But no; it is said, that this form of expression is used, merely for the sake of giving dignity to the Deity, just as kings and nobles sometimes use the plural for the singular, and say we, instead of I, when only one person is intended.

But this cannot be admitted; for,

First, the usage now adduced, is the invention of pride, for the purpose of giving false dignity to ambitious men ; and is therefore unworthy of the Deity.

Secondly. It is contrary to the idiom of the ancient, simple language of the Hebrews. Eben Ezra, a Jewish writer, declares this expressly, and says, that the royal idiom among men, is the invention of pride, and introduced long after the creation. He labours to show, too, that in those instances, where the plural has been thought to be used for the singular, in reference to men, as in Gen. xxix. 27, more than one person is intended.

But thirdly, and conclusively. If this were God's mode of speaking of himself, merely for dignity's sake, then might it have been expected, that he would always have used this form. It is most obvious, however, that the plural is not always used, nor generally. (See the first verse of the Bible. See also, chap

ter ii. verse 7th, and almost innumerable other passages, where the singular is used.) Sometimes, indeed, the name of God is plural, and the verb connected with it singular, as if to express unity of action, combined with plurality of persons. Sometimes

both are singular; and sometimes, as in our text, both are plural. Now, upon the supposition of a distinction in the God-head, this is perfectly explainable; but it is not explainable on any other supposition, nor can we believe, that without some special reason for it, God would have used such a form of expression in his word.

We cannot admit, therefore, that this passage is to be understood, as used for the sake of dignity; and if it be taken as it stands, it certainly establishes the position, that there is a distinction of plurality in the mode of God's existence. We have given the more attention to this passage, since, all along, it is intended to depend more on a few incontrovertible texts, than the multitude of others, which might be cited.

2. I offer, in proof of our doctrine, that class of Scriptures, where God is distinguished from God, in the same passage. In Hozea i. 7, God says to the prophet, I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them, BY THE

LORD their God. This is exactly similar to Gen. xix. 24, where it is said, Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire, FROM THE LORD, out of Heaven. And to a still more unequivocal passage, in the xlv. Psalm, where, speaking to Christ, in his mediatorial character, it is said by the Father, therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows. In all these passages, it is not necessary to enquire, now, whether some inferior being is spoken of under the names of Lord and God; we must be contented to wait for the consideration of this, until we come to speak of the character of Christ. The object of citing the texts at present, is to show, that, in the language of Scripture, God is often distinguished from God; and that, therefore, there must be a plurality in the Deity. This certainly, if we can understand language at all, they do establish.

3. Let us attend to a few of those Scriptures, where different persons of the Deity are spoken of in the same acts, and yet all those acts, such as are ascribed to the Lord, or Jehovah. This will advance us a step farther in our leading propositions; since it will show, not only that a distinction exists in the Godhead, but that the distinction is threefold, cor

responding with what is ascribed, afterwards, more fully, to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. A striking passage of this character is found in Isaiah xlviii. 16. Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Here the person speaking, is undoubtedly Christ, who is called by the remarkable name of I AM, and said to be from the beginning. But what we particularly have to observe of him, from this passage, is that the" Lord God, and his Spirit," send him; Christ sent--the Lord God, and his Spirit, sending him. What is this but a Trinity? See also, the parallel passage to this, in Isai. Ixi. 1, which Christ appropriated to himself, according to the New Testament. (See Luke iv. 18.)

The same three persons are represented as engaged in the act of delivering Israel from Egypt, and carrying them to the land of Canaan. That God the Father was engaged in it, is not disputed. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage. (Exod. xx. 2.) That the Son was engaged in it, appears from Exod. iii. 2, as compared with the 6th verse, and with the 23d chapter, 20th and

21st verses; for he which is called God's angel, in one of these places, is called the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in another; and in still another, it is the angel whom God had sent, and whom the children of Israel were to fear, because his name was in him. This corresponds with what is said in Isaiah: "That in all their affliction, he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them." This angel of God's presence, was undoubtedly, then, the Sov; for he is here distinguished from God, and yet represented as working with God; and now that the Spirit also bore a part in this great transaction, is explicitly said in Isai. Ixiii. 10. "But they rebelled, and vexed his Holy Spirit."

I repeat an observation here, in substance, twice made before; and that is, that whether the other persons, here spoken of, as acting with God, were inferior persons, or mere influences, is not the present subject of inquiry. The proofs, yet cited, have been intended to show merely, that there exists a distinction in the Deity, and that this distinction is threefold, into Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Let us proceed with our arguments. We offer, in the fourth place, those passages