Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

LECTURE IX.

How many Persons are there in the Godhead?-continued. WITHOUT any recapitulation of what was said in the last lecture, on the Trinity of persons in the Unity of the Godhead, I proceed immediately to show

II. That there are a number of passages of scripture which plainly represent, sometimes a plurality, and sometimes a Trinity of persons, in the one, only, living and true God.

Here, as in the former lecture, I can by no means introduce all the passages that bear on the point under discussion, but only select a few, out of a considerable number. And I shall begin with remarking-notwithstanding the sneers with which I know the remark has been treated--that one of the names of the true God, 7 (ALEIM, or ELOHIM) which is very frequently used in the Old Testament, is in the plural number. Some of the best and most erudite biblical and oriental scholars, have been clearly of the opinion, that the frequent use of this term to denote the true God, does intimate, and was intended to intimate, that there is a plurality in the Godhead.*

*Those who deny that any plurality of persons is intimated in the Hebrew word Aleim, have lately affected to look down on the opinions of their opponents as the tenets only of ignorance or weakness. Yet Bishop HORSLEY, whose erudition and intellectual vigour he who questions will only implicate his own, is among those who maintain that a plurality in the Godhead is clearly intimated in this word. In "A Critical Disquisition on the Etymology and Import of the Divine Names, Eloah, Elohim. El, Jehovah, and Jah," he says, "that whatever may be the etymology of these two words (Eloah and Elohim -written without points Alue and Aleim) and whatever the true interpretation of either, it cannot be, without some reason,-it cannot be, as some have pretended from the mere caprice of language,-that the plural word is much oftener used in the scriptures as a name of God, than the singular. That the plural word is used with the design of intimating a plurality in the Godhead, in some respect or other, it is strange that any one should doubt, who has observed that it is used in places, in which, if there be in truth no plurality in the Godhead, the inspired writers must have been determined, by the principles of their religion, studiously to avoid the use of a plural; especially as they had singulars at command. The plural is used in that very precept, which prohi bits the worship of any God but one. I Jehovah am thy Gods, that brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.' 'Be not unto

[ocr errors]

S

[ocr errors]

It is no doubt true, that this word is occasionally used to denote inferior beings, and even the false gods of the heathen. But this very circumstance, taken in connexion with the manner in which it is sometimes applied to Jehovah, the God of Israel, seems to me to strengthen, and not to weaken our argument. Thus Hosea, xiii. 4., literally rendered, is thus"I am Jehovah thy Aleim, from the land of Egypt; and thou shalt know no Aleim but me; for their is no Saviour beside me." Here you observe that Jehovah and Aleim, as is frequently the case, are joined together. Jehovah denotes the one incommunicable essence, and Aleim, we say, denotes a personal plurality. Then the sense of the quoted passageand it surely goes powerfully to the prophet's purpose-will be this. "I am Jehovah the one true God, thy Aleim-subsisting in a plurality of persons-who brought thee out of Egypt; and thou shalt have no Aleim but me;-thou shalt have no other object of worship, and no plurality in the object of thy worship, but that plurality which exists in my undivided essence-for there is no Saviour beside me." There are several other passages of the Old Testament, to which similar remarks might be applied.

This word Aleim, is in the original, the third word in the Bible. Our translation is "In the beginning God created

[ocr errors]

thee, other Gods beside me;' and in every subsequent part of the decalogue, where God is mentioned, the plural word is introduced. In the second commandment, 'For I Jehovah am thy Gods.' In the third, Take not the name of Jehovah thy Gods in vain. In the fourth, the sabbath of Jehovah thy Gods. In the fifth, The land which Jehovah thy Gods is giving thee.' Whoever will suppose that this plural appellation of God, thus constantly used in the language of the law, which of all languages should be the most precise and accurate, thus used in laws asserting and upholding the single deity of the God of Israel-has no reference to the plurality of persons in the Godhead, should be able to demonstrate some other plurality in the Godhead, to which the expression may refer." Again: after showing the absurdity of the supposition of certain writers, Christian and Jewish, "that this plural word is used for honour's sake," HORSLEY remarks-" We have, however, the admission of this learned Jewish grammarian (Aben Ezra), that deep mystery is involved in the plural form of the divine name Elohim. What mystery that may be, but some plurality in the Godhead, it is not easy to divine. One cannot but suspect, that it is to avoid a confession of the Christian doctrines, that he pretends to help us over the difficulty, by alleging a plurality, not in God, but in external things. But we have a right to challenge those who follow him in this admission, to allege some other plurality in God himself, than that of the persons, to which the word may allude."

the heavens and the earth." Now we have seen in the last lecture, that creation is attributed both to the Son and Spirit: and the selection of this word seems to be made with striking propriety, to intimate that the several persons in the Godhead, were concerned in this great work of creation. Scott, in his commentary, has fully and distinctly expressed my own views of this subject. He says-"It is well known that the original word commonly translated God, is plural, in a language which has three numbers; and that when thus used, it is joined to singular verbs ***** This grammatical anomaly, at the very opening of the scriptures, seems to give us some intimation, concerning that mystery which is afterwards more fully revealed, namely, the Plurality in the Unity of the Godhead. It would indeed be improper to rest such a doctrine upon these intimations; yet this should not be rejected as a mere verbal criticism."

