being so revealed and taught elsewhere, the interpretation of this place is easy and plain, according to the analogy thereof. But that one person alone is intended in these words, he proceeds to prove. Primo enim hoc omnibus linguis usitatum est, ut numero plurali, cum de se cum de aliis etiam singularibus passim _sine discrimine utantur, sic Christus cum de se solo loqueretur; John iii. 11. ait, quod scimus loquimur, et quod videmus testamur; in quibus verbis Christum de se pluraliter loqui sequentia ostendunt; si inquit terrena dixi vobis. Sic Deus de seipso solo, Isa. xli. 22. Accedant et nuntient nobis, quæcunque ventura sunt, et ponemus cor nostrum et sciemus novissima eorum et quæ ventura sunt indicate nobis. Quin etiam illud observari potest, de eodem et unico singulari permixtim, nunc singularem nunc pluralem usurpari numerum; et Isa. vi. Dicit Deus, quem mittam aut quis ibit pro nobis ? Ex quibus et similibus locis et loquendi usu vulgare apparet, posse verbum plurale de uno de uno solo, recte intelligi et dici. Ergo etiamsi Deus hic dicat faciamus, tamen tantundem est, ac si diceret faciam. What he saith is so usual in all languages, that one speaking of himself should speak in the plural number, having respect to no more than himself, nor letting any others into a concern with himself in the things spoken, he can give no instance of in any language, out of any ancient approved author. I. That mode of speech is a novelty in the use of language. Particularly it is a stranger to the Scripture. As this author could not, no more can any of his successors produce, any one instance out of the Old Testament, of any one, unless it were God alone, were he never so great or powerful, that spake of himself in the first person in the plural number. Aben-Ezra himself on this place grants that no such instance can be given. He is therefore at once deprived of the Hebrew language, in which alone his instances ought to be given, if he will argue from the use of language. Our 2. The places he recites, relieve him not. John iii. 11. Saviour's words respect not himself only, but his disciples also, who taught and baptized in his name, whose doctrine he would vindicate as his own. And as for what he adds afterwards, “If I have told you earthly things," it relates directly to that discourse which in his own person he had just held with Nicodemus, with respect whereunto he changed his phrase of speech unto the singular number, which overthrows his pretensions. words of the prophet Isa. xli. 22, are either spoken of God alone, or of God and the church, whom he called and joined with himself, in bearing witness against idols and idolaters. And he may take his choice in whether sense he will admit of them. If they are spoken of God alone, we have another testimony to confirm The our doctrine, that there must be and is a plurality of persons in the one singular undivided nature of God. If of the church also, there is no exception in them to our rule, that one person speaks of himself in the Scripture only in the singular number. 3. His other instance out of the same prophet, Isa. vi. 8. "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" is indeed to his purpose of proving, that the singular and plural number are used mixedly or promiscuously of one and the same. But who is that one? It is God alone. No such instance can be given in any other. And why are things so expressed by him and concerning him? Who can give any tolerable reason, but this alone; namely, because his nature is one and singular, but subsisting in more persons than one. And indeed this place considered with its circumstances, and the application of it in the New Testament, doth infallibly confirm the truth we contend for. He hath not yet therefore attained to a proof that the word may be so used as he pretends, which with these men is enough to secure them from the force of any Scripture-testimony. He adds therefore : # Secundo, Non solum posse, sed omnino necessarium esse, ut hic faeiamus, singulare denotet individuum, inde probatur, quia si illa vox multitudinem in se includeret, nunquam ausi fuissent sacri Scriptoris eam immutare et in singularem numerum vertere. At Propheta, Ipse Christus et apostoli ubicunque de hac creatione loquuntur eam uni et quidem in singulari usurpata voce attribuunt. Nam statim ipse Moses subjicit, et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem suam. Quod proxime dixerat faciamus, hic exprimit per Deus ereavit; quod ibi in imaginem nostram, hic in singulari, ad imaginem suam. Sic Cap. vi. Delebo hominem quem creavi. Et Christus Matt. xix. 4. Qui fecit hominem ab initio, masculum et fæminam feeit eos. Marc. x. 6. Masculum et fæminam fecit eos Deus. Paulus, Act. xvii. 