(TTB) by Alexander Hislop : Chapter II, Section I, Trinity in Unity

The Two Babylons (TTB) 

by Alexander Hislop

Chapter II 

Section I 

Trinity in Unity

If there be this general coincidence between the systems of Babylon and Rome, the question arises, Does the coincidence stop here? To this the answer is, Far otherwise. We have only to bring the ancient Babylonian Mysteries to bear on the whole system of Rome, and then it will be seen how immensely the one has borrowed from the other. These Mysteries were long shrouded in darkness, but now the thick darkness begins to pass away. All who have paid the least attention to the literature of Greece, Egypt, Phoenicia, or Rome are aware of the place which the "Mysteries" occupied in these countries, and that, whatever circumstantial diversities there might be, in all essential respects these "Mysteries" in the different countries were the same. Now, as the language of Jeremiah, already quoted, would indicate that Babylon was the primal source from which all these systems of idolatry flowed, so the deductions of the most learned historians, on mere historical grounds have led to the same conclusion. From Zonaras we find that the concurrent testimony of the ancient authors he had consulted was to this effect; for, speaking of arithmetic and astronomy, he says: "It is said that these came from the Chaldees to the Egyptians, and thence to the Greeks." If the Egyptians and Greeks derived their arithmetic and astronomy from Chaldea, seeing these in Chaldea were sacred sciences, and monopolised by the priests, that is sufficient evidence that they must have derived their religion from the same quarter. Both Bunsen and Layard in their researches have come to substantially the same result. The statement of Bunsen is to the effect that the religious system of Egypt was derived from Asia, and "the primitive empire in Babel." Layard, again, though taking a somewhat more favourable view of the system of the Chaldean Magi, than, I am persuaded, the facts of history warrant, nevertheless thus speaks of that system: "Of the great antiquity of this primitive worship there is abundant evidence, and that it originated among the inhabitants of the Assyrian plains, we have the united testimony of sacred and profane history. It obtained the epithet of perfect, and was believed to be the most ancient of religious systems, having preceded that of the Egyptians." "The identity," he adds, "of many of the Assyrian doctrines with those of Egypt is alluded to by Porphyry and Clemens"; and, in connection with the same subject, he quotes the following from Birch on Babylonian cylinders and monuments: "The zodiacal signs...show unequivocally that the Greeks derived their notions and arrangements of the zodiac [and consequently their Mythology, that was intertwined with it] from the Chaldees. The identity of Nimrod with the constellation Orion is not to be rejected." Ouvaroff, also, in his learned work on the Eleusinian mysteries, has come to the same conclusion. After referring to the fact that the Egyptian priests claimed the honour of having transmitted to the Greeks the first elements of Polytheism, he thus concludes: "These positive facts would sufficiently prove, even without the conformity of ideas, that the Mysteries transplanted into Greece, and there united with a certain number of local notions, never lost the character of their origin derived from the cradle of the moral and religious ideas of the universe. All these separate facts—all these scattered testimonies, recur to that fruitful principle which places in the East the centre of science and civilisation." If thus we have evidence that Egypt and Greece derived their religion from Babylon, we have equal evidence that the religious system of the Phoenicians came from the same source. Macrobius shows that the distinguishing feature of the Phoenician idolatry must have been imported from Assyria, which, in classic writers, included Babylonia. "The worship of the Architic Venus," says he, "formerly flourished as much among the Assyrians as it does now among the Phenicians."

Now to establish the identity between the systems of ancient Babylon and Papal Rome, we have just to inquire in how far does the system of the Papacy agree with the system established in these Babylonian Mysteries. 

兩個巴比倫 (The Two Babylons)

