|
In the total absence of anything like proof of the
dogma which teaches that the existence of three Persons is compatible
with the Unity which they acknowledge, Christians have laid great stress
on the construction of the word אלהים,
which has a plural form, and which is used as a noun plural when it is
not applied to God. The circumstance of its being then joined almost
invariably to words in the singular number, and which would seem to
indicate that the word was used to denote a single object, is evaded by
the observation that although there are three persons there is but one
God, therefore the verb, pronoun, &c., in the singular number are quite
appropriate. The value of the evidence offered depends on the
assumption that the word אלהים when
applied to God, is to be understood in the plural number, and indicating
the three persons. Now it is absolutely absurd to suppose that Moses,
who so emphatically inculcates the Unity of God, should have given
room, by the use of a word which was exclusively used as a noun plural,
to imagine there was more than One God, or a union of three persons in
that One.
We must, therefore, conclude that the word was used
both in the singular and in the plural numbers, however strange the fact
may appear to us. The word in its strict meaning, cannot be applied to
any other object than the Deity, or to the false gods of idolaters, it
is sometimes used to designate a magistrate, and figuratively applied to
angels and men; yet there are few instances in Holy Writ where the word
is used under circumstances which make it impossible to be understood in
the plural number. The first occurs in Ex. 7:1,ראה נתתיך אלהים לפרעה. Now we cannot
suppose the Almighty said to Moses, “See, I have made thee gods to
Pharaoh,” yet he made use of a word which had also a plural meaning; but
there cannot be any doubt that when applied to the Deity it always
conveyed the meaning of Unity, and here it is applied in its singular
signification to one man. When the Israelites, impatient of the
protracted stay of Moses on Sinai, called on Aaron to make
אלהים to conduct them, he made a molten
calf, and presented it to them, saying, אלה
אלהיך אשר העלוך using the plural number both in the pronouns and
the verb, when speaking of a single object, but that object, he tells
them, represents the deity who had brought them out of Egypt. There
could not be any doubt as to number, though he spoke in the plural: the
object before them was one. When the angel appeared to Manoah’s wife,
she thought him איש האלהים though his
appearance was awful. Afterwards, when he appeared to him and his wife,
and ascended in the flame of the sacrifice, they imagined they had seen
God; כי אלהים ראינו they had only seen
one object, yet they made use of a noun which is sometimes used to
designate many, as אלהים אחרים. When
Saul consulted the witch, on being asked what she had seen, she says,
אלהים ראיתי and afterwards, describing
what she has seen, she says, “an old man;” here is another instance
where the word is applied to one object. It is not to be expected, from
its signifying “Deity,” that the word could often be applied to any
other object; but from the foregoing examples we see that it has been
used as a noun singular from the time of Moses to the latter part of the
reign of Saul, and at the time of Manoah we see that such was the
practice among the common people. This fact being established, overturns
the assumption that by the use of the word more than one object is
meant; for there is no evidence to prove that the word being sometimes
used in the singular is not to be so understood when it signifies God.
An undoubted method of ascertaining the meaning of a word is found in
the number of its adjuncts, whether verbs or pronouns; and in the
present case they are almost always in the singular. Taking the first
chapter of Genesis, for instance, and supposing the word
אלהים had been obliterated; from the
words ויקרא ויבדל וירא ברא &c., there
could not exist a doubt that the subject spoken of was One, and not
more; therefore the translators properly used the word God in the
singular, and even when the verb is in the plural, they translate it in
the singular, as Gen. 20:13.
It is remarkable that though the Christians
lay great stress on the word being sometimes used in the plural number,
they translate it in the Bible in the singular, “God.” When it refers to
idols they say gods, except in the Decalogue, where
אלהים אחרים is rendered “no other god.”
It appears from the foregoing that the word being used to designate both
numbers, it does not necessarily follow that in using it, Moses intended
to indicate a plurality of persons leaving created the world; and as to
his having used it purposely to convey that meaning, cannot be supposed
from the emphatic manner in which he inculcates the Unity of God. Of the
plurality in that Unity he could not have any conception; that doctrine
was not broached until the rise of Christianity; for although the
Hindoos invented an immense number of gods, and the Egyptians even
worshipped animals, neither nation entertained the absurd idea that in
any of there them were three individuals, co-existing, but distinct.
