CHAPTER I.

THE

MOSAIC HISTORY

OF THE

CREATION OF THE WORLD;

ILLUSTRATED BY DISCOVERIES AND EXPERIMENTS DERIVED FROM THE PRESENT

ENLIGHTENED STATE OF SCIENCE; WITH REFLECTIONS, INTENDED TO PROMOTE

VITAL AND PRACTICAL RELIGION.

BY THOMAS WOOD, A. M.

REVISED AND IMPROVED

BY THE REV. J. P. DURBIN, A. M.

PROFESSOR OF LANGUAGES, AUGUSTA COLLEGE, KENTUCKY.

“Every man has a particular train of thought into which his mind falls,

when at leisure, from the impressions and ideas which occasionally

excite it; and if one train of thinking be more desirable than another,

it is surely that which regards the phenomena of nature with a constant

reference to a supreme intelligent author.”--_Bacon._

FIRST AMERICAN, FROM THE SECOND LONDON EDITION.

NEW-YORK.--M^{C}ELRATH & BANGS.

1831.

[_Entered, according to the Act of Congress, July 27, in the year 1831,

by M^{c}Elrath & Bangs, in the Office of the Clerk of the Southern

District of New-York._]

JOHN T. WEST & CO., PRINTERS.

PREFACE

TO THE SECOND LONDON EDITION.

As God made man with a capacity susceptible of knowledge, so has he

furnished him with the means of acquiring it. The Divine Being is

incomprehensible to all but himself: for a finite capacity can never

fully grasp an infinite object. Neither can he be perceived at all,

only so far as he is pleased to reveal himself. He has given us a

revelation of his nature, perfections, and will; which could never have

been discovered by reasoning and conjecture. He has also favored us

with a revelation of his works, without which the origin, constitution,

and nature of the universe, could never have been adequately known. The

origin, duty, and interest of man, are matters in which we are greatly

concerned. How valuable then are the Sacred Scriptures!

The heathen world by wisdom knew not God. On theological subjects,

the greatest Philosophers and Poets of whom antiquity could boast,

were puerile in their opinions, and absurd and contradictory in their

literary productions. Their progress in many of the sciences, and

the polite arts, was considerable; but in religion they made none:

not because they neglected to investigate the nature of it, as one

observes; for there was not a subject they thought on, nor discoursed

about, more than the nature and existence of the gods; neither was

it for want of natural abilities, nor of learning; for persons who

formed the brightest constellation of geniuses that ever illuminated

the republic of letters, were devoted to the investigation of the

principles and causes of things. Moses, the sacred historian, had

access to the Fountain of knowledge, and has revealed the mystery

that lay hid for ages, because he was taught it by the inspiration of

the Almighty. By the Hebrew Lawgiver we are instructed concerning the

Creation of the World; an illustration of whose account is attempted in

the following pages.

The attention of the reader is called to that era when the elementary

principles of matter were first produced, and the formation of

creatures took place; when vitality was given to a vast variety of

animals, and mind was infused into Man as the peculiar offspring of

God: when motion was impressed on the universe, and the various Planets

began their orbicular revolutions: when Time commenced, and

“History, not wanted yet,

Lean’d on her elbow watching Time, whose course

Eventful should supply her with a theme.”

What a stupendous fabric is Creation! a marvellous display of

omnipotence! It is infinitely diversified, and magnificently grand. Ten

thousand objects strike the attentive eye, and afford inexpressible

delight to a contemplative mind. The blue ethereal arch is highly

illuminated, and richly adorned with sparkling globes of light--whose

number, distances, magnitudes, motions, and influences, elude the most

diligent research: these millions of suns, the glory of other worlds,

are equally the works of the Creator, and, with rays of dazzling

splendor, irradiate the peculiar systems to which they belong: and,

while they celebrate his wisdom and power, form a brilliant canopy

over our heads. That golden globe of light, which is the center of

our planetary system, shines forth in his glory, and spreads abroad

the lucid day: he does not only emit his cheering rays to surrounding

orbs, some of which revolve at immense distances, but, in running his

prescribed course, measures out our time, renders our hours joyful, and

without whose reviving beams we should dwell in perpetual darkness. The

pale silver Moon gilds the shadows of the evening, and directs the feet

of the benighted and lonely traveller in safety to his abode.

In the lower walks of Nature, we perceive numerous assemblages of

creatures, which, calling forth the exercise of our understanding,

raise our admiration. The vapors arise, unite in the aerial regions,

and descend in rain, snow, or hail, according to the different

temperature of the climates; and thus the valleys are watered, the

green carpet is spread under our feet, delightfully adorned with

fruitful trees and variegated flowers. The vast collections of water,

called seas, are stored with innumerable finny inhabitants, both small

and great, which are amply supplied with necessary food. On earth,

there are the wild beasts of the forest, the roaming cattle of the

desert, the domestic animals of the field, the feathered tribes with

their glossy plumage and delightful notes, beside an incredible number

of living creatures that escape the utmost vigilance of the unassisted

eye: which are all effects of infinite skill, omnipotent energy, Divine

munificence, and conspire to utter his praise. The sultry regions are

fanned with cooling breezes, which revive the numerous classes of

creatures, and without which they would otherwise faint. But of all

the visible effects of omnific power and uncreated goodness, Man has a

claim to the first rank, for in his composition are mysteriously joined

both matter and spirit.

How wonderfully has God displayed his wisdom, power, and goodness, in

the creation of the Universe! What are the most labored and diversified

works of Art, when compared with the majestic grandeur and sublimity

of those of Nature! The things on which the fertile imagination of man

has long been employed, when considered in a detached point of view,

gratify our curiosity, raise our admiration, and gain our applause;

but when compared with the productions of the Divine Hand, they sink

and are deprived of their lustre, like the sparkling glow-worm in the

copse, when the Sun shines forth with the refulgence of his meridian

splendor.

Religious instruction is here mixed with philosophical discoveries. The

works of Nature conduct an enlightened mind to the great Creator. The

celebrated Dr. Watts, with this point in view, says,

“Part of thy name divinely stands,

On all thy creatures writ,

They show the labor of thy hands,

Or impress of thy feet.”

Mr. Adams, in his Lectures, says, “The two kingdoms of nature and

grace, as two parallel lines, correspond to each other, follow a like

course, but can never be made to touch. An adequate understanding

of this distinction in all its branches, would be the consummation

of knowledge.” Stephens, in his Human Nature Delineated, says, “The

man who would seek after knowledge in this world, and happiness in

the world of spirits, I would advise to pursue his studies without

any other guides than the Word and the Works of God.” And Dr. A.

Clarke, on John iv, 3, affirms, that, “properly understood, earthly

_substances_ are the types, representatives, and shadows of heavenly

things.” St. Paul appears to inculcate this idea where he says, “Now

we see as through a glass, darkly: but then face to face.” The word

αινιγματι, rendered _darkly_, is peculiarly important, and the right

knowledge of which will assist us to understand his meaning. Parkhurst

gives the following definition of the _term_ and the _thing_. “Αινιγμα

from ηνιγμαι, the _perfect passive_, of αινιττω, to _hint, intimate,

signify with some degree of obscurity_; an _enigma_, in which one thing

_answers_ or stands in _correspondence to_, or as the _representative_

of another; which is, in _some respects, similar_ to it, occurs 1 Cor.

xiii, 12. _Now_, in this life, _we see by means of a mirror_ reflecting

the images of heavenly and spiritual things, εν αινιγματι, _in an

enigmatical manner_, invisible things being represented by visible;

spiritual, by natural; eternal, by temporal; _but then_, in the eternal

world, _face to face_; every thing being seen in itself, and not by

means of a representative or similitude.”

The idea thus suggested, induced the author to engage in the following

work: he thought that if the Mosaic account of the Creation were given

in detail, each day apart, using the aid afforded by the present

enlightened state of science, and directing the reader to look

“Through Nature, up to Nature’s God.”

the work would be instructive, and might tend to cultivate the mind

and amend the heart. And he is happy that he has it in his power to

say, that the plan has obtained not only the general approbation of

orthodox and pious Christians, but the warm encomiums of many Ministers

of the Gospel, both of the Establishment and among the Dissenters. He

has received very flattering Epistolary Communications from persons of

piety, literature, and science.

The author has availed himself of various sources of information: some

of the best works published on different illustrative subjects have

been consulted: and those on Natural History and Chemical Science

were found of considerable service. That part which treats on the

Anatomical structure of Man, the reader will perceive is written

by a gentleman deeply versed in Physiological science. It is from

the pen of the late Benjamin Gibson, Esq. who filled the important

situations of _Vice-President of the Literary and Philosophical Society

of Manchester, and Surgeon to the Infirmary of that town_: and who,

unexpectedly, and in the most obliging manner, offered to prepare a

Manuscript for this work, which gives it a peculiar excellence it

otherwise would not have had.

The favorable reception which the former large edition has met with

from the public, and the consequent demand there was upon the author to

prepare a new one, produced a considerable excitement in his mind; and,

under these circumstances, it was not less his wish, than it has been

his endeavor, to make the second edition more worthy to meet the public

eye, as well as more extensively useful. The _whole_ of the work, with

the exception of that part by Mr. Gibson, therefore, has been written

anew, and such important additions and arrangements made, as will, he

trusts, meet the approbation of his readers. He has received assistance

from a writer of eminence, whose name, were he at liberty to mention

it, would do honor to his work, and whose corrections have increased

its value. The Religious Improvements he believes to be natural and

scriptural, and hopes they may be read with advantage by all Christians

who have received the truth as it is in Christ. He can say, that he

has endeavored to make the whole work both instructive and useful, so

far as his leisure from arduous ministerial duties would allow him: by

directing the attention of the reader to God, through the medium of

his visible works, and by that means to inculcate true religion and

genuine piety. May the Divine blessing render this additional effort

successful!

PREFACE

TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

This work, which is now presented to the public, has not been reprinted

in America heretofore, notwithstanding it passed through _two_ editions

in England, with honorable approbation, in a short space of time. This

first American edition, it is confidently believed, will be received

with approbation; because the work will be found, on perusal, to answer

to its title; and surely no subject can interest the Christian and

intelligent reader more deeply, than the _illustration of the creation

of the world, as recorded by Moses, the servant of God_.

This volume inspires a deeper interest when the reader is promised that

the illustration of this splendid subject shall be _by means of the

discoveries drawn from the present enlightened state of science_. Thus

the reader will see clearly confirmed this glorious truth: _Religion

and Literature are mutual helpmates to the knowledge, love, and glory

of God._

This important truth has been strangely obscured for several ages; but

is now emerging to light with increased splendor. Nor is it important

to inquire, at this stage of mental improvement throughout the

civilized world, the cause of its obscuration, but rather to rejoice,

that it is now assuming its place as a fundamental principle in sound

philosophy. It is the duty of every benevolent individual to contribute

according to his ability, to an inseparable union of sound literature

and vital religion. The one will secure the interests and success of

the other, and both combined, the glory of God.

Our author, in this respect, has been very happily successful. He has,

generally, illustrated the various parts of the Mosaic Creation, with

perspicuity and precision, and then applied the whole to the production

and support of vital piety in the heart of the reader. So that while

the astonishing magnificence, glory, and wisdom of creation, fills the

contemplative mind with admiration, the heart also is fired with an

ardent and rational devotion.

