therefore always teach us by methodical System; but often leaves us, from certain Facts and given Premises, to draw our own conclusions; conclusions however so obvious, that they cannot well be mistaken. This is remarkably the case in the Christian Revelation.

XXII. The Laws and Ordinances established among the Jews were designed to guard that people from heathen idolatry. On the recollection of this circumstance it appears extraordinary, that Moses, when he is describing the creation of the Universe, should, in order to express his conceptions of the Deity, introduce a term, which implies Plurality; and, frequently connecting it with verbs and persons singular, should use that term thirty times. Extraor dinary also it is, that as in the Decalogue, when first delivered, so also on a subsequent repetition of their Laws, after a solemn address, demanding their attention, he should speak of the Deity in any words, which could possibly convey an idea of Plurality. Yet such an idea has been conveyed, in the very declaration, which is intended to assert the Unity of Godhead.

XXIII. It will not surety be presuming too much, if we sup pose 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;" (Josh. xxiv. 19.) and the latter gives this weighty instruction, "Remember thy Creators in the days of thy youth." (Eccles. xii. 1.) In the book of Proverbs there is also this passage; 66 The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom; and knowledge of the Holies is understanding." (Prov. ix. 10.)

XXIV. When we put together these several considerations; That the doctrine of a Triad is very ancient and general; that Moses applies to the Deity a term of Plurality; that Joshua and Solomon do the same; there is reason for concluding that among the Jews, as among other People, there was an idea of a Trinity: with this difference however between them and the Heathens; the Jews admitted nothing into their opinion, which could contradict Unity of Divine attributes.

XXV. The Mosaic History does not so entirely differ from Heathen, as that there should be no kind of similarity between them. The former is indeed more correct and pure; the latter imperfect and blended with fiction. Still however in many instances there may be traced a resemblance between them. Why may we not reason after this manner, with regard to the Doctrines of Religion and why not say, the Mosaic and Jewish conceptions of Unity in the attributes of the Divine Triad were indeed most perfectly correct and pure: but as to the doctrine of a Triad in itself, between Jewish and Heathen opinions there was some faint resemblance; such resemblance as might lead us to imagine both Jews and Gentiles originally derived the doctrine from true communication; but whilst the former preserved, the latter grossly corrupted the truth.

XXVI. If Moses and the Jews held the doctrine of a Trinity, and the word "Elohim" imports Plurality, it is natural to ask, How

comes it to pass, that the Septuagint Version renders the first verse of Genesis in this manner, Εν αρχή εποίησεν ὁ Θεος τον ερανόν ? The learned and excellent Ridley, after Allix, has answered this question "The Talmudists own, that the LXXII Interpreters did purposely change the notion of Plurality implied in the Hebrew "Elohim" into a Greek Singular, lest Ptolemy Philadelphus should conclude that the Jews, as well as himself, had a belief of Polytheism." According to the Orasixov," the Greek appellations of divinity were 805, Osos, Dcores: Plato calls the Deity T Παντος Κυβερνητήν, μεγισον Δαίμονα : το Θείον and Δαιμονιον are in signification the same." The expression το Κριττον night also have been added. Of all these, or was the only simple and direct term which they could adopt, to counteract idolatrous misconceptions.

XXVII. The opening of St. John's Gospel expounds the opening of the Mosaic History. The words of Moses are, "In the beginning Bara Elohim created the heaven and the earth." (Gen. i. 1.) St. John tells us the particular person of the Triune Godhead, by whom the Work of Creation was carried into effect. It was, by the Λόγος, who was προς τον Θεoy, and who was himself Θεος. "By Him all things were made; and without Him was not made any one thing, which was made." By Him, "the World was made." He became "flesh and dwelt among us." He was not "God the Father," but the Mooyens Taga Пlargos, by whom "God the Father" created the Universe, and from time to time revealed himself to Mankind. The Aoyos and Movyevas mean the same person, "God the Son," the second of the Mosaic Trinity. So true it is that the Old Testament intimated in general terms, what the New was afterwards to explain in a manner more particular and that between both there is the closest connexion, the one being the interpreter of the other.

