Moreover, God is at times represented as speaking in the plural,[400] saying, for instance, _Let us make man in our image_, as if consulting with other Divine Persons; since it is obvious that the expression cannot refer to angels, who are themselves created, and not fellow Creators. Yet just afterwards we read, 'God created man in _his_ own image,' thus implying that there is still but one God. Another and even more remarkable expression is, _Behold, the man is become as one of us_. This cannot possibly be the plural of Majesty; for though a king might speak of himself as _We_ or _Us_, no king ever spoke of himself as _one of Us_. Such an expression can only be used when there are other persons of similar rank with the speaker; therefore when used by God, it shows conclusively that there are other Divine Persons. So again when God says, 'Whom shall _I_ send, and who will go for _us_?' it implies that He is both one, and more than one; which the previous _thrice_ Holy, points to as being a Trinity.[401] The existence of such passages seems to require some explanation, and Christianity alone can explain them. [Footnote 400: Gen. 1. 26; 3. 22; 11. 7.] [Footnote 401: Isa. 6. 8.] (_D._) CONCLUSION. Before concluding this chapter there is still one objection to be considered. Why, it is said, if these prophecies really refer to Christ, are they not plainer? Surely if God wished to foretell the future, He would have done it better than this: and a few words added here and there would have made the reference to Christ indisputable. No doubt they would; but possibly God did not wish to make the reference indisputable. Moreover, if the prophecies had been plainer, they might have prevented their own fulfilment. Had the Jews known for certain that Christ was their Messiah, they could scarcely have crucified Him; and it seems to many that the prophecies are already about as plain as they could be without doing this. The important point, however, is not whether the prophecies might not have been plainer, but whether they are not already too plain to be accidental. Lastly, we must notice the cumulative nature of the evidence. We have only examined a few instances, but, as said before, Messianic prophecies of some kind more or less distinct, occur at intervals all through the Old Testament. And though some of those commonly brought forward seem weak and fanciful, there are numbers of others which are not. And here, as elsewhere, this has a double bearing on the argument. In the first place, it does not at all increase the difficulty of the _Christian_ interpretation; for twenty prophecies are practically no more difficult to admit than two. Indeed, the fact that instead of being a few isolated examples, they form a complete series, rather lessens the difficulty than otherwise.