"How do you know that? The declaration of God, who “knows, is of more weight than your reasoning, who do not "know. There are other causes, you retort, of a plural form "of speech. I answer, its proper and natural cause is plu

rality in the things signified. It is from this that the plu❝ral form of a noun usually arises; nor could it have been in❝dicated in a manner more effectual than by this description of " phrase, at once elegant and consistent with use. Let every "humble learner, therefore, of the word of God, settle it in "his mind, to receive, in sincerity and truth, whatever he "may dictate."

Kennicott himself, that master in Hebrew literature, maintains the validity of our argument. In mentioning the facts respecting the construction of ALEIM, when used as the name of the true God, I took for granted the correctness of the ordinary statement, that it is sometimes connected with plural verbs, as well as with plural adjectives and pronouns. In the following passage, Kennicott denies the accuracy of this statement, and places the argument in a different and interesting light:" Marsilius Ficinus, qui etiam medio sec. 15. floruit, "in tractatu de Christiana religione, cap. 30. ait-se in dispu "tationibus adversus Judæos translatione LXX. Interpretum li"benter uti, ut eos egregiis illustrium Judæorum armis convinceret. "Hujus viri annotatio, quam statim proferemus, respicit rem ❝ consideratione dignissimam, quamvis eam ipse leviter attige"rit. Est autem hæc-Jungitur nomen Dei plurale verbo plura"li in Reg. lib. 2. • Quæ est gens, ut populus Israël, propter 66 quam IVIT DEUS.' Veritas Heb. dicit IVERUNT DII. Dicere de"buisset, tria dari loca in quibus verbum nunc plurale est, licet "ibi nominativus ALEIM de uno vero DEO certissimè intelligen"dus sit. Tria loca sunt Gen. xx. 13.; xxxv. 7.; et 2 Sam. vii. "23. Notatu quidem dignum est, hanc differentiam fere semper

M

"observari; scilicet, quando plurale hoc nomen ALEIM de falsis "diis usurpatur, verbum ipsi annexum plurale est ; et quando "de DEO adhibetur, verbum est singulare. Argumentum vero "hac differentia nixum, sæpius adhibitum ad probandam plu"ralitatem, et tamen unitatem, in Numine Divino, non valet "conclusè, nisi verba, in unum omnia, hoc modo annexa, sin"gularia vel nunc sint, vel olim fuerint. Tum enim denique, "quando probatum est, hanc regulam scribendi, prorsus pecu"liarem, ab omnibus Scriptoribus Divinis, et in singulis exemplis observari-tum denique, inquam, argumentum inde "petes firmum, atque (uti videtur) minimè refellendum. Mo"menti igitur haud levis est, si notetur, tria verba, hujus regulæ "exceptiones, pro certo esse corrupta: quum horum duo prio"ra ab omnibus, quotquot reperiri potuerunt, Pentateuchi Sa"maritani exemplis corriguntur; tertiumque corrigitur a loco

66

parallelo in ipso textu Hebraico 1 Chron. xvii. 21." "Marsi"lius Ficinus, who also flourished in the middle of the 15th "century, in a treatise on the Christian religion, chap. 30th, 66 says-that in disputing against the Jews, he made liberal "use of the translation of the Seventy, that he might over"come them with the excellent weapons of eminent country"men of their own. The remark of this writer, which we are "about to notice, respects a matter highly worthy of con"sideration, although he himself has touched it but lightly. "It is this-In the 2d Book of Kings" (in our Bibles the 2d Book of Samuel,)" the plural name of God is joined to a "plural verb- What nation is like the people Israel, for "which GOD WENT, &c.'-in the original Hebrew, GODS "WENT.-He ought to have said, that three passages are ad"duced, in which the verb is now in the plural number, although in all of them the nominative ALEIM is, without "controversy, to be understood of the one true God. The