The character of this volume is, therefore, neither _purely_

scientific, nor _purely_ devotional; but both wisely and happily

combined, under the high and direct sanction of revelation.

It will be apparent to every person, by a mere glance at the size

of the volume, that it is not intended to contain all the _minutiæ_

connected with the Mosaic Creation, but the principal, and most

important facts, so as to make the work suitable to the great mass of

intelligent and thoughtful readers. This object it will be found to

have well accomplished.

The _improvements_, which are mentioned in the title-page, have been

added to the American edition, with design to adapt the work more

nearly to the wants of the American public. They are found incorporated

in the body of the volume, in smaller type, and enclosed in brackets;

which was judged to be the best method.

These additional papers are written at some length, principally on

topics which have become more prominent since our author finished his

work, and which are now exciting intense interest in this country. They

are, therefore, considered to be real and interesting improvements to

the American edition.

Finally, the author of these additional papers, would respectfully

commend this American edition of the Mosaic Creation, illustrated by

means of the present enlightened state of science, _to the friends of_

LITERATURE AND RELIGION COMBINED _for the instruction and salvation of

mankind, and for the glory of God_.

J. P. DURBIN.

CONTENTS.

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, that he might impart

happiness to them. p. 13-40.

CHAPTER II.

FIRST DAY.

_Section_ I.--CHAOS.

Inquiry into the origin of things natural to man --

Character of Moses as a sacred historian important --

Explanation of the term Created -- Chaotic state of the

elementary principles of matter -- Influence of the Spirit

of God upon the chaotic mass -- Opinions of the ancients --

Similitude between the first and second creation -- Agency

of the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration asserted and

proved. p. 41-51.

_Section_ II.--FIRE.

Omnific word -- Moving principles in Nature -- Criticism on

the original word איר _aur_ -- Creation of Fire -- Its nature

-- Friction exciting the action of fire -- Fire attracted by

bodies -- Fire conducted -- Fire in a state of combination --

Fire elastic -- Expansive force of fire -- Subterraneous fires

-- Earthquakes and volcanic Eruptions -- Air a storehouse of

fire -- General and final dissolution of nature by fire --

Fire a symbol of the Deity, in his gracious presence, vital

influence, transforming energy, and destructive operation. p.

51-74.

_Section_ III.--LIGHT.

Motion of luminous and fiery particles the first cause

of light -- Light the most simple body -- Velocity of light

-- Light diffusive -- Light the medium through which objects

become visible -- Light beautiful, or its rays of different

colors -- Light a visible resemblance of its Divine Author,

in his spirituality, simplicity, purity, energy, goodness,

manifestation, glory. p. 75-89.

_Section_ IV.--DAY AND NIGHT.

Original terms of Day and Night -- Motion the effect of

a Divine power -- Commencement of Time -- Utility of Day and

Night -- Religious Improvement of Time -- Sin moral Darkness --

The Gospel a Light to dispel it -- A Christian the subject of

a transition from the one state to the other. p. 89-95.

CHAPTER III.

SECOND DAY.

ON THE ATMOSPHERE.

Composition of Atmospheric Air -- Atmosphere divided

into three regions -- Air a fluid -- Its compressibility

and elasticity -- Weight and pressure -- Equilibrium --

Transparency -- Wind -- Causes of Wind -- Variety of Winds

-- Velocity of Winds -- Destructive Winds -- Wind under the

control of God -- Wind a similitude of the Holy Spirit’s

operations. p. 95-114.

CHAPTER IV.

THIRD DAY.

_Section_ I.--THE SEA.

Water and Land separated -- Formation of the Sea -- Its

restrictions -- Extent -- Depth -- Composition -- Saltiness

-- Motion -- Tides -- Four states of water -- Circulation --

Religious Improvement. p. 114-135.

_Section_ II.--THE EARTH.

Surface of the Earth -- Mountains -- Fertility of Plants --

Dissemination of seeds -- Preservation of Plants -- Adaptation

to different Climates -- Number of Vegetables -- Succession of

Vegetables -- Remarkable Trees -- Sensitive Plants -- Kitchen

Vegetables -- Garden Flowers -- Religious Improvement.

p. 136-165.

_Section_ III.--MINERALS.

Gold -- Silver -- Platina -- Mercury -- Copper -- Iron

-- Tin -- Lead --Nickel -- Zinc -- Palladium -- Bismuth --

Antimony -- Tellurium --Arsenic -- Cobalt -- Manganese --

Tungsten -- Molybdenum --Uranium -- Titanium -- Chromium --

Columbium or Tantalium -- Cerium -- Oxmium -- Rodium -- Iridium

-- Religious Improvement. p. 165-183.

CHAPTER V.

FOURTH DAY.

_Section_ I.--THE SUN.

Signs -- Names -- Nature -- Motions -- Form -- Magnitude --

Distance -- Suspension -- Idolatrous worship of the Sun -- The

Sun an emblem of Christ. p. 183-198.

_Section_ II.--THE MOON.

Names -- Dimensions -- Motions -- Seasons -- Phases --

Harvest Moon -- Moon’s Surface -- Aerial Stones -- Eclipses --

Moonlight -- Epithets -- Religious Improvement. p. 198-214.

_Section_ III.--THE SEASONS.

Seasons: Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter -- Displaying

Divine Power, Wisdom, Goodness, Faithfulness -- Religious

Improvement. p. 214-223.

_Section_ IV.--THE PLANETS AND FIXED STARS.

Mercury -- Venus -- The Earth -- Mars -- Ceres -- Pallas --

Juno --Vesta -- Jupiter -- Saturn -- Georgium Sidus -- Comets

-- Fixed Stars -- Religious Improvement. p. 223-278.

CHAPTER VI.

FIFTH DAY.

_Section_ I.--FISHES.

Of Fishes in general -- The Cetaceous kind -- Cartilaginous

-- Spinous -- Crustaceous -- and Testaceous -- Animalcules --

Religious Improvement. p. 279-296.

_Section_ II.--ON FOWLS.

Number of Species -- Superiority and peculiar construction

-- Skill in building their Nests -- Power and Season of

Propagation -- Dexterity in providing Food -- Instinct --

Migrations -- Insects -- Religious Improvement. p. 296-317.

CHAPTER VII.

SIXTH DAY.

_Section_ I.--ON QUADRUPEDS AND REPTILES.

Quadrupeds in general -- Motion -- Habits -- Rumination --

Proportion -- Tastes -- Clothing -- Weapons -- Proportionate

Number -- Faculties -- Reptiles -- Religious Improvement.

p. 318-344.

_Section_ II.--MAN.

_Body_: -- Its Creator -- Formation -- Vitality -- Blood

-- Heart -- Arteries and Veins -- Digestion -- Respiration --

Glands -- Absorbents -- Nervous System -- Organs of Sense --

Bones -- Sinovia -- Muscles -- Tendons -- Cellular Membrane --

Skin. _Soul_: Its Immateriality -- Freedom -- Immortality --

Moral Image -- Adam’s dominion over the Creatures -- Woman --

Paradise. p. 344-398.

CHAPTER VIII.

SEVENTH DAY.

ON THE SABBATH.

Sabbath instituted -- Blessed and sanctified -- Given to

Adam as a General Precept for his Posterity -- Renewed before

and at the giving of the Law -- A sign between God and his

people -- Worldly Business prohibited -- Works of Necessity

and Mercy excepted --Advantages resulting from observing it

-- A Seventh Day regarded by the Heathens -- The Sabbath of

universal and perpetual obligation -- The Lord’s Day.

p. 399-410.

THE

MOSAIC HISTORY, &c.

CHAPTER I.

ON THE CREATOR OF THE WORLD.

Distinguished by his name JEHOVAH -- His essence and

self-existence expressed by the words I AM -- His attribute

of goodness the glory of all his other perfections -- Elohim

signifying a Trinity of Persons in a Unity of Essence -- The

Creation ascribed to one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy

Spirit -- The first production of matter -- The creatures made

for the manifesting of God’s attributes, and that he might

impart happiness to them.

As it is proposed, in the following pages to give the Mosaic account

of the creation of the world, it is very natural that the mind should

come to the meditation of this interesting subject, by contemplating

the character of the Great Creator, according to his own revelations.

It is evident that God made himself gradually known, as the state and

condition of mankind required. In the earlier ages of the world, while

revelation was but dawning on the human race, he was but little known,

in comparison of the subsequent diffusion of his glory and perfections.

When he, according to his promise, came to deliver the children of

Israel out of Egypt, he revealed himself to them by his name JEHOVAH.

He had before declared himself by this name to Abraham, Isaac, and

Jacob; but not as it imports the performance of his promises; in

which sense, their posterity afterwards, in the time of Moses, well

understood it.

Of all the names which the Divine Being has been pleased to designate

himself by, that of JEHOVAH is the greatest. It comes from a root

which imports his eternity, independency, efficacy, and truth. In the

Hebrew it is written with four letters, י _yod_, ה _he_, ו _vau_,

ה _he_, thus יהוה i.e. JHVH:[1] the points used in that language,

make our English word consist of seven letters, J_e_H_o_V_a_H. God

himself gives the interpretation of this name. “And the Lord passed

by before him, and proclaimed יהוה YEHOVAH, the LORD GOD, merciful

and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression,

and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.” These different

names have been considered as so many attributes of the Divine

Nature. Commentators divide them into eleven, thus: 1. יהוה JEHOVAH.

2. אל EL, the strong or mighty God. 3. רחום RACHUM, the merciful

Being, who is full of tenderness and compassion. 4. חנין CHANUN, the

gracious One: He, whose nature is goodness itself--the loving God.

5. ארך פיםא EREC APAYIM, long-suffering, the Being who, because of

his goodness and tenderness, is not easily irritated, but suffers

long and is kind. 6. רב RAB, the great or mighty One. 7. חסד CHESED,

the bountiful Being: He who is exuberant in his beneficence. 8. אמת

EMETH, the Truth, or true One: He alone who can neither deceive nor

be deceived--who is the Fountain of truth, and from whom all wisdom

and knowledge must be derived. 9. חסד נצר NOTSER CHESED the preserver

of bountifulness: He whose beneficence never ends, keeping mercy for

thousands of generations--showing compassion and mercy while the

world endures. 10. נשא עון ופשע וחטאה NOSE _âvon vapeshâ vechataah_:

He who bears away iniquity and transgression and sin; properly the

REDEEMER, the Pardoner, the Forgiver, the Being whose prerogative

alone it is to forgive sin, and save the soul. נקה (לו) לא ינקה NAKEH

_lo yinnakeh_, the righteous Judge, who distributes justice with an

impartial hand; with whom no innocent person can ever be condemned. 11.

And פקד עון PAKED _âvon_, &c. He who visits iniquity; he who punishes

transgressors, and from whose justice no sinner can escape. The God of

retributive and vindictive justice. These eleven attributes, as they

have been termed, are all included in the name _Jehovah_; and are the

proper interpretation of it.[2]

The Jews had a superstitious respect for this name; and, after the

Babylonian captivity, discontinued the use of it, which caused

them soon to forget its true pronunciation. They called it the

_Tetragrammaton_, or four-lettered name of God, which, to the present

day, the Jews will neither write nor pronounce. They deemed it to be

ineffable; and therefore when it occurred in reading the Scriptures;

substituted אדני _Adonai_.

