comes it to pass, that the Septuagint Version renders the first verse of Genesis in this manner, Eu αρχή εποίησεν ὁ Θεος τον κρανον ? The learned and excellent Ridley, after Allix, has answered this question: "The Talmudists own, that the LXXII Interpreters did purposely change the notion of Plurality implied in the Hebrew "Elohim" into a Greek Singular, lest Ptolemy Philadelphus should conclude that the Jews, as well as himself, had a belief of Polytheism." According to the Orquasixor, "the Greek appellations of divinity were Θεός, Θεοί, Δαίμονες : Plato calls the Deity τε Παντος Κυβερνητην, μέγισον Δαίμονα : το Θείον and Δαιμονιον are in signification the same.' The expression το Κριττον might al so have been added. Of all these, Our was the only simple and direct term which they could adopt, to counteract, idolatrous misconceptions.

XXVII. The opening of St. John's Gospel expounds the opening of the Mosaic History. The words of Moses are, "In the beginning Bara Elohim created the heaven and the earth." (Gen.i. 1.) St. John tells us the particular person of the Triune Godhead, by whom the Work of Creation was carried into effect. It was, by the Λογος, who was προς τον Θεον, and who was himself Θεος. 66 By Him all things were made; and without Him was not made any one thing, which was made." By Him, "the World was made." He became "flesh and dwelt among us." He was not "God the Father," but the Moyens Taga Пargos, by whom "God the Father" created the Universe, and from time to time revealed himself to Mankind. The Aoyos and Moroyers mean the same person, "God the Son," the second of the Mosaic Trinity. So true it is that the Old Testament intimated in general terms, what the New was afterwards to explain in a manner more particular and that between both there is the closest connexion, the one being the interpreter of the other.

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

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

XXX. The credibility, or in other words, the reason why we think the works recorded, and the doctrines taught have a claim to our belief, is founded on conviction of Veracity and Competency, both in the Sacred Historians and in the divine Instructor. The Evangelists and Apostles have proof that they were true, in what they related concerning circumstances they were competent to assertain and Christ demonstrated the reality of his divine character; consistently with which, he could not but speak the words of truth, when he delivered doctrines which in his superlative knowledge of heavenly things he was enabled to communicate. XXXI. It has been said the expression "Trinity in the Godhead," Tgias Querat, does not occur in Scripture. True. Nor does 66 Unity in the Godhead" 'EVOTAS EV QUOTATI. Nor the term "Sacrament." But the subject matter, which those expressions are designed to indicate, does occur: so that the objection has in it no substantial validity.

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

XXXIII. On the clause, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," we may observe, there are pointed out three distinct objects, each of which has reference to one and the same act of mind implied in the expression "into the name,” i. e. into the religious service or worship: and the expression "into the name," though but once written, is in sense and force applied to each of the three objects. Considering then this parity of reference and application, considering also there is not introduced a single word by which to give us an idea that in the acceptation of either term is intended a change from substance to quality, we have the strongest ground for maintaining that if Subsistence belongs to the first object, Subsistence belongs also to the second, and to the third. And if there be any such thing as propriety in writing, and analogy in rendering, consistently with such propriety and such analogy we cannot say, that the terms Father, and Son, imply each of them Subsistence, and then by an abrupt transition unsupported by any word which can indicate mutation, pass at once from real Subsistence to attributable quality. As then by the term "Father" we understand real Subsistence, so in the term "Son" and in the term "Holy Ghost," we must respectively understand Subsistence.

XXXIV. If the regular, natural, and unforced construction of our Lord's final command will lead us to conclude, that by the expression "Holy Spirit" is meant real Subsistence; consideration of the solemn occasion when that command was given; of the importance which must necessarily be attached to it; and of the improbability that it should be so delivered as to be ambiguous, will furnish a strong reason for adhering to that conclusion.

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

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

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

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

B

Lord's command, that we should at our baptism be admitted into the religious service and worship of the Holy Spirit. Religious service and worship, in the opinion both of Jews and Christians, must be offered to nothing created, whether man or angel. The Holy Spirit therefore, which is to receive our religious service and worship, must be more than man, more than angel; must be divine. XXXIX. It does not appear that the Jews objected to the mere expression" Son of God" abstractedly taken: the cause of their rage and the ground of their accusation was, that Christ applied this exalted title to himself; which they deemed blasphemy. We may hence draw these two inferences; the Jews had an idea there did exist one, whom they eminently styled the " Son of God;" and the "Son of God" in their apprehension was essentially possessed of divine attributes.

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

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

edly accountable for the wilful neglect, or misapplication, or perversion of those powers.

XLII. The Evangelists undeniably describe our Lord as a Man. But did they mean nothing more than to describe him as a man only? If so, whence these expressions? "What manner of Man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?" (St. Matt. viii. 27.) Thou art the Christ,the Son of the living God." (St. Matt. xvi. 16.) "Truly this was the Son of God." (Matt. xxxii. 54.) " I saw and bear record that this is the Son of God." (St. John i. 34.) "We believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (St. John vi. 69.) "My Lord! and my God!" (St. John xx. 28.) No one, who understands the language of Scripture, will say the term "Son," as used in these passages, has no further import than what it usually implies in common acceptation. The Jews perfectly understood our Lord to intimate divinity of character by that appellation and hence their anger that he should assume to himself a title so exalted. The Evangelists then designed to represent his nature as also more than human. For this purpose they introduced the confessions made on several occasions, as testimonies to the divinity of his nature. The same divinity they proved also by recording a series of Facts, the result of constantly inherent powers, such as never resided in mere man.

Undeniably also Christ often styles himself "the Son of Man.” But wherefore? In allusion to Dan. vii. 14, and with intimation that he was himself the character described by the prophet. What then is the representation of Christ's person and glory delineated by Daniel? Is it that of a mere Man? The plainest reader can answer, when he has considered these words; I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him; And there was given him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

XLIII. To Christ, at the very opening of their respective Gospels, St. Matthew applies Isaiah's term "Emmanuel;" St. Mark the expression "Son of God;" St. John the appellation, which corresponds with the "Word of the Lord, the Word of Jehovah" in the Old Testament, but which "Word" he affirms "was made flesh and dwelt among us," the appellation of Aoys who " was with God, and was God." From such introductions to the narratives they proposed giving, they may be understood as professing that they believed Christ to be divine, and that they engaged to prove his divinity, These exordial declarations intimate what is to be expected in the se quel of the histories and conformably with them the subject is so pursued by a plain statement of extraordinary Facts, that the divine nature of our Lord is by far more strongly characterised than the human. There is nothing like elaborate composition, or studied period, in their Gospels; but from beginning to end in each there is one design. St. John tells you expressly, "These things are