Page images
PDF
EPUB

reasonably expect to find frequent instances of all the words mentioned by Wilson occurring in the plural, with a singular application. Yet the only instances of BOL, when it signifies a husband, (and indeed of any of the different Hebrew words so translated in our common version,) occurring in the plural, are, so far as I have been able to discover, two in number,-viz. Isa. liv. 5. already quoted, and Jer. xxxi. 32.; in both of which, it is rather singular, the application happens to be to Jehovah.— As to the same word, when used to signify a master or owner, the instances of its occurrence, when considered as exemplifications of dominion, dignity, and majesty, are somewhat curious. It is applied, Exod. xxi. 28. xxii. 11. to the “owner” of an ox, or an ass, or a sheep; and in Isa. i. 3. to the "mas"ter" of an ass: in which places it is in the plural number. I am not sure that the plural form of it occurs in this acceptation any where else. There is a high degree, no doubt, of dominion, dignity, and majesty, in being the proprietor of an ox, or an ass, or a sheep; a degree eminently worthy of a departure from the ordinary established principles of language to express it. I should think it, for my own part, more simple and reasonable to conclude, that since, throughout the context of the passages referred to, the word, when not in construction with the pronoun suffix, is in the singular number, and only assumes an apparently plural form, when in such construction, (a variation not readily accounted for on the principles of the rule in question; the dominion of the master over his ox or his ass, and his dignity as its possessor, continuing the same)—either that BOLI is used as a singular form of the noun, when in these circumstances of regimen *, or that owner in the singular,

* Gousset, in his Commentari Linguæ Ebraica (to which my attention has been directed since writing the above), in a long and ingenious defence of the argument for a plurality of persons in the Godhead from the plural form of Elohim, expresses, I observe, a similar opinion:--" Nam ad id," says he, "allegantur dic

and owners in the plural, are used promiscuously, because an ox, or an ass, or a sheep, may be the property either of one owner, or of more than one.

4thly. With respect to the word ADNIM, to which Mr. Yates confines his examples of the rule;-it is, first of all, to be noticed, that in no one of the instances which are adduced by him, does it occur in its full plural form, ADNIM. It is, in every one of them, in a state of regimen with some pronominal affix, and appears in the form ADNI. I am not quite such a Tyro as to be ignorant that the MEM of the plural termination is dropt in such circumstances. But I find ADNI considered by some Hebrew grammarians as a form of this noun in the singular number.

Thus, Parkhurst: "9. postfixed is formative in some "nouns, both substantive, as ", (ADNI) Lord, “ fruit; and "adjective," &c. Thus, too, Pike: “T, TN, TN, (ADNI) a "Master, a Lord, a Sustainer.”—Allix, also, in his "Judg ❝ment of the Jewish Church against the Unitarians," (a scarce, and, in some respects, a valuable work) says: "This notion of

plurality must have sunk deep into the minds of the Jews, 66 seeing they have constantly read the word Jehovah, which ❝is singular, with the vowels of the word Adonai, which is "plural, instead of ADONI, which is singular." (Page 132.) -See also, for the opinion of another learned Hebrean, the preceding Note.

tiones Boli, Adoni, constructæ sic aut cum affixis; sed dubitari potest annon sint vere singulares, quibus, ex proprio quodam ingenio (ut præpositioni

x) accrescat: (quod etiam infra ita se habere ostendatur:) hic autem, nullum de nominis Aleim pluralitate dubium est."--Gussetii Comm. Ling. Ebr. p. 51. Amstel. 1702.--Wilson himself (p. 152 of his grammar) mentions the words for Father, Brother, and Father-in-law, as assuming Iod before the affixes; TN thy Father, 18 his Brother, her Father-in-law. May not BOL be another instance of the same kind?--In a note, too, page 264, he says--" Iod is often added to prepositions and adverbs, euphoniæ causa." May not this be the case with other words besides?

The only instance in which I find Adnim in its complete and decidedly plural form, and yet translated by the singular (with exception of those which relate to Jehovah), occurs in 1 Kings xxi. 17. "These have no master,” (Heb. masters :) in which case, although the expression refers to the fall of Ahab, we yet should not feel as if the sense were very palpably violated, as to the state to which his fall reduced the people, although the plural had been retained in the translation.