The Jews tell us that the woman’s son, mentioned in Lev. xxxiv, 11, was

accused of blasphemy and stoned to death, because he pronounced the

name _Jehovah_. But I conceive, that he had spoken contemptuously of

God. We read, verse 10, that he and a man of Israel strove together,

and it is probable that the Israelite, in the heat of contention, would

deny his being a member of the church of God, because he was the son of

an Egyptian father who was an idolater; whereupon, no doubt, the son

of the Israelitish woman spoke scornfully and opprobriously of the God

of Israel, despising the privilege of being one of his people. This, I

imagine, was the blasphemy of which he was accused, and for which he

was condemned and stoned to death; and not for pronouncing the name of

_Jehovah_ only.

The Seventy who translated the Old Testament into Greek, at the desire

of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, about the 124th Olympiad, were

also very sparing in the use of this name _Jehovah_; and therefore did

not render it according to the sacred import of the Hebrew, but changed

it into the word Κυριος, _Lord_, which is of the same signification

with _Adonai_ in the Hebrew. Origen, Jerome, and Eusebius, testify,

that, in their time, the Jews left the name _Jehovah_ written in their

copies with Samaritan characters, instead of the common Chaldee or

Hebrew characters. And those divines, who at the command of King James

translated the Scriptures anew into English, have very rarely used the

word _Jehovah_, but rendered it _Lord_. Yet we may observe, that when

this word _Lord_ is substituted for _Jehovah_, it is printed in large

Roman letters. It is to be wished, that the name _Jehovah_ had been

preserved in the English translation of the Scriptures, and especially

in those passages whose sense entirely depends on the meaning of the

word.

After the appointment of Moses, by Jehovah, to deliver the children of

Israel from the tyranny and oppression under which they groaned, and

to conduct them from Egypt to worship God at Horeb, he was anxious to

obtain a particular revelation of the Divine nature and attributes,

that he might be able to regulate, direct, and superintend their

worship; and this he deemed necessary on account of the Israelites

having been long conversant among the Egyptians, who were idolaters

and polytheists, and called their gods by a variety of names. Hereupon

he said to God, “Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and

shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you;

and they shall say unto me, What is his name? what shall I say unto

them?” Intimating, that it was expedient God should call himself by

an appropriate name, to distinguish himself from all the gods of the

heathen. For men did not, at this time, as Dr. Shuckford observes,

know the works of creation well enough to demonstrate from them the

attributes of God; nor could they, by speculation, form proper and

just notions of his nature. Though he had revealed himself to Abraham,

Isaac, and Jacob, by the name אני אל שדי _Ani El shaday_, “I am God

all-sufficient,” and likewise that of יהוה _Jehovah_; yet a further

knowledge of him was sincerely desired and earnestly requested.[3]

Whereupon, says God to Moses, I AM _that_ I AM, אהיה אשר אהיה EHEYEH

_asher_ EHEYEH. The Vulgate translates these words--EGO SUM QUI SUM,

_I am who am_. The Septuagint--Εγω ειμι ὁ Ων, _I am he who exists_.

The Arabic paraphrases them--_The Eternal, who passes not away_. Not

_I was_, but I AM and WILL BE: a name that expresses his own essence,

and signifies independency, immutability, and necessary existence. As

if he had said, You may inquire who I am, and by what name I would

be distinguished: know then that I AM HE who has being from himself,

and has no dependence on any other.[4] This contains in it the whole

plenitude and possibility of being, all that is, or can be, or, as the

Apostle expresses it, παν το πληρωμα της Θεοτητος “all the fulness of

the Godhead.” By this name he is distinguished not only from all false

gods, but from all other beings whatsoever; implying, that he exists

after some very eminent and peculiar manner, and that nothing else

besides him truly and essentially is.[5]

The self-existence of God proves that he always was, and evidently

shows that he cannot cease to be. “He is, and was, and is to come.” His

necessary existence comprehends a duration which has neither beginning,

succession, nor end. He can have no succession in his duration, because

wherever this is there must be priority, and wherever there is a

priority there must be a beginning. He is in the complete possession

of an endless life, all at once. He exists in one eternal _now_. He

is unchangeable in his essence or manner of existence, so that no

perfection can be added to him, nor any excellency taken from him, but

he remains invariably the same.

All natural perfections are essential to him as an infinite being, such

as eternity, omnipotence, immensity, omniscience, spirituality, and

immutability; and all moral perfections belong to him as a good Being,

such as wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, faithfulness.

These latter are communicable, because there are some rays of them

in his creatures, but none of them in that transcendent degree that

are in him, nor ever can be. The former we call his _natural_ and

_incommunicable_ perfections, for the sake of distinction; though it is

certain the latter are equally as natural to him, and incommunicable,

in that infinite degree possessed by himself.

God being unchangeable in his essence, must also be so in all his

perfections, because they are no other than his essence, and are not

distinguished in him, either from his essence, or from one another;

but are one and the same Being, revealed and manifested to us, under

various notions, which we call _attributes_, to help us the better to

conceive of him, who are not able to apprehend what may be known of

him, under any one name, or by any one act of our understanding.

The combination of all his perfections renders him a glorious Being;

and that fixed and invariable state of contentment and satisfaction,

complacency and delight, which result from the secure possession and

enjoyment of all that is good and desirable, or, in other words, of

all possible excellencies and perfections in the highest degree,

constitutes him infinitely blessed.

Moses was favored with another remarkable and interesting manifestation

of the Divine Being; for perceiving God’s merciful condescension in

answer to his prayers offered up for his people, he persevered in the

holy exercise, and even asked him for a manifestation of his glory:

“Show me,” said he, “I beseech thee, thy glory,” or, according to the

original, “make me see it.” He could not mean an open view of the

unclouded majesty of God, but only such a display of the Divine glory

as a mortal is capable of beholding. God answered, “I will make all

my _goodness_ to pass before thee:” intimating, that his _goodness_

is his glory, and that he could not bear the infinite splendor of his

holiness and justice. _Goodness_ is the true and genuine character of

God, and the glory of all his other perfections, and by it they are

all rendered engaging. Without this they would be terrible: for wisdom

without goodness degenerates into insidious cunning; and power without

it is the character of a tyrant. Were God destitute of this amiable

perfection, he would have such a defect in his nature, as infinite

perfection itself, in every other attribute, could not sufficiently

compensate.

All nations have acknowledged this perfection of the Divine Being.

Plato calls him the ιδεα του αγαθου, the idea or essence of goodness.

In the three principles of the Platonic Trinity--το αγαθον _goodness_,

νους _intelligence_, and ψυχη _vitality_.--The first place is assigned

to the το αγαθον _goodness_, which the Platonists conceive to be like

an immense and most pure light, continually diffusing and communicating

its invigorating beams. To this the Platonist Boctius alludes, in that

celebrated description of God, where he calls him _Fons Boni Lucidus_,

the lucid fountain of goodness.--There is an ancient cabalistical

table, supposed to be borrowed from the Pythagoreans, which represents,

in a visible scheme, the order of the Divine perfections: wherein it is

observable that _goodness_ presides over, and gives laws and measures

to all the other attributes of God.

Philo says, God is the name of _goodness_; and our English word, adds

a late author, seems to be a contraction of the word _good_; or,

however, is the same with the German _Got_, or _Godt_, which came, as

is thought, from the Arabic word _Gada_, of the same signification. So

that the German and the English name of the Supreme Being, in common

use, is taken from the attribute of his _goodness_. “The word itself

is pure Anglo-saxon,” says Dr. Adam Clarke, “and, among our ancestors,

signified not only the Divine Being, now commonly designated by the

word, but also _good_; as in their apprehension it appears, that _God_

and _Good_ were correlative terms; and when they thought or spoke of

him, they were ever led from the word itself to consider him as THE

GOOD BEING a fountain of infinite benevolence and beneficence towards

his creatures.” The word GOD, expressed in the old Saxon, is _bona

res_, a good thing.

That God is _good_, is the constant language of Divine revelation;

for this attribute is every where celebrated, both in the Old and

New Testament. It may be distinguished as _natural_, _moral_, and

_communicative_. The first of these is the absolute perfection of his

nature, which is goodness itself in its very essence. He is originally

good, and that of himself; which is a property peculiar to no other

creature, for all the goodness of the creature is derived from God. He

is infinitely and therefore incomprehensively good to men and angels;

hence his goodness knows no limits. We read of the “riches of his

goodness,” which are as “unsearchable,” as is his “greatness.” He is

immutably good, for “the goodness of God endureth continually.” And as

his dependence on no one admits not of his being changed by others,

so neither does his immutability admit of it by himself; for if he

alter for the better he was not God before, and if for the worse, he

then would not be God. Thus he is essentially, originally, infinitely,

incomprehensibly, and unchangeably good.

The _moral_ goodness of God is his perfect purity or holiness;

therefore his goodness and holiness are united--“good and upright is

the Lord.” According to any rational opinion we can form of him, he

is a Being possessed, not only of every natural power and perfection,

but of every moral excellence. The holiness of his nature removes

him to the greatest possible distance from all moral evil, and makes

him necessarily approve of moral good. All his designs are pure and

upright, and worthy of himself: he always acts according to the perfect

rectitude of his own nature. Though he is not under the direction of

any superior, yet his own rectitude always determines him to pursue

what is right to be done towards his creatures. This property of

the Divine Being greatly heightens our idea of his excellence, and

naturally points him out as the Governor of mankind. And as he adheres

to it in his own conduct and administration, and likewise approves and

loves it in his rational creatures, whom he governs; so he disapproves

and hates the reverse in them, and will most certainly animadvert

upon the temper and behavior of those who act contrary to his divine

admonitions, and make them most sensibly feel the effects of their

wickedness.

The _communicative_, or relative goodness of God, or his goodness to

his creatures, is his inclination or self-propension to deal well and

bountifully with them. As the notion of God includes goodness, so

the idea of goodness implies holy diffusiveness. Therefore, says the

Psalmist, “Thou art good, and doest good.” All that we are, have, or

hope for, that is good, proceeds from God as its fountain; hence he is

called, “the fountain of living waters.” This communicative goodness

implies, that, from his all-sufficiency, he is ready to impart to

his creatures whatever their necessities require. This attribute is

universal: “he is good to all” his creatures from the highest angel

to the meanest reptile; especially, to his people, “Truly,” says the

Psalmist, “God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean

heart.” But, though God is good to all his creatures, yet he is not

equally so in the same kind and degree of blessings. His munificence is

regulated by his wisdom, and the different capacities with which he has

formed his creatures makes this inequality necessary.

[There is one vast and awful question which must occur to

every reflecting mind--_What is God?_

As it regards his _Nature_, the Scriptures say, He is a

_Spirit_. We must therefore, conceive the Creator to be, a

_Living_, _Rational_, _Benevolent_, and _Spiritual_ ESSENCE;

absolutely, necessarily, and naturally _perfect_, and,

therefore, _immaterial_, _uncompounded_, _indivisible_, and

_eternal_.

It is necessarily understood that this essence is

_peculiar_: that there is nothing in its nature which has

any resemblance to _created_ substances, whether material

or spiritual; and that it is _underived_, and consequently,

_independent_.

