the Trinity, also occurred, which indeed now appeared to me only to shew how much men were at å loss for real arguments; and is taken from the plural termination of one of the names of God, Elohim from which it is contended, that there is a plurality of persons, as it is termed, in God. ; This indeed is not perceivable in our English Bible, the translators, and I believe all translators in other countries, having very judiciously put this name of God in the singular number, as was done by the first jewish translators of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, between two and three hundred years before Christ f who certainly understood their own, which was the living language. Not to mention that many singular words, in all languages, have a plural termination; and that this name, Elohim, being sometimes applied to men, it might as well be inferred, that each man had a plurality of persons in him, as that there was any thing of the kind in God. Much weight I had also been taught to lay on some phrases in the books of Moses; for instance, where it is said, the (a) LORD rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; as if this indicated that there were two LORDS or two Jehovahs; whereas it is only an idiom of the language, in repeating the noun for the pro noun, the LORD from the LORD, instead of the LORD rained from himself; as might be shewn by many examples, which would equally prove that there were two (b) Solomons, or two (c) Rehoboams, &c. &c. (6) 1 Kings viii. 1. [(a) Gen. xix. 24. It It has also been fancied, that there was a divine person mentioned in the Old Testament, stiled the angel of God, the angel of the LORD, or of Jehovah; who was either another Jehovah, equal in all perfections; or according to others, a second power, brought forth from God, who ministred to the supreme Father, and was his agent in making and governing the world; and who afterwards became the man Christ Jesus. But this has been shewn to be a mistake, from not understanding the language of the scripture concerning the divine appearances, signified by the term, angel of God, angel of the LORD, in which, God is always represented as appearing, or manifesting himself, by some subordinate angel, agent, or power. But then, the angel or agent of the LORD was not always a person, or intelligent being, but often things inanimate; viz. an articulate voice, a pestilential wind, &c. &c. were called the angel of the Lord. These arguments however, and every thing of the kind from the Old Testament, in behalf of two Jehovahs, or a plurality of gods, appeared to me now, as they really are, mere subtleties and ingenious contrivances, to extract a doctrine from words, which they were never intended to convey. For all conclusions from these or any of the like words and phrases, of there being more than one God, one divine person, intended by Moses, and the prophets, in their language concerning the deity, were, to my understanding, totally overturned, by this single consideration; namely, that Moses and all the sacred writers of the Old Testament, who use such language, never drew any such uch conclusions from it, as christians have done; did never in any way signify, that they thereby understood, or intended to teach, that there was any plurality of persons in God, strange unintelligible language! but I observed them constantly, uniformly, invariably, and universally, throughout, to speak of God, as being one single person, as any single man is one person; and never to intimate, that there was any other god, or divine person, but this one who was acknowledged, adored, and worshipped by them; and who alone ought to be acknowledged, adored, and worshipped. These two arguments then from the sacred writings of the Old Testament, which I have produced as striking me so forcibly, and which lie upon the very surface, so that none can miss seeing them, are absolutely decisive upon my mind, that there is but one God, one divine person, who is God, and to be worshipped; and I shall beg leave to repeat them, that I may be told if there be any flaw in them. First, God being spoken of, spoken to, and speaking of himself, in the singular number, is a proof of there being but one divine person, one God; which no sophistry in the world can split and construe into two or more persons. Secondly, Moses, Samuel, David, Solomon, and all the prophets and holy men recorded in the Old Testament, never appear to have had any knowledge of any second God, to be worshipped, such as christians have found out for them, since their time; nor of a third divine person and god, stiled the holy ghost, D ghost, or holy spirit; but they ever acknowledged and worshipped one God only, namely, the single person of Jehovah, the maker of all things. And these two arguments are intelligible to the most ordinary understanding. The unlettered man, the day-labourer and mechanic, are capable of seeing their force as well as the greatest scholar, and may thence satisfy themselves, by the authority of Moses and all the old prophets, that they are not mistaken in rejecting the doctrine of three divine persons, three Gods, in opposition to all the subtle windings, by which learned divines may seek to bewilder them on so plain a subject, from the Old Testament. There are therefore no other gods, no other creators, but Jehovah alone, the God of Abraham, the God of the Israelites, according to the doctrine of Moses and all the prophets. If there be any single, particular texts, or passages of the Old Testament, from which the contrary doctrine is inferred, they will be found to be false readings, or mistranslations, or misinterpreted for the scripture cannot contradict itself. And I apprehend, that if we were not capable, in any of these ways, to account for one or two particular texts, which may be supposed to speak of Christ as God, although I am assured by writers I consulted, who have considered the matter, that this is not the case in any one instance; yet, on such a supposition, we must be governed by what is found in every page, and is in agreement with the whole tenor of the book, and not by what is found in one or two places only. Photinus Photinus here interposed, partly with a view to give a little respite to Volusian, who was somewhat exhausted with speaking so warmly and so long together. PHOTINUS. I am persuaded, Volusian, says he, that if you had found leisure to make the inquiry yourself, you would have been soon convinced, that there is not one particular passage in the Old Testament which teaches that there is a second divine person, or god, who afterwards became the man Christ Jesus, or a third divine person, or god, called the holy spirit. And with your leave, and that of our friends, I will give you a few specimens of those that are commonly produced. One is concerned to have occasion to mention the gross imposition on the mere English reader, in our translation of Isaiah, ix. 5. in which a child who is born is stiled the everlasting Father. Bishop Lowth threw out this everlasting Father, for which there never could be the least plea, but retained the language the mighty God; which, however, he ought to have considered, the common English reader would interpret of Christ being the supreme God, when he knew the original was far from such meaning. A learned layman* who very lately hath, with great accuracy and judgment, given a new translation of the whole book, thus renders this passage; For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called, the messenger of the great design; the father of the age; the prince of peace.” * Michael Dodson, Esq. D 2 Isaiah |