God is plural, "ELOHIM BARA," (Gods created); and in the short history of the creation, repeats it about thirty times, besides several hundred times more in his other writings. It need not be imagined, that it was for want of a singular name, that he was obliged to use this plural; he might have taken JEHOVAH, which has no plural, or ELOAH, the singular of ELOHIM, the last of which he uses in some instances: but as he generally makes use of the plural ELOHIM, it certainly was to convey some idea of a divine plurality.t And though ELOHIM is in several texts joined with a singular verb, no doubt to guard against the notion of a plurality of Gods; yet, it is many times in construction with verbs, adjectives, and participles, plural. And it came to pass when the Gods, (according to the ordinary translation of ELOHIM) caused me to wander from my father's house.---And he (Jacob) built there an altar, and called the place El-Bethel, because there the Gods (ELOHIM) appeared to him. What|| nation is there Gen. i. 1. + Since ELOHIM has a singular, which is sometimes used in scripture, it would be strange in the sacred writers, commonly to use the plural out of choice, and not of necessity, if there was not some particular instruction intended to be conveyed by it as a plural; and that a word more fit to mislead than inform, should be used by God in his written instructions to men.-ELOHIM is owned to be a plural by the Jews, who since their captivity in Babylon, have the idea of plurality in the greatest contempt; and in their translations make a very ridiculous distinction, by rendering the same specific word in the singular, when they think it relates to the true God, and plural, when it relates to the idols which were the objects of the Pagan worship. ↑ Gen. xx. 13. Ibid. xxxv. T Deut. iv. 7. so great, that have Gods (ELOHIM) who are so near unto them? What* one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom the Gods (ELOHIM) sent to redeem for a people to himself? Fort who is there of all flesh, that have heard the voice of the living Gods (ELOHIM) speaking out of the midst of the fire, and lived? Yet have perverted the words of the living Gods (ELOHIM.) But the Lord is the true God; he is the living Gods (ELOHIM.) And Joshua said unto the people, ye cannot serve the Lord; for he is an holy God, that is, the holy Gods (ELOHIM) is he. Verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth." (Gods, ELOHIM, that judge.) To these might be added, that expression so frequent in scripture, "The Lord thy Gods,” (JEHOVAH ELOHEKA.) There are several other nouns besides ELOHIM, that are to be understood of the being of God, which, being expressed in the plural, must imply a divine plurality." I** neither learned wisdom, nor have I the knowledge of the holy, (holy ones.) Where is God my maker, (makers.) If I be a master, (if I am masters.) Remembers now thy creator, (creators.) Let|||| Israel rejoice in him that made him, (in his makers.) For¶¶ thy maker is thy husband, the Lord of Hosts is his name." Here both maker and husband are plural. The plural expressions used in revelation by God, when speaking of himself, do further prove a divine plurality.--"And*** God (ELOHIM) said, let us make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness. And††† the Lord God said, (JEHOVAH ELOHIM said) behold the man is become like ONE OF US.* And† the Lord God said, let us go down, and there confound their language. It heard the voice of the Lord, saying, whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Produces your cause, saith the Lord? let them bring forth, and shew us what shall happen,--let them shew the former things, that we may consider them," &c. If it is possible for language to convey the idea of plurality, these texts in the above pages certainly do it. And as they were all spoken of the divine Being, beyond contradiction they prove a divine plurality. Such as deny it will find it impossible upon any other plan, to reconcile the texts with common sense, or shew what other idea can be formed from the plural expressions used in them. Indeed, against the evidence of a divine plurality, from the last cited texts, it has been objected by such as are no friends to the doctrine, that it is only a figurative way of speaking, taken from the custom of kings in eastern countries, who used to express themselves in the plural, to shew their dignity. The expression in this text is so distinct and unambiguous, as no force of figure or example can twist it to the Jewish construction. One of us, necessarily implies more than one. The enemies to a divine plurality are terribly put about for a meaning to this text. They say JEHOVAH is speaking to the angels, bringing them upon a level with himself. Although this did not imply an absurdity, which it does, there is no reason to imagine he does so here, since he no where else in scripture does so, and the plural word ELOHIM immediately preceding, determines who the us were, and forbids the application of that pronoun to any other beings. ↑ Gen. xi. 6, 7. ‡ Isa. vi. 8. § Ibid. xli, 22, 23. This objection is without foundation. For can any one suppose that God would borrow his manner of speaking from a king, before any man was upon earth! But if this, however absurd, we should grant to be possible, yet the objection is not to the purpose. For though a king may say us and we, common sense tells us that there is not the least propriety in saying ONE OF US, when he speaks of himself; the phrase is destitute of meaning, if there is not more than one supposed. Therefore, this manner of expression, "The Lord God said, behold the man is become as ONE OF US," must either be void of sense, or it must imply a divine plurality; the first, no christian will alledge, if the latter be true; then all the other texts, as they are in a stile similar to this, must be admitted as fair proofs of the same doctrine. I might have illustrated this point, from a number of testimonies in revelation; but as the texts brought together in the next section, equally prove this point, with that which they are brought in vindication of, I shall only add here, a very few texts, to prove that this divine plurality (for ought we can learn to the contrary) in scripture, is limited to THREE. 16 Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of Hosts." John applies this text to Jesus Christ, and Pauls applies it to the Holy Ghost; from which, if the passages are carefully considered and compared, it will appear, that the divine plurality is intended by the repetition of the word holy in the text, as well as by the same repetition of it in the|| revelation to St. John; and its being repeated just so often, and no more, in both places, seems to teach * Gen. iii. 22. + Isa, vi. 3. ↑ John xii. 41, Rev. iv. 8. us, that the plurality implied in it is limited to three. "Í* will pray the FATHER, and he shall give you I* ANOTHER COMFORTER, that he may abide with you for ever, even the SPIRIT OF TRUTH. How much more shall the blood of CHRIST, who through the ETERNAL SPIRIT, offered himself without spot to God, purge your consciences from dead works, to serve the living God? The LORD direct your hearts into the love of GoD, and the patient waiting for CHRIST." The Spirit is called the Lord here, as well as bys Ezekiel. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST. There are THREE that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. The** grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." 66 This point also, is not only manifest from the above texts, but from those cited in the beginning of the next section. I shall not therefore enlarge upon it here; but before I proceed, I hope the reader will allow me a little to reason the case, upon their own principles, with such as reject the doctrine I have been endeavoring to prove, because they cannot comprehend and describe the manner and reason of it. The greatest difficulty concerning the Trinity is, that we cannot account upon philosophic principles, how one simple infinite nature can act in three personal identities, with equal glory. But the ground of this difficulty lies, in reasoning from what we know of a nature that is finite and limited, to one that is infinite and incomprehensible, and *John xiv. 16, 17. Ezek. viii. 1, 3. + Heb. ix. 14. Matt. xxviii. 19. ** 2 Cor. xiii. 14. t 2 Thess. iii. 5. ¶ 1 John v. 7. |