This Divine Essence being immaterial, impalpable, simple

and indivisible, cannot have _body_ or _parts_: nor can it be

said to be a _whole_, for this would imply an _aggregation_ of

parts: but is itself a perfect, absolute, single, and eternal

INDIVIDUALITY, incapable of self-multiplication, or increase;

or of diminishing itself, or endangering its existence.

This essence is a _living_ essence; and, therefore, has

inherently the power and principles of _action_: It is a

_rational_ essence, and therefore, must act according to

the eternal principles of _reason_ and _right_: It is a

_benevolent_ essence, and therefore, all its actions must

be infinitely _good_ and _kind_. Absolute _perfection_,

_infinitude_, and _sovereignty_ in all these respects,

constitute the Being we call God.

As God is a single, indivisible, independent, and eternal

UNIT, we cannot ascribe _different_ perfections, or attributes

to him, so as to suppose one attribute _separate from, and

independent of_ another, capable of acting _per se_, or

participating _conjunctively_ with other attributes _as an

integer_. Nor can we suppose this eternal, and independent Unit

to act by being _operated upon_ in any degree, by other agents,

nor can he operate on himself. All his actions, therefore,

spring from himself, and are performed _without excitement,

effort, means, or previous ratiocination_.

It will follow from the preceding reasoning, that every

action of the Divine Being, in regard to himself, is precisely

the same in _nature_: so that we cannot say of one act it is

an effort of his _power_ to the _exclusion_ of his wisdom: nor

of his wisdom to the exclusion of his goodness: nor of his

goodness to the exclusion of his holiness: and so of the rest.

Strictly speaking we cannot say the power _of_ God; the wisdom

_of_ God; the goodness _of_ God, &c.; because the power of God

_is_ God; the wisdom of God _is_ God; the goodness of God _is_

God.

In contemplating this awful subject _abstractly_, we should

say there are no such things as _attributes_ in the Divine

Being, _as they are commonly understood_. What we call his

attributes, are only different modes of the operations of the

same eternal, undivided, and independent Unit. Indeed, God is

one entire perfection which exerts itself in different ways and

actions.

But as we cannot comprehend this single entire perfection;

nor understand _how_ it exerts the whole of itself, as a single

indivisible agent, _in each particular act_, as it really

does, mankind have always been in the habit of assisting their

contemplations by regarding the _nature_ of the acts of this

single, indivisible, and eternal agent, and thus _infering_

the nature of the Divine Being. And as these acts appear

to differ in _quality_, we infer a quality in the agent,

corresponding with the quality of the actions which we see: we

call this quality by a _name_, and _thus derive the doctrine of

attributes_.

For example: When we see this single, indivisible agent

manifesting himself in such a manner as to give us the idea

of _unlimited power_, we ascribe _omnipotence_ to him, as an

attribute. When we see a manifestation indicating _infinite

wisdom_, we ascribe _omniscience_ to him as an attribute.

In the same manner in reference to the manifestations

which indicate justice, goodness, mercy, truth, holiness,

faithfulness, righteousness, kindness, &c, all of which we

ascribe to him upon such indications.

Although _this rationale_, in contemplating the Divine

Being, is necessary to _creatures_, yet it is calculated to

lead the mind into error. We am insensibly inclined to ascribe

the divine actions to those attributes _exclusively_ which

we suppose they indicate. This, probably, has been the most

fatal error of mankind, and, doubtless, laid the foundation

of darkness and idolatry. We must never conceive that any act

of the Divine Being proceeds from _one_ or more attributes to

the _exclusion_ of others; or that one attribute participates

_more_ in one act than another. This is the fatal mistake.

Hence theologians have become blind and foolish, bewildering

the multitude by building up theories on the consideration of

a single attribute; thus making the Divine Being to consist

of parts, and these parts independent too. Instances of this

awful mistake might be given, but it scarcely comes within the

design of this paper. It is sufficient to say; if we conceive

correctly of the divine acts, _we will ascribe each equally to

all the Divine Attributes_.

As we conceive this single, indivisible, underived,

independent, and eternal agent, or perfection to be absolutely

infinite, and illimitable in all possible ways, or manner, of

exerting Himself, we, of course, conceive all the qualities,

indicated by the divine acts, which we call attributes, to be

absolutely infinite, perfect, and eternal: and thus we derive

the doctrine of the absolute perfection, and infinitude of all,

and each of the Divine Attributes.

From the foregoing reflections, the reader will readily

conceive of the Divine Being, as a Living, Rational,

Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence, existing as a single,

underived, independent, Unit: a Unit, not in reality consisting

of attributes, or perfections, but itself one single, entire

perfection: exerting itself not by attributes, but as an

individual Unit or Agent, in such a manner that each action

is the action of the Divine Being, and not of one or more of

his attributes: that the existence of this single, underived,

independent, and eternal Agent, was, and is _necessary_, and,

therefore, he could not but have existed, and cannot cease to

be; that He is absolute, and infinite in all possible ways and

manner of acting, and consequently we conceive Him possessed of

all possible perfections in an infinite degree.]

By the assistance of Divine revelation we are enabled further to pursue

our inquiries concerning this very important subject; and without

which, we should be involved in great darkness and uncertainty, not

only respecting his moral perfections, but the _mode_ of his existence.

And this must be a matter of superior interest to mankind, or our

adorable Creator would not have communicated it, which he evidently

has done through the medium of the Scriptures, written by Divine

inspiration.

Moses, having received by Divine revelation instruction concerning the

origin and formation of the world, conducts us at once to its great

and adorable Architect. “In the beginning GOD created the heavens and

the earth.” Here he adopts a phraseology to express the supreme Being,

which is generally used in the Old Testament for the same purpose,

and is very important and necessary to be understood, as it gives us

information after what _manner_ he exists. ‘The original word אלהימ

_Elohim_, God,’ says a great linguist, ‘is certainly the plural form

of אל _el_, or אלה _eloah_, and has long been supposed, by the most

eminently learned and pious men, to imply a _plurality_ of persons in

the divine nature.’ As this plurality appears in so many parts of the

sacred writings to be confined to _three_ Persons, namely, the Father,

the Son, and the Holy Spirit, hence the doctrine of the TRINITY.

It is very remarkable that we no sooner open the Bible, than this

doctrine is presented to our view. The laws and ordinances established

among the Jews were designed to guard that people from idolatry, which

in Abraham’s time had become very general. On the recollection of this

circumstance it appears extraordinary that Moses, when he is describing

the creation of the world, should, in order to express his conceptions

of the Divine Being, introduce a term which implies _plurality_; and,

frequently connecting it with verbs and persons singular, should use

that term _thirty_ times in the short account of the creation, when the

language afforded other words in the singular number that would have

answered his purpose equally well; nay, if he did not wish to express

a _plurality_, that grammatical accuracy should have led him to adopt.

When he made use of a plural noun for the name of God, which he has

done, perhaps, _five hundred_ times more in one form or other in the

five books of his writings, this _plurality_, I apprehend, was the idea

he meant to convey to mankind. He, or rather the HOLY SPIRIT, by whom

he was inspired to write his history, meant to give some hints and

intimations of a doctrine more clearly to be revealed in future ages.[6]

The ancient Jews understood _Elohim_ as conveying the idea of a

plurality in the Godhead. “Come,” says one of them, “and see the

mystery of the word _Elohim_: there are _three degrees_, and each

degree by itself _alone_, and yet notwithstanding they are all _one_,

and joined together in one, and are not _divided_ from each other.”[7]

R. Bechai, a celebrated author among the Jews, discoursing of the

word _Elohim_, and of the import and signification of it, adds these

words:--“According to the cabalistical way, this name _Elohim_ is two

words, namely, _El him_, that is, _they are God_. But the explanation

of the Yod is to be fetched from Eccles. xii, 1, _Remember thy_

CREATORS. He that is prudent will understand it.” These words do

sufficiently prove the Cabala among the Jews, says Bishop Kidder, that

though the Divine Nature was but _one_, yet there was some kind of

_plurality_ in this Divine Nature; and this is fairly insinuated in the

_Bara Elohim_, which we find in the beginning of Genesis.[8]

John Xeres, a Jew converted in England some years ago, published a

sensible and affectionate address to his unbelieving brethren, wherein

he says, that “the word _Elohim_, which we render GOD in Gen. i, 1, is

of the plural number, though annexed to a verb of the singular number;

which,” says he, “demonstrates as evidently as may be, that there are

several persons partaking of the same Divine nature and essence.”[9]

It is clear too, how sensible the Jews have been that there is a

notion of _plurality_ plainly imported in the Hebrew text, since they

have forbidden their common people the reading of the history of the

creation, lest, understanding it literally, they should be led unto

heresy.[10] When the Scriptures are suppressed, or the common people

denied the use of them, it may with propriety be presumed that their

superiors, who act in an arbitrary and unjust manner, have embraced

anti-scriptural notions, and, in order to prevent detection, lay

aside the only infallible _test_ of truth; and, to conceal their base

motives, and make their deleterious conduct appear not only plausible,

but necessary and proper, they boldly assert the incompetency of

the people to judge of scripture doctrines for themselves, and wish

to be considered compassionate and friendly in judging and deciding

for them. The fact is, the common people are denied the use of the

Scripture, lest understanding it in a certain sense, which their

superiors call heresy, it should lead them into the understanding of

plain and unequivocal facts stated therein, and which are of the utmost

importance for them to know.

It may be observed here likewise, that the Hebrew doctors always

supposed the first verse of Genesis to contain some latent mystery. The

Rabbi Ibba indeed expressly says it does, and adds, “This mystery is

not to be revealed, till the coming of the Messiah.”

Mr. Parkhurst, who has greatly distinguished himself in Hebrew

literature, and to whose pious and learned labors most Biblical

students are indebted, says, “Let those who have any doubt whether

אלהימ _Elohim_, when meaning the true God, Jehovah, be _plural_ or not,

consult the following passages, where they will find it joined with

adjectives, pronouns, and verbs _plural_:” he refers to twenty-five

texts in the Old Testament on this occasion.[11]

If Moses and the Jews held the doctrine of the Trinity, and the word

_Elohim_ imports _plurality_, it is natural to ask, How comes it to

pass that the Septuagint version renders the plural name Elohim, when

used for the true God, by the singular one Θεος, and never by the

plural Θεοι? The learned Ridley,[12] after Allix, has answered this

question. He says, “The Talmudists own that the LXXII Interpreters

did purposely change the notion of _plurality_ implied in the

Hebrew _Elohim_ into the Greek singular, lest Ptolemy Philadelphus

should conclude that the Jews, as well as himself, had a belief

of Polytheism.” And Bishop Huntingford adds, “Of all the Greek

appellations of Divinity, Θεος was the only simple and direct term

which they could adopt, to counteract idolatrous misconceptions.”

This phraseology, as to its signification, is not peculiar to Moses,

but is used by the other sacred writers also, and exactly accords

with the whole tenor of Divine revelation. The creation of the world

is ascribed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as joint,

concurring, equal, and efficient causes thereof, in the Scriptures. It

will not surely be presuming too much, says Bishop Huntingford, if we

suppose Joshua and Solomon to be more deeply instructed in the Jewish

Religion, than to be capable of using improper language respecting the

Deity. Yet the former says, “Ye cannot serve the Lord: for he is the

Holy Gods;” and the latter says, “The fear of Jehovah is the beginning

of wisdom; and the knowledge of the Holies is understanding.”[13]

Such is the phraseology of the Hebrew text. In these passages, and

others that might be produced, the word in the Hebrew is in the plural

number, because of the _plurality_ of persons in the Godhead; but in

our translation it is in the _singular_ number, because of the unity of

their essence.

