and is not the succeeding passage, equally at variance with common sense, and with the Scripture of Truth?

66

66

The unity of the three Persons in the essence, is so strict and intimate, that any "general appellation of the Godhead may "be applied to any one: reminding us of "the plurality by that application, though "not implying, to be sure, a plurality of persons in the single person: which would "be a contradiction in terms.

66

66

"That this is the true account of the

matter, is evident from what has been re"marked on Ps. xlv. 8, taken in connexion "with its context; and it is confirmed by "what OUR LORD himself said to St. Phi

66

lip: He that hath seen ME, hath seen "MY FATHER also. We may add with

66

66

respect to both these passages, what "Mr. Parkhurst has remarked of the first, [Heb. Lex. p. 22,] that the word Elohim " is applied to [the Messiah] the second per"son singly, as the Representative of the "whole Trinity."

The source of this strange mysticism may perhaps be traced up to the celebrated book of

66

66

of Zohar, the oracle of the Rabbinists: which, ad § 6 Levitic. states it thus: "Veni "et vide mysterium verbi Elohim! Sunt tres gradus, et quilibet gradus per se distinctus; veruntamen sunt unus, et in unum conjunguntur, nec unus ab altero dividitur."And the author adduces the Hebrew letter Shin, as symbolical of this three-fold distinction of the Divine Nature; comparing THE GODHEAD to the root; and the three HYPOSTASES (or PERSONS) to the three branches of that letter!

On the contrary, so completely is the plural form ELOHIM singularized, (if I may be allowed the expression) in many applications, to "THE LORD and also to HIS "CHRIST," that its adjuncts and attributes are indiscriminately plural and singular; thus "THE LIVING GOD," (inherent in THE FATHER, and communicated to THE SON, John v, 25, and Rev, i. 18,) is expressed by "non's, Di viventes, Deut. v. 26, 1 Sam. xvii. 26-96, Jer. x. 10, and xxiii. 6-36. But by 298, Dii vivens, 2 Kings xix. 4-16, Isa. xxxvii. 4-17. Both corresponding to the grammatical form, -,

Deus

Deus vivens, Josh. iii. 10, Ps. xlii. 2, and lxxxiv. 3, Hosea i. 10; and to the Chaldee form, x, Deus vivens, Dan. vi. 26. -And in the cases of verbs plural annexed thereto, Gen. xx. 18, and xxxi. 53, and xxxv. 7, cited by Parkhurst, in support of the Rabbinical or Hutchinsonian hypothesis, he ought to have remarked, that in all these cases, the Samaritan text exhibits the verbs in the singular number; more correctly, or more conformably to the general analogy of the Hebrew Scriptures; as in Gen. i. 1, *

'nhs, Dü creavit, and in innumerable instances besides,

But how are we to reconcile this apparent solecism, with which the Bible opens, to grammatical analogy, or propriety of speech?

66

Waving the Rabbinical hypothesis; and. also that adopted by Michaelis, Supplement. &c. p. 88, Pluralem, majestaticum habeo; "consuetudine Patriarcharum, nomen Pho"nicia ex polytheismo plurale, melius [singulariter] interpretanti," &c. And that, from the usual style of modern kings,

66

" It

is our will and pleasure," &c. whereas David and Solomon, Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, all

spoke

spoke in the singular number:-I apprehend, that the plural n is used elliptically, either for '," GOD OF GODS," or

אלהים
,אל

יהוה אלהים

''," LORD OF GODS,"-as in the parallel passage, Gen. ii. 4, "THE LORD OF "GODS made the heavens and the earth ;” or both together; as in that fullest enumeration of the divine titles, "THE GOD

OF GODS, THE LORD," Josh, xxii. and Ps. 1. 1, before noticed: exactly corresponding to the fullest enumeration of the titles of THE FATHER and of THE SON in the New Testament, 1 Tim. vi. 15, Rev. xix. 16.

And indeed, the comparison of both Old and New Testament will furnish a satisfactory clue to the proper rendering of De here: "THE LORD, THE GOD OF GODS"

or

"THE LORD, THE GOD OF HOSTS". "THE LORD, THE GOD OMNIPOTENT" "ALL-GOVERNING, (avтожpawg.) See Josh. xxii. 22, Hosea xii. 6, and Rev. iv. 8. And in these titles, do not the plural "GODS," or 66 ALL GODS," as intimated Exod. xviii. 11.-" HOSTS," or "ALL THE

HOSTS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH," as intimated Gen. ii. 1, Amos xv. 27, plainly correspond

66

correspond to OMNIPOTENT or ALL-GOVERNING, or to ὁ μονος Δεσποτης, THE "SOLE GOVERNOR" or "SOVEREIGN," in the New Testament? which may therefore be considered as the appropriate renderings of the plural, where it expresses "THE ONE GOD AND FATHER OF "ALL," or "THE SON OF HIS LOVE;" who is "THE IMAGE" (or Representative) "OF THE INVISIBLE GOD," and "sitteth on the right hand of THE MAJESTY ON “HIGH”—“ Far above (Tepava) every Prin

66

*

"cipality, and Authority, and Power, and "Dominion; and every name that is named, "not only in this world, but also in the fu"ture." Compare Coloss. i. 13-15, Heb. i. 3, Ephes. i. 20-21.

It is true indeed, (as Parkhurst cites,) that at the creation, Gen. i. 26, " GOD (i.e. THE

* Ο εςιν ΕΙΚΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΑΟΡΑΤΟΥ. Coloss. i. 15. N. B. In the parallel passage, 2 Cor. iv. 4, the important word Aopars is omitted, by an unpardonable negligence in our present editions of the Greek Testament copying Stephens, contrary to the ancient editions of Aldus, Colinæus, Plantin, &c. See Wetstein on the latter passage.

"LORD