adopted implies that there are marks in creation which do plainly indicate the
Trinity of the Creator. A number of explanatory instances or analogies are
given, after which their force is summed up as follows:" To conclude, it
is clearly proved from these examples, that nature contains unequivocal
marks of the existence of the Divine nature in Trinity; and, in truth,
whoever attentively considers them, will perceive that plurality in unity is
possible." There is no serious objection to bringing forward instances of
plurality in unity with the object of proving it not to be impossible: nay, if
care be taken that they, are not used as direct analogies, they may be
beneficial in displaying the inability of man to fathom mysteries infinitely
short of the sublime doctrine of the Trinity. Put the expressions go beyond
this, and imply that nature directly points out the doctrine; and from
this we dissent as unfounded, and as giving the adversary a needless
advantage. For example, the Circle is stated to be an emblem of the
Deity, having neither beginning nor end; and the fact that trigonometry is the
key to its measurement and comprehension, is represented as an illustration of
the Trinity by which alone the Divine nature can be understood. Such
exemplifications only pave the way for our opponents. Thus the author of the Saulat
uz Zaigham, in a passage which it would be painful to translate, draws the
figure of a triangle, and, after some contemptuous remarks upon the inequality
of its angles, adds this cutting scoff," If this be the way of their
arguing, why anybody may join the Virgin Mary to the Deity, and drawing a
square may assert that here is quaternity in unity"; and to complete the
blasphemy he adds the diagram by way of illustration! To shew the species of
reply which is given to one of Pfander's less objectionable analogies, that
of the plurality in unity of man, we give a further quotation from the same
work: