of the history of the creation, lest, understanding it literally, they should be led unto heresy.[10] When the Scriptures are suppressed, or the common people denied the use of them, it may with propriety be presumed that their superiors, who act in an arbitrary and unjust manner, have embraced anti-scriptural notions, and, in order to prevent detection, lay aside the only infallible _test_ of truth; and, to conceal their base motives, and make their deleterious conduct appear not only plausible, but necessary and proper, they boldly assert the incompetency of the people to judge of scripture doctrines for themselves, and wish to be considered compassionate and friendly in judging and deciding for them. The fact is, the common people are denied the use of the Scripture, lest understanding it in a certain sense, which their superiors call heresy, it should lead them into the understanding of plain and unequivocal facts stated therein, and which are of the utmost importance for them to know.

It may be observed here likewise, that the Hebrew doctors always supposed the first verse of Genesis to contain some latent mystery. The Rabbi Ibba indeed expressly says it does, and adds, “This mystery is not to be revealed, till the coming of the Messiah.”

Mr. Parkhurst, who has greatly distinguished himself in Hebrew literature, and to whose pious and learned labors most Biblical students are indebted, says, “Let those who have any doubt whether אלהימ _Elohim_, when meaning the true God, Jehovah, be _plural_ or not, consult the following passages, where they will find it joined with adjectives, pronouns, and verbs _plural_:” he refers to twenty-five texts in the Old Testament on this occasion.[11]

If Moses and the Jews held the doctrine of the Trinity, and the word _Elohim_ imports _plurality_, it is natural to ask, How comes it to pass that the Septuagint version renders the plural name Elohim, when used for the true God, by the singular one Θεος, and never by the plural Θεοι? The learned Ridley,[12] after Allix, has answered this question. He says, “The Talmudists own that the LXXII Interpreters did purposely change the notion of _plurality_ implied in the Hebrew _Elohim_ into the Greek singular, lest Ptolemy Philadelphus should conclude that the Jews, as well as himself, had a belief of Polytheism.” And Bishop Huntingford adds, “Of all the Greek appellations of Divinity, Θεος was the only simple and direct term which they could adopt, to counteract idolatrous misconceptions.”

This phraseology, as to its signification, is not peculiar to Moses, but is used by the other sacred writers also, and exactly accords with the whole tenor of Divine revelation. The creation of the world is ascribed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as joint, concurring, equal, and efficient causes thereof, in the Scriptures. It will not surely be presuming too much, says Bishop Huntingford, if we suppose Joshua and Solomon to be more deeply instructed in the Jewish Religion, than to be capable of using improper language respecting the Deity. Yet the former says, “Ye cannot serve the Lord: for he is the Holy Gods;” and the latter says, “The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom; and the knowledge of the Holies is understanding.”[13] Such is the phraseology of the Hebrew text. In these passages, and others that might be produced, the word in the Hebrew is in the plural number, because of the _plurality_ of persons in the Godhead; but in our translation it is in the _singular_ number, because of the unity of their essence.

But more particularly. The creation of the world is ascribed to JEHOVAH: “I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.” He had no _moving causes_ exciting him to create matter and produce a universe, but his own will, goodness, wisdom, and power. He created all things himself, without the assistance of _any instruments_. The prophet ascribes to God alone the framing and stretching out of the heavens and the earth without the counsel, direction, or ministry of any subordinate agency. “Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with a span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding?” He created all things without any _toil_, _labor_, _change_, or _alteration_ in himself. There was not in him any transition from rest to labor, from idleness to business, from strength to weariness. Though “every good and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,” yet “with him there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” The Prophet says, “Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?” And he proceeded in the work of creation without _any delay_: it was not a successive forming of things by alteration, which required much time to render them perfect, but was as in a moment, as quickly and readily as a word is spoken, produced in the rapid succession as recorded by Moses. This work then God is said to have done _alone_, to the exclusion, not of the Son and the Spirit, but of all that are not God by nature; and by himself, to the exclusion of all second causes or inferior agents.