But beside what is intimated in the plural form of the Hebrew word, which our translators have commonly rendered God, as they have almost uniformly rendered Jehovah Lord, there are several passages in which the Deity speaks explicitly of himself in the plural form. Thus, Gen. iii. 22. "The Lord God said"-in the original-" Jehovah Aleim said-Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." "The expression become as one of us (says Scott) emphatically denotes the plurality of persons in the Deity." To which I add, that by considering the terms Jehovah and Aleim in the manner already noticed, we may see a peculiar propriety and strength in the expression: For then it will read as if it had been said "The one eternal God-subsisting in a plurality of persons-said, behold the man is become as one of us." The same form of expression is used when man was created: "God said"—in the original "The Aleim said, let us make man in our own image." In like manner, at the confusion of tongues at Babel, Gen. xi. 7, it is said, "Go to, let us go down, and confound their languages."

Thus, then, we see that in the Old Testament, and in the

very first book of it, there is a clear indication, both of unity and plurality in the Godhead. We shall now see, that in the same part of the sacred volume, there are sufficient indications of the nature and extent of this plurality: For it is one thing to know that there are distinctions, and another to know what is the number of those distinctions. There are

several remarkable passages in the Old Testament, which we believe show with sufficient clearness, the truth of what our catechism asserts, that "there are three Persons in the Godhead." Isaiah xlviii. 16. "And now, the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me." On this, and several similar passages, the author of that pious and learned work entitled Hora Solitariæ, remarks-"Here are three distinct persons, engaged in one work and declaration. The person speaking by the prophet, is the person sent; and styles himself, just before, The First and Last. In a preceding chapter, this First and Last, is called Jehovah the Redeemer, and Jehovah Sabaoth, which last name is applicable on no account, Arians themselves being judges, but to the Supreme God. Nor is the grammatical construction of the text to be unnoticed. It is not said, the Lord God and his Spirit have sent, in the plural number; but hath sent, in the singular number; thereby intimating, the unity of the divine nature, in the plurality of persons." Again-" By the Word of the Lord (i. e. Jehovah) were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them, by the breath (i. e. the Spirit) of his mouth." Here again are three persons co-operating to one effect; the Word, which is Christ; the Lord, another person, who can only be the Father; and the Spirit, a third person." Again-" The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me," &c. The speaker here is the ANOINTED ONE, or Christ; who, when he appeared in the flesh, applied this very text to himself: And the other persons are styled the Spirit and the Lord: And that this Lord or Jehovah denotes the Father, is also collected from two passages in the New Testament. Acts iv. 27, and x. 8. Acts iv. 27, and x. 8. Again, Isaiah vi. 3,"And one cried unto another and said, Holy, holy, holy,

is the Lord of hosts." The very Rabbins, before Christ, could assert that by this Trisagion, or thrice Holy, were to be understood the three persons, or Saphiroth, in Jehovah. It is not an idle repetition, or ascription of holiness; but a celebration of the proper holiness and divinity of the three hypostases in the Lord of hosts. Nor, as St. Jerom justly observes, is the frequent declaration of "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," without its meaning; but the three-fold repetition intimates the Trinity; and the reiteration of the same name-Aleim-denotes the unity of substance." By comparing these, and many other texts, of the Old Testament, with those of the New; any candid person may be satisfied, that both Testaments concur, in asserting the doctrine of the Trinity; and that believers, both under the patriarchal and legal economy, were not left in the dark, respecting so important an article of their faith and salvation.”*

Witsius remarks-"It is above all things necessary, for the perfection of the human nature, to be well acquainted with what it ought to know and believe, concerning its God. And it may be justly doubted, whether he does not worship a God entirely unknown, nay, whether he at all worships the true God, who does not know and worship him as subsisting in three persons. He who represents God to himself in any other light, represents not God to himself, but a phantom of his own brain. Epiphanius seems to have had this argument in view, when he thus wrote of Adam-" He was no idolater; for he knew God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: And he was a prophet, and knew that the Father said to the Son-let us make man. It is absurd to suppose Adam ignorant, concerning his Creator, of what God does not suffer his posterity to be ignorant at this time; and the rather, since God created man to be the herald of his being and perfections to the new world." Thus far Witsius-one of the most pious, best read, and profound divines that ever wrote.

* Horæ Sol. vol. i. pp. 25, 26.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »