dispersed from each other, than could have been derived from any other source, than the common parent of the race. Orpheus, whose name is apt to be mingled, in our ideas, only with fables, but who was a great legislator, and the oldest of the Grecian poets, as well as the civilizer of all the north of Greece, speaks agreeably to the accurate researches of the Chevalier Ramsay, of the highest of all beings under the denominations of light, understanding, and life, which were said to express the powers of the same Deity, the Maker of all. And Cudworth, quoting Timotheus, informs us, [Intellect. Lyst. ch. 4] that Orpheus denominated the three powers of the divine nature Ouranos, Chronos, and Phanes, the two former names of Greek origin, the latter an Egyptian word signifying Love; and the whole not widely differing in the force of the terms from those already produced from the Chevalier Ramsay. Pythagoras is known by all acquainted with Grecian literature, to have maintained a Trinity of divine persons. His philosophy he derived from Egypt, Chaldea, Persia and India, where similar doctrines prevailed. And we learn from Moderatus, who was a disciple of his school, that a fundamental maxim of his theology was "that God is one, and from him proceed two infinite beings:" which maxim he explains and expands in the following words-"The first one is above all beings, the Second contains all ideas, the Third, which he calls Xux or Soul, partaketh of both." Jamblichus, the famous antagonist of the christians says "that, like them, there

were three Gods praised by the Pythagoreans. And one* of the philosophers of this school denominates the second of these deities "the Heavenly and Sensible God."-The Trin ity of Plato is still better known, the different persons of which he stiled". Agathon or Hen Nous or Logos and He Psuche or Heros, interpreted, the Good or the one-the Mind or Reason, and the Soul or Love.

From the philosopher, already quoted, we learn that the traditions of the ancient Egyptians acknowledge Emeph as the author of truth, and creator of the world; but before Emeph they place the first Intelligent, and Intelligible Being, who can be adored only in silence, denominated Eikton; but after both is Ptha, or that Spirit which animates all things by its vivifying flame. Eusebius remarks that the hieroglyphic of the Deity in that nation was a winged globe, with a serpent emerging from its orb. Of which symbol Sanchoniatho, in the fragments preserved by that author, gives the following explanation ;-" The globe signifies the first, selfexistent Being, without beginning, and without end;-The serpent is the emblem of divine wisdom and creative power; and the wings, of that active spirit which animates the universe." In corroboration of this tradition, it was the received interpretation of their priests that the triangular obelisks erected at the entrance of all their temples were symbols of the divine nature.

* Hierceles

Passing to other nations, Plutarch has preserved a tradition of the Persian theology, that their supreme Deity Oromasdes thrice augmented himself; and he records a celebrated festival of the Magian priests in honor of the threefold Mythras; the names of whom were Oromasdes, Mythras, and Mythra. Since the presidency of Sir William Jones in India the existence of a supreme Trinity in the Mythology of the Bramins is plainly discerned in the midst of their innumerable Gods, and symbols, the belief of which has been preserved among them from the most remote antiquity. And the European missionaries to China have discovered visible traces of the same doctrine existing among that ancient people.-Such a striking coincidence in this important principle of religion among various nations, so remotely situated from each other certainly points to some common origin which can hardly be presumed to be any other than that which has already been suggested.

An objection has been raised against this presumptive evidence, as it may be called in favour of the doctrine, and not without much appearance of plausibility, arising from the supposed silence of the scripture of the Old Testament. This silence however is more apparent than real, as will easily be discerned by the attentive reader, in the revelations made to the ancient patriarchs. That celebrated and ingenious critic who has been already quoted more than once but who perhaps has pushed this opinion beyond the truth of

fact, thinks he discovers the different persons of the adorable Trinity as distinctly designated in the writings of Moses as in those of the apostles. Of the living and true God this great legislator of Israel speaks under the peculiar appellation of Jehovah, but he exhibits him to that nation under the threefold denomination of Jehovah--Ab,-the self-existent Father; Jehovah--El,-the self-existent Teacher or Illuminator; and Jehovah-Ruach, or the self-existent Spirit. And Elohim, under which denomination the Eternal is so often spoken of, by Moses, is the plural of Eloah, and indicates plurality of existence. You cannot serve Jehovah, says the author of the book of Joshua, for he is the holy Elohim; which literally translated is, you cannot serve the Self-Existent, for he is the holy Gods. And this is only one example out of many throughout the sacred writings. Hence the Jews, as appears, by the oldest commentators on their law, seem at all periods to have entertained this principle. And in the time of our Saviour, they were evidently not offended at his doctrine of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; but at the presumption, as they supposed, of his making himself the Son of God; thereby, making himself equal with God.

Such have been the doctrines, or traditions concerning the divine'existence cherished in the most distinguished nations of the ancient world. And it is far from being an improbable conjecture that they contributed in no small degree, to prepare the minds of mankind for the favourable reception of the truc

doctrine on this subject, when it was revealed by our blessed Saviour.

But so various is the human mind in the strength of its powers, and the diversity of its fancies, or prepossessions, that it soon became divided into different systems in interpreting the sacred standard transmitted to us by Christ, and his apostles. Many crude notions seemed to rise and fall almost at the same moment, in the primitive church, being only the transient ebullitions of a fanatical fancy, arising from the fermentation of ancient opinions with the new principles imperfectly understood. A multitude of these errors are ennumerated by all the ecclesiastical historians, who merely record their existence and their extinction. But not having been embraced by any permanent sect in the church, they merit little regard; and are hardly entitled even to be mentioned in a system like the present. A few only of those whose leaders have been more distinguished by their talents, or have made more extended divisions among the body of christians I will recall to the notice of my readers, merely stating their peculiar and discriminating ideas upon this subject, with such conciseness as the brevity of this work requires.

The Sabellians, who take their denomination from a man respectable for his learning and talents, maintain the unity of God in the strictest sense; and interpret the titles of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as expressive only of the