But more particularly. The creation of the world is ascribed to

JEHOVAH: “I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even

my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have

I commanded. I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth

forth the heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.”

He had no _moving causes_ exciting him to create matter and produce a

universe, but his own will, goodness, wisdom, and power. He created

all things himself, without the assistance of _any instruments_. The

prophet ascribes to God alone the framing and stretching out of the

heavens and the earth without the counsel, direction, or ministry of

any subordinate agency. “Who hath measured the waters in the hollow

of his hand, and meted out heaven with a span, and comprehended the

dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales,

and the hills in a balance? With whom took he counsel, and who

instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him

knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding?” He created

all things without any _toil_, _labor_, _change_, or _alteration_ in

himself. There was not in him any transition from rest to labor, from

idleness to business, from strength to weariness. Though “every good

and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of

lights,” yet “with him there is no variableness, neither shadow of

turning.” The Prophet says, “Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard,

that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the

earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?” And he proceeded in the work

of creation without _any delay_: it was not a successive forming of

things by alteration, which required much time to render them perfect,

but was as in a moment, as quickly and readily as a word is spoken,

produced in the rapid succession as recorded by Moses. This work then

God is said to have done _alone_, to the exclusion, not of the Son and

the Spirit, but of all that are not God by nature; and by himself, to

the exclusion of all second causes or inferior agents.

It is ascribed also to the SON of God. The evangelist John asserts

in very express terms the Divinity of Jesus Christ, of the truth

of which he designed his whole Gospel should be a proof. “In the

beginning was the Λογος Word.” By the εν αρχη _beginning_, here, we

are to understand the beginning of the creation, not the beginning

of the gospel state, as the Socinians say. We have the authority of

Grotius, that εν αρχη is taken from בראשית _Bereshith_, Gen. i, 1,

translated by the Septuagint εν αρχη, and consequently must signify,

from _the beginning of the creation of God_. It is not said, that

_he_ was _made_ in the beginning, but that he _was_ in the beginning,

did exist when the world began, which is of the same import as if he

said, he was from eternity; for he that did exist in the beginning,

never did himself begin to be. The personal Wisdom of God says, “The

Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of

old.”--“And the Logos,” or “Word, was with God.” He could be with no

creature, because there was no creature in being; and therefore it

is very properly said, that he “was with God,” the Father; and his

being with him shows, that he is a distinct person or subsistence

from the Father.--“And the Logos,” or “Word was God.” Though he is a

person distinct from that of the Father, yet he is of the very same

essence with him. He that was with God, was God; and if he was God in

the beginning, that is from eternity, he is the same still, he cannot

cease to be what he was. Here then the evangelist asserts the eternal

existence of Christ, his personal co-existence with the Father, and

that he is of the very same undivided nature and essence with him.

Though he is a person distinct from the Father, yet he is of the same

substance, equal with him in all divine perfections; not a _secondary_

God, inferior to the Father, as the Arians assert. “All things were

made by him.” All things, from the highest angel to the meanest worm,

were made by him, not as a subordinate instrument, but as a co-ordinate

agent, as a joint efficient cause, co-operating with the Father in this

work. ‘To say that Christ made all things by a delegated power from

God, is _absurd_; because the thing is impossible. Creation means,

causing that to exist that had no previous being: this is evidently

a work which can be effected only by _omnipotence_. Now God cannot

delegate his _omnipotence_ to another: were this possible, he _to_ whom

this omnipotence was delegated, would, in consequence, become God; and

he _from_ whom it was delegated, would _cease to be such_: for it is

impossible that there should be _two_ omnipotent beings.’ “And without

him was not any thing made that was made.” This is added for the more

certainty, it being usual with the Hebrews, when they would affirm that

a thing is so indeed, to confirm by a particular negative what they

had before affirmed. Our Lord said to the Jews, “My Father worketh

hitherto, and I work.” The phrase ὡς αρτι signifies “to this time,” “to

the present,” that is, in all works whatever. Hence he is no creature,

or he must have created himself; and if he created himself, he must

have been in existence and not in existence at the very same time,

which is both contradictory and absurd. And if every work performed

by the Father was equally performed by the Son, the Son must, in all

respects, be equal to the Father, in nature and perfections. This our

Lord’s words signify and imply, and in this sense the Jews understood

him--as “making himself equal with God.”[14] “He is the image of God,”

the πρωτοτοχος “FIRST PRODUCER of every creature: for by him were all

things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and

invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities,

or powers:” all the angels, however diversified in rank or employment

in the heavenly world; and all the rational, animal, vegetable, and

inanimate creatures, belonging to this terrestrial abode: “all things

were made by him,” as the efficient cause, “and for him,” as the last

end.--“God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he

hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds,”

i.e. the heavens and the earth. The Father does all by the Son, and the

Son does all from the Father. Whatsoever the Father does, that also

does the Son likewise. “Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, oh God, is

for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy

kingdom. Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the

earth; and the heavens are the works of thy hands.” In these passages

the _Divinity_ of Christ is plainly asserted, and the operations of his

power are proofs of his Godhead. He that is the Creator of all things

is God: but Christ is the Creator of all things; therefore Christ is

God. He calls himself “the Beginning of the creation of God,” where the

word αρχη means the Creator, the efficient Cause of all things, he by

whose power the creation had its beginning and perfection. And “he that

built all things is God.”

The learned Jacob Bryant wrote a very valuable Tract entitled, _The

sentiments of Philo Judæus concerning the ΛΟΓΟΣ, or Word of God_;

from which the following are quotations. “Philo Judæus speaks at large

in many places of the Word of God, the second person, which he mentions

as _the second Divinity_, the _great Cause_ of all things, and styles

him as Plato, as well as the Jews, had done before, the LOGOS. Of the

Divine Logos or Word he speaks in many places, and maintains at large

the Divinity of the second Person, and describes his attributes in a

very precise and copious manner, styling him _the second Deity, who

is the Word of the supreme God, his first-begotten Son; and the image

of God_. In his treatise upon _creation_, he speaks of the Word as

_the Divine operator by whom all things were disposed_: and mentions

him as _superior to the angels and all created beings, and the image

and likeness of God_, and says, that _this image of the true God was

esteemed the same as God_. _This_ LOGOS, _the_ WORD _of_ GOD, says he,

_is superior to all the world, and more ancient; being the productor of

all that was produced. The eternal Word of the everlasting God is the

sure and fixed foundation upon which all things depend_.”

Creation is moreover ascribed to the HOLY SPIRIT. That the Holy Spirit

has a _personality_ distinct from that of the Father, and also that

of the Son, and a real and proper _Divinity_, is a doctrine of Divine

revelation. In his personal capacity, he is not the Father, nor the

Son. He neither is nor can be divided either from the Divine essence,

nor from the other two persons, but yet is personally distinct from

them. His relation to, and mission by, the Father and the Son, clearly

evince his personal distinction. He is called the Spirit of the

_Father_, and the Spirit of the _Son_. He is represented as _sent_ by

the Father, and also as _sent_ by the Son. These things show that he is

a Divine person, and has a distinct personality. The Holy Spirit is the

last in the order of subsistence: the Father is the first, the Son is

the second, and the Holy Spirit is the third. Yet we should know, that

the Father is not before the Son, nor the Son before the Holy Spirit,

by a priority of time, nor of dignity and perfections; for the three

persons in the Divine essence are _co-eternal_.

The Holy Spirit was equally concerned with the Father and the Son in

the work of Creation. “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made,

and all the host of them by the breath (Heb. Spirit) of his mouth.” The

_breath_ or spirit of the Lord’s _mouth_, says an excellent author,

does undoubtedly mean the third person of the Trinity; who is called,

“The Spirit of God, and the Breath of the Almighty.”--“They lift up

their voice to God with one accord, and said, LORD, thou art GOD, which

hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that therein is. WHO,

by the mouth of thy servant David, hast said,” &c. The terms LORD and

GOD are here used to express the Divinity of _him_, says the same able

writer, who spake _by the mouth_ of his servant David. But it was the

HOLY GHOST who _spake by the mouth_ of his servant David--for, saith

St. Peter, “This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the

HOLY GHOST,” by the mouth of David, “spake,” &c. Therefore the terms

LORD and GOD are certainly used to _express the Divinity of the_ HOLY

GHOST.[15] In the work of creation, the “SPIRIT of GOD moved upon the

face of the waters,” by an infinite vitality infusing life, and with

a formative energy giving form. “By his SPIRIT he hath garnished the

heavens” with an incalculable number of luminous stars; all those

glittering worlds, which serve for use as well as beauty, were formed

by the Spirit of God.

As none but the _third_ Person in the Godhead is ever so much as once

in the Scriptures called the _Spirit of God_; so the Holy Spirit’s

agency in the work of creation evinces his distinct personality, and

is a confirmation of his proper Divinity. A cause must be equal to the

effect it produces: but no finite spirit could be a joint, concurring,

efficient cause in the work of the creation: therefore the Holy Spirit

is God. Supposing the matter of which the worlds were made to be called

into being out of nothing by the Almighty power of the Father, or by

the fiat of the Son; yet the animating of the whole lifeless mass, the

putting of every part into motion, the assortment of all the particles,

the assigning of them their proper places, and the completing of the

whole with such astonishing beauty and harmony, which was the peculiar

work of the Holy Spirit, required no less than an almighty power, which

clearly demonstrates that he is God.

Thus we see that the creation of the world is ascribed to one God, the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Son and the Holy Spirit were

joint Creators, of equal power, and equal efficiency with the Father.

There is no where to be found in the Scriptures the least hint of

different degrees of creating energy, nor of sole efficiency in one of

the Persons in the Godhead, and a bare instrumental compliance in the

other. The creation was the common effect of their joint acting: nor

is it ever said, nor so much as hinted or implied, that the distinct

Persons in the Godhead had different provinces, nor that one creature

was made by one, and another creature was the workmanship of another.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are never represented as acting

separately, but always in conjunction.

The sacred historian assures us, that, at the commencement of time,

אלהימ _Elohim_, the triune God, caused matter to exist, which, previous

to this astonishing display of his creating energy, had no being.

Moses, as an inspired author, is the only one who could instruct us in

the formation and unfolding of the world. He is not an Epicurus, who

has recourse to atoms; a Lucretius, who believes matter to be eternal;

a Spinoza, who admits a material God; a Descartes, who prates about

the laws of motion; but a legislator, who announces to all men without

hesitation, without fear of being mistaken, how the world was created.

Nothing can be more simple, nor more sublime than his opening: “In the

beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” He could not have

spoken more assuredly, if he had been a spectator; and by these words,

mythology, systems, and absurdities, shrink to nought, and are mere

chimeras in the eyes of reason.[16]

Had Moses been a fictitious writer, how natural and how easy would it

have been for him to have filled up the first part of his history with

marvellous relations about the creation? With what pomp of language,

with what waste of rhetoric, could he probably have embellished that

surprising scene? With what a grand _apparatus_ of celestial machinery

might he have made the omnipotent Architect come forth to build a

universe? How many sub-agents and subalterns would a fabulous poet

or historian have employed in this stupendous and multifarious work?