 亞歷山大·希斯洛普

第二章

 第一節

 三位一體

 如果巴比倫和羅馬的製度之間存在這種普遍的巧合，那麼問題就來了，巧合是否就此止步？ 對此答案是，遠非如此。 我們只需要將古代巴比倫的神秘故事應用到羅馬的整個體系中，然後就會看到其中一個是多麼巨大地借鑒了另一個。 這些祕境長久以來都籠罩在黑暗之中，而現在這濃濃的黑暗開始消散。 所有對希臘、埃及、腓尼基或羅馬的文學關注最少的人都知道“神秘”在這些國家所佔據的地位，並且無論環境可能存在差異，在所有重要方面，這些“ 不同國家的“神秘”是一樣的。 現在，正如已經引用的耶利米的語言表明巴比倫是所有這些偶像崇拜系統的源頭，所以最有學問的歷史學家僅根據歷史的推論得出了相同的結論。 從佐納拉斯那裡，我們發現他諮詢過的古代作家的共同證詞是這樣的； 因為，談到算術和天文學，他說：“據說這些是從迦勒底人傳到埃及人，再傳到希臘人。” 如果埃及人和希臘人的算術和天文學源自迦勒底，看到這些在迦勒底是神聖的科學，並被祭司壟斷，這足以證明他們的宗教必定來自同一地區。 Bunsen 和 Layard 在他們的研究中得出了基本相同的結果。 本生的說法大意是埃及的宗教制度源於亞洲，是“巴別塔的原始帝國”。 萊亞德，雖然對迦勒底賢士的體系持更有利的看法，但我相信，歷史事實證明了這一點，但他還是這樣談到那個體系：“在這種原始崇拜的偉大古代中，有大量的 證據, 它起源於亞述平原的居民, 我們有神聖和世俗歷史的統一見證。它獲得了完美的稱號, 被認為是最古老的宗教體系, 早於埃及人的宗教體系 ” “同一性，”他補充道，“許多亞述學說與埃及學說的同一性已被波菲利和克萊門斯提及”； 並且，關於同一主題，他引用了伯奇關於巴比倫圓柱體和紀念碑的以下內容：“黃道帶符號......明確表明希臘人得出了他們的黃道帶概念和安排[以及因此交織在一起的神話 與它]來自迦勒底。不可否認寧錄與獵戶座的身份。 歐瓦羅夫在他關於埃琉西斯之謎的博學著作中也得出了同樣的結論。 在提到埃及祭司聲稱有幸將多神教的第一要素傳給希臘人這一事實之後，他得出結論：“這些積極的事實足以證明，即使沒有一致的觀念，神秘主義也已移植到希臘， 並且與一定數量的局部觀念相結合，從未失去它們起源於宇宙道德和宗教觀念搖籃的特徵。所有這些獨立的事實——所有這些零散的證詞，都回歸到那個富有成果的原則，它把 東方是科學和文明的中心。” 因此，如果我們有證據表明埃及和希臘的宗教起源於巴比倫，那麼我們就有同樣的證據表明腓尼基人的宗教體係來自同一源頭。 麥克羅比烏斯表明，腓尼基偶像崇拜的顯著特徵一定是從亞述輸入的，在古典作家看來，亞述包括巴比倫。 “對 Architic Venus 的崇拜，”他說，“從前在亞述人中盛行，就像現在在腓尼基人中一樣盛行。”

 現在要確定古代巴比倫和羅馬教皇制度之間的同一性，我們只需要詢問教皇制度與這些巴比倫奧秘中建立的製度相符到什麼程度。

 （255 個中的第 17 個）(17 of 255)

In prosecuting such an inquiry there are considerable difficulties to be overcome; for, as in geology, it is impossible at all points to reach the deep, underlying strata of the earth's surface, so it is not to be expected that in any one country we should find a complete and connected account of the system established in that country. But yet, even as the geologist, by examining the contents of a fissure here, an upheaval there, and what "crops out" of itself on the surface elsewhere, is enabled to determine, with wonderful certainty, the order and general contents of the different strata over all the earth, so is it with the subject of the Chaldean Mysteries. What is wanted in one country is supplemented in another; and what actually "crops out" in different directions, to a large extent necessarily determines the character of much that does not directly appear on the surface. Taking, then, the admitted unity and Babylonian character of the ancient Mysteries of Egypt, Greece, Phoenicia, and Rome, as the clue to guide us in our researches, let us go on from step to step in our comparison of the doctrine and practice of the two Babylons—the Babylon of the Old Testament and the Babylon of the New.

