Page images
PDF
EPUB

"fo that he himself alfo (Parmenides) agreed in the acknowledgement of a TRIAD of archical hypoftafes."* The probable meaning of Parmenides in thefe diftinctions is commented upon at length by Cudworth, to whom I must refer the reader for more particular information, while I finally pafs on to the confideration of the ideas upon this fubject of fome others of the more diftinguished philofophers of Greece.

One of the most express and clear of the ancient philofophers on this subject was Numenius, a Pythagorean, who flourished in the second century, and who, if Eufebius rightly represents his fentiments, wrote concerning Three Sovereign Deities. He makes the Second the Son of the First, and, by a coarse, but decifive, figure of speech, calls the Third Hypoftafis, Awoyovos, Grandfon.†

The Trinity of Plotinus very remarkably resembled Plato's, and consisted of To 'Ev, the One; Nes, the Mind; and Yun, the Soul; and thefe he denominates τρεις αρχικας υποστασas, three archical or principal hypoftafes. The Trinity of Amelius, his contemporary, we Ggg 3

* Plotini, Ennead. 5, lib.i. cap. 8.

have

+ Vide Eufebius Præp. Evang. lib ii. p. 537, and Proclus in Timæo, lib ii. p. 93.

have clearly seen in a former page, was a plain Trinity of perfons, for he ftyled them τρεις Bασιλεις, three kings, and makes them all δημιεργές, creators.* Porphyry called the first hypostasis in his Trinity, in fingular conformity to the notion of Chriftians, Tov Пaтega, the Father; his fecond was Ngs, the Mind, like Plato's ; but his third hypoftafis differed from Plato's and all that went before him; for, he denominated it not the Soul of the World, but a Soul wεgnoσμios, above that of the World.†

There was an attempt made by Jamblichus, Proclus, and fome of the later Platonifts, to invalidate this venerable doctrine of Chriftianity, by multiplying the number of the divine hypoftafes, and by exalting the To’Ayadov to an eminence far above the other two. Of this effort I fhall only obferve, that it proved as futile as it was malignant; and, having now, through a series of ages, and a variety of countries, many of them very remote from each other, examined the hiftory of both the Chriftian and Pagan Trinities, and shewn the extent of this doctrine over all the oriental world, I fhall clofe the prolonged digreffion with a

Proclus, cited before in Timæo, p. 93.

+ Proclus in Tim. p. 94 and 98.

with a few reflections that naturally refult from. the furvey.

The first that forcibly ftrikes the mind is, that this doctrine could not be the invention of Plato, because it has been plainly proved, by accumulated evidence, to have exifted in the higher Afia, and particularly in India, a thoufand years before Plato flourished; for, of that remote date are the Elephanta caverns, and the Indian hiftory of the Mahabbarat, in which a plain triad of deity are alluded to and defignated

Of confequence, ftill more palpably false must be the affertion that Juftin Martyr, who had formerly been a Platonist, first imported it into the Chriftian church, from the writings of that philofopher, in the second century. We have seen that, in fact, this doctrine, long before Plato flourished, was admitted, but concealed, among the myftic cabbala of the rabbies, and as undoubtedly one of the strongeft, if not the strongest, of the arguments adduced in favour of the doctrine of the Trinity being known and acknowledged by the ancient rabbies, is that deduced from the evident appearance of it in the Chaldee paraphrases, compofed before the violent difputes on the subject broke forth, I have selected many Ggg 4 ftriking

ftriking paffages from them, which, I imagine, cannot fail to have their due weight. I fhall not, therefore, here enlarge farther on that head, but only infert a remark omitted before, that the famous and frequently-cited paffage in the Pfalms, the Lord faid unto my Lord, is tranflated in the Targum, the Lord faid unto his WORD; which, if not understood of the fecond hypoftafis, is inexplicable nonfenfe, and can be refolved by no idiom whatever.

It is a circumstance not lefs aftonishing than true, that the Jews fhould admit the miracies, while they deny the divinity, of Chrift; for, the reader has been already informed, that, unable otherwife to account for the power which he exerted in working those miracles, the reality of which they dare not deny, they are driven to the extremity of afferting that thofe miracles were wrought by means of the TETRAGRAMMATON, which he ftole out of the Holy of Holies. Now their not denying his miracles is one great and decided proof of their having been really and publicly performed, and confequently of his being the Meffiah. Inftead of that belief, however, to which impartial truth should lead them, they obftinately continue to call the crucified Jefus the wicked Balaam, the

prophetic

prophetic impoftor, who ftole THE TETRAGRÁMMATON, and to whom they impute all the fufferings of their nation, becaufe, as Abarbanel has it, "That deceiver impiously called himfelf the Son of God."* Hence inflamed with intolerable hatred against Christians, they remain almoft totally ignorant of the leading principles of the Chriftian religion and the foundations on which it refts. thus long are they likely to remain, while they continue to entertain the incongruous, the fenfual, the abfurd, conceptions, which, at this day, prevail among them, relative to the imaginary being whom they have adorned with the enfigns and authority of the true Mefrab.

And

There was an ancient and almost immemorial tradition among the Jews that the world was to last only fix thousand years. They divided the ages, during which it was to continue in the following manner. Two thoufand years were to elapfe before the law took place; two thousand were to be paffed under the law; and two thousand under the Meffiah. Indeed, this fexmillennial duration of the world was, it is probable, too much the belief of the ancient fathers,

• See Bafnage, p. 254.

who

« PreviousContinue »