With what solemnity would every part have been gone about, and with

how many episodes, digressions, and reflections, would the story have

been filled, in order to give it an air of the marvellous? But read

the beginning of Genesis, and observe how differently Moses writes. No

scope is given to fancy or invention. All is narrated with an ease,

plainness, and simplicity, which evidently shows that he kept close

to truth, and laid down the facts just as they were presented to his

mind; a manner of writing rarely, if at all, to be found in any other

historians, but such as had the honor of being the _amanuensis_ of the

SPIRIT of truth.[17]

The description which Moses furnishes concerning the creation, as

relating to circumstances previous to the existence of mankind, could

be derived only from immediate revelation. It was received by the

Jews with full conviction of its truth, on the authority of that

_inspiration_ under which Moses was known to act.[18] And when the

creation of the world began, by the lapse of time, to be removed to

a remote distance, God was pleased thus to provide a contemporary

historian, and appoint a whole nation to be the guardians of his

history; as well that this register might be the most authentic, as

that all mankind might hence be instructed in the knowledge of a fact,

which was so necessary for them to know, and yet so impossible to be

otherwise ascertained.[19]

It may be proper to notice, that some futile objections have been made

to the period which is assigned by Moses to the creation, as though it

were too recent to be reconciled with reason and philosophical inquiry.

How long matter remained in a quiescent state after its creation, we

have no data to enable us to determine: but, as its resting in an

animate state, so far as we know, could answer no valuable purpose,

we may reasonably conjecture the time would not be long. The creation

of the world began, according to Usher, before the Christian era 4004

years, if we follow the Hebrew text. The Septuagint version places it

5872, and the Samaritan 4700 before the vulgar era.--Sanchoniathon,

the first Phenician historian, according to the most extended accounts

of Porphyry, flourished long after Moses, probably not less than

two hundred years. Manetho, high-priest of Heliopolis, wrote the

Egyptian history only in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, not more

than 300 years before Christ, and professes to have transcribed his

Dynasties from some pillars of Hermes Trismegistus, written in the

Hebrew dialect.--Berosus was the first noted Chaldean historian, and

he was contemporary with Manetho.--The Chinese have not any work in

an intelligible character above 2200 years old. One of the Chinese

emperors, about 213 years before the Christian era, ordered all their

historical records to be destroyed.--The Greeks could produce no dates

beyond 550 years before Christ, and but little historical information

prior to the Olympiads, which began 775 years before the Christian era.

Orpheus and Museus, fabulous poets, were not so remote as Moses; for

it is supposed they lived about 200 years after him, in the days of

Gideon. Daries Phrygius and Dystys Cretensis, fabulous poets, wrote the

history of the Trojan war, about 400 years after Moses. Homer wrote his

poems after David’s time, and about 550 years after Moses. Herodotus,

called the father of history, who flourished about 450 years before

the Christian era, was the first Grecian historian that deserves the

name; yet he begins with fable. Thucydides rejects, as uncertain, all

that preceded the Peloponnesian war; and Plutarch, not one of the least

historians among the Grecians, ventured not beyond the time of Theseus,

who lived a little before the ministry of Samuel.[20] So that all these

poets and historians flourished long after the time of Moses, some of

them nearly a thousand years; for he wrote about A. M. 2460. The works

of the Jewish lawgiver are not only the most ancient, but also the most

authentic, of all the monuments of antiquity.

If the world were some thousands of years older, it must be much better

peopled than it is at present. Population has always increased since

the deluge, and yet there might be three times as many more inhabitants

on the earth than it at present contains. It has been computed that at

least 5000 millions of men might live at once on our globe: and yet it

does not appear that there are really more than 1080 millions. In Asia

are reckoned 650 millions; in Africa and America, 300 millions; and in

Europe, 130 millions.

If we consider the arts invented by men, we shall find that few or none

of them have been discovered more than two or three thousand years.

Man owes not only to his nature and reason the aptitude he has for

acquiring arts and sciences, but he is also led to this by necessity;

by the desire he has to procure himself conveniences and pleasures;

by vanity and ambition; and by luxury, the child of abundance, which

creates new wants. This propensity is evident among all men, in all

ages. History carries us back to the time when men had scarcely

invented the most necessary arts; when those arts which were known were

but very imperfectly understood; and in which they scarcely knew any

thing of the first principles of the sciences.

About four thousand years ago, men were still in a state of great

ignorance concerning most subjects; and if we calculate according to

the progress which they made since that time, and afterwards go back

to the remotest periods, we may with tolerable exactness fix the era

when men knew nothing; which is, in other words, that of the infancy

of the human race. Were their existence to be carried higher, it is

utterly improbable that the most useful and necessary arts should

have continued unknown to them through such a long series of ages. On

the contrary, all that can be discovered by the human mind must have

been known a long time ago. From this circumstance therefore we must

conclude, that the origin of the human race can have no other era than

that which Moses has assigned it in his history of the creation.[21]

If it be asked, What! was God a _solitary_ Being? Did he exist alone,

before this exertion of his glorious power? Formed as we are for

society, we have no conception of any satisfaction arising from a state

of absolute loneliness; nor can we conceive that the Deity should rest

_inactive_ from eternity, and not exert those amazing powers of which

the stupendous creation proves he is amply possessed? There are some

particulars naturally deducible from questions like these, which we

cannot solve. We have no adequate apprehension of eternity; we are

lost in the idea. And when we attempt to contemplate God existing from

eternity without _cause_ or as _beginning_ to exist, we are utterly

lost in the speculation; for among all the objects that come within

the reach of our senses, we see nothing existing that has not had

a cause to produce it. We frequently smile at children, when they

ask their little simple questions, as we deem them; but we are mere

children ourselves, in this profound ocean of wonder. But something

very observable strikes an attentive reader in the Mosaic account

of the creation, which suggests that the Deity is not a solitary

Being, existing in such an absolute _unity_ as to exclude all degree

of personality or communion. For אלהימ _Elohim_, as we have already

observed, the very first name by which Moses calls God, being plural,

shows that though he exists in an undivided unity of nature, yet in a

Trinity of Persons. And this notion of a plurality, so far from being

contrary to reason, is more agreeable to it than any opinion of the

absolute _unity_ of the Divine nature. For conceive we only three

Divine persons mutually to partake of the Divine essence or nature, to

be united by the same perfect will, and to possess the same infinite

powers and perfections; and all our apprehensions of the loneliness of

solitary existence immediately subside; the Father, the Son, and the

Holy Ghost, consummately happy in each other, have been from eternity

reciprocal objects of complacence, and will remain such for ever. Let

this argument be fairly and impartially considered, and the notion of

a Trinity of Subsistences in a Unity of the Divine Nature, will appear

far more consonant to reason, and liable to less objections, than that

of mere solitary and absolute unity.[22]

[_A further consideration of the suggestion in the close of

the last paragraph._

Although nothing can be clearer than that the Divine

Essence is _one_, simple, and indivisible; _yet_ this does

not prevent it from subsisting in _personality_, i.e. _in a

plurality of persons_.

It must be carefully observed, that the plurality has

regard to the _persons_, not to the Essence. We cannot say

there is a plurality of Essences; but we can say, the Living,

Rational, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence _subsists in three

persons_. This then is the MODUS EXISTENDI of the Divine Being.

Although we are assured this is his _mode of existence_,

we do not pretend to comprehend the _nature_ of it. We may,

without any injury to the proposition, affirm, the _nature_ of

the fact is incomprehensible by _created intellect_. Yet the

fact itself is sufficiently well attested, and is not repugnant

to reason, though it is above the comprehension of reason.

It is believed by many very learned, pious, and eminent

men, that the doctrine of a _plurality of persons in the

Godhead_, can be established by an argumentation founded solely

on the acknowledged nature of the Divine Being.

The Rev. JAMES KIDD, Prof. of Oriental Languages, Marischal

College and University, Aberdeen, with the approbation of many

learned men in England, among whom is Dr. Adam Clarke, in

whose house he delivered private lectures on his manuscript,

has published a very able and satisfactory essay on this plan,

of which a brief clue to the mode of argumentation is here

attempted.

A. _The Divine Being is a necessarily existent, and an

eternally, immensely, and immutably Living, Intelligent,

Rational, Moral, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence._

B. _The very_ LAW _of the nature of such a being, is

eternal, immense, and immutable_ ACTIVITY, ENERGY, _and_

EFFICIENCY, _exercised eternally, immensely, and immutably_,

ACCORDING TO HIS OWN NATURE.

C. _That such a being_ WAS _as necessarily existent,

perfect, and happy,_ BEFORE _creation, and providence as since;

and would forever continue as necessarily existent, perfect,

and happy, if creation and providence should cease to be_.

These three propositions are so obviously true, every

reader will readily and cordially grant them. It is proposed,

therefore, to show, from the nature of the Divine Being, _that

his Essence_ MUST _subsist in a plurality of persons_.

The proposition does not contemplate an explanation of the

_manner_ of this subsistence; nor, at present, the _number_

of persons; but the simple fact, _That_ FROM THE VERY NATURE

OF THE DIVINE BEING, HIS ESSENCE MUST SUBSIST IN PLURAL

PERSONALITY.

The existence of a being, or the possession, or exercise of

any principle, passion or attribute, _implies personality_, or

individual identity, which is the same thing. The mind cannot

conceive of existence, passion, principle, or action, without

conceiving of them inhering in actually existing Essence, which

_must_ assume in the mind the idea of personality. Therefore,

_personality_ is strictly, and properly applicable to the

Divine Essence. But the doctrine of a _plural_ personality is

to be established at present.

It will be easily conceived, and readily granted, that

a being which exists necessarily, eternally, immensely,

and immutably, as a Living, Intelligent, Rational, Moral,

Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence, _must have exercised

Himself, and his perfections, necessarily, eternally,

immensely, and immutably_. This then is granted. But the mind

will readily and easily perceive, that the Divine Being could

not have exercised Himself THUS, _in the works of Creation

and Providence_. Because, it is readily admitted, there _was_

a time when Creation and Providence _began_: during a whole

eternity _beyond_ this period, there was no existence except

God Himself. Consequently, He _cannot_ have been exercised

according to his own nature and perfections, _eternally_, in

reference to Creation and Providence.

Again: He cannot have exercised his perfections

_immensely_, in reference to Creation and Providence: because,

however extensive we may conceive the empire of Creation and

Providence to be, it is not _immense_; it is actually limited,

and, therefore, could not admit of an _immense exercise of his

nature and perfections_.

It is readily granted, that the Divine Being was as

necessarily, and perfectly happy _before_ Creation and

Providence as since; and if Creation and Providence should

cease, his happiness would continue the same: hence, it

follows, necessarily, that the happiness of the Divine Being

was, is, and ever will be entirely _independent_ of Creation

and Providence.

But the happiness of any being consists, essentially,

_in the exercise of its powers and perfections according

to the law of its own nature_. And as it has been shown,

that the happiness of the Divine Being is eternal, immense,

and immutable, it follows, _He must have exercised Himself

eternally, immensely, and immutably_.

