second: the Holy Spirit is the third. The Son is subordinate to the Father, because he is of the Father-the only begotten Son of God. The Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, because he is the Father's and the Son's: see Matt. iii, 16: Rom. viii, 9. The Father sends the Son. The Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit: John xv, 26.

Again--while we gratefully confess that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are the common sources of our hope and salvation, we are never to forget the distinct offices which they are respectively described as bearing, in the glorious economy of the divine dispensations. With the Father rests the unsearchable design-the hidden and eternal purpose-out of which arises the whole course of circumstances and events, and more especially the scheme of Christianity, and the salvation of man: see John iii, 16: Eph. i, 1-10, &c. From him are all things, and of all-things his glory is the ultimate result. His will is law. His love is the fountain of grace and immortality. The Son is the Way, by whom are all things, and "we by him." He is the image of the invisible God, in whom the Father is made manifest. He propitiates, he advocates, he reigns over the heritage of God; he conducts the whole system appointed for our recovery and salvation. The Holy Spirit is the operative Power, through whom the Father and the Son carry on their work of mercy, and exercise their dominion over the souls of men. It is he who enlightens, converts, renews, consoles, and purifies, the heirs of salvation. The Father is, in the deepest and most comprehensive sense of the expressions, the Creator-the Son, the Redeemer-the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier. The Father originates, the Son mediates, the Holy Spirit consummates.

In order to complete our views of the scriptural evidences which bear upon the present subject, I have now to observe, that, although this threefold distinction in the divine nature is the most clearly revealed to us in the New Testament, yet there are also various passages in the sacred writings of the ancient Hebrews, which appear to indicate a plurality in the one God. It is a circumstance which cannot, I would submit, be satisfactorily explained on any merely grammatical principle, that Jehovah is sometimes described, in the Old Testament, as the "living ones,' "* and the " holy ones:" see Jer. xxiii, 36: Prov. ix, 10; xxx, 3: comp. Ecc. xii, 1, &c. Hebrew text.

The Father is the Creator of the universe. He made all

things by his Son: nor are we to forget, that when the "earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" Gen. i, 2. We may therefore conclude, that Jehovah was neither honouring himself, like the potentates of the earth, with the assumption of an unmeaning plurality, (as the Jews pretend) nor making the angels his counsellers, (as some Christian commentators have irreverently imagined) but speaking in his true and appropriate character, when he was pleased to express himself as follows, "Let us make man in our im age, after our likeness :" Gen. i, 26. Again, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:” iii, 22.

When Isaiah beheld the vision of Jehovah in the temple, the glory of God was displayed to his mental perception; yet, that it was the Son of God whose glory appeared to him, and through whom therefore the Father was manifested, is indi rectly asserted by an inspired evangelist;" Jolin xii, 41. And that it was the Holy Ghost, from whom the prophet then received his commission, we may learn from the express declaration of the apostle Paul; Acts xxviii, 25. Can we not therefore discern, in the theology of Scripture, a substantial reason why the Seraphim, who then surrounded their Lord, cried, saying, "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, is Jehovah of hosts!" and why Jehovah himself was afterwards heard to say, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Isaiah vi, 3. 8.

In conclusion, I would invite the reader's attention to the very remarkable and interesting fact, that, throughout the greater part of the Old Testament, (that is to say, in upwards of two thousand instances) God is described by a plural substantive, ELOHIM. This plural substantive is very usually connected with the name Jehovah; and its other adjuncts also, whether they are verbs, adjectives, or pronouns, are almost universally placed in the singular number. Thus, in the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the Hebrew terms rendered, "God created," might be literally represented, in the Latin tongue, by Dii creavit.* This anomalous mode of expression, which is to be observed (as I understand) in none of the Eas tern languages, except the Hebrew, and which is in fact peculiar (as far as its original use is concerned) to the oracles of God, consigned by his own providence to that ancient language, has been the subject of many and large discussions. Some writers have regarded it as indirectly derived from the

