SECTION XI.

ON THE SUPPOSED SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE OF A PLURALITY OF PERSONS IN GOD.

I. A plurality of persons in the Godhead is argued from the plural termination of Aleim, Adonim, and other Hebrew names for God. ELOHIM, or ALEIM, (being written without points) is the first word in the Hebrew Bible which is translated GOD. It is the plural of Al, or El; the proper sound of Aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, being now unknown. Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on Gen. i. 1, says, "The original word Elohim, God, is certainly the plural form of El, and has long been supposed by the most eminently learned and pious men, to imply a plurality of Persons in the Divine nature. As this plurality appears in so many parts of the Sacred Writings, to be confined to three Persons, hence the doctrine of the TRINITY."

1. If the word Aleim, Adonim, &c. necessarily implies plurality at all, it denotes a plurality of Gods. It is impossible to translate the word Aleim so as to favor the Trinitarian hypothesis. It must be rendered either God, or Gods. If it be rendered God, the idea of plurality does not appear; if it be rendered Gods, we have a plurality of Gods, which no Christian will admit. Dr. Wardlaw, pressed with this difficulty, has translated Deut, vi. 4, Hear, O Israel, JEHOVAH, OUR GODS (ALEIM) IS ONE JEHOVAH."* Mr. Robbins thinks the plural termination

* Wardlaw, Andover ed. 1815; p. 11.

J

implies a plurality of persons. After giving a few examples, such as Remember thy Creators," he says, "These texts of Scripture seem to establish the fact that there is a plurality of persons in God, though they do not fix the number."

If the word Aleim necessarily implies plurality, how is it that the Jews have never understood it in that sense, when applied to God? That they have not so understood it, is certain from the fact, that, in the Septuagint, they have always translated it in the singular number. The Jews have never been Trinitarians. The very people by whom, and for whom, the Scriptures of the Old Testament were written, in their own language, and from whom we have derived all our knowledge of that language, have always maintained the doctrine of the Unity of God, in opposition to a plurality. Is it possible that they could have remained ignorant, to this day, of the true meaning of a most important word in their native tongue; a word connected with every part of their religion? If we suppose the Jews to have been thus ignorant, is it possible that Jesus Christ and the Apostles should not have corrected their error, if indeed it was an error? Yet they have always translated the words Aleim, Adonim, &c. when they denote God, by a word absolutely of the singular number. The very passage which Mr. Wardlaw translates thus, "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah, OUR GODS, is one Jehovah," is thus translated into Greek, by the Evangelist Mark: "The Lord, OUR GOD, is one Lord.”—Mark xii. 29. The plural form never appears in the New Testament, although the doctrine of the Trinity, which this form is supposed to support, is said to be the fundamental doctrine of the New Testament. As the Hebrew names of God, which have a plural form, are always translated into Greek by the word eos, of the * Robbins on the Trinity, p. 31.

singular number, instead of Oɛo, of the plural, this ought to settle the question. Are not the inspired Apostles and Evangelists as sure guides to the import of a Hebrew word, as Mr. Wardlaw and Mr. Robbins?

2. Mr. Christie, in his discourses on the Unity of God, says, "that in all languages there are words of a plural termination, that have a singular signification, and that this is an idiom of the Hebrew language, and is acknowledged to be so by some of the best Trintiarian critics themselves."

Wilson, in his Hebrew Grammar, p. 270, says, "Words, that express dominion, dignity, majesty, are commonly put in the plural."

