Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of the knowledge that he taught, and of sincere obedience to all that he commanded."

Sir I. Newton's Observations upon the Prophecies, p. 262: "The Beasts and Elders, therefore, represent the Christians of all nations; and the worship of these Christians in their churches is here represented under the form of worshiping God and the Lamb in the Temple, God for his benefaction in creating all things, and the Lamb for his benefaction in redeeming us with his blood:-God as sitting upon the throne and living for ever, and the Lamb exalted above all by the merits of his death."

It cannot be alleged that these personages, in imitation of several Grecian philosophers, published these sentiments only in conformity to the vulgar opinion, and to the established religion of their country; for both the vulgar opinion and the religion of the government of England in their days were directly opposite to the opinions which these celebrated men entertained.

The mention of the name of Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest mathematicians (if not the greatest) that ever existed, has brought into my recollection a mathematical argument which I some time ago heard a divine adduce in support of the Trinity, and which I feel inclined to consider here, though I am afraid some of my readers may censure me for repeating an argument of this kind. It is as follows: that as three lines compose one triangle, so three persons compose one Deity. It is astonishing that a mind so conversant with mathematical truth as was that of Sir Isaac Newton, did not discover this argument in favour of the possible existence of a Trinity, brought to light by Trinitarians, considering that it must have lain so much in his way. If it did occur to him, its force may possibly have given way to some such considerations as the following :-This analogy between the Godhead and a triangle, in the first instance, denies to God, equally with a line, any real existence: for extension of all kinds, abstracted from position or relative

situation, exists only in idea. Secondly, it destroys the unity which they attempt to establish between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; for the three sides of a triangle are conceived of as separate existences. Thirdly, it denies to each of the three persons of God the epithet “God,” inasmuch as each side cannot be designated a triangle; though the Father of the universe is invariably called God in the strict sense of the term. Fourthly, it will afford to that sect among the Hindoos who suppose God to consist of four persons or an opportunity of using the same mode of arguing, to shew the reasonableness of their sentiments, by comparing the compound Deity with the four sides of a quadrilateral figure. Fifthly, this manner of arguing may be esteemed better adapted to support the polytheism of the majority of Hindoos, who believe in numerous persons under one Godhead; for, instead of comparing the Godhead with a triangle, a figure containing the fewest sides, and thereby proving the three persons of the Godhead, they might compare God with a polygon, more suitable to the dignified rank of the Deity, and thus establish the consistency with reason, of the belief that the Godhead may be composed of numerous persons. Sixthly, this mode of illustration would, in fact, equally suit the Atheist as the Polytheist. For, as the Trinity is represented by the three sides of a triangle, so the eternal revolution of nature without any divine person may be compared to the circle, which is considered as having no sides nor angles; or, Seventhly, as some great mathematicians consider the circle as a polygon, having an infinite number of sides, the illustration of the Trinitarian doctrine by the form of the triangle will by analogy justify those sects, who maintain the existence of an infinite number of persons in the Godhead, in referring for an illustration of their opinions to the circular, or rather perhaps to the globular figure, in which is to be found an infinity of circles, formed each of an infinite number of sides.

As I was concluding this Appendix, a friend to the doctrine of the Trinity kindly lent me Serle's "Horæ Solitariæ." I confine here my attention only to four or five arguments, which the author has adduced in the beginning of his work, and that for several reasons. 1st, Because a deliberate attention to the nature of the firstmentioned arguments may furnish the reader with a general idea of the rest, and justify me in neglecting them. 2ndly, Because such of the others as seem to me at all worthy of notice have been already considered and replied to; and, 3rdly, Because I am unwilling to protract further discussion, which has already grown to a length far beyond my original intention.

