66

a

example of this idiom we shall give for the satisfaction of our readers: the words a covenant betwixt me and thee are rendered in the Targum covenant between my word and thy word." So "the word of Jehovah" is a familiar expression for Jehovah himself. In like manner the word Shekinah is constantly used in the Jewish writings for God himself—the manifestation of his presence any where on earth; and the meaning of the second passage quoted is, that one of the persons was a manifestation of God himself, the other two were angels. With respect to the expression angel of the covenant, which our author would no doubt have us refer to our Lord Jesus Christ, we have the express testimony of an ancient Jewish writer, that wherever it occurs "the holy and blessed God himself is spoken, of." This testimony is taken from the same book as Dr. S.'s quotation; (Sohar, Genes. fol. 68, col. 268;) but this is not all-will the reader believe it? the very passage which Dr. S. produces, and which it will be observed is broken off abruptly as he gives it, concludes, somewhat awkwardly for his argument," and all these things are spoken of the holy and blessed God himself," clearly shewing that the Jewish writer understood the angel of the covenant, as a name of God himself in reference to his manifestation of himself in establishing a covenant with his people. Lest our readers should, too naturally, conclude that Dr. S. intentionally suppressed the important explanatory clause, which we have here given-a subterfuge of which we hope he is incapable, we will mention that in the authority to which he refers, (Schoettg. Hora Hebr. et Talm. Vol. II. p. 442,) the words of the original being inserted between the parts of the translation, the final clause would be very easily overlooked by one hastily consulting the passage, which, we conclude, must have been our author's case. Dr. S. refers to passages in the prophecies of Zechariah, i. 8, 10-13, ii. 8-11, iii. 1— 10, vi. 12, 13, 15,) in which, according to him, we find the great angel who is at once the messenger of Jehovah and Jehovah himself, "depicted in the appropriate and exclusive characteristics of the Messiah, the Saviour, the Priest upon his throne, the Intercessor: and not less certainly described as possessing the attributes, exercising the sovereignty, and wearing the holy and incommunicable name of JEHOVAH." Unfortunately he has not stated how he derived all this from the words of the prophet, and as we can form no conception of the process we know not what remarks to offer, but Dr. S. requests"the serious inquirer to examine the whole"-and if he will do this, he will, we think, participate in our curiosity to know what the particular clauses are upon which the imagination of our author has been at work, and how his ingenuity could find in them any semblance of a foundation for his assertions.

In the passage quoted from Mal. iii. 1, we think it very clear that the last clause," Behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts," does not prove the person coming to be really or personally distinct from Jehovah himself. The prophecy is, that God will manifest himself amongst his people. They had vainly said, "Where is the God of judgment?" (Mal. ii. 17.) In due time they should be brought to acknowledge his presence, and special interference in their affairs. This manifestation may be rightly explained of the coming and kingdom of the Messiah, who exhibited the most convincing proofs of Divine power accompanying his works, and Divine authority sanctioning his words, but it by no means follows that he must be personally spoken of: on the contrary, that "the Sovereign N whom ye seek," means God himself, seems to be justly inferred from the uniform use of 78 with the emphatic, and we have already given Jewish

authority for understanding the "angel of the covenant" in the same sense, as the parallelism seems to require. We would compare with this expression Isa. Ixiii. 9, "the angel of his presence saved them," where the angel of his presence is God himself, manifesting himself by some sensible sign, and cannot possibly be understood of any distinct being; and Gen. xlviii. 15, 16, "God before whom my fathers did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads"-where no one can doubt that the angel means God himself, in reference to his sensible manifestations of himself to Jacob. Upon the whole, we do not hesitate to pronounce our author's attempt to identify our Lord Jesus Christ with the angel of Jehovah, and thence with Jehovah himself, to be a total failure, and incapable of affording satisfaction to any inquiring mind; whilst the general view of the nature of the passages referred to on the subject, which Mr. Belsham has given, is at once rational and consistent in itself, and abundantly established by their examination in detail.

