number'. passages.

It is also found in the following "The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom and the knowledge of the Holy ones [] is understanding 2.”

66

Surely more ignorant I am than a man. I neither possess the understanding of a man, nor have I learned wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy ones I should know." "Judah yet ruleth with God and is faithful with the Holy ones." In like manner God is called "the High ones" [] and "The Mighty ones" [""]. He is also

1 Josh. xxiv. 19.

2 Prov. ix. 10.

3 Prov. xxx. 2, 3. For proof of the correctness of this translation the reader is referred to Dr. M'Caul's Sermon on the Eternal Sonship of the Messiah, Appendix I. p. 32. Lond. 1838.

4 Hosea xi. 12. See also Dan. iv. 8, 9. 13. 17, 18. Compare verses 23, 24.

5 Dan. vii. 18. 22. 25. 27. To which should probably be added, Eccl. v. 8. where the words in our version and there be higher than they" are rendered in the Jewish commentary, "et excelsi super iis, iste est, Deus sanctus et benedictus."-Midrasch Koheleth in Raym. Mart. fol. 391.

* Gen. xvii. 1. and in several other places. In Psalm lxxviii. 25. DAN the mighty ones, which in

in many places called "Masters," or Lords; [N] as, in the prophet Malachi, he calls himself "Masters :" "If I be Masters [D] where is my fear1?" He is also called "Saviours." "And Saviours [D'yvin] shall come up on Mount Zion to judge the Mount of Edom, and the kingdom shall be the Lord's 2." And in the book of the Proverbs he is called "Wisdoms." "Wisdoms [] crieth without." So that, even if it were not undeniable, that the name of God is as clearly a plural word as any other in the Hebrew language, still we see that the doctrine of the existence of plurality in the divine unity is taught in the Old Testament. And, let me remind you, the proofs of this cannot possibly be resolved into an idiomatic peculiarity of any

our version is rendered " Angels," Gussetius understands to signify " God." Comment. p. 14. a. Comp. John vi. 33. and 1 Cor. x. 3.

1 Mal. i. 6.

2 Obad. 21. Maimonides interprets "Saviours," to mean, "the King Messiah."-Raym. Mart. Pug. Fid. fol. 599.

3 Prov. i. 20; also ch. ix. 1. Vide Gusset. p. 255. H. I.

one particular author; since they are to be found, as you have seen, in at least fifteen of the books of the Old Testament, in the Pentateuch, in the historical books, in the Prophets, in the writings of David, Solomon, and Job.

2. But there are others who, though they do not deny that the name of God is plural, have other modes of escaping the inference obviously to be drawn from such a phenomenon. To instance the most considerable of these evasions.

(1.) Some will tell us, that this is an idea borrowed from the language of idolaters. I need scarcely point out the profaneness and absurdity of such a notion. For profane and absurd in the highest degree it must appear to every thinking person, to imagine, that, in a book, which from beginning to end aims at exposing the folly of idolatry, and in a religion whose institutions were avowedly designed to guard against idolatry, such direct and gratuitous encouragement should be given to polytheistic notions. But besides this, the notion is based on a double falsehood. For the use

of the plural form is more ancient than any idolatry. It is used by God, after the fall, before Adam was expelled from paradise. It is used by our first parents in paradise before the fall. It is used earlier still, by God himself at the creation of man. So that if the idiom was borrowed at all, it would be more reasonable to suppose that it was the idolaters who borrowed it from the primitive and original language of the true religion. And the supposition would derive further probability from the considerations, that error is always subsequent to truth; and that seldom, if ever, is any error a pure invention, but rather a corruption and distortion of some more ancient truth. But there is another falsehood contained in this notion. For when we look into facts, we find that there is a distinction to be observed in the language of polytheism. The heathens, however they may speak of their subordinate deities, yet believed that "there was one supreme God, the author and governor of the rest,"

to whom their poets and philosophers ascribed the creation of the world. Now, when they wished to speak of this supreme Being in contradistinction to the inferior deities, they spoke of him only in the singular number'. So that, to say that the Scripture has borrowed from the language of the heathen the custom of speaking of the supreme and eternal Creator in the plural number, is simply untrue, because the heathen did not speak of him in the plural, but in the singular number. And to say, that when the heathen had two modes of speaking, the one to denote the supreme God, and the other to signify their inferior deities, revelation has selected that which they used to signify their inferior deities, and applied it, in the formal and distinctive phraseology of the true religion, to designate the only true God, in opposition to the deities of the heathen, is such an outrage on common sense, that one only wonders how any person ever could have been found to countenance it for a moment.

1 Barrow on the Creed, Serm. viii. vol. ii. p. 96, fol. edit. Gusset, p. 50. H. 3.