5thly. Had the rule in question been a common idiom of the language, we might very reasonably have expected to find it in application, in the case of such words as King, Prince, Ruler, and many others of a similar description, which convey the ideas of dominion, dignity, and majesty, surely much more impressively than the word used for the owner or master of an ox or an ass. No such instances, however, are adduced.

6thly. While the commonness of this rule or idiom is far from being established by the facts in the practice of the language, I almost wonder that it should not:-because it appears to me, that an idiom of this kind would find an origin so natural, in the very circumstance of the name of the One God in three persons having a plural form. In Him are concentrated all the ideas we can form, and infinitely more, of dominion, dignity, and majesty. And, in these circumstances, it might have been highly natural for the Hebrews, to give a plural termination to other words in their language, expressive of similar qualities and attributes.

3. The last observation is applicable, with particular force, to the case of false gods. It is surely not at all a surprising thing, that when the plural name has been applied to the true God, it should be used also in application to the idols of the heathen. There is nothing more wonderful in the name

being so used in the plural form, than in its being so used at all. The same principle which accounts for the name GoD being given to heathen Deities at all, will equally well account for its being given to them in the particular form in which it is applied to the true God." We know that an idol is no"thing in the world, and that there is no other God but one." Yet the name of God is given to them in the Scriptures, in accommodation to the false conceptions and customary phraseology of their deluded worshippers. We never think of inferring that idols in general possess divinity, from their being called Gods; and neither do we infer, on the same principle, plurality in the particular idol, from the plural name of the One God being used in speaking of it.-The circumstance of the plural name being applied to individual idols, does not, therefore, by any means "show the futility” of the reasoning against which Mr. Yates argues; because, if the name was first given to the true God, and then transferred in its application to false Gods, the cause of its assuming the plural form in its primary application, may, after all, have been what we allege, the threefold distinction in the Divine Unity.-And, if these remarks be well founded, the reason which accounts for the use of the plural name of God, when a false Deity is spoken of, will, of course, account also for the occurrence, on such occasions, of any peculiarities of syntactical phraseology which arise out of it.

4. Mr. Yates mentions, that many of the most learned Trinitarians have rejected the argument from the plural form of the name of God.-Who these many are, I am not at present very careful to inquire. The argument may be a tolerably sound one after all;-even although Calvin himself should have questioned it. "That celebrated man," says Mr. Yates, "had too much learning, and too much sense, to build his

66 system on such a sandy foundation."-The answer to this is, So have we. We do not build our system on this foundation. It is only one consideration amongst many, which mutually derive and communicate strength to one another. Even if Mr. Yates should make out this to be sand, we have abundance of solid rock besides.-With respect to learning (that is, Hebrew learning-the only description of learning that has to do with the case) we have higher authorities on our side than Calvin.

The following is the conclusion to which Gousset draws his argument, in the learned work before referred to: "Ex his "sequitur pluralem de Deo locutionem propriè ac in tota vi ❝sua sumendam, ut idiomatis Ebraicæ linguæ obtemperetur ; “ideoque fatendum esse illam pluralitatem in Deo disertis"simè et validissimè asseri." Comm. Ling. Ebr. p. 52."From these considerations it follows, that the plural form "of speech concerning God, is to be taken strictly and in its "full force, if we would comply with the idiom of the Hebrew 66 tongue; and that therefore it ought to be acknowledged, ❝that by this phraseology, plurality in Deity is most distinctly "and strongly affirmed."-In the same connexion he expresses himself in these remarkable words:" At inquis, plu❝ralitati isti obstat Dei natura. Ego, contra, quî scis? plus "valet locutio Dei qui scit, quam ratiocinatio tua, qui nes"cis. Regeris, sunt aliæ causæ pluralis locutionis. Ego re"pono, propria et naturalis ejus causa est rerum insignitarum "pluralitas: ex ea venire solet pluralis forma nominis, nec "efficaciori modo illa indicari potuisset quam locutione ista "et diserta et solenni. Omnis ergo humilis verbi Dei disci"pulus, quid ille dicat, bona fide, excipere studens acquies"cat." Ibid. p. 52. "But you will say, This plurality is "inconsistent with the nature of God. I ask, in return,

« PreviousContinue »