The section on the pluralisms is highly creditable to Dr. S. for the candour and caution as well as the learning and ingenuity which it displays, and we think he has made the most that is possible of a very dubious and obscure argument. We must observe, however, that as he only contends for an intimation of plurality of persons, which may not, he acknowledges, have been understood by the majority of the Jewish people, which even inspired prophets may not have fully comprehended, and which he cannot prove to have been so understood by any of the ancient Jews, his argument at best is only applicable in confirmation of other evidence: but we deny that he has produced, or that any one can produce, any such evidence from the Old Testament, and we feel fully authorized in contenting ourselves with the information which is directly afforded us, without disturbing ourselves about fancied intimations, that is, obscure and uncertain hints, which we find opposed to the plain and (setting aside these supposed hints) uniform language of the Jewish sacred writings. And, moreover, though we think Dr. S. has shewn that the rule of Hebrew syntax respecting the use of the plural number to express dominion, dignity, or honour, is not very definitely established, or of very general application, we can by no means allow that he has sufficiently explained on other principles all the alleged instances, or even satisfactorily shewn, supposing that the idiom were observable only in the names of the true God, how it can support the Trinitarian doctrine, since if plurality is at all implied, it must be plurality of beings-plurality of Gods. The notion of different persons in one essence is one which would never occur to any mind without being very distinctly expressed, and of which no conception whatever could be obtained in the way of intimation. The explanation proposed by our author of the frequent use of the word 7, (adonim,) lords, (the plural for the singular,) as applied to human beings is, that the word was originally a name of God, and being secondarily applied to human possessors of authority, retained the form which belonged to its primary use but no reason or authority whatever can be adduced to shew that the word was at first a peculiar name of the Supreme Being: its meaning would render it equally applicable to God and man, and it is applied to both in the singular form also; we are therefore justified in concluding, that whatever may have been the origin of the anomaly of the use of the plural form in a singular sense, it was something not peculiar to one application of the word, but common to all the cases in which the anomaly is observed.

The use of Baalim, (owners, masters, husbands,) in the plural, with a

singular sense, is so exactly analogous to that of Adonim, that no one could have thought of finding a different explanation for it, except under the influence of a favourite hypothesis. That which our author has devised, however ingenious, will hardly be thought, by any competent judge, sufficiently probable to answer his purpose.*

Dr. S.'s observations do not materially affect the probability that Tannim, the crocodile, Ezek. xxix. 3, is a plural form with a singular sense, and though he readily adopts the opinion of some modern Hebrew scholars that nin, (Chochmoth,) wisdom is singular, it seems to us that this opinion rests on very slight foundation, and that the generally-received doctrine of its being a plural form is by far the most probably correct. Behemoth we will lay no stress upon, though the Coptic derivation is not certainly established, but other instances of the use of a plural for a singular noun to give emphasis, or to produce the effect of a sort of superlative degree, all seem to belong to the same idiom. Thus blindnesses for total blindness, Gen. xix. 11; 2 Kings vi. 18. Salvations for complete salvation, Ps. xlii. 5, 11, liii. 6. Vanities for much vanity, Eccles. v. 7, &c. There seems, then, good reason for believing that the use of a plural for a singular was one of the various modes of giving emphasis, or marking eminence resorted to by the Hebrews; and that though not applied generally to all words expressive of authority or dignified office, but confined by early custom to a small number, selected in a way which appears to us arbitrary, it does occur in cases where the sense is indisputably singular, and might be used by the people to whom the idiom belonged without suggesting any idea of plurality.

In several of the instances of the application of plural names to the Supreme Being, the intention of augmenting the force of the epithet is sufficiently evident, as Prov. ix. 10, "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of Jehovah, and the knowledge of the holy ones, i. e. most holy, (as it has been properly rendered by Dathe,) is understanding." So in Hos. xii. 1. Of the same nature seems to be the Chaldee plural by (Elionin), Dan. vii. 18. The word in the singular means very high, or might even be rendered most high; but the plural form increases the force of the epithet.

It has often been remarked that Jehovah, the peculiar and sacred name of the true God, is singular, whilst the plural name, Elohim, is one which is equally applied to idols, and is even given, without impropriety, to human objects of respect, and which, so far as we know or have any means of judging, may be supposed to be a word of human construction, signifying an object of adoration. Dr. S. indeed maintains, that when the word Elohim is applied to a single idol, it refers to something plural in its nature, and he reminds us of the multiform appearance of many idols; but this is a mere hypothesis, and it is more natural and reasonable to suppose that the plurality in the name had the same cause in all the cases of its ocDr. S. thinks that when it is said to Moses (Ex. iv. 16), "Thou

currence.

The word does not occur in the full plural form, but in construction with a pronominal suffix, hy. Dr. S. denies that this is plural at all, and supposes the to be introduced in imitation of other names of relationship, 28, a father, 78, thy father, 8 a brother, 18 his brother, On a father-in-law, 'n her fatherin-law. But in all these instances the primitive forms, as our author properly states, appear to have been '28, '78, 'n which readily accounts for the insertion of the before the suffix, aud there is no reason why they should have been imitated in words of a different form; at the best the supposition is a mere conjecture, resorted to to suit a purpose, and not being a very plausible one, the more obvious explanation founded on the analogy of 178 will continue to be generally received.