It is ascribed also to the SON of God. The evangelist John asserts in very express terms the Divinity of Jesus Christ, of the truth of which he designed his whole Gospel should be a proof. “In the beginning was the Λογος Word.” By the εν αρχη _beginning_, here, we are to understand the beginning of the creation, not the beginning of the gospel state, as the Socinians say. We have the authority of Grotius, that εν αρχη is taken from בראשית _Bereshith_, Gen. i, 1, translated by the Septuagint εν αρχη, and consequently must signify, from _the beginning of the creation of God_. It is not said, that _he_ was _made_ in the beginning, but that he _was_ in the beginning, did exist when the world began, which is of the same import as if he said, he was from eternity; for he that did exist in the beginning, never did himself begin to be. The personal Wisdom of God says, “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.”--“And the Logos,” or “Word, was with God.” He could be with no creature, because there was no creature in being; and therefore it is very properly said, that he “was with God,” the Father; and his being with him shows, that he is a distinct person or subsistence from the Father.--“And the Logos,” or “Word was God.” Though he is a person distinct from that of the Father, yet he is of the very same essence with him. He that was with God, was God; and if he was God in the beginning, that is from eternity, he is the same still, he cannot cease to be what he was. Here then the evangelist asserts the eternal existence of Christ, his personal co-existence with the Father, and that he is of the very same undivided nature and essence with him. Though he is a person distinct from the Father, yet he is of the same substance, equal with him in all divine perfections; not a _secondary_ God, inferior to the Father, as the Arians assert. “All things were made by him.” All things, from the highest angel to the meanest worm, were made by him, not as a subordinate instrument, but as a co-ordinate agent, as a joint efficient cause, co-operating with the Father in this work. ‘To say that Christ made all things by a delegated power from God, is _absurd_; because the thing is impossible. Creation means, causing that to exist that had no previous being: this is evidently a work which can be effected only by _omnipotence_. Now God cannot delegate his _omnipotence_ to another: were this possible, he _to_ whom this omnipotence was delegated, would, in consequence, become God; and he _from_ whom it was delegated, would _cease to be such_: for it is impossible that there should be _two_ omnipotent beings.’ “And without him was not any thing made that was made.” This is added for the more certainty, it being usual with the Hebrews, when they would affirm that a thing is so indeed, to confirm by a particular negative what they had before affirmed. Our Lord said to the Jews, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” The phrase ὡς αρτι signifies “to this time,” “to the present,” that is, in all works whatever. Hence he is no creature, or he must have created himself; and if he created himself, he must have been in existence and not in existence at the very same time, which is both contradictory and absurd. And if every work performed by the Father was equally performed by the Son, the Son must, in all respects, be equal to the Father, in nature and perfections. This our Lord’s words signify and imply, and in this sense the Jews understood him--as “making himself equal with God.”[14] “He is the image of God,” the πρωτοτοχος “FIRST PRODUCER of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:” all the angels, however diversified in rank or employment in the heavenly world; and all the rational, animal, vegetable, and inanimate creatures, belonging to this terrestrial abode: “all things were made by him,” as the efficient cause, “and for him,” as the last end.--“God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds,” i.e. the heavens and the earth. The Father does all by the Son, and the Son does all from the Father. Whatsoever the Father does, that also does the Son likewise. “Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, oh God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thy hands.” In these passages the _Divinity_ of Christ is plainly asserted, and the operations of his power are proofs of his Godhead. He that is the Creator of all things is God: but Christ is the Creator of all things; therefore Christ is God. He calls himself “the Beginning of the creation of God,” where the word αρχη means the Creator, the efficient Cause of all things, he by whose power the creation had its beginning and perfection. And “he that built all things is God.”

The learned Jacob Bryant wrote a very valuable Tract entitled, _The sentiments of Philo Judæus concerning the ΛΟΓΟΣ, or Word of God_; from which the following are quotations. “Philo Judæus speaks at large in many places of the Word of God, the second person, which he mentions as _the second Divinity_, the _great Cause_ of all things, and styles him as Plato, as well as the Jews, had done before, the LOGOS. Of the Divine Logos or Word he speaks in many places, and maintains at large the Divinity of the second Person, and describes his attributes in a very precise and copious manner, styling him _the second Deity, who is the Word of the supreme God, his first-begotten Son; and the image of God_. In his treatise upon _creation_, he speaks of the Word as _the Divine operator by whom all things were disposed_: and mentions him as _superior to the angels and all created beings, and the image and likeness of God_, and says, that _this image of the true God was esteemed the same as God_. _This_ LOGOS, _the_ WORD _of_ GOD, says he, _is superior to all the world, and more ancient; being the productor of all that was produced. The eternal Word of the everlasting God is the sure and fixed foundation upon which all things depend_.”

Creation is moreover ascribed to the HOLY SPIRIT. That the Holy Spirit has a _personality_ distinct from that of the Father, and also that of the Son, and a real and proper _Divinity_, is a doctrine of Divine revelation. In his personal capacity, he is not the Father, nor the Son. He neither is nor can be divided either from the Divine essence, nor from the other two persons, but yet is personally distinct from them. His relation to, and mission by, the Father and the Son, clearly evince his personal distinction. He is called the Spirit of the _Father_, and the Spirit of the _Son_. He is represented as _sent_ by the Father, and also as _sent_ by the Son. These things show that he is a Divine person, and has a distinct personality. The Holy Spirit is the last in the order of subsistence: the Father is the first, the Son is the second, and the Holy Spirit is the third. Yet we should know, that the Father is not before the Son, nor the Son before the Holy Spirit, by a priority of time, nor of dignity and perfections; for the three persons in the Divine essence are _co-eternal_.

The Holy Spirit was equally concerned with the Father and the Son in the work of Creation. “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath (Heb. Spirit) of his mouth.” The _breath_ or spirit of the Lord’s _mouth_, says an excellent author, does undoubtedly mean the third person of the Trinity; who is called, “The Spirit of God, and the Breath of the Almighty.”--“They lift up their voice to God with one accord, and said, LORD, thou art GOD, which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that therein is. WHO, by the mouth of thy servant David, hast said,” &c. The terms LORD and GOD are here used to express the Divinity of _him_, says the same able writer, who spake _by the mouth_ of his servant David. But it was the HOLY GHOST who _spake by the mouth_ of his servant David--for, saith St. Peter, “This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the HOLY GHOST,” by the mouth of David, “spake,” &c. Therefore the terms LORD and GOD are certainly used to _express the Divinity of the_ HOLY GHOST.[15] In the work of creation, the “SPIRIT of GOD moved upon the face of the waters,” by an infinite vitality infusing life, and with a formative energy giving form. “By his SPIRIT he hath garnished the heavens” with an incalculable number of luminous stars; all those glittering worlds, which serve for use as well as beauty, were formed by the Spirit of God.

As none but the _third_ Person in the Godhead is ever so much as once in the Scriptures called the _Spirit of God_; so the Holy Spirit’s agency in the work of creation evinces his distinct personality, and is a confirmation of his proper Divinity. A cause must be equal to the effect it produces: but no finite spirit could be a joint, concurring, efficient cause in the work of the creation: therefore the Holy Spirit is God. Supposing the matter of which the worlds were made to be called into being out of nothing by the Almighty power of the Father, or by the fiat of the Son; yet the animating of the whole lifeless mass, the putting of every part into motion, the assortment of all the particles, the assigning of them their proper places, and the completing of the whole with such astonishing beauty and harmony, which was the peculiar work of the Holy Spirit, required no less than an almighty power, which clearly demonstrates that he is God.