And here I have to notice, first, the identity of the objects of worship in Babylon and Rome. The ancient Babylonians, just as the modem Romans, recognised in words the unity of the Godhead; and, while worshipping innumerable minor deities, as possessed of certain influence on human affairs, they distinctly acknowledged that there was ONE infinite and almighty Creator, supreme over all. Most other nations did the same. "In the early ages of mankind," says Wilkinson in his "Ancient Egyptians," "The existence of a sole and omnipotent Deity, who created all things, seems to have been the universal belief, and tradition taught men the same notions on this subject, which, in later times, have been adopted by all civilised nations." "The Gothic religion," says Mallet, "taught the being of a supreme God, Master of the Universe, to whom all things were submissive and obedient." ( Tacti. de Morib. Germ.) The ancient Icelandic mythology calls him "the Author of every thing that existeth, the eternal, the living, and awful Being; the searcher into concealed things, the Being that never changeth." It attributeth to this deity "an infinite power, a boundless knowledge, and incorruptible justice." We have evidence of the same having been the faith of ancient Hindostan. Though modern Hinduism recognises millions of gods, yet the Indian sacred books show that originally it had been far otherwise. Major Moor, speaking of Brahm, the supreme God of the Hindoos, says: "Of Him whose Glory is so great, there is no image" (Veda). He "illumines all, delights all, whence all proceeded; that by which they live when bom, and that to which all must return" (Veda). In the "Institutes of Menu," he is characterised as "He whom the mind alone can perceive; whose essence eludes the external organs, who has no visible parts, who exists from eternity...the soul of all beings, whom no being can comprehend." In these passages, there is a trace of the existence of Pantheism; but the very language employed bears testimony to the existence among the Hindoos at one period of a far purer faith.

Nay, not merely had the ancient Hindoos exalted ideas of the natural perfections of God, but there is evidence that they were well aware of the gracious character of God, as revealed in His dealings with a lost and guilty world. This is manifest from the very name Brahm, appropriated by them to the one infinite and eternal God. There has been a great deal of unsatisfactory speculation in regard to the meaning of this name, but when the different statements in regard to Brahm are carefully considered, it becomes evident that the name Brahm is just the Hebrew Rahm, with the digamma prefixed, which is very frequent in Sanscrit words derived from Hebrew or Chaldee. Rahm in Hebrew signifies "The merciful or compassionate one." But Rahm also signifies the WOMB or the bowels', as the seat of compassion. Now we find such language applied to Brahm, the one supreme God, as cannot be accounted for, except on the supposition that Brahm had the very same meaning as the Hebrew Rahm. Thus, we find the God Crishna, in one of the Hindoo sacred books, when asserting his high dignity as a divinity and his identity with the Supreme, using the following words: "The great Brahm is my WOMB, and in it I place my foetus, and from it is the procreation of all nature. The great Brahm is the WOMB of all the various forms which are conceived in every natural womb." How could such language ever have been applied to "The supreme Brahm, the most holy, the most high God, the Divine being, before all other gods; without birth, the mighty Lord, God of gods, the universal Lord," but from the connection between Rahm "the womb" and Rahm "the merciful one"? 

進行這樣的調查需要克服相當大的困難； 因為，就像在地質學中一樣，不可能在所有方面都到達地球表面的深層下伏地層，因此我們不能指望在任何一個國家都能找到對該國建立的系統的完整和相互關聯的描述 國家。 但是，即使是地質學家，通過檢查這裡裂縫的內容、那裡的劇變以及其他地方表面上“突然出現”的東西，也能夠非常確定地確定大地的順序和一般內容。 整個地球的不同階層，迦勒底奧秘的主題也是如此。 一個國家需要的東西在另一個國家得到補充； 而實際上在不同方向“突出”的東西，在很大程度上必然決定了很多沒有直接出現在表面上的東西的特性。 那麼，讓我們以埃及、希臘、腓尼基和羅馬的古代奧秘公認的統一性和巴比倫特徵作為指導我們研究的線索，讓我們一步一步地比較教義和實踐 兩個巴比倫——舊約的巴比倫和新約的巴比倫。