Christians, in challenging the word אלהים
as a proof of the plurality of the object indicated, are careful not to
translate it in the plural “Gods,” and justify the absurdity of
describing more than one Being by a noun in the singular number, by
saying that although there are three persons who are respectively God,
there is but One God, and that wherever that word occurs indicating the
Deity the three persons must be understood,—the doctrine of a Trinity in
Unity. There is not anything in the Bible or Gospels which can afford
the least support to such a startling doctrine; for were we to admit the
forced construction which Christians put on the word and other passages
in our holy Books, the only conclusion which could be formed would be
the existence of three or more gods, and that must be in defiance of the
repeated and unequivocal revelation by God that there is no other god
beside him. The word Trinity was not applied to the Being of God until
the second century of the Christian era; the meaning of it was not fully
explained until the Council. of Nice in the creed attributed to
Athanasius.
“The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy
Ghost is God, yet there are not three Gods but one God,” was a doctrine
accepted or condemned according as Athanasius or Arius was supported or
persecuted by Constantine. This dogma, though destitute of any support
from Revelation, was forced on the Christians by their imputing divinity
to Jesus and the Holy Ghost, and the necessity of avoiding the reproach
of Polytheism, whilst they insisted on the existence of three persons in
the Deity; but the doctrine is in itself contradictory, though it is
endeavoured to evade the inconsistency by saying the word “God” does not
indicate a person, but an Essence, of which the three persons partake in
common. This explanation is in opposition to the Old Testament and the
New, in both which the word signifies a Person or Ens, but absurd and
contradictory as it is, it is the only resource they have against the
imputation of Polytheism.
Now let us examine how far this dogma agrees
with other articles of the Christian faith. It is asserted that the
three Persons are equal, and each possesses all the attributes which we
assign to our God, such as omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, &c.,
that they fill all space, are never separate, where one exists the two
others are always to be found, they always act and will in harmony. From
this definition it would appear that they believe the Deity to be one in
person, but instinct with, three minds, although they confess the
existence of three persons. But the one mode of existence is quite as
incomprehensible as the other, and neither is supported by Revelation,
which alone could afford mankind any information on the subject. As an
isolated dogma, it perhaps might be received by those who were willing
to believe that the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were only three
different names given to one and the same God, however inapplicable they
may appear; but when this dogma is joined to the doctrine of an
Incarnation and an Atonement, then the contradiction and inconsistency
become manifest. It is held that the Son became incarnated in the womb
of Mary, in the frame of her son Jesus. To this assertion there are
insuperable objections, in the definition of the mode of existence of
the Son as one of the persons of the Trinity. He is said to be
omnipresent, therefore must necessarily be in the womb of Mary as well
as in every other place, and he did not inhabit the frame of Jesus any
more than any other man’s. As the three persons are inseparable, the
Father and the Holy Ghost must equally have become incarnate. If they
did not, then the Son was in one locality, and the Father and the Holy
Ghost were not there, and the Son was not where they were: then neither
of the three was omnipresent. Should we waive our objection to the
Incarnation, and agree to the hypothesis of three omnipresent persons
inhabiting the frame of Jesus: we must allow that the three persons were
also incarnate in the bodies of all other creatures, and there was
nothing singular in what was termed the “Incarnation.” The word,
however, must be restricted to its natural signification, “being
enclosed in flesh,” or “assuming body,” for it is still more
objectionable to assent to what is inculcated in the thirty-nine
articles, that he took human nature in the womb of Mary, and thus the
two natures, the godhead and the manhood, were united in one person,
“never to he divided.” If the three Persons always act together, they
must all have been united to the humanity of Jesus; and the Christians,
in the One God which they confess, must adore three divine and one human
person. The same Second Article teaches that “the one Christ, very God
and very man,” “truly suffered, and was crucified, dead and buried,” “to
reconcile the Father to us.” Here it is distinctly stated that the Son
did act separately and independently from the Father, which clearly
demonstrates that the Father and the Son are two distinct Entes, and not
one, the Son submitting to be sacrificed in order to reconcile the
Father, and the Father being satisfied by the immolation of the Son, the
one being active, and the other being passive, whilst the Holy Ghost
does not take any part in the action. Now it cannot be pretended that
there is any unity in three beings, one of whom is active, another
passive, and the third neuter.
