immediately subjoined, that he saw three men: whence the pious ancients concluded, that the adorable Trinity appeared to Abraham in a visible form. Ambrose in proemio in lib. 2. de Spiritu Sancto, speaks thus: "But Abraham was not ignorant of the Holy Spirit. He really saw three, and adored one; because one Lord, one God, and one Spirit. And therefore there was an unity of honor, because an unity of power." Augustine, lib. 2. de Trinit. c. 11, 12. also lib. 3. contra Maximinum, c. 26. is more full on this head. With whom agrees Paschasius the Roman deacon, lib. 1. de Spir. Sancto, c. 5. and others cited by Forbes, Instruct, Hist. Theol. lib. 1. c. 14. See Christiani Schotani Bibliotheca, in hist. Abrahami, p. 155. & seq. Musculus, though of a different opinion, yet in his commentaries writes: "This passage was usually quoted in the church, when the mystery of the sacred Trinity and Unity was treated of.” Munster, after reciting the words of Aben Ezra, who in vain attacks the doctrine of the Christians, adds: "This is certain, that Abraham saw three, and addressed himself to one, O my Lord, if I have found favor in thine eyes; whatever the Jews may idly talk to the contrary. Had not Abraham acknowledged that mystery, he would have said, My Lords, if I have found favor in your eyes, &c. The prophets represent a plurality of persons in God," &c. Fagius insinuates, that it is a common argument of our divines, when he says, "Our authors infer the mystery of the Trinity from the appearance of angels." Though Martyr is of the same opinion with Musculus, yet he thinks, he should not conceal, that both the ancient Latin and Greek fathers usually produced this passage in proof of the Trinity; and adds, that the inculcating these things is not altogether unpleasant to godly

persons.

V. We indeed acknowledge, that the church has stronger arguments, whereby to establish this fundamental article of our faith; yet we imagine, the pious zeal of the fathers on this subject is on no account to be exploded. The text affords them wherewith to defend themselves. And why shall we so far gratify our adversaries, as to go about to overturn no contemptible reasons for the truth? First, we are to observe, that after Moses had said, ver 1. And Jehovah appeared to him, he immediately adds, ver. 2. And he lift up his eyes, and looked, and lo, three men stood by him. Which words really seem to contain the explication of the manner in which God appeared to Abraham. Nor should it be thought unsuitable, that even the Father and the Holy Spirit appeared in human form; for Isaiah saw the whole Trinity, like a king, sitting on a throne. This vision is actually explained of the Son, John xii. 41. and also of the Holy Ghost, Acts xxviii. 25. and, I imagine, none should exclude the Father. Daniel also saw the Ancient of days sitting on a throne, and another like the Son of man, who came to him, Dan. vii. 9, 13. Which interpreters commonly explain of the Father and Son, and, as I think, not improperly.

VI. Moreover, we find that Abraham addresses these three, as if they were one, saying, in the singular number, O my Lord, if I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away from thy servant. He was accustomed, perhaps, to see God in a like form, or was instructed in that matter by the Holy Spirit; and therefore in the Trinity he immediately observed an Unity. For, what some object, that Abraham addressed himself to one of the three, because, by his more august appearance, he discovered, himself to be the Lord of the others, is saying a thing without proof and beside the text. Nay, the words of the patriarch are so put together, that they not only ex

press a civil and common respect, but a religious homage. For he uses the appellation Adonai with kametz under the letter nun, which being thus pointed (unless, perhaps, on account of the accent, patach may be changed into kametz) is among the epithets of the Supreme Being, as the orthodox agree. Nor is it any objection, that he entertained them as men. For, seeing they be haved themselves as such, he was unwilling to deny the duties of humanity, due to the person they sustained. But it was something above common civility, that, while they were eating, he himself should stand by them as a servant under the tree, ver. 8.

