:

us as setting these three texts in opposition to the "thousands and tens of thousands" of passages which, by the use of singular pronouns, imply the unity of God, he forgets, or rather tries to make his reader forget, that we see no opposition between the thousands and the three;-that we consider the distinction implied in the three to be a distinction perfectly consistent with the unity implied in the thousands ; and that we are as decided friends to the latter as to the former. Mr. Yates says, in another part of his work, (p.59.)-"When "God appears to Abraham, he thus speaks (Gen. xvii. 1, 2.) "I am the Almighty God; walk before me and be thou per"fect and I will make my covenant between me and thee.' "To represent the address of more persons than one, the following language would have been employed; We are the "Almighty God (or Almighty Gods); walk before us, and be thou perfect; and we will make our covenant between ❝us and thee."-But this supposed language is precisely parrallel to the language under discussion. We say that such language in the three passages in question does imply plurality of persons; while at the same time, the unity of God being so decidedly a doctrine of the same Book, we conclude that this plurality must (although in a way inexplicable by us) be consistent with unity. But what does Mr. Yates? He states the language which would be used if a plurality of persons were intended; and yet, when such language is used, he refuses to admit that it has any reference to plurality at all, and endeavours to explain it as the language of majesty. But alas! if this same language of majesty be also the language which would have been used, if three persons (by which Mr. Yates means three gods) had been intended; what a cloud would in that case have been thrown over the evidence for the fundamental article of the Divine unity, if the

language of majesty had been uniformly employed by the Great Supreme!

In opposition to the Unitarian explanation of the three texts above quoted-I had alleged, in the first place, that "it is not consistent with fact, that the Supreme Being is "ever represented in the Scriptures as using this particular "style;”—that is, the plural number as the language of majesty." By this assertion," says Mr. Yates, "he (Mr. W.) "only takes for granted the thing to be proved." (Page 141.)— If the three passages themselves be considered as included in the assertion, Mr. Yates is perfectly correct; and I frankly admit the inadvertent inaccuracy of my expression. It is still true, however, that all the rest of the Bible is against the interpretation of these three passages as the language of majesty: for it is still true, that no other instances of this style of expression occur, and especially in those "most sublime and "solemn portions of Holy Writ, in which the Divine Majes"ty of heaven and earth is introduced as speaking;" where, surely, if any where, we might have expected to find it. The arguments, therefore, on this point, in a comparative view, stand thus:We can bring forward a multitude of passages from other parts of Scripture, which agree in proving that the Son and the Holy Spirit are God as well as the Father; that is, that there is in the Divine unity a distinction or plurality of persons: and we think it reasonable, to consider the particular expressions in question as arising also from the existence of this distinction, and as corroborative proofs of its reality. Our opponents, on the contrary, interpret these expressions as the language of majesty; but they can produce no other passages throughout the Scriptures, not even in those parts of them where it might most naturally be expected, in

which the blessed God employs this style. Let the reader, then, determine between the two sides of the case.

I had said, in the second place, that "this was not, in "point of fact, the style of the kings of the earth themselves "in the time of Moses; and that no instance of it could be "produced from the whole Bible."

In opposition to the latter part of this assertion, Mr. Yates produces the examples of Rehoboam, of Artaxerxes, of Christ, and of Paul.-With regard to Paul, it is sufficient to observe, that when he uses the plural pronouns, We, us, our, in "expressing his own feelings and condition," he may naturally be supposed to include fellow labourers as participating in those feelings and in that condition; such fellow labourers as those whom he frequently associates with himself at the commencement of his letters:-" Paul, and Sosthenes," 1. Cor. i. 1.:-" Paul and Timothy," 2 Cor. i. 1. :—“ Paul and Timotheus," Phil. i. 1.:—“ Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus,” 1 Thess. i. 1.: 2 Thess. i. 1. &c.

As to the instance adduced of Jesus Christ using the style in question, viz. John iii. 11. "We speak that which we "know, and testify that which we have seen, and ye receive "not our witness;"—it is far from being a clear and decisive one. When Christ, in this same sentence, addresses an individual by the pronoun ye, evidently including others along with Nicodemus, is it perfectly certain that in using the pronoun we, he does not include others along with himself?— Some accordingly understand him as associating with his own the testimony of the Baptist:-others conceive that he includes the testimony of the Father and of the Spirit: (compare John viii. 18.: xv. 26.:-while others still, think it more simple and natural to interpret the language as that of au

*

thority. Something forcible might be said in support of each of these explanations: and, at the risk of having prejudice imputed to me as the source of my indecision, I profess myself at a loss to determine which of them should have the preference.

Mr. Yates's commentary on the case of Rehoboam appears to me quite inconsistent with the character of that foolish and self-willed prince, as developed by his conduct. In consulting the old men, he uses the singular number:-" How do ye "advise that I may answer this people?"" But when he "consults the young men," says Mr. Yates, " he assumes a "higher tone, and says, What counsel give ye, that we may "answer this people?"-Now it seems to me, on the contrary, that Rehoboam was aware of the prudence of these aged counsellors of his father, and had a pretty shrewd guess of the kind of advice he was likely to get from them. He did not like the old greybeards, and contemned the moderation of their counsels. He had more of the imperious self-will, than of the modest diffidence of youth. It is natural, therefore, to suppose, that, if he was stately to either, it should have been to these old men. With his young companions, who were brought up with him, with whom he was in habits of intimacy, who knew his character, and were aware what kind of advice would be most agreeable, he probably, instead of assuming "a higher tone," assumed the style of familiarity, associating them with himself, and speaking of the answer he should give to the people, as given by them as well as by himself, because given by their counsel.-The reader may judge for himself between the two views.

The only remaining instance is that of Artaxerxes, Ezra iv. 18. "The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plain

* See Doddridge, Not. in loc.

N

"ly read before me."-Although it is a circumstance somewhat singular that the Royal style should be assumed and relinquished within the compass of this short sentence, I shall admit this to be a solitary instance in the Bible, of the plural number being used by a king, when speaking in his own person; and shall give up, as thus far too unqualified, the assertion, that no one instance of this was to be found in the Scriptures. Here is one. Valeat quantum valere potest.

Unfortunately, however, for Mr. Yates, Artaxerxes did not live in the days of Moses ;-and therefore my other assertion "that the plural style was not the style of the kings of the earth " in his time," which is the one immediately in point to the present argument, stands entirely unaffected by the instance.On this assertion, indeed, Mr. Yates attempts to make himself witty at my expense. But his wit falls very harmless-telum imbelle, sine ictu. My documents, as both he and every other reader were perfectly aware, are the writings of Moses himself. If the style was then in use, it might be expected we

But nothing of the kind

should find some traces of it there. is discoverable; and yet this writer is supposed to ascribe the words in question to Jehovah, on the principle of the plural style being the customary style of majesty; and even to introduce him as using them, when there was not a king or a human being in existence on the earth.

66

Mr. Yates closes his observations on these three passages in the following words:" It is agreeable to the established usages of speech, for a single person to employ the plural pronouns, we, us, our, in order to denote his dignity and "authority, whereas there is no rule, according to which "several persons can speak of themselves by the use of the "singular pronouns, I, me, my. Let the considerate and "serious inquirer, therefore, make his choice; whether he will