26. Deus fecit ex uno omne genus humanum. Ac. Colos. iii. 10. Induentes novum hominem, eum qui renovatur ad agnitionem secundum imaginem illius qui creavit illum. Cum ergo omnes testantur unicum esse illum, qui hominem creavit, sequitur etiam hoc loco per verbum faciamus, non nisi unum significari. Posse enim unum per plurale significari jam monstravimus. Nothing can be more effectually pleaded, in the behalf of the cause opposed by this man, than what is here alleged by him in opposition to it. For it is certain, that the holy writers would never have ascribed the creation of all unto one, and expressed it in the singular number, as they do most frequently, had it not been one God, one Creator, by whom all things were made. This is the position which he lays down as the foundation of his objection. And he was not so brutish as once to imagine, that we believed there were more creators, and so consequently more gods than one. But take this assertion also on the other side; namely, That the holy writers would never have ascribed the creation to more than one, unless that one in some sense or other had been more than one. Wherefore they do not change, as is pretended, the plural expression into a singular, but the Holy Ghost expressing the same thing of making man in the image of God, sometimes expresseth it in the singular number, by reason of the singularity of the nature of God, which is the original of all divine operations, for God works by his nature; and sometimes in the plural, because of the plurality of persons in that nature. On which supposition these different expressions are reconciled, and without it they cannot be reconciled. And all these objections and cavils are brought merely against the necessary use and signification of the word faciamus, "Let us make," in the plural number. What is alleged by the ancients and others, to clear the intention of the expression in this place particularly, he takes no notice of. For he makes no inquiry, why seeing in the whole antecedent account of the work of creation, God is introduced speaking constantly in the singular number, here the mode of speech is changed, and God speaks as consulting or deliberating in the plural number. And he says not only, "Let us make," but adds, "In our image, and in OUR likeness." To imagine this to be done without some peculiar reason, is to dream rather than to inquire into the sense of Scripture. And other reason besides what we have assigned, cannot be given with any tolerable congruity to the common use of speaking. But supposing that he hath sufficiently evinced what he intended, he proceeds to give a reason of the use of this kind of speech, where one is spoken of in the plural number. rem. Que sit autem causa cur liceat per pluralem numerum significare unum, et quando hoc soleat fieri, varia afferri solent causa. Quidam censent fieri honoris gratia, ut de eminentibus et excellentibus personis pluraliter loquamur. Id usitatum esse linguæ Hebreæ annotant docti; inter quos Gevallerius in sua syntaxi hunc tradit canonem. Qua dignitatem significant pluraliter usurpantur ad ampliorem honoUt, Jos. xxiv. 20. Dii sancti ipse. Exod. xxi. 29. Domini ejus pro dominus. Isa. xix 4. In manu Dominorum duri; pro domini. Gen xlii. 40. Domini terræ ; pro Dominus. Imo hoc non tantum in Hebrea, sed in aliis quoque linguis esse usitatum, patet ex xox. Sophoclis, qui in Oedipo Coloneo annotavit poetam dixisse, dovvac σφιν pro δουναι αυτω et addit Scriptum esse κατα τιμην πληθυντικώς, propter honorem seu dignitatem pluraliter. Nor We also grant that it is one who is here intended, only we say, he is not spoken of under that consideration of being one. is it enough to prove that the word may in the plural number be used in a singular sense, but that it is so in this place, seeing the proper import of it is otherwise. Neither can that expression concerning God, Josh. xxiv. 20. DWP Oh, Dii sancti ipse, be used Honoris Gratia, seeing it is no honour to God to be spoken of as many gods, for his glory is that he is one only. It hath therefore another respect, namely, to the persons in the unity of the same nature. I could easily give the reasons of all his other instances in particular, wherein men are spoken of, and manifest that they will yield him no relief. But this may suffice in general, that they are all speeches concerning others in the third person, and all our inquiry is concerning any one thus speaking of himself in the first person, whereof no one can be given. Wherefore our author not confiding to this his last refuge, takes himself to foolish imaginations of God's speaking to the superior parts of the world, whence the soul of man was to be taken, and the inferior whence his body