124 Plurality of the Godhead. [Ess. VII. and was intended to convey some information respecting the Deity whom they worshipped. Of the nature of that information (if this is the true state of the case) it is by no means difficult to form a judgment; for, of all those phrases in which the plural Elohim is connected with the name Jehovah, or with other adjuncts in the singular number, 2. Behemoth in Job xl. 15, supposed by some persons to be a plural substantive, denoting a single large animal, may signify, as in various other passages of Scripture, the plural beasts. "Behold now Behemoth (the beasts) which I have made with thee-he eateth grass as an ox," etc. Here the work of creation, as displayed in the formation of the beasts of the earth, is at first adverted to in general terms; and then follows a specification of some particular animal (probably the elephant) whose name has either been lost from the text, (as Michaelis supposes, Sup. ad. lex. Heb. in voc.) or was not mentioned at all by the poet. If we do not adopt this obviously probable explanation of the word, we must construe it with the masculine singular verb, in which case we can no longer imagine it to be a feminine plural noun, and must adopt the opinion of Bochart, the Scriptural naturalist, who considers Behemoth to be a foreign (probably an Egyptian) name-a name which he explains as denoting the Hippopotamus: Hieroz. p. ii, lib. v. cap. 14. 3. The nouns Adon) Lord, when) אדון Baal) master, and) בעל in statu constructo, sometimes, but not universally, assume a final This, however, is a circumstance by no means peculiar to these substantives, but is often to be observed, as in the examples thy servant, thy word, etc. etc. ,על אל ,עד Even the prepositions are sometimes written with a final ; which, in the whole of the cases now cited, may fairly be regarded, not as marking the plural number, but as added for the sake of a smooth and easy sound. "" says Aben Ezra, upon Genesis i. 1; and so the words see Gussetii Comm. p. 57. The Hebrew ": עדיו אליו עליו * Scriptures afford no example of the plural y employed to denote an individual. The plural is supposed to relate to a single person, in 1 Kings xxii. 17, and in the parallel passage, 2 Chron. xviii. 16; also in Isa. xix. 4; but in each of these passages the reader will find, on a reference to them, that may be rendered as plural without violence to the sense of the text. So the Targum in 1 Kings xxii. 17, the Vulgate in 2 Chron. xviii. 16, and the Sept. Syr. and Vulg. in Isaiah xix. 4. In Malachi i. 6, the plural, like the plural, unquestionably represents an individual; but that individual is JEHOVAH. Ess. VII.] Recapitulation. 125 the obvious import-I might almost say the literal translation-is plurality in unity. Now, if we are led to inquire what is that plurality which subsists in the one indivisible Jehovah, the New Testament answers in explicit terms, THE FATHER, and the Son, and the HOLY GHOST." On reverting to the heads of the present Essay, the reader will recollect, First, that there are a variety of passages in the New Testament, from which we learn that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Ghost is God. Secondly, that in other parts of the Gospels and Epistles the doctrine is plainly unfolded, that With respect to other nouns indicative of authority, such as princeps, dux, rex, etc., etc., it is on all hands allowed, that, when they relate to an individual, they are never recited in the plural number. Even, therefore, if it be allowed that the substantive 1178, Lord, in a very few instances presents such an anomaly, (which appears to me very doubtful, though I by no means intend to assert the contrary,) I would suggest that a single example, and one so very limited, cannot justify the formation of the grammatical rule now under discussion; or afford any reasonable philological explanation of that extraordinary use of a plural name to denote the One God, which may be described as one of the most prevalent and most distinguishing characteristics of the Holy Scriptures. As an objection to the commonly received theological explanation of the plural Elohim, when used to represent Jehovah, it is sometimes remarked that this term is occasionally employed to describe an individual false God; and further, that there are passages in the Old Testament in which it especially represents the Son. Now, since Elohim, according to the general and almost universal usage of the term, denotes the true God, we may conclude that this alone is its proper meaning; and that, in the few passages of Scripture in which this name is given to any false God, it is used (to adopt a grammatical phrase) improprie. I conceive that Chemosh is styled the Elohim of the Moabites, Milcom the Elohim of the Ammonites, and Baal Zobeb the Elohim of the Ekronites, not because any one of these idols was, in any proper sense of the term, Elohim; but because they were severally to their respective followers that which Elohim was to the Hebrews-that is the god whom they worshipped: see 1 Kings xi. 33. That there are passages in the Hebrew Scriptures, in which this plural name has an especial relation to the Son of God, cannot be reasonably disputed, see Isa. xxxv. 4; xl. 3; Ps. xlv. 6. But this fact may surely be explained without any subversion of the doctrine that Elohim denotes a plurality in the Divine essence; for in that Divine essence there is also a perfect unity; and wherever the Son of God is manifested, there is manifested the Elohim. that hath seen me," said Jesus, "hath seen the Father." "He 126 Conclusion. [Ess. VII. the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, whose Deity is thus separately declared, are the united sources of our regeneration, redemption, sanctification, and salvation; the common and equal objects of our belief and devotion; yet so that they are first, second, and third, in order, and are revealed to us as severally fulfilling distinct offices in the Divine economy; the Father as originating, the Son as mediating, the Holy Spirit as completing. Thirdly, that in the Hebrew Scriptures, also, there is much which accords with this doctrine, and which appears to indicate, in no ambiguous manner, a plurality in the Divine essence-in the ONLY TRUE GOD. And now I would finish this Essay, as I began it, with a full declaration of my full reliance on that essential and unalterable principle of Christianity, that God is ONEthat there is no other God but JEHOVAH. That principle is, indeed, weakened and contradicted by those religionists, (if such are still to be found,) who hold that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not God—but gods; objects of faith, worship, and spiritual allegiance; and yet created beings, of a nature inferior to that of the Father. Such a sentiment is utterly at variance with the scope and tenor of the Bible, and is, in no slight degree, assimilated to the corrupt and degraded heathenism of ancient Greece and Rome. But in the doctrine that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are God-the true God-Jehovah—the Supreme Being the Maker and Governor of the universe; or, in other words, that God has been pleased to manifest himself to us, as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—there is nothing which really contravenes his unity; nothing which can, in any degree, involve our partaking in the errors and sins of an idolatrous system. God is an infinite and unsearchable Being. The mode of that union, and of that distinction, which, as Christians, we believe to subsist in Him, is placed far beyond the utmost reach of our limited comprehension; it is concealed alike from the uneducated peasant and from the profound and enlightened philosopher; and it can never be a fit subject, either for the speculation or for the definition of men. But the doctrine that there is such a union, and that there is such a distinction, will not cease to be regarded as of inexpressible value by those persons who bow with rever Ess. VII.] Conclusion. 127 ence before the Divine authority of the sacred records, and who are, from their own experience, aware of its practical influence and operation. May the writer and the readers of this Essay never become so infatuated as to contradict the absolute unity of the unchangeable Jehovah! and may they also, through the grace of God, be ever preserved from denying the eternal Divinity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost! ESSAY VIII. ON THE SCRIPTURAL ACCOUNT OF THE SPIRITUAL ADVERSARY. WHEN We take a calm view of the moral degradation which marks the history and character of man; when we endeavour to trace the multiform appearances of SIN, and observe the force with which it rages and spreads in the world; and when we call to mind the consequence which it is calculated to produce in the absolute ruin of our immortal part-we can scarcely continue insensible of a strong impression, that there exists some powerful, active, personal agent, who rules over and conducts the kingdom of darkness; and who, in a proper sense of the expressions, is the AUTHOR OF EVIL. If the inquiry be suggested, why the weight of this impression is not more fully acknowledged, and why some persons, who exult in the exercise of their reasoning powers, are found rashly rejecting the doctrine of a Satanic influence, as absurd and imaginary-a satisfactory answer to such an inquiry is afforded us in the lamentable fact that this doctrine has been made the vehicle of so many foolish imaginations, and of so many idle tales-tales impressed on our minds and memories even from early youth-that the views of men on the subject have been very generally corrupted. Thus, that effort of the human mind which is employed to sweep away the absurd and ridiculous phantom, is too often found to extend itself, until, in reference to the present awful subject, we have also discarded the sober dictates of good sense, probability, and truth. In order, then, to form a just view of the doctrine in question-a view which shall be free at once from credulity and from scepticism-let us lay aside both our imaginations and our prejudices, and let us, with a humble spirit, examine the testimony given on the subject in the records of Divine revelation. For, as the Scriptures plainly declare that the Supreme Being is absolutely opposed to all moral evil |