« PreviousContinue »
Both cannot be true: and by ascertaining the real import of the Original, -by placing himself, as much as possible, in the circumstances of those for whom the Scriptures were written,—. and by comparing Scripture with Scripture,—the Unitarian sees fair and sufficient reason, for such interpretations of the passages adduced by the Trinitarian, as render them perfectly consistent with the express and unambiguous declarations, and general tenor, of the Scriptures. If he do not feel able to determine the import of those passages, he rests satisfied that Revelation cannot contradict itself ; that occasional obscurity cannot affect the explicit, clear, precise, determinate, language of Revelation."
In the following pages will be found, (1) The most weighty passages usually adduced to prove or support Trinitarianisin : (2) Passages which either assist to explain them, or shew that the Trinitarian Interpretation cannot be the true one : and (3) Interpretations of the former consistent with the latter.
In some few instances the Reader will find a departure from the Common Version : but the rendering here given, is, in every case, a literal trauslation of the text.
PASSAGES In support of Trinitarianism. Disproving the common luterpretation. (1) Gen. i. 1. In the be- (1) 1 Cor. viii. 6. ginning God (Elohim) created there is One God, the FAthe heaven and the earth. THER.
2.-If the doctrine of the Here the Hebrew name for Trinity were true, the AposGod is in the plural form,
tle could not have stopped while the verb is in the singu- here; because Father cannot lar. The same peculiarity of mean Father, Bon, and Holy the Hebrew is observable in Ghost. The words of the other places, and with other Apostle prove, that one Pernames for God; as Adonim, son only is properly God, Lords or Masters ; and the and that one Person, the Faverb is sometimes put in the singular, sometimes in the plu- Zech. xiv. 9. And Jehovah ral. Hence many infer that shall be King over all the there is a plurality of Persons earth: in that day Jehovah in the One God.- If it denoted shall be One, and His name plurality at all, it would surely One. be a plurality of Gods.
Innumerable passages in the Old and New Testament, where the Supreme Being, Jehovah, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is spoken of as One; without
explanation or limitation. (2) Gen, i. 26. And God (2) Neh. ix. 6. Taou, said, Let us make man, in even Tuov, art Jehovah alone; our image, after our like- Thou hast made heaven, &c.
- and Thou preservest them Two other passages occur all; and the host of heaven in which Jehovah is repre- worshippeth Thee. sented as using the plural Isa. xl. 25. To whom then pronouns, viz. Gen. xi. 7, will
ye liken me, or shall I Isa. vi. 8.X The expressions be equal ? saith the Holy in Genesis may be literally One. translated -- We will make Thousands, and Tens of man, we will go down ; in Thousands of instances, in which case all idea of one which the singular pronouns Person advising another va- I, Thou, He, in their various nishes.
cases, are employed in refere
ence to God. (3) Gen. iii. 22. And the (3) See the Texts in No. Lord God said, Behold the | 1 and 2, and many others ; man is become as one of us, and observe the phraseology
In consistency with the Divine Unity. (1) It is a common practice of the Hebrew Language, to put in the plural form, words that express dominion, dignity, and inajesty: and, farther, when a plural noun is used to denote a single object, the verb is regularly put in the singular, though it is sometimes put in the plural, owing merely to the termination of the noun. These indisputable facts, at once solve the grammatical difficulty, and it is nothing more. If the doctrine which it is supposed to favour, had any solid foundation in the Scriptures, this Hebrew idiom could afford it 10 support.-When Jehovah says to Moses, ' I have made thee a god to Pharaoh,' the original word is Elohim or Aleim. The plural form is employed in reference to the one Golden Calf, Exod. xxxii. 4, 8, 31; to Dagon, Judges xvi. 23; to the Sidonian deities Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Milcom, each separately, 1 Kings xi. 33, &c. &c. In like manner, Abraham, Pharaoh, Joseph, &c. are called Adonim, Lords. The argument has been rejected by many of the most learned Trinitarians. Even Calvin denies that the plural termination is any evidence of a plurality of Persons in the Godhead.
(2) The Supreme Being is in these passages represented as using the language of dignity, according to the practice of earthly sovereigns. Examples of this practice occur in the Scriptures ; e. g. 1 Kings xii. 9; Ezra iv. 18. The only wonder is, that it is found in so small a number of instances. In the Koran, God is continually represented as speaking in the plural number, We did-We gave-We commanded;
yet the Mahometans are strict believers in the Divine Unity. The Jews themselves inferred nothing from this phraseology respecting a plurality of Persons in the One God. In fact, if it taught plurality at all, it would teach that there are more Gods than one, which in words at least, all Christians deny.
(3) If the Trinitarian interpretation were the true one, the Lord God must be supposed to say it to another Lord God, and it would teach a plurality of Gods.—There is no reason