"three passages are, Gen. xx. 13.; xxxv. 7.; and 2 Sam. vii. 23. "It is well deserving of notice, that the following distinction " is almost invariably observed; namely, when this plural name "ALEIM is used to signify false Gods, the verb connected with "it is plural; but when it is a designation of God himself, "the verb is singular. But the argument which rests on this "distinction, frequently adduced to prove plurality and yet "unity in the Godhead, is not conclusively valid, unless all "the verbs, without exception, which are so connected, "either now are singular, or were so originally. Then, how"ever, when it has been shown, that this rule of writing, so ❝entirely peculiar, is observed by all the sacred penmen, "and in every instance,-then, I say, you will obtain from "the circumstance an argument, well founded, and, as it "seems to me, incapable of refutation. It is, therefore, of no "small consequence to observe, that the three verbs, in the "cases of exception to this rule, are unquestionably corrupt "readings; the two former being corrected by all the copies "which have yet been discovered of the Samaritan Penta❝teuch; and the third by the parallel passage in the Hebrew "text itself, 1 Chron. xvii. 21." (Dissert. Gener. p. 48. §. 100.)

Mr. Yates, with a contemptuous appeal to "those who "have learned Hebrew," is pleased to school me for speaking of the plural name for God, and of certain constructions connected with it, as anomalies, or irregularities. (Pages 136. 138.) Does Mr. Yates, then, deny the existence of any principles of general grammar? If their existence is admitted, then peculiar idioms, even although uniform in their use in the particular language where they occur, are, with reference to such principles, in strict propriety of speech, anomalous or irregular. And it becomes a matter of curious and sometimes interesting speculation, to trace such idioms to

their respective origins. Even if Mr. Yates had made it out that the constructions in question were agreeable to a uniform rule of Hebrew syntax, they would still be deviations from the principles of general grammar, and, in this view, anomalous. But we have seen that, so far from the rule which he quotes being uniform, he has not made it out to be even common: so that I am still warranted to say, that in Hebrew syntax itself the constructions in question are anomalies, or irregularities.-In the latter of the two instances, indeed, in which he finds fault with me for so calling them, he fully admits that they are, after all, what he had just before denied them to be :

In the third place," says he, "Mr. Wardlaw argues "for a plurality of persons in the Godhead, from the "construction of the Hebrew names for God with verbs, "sometimes in the singular number, and sometimes in the 66 plural. This construction he calls an anomaly or irre66 gularity. But those who have learned Hebrew know, "that, when a plural noun is used to denote a single ob"ject (which is the case in various instances) the verb is "sometimes put in the plural, out of regard merely to "the plural termination of the noun." (P. 138.)-This is curious. He had before quoted with triumph the rule "Nouns that express dominion, dignity, majesty, are "commonly put in the plural." Now, we know that the occurrence, in the Hebrew Scriptures, of words expressive of such qualities, is very frequent :-yet here, in lieu of his common rule, we have the reduced and qualified phraseology," it is the case in various instances." And with respect to the construction of such nouns with verbs in the plural, he says "the verb is sometimes put in the "plural, out of regard merely to the plural termination of

"the noun."-Now surely that which is done only in various instances, and sometimes, is admitted to be a deviation from the customary practice, or established usages of the language; that is, to be an anomaly or irregularity.

I now come to Mr. Yates's strictures on the passages in which Deity is represented as speaking of himself in the plural number:-" Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"-" Let us go down, and there confound their language:"-" Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?"

My first remark here is, that Calvin, that "celebrated man,” had neither so much learning, nor so much sense as to reject the argument for the Trinity derived from these." Scio," says he, "multis nasutis ludibrio esse, quod ex verbis Mosis "personarum distinctionem elicimus, ubi Deum sic loquentem "inducit, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram. Vident ta❝men pii lectores quam frigide et inepte hoc velut colloquium ❝induceret Moses, nisi subessent in uno Deo plures persona. "Jam quos alloquitur pater, certum est fuisse increatos: nihil "vero increatum excepto ipso Deo, et quidem uno, &c.”*— "I am aware that our inferring a distinction of persons from "the words of Moses, when he introduces God as saying, ""Let us make man in our image,' has been matter of mock"ery to many scoffers. The pious reader, however, will be "sensible how tamely and inappropriately this would be in"troduced by Moses in the form of conversation, unless there "subsisted a plurality of persons in the one God. Those "whom the Father now addresses were without doubt un"created;-but nothing is uncreated excepting God, and "God is one," &c.

My next observation is, that when Mr. Yates represents

*Institutes, B. I. Ch. 13. Sect. 24.