XXVIII. Grotius denies that the imputation of Tritheism can be charged on Christian, with more justice than on Jewish worship. "Philo," he observes, "styles the Reason, or Word of God, the Maker of the World; and with the Rabbi Nachman, calls him the Angel, or the delegated Person who takes care of the Universe. The Cabbalists distinguish God into three Lights, and some of them by the very names which the Christians use, the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Hebrews allow, that the Spirit, by whom the Prophets were inspired, was not any thing created, and yet was distinct from him that sent it. Many of them also have a tradition that the divine power, which they call "Wisdom," should dwell in Messiah; whence by the Chaldee Paraphrast Messiah is called "The Word of God;" as by David, Isaiah, and others, to the same Messiah is given the awful appellation of "God and Lord." This is the substance of what is remarked by Grotius, a writer not to be disregarded on such a subject.

XXIX. For the certainty of their having been respectively wrought and spoken, the works of Christ and the words of Christ rest precisely on the same authority, the authority of historical testimony by the self-same witnesses.

XXX. The credibility, or in other words, the reason why we think the works recorded, and the doctrines taught have a claim to our belief, is founded on conviction of Veracity and Competency, both in the Sacred Historians and in the divine Instructor. The Evangelists and Apostles have proof that they were true, in what they related concerning circumstances they were competent to assertain and Christ demonstrated the reality of his divine character; consistently with which, he could not but speak the words of truth, when he delivered doctrines which in his superlative knowledge of heavenly things he was enabled to communicate.

XXXI. It has been said the expression "Trinity in the Godhead," Teias Quer, does not occur in Scripture. True. Nor does "Unity in the Godhead" 'EVOTAS SY OSICTATI. Nor the term "Sacrament." But the subject matter, which those expressions are designed to indicate, does occur: so that the objection has in it no substantial validity.

XXXII. "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," are the words in which our Lord delivered to his Apostles their final commission. (St. Matth. xxviii. 19.) They may be thus paraphrased: "Go and make disciples in all nations, admitting them by baptism into the acknowledgment and religious service of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

XXXIII. On the clause, " In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," we may observe, there are pointed out three distinct objects, each of which has reference to one and the same act of mind implied in the expression " into the name," i. e. into the religious service or worship: and the expression "into the name," though but once written, is in sense and force appli ed to each of the three objects. Considering then this parity of reference and application, considering also there is not introduced a single word by which to give us an idea that in the acceptation of either term is intended a change from substance to quality, we have the strongest ground for maintaining that if Subsistence belongs to the first object, Subsistence belongs also to the second, and to the third. And if there be any such thing as propriety in writing, and analogy in rendering, consistently with such propriety and such analogy we cannot say, that the terms Father, and Son, imply each of them Subsistence, and then by an abrupt transition unsupported by any word which can indicate mutation, pass at once from real Subsistence to attributable quality. As then by the term "Father" we understand real Subsistence, so in the term "Son" and in the term "Holy Ghost," we must respectively understand Subsistence. XXXIV. If the regular, natural, and unforced construction of our Lord's final command will lead us to conclude, that by the expression "Holy Spirit" is meant real Subsistence; consideration of the solemn occasion when that command was given; of the importance which must necessarily be attached to it; and of the im probability that it should be so delivered as to be ambiguous, will Surnish a strong reason for adhering to that conclusion.

XXXV. The argument drawn from his final command would certainly be less forcible, if it did not appear that previously to giv ing that command our Lord himself had spoken of the Holy Spirit as a real Subsistence. He does however so speak. 'O de Пagaxλntos, το Πνεύμα άγιον, ὁ πέμψει ο Πατης εν τη ονοματι με, εκείνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει παντα, και ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς παντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν. (St. John xiv. 25, 26.) In whatever sense we take Пagazλntos, whether as "Comforter," or “Advocate," or "Intercessor," it implies real Being: for, "teaching and reminding" are properties belonging to real Being. But the "Holy Spirit" is that Пagaxλntos; has the properties of teaching and reminding: He has therefore real Being. In this passage it is also to be noticed, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are distinctly marked out. Again: "When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for, He shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall he speak." (St. John xvi. 13.) In this passage," Hearing" is ascribed to the Holy Spirit: but "Hearing" is a property belonging to real Being. The consequence is obvious. The same Spirit is to speak from another, and not from himself only: of course, by the Spirit here mentioned, we cannot understand the Father, but some One who should speak what he heard delivered from the Father.

