SUPPOSING, then, not only that there is but one God, but that there is only one person in the Godhead; supposing that the Son and the Holy Ghost are not truly divine; then will the Holy Scripture be a book the most inconsistent, self-contradictory, and subversive of its own designs, that ever was, or ever will be, composed. It costs those, who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, excessive trouble to explain away, even by the most violent means, the plurality of persons in the Godhead-the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and the personality Of the Son and Spirit to whom divinity is ascribed. And when they have done their utmost, with all the Scripture-proofs which are against them, they have accomplished very little. Can the shocking avowal; "The Scripture teaches this doctrine, but herein the Scripture teach

God, and enjoin it upon us as & duty to worship him alone." Is it then at the same time impossible for one who places implicit confidence in their testimony, to believe and receive as a Scriptural doctrine the unity of God, in the sense in which Unitarians understand it? Do the Scriptures describe a special object for which they are written, and do they still labor directly to defeat that object? Did their original Author or authors, most indiscreetly forget, in one particular case distinguished from all the rest, for what purpose they were speaking and writing, and directly build up that which they designed to pull down?

But perhaps an objector will here suggest, that "it was owing to forms of speech already established, that the writers of the Old Testament have spoken in such places, as they do; that their language might otherwise have been unintelligible; that readers were already so accustomed to such expressions, that they would not misunderstand them, although, according to the letter, they seem to ascribe divinity to some persons and beings who are not God; and that the explanation, which Trinitarians give of such passages, is a mere mistake through ignorance of the idiom of the language."

Expressions of such a kind, as must be supposed to afford any ground for these objections, can never exist among a people like the Jews. Expressions, contrary to the belief of a whole na

tion, certainly do not occur in the language of that nation. Let one select any expression of our vernacular tongue, which he pleases, that does not by use now mean what, according to etymology, and strict grammatical accuracy, it may mean. It is certain, there was a time, when this word was chosen, introduced into the language, and customarily used, because it expressed with etymological and grammatical accuracy, that idea, which was suggested to the mind by the thing it was intended to designate. Thus, for instance, our word busse is undeniably derived from buessen, and appropriately means "satisfactory atonement for past offences." But this idea is now at tached to it by no Protestant Christian, when he uses it in speaking of religious subjects. When this word was introduced, however, men expressed of it what was required of a sinner in order to cease to be a sinner: this was then universally understood by it. An atonement on the part of the sinner was believed to be necessary, and was required. At that time, when the Germans became Christians, and German words were first used to express ideas respecting the Christian religion, and must be coined anew for this purpose, busse was chosen, not by any misunderstanding, but because it expressed accurately, that which men wished to express by it, according to the opinion of the Christians of that day, who were Roman Catholics. On the contrary, since then, Protestant Christians have learned to think very differently res'pecting the duties of him, who

turns from the ways of sin into the way of happiness and virtue.

At the first, the current word, busse, was retained, yet in such a way that often, and plainly enough, it designated, what one now thinks, and wishes others to think, respecting its meaning. This word has been gradually vanishing from the language of Protestants and would at present be entirely excluded, and give place to the words conversion, reformation, change of mind, if it were not for two reasons. First, it is, in Luther's translation of the Bible, and in the old doctrinal treatises, and it becomes necessary for the learner to be adver tised respecting the meaning which he must attach to this word, when he finds it. Secondly, beCause were another word substi tuted to designate the idea conveyed by busse, it must so, designate it, that every one who used the substituted word must immediately recal the other to mind; for conversion, reformation, a change of mind, do not mean exactly what busse means, according to the present Prot

estant use.

Hence, the following observations respecting the use of language are plain. (1.) Every word, every expression, is, at the time when it is first introduced into a language, so chosen that it leads strictly, intelligibly, and naturally to the idea which is intended to be designated by it. (2) As soon as the use of language is so changed, that a word, or sentence, appears to mean something different from what it expresses, the inconverent word, or the unfit expression is exchanged for a better. Most of all is this the case, surely,

when an incongruous expression is incorrectly taken by many, and understood according to its etymological import, when it ought not to be; and when one designs to correct errors and false representations, which have arisen from a misunderstanding of the expression. (3.) In case any such form of speech still continues in any language, it continues because it is no longer misunderstood; it is retained because one finds himself necessitated to retain it, from the want of another word, or phrase, which would perfectly express with accuracy and plainness, the idea which was expressed by the word in question. As often as importance is attached to the use of such a word, it is not used, nor permite ted to pass, without certifying, that the word is not employed in its primitive, original meaning, but in an acquired sense, a sense now changed from its former one by the customary use of language.

Let any one now apply these observations to numerous expressions of the Holy Scripture respecting which, if they are accurately understood, no one can refuse to confess, that they eithey actually designate, or appear to designate, a plurality in the Godhead. Thus, for instance, the customary name of the Deity, Elohim, is for the most part in the plural number, notwithstanding it designates only one God, and therefore is connected with words in the singular number. The original authors of the Hebrew language were not pagans. Abraham was summoned to leave his father's house, when this house had de