As it has been _granted_, That from the very nature of

the Divine Being, He must have been eternally, immensely,

and immutably active and happy, according to the law of his

own nature: and it has been _proven_, That He could not have

been eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy, in

reference to Creation and Providence, it follows, necessarily,

that the _means_ and _principles_ of these eternal, immense,

and immutable activity and happiness, _must exist_ IN HIS OWN

CONSTITUTION, _and be exercised entirely_ WITHIN _Himself_.

This conclusion cannot be denied, granting the premises in

the propositions A. B. C. in reference to the Divine Being.

It remains to be proven, That such principles, and means

of eternal, immense and immutable activity and happiness

_cannot_ be conceived of in the constitution of the Divine

Being, _without conceiving his essence to subsist in plural

personality_.

The consideration simply of the nature and eternal activity

of the Divine Being would establish the idea of _plural

personality_ in his Essence: because the mind cannot conceive,

that the same single being can be both _agent_ and _object,

in reference to the same action_. And as it has been proven,

that _previous_ to the existence of Creation and Providence,

God existed eternally _alone_, consequently, no possible form

of existence but Himself, and yet he was eternally, immensely,

and immutably active and happy; it will follow irresistibly,

that _there must be a plurality in his single Essence_; and the

mind naturally assumes, this plurality is _personal_; as it

cannot conceive of activity, and happiness without conceiving

them to belong to person, or persons. And as action implies

both _agent_, and an _object_ distinct from the agent; and

there being no such agent, or object existing _without_ the

Divine Being, it must be infered, that these agent and object,

concerned in the eternal activity and happiness of his nature,

must exist _inherently, eternally, immensely, and immutably_

WITHIN _Himself_.

Thus we are COMPELLED to admit a plurality of persons in

the Divine Essence.

It will be recollected, the Divine Being has not only

exercised Himself eternally, but also _immensely_, according

to the law of his own nature and perfections: i.e. He has

necessarily, and eternally exercised Himself to the extent of

his nature and perfections. This will be readily admitted when

we reflect, that unless we admit the exercise of the nature

and perfections of God _to their full extent_, we must admit

a _redundancy_ in the Divine Nature, and perfections, which

would be manifestly absurd, as it would _imply imperfection_.

For it would imply (if we may dare say so) that there is an

_efficiency_, or _ability_ in the Divine Being, which He

has never exercised to its full extent; and in proportion

to the _deficiency_ in the exercise, we must conclude this

_efficiency_ or ability is _useless_, which would be repugnant

to the true idea of the Divine Being.

It is therefore, _proven_, That the Divine Being

necessarily exercised Himself _immensely_, because his nature,

and perfections are immense. But it will be readily perceived,

this could not be done in the works of Creation and Providence:

because, however vast they may be, they are not _immense_:

and, therefore, could not admit of the immense exercise of his

nature and perfections to their full extent: from which it

must follow, inevitably, _That the immense exercise of his own

nature and perfections must be_ WITHIN _Himself_.

As it has already been proven above, that this internal

exercise in the Divine Essence necessarily implies _plurality_

in the Godhead; so now also, is it proven, that the admission

of such plurality is the only view competent to show _HOW_

the Divine Being could have exercised his own nature and

perfections _immensely_, as the attribute of immensity

appertains to God only.

As it is granted, that the Divine Being was necessarily as

happy _before_ Creation and Providence as since, and would

continue so, should Creation and Providence cease; of course

his happiness consists in the exercise of his own nature and

perfections according to their own law. But, in order that the

Divine Being should be eternally, immensely, and immutably

happy, the WHOLE of the Divine Nature and perfections must

be exercised eternally, immensely, and immutably. But if we

divest the Divine Essence of its plural personality, we cannot

conceive that some of the divine perfections can be exercised

at all. For example: the divine goodness, love, wisdom,

intelligence, and all his _moral_ perfections. We surely cannot

say, He manifests his goodness to Himself; or exercises his

love towards Himself; or employs his wisdom in understanding

Himself; all of which ideas are obviously absurd. But so

soon as we admit the idea of a plural personality, or the

subsistence of the Divine Essence in a plurality of persons,

we can conceive the moral perfections exercised in Himself,

between the persons of the Godhead. This is the only ground on

which we can conceive of his eternal, immense, and immutable

happiness. For we can readily conceive of the distinct persons

in the Divine Essence, _communicating mutually_ to each other

the _whole_ of the divine moral perfections; and thus conceive

of the perfect and independent happiness of God.

The only remaining view of this subject would be this:

the activity, energy, and influence of the Divine Being can

only regard Creation and Providence. But as there was a _past

eternity before_ Creation and Providence began, in which the

Divine Being existed, He must be considered as having been

_inactive_, _solitary_, and _unconscious_; (because there

cannot be consciousness where there is not action,) the whole

and every part of which view is derogatory to the acknowledged

character of God. How much more reasonable is it to conceive

the Divine Essence to subsist in a plurality of persons, and

thus to conceive, _consistently_, of the eternal, immense, and

immutable activity and happiness of the Divine Being?

_Thus we see, that what the Scriptures declare concerning

the plurality of persons in the Divine Essence_, CANNOT BE

OTHERWISE, AS IS DEMONSTRATED ABOVE, FROM THE NECESSARY NATURE

OF THE GLORIOUS DIVINITY.

The demonstration might be extended to each of the divine

perfections, and the same result would be obtained. The above

remarks are a mere clue to the argument which is possible, and

satisfactory; founded on the necessary nature of Jehovah.

The key to the whole demonstration is this:

1. The Divine Being, from his very and necessary nature,

must be eternally, immensely, and immutably active.

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

3. In order to be eternally, immensely, and immutably

active and happy, He must be exercised to the whole extent of

his nature and perfections, eternally, immensely, and immutably.

4. That such an exercise of his nature and perfections, in

an eternal, immense, and immutable manner, cannot be, in regard

to Creation and Providence; because, Creation and Providence

are not eternal, immense, and immutable.

5. As there was not any thing _before_ Creation and

Providence, but God Himself, it must follow, necessarily, that

the eternal, immense, and immutable activity and happiness of

the Divine Being were WITHIN _Himself entirely_.

6. As it is impossible for the human intellect to conceive,

that a being can be both _agent_ and _object, in the same

action_, and the activity of the Divine Being has been shown to

have been within Himself entirely; it follows, THAT THE DIVINE

ESSENCE MUST HAVE SUBSISTED ETERNALLY, IMMENSELY, AND IMMUTABLY

IN A PLURALITY.

7. And as the mind is _forced_ to admit a _plurality_ in

the Divine Essence, it naturally, and necessarily assumes

PERSONS for this plurality; and thus concludes, _There must

be a plurality of persons in the Godhead as the Scriptures

declare._

From the foregoing elements of the argument, it will be

very easy to observe, if a _plurality_ must be admitted, there

is no objection in the mind to admit it is _triple_; and

hence, as the substance of the Divine Essence has been shown

to exist necessarily in a plurality, the mind conceives a

_triple plurality_, as easy as any other, and thus conceives

the reasonableness of the doctrine of the _Trinity in Unity_.

The most successful argument against this conclusion is

this: _It is impossible to conceive how three can be one_.

This is admitted, _when the objects designated by_ “three”

_are the same as the object designated by_ “one.” But this is

not the case in the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. The term

_Trinity_ applies to the _persons_ in which the Divine Essence

subsists, and _not_ to the essence itself. So the term _Unity_

applies to the _Essence only_, and _not_ to the persons. This

simple distinction removes the whole force of the objection.

The Unitarians, therefore, do us wrong when they say, _we

believe three are one_. And Trinitarians do themselves wrong

when they say, _to the three one God_: because, it is not true

that there is a “three one God.” But it is a glorious truth,

THAT THE DIVINE ESSENCE SUBSISTS IN THREE PERSONS, ETERNALLY,

IMMENSELY, AND IMMUTABLY.

It is very natural to suppose, that God imparted a

knowledge of Himself to our first parents in Paradise. The

Scriptures clearly support this supposition. This knowledge

would, of course, include the doctrine of the Trinity; and we

cannot admit for a moment, that so important a doctrine as the

plurality of persons in the Godhead, could have been wholly

lost by mankind, though it might become obscured. Accordingly

we find the traditionary remains of this doctrine throughout

the Old World.

“The Hindoos” says M. Sonerat, “adore _three_ principal

Deities, Brouma, Schiven, and Vichenou, who are still but

_one_; which kind of Trinity is there called Trimurti, and

signifies the re-union of those powers. The generality of

Indians at present, adore only one of these three divinities;

but some learned men, beside this worship, also address their

prayers to the three united. The representation of them is to

be seen in many pagodas, under that of human figures with three

heads, which on the coast of Orissa, they call Sariharabrama,

on the Coromandel coast, Trimourti,” &c.

This account of M. Sonerat is very pertinent, and is

confirmed by Dr. Buchanan who made extensive researches in that

country. See his _Star in the East_.

The same tradition is found in China. “Among the ancient

Chinese characters” says Dr. A. Clarke, “which have been

preserved, we find the following Δ like the Greek _delta_.

According to the Chinese dictionary _Kang-hi_, this character

signifies _union_. According to _Choueouen_, a celebrated work,

Δ is _three united in one_. The Lieou-chou-tsing-hoen, which is

a rational and learned explanation of ancient characters, says;

“Δ signifies intimate union, harmony, the chief good of man, of

the heaven, and of the earth; it is the union of three.”

Lao-tse says; “He who is as visible, and yet cannot be

seen, is denominated _lieou_; he who can be heard, and yet

speaks not to the ears, _hi_; he who is tangible, and yet

cannot be felt, is named _ouei_: in vain do you consult your

senses about these _three_; your reason alone can discourse of

them, and it will tell you they are but one,” &c.

One of the missionaries at Peking, who wrote the letters from

which I have made the above extracts, takes it for granted,

“that the mystery of the _Trinity_ was known among the ancient

Chinese, and that the character Δ was its symbol.” _Dr. A.

Clarke, on the 1st chap. John’s Gospel._

The existence of this same tradition in China is conveyed

to us through another channel. “It was the leading feature in

_Lao-Kiun’s_ system of philosophical theology, and a sentence

which he continually repeated as the foundation of all true

wisdom, that TAO, the eternal reason, produced ONE; _one_

produced TWO; _two_ produced THREE; and THREE produced all

things.” _Le Compt’s Memoirs of China_.

Traditions of this doctrine are found also in Chaldea

and Persia indeed throughout the East; from whence all agree

they were imported, through Phœnicia, into Egypt, and thence

into Greece. The great and original sources of information

being in the neighborhood of the Euphrates, where the _first

post-diluvian_ families resided; and the mighty intellects

which were to influence the world, by the materials which

were drawn from thence, being in Greece, the consequence

was, we find the Grecian philosophers travelling _up_ the

streams of knowledge to the fountains, and thence returning to

enlighten the world by the results of their researches. For

example: Pythagoras, Plato, and others visited Egypt first,

thence to Phœnicia, and thence to Chaldea, and the East, from

whence they undoubtedly drew their theology. (Nor should it

be forgotten that _their_ philosophy was _theological_.) The

concurrent testimony of history establishes this fact. The

consequence of all this is, the doctrine of the Trinity was

known to the Greek philosophers, who preserved it to the world

in their incomparable writings, a collateral testimony of the

authenticity of the Scripture doctrine. For this opinion we

have the highest authority in the republic of letters.