Thus we see that the creation of the world is ascribed to one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son and the Holy Spirit were joint Creators, of equal power, and equal efficiency with the Father. There is no where to be found in the Scriptures the least hint of different degrees of creating energy, nor of sole efficiency in one of the Persons in the Godhead, and a bare instrumental compliance in the other. The creation was the common effect of their joint acting: nor is it ever said, nor so much as hinted or implied, that the distinct Persons in the Godhead had different provinces, nor that one creature was made by one, and another creature was the workmanship of another. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are never represented as acting separately, but always in conjunction.

The sacred historian assures us, that, at the commencement of time, אלהימ _Elohim_, the triune God, caused matter to exist, which, previous to this astonishing display of his creating energy, had no being. Moses, as an inspired author, is the only one who could instruct us in the formation and unfolding of the world. He is not an Epicurus, who has recourse to atoms; a Lucretius, who believes matter to be eternal; a Spinoza, who admits a material God; a Descartes, who prates about the laws of motion; but a legislator, who announces to all men without hesitation, without fear of being mistaken, how the world was created. Nothing can be more simple, nor more sublime than his opening: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” He could not have spoken more assuredly, if he had been a spectator; and by these words, mythology, systems, and absurdities, shrink to nought, and are mere chimeras in the eyes of reason.[16]

Had Moses been a fictitious writer, how natural and how easy would it have been for him to have filled up the first part of his history with marvellous relations about the creation? With what pomp of language, with what waste of rhetoric, could he probably have embellished that surprising scene? With what a grand _apparatus_ of celestial machinery might he have made the omnipotent Architect come forth to build a universe? How many sub-agents and subalterns would a fabulous poet or historian have employed in this stupendous and multifarious work? With what solemnity would every part have been gone about, and with how many episodes, digressions, and reflections, would the story have been filled, in order to give it an air of the marvellous? But read the beginning of Genesis, and observe how differently Moses writes. No scope is given to fancy or invention. All is narrated with an ease, plainness, and simplicity, which evidently shows that he kept close to truth, and laid down the facts just as they were presented to his mind; a manner of writing rarely, if at all, to be found in any other historians, but such as had the honor of being the _amanuensis_ of the SPIRIT of truth.[17]

The description which Moses furnishes concerning the creation, as relating to circumstances previous to the existence of mankind, could be derived only from immediate revelation. It was received by the Jews with full conviction of its truth, on the authority of that _inspiration_ under which Moses was known to act.[18] And when the creation of the world began, by the lapse of time, to be removed to a remote distance, God was pleased thus to provide a contemporary historian, and appoint a whole nation to be the guardians of his history; as well that this register might be the most authentic, as that all mankind might hence be instructed in the knowledge of a fact, which was so necessary for them to know, and yet so impossible to be otherwise ascertained.[19]

It may be proper to notice, that some futile objections have been made to the period which is assigned by Moses to the creation, as though it were too recent to be reconciled with reason and philosophical inquiry. How long matter remained in a quiescent state after its creation, we have no data to enable us to determine: but, as its resting in an animate state, so far as we know, could answer no valuable purpose, we may reasonably conjecture the time would not be long. The creation of the world began, according to Usher, before the Christian era 4004 years, if we follow the Hebrew text. The Septuagint version places it 5872, and the Samaritan 4700 before the vulgar era.--Sanchoniathon, the first Phenician historian, according to the most extended accounts of Porphyry, flourished long after Moses, probably not less than two hundred years. Manetho, high-priest of Heliopolis, wrote the Egyptian history only in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, not more than 300 years before Christ, and professes to have transcribed his Dynasties from some pillars of Hermes Trismegistus, written in the Hebrew dialect.--Berosus was the first noted Chaldean historian, and he was contemporary with Manetho.--The Chinese have not any work in an intelligible character above 2200 years old. One of the Chinese emperors, about 213 years before the Christian era, ordered all their historical records to be destroyed.--The Greeks could produce no dates beyond 550 years before Christ, and but little historical information prior to the Olympiads, which began 775 years before the Christian era. Orpheus and Museus, fabulous poets, were not so remote as Moses; for it is supposed they lived about 200 years after him, in the days of Gideon. Daries Phrygius and Dystys Cretensis, fabulous poets, wrote the history of the Trojan war, about 400 years after Moses. Homer wrote his poems after David’s time, and about 550 years after Moses. Herodotus, called the father of history, who flourished about 450 years before the Christian era, was the first Grecian historian that deserves the name; yet he begins with fable. Thucydides rejects, as uncertain, all that preceded the Peloponnesian war; and Plutarch, not one of the least historians among the Grecians, ventured not beyond the time of Theseus, who lived a little before the ministry of Samuel.[20] So that all these poets and historians flourished long after the time of Moses, some of them nearly a thousand years; for he wrote about A. M. 2460. The works of the Jewish lawgiver are not only the most ancient, but also the most authentic, of all the monuments of antiquity.

If the world were some thousands of years older, it must be much better peopled than it is at present. Population has always increased since the deluge, and yet there might be three times as many more inhabitants on the earth than it at present contains. It has been computed that at least 5000 millions of men might live at once on our globe: and yet it does not appear that there are really more than 1080 millions. In Asia are reckoned 650 millions; in Africa and America, 300 millions; and in Europe, 130 millions.

If we consider the arts invented by men, we shall find that few or none of them have been discovered more than two or three thousand years. Man owes not only to his nature and reason the aptitude he has for acquiring arts and sciences, but he is also led to this by necessity; by the desire he has to procure himself conveniences and pleasures; by vanity and ambition; and by luxury, the child of abundance, which creates new wants. This propensity is evident among all men, in all ages. History carries us back to the time when men had scarcely invented the most necessary arts; when those arts which were known were but very imperfectly understood; and in which they scarcely knew any thing of the first principles of the sciences.