ברא אלהים, *

heathen, and as maintained by the Hebrews, for the purpose of showing, that in Jehovah alone centred the whole of that power and authority which other nations were accustomed to attribute to their numerous and false deities. When, however, we consider that the oneness of their God was the most distinguishing characteristic of the religion of the Hebrews, and that they were forbidden every the slighest approach, either in word or deed, to the corrupt manners and customs of idolaters, we can hardly conceive it possible that Moses and the prophets should have given their countenance to so needless and even dangerous a relic of heathenism. Nor can we feel much more satisfaction in the decision of certain critics, that this use of the term Elohim is to be explained by a rule of Hebrew grammar; namely, that nouns expressive of magnitude and power, and relating to an individual, may be sometimes recited in the plural number; for, the instances adduced in elucidation of the rule thus stated are few in number, dissimilar in various respects from the example now in question, and for the most part, capable of being otherwise explained.* On the whole, therefore, I cannot avoid entertaining the opinion,

* The rule above alluded to appears rather to have been invented by grammarians for the purpose of explaining the use of the plural name Elohim than to have been formed on the basis of any solid evidence that so anomalous a mode of speech really appertains to the genius of the Hebrew language. The instances adduced of the application of plural nouns to individuals, in order to express their magnitude or authority, are far from sufficient, according to my apprehension of the subject, to justify the establishment of such a rule. Besides, the word Elohim, the plural form of which may be so properly explained on a totally different principle, the only examples given of the supposed rule, which have even the appearance of being in point, are pun a dra

.Lord אדנים אדני,master בעלי,Behemoth בהמות,gon

On these examples I may venture to offer a few remarks. 1. D'un as used by Ezekiel (xxxii, 2,) to describe a crocodile or water serpent, is evidently to be distinguished from the plural substantive pan, which, as employed by Isaiah (xxxiv, 13,) and Jeremiah, (ix, 11,) &c. denotes a species of animals dwelling in desert and desolate places-probably the canes feri, or jackals. The pan of Ezekiel is in all probability a noun in the singular number, synonymous with pin a dragon. 23 of Kennicott's MSS. in Ezekiel xxxii, 2, read on: vide Pocock on Mic. i, 8.

2. Behemoth in Job xl, 15, supposed by some persons to be a plural substantive, denoting a single large animal, may signify, as in various other passages of Scripture, the plural Beasts. "Behold now Behemoth (the beasts) which I have made with thee-He eateth grass as an ox, &c." Here the work of creation, as displayed in the formation of the beasts of the earth, is at first adverted to in general terms; and then follows a specification of some particular animal (probably the Elephant) whose name has either been lost from the text, (as

that this striking, yet very prevalent, anomaly appertained to the religion of the Hebrews, and was intended to convey some information respecting the Deity whom they worshipped. Of the nature of that information (if this is the true state of the case) it is by no means difficult to form a judgment; for, of all those phrases in which the plural Elohim is connected with the name Jehovah, or with other adjuncts in the singular num

Michaelis supposes, Sup. ad. lex. Heb. in voc.) or was not mentioned at all by the poet. If we do not adopt this obviously probable expla nation of the word mona, we must construe it with the masculine singular verbs, in which case we can no longer imagine it to be a feminine plural noun, and must adopt the opinion of Bochart, the Scrip tural naturalist, who considers Behemoth to be a foreign (probably an Egyptian) name-a name which he explains as denoting the Hippopotamus: Hieroz. p. ii, lib. V, cap. 14.