 在這裡我必須首先註意巴比倫和羅馬崇拜對象的身份。 古代巴比倫人和現代羅馬人一樣，在文字上承認神格的統一性； 並且，在崇拜無數對人類事務具有一定影響的小神的同時，他們清楚地承認有一位無限而全能的造物主，至高無上。 大多數其他國家也這樣做了。 “在人類的早期，”威爾金森在他的“古埃及人”一書中說，“創造萬物的唯一無所不能的神的存在似乎是普遍的信仰，傳統教導人們關於這一點的相同觀念 主題，後來被所有文明國家採用。” “哥特式宗教，”Mallet 說，“教導了至高無上的神，宇宙的主宰，萬物都服從於他。” (Tacti. de Morib. Germ.) 古老的冰島神話稱他為“一切存在之物的創造者，永恆的、活的和可怕的存在；探索隱藏事物的探索者，永不改變的存在。” 它賦予這位神以“無限的力量、無限的知識和廉潔的正義”。 我們有證據表明古代印度斯坦也有同樣的信仰。 儘管現代印度教承認數以百萬計的神靈，但印度聖書表明，最初情況遠非如此。 摩爾少校在談到印度人的至高神勃拉姆斯時說：“他的榮耀如此偉大，沒有任何形象”（吠陀經）。 他“照亮所有人，使所有人高興，一切從那裡開始；他們出生時賴以生存的東西，以及所有人必須返回的東西”（吠陀經）。 在“Menu Institutes of Menu”中，他被描述為“只有心靈才能感知的人；其本質躲避外部器官，沒有可見的部分，永恆存在……眾生的靈魂，沒有人 能領悟。” 在這些段落中，有泛神論存在的痕跡； 但是所使用的語言本身就證明了印度人在一個信仰更為純潔的時期存在。

 不僅如此，古代印度人不僅崇尚上帝自然完美的觀念，而且有證據表明他們非常清楚上帝仁慈的品格，正如祂在對待失喪和有罪的世界時所揭示的那樣。 這從 Brahm 這個名字就可以看出，他們把這個名字專用於獨一的無限和永恆的上帝。 關於這個名字的含義有很多不盡如人意的猜測，但是當仔細考慮關於 Brahm 的不同說法時，很明顯，Brahm 這個名字就是希伯來語 Rahm，加上 digamma 前綴， 在源自希伯來語或迦勒底語的梵文單詞中非常常見。 拉姆在希伯來語中的意思是“仁慈或富有同情心的人”。 但 Rahm 也表示子宮或腸子，作為慈悲的所在。 現在我們發現這樣的語言適用於 Brahm，唯一的至高無上的上帝，除了假設 Brahm 與希伯來語 Rahm 具有完全相同的含義外，無法解釋。 因此，我們在印度教的一本聖書中找到克里希納神，在斷言他作為神的崇高尊嚴和他與至尊的身份時，使用了以下的話：“偉大的梵天是我的子宮，我把我的子宮放在裡面 胎兒，所有自然的繁殖都源於它。偉大的 Brahm 是在每個自然子宮中孕育的所有各種形式的子宮。” 這樣的語言怎麼可能被應用到“至高無上的梵天，最聖潔，至高的上帝，神聖的存在，在所有其他神之前；沒有出生，強大的主，眾神之神，宇宙主”，但來自 拉姆“子宮”和拉姆“仁慈者”之間的聯繫？（255 個中的第 18 個）(18 of 255) 

Here, then, we find that Brahm is just the same as "Er-Rahman," "The all-merciful one,"—a title applied by the Turks to the Most High, and that the Hindoos, notwithstanding their deep religious degradation now, had once known that "the most holy, most high God," is also "The God of Mercy," in other words, that he is "a just God and a Saviour." And proceeding on this interpretation of the name Brahm, we see how exactly their religious knowledge as to the creation had coincided with the account of the origin of all things, as given in Genesis. It is well known that the Brahmins, to exalt themselves as a priestly, half-divine caste, to whom all others ought to bow down, have for many ages taught that, while the other castes came from the arms, and body and feet of Brahma—the visible representative and manifestation of the invisible Brahm, and identified with him — they alone came from the mouth of the creative God. Now we find statements in their sacred books which prove that once a very different doctrine must have been taught. Thus, in one of the Vedas, speaking of Brahma, it is expressly stated that "ALL beings" "are created from his MOUTH." In the passage in question an attempt is made to mystify the matter; but, taken in connection with the meaning of the name Brahm, as already given, who can doubt what was the real meaning of the statement, opposed though it be to the lofty and exclusive pretensions of the Brahmins? It evidently meant that He who, ever since the fall, has been revealed to man as the "Merciful and Gracious One" (Exodus 34:6), was known at the same time as the Almighty One, who in the beginning "spake and it was done," "commanded and all things stood fast," who made all things by the "Word of His power." After what has now been said, any one who consults the "Asiatic Researches," may see that it is in a great measure from a wicked perversion of this Divine title of the One Living and True God, a title that ought to have been so dear to sinful men, that all those moral abominations have come that make the symbols of the pagan temples of India so offensive to the eye of purity. *

