Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

it is remarkable, that the infcription mentions three figures, yet they are called the image of GOD, in the fingular number, and repeated, in the fame number, in the admonition, which ends the fentence thus: Gather the holy will of God from them; love him.

THESE authors, in the third volume of their Univerfal History, page 11, relate the positive laws concerning the worship of the only TRUE GOD, and, in the note [H,] they make several judicious obfervations upon fome fuperstitions of the Jews, in their repetition of the first precept, which runs thus: The Lord, who delivered his law from Mount Sinai, is the only GOD in heaven and earth; which has the fame purport with the first verse of the twentieth chapter of Exodus, being the firft of the decade, and with that mentioned before from the fixth of Deuteronomy. This precept, they pretend, they are obliged, by the oral laws, to repeat twice every day, at fun-rife, and at funfet; to which the Talmud has tacked feveral very abfurd obligations and ceremonies in the performing it; and this commandment they bring as an unanswerable argument against the Chriftian doctrine of the TRINITY. Upon which the Univerfal Hiftory, in the above-mentioned note, obferves thus:

"SINCE they urge this text fo ftrenuously against the "Christians, we shall beg leave to examine whether the "ancient Jews understood it in the same sense the mo"derns do: fome learned converts from Judaism to Chriftianity seem to have proved the contrary, from their "most ancient writings; but as profelytes are always fufpected of being over zealous, there have not been want

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"ing fome eminent Chriftians, who, after a mature exa"mination of their evidence, have confirmed it, as we "think, beyond all poffibility of replying. We shall fingle only one from among those many, not only as "he was very well verfed in this kind of learning, but “because, as he was not a priest, but a statesman, he may be less fufpected of partiality: we mean the great Philippus de Mornay, who, among other ancient authors, quotes Rabbi Simeon Ben Jobai, who, in his Zobar, a "book by the Jews acknowledged to have been written, "before the Talmud, if not before CHRIST, quotes the "expofition of Rabbi Ibba of this text, to this purport: "that the first Jehovah, which is the incommunicable name of GOD, is the FATHER; by Elohim, is meant the "Son, who is the fountain of all knowledge; and by the "fecond Jehovah is meant the HOLY GHOST, proceeding "from them; and he is called Achad, one, because GOD "is one. Ibba adds, that this mystery was not to be re"vealed till the coming of the MESSIAH. The author of "the Zobar goes on, and applieth the word holy, which "is thrice repeated in the vifion of Isaiah, to three per“sons in the DEITY; which he elsewhere calls three funs,

[ocr errors]

or lights; three sovereigns, without beginning, and with"out end. However, though it is out of our province to CC enter any farther into the controverfy, how far the doc"trine of the Trinity was, or might be, known to the an"cient Jews, from several places in the Old Testament, " urged against them; yet we beg leave to make an ob"servation or two out of their Talmud, which feem to "make very much against them, because they have not

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

yet been taken notice of, by any author that we know "of. There is one fection in it, written dialogue-wife, "in which are feveral queftions; as first, why the names "of GOD, Elohim, Zabaoth, &c. are in the plural num"ber? And, fecondly, why they are joined to verbs in the fingular? (thus, for instance, the first verse of Genesis, fays: Elohim bara, where GoD is in the plural, and "created in the fingular; which our divines have applied "to the Trinity in Unity). And, thirdly, why GoD speaks, in fome places, in the plural number? as, Let us make make man, &c. in our own image, &c.? Now, it is plain, that to all these questions, or rather objections, "the Talmud gives us no anfwers, but what are plainly illufory; and such as the compilers would, most probably, have fuppreffed, as well as the questions, had they not defigned thereby to make a kind of tacit acknow"ledgement, that these irregular expreffions contained "fome mystery, which they did not think lawful to di

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

vulge. This was the reafon why a learned Rabbi, who "was feverely charged with having betrayed the myfteries "of his religion, because the ftreightness of his circum"stances had forced him to accept of the generous offer, "from a Roman cardinal, of a large falary for teaching "the Hebrew tongue, protests, among other things, which "he urges in his own vindication, that he had never fo “much as explained the first verse of Genefis.

"BUT what will convince our readers, that this was the "cafe of the writers of the Talmud, is the answer that " is given in the chapter, above quoted, to the question, why the throne of GOD is in the plural number, in "Daniel's

[ocr errors]

"Daniel's vifion? The words, in the Chaldee, are carfevan remiú; which our verfion renders, the thrones were caft down, contrary to the exprefs meaning of the verb, which fignifies to raife, to exalt, and fet up; in "which sense, all the Jews do rightly understand it. "The question, therefore, that is afked is, why the throne, on which the Ancient of Days was to fit, is put in the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

plural? After several trifling answers, which are there given as the folution of feveral learned Rabbies, one of "whom pretends, that the plural implies the thrones of "GOD and David, the laft, and concluding one, is to the "following purpose: that it is blafphemy to fet the crea

[ocr errors]

ture on the throne of the Creator, bleffed for ever; and "clofes the whole with these remarkable words: if any “ one can solve this difficulty, let him do it; if not, let him 80 bis way, and not attempt it. The meaning of it being too obvious to want explaining, we shall wholly sub"mit to the reader, and only add, that fomething very "like this feems to be intimated in that diftin&tion, in "their creed, about the unity of GOD; namely, that he " is one by an oneness, or unity, peculiar to himself.”

ALTHOUGH it may feem to fome of my readers, that my pursuing what relates to the history of the Trinity is a digreffion from the subject I have adopted; yet I cannot but think it of much confequence, to dwell a little longer upon it, in this place, fince I am led to it by colonel Grant's explanation of the Siberian medal: because, it will contribute to the discovery of other matters, which, in the end, will not be very foreign to my general purpose. I fhall, therefore, further attend to what the Reverend E e 2 Dr.

;

Dr. Waterland has hinted, upon this head, in his fecond fermon upon the Divinity of our Lord JESUS CHRIST who, after he has fufficiently confuted the enemies of this doctrine, from the New Teftament, proceeds to recite what the ancient Chriftians urged out of the Old, against the Arians, Jews, &c. in vindication of a plurality in the Godhead, coequal and coeternal; not fo much to confirm what he has amply proved before, which wants no confirmation, as to explain and illustrate it something further, and, withal, to give a clearer idea of the fentiments of the primitive writers, on this head. What I fhall make use of here, from Dr. Waterland, are as follows:

"In the first chapter of Genefis, verse 20, GOD is intro"duced speaking in the plural number,. Let us make man, "in OUR image, after OUR own likeness. This text has been "understood of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, (or, at least, "of Father and Son) by the whole stream of Christian "writers, down from the times of the apoftles. The "Chriftians were not fingular in thinking that the text “ intimated a plurality; the Jews before, and after, be"lieved fo too, as appears from Philo, and Justin Mar"tyr's Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew; only they inter"preted the text, of God and his angels, which the Chri"ftians understood of the perfons of the TRINITY. Juftin "Martyr, and others, made very good use of it against the Jews, obferving how absurd it was, to suppose that angels could be joined in that manner with God the Fa"ther, and be able to create man, or any thing.

[ocr errors]

“THUS far, at least, we may infer from their manner "of using this text, and their reasoning upon it, that the "Chriftian

« AnteriorContinuar »