says Aben Ezra, upon "בעליו *

3. The nouns by (Baal) master, and 8 (Adon) Lord, when in statu constructo, sometimes, but not universally, assume a final. This, however, is a circumstance by no means peculiar to these substantives, but is often to be observed, as in the examples y, thy servant, "1727 thy word, &c. &c. Even the prepositions y, x, y, are sometimes written with a final; which, in the whole of the cases now cited, may fairly be regarded, not as marking the plural number, but as added for the sake of a smooth and easy sound. 66 Genesis i, 1; and so the words "by, bx, y:" vide Gussetii Comm. p. 57. The Hebrew Scriptures afford no example of the plural bya employed to denote an individual. The plural is supposed to relate to a single person, in 1 Kings xxii, 17, and in the parallel passage, 2 Chron. xviii, 16; also in Isa. xix, 4; but in each of these passages the reader will find, on a reference to them, that o may be rendered as plural, without violence to the sense of the text. So the Targum in 1 King xxii, 17, the Vulgate in 2 Chron, xviii, 16, and the Sept. Syr. and Vulg. in Isaiah xix, 4. In Malachi, i, 6, the plural,

;unquestionably represents an individual אלחים like the plural אדנים

but that individual is JEHOVAH.

With respect to other nouns indicative of authority, such as Nv princeps, we dux, o rex, &c. &c., it is on all hands allowed, that, when they relate to an individual, they are never recited in the plural number. Even, therefore, if it be allowed that the substantive 1, Lord, in a very few instances represents such an anomaly, (which appears to me very doubtful, though I by no means intend to assert the contrary) I would suggest that a single example, and one so very limited, cannot justify the formation of the grammatical rule now under discussion; or afford any reasonable philological explanation of that extraordinary use of a plural name to denote the One God, which may be described as one of the most prevalent and most distinguishing characteristics of the Hebrew Scriptures.

As an objection to the commonly received theological explanation of the plural Elohim, when used to represent Jehovah, it is sometimes remarked that this term is occasionally employed to describe an individual false God; and further, that there are passages in the Old Testament, in which it especially represents the Son.Now, since Elohim,

ber, the obvious import-I might almost say the literal translation-is plurality in unity. Now, if we are led to inquire. what is that plurality which subsists in the one indivisible Jehovah? the New Testament answers in explicit terms, 66 FATHER, and THE SON, and the HOLY GHOST.”

THE

On reverting to the heads of the present essay, the reader will recollect, First, that there are a variety of passages in the New Testament, from which we learn that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Ghost is God-Secondly, that in other parts of the Gospels and Epistles, the doctrine is plainly unfolded, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, whose deity is thus separately declared, are the united sources of our regeneration, redemption, sanctification, and salvation; the common and equal objects of our belief and devotion; yet so that they are first, second, and third, in order, and are revealed to us as severally fulfilling distinct of fices in the divine economy; the Father as originating, the Son as mediating, the Holy Spirit as completing. Thirdly, that, in the Hebrew Scriptures, also, there is much which accords with this doctrine, and which appears to indicate, in no ambiguous manner, a plurality in the divine essence-in the

ONLY TRUE GOD.

And now I would finish this essay, as I began it, with a plain declaration of my full reliance on that essential and unalterable principle of Christianity, that God is ONE-that there is no other God but JEHOVAH. That principle is, indeed, weakened and contradicted by those religionists, (if such are still to be found,) who hold that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not God-but gods; objects of faith, worship, and spiri

according to the general and almost universal usage of the term, denotes the true God, we may conclude that this alone is its proper meaning; and that, in the few passages of Scripture in which this name is given to any false God, it is used (to adopt a grammatical phrase) improprie. I conceive that Chemosh is styled the Elohim of the Moabites, Milcom the Elohim of the Ammonites, and Baal Zobeb, the Elohim of the Ekronites, not because any one of those idols was, in any proper sense of the term, Elohim; but because they were severally to their respective followers that which Elohim was to the Hebrews-i. e. the god whom they worshipped: see 1 Kings xi, 33. That there are passages in the Hebrew Scriptures, in which this plural name has an especial relation to the Son of God, cannot be reasonably disputed: see Isa. xxxv, 4; xl, 3: Ps. xlv, 6. But this fact may surely be explained without any subversion of the doctrine that Elohim denotes a plurality in the divine essence; for in that divine essence there is also a perfect unity; and wherever the Son of God is manifested, there is manifested the Elohim. "He that hath seen me," said Jesus, "hath seen the Father."

L