* While such is the meaning of Brahm, the meaning of Deva, the generic name for "God" in India, is near akin to it. That name is commonly derived from the Sanscrit, Div, "to shine,"—only a different form of Shiv, which has the same meaning, which again comes from the Chaldee Ziv, "brightness or splendour" (Dan 2:31); and, no doubt, when sunworship was engrafted on the Patriarchal faith, the visible splendour of the deified luminary might be suggested by the name. But there is reason to believe that "Deva" has a much more honourable origin, and that it really came originally from the Chaldee,

Thav, "good," which is also legitimately pronounced Thev, and in the emphatic form is Theva or Thevo, "The Good." The first letter, represented by Th, as shown by Donaldson in his New Cratylus, is frequently pronounced Dh. Hence, from Dheva or Theva, "The Good," naturally comes the Sanscrit, Deva, or, without the digamma, as it frequently is,

Deo, "God," the Latin, Deus, and the Greek, Theos, the digamma in the original Thevo-s being also dropped, as novus in Latin is neos in Greek. This view of the matter gives an emphasis to the saying of our Lord (Matt 19:17): "There is none good but One, that is (Theos) God"—"The Good."

So utterly idolatrous was the Babylonian recognition of the Divine unity, that Jehovah, the Living God, severely condemned His own people for giving any countenance to it: "They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens, after the rites of the ONLY ONE, * eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together" (Isa 66:17).

* The words in our translation are, "behind one tree," but there is no word in the original for "tree"; and it is admitted by Lowth, and the best orientalists, that the rendering should be, "after the rites of Achad ," i.e. " The Only One.” I am aware that some object to making "Achad" signify, "The Only One," on the ground that it wants the article. But how little weight is in this, may be seen from the fact that it is this very tenn "Achad," and that without the article, that is used in Deuteronomy, when the Unity of the Godhead is asserted in the most emphatic manner, "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah,"

 在這裡，然後，我們發現 Brahm 與“Er-Rahman”、“至高無上者”是一樣的——這是土耳其人對至高者的稱呼，而印度人，儘管他們現在的宗教墮落很深 ，曾經知道“至聖、至高的上帝”也是“慈悲的上帝”，換句話說，他是“公義的上帝和救世主”。 繼續對 Brahm 這個名字的解釋，我們看到他們關於創造的宗教知識與創世記中對萬物起源的描述是多麼的吻合。 眾所周知，婆羅門將自己高舉為祭司、半神的種姓，其他人都應該向其鞠躬，許多世紀以來一直教導說，而其他種姓則來自 梵天——不可見的梵天的可見代表和顯現，並與他認同——它們唯獨來自創造上帝的口中。 現在我們在他們的聖書中發現了一些陳述，證明曾經教導過一種截然不同的教義。 因此，在一部吠陀經中，談到梵天時，明確指出“所有眾生”“都是從他的嘴裡創造出來的”。 在所討論的段落中，試圖使事情神秘化。 但是，考慮到婆羅門這個名字的含義，正如已經給出的那樣，誰能懷疑這句話的真正含義是什麼，儘管它反對婆羅門的崇高和排他性的要求？ 這顯然意味著，自人類墮落以來，他一直以“仁慈和仁慈的人”的身份向人類顯現（出埃及記 34:6），同時被稱為全能者，他在起初“說話和 它完成了，”“命令，萬物都堅立”，誰用“他的權力之言”創造了萬物。 綜上所述，任何查閱“亞洲研究”的人都可以看出，這在很大程度上是對“獨一真神”這個神聖名稱的邪惡歪曲，這個名稱本應如此 罪惡之人所珍視的是，所有那些道德上的可憎之事已經到來，使印度異教神廟的象徵在純潔的眼中如此令人反感。 *

 * 雖然這是 Brahm 的意思，但 Deva（印度“上帝”的通用名稱）的意思與它接近。 這個名字通常源自梵文 Div，“閃耀”——只是 Shiv 的一種不同形式，它具有相同的含義，又來自 Chaldee Ziv，“光明或輝煌”（但 2:31）； 毫無疑問，當太陽崇拜根植於宗法信仰時，這個名字可能會暗示神化發光體的可見光彩。 但有理由相信“Deva”的起源要尊貴得多，它確實起源於迦勒底，

 Thav，“好”，也可以合理地發音為 Thev，強調形式是 Theva 或 Thevo，“好”。 第一個字母，由 Th 代表，如 Donaldson 在他的 New Cratylus 中所示，經常發音為 Dh。 因此，從 Dheva 或 Theva，“善”，自然而然地產生了梵語 Deva，或者，沒有 digamma，就像它經常出現的那樣，