About four thousand years ago, men were still in a state of great ignorance concerning most subjects; and if we calculate according to the progress which they made since that time, and afterwards go back to the remotest periods, we may with tolerable exactness fix the era when men knew nothing; which is, in other words, that of the infancy of the human race. Were their existence to be carried higher, it is utterly improbable that the most useful and necessary arts should have continued unknown to them through such a long series of ages. On the contrary, all that can be discovered by the human mind must have been known a long time ago. From this circumstance therefore we must conclude, that the origin of the human race can have no other era than that which Moses has assigned it in his history of the creation.[21]

If it be asked, What! was God a _solitary_ Being? Did he exist alone, before this exertion of his glorious power? Formed as we are for society, we have no conception of any satisfaction arising from a state of absolute loneliness; nor can we conceive that the Deity should rest _inactive_ from eternity, and not exert those amazing powers of which the stupendous creation proves he is amply possessed? There are some particulars naturally deducible from questions like these, which we cannot solve. We have no adequate apprehension of eternity; we are lost in the idea. And when we attempt to contemplate God existing from eternity without _cause_ or as _beginning_ to exist, we are utterly lost in the speculation; for among all the objects that come within the reach of our senses, we see nothing existing that has not had a cause to produce it. We frequently smile at children, when they ask their little simple questions, as we deem them; but we are mere children ourselves, in this profound ocean of wonder. But something very observable strikes an attentive reader in the Mosaic account of the creation, which suggests that the Deity is not a solitary Being, existing in such an absolute _unity_ as to exclude all degree of personality or communion. For אלהימ _Elohim_, as we have already observed, the very first name by which Moses calls God, being plural, shows that though he exists in an undivided unity of nature, yet in a Trinity of Persons. And this notion of a plurality, so far from being contrary to reason, is more agreeable to it than any opinion of the absolute _unity_ of the Divine nature. For conceive we only three Divine persons mutually to partake of the Divine essence or nature, to be united by the same perfect will, and to possess the same infinite powers and perfections; and all our apprehensions of the loneliness of solitary existence immediately subside; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, consummately happy in each other, have been from eternity reciprocal objects of complacence, and will remain such for ever. Let this argument be fairly and impartially considered, and the notion of a Trinity of Subsistences in a Unity of the Divine Nature, will appear far more consonant to reason, and liable to less objections, than that of mere solitary and absolute unity.[22]

[_A further consideration of the suggestion in the close of the last paragraph._

Although nothing can be clearer than that the Divine Essence is _one_, simple, and indivisible; _yet_ this does not prevent it from subsisting in _personality_, i.e. _in a plurality of persons_.

It must be carefully observed, that the plurality has regard to the _persons_, not to the Essence. We cannot say there is a plurality of Essences; but we can say, the Living, Rational, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence _subsists in three persons_. This then is the MODUS EXISTENDI of the Divine Being.

Although we are assured this is his _mode of existence_, we do not pretend to comprehend the _nature_ of it. We may, without any injury to the proposition, affirm, the _nature_ of the fact is incomprehensible by _created intellect_. Yet the fact itself is sufficiently well attested, and is not repugnant to reason, though it is above the comprehension of reason.

It is believed by many very learned, pious, and eminent men, that the doctrine of a _plurality of persons in the Godhead_, can be established by an argumentation founded solely on the acknowledged nature of the Divine Being.

The Rev. JAMES KIDD, Prof. of Oriental Languages, Marischal College and University, Aberdeen, with the approbation of many learned men in England, among whom is Dr. Adam Clarke, in whose house he delivered private lectures on his manuscript, has published a very able and satisfactory essay on this plan, of which a brief clue to the mode of argumentation is here attempted.

A. _The Divine Being is a necessarily existent, and an eternally, immensely, and immutably Living, Intelligent, Rational, Moral, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence._

B. _The very_ LAW _of the nature of such a being, is eternal, immense, and immutable_ ACTIVITY, ENERGY, _and_ EFFICIENCY, _exercised eternally, immensely, and immutably_, ACCORDING TO HIS OWN NATURE.

C. _That such a being_ WAS _as necessarily existent, perfect, and happy,_ BEFORE _creation, and providence as since; and would forever continue as necessarily existent, perfect, and happy, if creation and providence should cease to be_.

These three propositions are so obviously true, every reader will readily and cordially grant them. It is proposed, therefore, to show, from the nature of the Divine Being, _that his Essence_ MUST _subsist in a plurality of persons_.

The proposition does not contemplate an explanation of the _manner_ of this subsistence; nor, at present, the _number_ of persons; but the simple fact, _That_ FROM THE VERY NATURE OF THE DIVINE BEING, HIS ESSENCE MUST SUBSIST IN PLURAL PERSONALITY.

The existence of a being, or the possession, or exercise of any principle, passion or attribute, _implies personality_, or individual identity, which is the same thing. The mind cannot conceive of existence, passion, principle, or action, without conceiving of them inhering in actually existing Essence, which _must_ assume in the mind the idea of personality. Therefore, _personality_ is strictly, and properly applicable to the Divine Essence. But the doctrine of a _plural_ personality is to be established at present.

It will be easily conceived, and readily granted, that a being which exists necessarily, eternally, immensely, and immutably, as a Living, Intelligent, Rational, Moral, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence, _must have exercised Himself, and his perfections, necessarily, eternally, immensely, and immutably_. This then is granted. But the mind will readily and easily perceive, that the Divine Being could not have exercised Himself THUS, _in the works of Creation and Providence_. Because, it is readily admitted, there _was_ a time when Creation and Providence _began_: during a whole eternity _beyond_ this period, there was no existence except God Himself. Consequently, He _cannot_ have been exercised according to his own nature and perfections, _eternally_, in reference to Creation and Providence.