Thus it is evident to the mere English scholar, that the Hebrew names for God, which have plural terminations, may, according to a common rule of syntax, be used as singular, to denote but one. This rule may be illustrated by the following examples. On account of the authority and dignity of the patriarch Abraham, the Hebrew word Adonim, translated Master, (Gen. xxiv. 9, 10) is put in the plural number. Literally translated, the passage would read thus: And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his masters, and sware to him concerning that matter; and the servant took ten camels of the camels of his masters, and departed; for all the goods of his masters were in his hand." According to the same rule, Potiphar is called the masters of Joseph, in Gen. xxxix. 2, 3, 7, 8, 19, 20, and the Lords of Joseph, in verse 16, and xl. 7. Joseph is called "The man who is the Lords (Adonim) of the land," Gen. xlii. 30, and "the Lords (Adonim) of the country," in verse 33. God says to Moses, "See, I have made thee Gods (Aleim) to Pharaoh."—Ex. vii. 1. Here we have the same evidence for a plurality of persons in Abraham, Potiphar, Joseph, and Moses, which is urged by Trinitarians for a plurality of persons in God.

3. If Aleim is of plural import, when applied to God,

and denotes a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, there cannot be less than six persons in the Godhead, without the Holy Spirit.

"Thy throne, O God, (Aleim) is forever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God (Aleim), thy God (Aleim), hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."-Ps. xlv. 6, 7. In this passage it is supposed by Trinitarians, that God the Father, the first person in the Trinity, speaks to God the Son, the second person. But each one is called Aleim. If Aleim means Trinity, here we have one Trinity anointing another Trinity above his fellows. But if a Trinity has fellows, these fellows must be fellow Trinities, I suppose. Can one Trinity be anointed above another Trinity, without endangering their equality? This, I think, sufficiently exposes the absurdity of giving to Aleim a plural signification, when it is used to denote the Supreme Being.

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in translating this passage, has rendered the Hebrew Aleim by the Greek ɛos, a word absolutely singular. Now if he believed Aleim to be of plural import, he has handled the word of God deceitfully, and turned its truth into a lie. Had he been a Trinitarian, he would have translated as Trinitarians do. Had Mr. Wardlaw and Mr. Robbins translated Aleim as St. Paul (if he was the author of Heb.) has done, they must have stood condemned, at the tribunal of their own conscience, as having wilfully perverted the word of God.

4. As St. Paul has applied the passage under consideration to "the Son," who is confessedly but one person, we have certain evidence that the word Aleim is sometimes of singular import. But if it be ever of singular import, it ought to be so understood when applied to God, whose Unity is so unequivocally asserted in the Scriptures.

5. Aleim is not only used to denote one single person,

but is frequently applied to an idol. Let the reader critically examine Exodus xxxii. 3, 4, 7, 8, 31, and he will find Aleim, when used to denote the golden calf that Aaron made, rendered Gods, though neither Moses the writer, nor the translators, had the least suspicion that there was a plurality of persons in that dumb idol.

By consulting Judges viii. 33, and xvi. 23, 24, it will appear that the plural Aleim is no less than five times used to denote one single idol, which was never thought to possess a plurality of persons; and that it is translated god, not gods, as in the case of the golden calf. 1 Kings, xi. 33: Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, and Milcom, the god of the children of Ammon, are designated by the plural word Aleim, though each of these idols was but one person. If other examples are necessary, the reader may consult Num. xxv. 1-5; Deut. iv. 7; 1 Sam. iv. 5-8; 1 Kings, xi. 5; 2 Kings, i. 2, xix. 37.

As these plural forms appear only in the Old Testament, where the doctrine of the Trinity is said to be not expressly taught, and entirely disappear in the New, in which the Trinity is said to be a cardinal doctrine, and to be more explicitly taught; and as they are often used to denote but one person or thing, it seems in the highest degree absurd to insist on their plural signification when applied to the only True God, whose strict Unity is so often and so unequivocally asserted both in the Old and the New Testament.

II. Another argument for a plurality of persons in the Godhead is derived from the use of the plural pronouns OUR and us, when God is supposed to be the speaker. Trinitarians have been able to collect, from the whole Bible, as many as three or four such passages, viz. Gen. i. 26, iii. 22, xi. 7, and Isa. vi. 8.

In answer to this argument I submit the following considerations.