Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

now see, therefore, why it is, that the unity of the divine essence is formally inculcated at all. There was a difficulty already in existence, there was a danger,—a danger fatal to piety and morals,—to be guarded against. The name, by which the Almighty had revealed himself to mankind, was a plural word. The Church had become familiarized to the use of such language as implied plurality, and could imply nothing else. The terms, " "Our Gods," "Your Gods," "Jehovah the Gods of your fathers, the Gods of Abraham, the Gods of Isaac, and the Gods of Jacob:"-such phraseology as this, had become part and parcel of theological language. It either meant plurality, or it meant nothing at all. It could not be denounced as a superstition. It had been introduced by the Almighty himself'. And consequently there was no escape from the conclusion, that in some way or other, plurality must be the mode of the divine existence. But was this a polytheistic plurality? There lay the danger,

1 Exod. iii. 15.

which had been tacitly guarded against all along, by the peculiarity of grammatical structure. Now, in the establishment of the Jewish Church, however, Moses, formally and dogmatically lays down, as the fundamental article of faith, and the fundamental principle of morality, this great mystery, the co-existence of singularity and plurality in the divine nature. He explains not in what manner they exist together. But the fact itself is plainly and distinctly expressed in his words: and that, be it remembered, in precisely the most explicit statement of the divine unity, (considered without reference to any other being) which is to be found in the Old Testament; and, if I greatly mistake not, the only passage in the whole Volume in which the sole object and purpose is formally to make that statement. I have no hesitation, therefore, in saying, that this phenomenon of the plurality of the name of God, does teach, that plurality and singularity are co-existing in the divine nature. I say more, that this phenomenon was intended to teach this: and that, conse

quently, the plurality of the name of God is of itself sufficient to render the mystery an article (and, if so, it is necessarily the fundamental article) of the faith. To speak plainly, if a co-existent plurality and singularity in the unity of God, were not intended to be both taught and believed, as the first principle of religious truth, I can discover no possibility of giving any rational explanation of the words of Moses. If it were untrue, the passage would go directly to subvert the foundations of religion. If it were unnecessary to be believed, the introduction of so extraordinary a notion would have encumbered religion with a difficulty, uselessly and mischievously perplexing to any pious mind.

I do not mean to say, that the Trinity of the divine Persons was absolutely to be concluded from the plurality of the name of God generally throughout Scripture, or even from the remarkable language which I have brought before your notice. But I do maintain, that these phenomena did teach, and were intended to teach, that

the unity of God is to be believed, not absolutely, but after a manner; and that, in some way or other (which I am not now to inquire) singularity and plurality are coexistent in the unity and indivisibility of the Godhead.

There are two classes of objections which I am here to expect. 1. It will be said by some, that this argument assumes, that the name of God is a plural word, and that this cannot be proved. To this I answer, that the name of God can be proved to be plural: and that, even if it could not, the doctrine of the co-existence of plurality and unity in the divine nature, can still be shown to be inculcated in the Old Testament.

(1.) The name of God (Elohim) is a plural word. In the absence of all other evidence, this could be sufficiently proved by the concessions of those who are least disposed to admit any thing which can appear to favour the doctrine of plurality in the divine nature. The rabbinical writers have, with scarcely any exception, acknowledged

the fact1.

Nor has there been wanting at least one of these writers, who has had the candour to confess, that unless it had been written in the Scripture, it would not have been lawful to say, the Gods created the heavens, &c. 2

But even if we had not the testimony of the Jewish writers to appeal to, the plurality of the name of God is demonstrated from the circumstance that, although generally joined in construction with singular words, there are several instances of its being joined with plural words, both verbs and adjectives. Thus, Abraham says, "It came to pass when the Gods caused

"That is plural is doubted, so far as I know, by Abarbanel alone, and his explanation of the plural termination is so far-fetched that it needs no refutation." Israel Avenged, by Don Orobio; translated and answered by the Rev. A. M'Caul, D.D. Part ii. p. 115. London, 1839.

2

Raymund Martin in his Pugio Fidei (part 11. dist. 1. cap. 1. § ii. fol. 388. Lips. 1687) cites the Bereschith Rabba minor on Gen. i. 1, and translates thus: "Dixit R. Huna in nomine Bar Cappara, nisi hujusmodi sermo scriptus esset, non fuisset licitum

« AnteriorContinuar »