(2.) Others will tell us that the plural is used to denote honour, and that, when God speaks of himself in the plural number, it is an imitation of the style of kings and princes. It would require more time than I can bestow on this part of my subject, fully to expose the folly of this supposition; nor, indeed, is it necessary that I should, since it is for those who make the assertion to

prove its truth. Briefly, however, I remark first; that, supposing the supposition to be true, that God has adopted the style of earthly princes, it can only account for those few passages where God speaks in the first person. It leaves wholly untouched the plural form of those names, acts, and attributes, ascribed to him by Himself. Therefore, secondly; the idiom could not have been borrowed from the language of princes: (1.) because kings in speaking of themselves do not adopt this form. The king, in official language, uses the plural pronoun; but he does not call himself "the kings," or "their majesties." (2.) That even the custom of using the plural pronoun is a modern one. For, in

"

all the various parts of Scripture, where the speeches, decrees, or messages of kings and princes, are recorded, of the kings of Egypt, of Judah, of Israel, of Syria, of Babylon, of Assyria, of Persia, there is not a single instance which could excite a suspicion, that this idiom had been adopted by the monarchs of the world, during the entire period of the Old Testament1.

1 Socinus has adduced two instances to prove that the Old Testament princes spoke in the plural number; one is, 1 Kings xii. 9. which would have confuted his theory if he had only quoted a few words more of the sentence. "What counsel give ye that we may answer this people who have spoken to me,” &c. On Socinus' theory, Rehoboam should have said us and not me. The word we is plainly used to express his familiarity with his young companions. When he asked the same question of the old men, he says: "how do ye advise that I may answer this people?" Socinus quotes only what appeared to suit his purpose. "Quid consulitis vos venaschib dabar? id est, ut respondeamus populo isti," &c. (Ad argumenta pro Trinitate Responsio. Opp. tom. i. 792.) The second instance is that of Ahab, 1 Kings xxii. 3, where if he had gone on to quote the next verse, or any other verse in the chapter in which Ahab is the speaker, he would have proved the worthlessness of his argu

(3.) That, whether the custom be ancient or not, it is absurd to talk of God's having borrowed it from the style of earthly kings; since, of the instances I have adduced of His using the plural pronouns We and Us, two of them occur in the accounts of the creation and the fall, before earthly sovereigns were in existence. Nor, thirdly, is there any ground for saying that the plural is adopted, in speaking of God, or addressing him, as an honour done to his preeminence and perfection. For, there is no reason to believe that the plural number in Hebrew, or in any other ancient language, was used to signify honour or respect. Nor is there any more reason to suppose that plurality was in any way connected with the notion of dominion, but the contrary for the word king [7] is never used in the plural number to signify God, which it surely would have been, had the use of plural forms been derived from

ment. "Know ye that Ramoth Gilead is ours, and we be still?" meaning obviously, that Ramoth Gilead belonged not to Syria, but to the Israelites.

the notion of dominion. Besides, not only are both numbers used by God himself, but, what is still more destructive of this theory, they are both used indifferently in speaking of him. But, if the plural was adopted as the proper form to express the honour and reverence due to the supreme God, then plainly no other would ever have been used by the inspired writers. alternative would have been between a reverent and an irreverent style, and, by consequence, the plural must have been used invariably'.

The

'This is excellently put by Dr. M'Caul in his answer to Orobio. "To say that the names of God are plural, as being majestatic, or for the sake of honour, is not an adequate explanation, because some of them, as are singular, and some of the plural names have singulars, which are also applied to God,

אֵל

הָאָדוֹן as אָדוֹן has אֲדֹנָי and אֱלוֹהַ has אֱלֹהִים as

Exod. xxiii. 17, and N, Josh. iii. 11. Whereas if the plural be used of God as a token of reverence, it ought to be used always; for if the plural expresses more honour than the singular, then without doubt the singular expresses less honour than the plural, and therefore ought never to be used of God. And if the singular can be used without any the

On the whole, therefore, I cannot but feel that the doctrine of the co-existence of unity and plurality in the divine Being is taught in the Old Testament, as clearly as any other doctrine whatever. It is taught in a way the most convincing to any candid mind; not in one or two explicit statements, which would imply that until these statements were made, the doctrine had not been revealed to the church. The con

trary is on the very face of the Old Testament. The doctrine is certainly taught all through the volume: but it is in such casual and incidental expressions as incontrovertibly demonstrate, that the doctrine was the common faith of those to whom the Holy Scripture was addressed, and that it was known and received in the church before any written revelation existed.

We are now to inquire, what sort of plurality in the divine nature is taught in the Old Testament? Is it a plurality of per

least derogation from the divine dignity, then the plural does not come to express majesty or honour, and we must seek for another solution." Part II. p. 117.