ally revealed, manifested, and in covenant with man. For Hengstenberg admits that "the one God comprehends multiplicity in himself. Thus he can oppose to the "we will build," "we will make," of men who trust in their numbers and combination, his own "we will go down." "We will confound." The ancient Jews approached to a correct explanation of the plural? This view is very strongly supported by Theodoret, who advocates the allusion to the Trinity.

Even Hengstenberg, in reference to the views taken by Calvin, &c., on this subject, says, "It is not to be denied that this erroneous view involves a portion of truth. The plural form, as it indicates the infinite riches, the inexhaustible fulness of the Godhead, serves to combat the most dangerous enemy of the doctrine of the Trinity, that abstract monotheism of which Schelling, (uber die Gottheiten von Samothrace, pp. 87,) admirably says, "Mohammedanism may indeed be called monotheism, which only allows one personality or one simple power to the name of God. That this is not in the style of the New Testament, requires no proof; that this is not agreeable to the old Testament, see Weltalter, Th. i., "Since Elohim is opposed to this view, which, in many respects, stands below polytheism, it contains certainly the germ of the doctrine of the Trinity."Hengstenberg, vol. i., pp. 268, 269, note.

It is, indeed, affirmed as by Mr. Belsham, that "in all languages it is a common anomaly for words of a plural form to have a singular signification." But he has not produced any instance, and I apprehend that it would not be easy to find one that would prove unexceptionable. Mr. Belsham further says, that "the word Elohim is almost used uniformly in apposition with singular verbs." This is a part of the very case to be accounted for. "It is not so," says Dr. Smith, with the "words of a plural form," in other languages, which the author says "have a singular signification;" they are always put in apposition with plural attributives. But, if we content ourselves with regarding the apposition of Elohim with singular verbs, adjectives, and pronouns, as a Hebrew idiom of which no other account can be given than that so we find it, what can we say upon the other VOL. VIII.-No. 4.

7

part of the case, the construction with plural attributives? It is this which forms the great peculiarity of our question, it is this, upon which the chief stress of the argument is laid for an allusion or implication in favour of the doctrine of a Divine plurality, but upon this the writer was silent!"

Mr. Belsham further says, that "Elohim is not limit ed, like Jehovah, to express the Supreme Being alone.” "For that very reason, then, it became the more necessary to guard against possible and probable abuse. As the word was in ordinary use to designate the numerous false deities of the nations, it was the more likely, and even unavoidable, that the Hebrews would understand its perpetual occurrence in the plural form, as the designation of their own God, to be an express intimation that plurality in some sense belonged to Him; while, from other infallible testimonies, they were absolutely certain of his essential unity."

Once more, Mr. Belsham affirms that, "though Elohim is in a plural form, it commonly expresses one object only."

But, after carefully examining the examples brought by Mr. B. to support his assertion, we will only say with Dr. Pye Smith, that they are all irrelevant.

To bring this review to an end, we remark, in the words of Dr. Pye Smith, "We have thus endeavoured to present a faithful view of the whole evidence on both sides of this celebrated question. After the closest attention that I can give to all the parts of the case, the impression on my mind is favourable to the opinion that this peculiarity of idiom originated in a design to inti mate a plurality in the nature of the one God; and that thus, in connexion with other circumstances calculated to suggest the same conception, it was intended to excite and prepare the minds of men for the more full declaration of this unsearchable mystery, which should in proper time be granted. This supposition implies, of course, a divine direction in the origin, or in the application of the term, and the intention which we sup pose was merely to intimate, not to give an absolute declaration. Now, we know that the earlier dispensations of revealed knowledge were constructed upon the

"From

plan of a course of intimations, (as it were involucra,) with regard to a variety of truths, the clear manifestation of which was reserved for the brightness of the Gospel day. Under such a system, it would be a necessary consequence that the design would be perceived, and the interior meaning apprehended, in various degrees, acording to the piety, intelligence, and attention of different persons; and, in all probability, the careless majority would pay no attention at all to such subjects." To this, we will only add the testimony of Gussetius, in his Commentarii Linguæ Ebraicæ. these considerations it follows, that the plural form of speech concerning God, is to be taken strictly and in its full force, if we would comply with the idiom of the Hebrew tongue; and that therefore, it ought to be acknowledged, that by this phraseology, plurality in Deity is most distinctly and strongly affirmed." In the same connexion, he also expresses himself in the following remarkable words: "But you will say, this plurality is inconsistent with the nature of God; I ask, in return, how do you know that? The declaration of God, who knows, is of more weight than your reasoning, who do not know. There are other causes, you retort, of a plural form of speech. I answer, its proper and natural cause is plurality in the things signified. It is from this that the plural form of a noun usually arises; nor could it have been indicated in a manner more effectual than by this description of phrase, at once elegant and consistent with use. Let every humble learner, therefore, of the word of God, settle in his mind, to receive, in sincerity and truth, whatever he (God) may dictate."

