« PreviousContinue »
custom, known among men, to justify such a style. Yet God always speaks of himself in the use of the singular pronouns, except in three or four cases. This proves, beyond all debate, that God is but one individual person. son can say we, our, us; but a plurality of persons cannot say I, my, me, mine, myself.
6. Every Trinitarian, who argues for a plurality of persons, from the use of plural pronouns, strengthens the opposite argument of the Unitarian. For if the use of plural pronouns is proof that God is several persons, the use of singular pronouns is proof that God is but one person. And the three or four cases in which the plural pronouns are employed, weigh no more than the small dust of the balance againsi the thousands, and tens of thousands of cases in which the singular pronouns are employed. Therefore the evidence that God is but one person, which is furnished by the use of the singular pronouns, God being the speaker, is thousands of times as strong as the evidence that he is more persons
one, which is furnished by the use of the plural pronouns.
7. "And God said, Let us maké man in our image, after our likeness..... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.”—Gen. i. 26, 27. As God's purpose, which he expressed by saying, Let us make man, was carried into effect by one person only, as the singular pronouns he and his clearly indicate, it is proper to infer that no more than one person was meant by the plural pronouns us and our.
“ And the LORD said.... Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language.”—Gen. xi. 7. “Let me go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know."--Gen. xviii. 21. By comparing these two passeges together, we find that the same Being who, in the one, is represented as saying, "Let us go down," is, in the other
represented as saying, “Let me go down." And as the singular pronoun, me and I, in the latter passage, can denote but one person, it follows that the plural pronoun us, in the former passage, means no more than one. If it be objected that the expression, in the latter passage, is “I will go down," and not “ Let me go down,” as I have rendered it-I answer, that the verb, in both passages, is in the future tense in the original Hebrew, and may be translated either imperatively, or indicatively. We have a singular example of the use of the pronoun both in the singular and plural number, by the same speaker, and in relation to the same subject, in 1 Kings, xii. 6-9, and in the parallel passage in 2 Chron. x. 6–9, already referred to. When Rehoboam consulted the old men concerning a reply to be made to the people of Israel, he said, “ How do ye advise, that I may answer this people ?But when he consulted the young men, he assumed a more majestic and princely style, and said "What counsel give ye, that we may answer this people ?"
" Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will
for us? Then said I, Here am I. And he said, Go, and tell this people,” &c. Isa. vi. 8, 9. As the pronouns I and he can denote but one person, it follows that the pronoun us, can mean no more than one person.
Finally, if these forms of expression were evidence that God did address some other being, who, of all the family above, would be so likely to be the object of such address, as his Son, "by whom also he made the worlds ?” So far as we are acquainted with the operations of Jehovah, it appears that all his works are effected through the agency of some intermediate minister. If God created all things by Jesus Christ,” as we read in the Common Version, he would, unquestionably, sooner consult with him, especially in reference to the creation of man, than with any other being in the universe.
ÔN THE SUPPOSED SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE OF A
TRINITY OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD.
A complete list of the texts, both in the Old and New Tes
tament, on which Trinitarians chiefly rely as asserting the doctrine of three equal persons in the Godhead.
1. Isa. xxxiv. 16. “My mouth it hath commanded, and his Spirit it hath gathered them."
2. Isa. xlviii. 16. “ The Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me."
3. Matt. xxviii. 19. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
4. 2 Cor. xiii, 14. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."
Before any attempt to examine these passages, the candid reader is requested to consider seriously whether they even approximate towards the evidence that might reasonably be expected of three equal persons in the Godhead, if the doctrine were true, and were what it is said to be, "The fundamental doctrine of the gospel, the belief of which is essential to salvation.” Suppose the Unitarian should collect all the passages which assert the Unity of God, and that they should be as few in number, and should seem as irrelevant to prove that God is one, as these do to prove
that God is three, what would the Trinitarian say to such an array of witnesses ? Would he not be likely to treat them with
To this argu
silent contempt? But let us not take it for granted that these four texts contain no proof of the Trinity. Let us examine them. The first two on the list, are brought forward by Mr. Wardlaw, p. 15, as the most prominent passages” in the Old Testament, in proof of the Trinity. But as he has not told how they prove the Trinity, we can only conjecture what his argument would be.
As the pronouns my and his, in the first text on the list, are printed in small capitals, we may suppose they were thought to denote two per. sons in the Trinity. But how the proof of the third person is to be made out I cannot conjecture. ment, if it can be called an argument, I reply-The learned and critical Dr. Adam Clarke, though a strenuous advocate for the Trinity, in his Commentary on this passage, says, "My mouth—(for the mouth of JEHOVAH.) Five MSS. (three ancient,) read Jehovah, and another is so corrected : so likewise the Septuagint.” In Dr. Thomas Coke's Commentary, it is rendered, “The mouth of Jehovah hath commanded," &c. Coke was a Trinitarian. Mr. Yates thinks that in the original Hebrew there is nothing corresponding to the pronoun my. Trinitarian Commentators, in general, so far as I have had opportunity of examining, understand the passage in a similar manner, following the Septuagint.
2. The second text on the list is the one chosen by Dr. Dwight, late President of Yale College, for the only Sermon, out of two hundred and thirty-four, which is entitled the “ Trinity.” But as he has not intimated how it favors the Trinity, I cannot conjecture. To say that God is the speaker, in this text, is absurd. Who could send God? The prophet Isaiah, or Christ, is evidently the speaker. As he was sent by God, so he was led forth to the execu tion of his prophetic office by the Spirit of God.*
* Page 32, Mr. Robbins remarks upon this text thus: “The speaker is Christ, for he says, a little before, · Hearken unto me, O Jacob; I am
3. “Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
The Common Version strongly favors a sense of this apostolic commission, which the original Greek does not suggest, and which Jesus could not have intended.
To baptize in the name of another, signifies, in the English language, merely to baptize by another's authority, as his representative. But no scripturist thinks that this was the meaning of our Saviour. “ The name” of a person very often signifies the person himself. The following passages illustrate this remark. " And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee.”—Ps. ix. 10. “ The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble; the name of the God of Jacob defend thee.”—16. xxii. 1. • The name of the Lord is a strong tower.”—Prov. xviii. 10.
Here the name of God means God himself. This is called pleonasm, or Telundancy. It is an idiom in which the Hebraistic Greek much abounds. When brought into a language which, like ours, has not the same idiom, it only tends to obscure the
It ought to be omitted in an English Version. In some places in the New Testament, we find it employed in connection with baptism, while in others it is omitted, withthe first, I also am the last ;' an appellation often given to him.” This statement needs qualifying. The phrase, “I am the first and the last,” occurs three or four times in the Prophecy of Isaiah, and is in every in. stance applied to Jehovah; not once to Christ. See Ch, xli. 4, xliii. 10, xliv. 6, xlviii. 12.
Had Mr. Robbins, instead of the 12th verse, quoted the 13th My hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens ;" a well known designation of Jehovah, and which is never given to Christ in the whole Bible, his readers would perceive, at once, that Jehovah, and not Christ, is the speaker in the 12th and 13th verses; and that some one else is the speaker in the 16th verse; where a new subject begins, as the paragraph  indicates. The phrase, “ the first and the last,” is applied to Christ, in two or three instances ; in Rev. i. 17, ii. 8, and probably xxii. 13. Rev. i. 11, “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last," is certainly spurious.