shalt be to him (b) for, as or instead of Elohim," "The sense is palpably limited to his acting, on the occasion, as the immediate messenger and representative of the Most High," and in like manner Ex. vii. 1. It certainly seems to us, on the contrary, that the only admissible sense is, "thou shalt be to him as a superior being delivering directions, which it shall be his business to obey;" that it is not being the organ of Jehovah, but exercising that kind of superiority and authority which the name Elohim implies, which is intended, and, therefore, that the word could not have been used had it been of the nature of a proper name, or had its plural form been considered as connected with any mystery. Again, in the passage adduced by Mr. Belsham from 1 Sam. xxviii. 13, "I see Elohim olim literally, Gods ascending, but supposed by Mr. B. to mean only the figure of Samuel,” Dr. S. affirms, that

"Whatever the impostress saw or pretended to see, her words undeniably affirm a plurality of objects. The figure of Samuel could, therefore, have been only one form out of several; so that to regard Elohim as an appellation given to Samuel, is both begging the question, and a violation of the plain grammar of the passage."

Now this is pretty strong assertion, but it cannot alter the facts of the case. When the woman said to Saul, "I saw Gods ascending out of the earth, he said unto her, What form is HE of?" (Plainly shewing that Saul understood her to speak of one figure.) "She said, An old man cometh up and is covered with a mantle, and Saul perceived that it was Samuel." The connexion seems to us to prove, beyond all question, that only one figure is at all said to have appeared, and that this being considered as something supernatural, was called a God (Elohim) by the ignorant or artful woman. As to the grammar, the construction is precisely the same with Elohim Shofetim, (both plural,) "a God that judgeth," Ps. lviii. 12. Elohim haiim, (both plural,) the living God, &c. Mr. B.'s example, then, is a very clear and important one of this plural in a singular sense being used of one being recognized as distinct from and inferior to God, and consequently implying no mystery of the Divine nature. But, according to our author, Elohim not being limited like Jehovah to express the Supreme Being alone,

"For that very reason it became the more necessary to guard against possible and probable abuse. As the word was in ordinary use to designate the numerous false deities of the nations, it was the more likely, and even unavoidable that the Hebrews would understand its perpetual occurrence in the plural form as the designation of their own God to be an express intimation that plurality in some sense belonged to HIM."-(Script. Test. p. 517.)

We cannot, we confess, understand the logic of this passage. Because the word Elohim, a plural form, was in ordinary use to designate any one of the false deities of the nations, each one of which was known to be, and always considered to be singular, therefore the Hebrews would understand it to have a plural sense when applied to a Being, "of whose essential unity, (to use Dr. S.'s words,) from other infallible testimonies, they were certain." We surely only do justice to them in supposing that had any doubt been suggested they would have drawn the contrary conclusion, and knowing the unity of the object denoted by the plural term in the case of the idol, would have concluded the unity also, independently of any declaration of it, of that Being, concerning whose nature they could not have direct knowledge. We have enlarged upon this subject, not because we think the argument from the pluralisms likely to have much weight with any inquirer, rejected as it

has been by many of the most learned defenders of the Trinity, and obscure and dubious as it appears, even admitting all that is affirmed-but because, being a curious subject and very ably treated by Dr. S., we imagined many readers might be glad to see it noticed somewhat more fully than Unitarian controversialists in general deem necessary.

A MEDITATION.

THE fragile leaf, that floats upon

the wave,

May reach, through many a storm, the distant strand;
While the proud bark, which dared its power to brave,
A shatter'd wreck, with fragments strews the sand!

The tender form, which bends to sorrow's blast,

Oft rears its head and smiles, when woes are spent ;
While the stern heart, unyielding to the last,
Strains against grief, and in the strife is rent.

So modest virtue, by temptations tried,

Turns from the foe, and shuns destruction's brink ;
But rash presumption, boastful in his pride,
Rushes to meet the peril,-and to sink.

In doubtful scenes, oh be that spirit mine,

Which sways with humble hope the Christian's breast!
So shall I to my God my course resign,

And pass through storms of earth to heavenly rest.

Birmingham.

H. H.

CRITICAL NOTICES

THEOLOGY.

ART. I.-The Commemoration of the
Dead. A Sermon, delivered at the
Bowden-hill Chapel, Crediton. By

J. Johns. Hunter. 1831.

nexion with the text, "Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory?" &c., we find the following suggestion :

"My brethren, it is not with no obIT is ever a treat to us to read Mr. ject, that I have called up these dear but Johns's sermons. They are conceived in saddening recollections. Perhaps it would a spirit and written with a power which be a thing not a little conducive to the we should be glad to see more exten- interests of religion, to have one Sabbath sively cherished among our preachers. set apart, at intervals of five or ten years They are alive with feeling, which is not (as might be thought expedient), for the less Christian for being poetical; calling up the recollections of the fellowand the impression which they leave is worshipers, who, within that period, had one compounded of the pleasures of poe- been taken to their rest. It would bind try and the emotions of piety. In con- the living together by the remembrance