“It is said that the first Christians borrowed their notion

of a Triune God from the later Platonists; and that we hear not

of a Trinity in the church till converts were made from the

school of Alexandria. But if this be the case we may properly

ask, _Whence had those Platonists the doctrine?_

“It is not surely so simple, or so obvious as to have

occurred to the reasoning mind of a pagan philosopher;

or if it be, _why do Unitarians suppose it to involve a

contradiction?_--The Platonic and Pythagorean Trinities

never could have occurred to the mind of him, who, merely

from the works of creation, endeavored to discover the being

and attributes of God; and therefore as those philosophers

travelled into Egypt and the East in quest of knowledge, it

appears to us in the highest degree probable, that they picked

up this mysterious and sublime doctrine in those regions where

it had been handed down as a dogma from the remotest ages,

and where we know science was not taught systematically, but

detailed in collections of sententious maxims, and traditionary

opinions. If this be so we cannot doubt but that the pagan

trinities had their origin in some primeval revelation. Nothing

else indeed can account for a doctrine so remote from human

imagination, and of which we find vestiges in the sacred books

of almost every civilized people of antiquity. The corrupt

state in which it is viewed in the writings of Plato and

others, is the natural consequence of its descent through

a long course of oral tradition. The Trinity of Platonism

therefore, instead of being an objection, lends, in our

opinion, no feeble support to the Christian doctrine, since it

affords almost a complete proof of that doctrine having made

a part of the first revelation to man.” _Ency. Brit. Art._

THEOLOGY.

“Some have indeed pretended, that the _Trinity_, which

is commonly called _Platonic_, was a fiction of the later

Platonists, unknown to the founder of the school: but any

person who will take the trouble to study the writings of Plato

will find _abundant evidence that he really asserted_ A TRIAD

OF DIVINE HYPOSTASES, _all concerned in the formation, and

government of the world_.” _Ency. Brit. Art._ PLATONISM.

“Pythagoras, though inferior to Plato in reputation, and

lived before him, held the same doctrine, and derived it from

the same sources. He visited Egypt, Persia, Chaldea, &c, and

thence returned to Greece.” _Ency. Brit. Art._ PYTHAGORAS.

These quotations are directly from the Encyclopedia

Britannica, than which no authority can be better. I might

increase the quotations to the same effect from Dr. Oglevie,

the learned Cudworth and others, were it necessary. The above

is thought sufficient to establish the fact, _That the doctrine

of a Trinity in Unity was once prevalent in the Pagan world,

and that remains and traditions of it are yet abundant through

all the East, where the revelations of God were made to

mankind_.]

If it be asked, “Why did God conceal himself from eternity till within

six thousand years; for, according to Divine revelation, it is not

yet so long since the world was made?” I answer, God is at perfect

liberty to do what he pleases, to do it when he pleases, and to give

no account of the reasons of his conduct. If he had pleased to create

the world as many millions of years sooner, as there have been days

since its creation, the same question might have been asked, Why did

he not create the world sooner, and thereby discover himself? For the

longest time that can be imagined is just as nothing in comparison with

eternity. If God had pleased, he might have concealed his existence

and perfections to all eternity, or, in other words, never have made

any thing. Seeing therefore it was only of his sovereign pleasure that

he made creatures, to whom he might manifest himself, surely he had a

right to fix on the time for doing it. We are sure he is infinitely

wise, and consequently all his works are done in the fittest time, and

best manner.

God made the world, not because he needed the praise or service of

creatures to add to his blessedness; for he who is self-existent

must necessarily be infinitely perfect and absolutely independent;

and would always have remained the same happy Being, enjoying his

own excellencies and perfections, had no creature ever been made.

But it was for the manifesting of his own glorious attributes, and

communicating happiness to creatures capable of it, that he, in

the beginning, created this magnificent fabric of the heavens and

the earth, with all things therein, whether visible or invisible,

animate or inanimate, material substances or immaterial spirits. For

he created beings of different ranks and powers, to whom he might

manifest himself, or communicate his goodness. Some of these were pure

intellectual spirits, fit for the felicity and employments of the

heavenly state, to stand in his immediate presence, and execute his

righteous commands: but these were created before the solar system;

for the angels, those “sons of God,” called “morning stars,” were

present, and sung together for joy, when “the foundations” of this

world were laid. Others he formed out of the earth, with life, sense,

and instinct, but destitute of reason, designing them to be subservient

to the necessities or conveniences of a higher order of beings. Besides

these he created other beings of a middle rank, partaking of an earthly

part, fashioned with infinite skill and art, of exquisite symmetry, and

adorned with great external beauty; and of a spiritual part akin to

angels, and but little inferior to them, being in their constitution a

compound of the animal and angelic natures.

It is not by reason alone then, or the light of heathen philosophy,

but “through faith,” in the infallible testimony of Divine revelation,

“we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that

things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” The

sun, moon, stars, and earth, which we see, were not made of matter

which had existed from eternity, as some of the heathen philosophers

supposed, but of what God created anterior to the formation of those

wonderful orbs. The word κατηρτισθαι, _framed_, signifies not only to

_make_ or _produce_ simply, but properly _to place_ or _set in joint_

the parts of any body or machine in their right order. Accordingly

Plato says, that in making the world, God proceeded with the exactness

of a geometrician, arranging every thing in complete symmetry. All this

was done by the _word_ of God, which is not to be understood of any

articulate sound, but of the simple act of his own will; he willed the

universe, with all its variety of furniture, into existence. And this

is a matter of _faith_, to be believed; not to be known by mere reason;

for reason, without faith, can apprehend a formation of things from

matter previously made ready.

A pious expositor very justly observes, By faith assenting to Divine

revelation, and not by reason we understand the truth and wonders,

the reasons and causes, the manner and end, of the creation of the

world. Reason indeed tells us that there was a creation, consequently

a Creator; but reason without Divine revelation could never have

discovered the circumstances and manner of the creation, which wholly

depended upon the will of God. Reason could never have known them,

if God had not in his word first revealed them. Reason may propound

the question, How was the world made, and all things therein? But

revelation must resolve it.

“Oh Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honor

and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who

stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: who layeth the beams of

his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who

walketh upon the wings of the wind: who maketh his angels spirits; his

ministers a flaming fire: who laid the foundations of the earth, that

it should not be moved for ever. Thou coveredst it with a garment:

the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the

voice of thy thunder they hasted away. They go up by the mountains;

they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for

them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn

not again to cover the earth.” Such is the sublime language of Divine

revelation!

* * * * *

Footnotes - Chapter I

[1] As the name _Jehovah_, in the Hebrew consists of four

letters, so for the most part the name of the supreme Being

does in all languages. Thus among the Persians, the name is

Σορυ; among the Arabians, _Alla_; among the Assyrians, _Adad_;

among the Egyptians, Θωυθ or Θευθ with the Grecians, Θεος; the

Latins, _Deus_; the French, _Dieu_; the Spaniards, _Dios_; the

Italians, _Idio_; and with the Germans, _Gott_.

The name _Jehovah_ is written differently. Sanchoniathon

writes it _Jevo_; Diodorus the Sicilian, Macrobius, Clemens

Alexandrinus, Jerome, and Origen, _Jao_; Epiphanius, Theodoret,

and the Samaritans, _Jabé_ or _Jave_: we find likewise _Jahoh_,

_Javo_, _Jaou_, _Jaod_. Lewis Capellus is for _Javo_; Drusius

for _Javé_; Mercer for _Jehevah_: Hottinger _Jehra_. The Moors

call their God _Juba_, whom some believe to be _Jehovah_.

The Latins probably took their _Juvis_ or _Jovis Pater_ from

_Jehovah_. It is certain that these four letters may likewise

be expressed by _Javo_, _Jaho_, _Jaon_, _Jevo_, _Javé_,

_Jehvah_, &c. Mussulmen frequently use the name _Hu_, or

_Hou_, which has almost the same signification as _Jehovah_,

i.e. _He who is_. But the great name of God is _Allah_, which

they pronounce often, and have great confidence in. Among the

Arabians, and all Mahometans the name _Allah_ corresponds with

the _Elohim_ and _Adonai_ of the Hebrews, and even that of

_Jehovah_. See Calmet’s Dictionary.

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

[3] Philo-Biblius seems to intimate, that the God of the

Phœnicians was anciently called by the name _Jehovah_; and that

_Jevo_, _Javo_, more recently used by them, is a corruption of

it; for it is said, that Jerombalus who supplied Sanchoniathon

with materials for his Phœnician history, was a priest of the

God Jevo. Euseb. Præp. Evang. lib. i. c. 9.

[4] “On the front of the famous temple of Apollo, at

Delphos, was graven the Greek word Ει (which signifies _thou

art_, being the second person singular of the verb εἰμὶ.) The

learned among the Philosophers labored long to discover its

meaning, each giving his own opinion; but could not find it

out, until Plutarch (who travelled into Egypt and Greece for

instruction in ancient sciences and other things) meeting with

that passage in the writings of Moses, where God manifested

himself by saying, I AM THAT I AM; he was struck with it, and

having it explained to him, he then conceived the true and

exalted sense of the word Ει, engraved on the front of the

temple. It implied, as it were, an admonition to those who were

about to enter the temple, to worship God, who is the only

self-existent Being in the universe.” Creighton’s Enquiry into

the Origin of True Religion, p. 21. Second Edition.

On a temple dedicated to Neitha, at Sais, the chief town

in Lower Egypt, was this inscription: “I am whatever is, or

has been, or will be, and no mortal has hitherto drawn aside

my veil; my offspring is the sun.” It appears highly probable

that the ancient Egyptians acknowledged an active as well

as a passive principle in nature, and, as Plutarch asserts,

worshipped τῳ πρώτῳ Θεῳ, the supreme Deity. Enfield’s History

of Philosophy, vol. i. p. 76, 77.

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

[6] Allix’s Judgment of the Jewish Church against the

Unitarians, p. 116. Edit. 1699. See also p. 119. Simpson’s

Apology for the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 379, 380.

[7] Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai, in Zoar, on the sixth section

of Leviticus. See Ainsworth’s Annotations on the place.

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

Edit. 1700.

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

[10] Allix. p. 132.

[11] Gen. i, 26; iii, 22; xi, 7; xx, 13; xxxi, 53; xxxv,

7; Deut. iv, 7; v, 23; Josh. xxiv, 19; 1 Sam. iv, 8; 2 Sam.

vii, 23; Psal. lviii, 12; Isai. vi, 8; Jer. x, 10; xxiii, 36;

See Prov. ix, 10; xxx, 3; Psal. cxlix, 2; Eccl. v, 7; xii, 1:

Job v, 1; Isai. vi, 3; liv, 5; Hos. xi, 12, or xii, 1; Mal.

i,6; Dan. vii, 18, 22, 25; Hebrew Lexicon, p. 19. Edit. 1811.

See also Mr. Parkhurst’s pamphlet against Dr. Priestly and Mr.

Wakefield, p. 3-9, and p. 148, &c.

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

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

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

p. 452.

[15] Jones on the Trinity.

[16] Ganganelli’s Letters.

[17] Rev. Hugh Knox’s Sermons.

[18] Gray’s Key to the Old Testament.

[19] M. Pascal’s Thoughts.

[20] See Gray’s Key, Notes, p. 82-83.

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

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

* * * * *