 Deo，“上帝”，拉丁語，Deus，和希臘語，Theos，原始 Thevo-s 中的 digamma 也被刪除，因為拉丁語中的 novus 是希臘語中的 neos。 這種對此事的看法強調了我們的主的話（馬太福音 19:17）：“除了獨一的神，別無良善，就是（Theos）神”——“善”。

 巴比倫人對神的統一的承認是如此徹底的偶像崇拜，以致永生上帝耶和華嚴厲譴責他自己的子民，因為他們對此表示贊同： 一，*吃豬肉，可憎之物，和老鼠，必一併消滅”（賽 66:17）。

 * 在我們的翻譯中是“behind one tree”，但原文中沒有“tree”這個詞； Lowth 和最優秀的東方學家都承認，翻譯應該是“按照 Achad 的儀式”，即“The Only One”。 我知道有些人反對讓“Achad”表示“唯一的”，理由是它想要這篇文章。但是從這個詞“Achad”這一事實可以看出這其中的分量有多大 ”，並且沒有冠詞，在申命記中，當神性的統一性以最強調的方式被斷言時，“以色列啊，你要聽，耶和華我們的神是獨一的耶和華，”

（255 個中的第 19 個）(19 of 255)

i.e., " only Jehovah." When it is intended to assert the Unity of the Godhead in the strongest possible manner, the Babylonians used the term "Adad." Macrobii Saturnalia.

In the unity of that one Only God of the Babylonians, there were three persons, and to symbolise that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day. *

* LAYARD's Babylon and Nineveh. The Egyptians also used the triangle as a symbol of their "triform divinity."

In both cases such a comparison is most degrading to the King Eternal, and is fitted utterly to pervert the minds of those who contemplate it, as if there was or could be any similitude between such a figure and Him who hath said, "To whom will ye liken God, and what likeness will ye compare unto Him?"

The Papacy has in some of its churches, as, for instance, in the monastery of the so-called Trinitarians of Madrid, an image of the Triune God, with three heads on one body. * The Babylonians had something of the same. Mr. Layard, in his last work, has given a specimen of such a triune divinity, worshipped in ancient Assyria. **

* PARKHURST’S Hebrew Lexicon, "Cherubim." From the following extract from the Dublin Catholic Layman, a very able Protestant paper, describing a Popish picture of the Trinity, recently published in that city, it will be seen that something akin to this mode of representing the Godhead is appearing nearer home: "At the top of the picture is a representation of the Holy Trinity. We beg to speak of it with due reverence. God the Father and God the Son are represented as a MAN with two heads, one body, and two arms. One of the heads is like the ordinary pictures of our Saviour. The other is the head of an old man, surmounted by a triangle. Out of the middle of this figure is proceeding the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. We think it must be painful to any Christian mind, and repugnant to Christian feeling, to look at this figure." (17th July, 1856)

** Babylon and Nineveh. Some have said that the plural fonn of the name of God, in the Hebrew of Genesis, affords no argument of the doctrine of plurality of persons in the Godhead, because the same word in the plural is applied to heathen divinities. But if the supreme divinity in almost all ancient heathen nations was triune, the futility of this objection must be manifest.

In India, the supreme divinity, in like manner, in one of the most ancient cave-temples, is represented with three heads on one body, under the name of "Eko Deva Trimurtti," "One God, three forms." *

* Col. KENNEDY’S Hindoo Mythology. Col. Kennedy objects to the application of the name "Eko Deva" to the triform image in the cave-temple at Elephanta, on the ground that that name belongs only to the supreme Brahm. But in so doing he is entirely inconsistent, for he admits that Brahma, the first person in that triform image, is identified with the supreme Brahm; and further, that a curse is pronounced upon all who distinguish between Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, the three divinities represented by that image.

In Japan, the Buddhists worship their great divinity, Buddha, with three heads, in the very same form, under the name of "San Pao Fuh." All these have existed from ancient times. While overlaid with idolatry, the recognition of a Trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the world, proving how deep-rooted in the human race was the primeval doctrine on this subject, which comes out so distinctly in Genesis. *

* The threefold invocation of the sacred name in the blessing of Jacob bestowed on the sons of Joseph is very striking: "And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads" (Gen 48:15,16). If the angel here referred to had not been God, Jacob could never have invoked him as on an equality with God. In Hosea 12:3-5, "The Angel who redeemed" Jacob is expressly called God:

"He (Jacob) had power with God: yea, he had power over the Angel, and prevailed; he wept and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us; even the Lord God of Hosts; The Lord is his memorial."