XXXVI. It is observable, that when our Lord has occasion to speak of the Resurrection, or of the Holy Spirit, his disciples express no wonder, his enemies shew no displeasure at the doctrines. The reason might be this. The doctrine of a Resurrection was certainly holden by the Pharisees, and therefore was not novel, nor would appear strange. Probably also some ideas respecting a Holy Spirit were entertained by them; though in both instances there was need of that more full illustration and decisive confirmation, which they received from our Lord's express declaration and posi tive assurance. Indeed, the more we consider how frequently our Lord speaks of a Divine Spirit, and how familiar the expression appears to have been among his hearers, the more we shall be persuaded, that however much of this must be ascribed to the idiom of Scripture Language, yet in the time of our Lord the Jews certainly retained, what they had received from their Ancestors, traditional notices, which impressed their minds with an opinion that there was an uncreated Spirit really subsisting. This opinion, with all their hatred towards Christianity, the Jews continued to hold for some ages after the commencement of the Christian era.

XXXVII. If we are required to prove the completion of Christ's promise that the Holy Spirit should "teach and guide," we shall here use the same kind of proof, which we adopt when we demonstrate the real exertion of divine Providence: we shall refer to the actual effects, which the Holy Spirit has produced, and still produces. The effects were extraordinary in the Apostles and first Converts; they are also powerful in their influence on the hearts and lives of Thousands at this moment.

XXXVIII. To effects we refer, when we would demonstrate the divinity of the Holy Spirit. We add also the circumstance of our

APPEN.

B

Lord's command, that we should at our baptism be admitted inte the religious service and worship of the Holy Spirit. Religious service and worship, in the opinion both of Jews and Christians, must be offered to nothing created, whether man or angel. The Holy Spirit therefore, which is to receive our religious service and worship, must be more than man, more than angel; must be divine.

XXXIX. It does not appear that the Jews objected to the mere expression "Son of God" abstractedly taken: the cause of their rage and the ground of their accusation was, that Christ applied this exalted title to himself; which they deemed blasphemy. We may hence draw these two inferences; the Jews had an idea there did exist one, whom they eminently styled the "Son of God ;" and the "Son of God" in their apprehension was essentially possessed of divine attributes.

XL. Comparison of text and context, common sense and the reason of the thing, will in most cases tell us when a word is to be taken in its usual and primary, and when in a figurative and secondary acceptation. Speaking of himself, our Lord says, "Before Abraham was, I am."" I came forth from the Father and am come into the world: again I leave the world and go to the Father."-“ 0 Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."-" I speak that which I have seen with my Father."" All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” To the high priest, who said with great earnestness, "I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the Son of God," our Lord answered, “Thou hast said;" words which the Jews immediately understood to be directly and unequivocally affirmative. St. Mark's account is, " The high priest asked him, Art thou the Son of the Blessed?” and Jesus said, "I am." St. Luke's relation corresponds with St. Matthew's in phraseology; and both agree in sense with St. Mark. If on occasions where the context leads us not to expect parabolical illustration or metaphorical allusion, language thus explicit is not sufficiently clear and precise to prove the pre-existing glory and the present divinity of our Lord, words can have no meaning, and all language must be inadequate for conveying ideas.

XLI. It was expedient and necessary that at the close of his mission our Lord should assert himself to be "The Son of God." He makes the assertion in terms direct. We do not however find that in the course of his Ministry he is continually making mention of his divine character at all times and at all seasons indiscriminately, as though he rather wished the name of his divinity should be obtruded by repetition, than that the substance which that nanie imports should be collected by inference. He proceeds in a different manner, a manner more consonant with truth and more satisfactory to a candid mind. He performs extraordinary works: to those works he makes his appeal to the same, as to visible and palpable proofs, he refers us then on the fair ground of argumentative reasoning that extraordinary effects must proceed from adequate causes, he leaves us to form our own opinions. This is dealing with us as with rational Beings; free indeed to exercise the powers of judgment, but assur