VII. It is added, that when three men appeared to Abraham, one of them is constantly called Jehovah, ver. 13, 17, 20, &c. and the others angels, Gen. xix. 1. sent by Jehovah to destroy Sodom, ver. 13. Because the name, angel, cannot agree to the Father, who is never sent; but may be the Son and Holy Spirit, who are sent by the Father. Augustine says well, lib. 2. de Trinit. c. 13. "Though I do not recollect, that the Holy Spirit is any where called an angel; yet it may be gathered from his office. For of him it is said, He will annunciate or declare unto you things to come and certainly angel is interpreted messenger; but we very evidently read soncerning our Lord Jesus Christ in the prophet, that he is called the angel of the covenant; tho' both the Holy Spirit and the Son of God is God and Lord of angels." Nor does Epiphanius differ in his sentiments, in ancorato, § 70. "For as the Son is the angel of the covenant, so also the Holy Spirit." But that those angels which Lot saw, were not ministering spirits, may be gathered from the religious honor which he paid them, Gen. xix. 18, 19, &c.; and the answer, full of authority and divine majesty, they gave, ver. 21. What some pretend, that, in the mean time, a third per

son intervened, who had remained with Abraham, and to whom these words are to be applied, is what is not in the text nor do I see how it can be proved.

VIII. It does not militate against this interpretation, that these angels are expressly distiguished from Jehovah, ver. 13. They are, indeed, distinguished from Jehovah the Father, not essentially, as we have shewn, but hypostatically or personally. Nor is it below the dignity of an uncreated angel to say, I shall not be able to do any thing, till thou be come thither, ver. 22. because that was said, on the supposition of a gracious degree, and a promise already made to Lot. And this expression should be compared with John v. 19, 20. And lastly, Heb. xiii. 2. is but foolishly objected; for the apostle there recommends hospitality on this account; namely, that some have entertained angels unawoares; whereas if God himself had been entertained, that consideration should rather have been urged. But it is not for us to prescribe to the Holy Spirit, what arguments or expressions he is to make use of. If the apostle had thought fit to say, that Jehovah himself was entertained, he might certainly have done it, seeing Moses expressly asserts it. And now when he speaks of angels, he, in like manner, imitates Moses, who declares that angels turned in to Lot. But seeing the term angel signifies diverse things, and may be applied both to an uncreated and to a created angel; therefore from the bare appellation, angel, it cannot be proved, that the discourse only regards created angels. Moreover, when he says, that some entertained angels unawares, he again has an eye to Lot, who, inviting them to come under his roof, imagined they were some honorable guests, till, from their talk, or by the inspiration of the Spirit, he understood who they really were. Nor is it any objection, that the apostle says in the plural

number, that some entertained angels. For an enallage or change of number is frequent in such ways of speaking, and it is probable, that what happened to Lot, happened also to many others. And now let it be sufficient to have said these things, in favor of the explication of the ancients, and of other very excellent divines of the reformed church. Nor do I imagine, that equitable judges will blame me for having attempted to shew, that those pious and learned men neither spoke inconsiderately, nor, by their arguments, did any prejudice to the good cause they undertook to maintain. But should any one think otherwise, it is not our province to contend with him. We shall use much stronger arguments than these with such a person.

IX. Let us now consider that covenant which God entered into with Abraham. Paul says, that its commencement was four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law, Gal. iii. 17. As chronologers vary in their calculations, so it is a matter of dispute among them, from what period to begin these years: the difficulty of finding the truth being such, that Scaliger declared it to be unsurmountable. What seems to come nearest, Fridericus Spanhemius, in Introduct. chronologica ad hist. V. T. has ingeniously, as is his manner, explained. Whose calculation is thus: From the* 75th year of Abraham, in which he came out of Charan, Gen. xii. 4. to the birth of Isaac in the 100th year of his father, are twenty-five years. From the birth of Isaac to that of Jacob, who was born in Isaac's 60th year, Gen. xxv. 26. and fifteen years before the death of Abraham, Gen. xxv. 7, 8. are sixty years.

There is, doubtless, a typographical mistake in our author, who makes Abraham to leave Charan in his 78th year, and that in the 28th year after, Isaac was born. Whereas the sacred text says, he was but 75; to which if we add 25, that will bring us to Abraham's 100th year, when Isaac was born.

1