Again: He cannot have exercised his perfections _immensely_, in reference to Creation and Providence: because, however extensive we may conceive the empire of Creation and Providence to be, it is not _immense_; it is actually limited, and, therefore, could not admit of an _immense exercise of his nature and perfections_.

It is readily granted, that the Divine Being was as necessarily, and perfectly happy _before_ Creation and Providence as since; and if Creation and Providence should cease, his happiness would continue the same: hence, it follows, necessarily, that the happiness of the Divine Being was, is, and ever will be entirely _independent_ of Creation and Providence.

But the happiness of any being consists, essentially, _in the exercise of its powers and perfections according to the law of its own nature_. And as it has been shown, that the happiness of the Divine Being is eternal, immense, and immutable, it follows, _He must have exercised Himself eternally, immensely, and immutably_.

As it has been _granted_, That from the very nature of the Divine Being, He must have been eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy, according to the law of his own nature: and it has been _proven_, That He could not have been eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy, in reference to Creation and Providence, it follows, necessarily, that the _means_ and _principles_ of these eternal, immense, and immutable activity and happiness, _must exist_ IN HIS OWN CONSTITUTION, _and be exercised entirely_ WITHIN _Himself_.

This conclusion cannot be denied, granting the premises in the propositions A. B. C. in reference to the Divine Being. It remains to be proven, That such principles, and means of eternal, immense and immutable activity and happiness _cannot_ be conceived of in the constitution of the Divine Being, _without conceiving his essence to subsist in plural personality_.

The consideration simply of the nature and eternal activity of the Divine Being would establish the idea of _plural personality_ in his Essence: because the mind cannot conceive, that the same single being can be both _agent_ and _object, in reference to the same action_. And as it has been proven, that _previous_ to the existence of Creation and Providence, God existed eternally _alone_, consequently, no possible form of existence but Himself, and yet he was eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy; it will follow irresistibly, that _there must be a plurality in his single Essence_; and the mind naturally assumes, this plurality is _personal_; as it cannot conceive of activity, and happiness without conceiving them to belong to person, or persons. And as action implies both _agent_, and an _object_ distinct from the agent; and there being no such agent, or object existing _without_ the Divine Being, it must be infered, that these agent and object, concerned in the eternal activity and happiness of his nature, must exist _inherently, eternally, immensely, and immutably_ WITHIN _Himself_.

Thus we are COMPELLED to admit a plurality of persons in the Divine Essence.

It will be recollected, the Divine Being has not only exercised Himself eternally, but also _immensely_, according to the law of his own nature and perfections: i.e. He has necessarily, and eternally exercised Himself to the extent of his nature and perfections. This will be readily admitted when we reflect, that unless we admit the exercise of the nature and perfections of God _to their full extent_, we must admit a _redundancy_ in the Divine Nature, and perfections, which would be manifestly absurd, as it would _imply imperfection_. For it would imply (if we may dare say so) that there is an _efficiency_, or _ability_ in the Divine Being, which He has never exercised to its full extent; and in proportion to the _deficiency_ in the exercise, we must conclude this _efficiency_ or ability is _useless_, which would be repugnant to the true idea of the Divine Being.

It is therefore, _proven_, That the Divine Being necessarily exercised Himself _immensely_, because his nature, and perfections are immense. But it will be readily perceived, this could not be done in the works of Creation and Providence: because, however vast they may be, they are not _immense_: and, therefore, could not admit of the immense exercise of his nature and perfections to their full extent: from which it must follow, inevitably, _That the immense exercise of his own nature and perfections must be_ WITHIN _Himself_.

As it has already been proven above, that this internal exercise in the Divine Essence necessarily implies _plurality_ in the Godhead; so now also, is it proven, that the admission of such plurality is the only view competent to show _HOW_ the Divine Being could have exercised his own nature and perfections _immensely_, as the attribute of immensity appertains to God only.

As it is granted, that the Divine Being was necessarily as happy _before_ Creation and Providence as since, and would continue so, should Creation and Providence cease; of course his happiness consists in the exercise of his own nature and perfections according to their own law. But, in order that the Divine Being should be eternally, immensely, and immutably happy, the WHOLE of the Divine Nature and perfections must be exercised eternally, immensely, and immutably. But if we divest the Divine Essence of its plural personality, we cannot conceive that some of the divine perfections can be exercised at all. For example: the divine goodness, love, wisdom, intelligence, and all his _moral_ perfections. We surely cannot say, He manifests his goodness to Himself; or exercises his love towards Himself; or employs his wisdom in understanding Himself; all of which ideas are obviously absurd. But so soon as we admit the idea of a plural personality, or the subsistence of the Divine Essence in a plurality of persons, we can conceive the moral perfections exercised in Himself, between the persons of the Godhead. This is the only ground on which we can conceive of his eternal, immense, and immutable happiness. For we can readily conceive of the distinct persons in the Divine Essence, _communicating mutually_ to each other the _whole_ of the divine moral perfections; and thus conceive of the perfect and independent happiness of God.

The only remaining view of this subject would be this: the activity, energy, and influence of the Divine Being can only regard Creation and Providence. But as there was a _past eternity before_ Creation and Providence began, in which the Divine Being existed, He must be considered as having been _inactive_, _solitary_, and _unconscious_; (because there cannot be consciousness where there is not action,) the whole and every part of which view is derogatory to the acknowledged character of God. How much more reasonable is it to conceive the Divine Essence to subsist in a plurality of persons, and thus to conceive, _consistently_, of the eternal, immense, and immutable activity and happiness of the Divine Being?

_Thus we see, that what the Scriptures declare concerning the plurality of persons in the Divine Essence_, CANNOT BE OTHERWISE, AS IS DEMONSTRATED ABOVE, FROM THE NECESSARY NATURE OF THE GLORIOUS DIVINITY.

The demonstration might be extended to each of the divine perfections, and the same result would be obtained. The above remarks are a mere clue to the argument which is possible, and satisfactory; founded on the necessary nature of Jehovah.

The key to the whole demonstration is this:

1. The Divine Being, from his very and necessary nature, must be eternally, immensely, and immutably active.

2. He must be eternally, immensely, and immutably happy.

3. In order to be eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy, He must be exercised to the whole extent of his nature and perfections, eternally, immensely, and immutably.

4. That such an exercise of his nature and perfections, in an eternal, immense, and immutable manner, cannot be, in regard to Creation and Providence; because, Creation and Providence are not eternal, immense, and immutable.

5. As there was not any thing _before_ Creation and Providence, but God Himself, it must follow, necessarily, that the eternal, immense, and immutable activity and happiness of the Divine Being were WITHIN _Himself entirely_.

6. As it is impossible for the human intellect to conceive, that a being can be both _agent_ and _object, in the same action_, and the activity of the Divine Being has been shown to have been within Himself entirely; it follows, THAT THE DIVINE ESSENCE MUST HAVE SUBSISTED ETERNALLY, IMMENSELY, AND IMMUTABLY IN A PLURALITY.

7. And as the mind is _forced_ to admit a _plurality_ in the Divine Essence, it naturally, and necessarily assumes PERSONS for this plurality; and thus concludes, _There must be a plurality of persons in the Godhead as the Scriptures declare._

From the foregoing elements of the argument, it will be very easy to observe, if a _plurality_ must be admitted, there is no objection in the mind to admit it is _triple_; and hence, as the substance of the Divine Essence has been shown to exist necessarily in a plurality, the mind conceives a _triple plurality_, as easy as any other, and thus conceives the reasonableness of the doctrine of the _Trinity in Unity_.

The most successful argument against this conclusion is this: _It is impossible to conceive how three can be one_. This is admitted, _when the objects designated by_ “three” _are the same as the object designated by_ “one.” But this is not the case in the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. The term _Trinity_ applies to the _persons_ in which the Divine Essence subsists, and _not_ to the essence itself. So the term _Unity_ applies to the _Essence only_, and _not_ to the persons. This simple distinction removes the whole force of the objection.

The Unitarians, therefore, do us wrong when they say, _we believe three are one_. And Trinitarians do themselves wrong when they say, _to the three one God_: because, it is not true that there is a “three one God.” But it is a glorious truth, THAT THE DIVINE ESSENCE SUBSISTS IN THREE PERSONS, ETERNALLY, IMMENSELY, AND IMMUTABLY.

It is very natural to suppose, that God imparted a knowledge of Himself to our first parents in Paradise. The Scriptures clearly support this supposition. This knowledge would, of course, include the doctrine of the Trinity; and we cannot admit for a moment, that so important a doctrine as the plurality of persons in the Godhead, could have been wholly lost by mankind, though it might become obscured. Accordingly we find the traditionary remains of this doctrine throughout the Old World.

“The Hindoos” says M. Sonerat, “adore _three_ principal Deities, Brouma, Schiven, and Vichenou, who are still but _one_; which kind of Trinity is there called Trimurti, and signifies the re-union of those powers. The generality of Indians at present, adore only one of these three divinities; but some learned men, beside this worship, also address their prayers to the three united. The representation of them is to be seen in many pagodas, under that of human figures with three heads, which on the coast of Orissa, they call Sariharabrama, on the Coromandel coast, Trimourti,” &c.

This account of M. Sonerat is very pertinent, and is confirmed by Dr. Buchanan who made extensive researches in that country. See his _Star in the East_.

The same tradition is found in China. “Among the ancient Chinese characters” says Dr. A. Clarke, “which have been preserved, we find the following Δ like the Greek _delta_. According to the Chinese dictionary _Kang-hi_, this character signifies _union_. According to _Choueouen_, a celebrated work, Δ is _three united in one_. The Lieou-chou-tsing-hoen, which is a rational and learned explanation of ancient characters, says; “Δ signifies intimate union, harmony, the chief good of man, of the heaven, and of the earth; it is the union of three.”

Lao-tse says; “He who is as visible, and yet cannot be seen, is denominated _lieou_; he who can be heard, and yet speaks not to the ears, _hi_; he who is tangible, and yet cannot be felt, is named _ouei_: in vain do you consult your senses about these _three_; your reason alone can discourse of them, and it will tell you they are but one,” &c.

One of the missionaries at Peking, who wrote the letters from which I have made the above extracts, takes it for granted, “that the mystery of the _Trinity_ was known among the ancient Chinese, and that the character Δ was its symbol.” _Dr. A. Clarke, on the 1st chap. John’s Gospel._

The existence of this same tradition in China is conveyed to us through another channel. “It was the leading feature in _Lao-Kiun’s_ system of philosophical theology, and a sentence which he continually repeated as the foundation of all true wisdom, that TAO, the eternal reason, produced ONE; _one_ produced TWO; _two_ produced THREE; and THREE produced all things.” _Le Compt’s Memoirs of China_.

Traditions of this doctrine are found also in Chaldea and Persia indeed throughout the East; from whence all agree they were imported, through Phœnicia, into Egypt, and thence into Greece. The great and original sources of information being in the neighborhood of the Euphrates, where the _first post-diluvian_ families resided; and the mighty intellects which were to influence the world, by the materials which were drawn from thence, being in Greece, the consequence was, we find the Grecian philosophers travelling _up_ the streams of knowledge to the fountains, and thence returning to enlighten the world by the results of their researches. For example: Pythagoras, Plato, and others visited Egypt first, thence to Phœnicia, and thence to Chaldea, and the East, from whence they undoubtedly drew their theology. (Nor should it be forgotten that _their_ philosophy was _theological_.) The concurrent testimony of history establishes this fact. The consequence of all this is, the doctrine of the Trinity was known to the Greek philosophers, who preserved it to the world in their incomparable writings, a collateral testimony of the authenticity of the Scripture doctrine. For this opinion we have the highest authority in the republic of letters.