At page 10, Mr. Serle alleges, that "God says by Moses in the book of Genesis, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; and then just afterwards, the Spirit moved upon the face of the waters. Here are three persons in one power; the Beginning, God, and the Spirit." If a bare mention of the word "beginning" and "spirit," (or, properly speaking, "wind,") in the first two verses of Genesis, justifies the numbering of them as two persons of God, how can we conscientiously omit the "water" mentioned in the same verse as coexistent with "spirit," making it the fourth person, and darkness, which is mentioned before spirit, as a fifth person of God: and if under any pretence we are justified in classing "beginning" an abstract relation, as a person of God, how can we deny the same dignity to the "end,” which is equally an abstract relation? Nay, the very words of chap. i. 8 of Revelation might be quoted to prove one of the persons of God to be the "ending;"-"I am Alpha and Omega, the BEGINNING and the ENDING, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." We have, then, God, the Beginning, the Spirit, and the Ending, four persons at least whom we must admit into the Godhead, if Mr. Serle's opinion have any foundation.

Page 12: "They (the ancient Chaldee Jews and Cabalists) expressed their idea of the Trinity by this particular type, where the three jods denote Jah, Jah, Jah, or that each of three persons (according to our Athanasian Creed) is by himself Jah or Lord :—the point (kametz) as common to each, implies the divine nature in which the three persons equally existed; and the circle, inclosing all, was intended to exhibit the perfect unity, eternity, and conjunction, of the whole Trinity." This type, if it existed at any time, can bear various interpretations, Theistical, Polytheistical, or Atheistical; but in Hebrew and Chaldee, the sign which is generally used to denote the Deity has two jods only; a reference to the Targums of Jonathan and Onkelos, written in the Chaldee language, and to other Targums in Hebrew and Chaldee, will establish the fact beyond doubt. This practice, which, according to Mr. Serle's mode of arguing, establishes the duality of God, is entirely overlooked by him.

In the same page again he says, that "in a very ancient book of the Jews, the first person, or Hypostasis, is described as Kather, the crown, or admirable and profound intelligence; the second person п Chochma, wisdom, or the intelligence illuminating the creation, and the second glory; and the third person Binah, or

the sanctifying intelligence, the worker of faith and the father of it." He immediately after this assertion notices in page 13, "they believed, taught, and adored three primordial existences in the Godhead, which they called sometimes middoth, or properties, and sometimes

DD sephiroth, or numerations." The force of truth here impels the author to contradict himself directly; since he at one time asserts that the Jews believed them to be the three persons of God, and again forgetting what he said, he affirms that the Jews called them properties, or numeration of properties. The fact is, that when the intercourse between the Jews and Greeks was great, the

former, in imitation of some of the latter, entertained the idea that the Supreme Deity used ten superior intelligences or qualities in the creation of the world; namely,

גדלה Understanding בינה-Wisdom חכמה-Crown כתר -Ever נצח-Beauty תפארת-Mightiness גבורה-Greatness

lasting-Glory- Foundation- Kingdom.* But a Godhead consisting of ten persons not suiting Mr. Serle's hypothesis, he omits the last seven, and mentions only the first three, which he denominates a proof of the Trinity.

In page 14, Mr. Serle represents "R. Simeon and the famous Jonathan treating upon the Trisagion, or thrice holy, in the 6th chapter of Isaiah," as saying, "that the first Holy implies the Father, the second Holy the Son, and the third Holy the Holy Ghost." I therefore give the commentary of Jonathan,* which I have been. so fortunate as to procure, in order to shew how zeal in behalf of the Trinity has sometimes led men to forget the claims of care and prudence. Jonathan's Targum on the term "Holy," thrice repeated in Isaiah vi. 3, is as follows:

קדיש בשמי מרומא עלאה בית שכנתיה קדיש על ארעא עובד Holy in the most high » גבורתיה קדיש לעלם ולעלמי עלמיא

66

heavens, the place of his glory-Holy upon the earth, the work of his power-Holy for ever and ever and ever."

Again, in page 14, he says, that "The Jews before Christ had a title for the Godhead consisting of twelve letters, which Maimonides, the most learned of all their writers, owns to have been a compounded name, or name (as was common among the Rabbins) composed of the

*This opinion is still to be found in the conversation as well as writings of the learned among Eastern theologians.

↑ The copy which is now in my hands was printed in London, by Thomas Roycroft, in the year 1656. It contains, besides the Targum of Jonathan, the original Hebrew text, together with the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic translations, each accompanied with a Latin interpretation.

« AnteriorContinuar »