When we look at the symbols in the triune figure of Layard, already referred to, and minutely examine them, they are very instructive. Layard regards the circle in that figure as signifying "Time without bounds." But the hieroglyphic meaning of the circle is evidently different. A circle in Chaldea was zero; * and zero also signified "the seed."

* In our own language we have evidence that Zero had signified a circle among the Chaldeans; for what is Zero, the name of the cypher, but just a circle? And whence can we have derived this term but from the Arabians, as they, without doubt, had themselves derived it from the Chaldees, the grand original cultivators at once of arithmetic, geometry, and idolatry? Zero, in this sense, had evidently come from the Chaldee, zer, "to encompass," from which, also, no doubt, was derived the Babylonian name for a great cycle of time, called a "saros.” (BUNSEN) As he, who by the Chaldeans was regarded as the great "Seed," was looked upon as the sun incarnate, and as the emblem of the sun was a circle (BUNSEN), the hieroglyphical relation between zero, "the circle," and zero, "the seed," was easily established.

Therefore, according to the genius of the mystic system of Chaldea, which was to a large extent founded on double meanings, that which, to the eyes of men in general, was only zero, "a circle," was understood by the initiated to signify zero, "the seed." Now, viewed in this light, the triune emblem of the supreme Assyrian divinity shows clearly what had been the original patriarchal faith. First, there is the head of the old man; next, there is the zero, or circle, for "the seed"; and lastly, the wings and tail of the bird or dove; * showing, though blasphemously, the unity of Father, Seed, or Son, and Holy Ghost.

* From the statement in Genesis 1:2, that "the Spirit of God fluttered on the face of the deep" (for that is the expression in the original), it is evident that the dove had very early been a Divine emblem for the Holy Spirit.

While this had been the original way in which Pagan idolatry had represented the Triune God, and though this kind of representation had survived to Sennacherib's time, yet there is evidence that, at a very early period, an important change had taken place in the Babylonian notions in regard to the divinity; and that the three persons had come to be, the Eternal Father, the Spirit of God incarnate in a human mother, and a Divine Son, the fruit of that incarnation.

即，“只有耶和華”。 當巴比倫人打算以最強有力的方式斷言神性的統一性時，使用了“阿達德”一詞。 農神花。

 在巴比倫人的唯一神的統一體中，有三個位格，為了象徵三位一體的教義，正如萊亞德的發現所證明的那樣，他們採用了等邊三角形，正如眾所周知的羅馬教會所做的那樣 在這一天。 *

 * LAYARD 的巴比倫和尼尼微。 埃及人還使用三角形作為他們“三重神性”的象徵。

 在這兩種情況下，這樣的比較對永恆之王來說是最有辱人格的，並且完全適合於歪曲那些思考它的人的思想，就好像這樣的人物與曾經或可能有任何相似之處，他曾說過：“對誰 你們要比神嗎，你們要用什麼比他呢？”

 教皇在它的一些教堂裡，例如在所謂的馬德里三位一體論者的修道院裡，有一個三位一體的上帝的形象，一個身體上有三個頭。 * 巴比倫人也有類似的東西。 萊亞德先生在他的最後一部作品中給出了這種在古代亞述受到崇拜的三位一體神性的樣本。 **

 * PARKHURST 的希伯來語詞典，“Cherubim”。 從以下摘自都柏林天主教外行人，一篇非常有能力的新教論文，描述了三位一體的天主教圖片，最近在該城市出版，可以看出類似於這種代表神性的模式正在出現在家附近：“ 在圖片的頂部是三位一體的代表。我們請求以應有的敬意談論它。父神和子神被表示為一個有兩個頭，一個身體和兩條手臂的人。其中一個 頭就像我們救世主的普通照片。另一個是一個老人的頭，上面有一個三角形。從這個圖形的中間是鴿子形式的聖靈。我們認為它一定很痛苦 任何基督徒的思想，以及基督徒的感覺，都厭惡看這個數字。” （1856 年 7 月 17 日）

