asserted, not against a plurality of independent deities, but against a plurality of persons in the unity of the same divine nature. Otherwise the assertions of unity in the Scripture leave the doctrine of the Trinity, to say the least, untouched and, for the same reason, the doctrine of the Trinity, will not contradict the Scriptural assertion of the divine unity. To assert as an objection against the doctrine of the Trinity, that it contradicts the purpose and tenor of Scripture, is to assume the precise point that the objection pretends to prove. It is to assume, that the mode in which the divine unity is taught in Scripture is contrary to the notion of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. This is the very point to be proved. And, until it has been proved, it is as childish to object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it contradicts the tenor of Scripture, as it would be to assert that it contradicts the tenor of the Athanasian Creed, in which the unity of God is stated to the full as strongly, as it is in the Scripture, and much more explicitly. Consequently, this objection, to have any

pertinency to the question at issue between the Catholic Church and its opponents, must beg the question. It must take for granted the very thing which it is brought to prove.

II. I proceed in the second place, therefore, to demonstrate that this objection in such a sense as is pertinent to the question, is false.

To this purpose it will be sufficient to show; first, what is the doctrine of the Old Testament, regarding the unity of God secondly, what was the doctrine of the divine unity received from the Old Testament by the Jewish Church ; and thirdly, in what manner the doctrine of the Jewish Church was treated by our blessed Redeemer and his Apostles.

I. I am first to show, what is the doctrine of the Old Testament regarding the unity of God.

The unity of God is taught in the Old Testament by the fact, that generally, throughout all parts of the Bible, the Almighty speaks in the singular number. The use of the pronouns "1," and "ME," which is the general style of the addresses

66

of God to his creatures, implies unity of essence, and can imply nothing else. The style of Revelation, therefore, implied that the Jews were governed, not by a number of associated deities, but by one; even by that one first and final cause of all things, the singularity of whose essence, is as necessary as his existence 1. Nor is it

easy to conceive, in what manner the Church could have been preserved from polytheism, if a contrary style had been adopted, as the style of revelation. I mean to say, that, if God had invariably used the style of plurality, if he had always said, we and us, in his communications with his creatures; it would have been difficult, perhaps scarcely possible, for the Jews to have avoided constructing a polytheistic system peculiar to themselves. But since, on the contrary, in the general style of Revelation, the Almighty represents his name by the singular pronoun; and since he does also, as we have already seen, declare, in many places, that there is

1 See Bp. Pearson on the Creed, Art. I.

no other God but he; there would appear, at first sight, no possible danger of mistake in the matter. In other words, the Church might fall, as it repeatedly did, into some modification of the polytheistic idolatry of the surrounding nations. But, supposing it to escape this danger, what other was to be apprehended? The alternative, one would naturally suppose, could only have been, between polytheism, on the one hand, and unity, on the other.

Let me illustrate my meaning by an example. In the book of the prophet Isaiah it is written. "Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD of Hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God 1." Let us for a moment suppose a Jewish priest to explain those words to the people. Suppose him to speak in this manner. "The words of God, by the mouth of the prophet, teach us, that the Lord our God is the only living and true God; and that the idols of the heathen are abomination

and a lie. But there is another matter which it is equally necessary for you to be informed of. The Lord our God is not a society or company of equal and independent deities. When he speaks to us, and says, I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God, you are not to understand him to mean, we are the first, and we are the last; and besides us there is no God. You must take care that you do not believe that Israel hath several redeemers, or kings, or gods: Jehovah, our God, is the original cause; the eternal; the infinite: and not a company of united, but independent originals, eternals, and infinites." Now, on the first appearance, is there not something surprising in such a commentary. Does it not look like a gratuitous and mischievous gloss? Gratuitous :-because there is no argument by which we can be convinced of the necessary existence, the infinity, and the eternity of God, that is not equally convincing to prove the impossibility of more than one necessarily existing being; one infinite; or one eter