angels faid be at any time, SIT THOU ON MY RIGHT HAND? And there is, in the fame chapter, a wonderful atteftation of the diviInity of the LOGOS, which, in this place, ought by no means to be omitted. Though Jehovah conferred not that honour on angels, yet to the Son he faid, THY THRONE, O GOD, I IS FOR EVER and EVER !*

It is now neceffary to descend to some particulars, for pointing out which I am principally obliged to the indefatigable exertion and I laboured fcrutiny of the author cited above. Thefe will incontrovertibly prove, that the word Elohim was exactly thus understood by Mofes himself and the ancient Hebrews, however their modern defcendants may deny the allufion; that their own paraphrasts apply the term LoGos, in the very fame manner as we do, to the fecond, as well as that of HOLY SPIRIT to the third, person in the bleffed Trinity; and that, in fact, they had the fulleft belief in that Trinity, expreffed in the most emphatical language, and explained by the most fignificant fymbols.

Dr. Allix has, with great energy both of language and fentiment, remarked, that, although the principal aim of Mofes, in his writings,

* Hebrews xii. 7.

writings, was evidently to root out of the minds of men the prevailing notion of polytheism, yet that he constantly describes the creation of the world in words that directly intimate a plurality in the Godhead. Instead of distinguishing the Creator by the appellative Jehovah, that awful appellative by which the Deity first made himself known to Mofes in the burning bush, and by him to his people, and writing JEHOVAH BARA, Jehovab created, he uses these remarkable expreffions, BARA ELOHIM, the GODS created; and, in the concise hiftory of the creation only, uses it above thirty times. The combining this plural noun with a verb in the fingular, as has been before-noticed he had done, would not appear fo remarkable if he had uniformly adhered to that mode of expreffion; for, then it would be evident he adopted the mode used by the Gentiles in speaking of their false gods in the plural number; but, by joining with it a fingular verb or adjective, rectified a phrafe that might appear to give a direct fanction to the error of polytheism. But, in reality, the reverfe is the fact; for, in Deuteronomy xxxii. 15, 17, and other places, he ufes the fingular number of this very noun to exprefs the Deity, though not employed in

the

the auguft work of creation: dereliquit Eloah, Lacrificaverunt dæmoniis, non Eloab.

He likewife distinguishes the Deity in various other paffages by other names, in the fingular number; and, consequently, adds our author, any of these names would have been, with more propriety and effect, applied to root out polytheifm." But, farther, Mofes himself ufes this very word Elohim with verbs and adjectives in the plural. Of this ufage, Dr. Allix enumerates two, among many other glaring inftances, that might be brought from the Pentateuch; the former in Genefis xx. 13, Quando errare fecerunt me Deus; the latter in Genefis xxxv. 7, Quia ibi revelati funt ad eum Deus; and by other infpired writers in various parts of the Old Testament. But particularly he brings in evidence the following texts, which the reader will excuse my citing at length, viz. Job xxxv. 10; Jof. xxiv. 19; Pfalm cxix. 1; cxix. 1; Ecclef.xii. 3; 1 Sam.vii. 23; all which, he observes, "fhews the impudence of Abarbanel on the Pentateuch, (fol. 6, col. 3,) who, to elude the force of this argument, maintains, that the word Elohim is fingular." In this audacious affertion, however, impudent

F

I

*The reader will please to take notice, that I continue to cite, throughout, the Latin tranflation of Mario del Calafio.

dus it is, Abarbanel has been fince fupod by the fynagogue and most of the modern Hebrew commentators upon the subject; contradiction to the direct and avowed opibut how abfurdly, and with what barefaced nions of their ancestors, will, as we advance farther in the fubject, be made decifively evident. For the prefent, it may be fufficient to obferve, that the repeated addrefs of the divine Being to certain perfons, his co-adjutors in the work of creation, before men, or even angels, according to the Jewish belief, began to exift, as well as the exprefs words noticed in a preceding page, LET US make man, and in OUR image; and afterwards, LET US go down, and LET US there confound their language; are pointedly allufive to a plurality, and, as our author obferves, "very lively characters of this doctrine."

If it fhould be denied that Mofes compofed his history under the immediate influence of divine inspiration, it furely will be allowed, that he understood the language in which he wrote, and that he could not poffibly be ignorant of the purport of thofe laws which he promulgated. It muft, therefore, to every reader of reflection, appear exceedingly fingu

lar,

lar, that, when he was endeavouring to establish a thrological fyftem, of which the Unity of the Godhead was the leading principle, and in which it differed from all other: fyftems, he should make use of terms directly implica tive of a plurality in it. Yet fo deeply was the awful truth under confideration impressed upon the mind of the Hebrew legiflator that this is conftantly done by him; and, indeed, as Allix has obferved, there is fcarcely any method of speaking, from which a plurality in Deity may be inferred, that is not used ei ther by himself in the Pentateuch, or by the other inspired writers in various parts of the Old Testament. A plural is joined with ca verb fingular, as in that paffage cited before from Gen.i. 1: a plural is joined with a verb plural, as in Gen. xxxv. 7; And Jacob called the name of the place Bethel; because, the GODS there APPEARED to him. A plural is joined with an adjective plural; Josh. xxxv. 19; You cannot ferve the Lord; for, he is the HOLY GODS. To these paffages if we add that remarkable one adduced before from Ecclefiaftes, Remember thy CREATORS in the days of thy youth; and the predominant use of the words Jebovab ELOHIM, or the Lord THY GODS, which

F 2