“It is said that the first Christians borrowed their notion of a Triune God from the later Platonists; and that we hear not of a Trinity in the church till converts were made from the school of Alexandria. But if this be the case we may properly ask, _Whence had those Platonists the doctrine?_

“It is not surely so simple, or so obvious as to have occurred to the reasoning mind of a pagan philosopher; or if it be, _why do Unitarians suppose it to involve a contradiction?_--The Platonic and Pythagorean Trinities never could have occurred to the mind of him, who, merely from the works of creation, endeavored to discover the being and attributes of God; and therefore as those philosophers travelled into Egypt and the East in quest of knowledge, it appears to us in the highest degree probable, that they picked up this mysterious and sublime doctrine in those regions where it had been handed down as a dogma from the remotest ages, and where we know science was not taught systematically, but detailed in collections of sententious maxims, and traditionary opinions. If this be so we cannot doubt but that the pagan trinities had their origin in some primeval revelation. Nothing else indeed can account for a doctrine so remote from human imagination, and of which we find vestiges in the sacred books of almost every civilized people of antiquity. The corrupt state in which it is viewed in the writings of Plato and others, is the natural consequence of its descent through a long course of oral tradition. The Trinity of Platonism therefore, instead of being an objection, lends, in our opinion, no feeble support to the Christian doctrine, since it affords almost a complete proof of that doctrine having made a part of the first revelation to man.” _Ency. Brit. Art._ THEOLOGY.

“Some have indeed pretended, that the _Trinity_, which is commonly called _Platonic_, was a fiction of the later Platonists, unknown to the founder of the school: but any person who will take the trouble to study the writings of Plato will find _abundant evidence that he really asserted_ A TRIAD OF DIVINE HYPOSTASES, _all concerned in the formation, and government of the world_.” _Ency. Brit. Art._ PLATONISM.

“Pythagoras, though inferior to Plato in reputation, and lived before him, held the same doctrine, and derived it from the same sources. He visited Egypt, Persia, Chaldea, &c, and thence returned to Greece.” _Ency. Brit. Art._ PYTHAGORAS.

These quotations are directly from the Encyclopedia Britannica, than which no authority can be better. I might increase the quotations to the same effect from Dr. Oglevie, the learned Cudworth and others, were it necessary. The above is thought sufficient to establish the fact, _That the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity was once prevalent in the Pagan world, and that remains and traditions of it are yet abundant through all the East, where the revelations of God were made to mankind_.]

If it be asked, “Why did God conceal himself from eternity till within six thousand years; for, according to Divine revelation, it is not yet so long since the world was made?” I answer, God is at perfect liberty to do what he pleases, to do it when he pleases, and to give no account of the reasons of his conduct. If he had pleased to create the world as many millions of years sooner, as there have been days since its creation, the same question might have been asked, Why did he not create the world sooner, and thereby discover himself? For the longest time that can be imagined is just as nothing in comparison with eternity. If God had pleased, he might have concealed his existence and perfections to all eternity, or, in other words, never have made any thing. Seeing therefore it was only of his sovereign pleasure that he made creatures, to whom he might manifest himself, surely he had a right to fix on the time for doing it. We are sure he is infinitely wise, and consequently all his works are done in the fittest time, and best manner.

God made the world, not because he needed the praise or service of creatures to add to his blessedness; for he who is self-existent must necessarily be infinitely perfect and absolutely independent; and would always have remained the same happy Being, enjoying his own excellencies and perfections, had no creature ever been made. But it was for the manifesting of his own glorious attributes, and communicating happiness to creatures capable of it, that he, in the beginning, created this magnificent fabric of the heavens and the earth, with all things therein, whether visible or invisible, animate or inanimate, material substances or immaterial spirits. For he created beings of different ranks and powers, to whom he might manifest himself, or communicate his goodness. Some of these were pure intellectual spirits, fit for the felicity and employments of the heavenly state, to stand in his immediate presence, and execute his righteous commands: but these were created before the solar system; for the angels, those “sons of God,” called “morning stars,” were present, and sung together for joy, when “the foundations” of this world were laid. Others he formed out of the earth, with life, sense, and instinct, but destitute of reason, designing them to be subservient to the necessities or conveniences of a higher order of beings. Besides these he created other beings of a middle rank, partaking of an earthly part, fashioned with infinite skill and art, of exquisite symmetry, and adorned with great external beauty; and of a spiritual part akin to angels, and but little inferior to them, being in their constitution a compound of the animal and angelic natures.

It is not by reason alone then, or the light of heathen philosophy, but “through faith,” in the infallible testimony of Divine revelation, “we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” The sun, moon, stars, and earth, which we see, were not made of matter which had existed from eternity, as some of the heathen philosophers supposed, but of what God created anterior to the formation of those wonderful orbs. The word κατηρτισθαι, _framed_, signifies not only to _make_ or _produce_ simply, but properly _to place_ or _set in joint_ the parts of any body or machine in their right order. Accordingly Plato says, that in making the world, God proceeded with the exactness of a geometrician, arranging every thing in complete symmetry. All this was done by the _word_ of God, which is not to be understood of any articulate sound, but of the simple act of his own will; he willed the universe, with all its variety of furniture, into existence. And this is a matter of _faith_, to be believed; not to be known by mere reason; for reason, without faith, can apprehend a formation of things from matter previously made ready.

