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, Jehovah. 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. נצר חסד 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 s, 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 millionsof 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!