1. In only one of these four texts does the plural pronoun necessarily imply a plurality of persons. "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil."-Gen. iii. 22. The expression, "one of us," seems to allude to a plurality of persons, or intelligent beings. But that they were persons in the Godhead is impossible. For if God was the speaker, all, that was included in God, was included in the speaker. If in God there was a plurality of persons, the same plurality was in the speaker. Consequently the person, or persons, addressed, could not be persons in the Godhead. None but real distinct beings can converse together, or address each other, or hear conversation. Whenever God speaks to any person, that person is as much another being, as another per son. No one, of a plurality of equal beings, can be the only True God. If the Supreme Being was the speaker, in this case, the beings, spoken to, could not be coequal persons in the Godhead.

2. The only attribute, which the passage ascribes to the beings denoted by the pronoun us, is the knowledge of good and evil. Now if there are any other intelligent beings, inferior to God, who resemble man in the capacity of knowing good and evil, it is reasonable to suppose the allusion was made to them. But it is certain there are such beings; and that they are called "Gods" in the 5th verse of this chapter. "In the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." These are the words of the serpent, to which the expression, one of us," unquestionably alludes. Therefore the assertion "The man is become as one of us," only signifies, that the man was become as one of the host of heaven, or family of God; resembling them in the capacity of distinguishing between good and evil. Jesus uses the pronoun us, when speaking to his Father; and why may not the Father, when speaking to any of his children, or any of his servants? If

66

a master were to say to his servant, concerning another person, "the man is become as one of us" in some branch of knowledge, which was common both to the master and servant, who would infer, from such a manner of speaking, that the servant was equal to his master, or that the master was himself a plurality of persons? And yet the doctrine of a plurality of equal persons in God is inferred, merely from his speaking in this manner to some of the heavenly host!

3. In the other three passages referred to, the pronouns, us and our, do not necessarily imply a plurality of persons. It is common in all languages, with which we are acquainted, and it appears always to have been so, for an individual, especially if he be a person of great dignity and power, in speaking of himself only, to say we, our, us, instead of I, my, me. Thus the king of France says, "We, Charles the tenth." The king of Spain says, "We, Ferdinand the seventh." The Emperor of Russia says, " We, Alexander," or We, Nicholas."

The following examples from the Scriptures further illustrate this universal custom.

Rehoboam, king of Israel, uses the pronoun we when speaking of himself, thus, "What counsel give ye, that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me."-1 Kings, xii. 9. See also 2 Chron. x. 6-9.

Artaxerxes, king of Persia, uses the pronoun us when speaking of himself, thus, "The letter which ye sent unto us, hath been plainly read before me."-Ezra, iv. 18.

Zedekiah, king of Judah, speaks of himself in the same manner, thus, "As the Lord liveth, that made us this soul, I will not put thee to death."-Jer. xxxviii. 16.

Who would infer from this manner of speaking, that in each of these kings there was a plurality of persons? Nor is this manner peculiar to kings. Christ uses the words we and our, when speaking of himself, thus, "Verily, verily; I say unto you we speak that we do know, and testify that

we have seen; and ye receive not our witness: If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you heavenly things?"-John iii. 11, 12.

St. Paul, in describing his situation and feelings, uses the pronouns we, our, us, almost as frequently as I, my, me. And where is the writer, or the public speaker, who does not employ the same style? Are we to believe that every preacher and every orator of the present day, who says we, our, us, when he means no one but himself, employs a phraseology indicative of a plurality of persons in himself? If not, why should we believe God to be a plurality of persons, because in three or four instances he has spoken in this manner?

If therefore we consider," says Mr. Yates, "how common throughout the world has been the use of plural pronouns to express the dignity and authority of the speaker, and that in the Scriptures this phraseology is employed by a Prophet, an Apostle, or a Prince, we cannot be surprised, that in three instances the King of Kings should employ the same majestic language. The wonder is, that the examples are so rare. Perhaps this form of expression was in general studiously avoided, in order to preserve the great doctrine of the Unity of God in one person, from the possibility of misapprehension.”

4. It is well known that Mohammed was a determined opposer of the doctrine of the Trinity: yet he often represents God as saying we, our, us, when speaking only of himself. This shows that, in his opinion, the use of such terms was not indicative of a plurality of persons. If no one infers, from their frequent use in the Koran, that Mohammed was a Trinitarian, surely their occurrence in a few places in the Bible ought not to be made a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity.

5. A plurality of persons, when speaking of themselves, never say I, my, me, mine, myself. There is no rule, or

custom, known among men, to justify such a style. Yet God always speaks of himself in the use of the singular pronouns, except in three or four cases. This proves, beyond all debate, that God is but one individual person.

One per

son can say we, our, us; but a plurality of persons cannot say I, my, me, mine, myself.

6. Every Trinitarian, who argues for a plurality of persons, from the use of plural pronouns, strengthens the opposite argument of the Unitarian. For if the use of plural pronouns is proof that God is several persons, the use of singular pronouns is proof that God is but one person. And the three or four cases in which the plural pronouns are employed, weigh no more than the small dust of the balance against the thousands, and tens of thousands of cases in which the singular pronouns are employed. Therefore the evidence that God is but one person, which is furnished by the use of the singular pronouns, God being the speaker, is thousands of times as strong as the evidence that he is more persons than one, which is furnished by the use of the plural pronouns.

7. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness......So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him."-Gen. i. 26, 27. As God's purpose, which he expressed by saying, Let us make man, was carried into effect by one person only, as the singular pronouns he and his clearly indicate, it is proper to infer that no more than one person was meant by the plural pronouns us and our.

"And the LORD said....Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language."-Gen. xi. 7. "Let me go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know."-Gen. xviii. 21. By comparing these two passeges together, we find that the same Being who, in the one, is represented as saying, "Let us go down," is, in the other

represented as saying, "Let me go down." And as the singular pronoun, me and I, in the latter passage, can denote but one person, it follows that the plural pronoun us, in the former passage, means no more than one. If it be objected that the expression, in the latter passage, is " I will go down," and not " Let me go down," as I have rendered it-I answer, that the verb, in both passages, is in the future tense in the original Hebrew, and may be translated either imperatively, or indicatively. We have a singular example of the use of the pronoun both in the singular and plural number, by the same speaker, and in relation to the same subject, in 1 Kings, xii. 6-9, and in the parallel passage in 2 Chron. X. 6-9, already referred to. When Rehoboam consulted the old men concerning a reply to be made to the people of Israel, he said, "How do ye advise, that I may answer this people?" But when he consulted the young men, he assumed a more majestic and princely style, and said "What counsel give ye, that we may answer this people?" "Also I heard the voice of the LORD, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I. And he said, Go, and tell this people," &c. Isa. vi. 8, 9. As the pronouns I and he can denote but one person, it follows that the pronoun us, can mean no more than

send me.

one person.

Finally, if these forms of expression were evidence that God did address some other being, who, of all the family above, would be so likely to be the object of such address, as his Son, "by whom also he made the worlds?" So far as we are acquainted with the operations of Jehovah, it appears that all his works are effected through the agency of some intermediate minister. If God "created all things by Jesus Christ," as we read in the Common Version, he would, unquestionably, sooner consult with him, especially in reference to the creation of man, than with any other being in the universe.