was to be made;' to a design ⚫ for the instruction of men, how to use counsel and deliberation in great undertakings;' to a double knowledge in God, universal and particular:' which are all of them rabbinical fopperies, evidently manifesting that he knew not what to confide in or rest upon, as to the true cause of this expression, after he had resolved to reject that alone which is so. § 8. The foundation of our intention from this place being thus cleared, we may safely build upon it. And that which hence we intend to prove is, that in the framing and producing the things which concern mankind, there were peculiar internal personal transactions, between the Father, Son and Spirit. The scheme of speech here used is, in genere deliberativo; by way of consultation. But whereas this cannot directly and properly be ascribed to God, an Anthropopathy must be allowed in the words. The mutual distinct actings and concurrence of the several persons in the Trinity, is expressed by way of deliberation; and that because we can no otherwise determine or act. And this was peculiar in the work of the creation of man, because of an especial designation of him to the glory of God, as three in one. Neither could he have been created in the accidental image of God, but with immediate respect to the Son, as he was the essential image of the Father. The distinct personal actings of the Trinity, wherein the priesthood of Christ is founded, are not, I confess, contained herein. For these things preceded the consideration of the fall, whereby the image now proposed and resolved to be communicated unto man in his creation was lost, which Christ was designed to recover. But here is enough to confirm our general assertion, that such distinct actings there were with respect to mankind; and the application hereof to our present purpose, will be directed in the ensuing testimonies. This therefore I have only laid down and proved as the general principle which we proceed upon. Man was peculiarly created unto the glory of the Trinity, or of God as three in one. Hence in all things concerning him, there is not only an intimation of those distinct subsistences, but also of their distinct actings with respect unto him. So it was eminently in his creation; his making was the effect of special counsel. Much more shall we find this fully expressed with respect unto his restoration by the Son of God. § 9. The same truth is farther revealed and confirmed, Prov. viii. 22-31. “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth: when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth. While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there; when he set a compass upon the face of the depth. When he established the clouds above, when he strengthened the fountains of the deep. When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment; when he appointed the foundation of the earth. Then was I by him, as one brought up with him; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him. Rejoicing in the habitable parts of the earth; and my delights were with the sons of men." We must first secure this testimony against those who have attempted to deprive the church of God of its use and advantage; and then apply it unto our present purpose. In the ancient church, none questioned but that the Wisdom which here discourseth is the Son of God. Only the Arians greatly endeavoured to corrupt the sense of one passage in it, and thereby to wrest the whole to give countenance to their heresy. Those of late who agree with them in an opposition to the same truth, upon other principles, observing how they failed in their attempt, do leave the sense of particular passages unquestioned; and call into question the whole subject of the discourse, wherein if they prevail, the sense of particular places must be accommodated to what they substitute in the room thereof. It is Wisdom that speaks and is spoken of. This we believe to be he who is the Wisdom of God, even his eternal Son. This they will not grant; although they are not agreed what it is that is intended. A property, say some, of the divine nature; the exercise of divine wisdom in making the world, say others; the wisdom that is in the law, say the Jews; or as some of them, the wisdom that was given to Solomon; and of their mind have been some of late. With the Arians I shall not much contend, because their heresy seems to be much buried in the world, although some of late have endeavoured to give. countenance to their opinions, or to them who maintained them. Sand. Hist. Eccles. enucl. lib. 3. It was the 22d verse which they principally insisted on. For whereas it was granted between them and the Homoousians, that it is the Son of God which is |