5. It is an easy way which some have taken, in the exposition of this place, to solve the difficulty which appears in it. God, they say,
Se a
eee
=
SECT. 4, 5.] IN THE COUNSEL OF GOD. 45
in it speaks “ more regio,” “in a kingly manner,” by the plural number. “Mos est,” saith Grotius, “ Hebreeorum de Deo, ut de rege loqui; reges res magnas agunt de consilio primorum, 1 Reg. xii. 6, 2 Paral. x. 9; sic et Deus, 1 Reg. xxii. 20;”—“ It is the manner of the Hebrews to speak of God as of a king; and kings do great things on the counsel of the chief about them.” But the question is not about the manner of speaking among the Hebrews (whereof yet no instance can be given unto this purpose of their speaking in the first person, as here), but of the words of God himself concerning himself, and of the reason of the change of the expression constantly used before. God is king of all the world, of the whole creation; and if he had spoken “ more regio” therein, he would have done it with respect unto the whole equally, and not signally with respect unto man. Besides, this “ mos regius” is a custom of a much later date, and that which then was not, was not alluded unto. And the reason added why this form of speech is used, namely, “ because kings do great things on the counsel of their principal attendants,” re- quires, in the application, that God should consult with some created princes about the creation of man; which is an antiscriptural fig- ment, and shall be immediately disproved. Least of all is any countenance given unto this intefpretation from the place alleged, 1 Kings xxii. 20,—the application whereof unto this purpose is bor- rowed from Aben Ezra on this place, in his attempt to avoid this testi- mony given unto the Trinity,—“ Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?” for as there is nothing spoken in the plural number to parallel this expression, so if that allegorical declaration of God’s providential rule be literally pressed, Satan or a lying spirit must be esteemed to be one of the chiefs with whom he consulted. But “who hath directed the Spirit of the Lor, or being the man of his counsel hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who made him understand ?” Isa. xl. 13, 14.
The ancients unanimously agree that a plurality of persons in the Deity is here revealed and asserted; yea, the council of Sirmium, though dubious, yea, Arianising in their confession of faith, yet denounceth anathema unto any that shall deny these words, “ Let us make man,” to be the words of the Father to the Son, Socrat. lib. ii cap. xxv. Chrysostom lays the weight of his argument for it upon the change in the manner of expression before used; as he may do justly and solidly. “Apparet,” saith Ambrose, “ concilio Trinitatis ereatum esse hominem.” Neither have any of those who of late have espoused this evasion answered any of the arguments of the ancients for the sense we plead for, nor replied with any likelihood of reason unto their exceptions against that interpretation, which
| , *
46 ORIGINAL OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC. XXVII.
they took notice of as invented long ago. Theodoret, in his Queest. in Gen., quest. 20, urgeth, “ That if God used this manner of speech concerning himself merely to declare his mind ‘more regio,’ he would have done it always, at least he would have done it often.” However, it would unavoidably have been the form of speech used in that kingly act of giving the law-at Sinai, for that, if any thing, required the kingly style pretended; but the absolute contrary is observed. God, in that whole transaction with his peculiar people and subjects, speaks of himself constantly in the singular number.
6. But there are two sorts of persons who, with all their strength and artifices, oppose our exposition of this place,—namely, the Jews and the Socinians, with whom we have to do perpetually in what- ever concerns the person and offices of Christ the Messiah, and in what any way relates thereunto. We shall, therefore, first consider what they offer to secure themselves from this testimony against their infidelity, and then further improve the words unto the end peculiarly designed. And although there is a great coincidence in their pretensions, yet I shall handle them distinctly, that it may the better appear wherein the one receiveth aid and assistance from the other. ‘
The Jews are at no small los# as to the intention of the Holy Ghost in this expression, and, if we may believe some of them, have been so from of old; for, as we observed before, they all affirm that these words were changed in the translation of the LXX., because they could not understand how they might be properly expressed without giving countenance unto polytheism. Philo, de Opificio Mundi, knows not on what to fix, but after a pretence of some reason for satisfaction, adds, Ty wiv ob» dAndeordrny airiay Osby avdyun pdvov eidévas-—‘ The true reason hereof is known unto God alone.” The reason which he esteems most probable is taken out of Plato in his Timeus. “ For whereas,’ he saith, “there was to be in the nature of man a principle of vice and evil, it was necessary that it should be from another author, and not from the most high God,” But as the misadventure of such woful mistakes may be passed over in Plato, who had no infallible rule to guide him in his disquisition after truth, so in him, who had the advantage of the scriptures of the Old Testament, it cannot be excused, seeing this figment riseth up in opposition to the whole design of them, Some seek an evasion in the word WY2, which they would have to be the first person singular in Niphal, and not the first person plural in Kal. Having, therefore, a passive signification, the meaning is, that “ homo factus est;” man, or Adam, was made in our image and likeness,—that is, of Moses and other men. Of this exposition of the words Aben Ezra says plainly, 2> 1>n wis m,—“It is an interpretation for a