Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

of expression in the 26th verse of the first chapter of Genesis, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” has been quoted by some divines as tending to prove the doctrine of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, and that of the Son, with the deity of the Father of the Universe, commonly called the doctrine of the Trinity. It could scarcely be believed, if the fact were not too notorious, that such eminent scholars as some of those divines undoubtedly were, could be liable to such a mistake, as to rely on this verse as a ground of argument in support of the Trinity. It shews how easily prejudice in favour of an already acquired opinion gets the better of learning, and how successfully it darkens the sphere of truth. Were we even to disregard totally the idiom of the Hebrew, Arabic, and of almost all Asiatic languages, in which the plural number is often used for the singular, to express the respect due to the person denoted by the noun: and to understand the term, “our image” and “our likeness,” found in the verse as conveying a plural meaning, the quotation would still by no means answer their purpose; for the verse in question would in that case imply a plurality of Gods, without determining whether their number was three or three hundred, and of course without specifying their persons. – No middle point in the unlimited series of number being determined, it would be almost necessary for the purpose of obtaining some fixed number, as implied by those terms, to adopt either two, the lowest degree of plurality in the first personal pronoun both in Hebrew and Arabic, or to take the highest number of Gods with which human imagination has peopled the heavens. In the former case, the verse cited might countenance the doctrine of the duality of the Godhead entertained by Zirdusht and his followers, representing the God of goodness, and the God of evil, to have jointly created man, composed of a mixed nature of good and evil propensities; in the latter it would be consistent with the Hindoo system of religion; but there is nothing in the words, that can be with any justice construed as pointing to Trinity. These are not the only difficulties attending the interpretation of those terms: if they should be viewed in any other than a singular sense, they would involve contradiction with the very next verse: “So God created man in his own image;” in which the singular number is distinctly used: as in Deut. ch. iv. ver. 4: “The Lord our God is one Lord ;” and also with the spirit of the whole of the New Testament. To those who are tolerably versed in Hebrew and Arabic, (which is only a refined Hebrew,) it is a well known fact, that in the Jewish and Mohummudan Scriptures, as well as in common discourse, the plural form is often used in a singular sense, when the superiority of the subject of discourse is intended to be kept in view: this is sufficiently apparent from the following quotations taken both the Old Testament in Hebrew, and from the Qoran. Eacodus, ch. xxi. ver. 4, in the original Hebrew Scripture Tws to in vrin DR “If his masters (meaning his master) have given him a wife.”

[ocr errors]

So also in the Qoran, o' yo-ero -->3' e-u “We are (meaning I am) nearer than the jugular vein.” Jes, sus's U. “Surely we (meaning I) created every thing in proportion.” In these two texts of the Qoran, God is represented to have spoken in the plural number, although Mohummud cannot be supposed to have employed a mode of expression which he could have supposed capable of being considered favourable to the Trinity. But what are we to think of such reasoning as that which finds a confirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the thrice repeated term “holy,” in verse 3, ch. vi. of Isaiah 2 Following this mode of argument, the repetitions of the term “Eli, Eli,” or “My God, my God,” by Jesus in his human nature, in Matthew, ch. xxvii. ver. 46, equally establishes the duality of the Godhead. So also the holy name of the Supreme Deity being composed of four letters, in the Hebrew, my; in Greek, Osog; in Latin, Deus; in Arabic, oil; and in Sunscrit, stor, clearly denotes the quadrality of the Godhead But these and all similar modes of argument that have been resorted to are worthy of notice only as they serve to exhibit the extraordinary force of prejudice and superstition. The most extraordinary circumstance is, that some should quote in support of the Trinity the following sentence: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one;” representing it as the 7th verse, ch. v. of the first epistle of John. This is supposed to have been at first composed as a paraphrase upon what stands as ver. 8 of the same chapter,” (“and there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one,”) and met with approbation. It was, however, for a length of time known only in oral circulation; but was afterwards placed in the margin of some editions, and at last introduced into the text, most probably in the fifteenth century, as an original verse. From that time it has been the common practice to insert this verse amongst those which are collected in support of the Trinitarian doctrine. It may have served in this way to confirm and strengthen prejudice, though few biblical critics ever attached the smallest value to it either way. This interpretation is so modern, and so obvious, that several Trinitarian Editors and Commentators of the Bible, such as Griesbach and Michaelis, (who never allowed their zeal for their sect to overcome the prudence and candour with which they were endowed.) have omitted to insert it in their late works on the New Testament; knowing, perhaps, that such an

« AnteriorContinuar »