 ** 巴比倫和尼尼微。 有些人說，在創世記的希伯來文中，上帝名字的複數形式無法為神格中的多個位格教義提供論據，因為複數形式的同一個詞適用於異教神靈。 但是，如果幾乎所有古代異教國家的至高神性都是三位一體的，那麼這種反對意見肯定是徒勞的。

 在印度，以同樣的方式，在最古老的洞穴廟宇之一中，至高無上的神被代表為一個身體上有三個頭，名稱為“Eko Deva Trimurtti”，“一位神，三種形式”。 *

 * 肯尼迪上校的印度教神話。 肯尼迪上校反對將“Eko Deva”這個名稱應用於 Elephanta 洞穴寺廟中的三角形象，理由是該名稱僅屬於至高無上的 Brahm。 但他這樣做是完全前後矛盾的，因為他承認梵天，即那個三身像中的第一人，被等同於至高無上的梵天； 此外，所有區分梵天、毘濕奴和濕婆的人都會受到詛咒，這三位神靈是該圖像所代表的。

 在日本，佛教徒以“三寶佛”的名字崇拜他們的偉大神靈，即三頭佛陀，形相完全相同。 這些都是自古就有的。 雖然被偶像崇拜所覆蓋，但對三位一體的承認在世界上所有古代國家都是普遍的，這證明了關於這個主題的原始教義在人類中是多麼根深蒂固，這在創世記中表現得如此清楚。 *

 * 在雅各布賜給約瑟夫的兒子們的祝福中，三重呼求聖名非常引人注目：“他給約瑟夫祝福，說，上帝，我祖宗亞伯拉罕和以撒在祂面前行事為人的上帝，是餵養我一切的上帝 直到今日，救我脫離一切兇惡的天使，願你祝福這兩個孩子”（創 48:15,16）。 如果這裡提到的天使不是上帝，雅各就永遠不會呼求他與上帝平等。 在何西阿書 12:3-5 中，“救贖的天使”雅各被明確地稱為上帝：

 “他（雅各）在神面前有能力：是的，他有能力勝過天使；他哭泣並向他懇求：他在伯特利找到他，並在那裡與我們交談；就是耶和華萬軍之神； 耶和華是他的記念。”

 當我們查看已經提到的萊亞德三位一體的符號並仔細檢查它們時，它們非常有啟發性。 萊亞德認為該圖中的圓圈表示“時間沒有界限”。 但圓圈的象形文字意義顯然不同。 迦勒底的圓圈為零； * 和零也表示“種子”。

*在我們自己的語言中，我們有證據表明零在迦勒底人中表示一個圈子； 零是什麼，密碼的名字，但只是一個圓圈？ 除了阿拉伯人，我們還能從哪裡得到這個術語，因為毫無疑問，他們自己是從迦勒底人那裡得到這個術語的，迦勒底人是算術、幾何和偶像崇拜的最初的偉大培育者？ 零，在這個意義上，顯然來自迦勒底語，zer，“包含”，毫無疑問，巴比倫語的名字也來源於一個偉大的時間週期，稱為“saros”。 (BUNSEN) 迦勒底人認為他是偉大的“種子”，他被視為太陽的化身，而太陽的象徵是一個圓圈 (BUNSEN)，零與“圓圈”之間的象形文字關係 ，”和零，“種子”，很容易建立起來。

 因此，根據在很大程度上建立在雙重含義上的迦勒底神秘體系的天才，在一般人的眼中，只有零，“一個圓”，被啟蒙者理解為 表示零，“種子”。 現在，從這個角度來看，至高無上的亞述神性的三位一體像徵清楚地表明了什麼是原始的父權制信仰。 一是老人頭； 接下來是“種子”的零或圓圈； 最後，鳥或鴿子的翅膀和尾巴； * 以褻瀆神明的方式表明父、子或子與聖靈的合一。

 * 從創世記 1:2 的陳述中，“上帝的靈運行在深淵的表面”（因為這是原文的表達），很明顯，鴿子很早就是神聖的象徵 神聖的靈魂。

 雖然這是異教偶像崇拜代表三位一體神的原始方式，而且這種代表方式一直存在到西拿基立的時代，但有證據表明，在很早的時期，巴比倫的宗教信仰發生了重要變化 關於神性的概念； 這三個位格已經成為：永恆的父親、化身為人類母親的神的靈，以及聖子，化身的果實。

 （255 個中的第 20 個）(20 of 255)