‘Nothing can be more effectually pleaded in the behalf of the cause opposed by this man than what is here alleged by him in op- position thereunto; for it is certain that the holy writers would never have ascribed the creation of all unto one, and expressed it in the singular number, as they do most frequently, had it not been one God, one Creator, by whom all things were made. This is the position which he lays down as the foundation of his exception; and he was not so brutish as once to imagine that we believed there were more Creators, and so consequently more Gods, than one. But take this assertion also on the other side, namely, that the holy writers would never have ascribed the creation unto more than one, unless that one in some sense or other had been more than so. Wherefore, they do not change, as is pretended, the plural expression into a sin- gular; but the Holy Ghost, expressing the same thing, of making man in the image of God, sometimes expresseth it in the singular number, by reason of the singularity of the nature of God, which is the original of all divine operations, for God works by his nature; and sometimes in the plural, because of the plurality of persons in that nature: on which supposition these different expressions are re- conciled, without which they cannot so be.
And all these exceptions or cavils are managed merely against the necessary use and signification of the word “Faciamus,” “ Let ws make,” in the plural number. What is alleged by the ancients and others, to clear the intention of the expression in this place particu- larly, he takes no notice of ; for he makes no inquiry why, seeing, in the whole antecedent account of the work of creation, God is intro- duced speaking constantly in the singular number, here the phrase of speech is changed, and God speaks as consulting or deliberating, in the plural number. And he says not only, “ Let us make,” but adds, “Jn OUR image, and after ouR likeness.” To imagine this to be
SECT. 7.] IN THE COUNSEL OF GOD. 57
done without some peculiar reason, is to dream rather than to in- quire into the sense of Scripture. And other reason besides what we have assigned, with any tolerable congruity unto the common use of speaking, cannot be given. But supposing that he hath suffi- ciently evinced his intention, he proceeds to give a reason of the use of this kind of speech, where one is spoken of in the plural number :—
“ Quee sit autem causa cur liceat per pluralem numerum signifi- care unum, et quando hoc soleat fieri, varize afterri solent cause. Quidam censent fieri honoris gratia, ut de eminentibus et excellen- tibus personis pluraliter loguamur. Id usitatum esse lingua Hebraese annotant docti; inter quos Cevallerius in sua syntaxi hunc tradit canonem. Que dignitatem significant pluraliter usurpantur ad ampliorem honorem. Ut Jos. xxiv. 19, ‘Dii sancti ipse;’ Exod. xxi. 29, ‘ Domini ejus, pro dominus; Esa. xix. 4, ‘In manu domi- norum duri,’ pro domini; Gen. xlii. 30, ‘ Domini terre,’ pro domi- nus. Imo hoc non tantum in Hebrea, sed in aliis quoque linguis esse usitatum, patet ex oxo. Sophoclis, qui in Cidipo Coloneo [v. 1490] annotavit poetam dixisse, dodivat opi, pro dotvar airy, et addit scriptum esse xard& riuiy xrnduvrixGig, propter honorem seu dig- nitatem pluraliter.”
We also grant that it is one who is here intended, only we say, he is not spoken of under that consideration, of being one. Nor is it enough to prove that the word may in the plural number be used in a singular sense, but that it is so in this- place, seeing the proper importance of it is otherwise. Neither can that expression concern- ing God, Josh. xxiv. 19, 87 DY? DON “ Dii sancti ipse,” be used honoris gratia, seeing it is no honour to God to be spoken of as many Gods, for his glory is that he is one only. It hath, therefore, another respect, namely, unto the persons in the unity of the same nature. I could easily give the reasons of all his other instances in particular, wherein men are spoken of, and manifest that they will yield him no relief; but this may suffice in general, that they are all speeches concerning others in the third person, and all our in- quiry is concerning any one thus speaking of himself in the first person, whereof no one can be given. Wherefore our author, not confiding unto this his last refuge, betakes himself unto foolish ima- ginations of ‘‘God’s speaking to the superior parts of the world, whence the soul of man was to be taken, and the inferior, whence his body was to be made;” to “a design for the instruction of men, how to use counsel and deliberation in great undertakings;” to “a double knowledge in God, universal and particular ;”—which are all of them rabbinical fopperies, evidently manifesting that he knew not what to confide in or rest upon as to the true cause of this ex- pression, after he had resolved to reject that alone which is so.
58 ORIGINAL OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST. [EXERC. XXVIL.
8. The foundation of our intention from this place being thus cleared, we may safely build upon it. And that which hence we in- tend to prove is, that in the framing and producing the things which concern mankind, there were peculiar, internal, personal transac- tions between the Father, Son, and Spirit. The scheme of speech here used is in genere deliberativo,—by way of consultation. But whereas this cannot directly and properly be ascribed unto God, an anthropopathy must be allowed in the words. The mutual distinct actings and concurrence of the several persons in the Trinity are ex- pressed by way of deliberation, and that because we can no other- wise determine or act. And this was peculiar in the work of the creation of man, because of an especial designation of him to the glory of God as three in one. Neither could he have been created in the accidental image of God but with immediate respect unto the Son, as he was the essential image of the Father. The distinct per- sonal actings of the Trinity, wherein the priesthood of Christ is founded, are not, I confess, contained herein; for these things pre- ceded the consideration of the fall, whereby the image now proposed and resolved to be communicated unto man in his creation was lost, which Christ was designed to recover. But there is enough to con- firm our general assertion, that such distinct actings there were with respect unto mankind; and the application hereof unto our present purpose will be directed in the ensuing testimonies. This, therefore, T have only laid down and proved, as the general principle which we proceed upon. Man was peculiarly created unto the glory of the Trinity, or of God as three in one. Hence in all things concerning him there is not only an intimation of those distinct subsistences, but also of their distinct actings with respect unto him. So it was eminently in his creation; his making was the effect of special counsel. Much more shall we find this fully expressed with respect unto his restoration by the Son of God.