plain, according to the analogy thereof. But that one person alone
is intended in these words, he proceeds to prove:-— —,
“ Primo enim hoc omnibus linguis usitatum est, ut numero plu- rali, cum de se cum de aliis etiam singularibus passim sine diserimine utantur, sic Christus cum de se solo loqueretur. Joh. ui. 11, ait, ‘Quod scimus loquimur, et quod videmus testamur;’ in quibus verbis Christum de se pluraliter loqui sequentia ostendunt; ‘si, inquit, ‘terrena dixi vobis.’ Sic Deus de seipso solo, Esa. xli. 22, ‘ Accedant, et nuntient nobis queecunque ventura sunt: et ponemus cor nostrum et sciemus novissima eorum, et quee. ventura sunt indi- cate nobis.” Quin etiam illud observari potest, de eodem et unico singulari permixtim, nunc singularem nunc pluralem usurpari nu- merum. Et Esa. vi. 8, dicit Deus, ‘Quem mittam, aut quis ibit pro nobis?’ Ex quibus et similibus locis et loquendi usu vulgari ap- paret, posse verbum plurale de uno solo, recte intelligi et dici, Ergo etiamsi Deus hic dicat ‘ Faciamus, tamen tantundem est, ac si dicerat ‘ Faciam.’” ;
What he saith is so usual in all languages, that one speaking of himself should speak in the plural number, having respect unto no more than himself, nor letting any others ito a concernment with — himself in the things spoken, he can give no instance of in any language, out of any ancient approved author.
(1.) That phrase of speech is a novice in the use of speaking.
SECT. 7.] IN THE COUNSEL OF GOD. 55
Particularly it is a stranger unto the Scripture. As this author could not, no more can any of his successors, produce any one in- stance out of the Old Testament of any one, unless it were God alone, were he never so great or powerful, that spake of himself in the first person in the plural number. Aben Ezra himself on this place grants that no such instance can be given. He is therefore at once deprived of the Hebrew language, wherein yet alone his in- stances ought to be given, if he will argue from the use of speaking.
(2.) The places he cites relieve him not. John ii. 11, our Saviour’s words respect not himself only, but his disciples also, who taught and baptized in his name, whose doctrine he would vindicate as his own. And as for what he adds afterwards, “If I have told you earthly things,” it relates directly unto that discourse which in his own person he had with Nicodemus, with respect whereunto he changeth his phrase of speech unto the singular number; which over- throws his pretensions, The words of the prophet, Isa. xli. 22, are either spoken of God alone, or of God and the church, whom he called and joined with himself in bearing witness against idols and idolaters; and he may take his choice in whether sense he will admit of them. If they are spoken of God alone, we have another testimony to confirm our doctrine, that there must be, and is, a plu- rality of persons in the one singular, undivided nature of God; if of the church also, there is no exception in them unto our rule, that one person speaks of himself in the Scripture only in the singular number.
(3.) His other instance out of the same prophet, Isa. vi. 8, “Whom shall. I send, and who will go for us?” is home to his purpose of proving that the singular and plural numbers are used mixedly or promiscuously of one and the same. But who is that one? It is God alone. No such instance can be given in any other. And why are things so expressed by him and concerning him? Who can give any tolerable reason but this alone, namely, because his nature is one and singular, but subsisting in more persons than one? And indeed this place, considered with its circumstances, and the alle- gations of it in the New Testament, doth infallibly confirm the truth we contend for. He hath not yet, therefore, attained to a proof that the word may be so used as he pretends; which, with these men, is enough to secure them from the force of any Scripture testimony. He adds, therefore:—
“Secundo, Non solum posse, sed omnino necessarium esse, ut hic ‘ Faciamus,’ singulare denotet individuum, inde probatur, quia si illa vox multitudinem in se includeret, nunquam ausi fuissent sacri scriptores eam immutare et in singularem numerum vertere. At prophet, ipse Christus, et apostoli, ubicunque de hac creatione lo-
56 ORIGINAL OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST [EXERC. XXVIIL
quuntur eam uni et quidem in singulari usurpata voce attribuunt. Nam statim ipse Moses subjicit, ‘ Et creavit Deus hominem ad ima- ginem et similitudinem suam.’ Quod proxime dixerat ‘ Faciamus,’ hic exprimit per ‘Deus creavit;’ quod ibi ‘in imaginem nostram,’ hic in singulari, ‘ad imaginem suam.’ Sic cap. vi. 7, ‘Delebo homi- nem quem creavi.’ Et Christus, Matt. xix. 4, ‘ Qui fecit hominem ab initio, masculum et foeminam fecit eos.’ Mare. x. 6, ‘Masculum et foeminam fecit eos Deus.” Paulus, Act. xvii. 26, ‘ Deus fecit ex uno omne genus humanum.’ Act Col. iii. 10, ‘Induentes novum hominem, eum qui renovatur ad agnitionem secundum imaginem illius qui creavit illum.’ Cum ergo omnes testantur unicum esse illum, qui hominem creavit, sequitur etiam hoc loco per verbum ‘Faciamus, non nisi unum significari. Posse enim unum per plu- rale significari jam monstravimus.”