As to the object of the sacrifice, it represents
the Father as morally or physically impotent, unwilling or unable to
forgive mankind without the intervention of the Son, condescending to
forgive mankind what is called original guilt and actual sin, not in
consequence of their repentance and amendment, but in return for an
imaginary sacrifice, which he deigned to accept as an expiation.
According to the definition given of the nature of the Trinity, this
supposition is rendered still more impious; because as the ransom which
was to be paid for mankind, contemplated the suffering and death of not
only a Divine Person, but of the whole Trinity, since as the “substance”
of the three persons is not to be divided, the suffering and death of
one of the persons must be partaken of by the others. The same arguments
which have been adduced against the dogma of an Incarnation are equally
applicable to the Atonement: the Three Persons always acting in harmony
must all three have offered the sacrifice, and all three have accepted
the expiation. They must also all three have arisen from death, though
they could not die. They must all three have ascended to heaven, which
they could never have quitted, being omnipresent. Still more surprising
is the Fourth Article, which states that the Son, rising from death,
“took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things pertaining to
the perfection of man’s nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and
there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last day.” The
principal dogmas of Christianity, the Trinity in Unity, the Incarnation,
and the Atonement, reciprocally overturn each other. The unity of the
three Persons is incompatible with the Incarnation and the Atonement;
the Incarnation of the Son is destructive of the Unity of the Three
Persons as well as the Atonement.—I am not aware of any misstatement in
what I have quoted from the Athanasian creed and the articles of
religion; the farther explanation on the nature of the Trinity I have
received in the course of my correspondence with a learned minister of
the Church of England. It has grieved me to see the pertinacity with
which the London, the British, and the Scottish Societies labour for the
conversion of our brethren to Christianity, and the facilities which
they enjoy for the purpose in the control of a very large revenue, and a
host of salaried agents, whose office it is to seek the poor, ignorant,
and destitute among our brethren, and assail them with specious argument
and forced constructions of passages in our holy books; perhaps it may
be useful to those so dangerously situated to be shown the fallacy of
the proofs attempted to be drawn from the Bible, and to point out the
inconsistency and contradiction of the principal dogmas which they offer
for our acceptance. When I was young, I was strictly forbidden to read
the New Testament, and I believe even now few among us except the
literary part of the nation have given it the attention it deserves, and
fewer still have inquired into the doctrine which is founded on those
books. It must be desirable to furnish the young, and (on that point)
ignorant, with the objections which might not immediately present
themselves. It must startle a young Israelite to be told that the first
verse of the Pentateuch gives evidence of a Trinity in the word
אלהים; and should he reply that though
the form of the word is plural, the adjuncts; verb, pronouns, &c., are
in the singular, to be told that there being Unity in the Trinity, it is
not inconsistent that in treating of it both numbers should be used.
Indeed the repeated and emphatic declaration of the Divine Unity by
Moses and the other prophets is evaded by the doctrine that although
there is but One God there are three Persons. This they advance, though
without any foundation, leaving it to us to prove the negative. Should
he do so in the Words of God, by the mouth of the Prophet, “There is no
god with me:” they repeat One God and Three Persons. The only method of
proceeding is to show, by their own definition and explanation, that the
dogma is contradictory in itself, and is incompatible with the other
tenets of Christianity.—These remarks are not made with any improper
feeling towards our Christian brethren; but to show the grounds on which
we dissent from them in the theology of our religious faiths; for in
their morality there is no difference, the Christian code of morals
being taken from the Jewish.
J. R. P.
Hackney, 29th March, 1847. |