A pious expositor very justly observes, By faith assenting to Divine revelation, and not by reason we understand the truth and wonders, the reasons and causes, the manner and end, of the creation of the world. Reason indeed tells us that there was a creation, consequently a Creator; but reason without Divine revelation could never have discovered the circumstances and manner of the creation, which wholly depended upon the will of God. Reason could never have known them, if God had not in his word first revealed them. Reason may propound the question, How was the world made, and all things therein? But revelation must resolve it.

“Oh Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honor and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved for ever. Thou coveredst it with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.” Such is the sublime language of Divine revelation!

* * * * *

Footnotes - Chapter I

[1] As the name _Jehovah_, in the Hebrew consists of four letters, so for the most part the name of the supreme Being does in all languages. Thus among the Persians, the name is Σορυ; among the Arabians, _Alla_; among the Assyrians, _Adad_; among the Egyptians, Θωυθ or Θευθ with the Grecians, Θεος; the Latins, _Deus_; the French, _Dieu_; the Spaniards, _Dios_; the Italians, _Idio_; and with the Germans, _Gott_.

The name _Jehovah_ is written differently. Sanchoniathon writes it _Jevo_; Diodorus the Sicilian, Macrobius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Jerome, and Origen, _Jao_; Epiphanius, Theodoret, and the Samaritans, _Jabé_ or _Jave_: we find likewise _Jahoh_, _Javo_, _Jaou_, _Jaod_. Lewis Capellus is for _Javo_; Drusius for _Javé_; Mercer for _Jehevah_: Hottinger _Jehra_. The Moors call their God _Juba_, whom some believe to be _Jehovah_. The Latins probably took their _Juvis_ or _Jovis Pater_ from _Jehovah_. It is certain that these four letters may likewise be expressed by _Javo_, _Jaho_, _Jaon_, _Jevo_, _Javé_, _Jehvah_, &c. Mussulmen frequently use the name _Hu_, or _Hou_, which has almost the same signification as _Jehovah_, i.e. _He who is_. But the great name of God is _Allah_, which they pronounce often, and have great confidence in. Among the Arabians, and all Mahometans the name _Allah_ corresponds with the _Elohim_ and _Adonai_ of the Hebrews, and even that of _Jehovah_. See Calmet’s Dictionary.

[2] Dr. A. Clarke on Exod. xxxiv, 6, 7.

[3] Philo-Biblius seems to intimate, that the God of the Phœnicians was anciently called by the name _Jehovah_; and that _Jevo_, _Javo_, more recently used by them, is a corruption of it; for it is said, that Jerombalus who supplied Sanchoniathon with materials for his Phœnician history, was a priest of the God Jevo. Euseb. Præp. Evang. lib. i. c. 9.

[4] “On the front of the famous temple of Apollo, at Delphos, was graven the Greek word Ει (which signifies _thou art_, being the second person singular of the verb εἰμὶ.) The learned among the Philosophers labored long to discover its meaning, each giving his own opinion; but could not find it out, until Plutarch (who travelled into Egypt and Greece for instruction in ancient sciences and other things) meeting with that passage in the writings of Moses, where God manifested himself by saying, I AM THAT I AM; he was struck with it, and having it explained to him, he then conceived the true and exalted sense of the word Ει, engraved on the front of the temple. It implied, as it were, an admonition to those who were about to enter the temple, to worship God, who is the only self-existent Being in the universe.” Creighton’s Enquiry into the Origin of True Religion, p. 21. Second Edition.

On a temple dedicated to Neitha, at Sais, the chief town in Lower Egypt, was this inscription: “I am whatever is, or has been, or will be, and no mortal has hitherto drawn aside my veil; my offspring is the sun.” It appears highly probable that the ancient Egyptians acknowledged an active as well as a passive principle in nature, and, as Plutarch asserts, worshipped τῳ πρώτῳ Θεῳ, the supreme Deity. Enfield’s History of Philosophy, vol. i. p. 76, 77.

[5] Norris on Reason and Religion. Contemp. i.

[6] Allix’s Judgment of the Jewish Church against the Unitarians, p. 116. Edit. 1699. See also p. 119. Simpson’s Apology for the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 379, 380.

[7] Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai, in Zoar, on the sixth section of Leviticus. See Ainsworth’s Annotations on the place.

[8] Demonstration of the Messias, Part iii. p, 170, 171. Edit. 1700.

[9] Jones on the Trinity, chap. iii. sect. 1.

[10] Allix. p. 132.

[11] Gen. i, 26; iii, 22; xi, 7; xx, 13; xxxi, 53; xxxv, 7; Deut. iv, 7; v, 23; Josh. xxiv, 19; 1 Sam. iv, 8; 2 Sam. vii, 23; Psal. lviii, 12; Isai. vi, 8; Jer. x, 10; xxiii, 36; See Prov. ix, 10; xxx, 3; Psal. cxlix, 2; Eccl. v, 7; xii, 1: Job v, 1; Isai. vi, 3; liv, 5; Hos. xi, 12, or xii, 1; Mal. i,6; Dan. vii, 18, 22, 25; Hebrew Lexicon, p. 19. Edit. 1811. See also Mr. Parkhurst’s pamphlet against Dr. Priestly and Mr. Wakefield, p. 3-9, and p. 148, &c.

[12] Ridley’s Eight Discourses, p. 79.

[13] See Allix’s Judgment of the Jewish Church, p. 118.

[14] Professor Kidd’s Essay on the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 452.

[15] Jones on the Trinity.

[16] Ganganelli’s Letters.

[17] Rev. Hugh Knox’s Sermons.

[18] Gray’s Key to the Old Testament.

[19] M. Pascal’s Thoughts.

[20] See Gray’s Key, Notes, p. 82-83.

[21] See Sturm. vol. iv. p. 266.

[22] Christian’s Magazine, vol. ii, p. 97, 98.

* * * * *