But these things are sophistical and vain. The unity of the divine nature is always supposed in our disquisitions concerning the persons subsisting therein. And this is so clearly and positively asserted in the Scripture, particularly by Moses, Deut. vi. 4, besides
SECT. 7.] IN THE COUNSEL OF GOD. 49
that any apprehensions to the contrary are directly repugnant unto the light of nature, that no expressions can be observed to give the least countenance unto any other notion without ascribing direct contradictions unto it; which, if certain and evident, were a sufficient ground to reject the whole. No pretence, therefore, unto any ima- gination of a plurality of Gods can be made use of from these words. And the whole remaining sophistry of this exception lies in a suppo- sition that we plead for three distinct persons in the Trinity from this place; which is false. That there is a plurality of subsistences in the divine nature we plead from hence; that these are three, neither more nor less, we prove from other places of Scripture without num- ber. Many of these I have elsewhere vindicated’ from the excep- tions of these men. Without a supposition of this plurality of persons, we say no tolerable account can be given of the reason of this asser- tion by them who acknowledge the unity of the divine nature; and we design no more but that therein there is mutual cownsel,—which without a distinction of persons cannot be fancied. This whole pre- tence, therefore, founded on a vain and false supposition, that this testimony is used to prove a certain number of persons in the Deity, is altogether vain and frivolous.
He adds, “ Secundo illud quodque hic perpendendum est, quod ex his Mosis yerbis, non sequitur hoc, Deum, qui dixit ‘ Faciamus,’ fuisse multiplicem, sive non unum fuisse locutum, sed hoc tantum, heec verba prolata coram pluribus. Unus ergo erat qui loquebatur, sed loquebatur preesentibus aliis. Hinc autem non immediate sequitur creatores hominis fuisse multos. Nam ad hanc conclusionem pluri- bus adhue consequentiis opus est. Nimirum queerendum statim est, quinam illi fuerint, quos Deus allocutus est. Deinde creature, an inereati? Tum an illi quoque zqualiter cum Deo operati sint in for- matione hominis.”
Although he only here proposeth in general what he intendeth afterwards to pursue in particular, yet something must be observed thereon, to keep upright the state of our inquiry, which he endea- yours perpetually to wrest unto his advantage. And,—(1.) The in- vidious expressions which he makes use of, as “ Deum multiplicem,” and the like, are devoid of ingenuity and charity, nothing that answers them being owned by those whom he opposeth. (2.) It follows not from our exposition of these words, nor is it by us asserted, that man had many creators; which he need not pretend that there is need of many consequences to prove, seeing none was ever so fond as to attempt the proof of it. I confess that expression in Job, py mide mae, chap. xxxv. 10, “ Where is God my creators?” doth prove that he is in some sense many who made us. But whereas
See Vindiciee Evangelice, vol. xii. p. 169, and also vol. iii. p. 877.—Eb.
VOL, XIX, 4
50 ORIGINAL OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [ EXERC. XXVIL.
creation is a work proceeding from and an effect of the infinite pro- perties of the one divine nature, our Creator is but one, although that one be equally Father, Son, and Spirit. (3.) It is granted that one speaks these words, not more together; but he so speaks them that he takes those unto whom he speaks into the society of the same work with himself; neither is the speaker more or otherwise concerned in “ Let US make,” and “in OUR image,” than are those unto whom he speaks. Neither, indeed, is it the speaking of these words before many concerned that Moses expresseth, but it is the concurrence of many unto the same work, with the sare interest and concernment in it. And whosoever is concerned, speaking or - spoken unto, in the first words, “ Let us make,” is no less respected in the following words, “in our image and likeness.” They must, therefore, be of one and the same nature; which was to be repre- sented in the creature to be made in their image. These things being premised, we may take a view of the pursuit and manage- ment of his particular exceptions :—
“ Atque quod ad primum attinet; quinam scilicet ili fuerint, quos sit Deus allocutus; primo dicere possumus non necessarium esse, propter hujusmodi locutionum formas, multa individua constituere. Szepe enim scriptores aliquem secum deliberantem et disceptantem introducunt, Ex quo non statim sequitur ei plures in consultatione adesse, sed tantum hoe, illum diligenter et solicite omnia conside- rare et expendere. Ita ergo Deus animal omnium prestantissimum creaturus, introducitur a Mose consultabundus ddpwrorudig more Scripture. Unde tamen non sequitur, Deum in istud consilium alios adhibuisse.”
Herein this author exceeds the confidence of the Jews, for they constantly grant that somewhat more than one individual person must be intended in these words, or no proper sense can be elicited ‘from them. But the whole of this discourse, and what he would insinuate by it, is merely petitio principii, accompanied with a neglect of the argument which he pretends to answer: for he only says that “one may be introduced, as it were, deliberating and con- sulting with himself,” whereof yet he gives no instance, either from the Scripture or other sober writer, nor can give any parallel unto this discourse here used; but he takes no notice that the words directly introduce more than one consulting and deliberating among themselves about the creating of man in their image. And of a form of speech answering hereunto, where one only and absolutely is con- cerned, no instance can be given in any approved author.