See a long note on the subject, in Wardlaw's Socinian Controversy, pp. 488, and note D, Gale's Court of the Gentiles, vol. 4, ch. 3, p. 237. Also, Amyraldus Probatio Trinitatis ex V. T. in Wagenselii Telæ Igneæ Satanæ, pp. 141, 165.

ARTICLE VI.

THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE PAGAN DOCTRINE OF TRIADS, OR A TRINITY.

The fact of the existence of a doctrine of a trinity of Supreme Gods, with more or less distinctness, in all the earlier forms of religious belief, is now universally admitted,

The degree in which any resemblance is found to the Christian doctrine varies with the proximity and clearness of the traditions of a primitive theology.

It will be interesting to present an outline of these Triads from the sources within our reach and chiefly from an elaborate analysis included in a more general review some years since.

The Hindu Triad bears but little resemblance to the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity, although it has been made use of by sceptical writers for the purpose of attempting to cast discredit on Christianity. Still, it may seem strange that such a doctrine as that of the Triad should have been conceived by man; especially when to it is added the doctrine of Avatars, or Incarnations, which are part of the functions peculiar to Vishnu, the preserver, the second deity of the Hindu Triad.

And though the resemblance, in its mythological form, is greatly warped and marred, yet it cannot but strike any inquiring mind as very remarkable, that opinions so much above the conceptions of mere reason, and bearing apparently so much more resemblance to the doctrines of Christianity than did the revelation given to the Jews, should have been held time immemorial by the Hindus. The surprise of the inquirer will certainly not be diminished, if he be led to ascertain that a similar doctrine prevailed in the earliest ages of every people in the world, whose national existence extends to a sufficiently remote antiquity, and whose ancient records have been at all preserved. A full elucidation of this ancient doctrine is not within either our power or our limits to give; but regarding it as the only key by which the secrets of ancient mythology can be unlocked,-re

garding it as the lever by which all their delusions may be subverted and overthrown, we request the attention of our readers to so much of a disquisition concerning the recondite mythology of the ancient heathens, as may be requisite for enabling them to apprehend the bearing and force of our argument.

In the Hindu system of mythology the main elements are not properly and strictly a Trinity in Unity, but a Monad producing a Triad, and then retiring farther from action,-even from consciousness,-the Triads thenceforward remaining the deities and rulers of the universe. They must also, have perceived that this Triad was essentially of the character of materialism, and conveyed a mythic personification of the producing, preserving, and destroying powers of nature. Whether this mode of attempting to explain the mystery of the universe was within the reach of the unaided powers of human reason, we shall not at present inquire; but, let us, at least, show that it was not peculiar to the Hindus. Partly from fragments of ancient records, and partly from recent hieroglyphic discoveries, we are enabled distinctly to perceive, that the Egyptians held the same doctrine of a Triad, and that, too, in such a degree of conformity with the Hindu system, as to show that they are essentially the same. The Egyptian Monad, or fountain of deity, is named Amon-Ra, or Eicton,-physically, Chaos, and is identical with the Hindu Brahm. Phtha is the creating power,-Kneph, the preserving power, and Khem, the destroying or reproducing pow

er.

It is worthy of observation, however, that the Eyptians arranged their Triad somewhat differently from the Hindus, though the official attributes were the same, placing them thus,-Kneph, Phtha and Khem, in conformity with their strictly physical attributes, ether, light and heat. It must also, be added, that the names of Egyptian gods, better known to classic scholars, occupy the same positions, and claims the same characters, as those above mentioned;-as Chronus, Osiris, Horus and Typhon, the first being the Monad, the three latter the Triad. Indeed, there may be distinctly traced among the Egyptian gods three such Triads, as they