In Canaan,

clined to idolatry. according to the testimony of history, he found no idolaters. The Canaanites became idolaters not till after Jacob had removed with his family to Egypt. Certainly, then there were originally in the Hebrew tongue words and expressions, in conformity to a belief in the unity of God, which those surely held, who first spoke this language. Now, supposing, that from the time when the Hebrews first declined to idolatry, expressions were introduced, which strictly understood were expressive of polytheism; yet the ancestors of the Israelites separated their connexion with idolaters much too soon to have already contaminated their language by the common use of idolatrous expressions. And would they have retained these expressions, and rejected their former ones? Expressions seemingly favorable to polytheism were very unnecessary to a Hebrew. Among the multitude of divine names, which his language presented, the word Elohim, a word of the plural number, might well have been entirely rejected. And if this could not have been done, still, the use of this word in the singular number, Eloah, was sanctioned by custom. If mores over, this word was more commonly used in the plural number, in Egypt, where the posterity of Jacob served not one God, the God of their fathers, but many and strange gods; yet, what was naturally to be expected of Moses, the great Reformer in case he did not actually intend to designate a certain plurality of the Godhead? Either, that he would have forbid

den by express laws the use of the plural name of God, as of many other things which in the most remote manner might lead to idolatry; or, at least, that he, who plainly gave a tone to the Jewish language, would, by the exclusive use of the singular number, Eloah, have gradually extirpated the use of Elohim, as Christianized Rome soon began to speak of a Deus (God,) and to forget the dei (gods) whom they had hitherto so frequently named. This Moses, notwithstanding, used the word Eloah only twice, but in numberless instances the word Elohim.

Further; why did not those men, who labored without cessation in opposition to idolatry, make an effort to cast out of their language such a word, in later times, when the people actually declined to idolatry, and when it was hazardous to leave them words and phrases, which might appear better adapted to a system of polytheism, than to the acknowledgment of the unity of God? Would they not only have used the very same expressions, but have increased them with new ones of a like nature, and a long succession of personifications? On the contrary, that like other wise and good men among other nations, these men, designing to correct the abuse of certain words and phrases, which had grown into a custom, would have gradually changed them, is clear from more than one example. The word Elohim, already mentioned, means appropriately, agreeably to its derivation, "Revered," or "Worthy of Reverence." So long as the use of this word did not always and uni

formly suggest to the mind the idea of God only, and its original and appropriate meaning "worthy of reverence" was still continued; so long, one would not hesitate to call men who were and ought to be the objects of reverence by their fellow men, particularly magistrates, Elohim, i. e. those who are worthy of reverence, or honor. SG. In the same manner we often give, without hesitation, the title of Highness, and Supreme Highness, understanding by it the superior, and supreme magistrates of a country; although, we commonly by these expressions, used without any additions, designate the Deity.

Moses did

Gradually, however, among the Hebrews the word Elohim, worthy of reverence, came to be applied only to God. The original word from which it is derived is lost in the Hebrew, and is preserved barely in a foreign dialect, which originated from the Hebrew. In later times, David only uses the word Elohim to designate magistrates; and that, at a time when idolatry was entirely banished from Judea; and in a passage toc, which is plainly quoted from Moses, where he uses the word according to its original meaning. All the other Hebrew writers carefully avoid the use of Elohim in this sense; no doubt, because by common usage it suggested to the mind the idea of God, or gods only; and among a people, who were already inclined to idolatry, it was necessary to be very circumspect in regard to expressions of this nature.

Similar is the case, with respect to the word, or angel.

Its appropriate meaning is "one who is sent." No wonder, then, that this appellation was bestowed on angels, who were regarded as the messengers of the Deity for the execution of his designs; that it was bestowed on Him, who was pre-eminently the Messenger of God, and whose appearance was so eagerly desired -on Him who was the expected Redeemer of men. But since the word, (angel,) and particularly the Greek term, by which this Hebrew word is translated, has lost its original, more generic meaning, in most cases,and has become an appellation by which one is accustomed, almost exclusively to designate angels, it has also ceased to be customary to call the Savior, the angel of Jehovah, the messenger of Jehovah, or the angel of the Lord, as Luther has translated the phrase.

αγγελος,

Jesus, who often repeated the same idea from the writers of the Old Testament, and applied it to designate himself, does not call himself Angel merely, but rather gives us a comment upon the word, and calls himself απέστειλεν πατηρ; ¿ απεσταλμένος ύπο του Targas, him, whom the Father sent; and he who was sent by the Father.

It was customary, then, among the Jews to discard or avoid expressions, that had been in current use, as soon as a hazardous misunderstanding and a dubious use of them were apprehended. That such words as appear to designate a plurality in the Godhead, and yet in fact do not, should have been new coined by the Jews, and still more by the

enlightened enemies and opposers of idolatry, the authors of the Holy Scripture, is utterly inconceivable. To borrow from foreign nations those expressions, which related to their polytheism, was a thing unknown to a Jew. Our Christian poets, of the present day, from mere imitation of the Greeks and Romans, speak of gods; of Cupid, Pallas, Jupiter, &c; of divine beauty, divine intelligence, and of men worthy of being worshipped; but to a Jew, it is well known these things were an abomination. Whoever ascribes to a Jew such a mode of speaking, ascribes it from analogy, because such a mode is customary among other nations. Whoever maintains, that by the expression Son of God, in the mouth of a Jew, nothing more is meant than a king, because the Greeks regarded many of their kings as the progeny of the gods; or whoever asserts that the description of Wisdom, by Solomon, is nothing more than a bare personification of a divine attribute; he mistakes altogether the spirit and customs of this nation.

Men so full of hatred against idolatry; men, so cautious with respect to using the name of God, that they never ventured to pronounce even once that name, which God appropriates to himself, and which no one be, sides himself ever bears, the name Jehovah, were not inclined, surely, to ascribe divine properties and divinity itself to any being not actually God, or to per sonify abstract attributes as di vinities.

(To be continued.}