treated alike by the Christian and the philosopher, humbly profiting by the lights which are progressively vouchsafed to us in the word and works of the Omnipotent. Having thus far endeavoured to prepare our readers for a question which, to many of them, will be a new one, as well as to shew the utility and even necessity of a work which demonstrates the existence, in our humble apprehension, the necessary existence, of the Gentile doctrine of a Trinity-the existence of a sufficiency of light among the nations of promise, to render their own darkness visible, when the true light came to be revealed - we shall now proceed with the analysis of our text, dwelling on the most prominent points so far as our prescribed space will allow, following out the author's results where the application appears to us too much restricted, and freely expressing our dissent when theory seems to take the place of evidence: a defect almost necessarily inherent in every original composition on which much thought has been expended, but which is nevertheless as little conspicuous in the present instance, as in any case that has come before us. Our author commences his inquiry, by pointing out the three principal eras of the literature and theological speculations of that people, through the writings of whose sages we at first become acquainted with the history and opinions of Gentile antiquity. The first of these was that of the arrival from Egypt of the Danaidæ, who succeeded to the power of the almost unknown, and probably barbarous, Inachida, and other preceding Pelasgic colonies; and introduced civilisation, literature, and portions of the religion of Egypt, as it then existed, in the state of corruption to which it had arrived between the days of the first Pharaoh mentioned in Scripture, at whose court Abraham passed a short time, and those of the Jewish legislator; the synchronous departure of the Jews and Greeks having been fully proved by us in our essay on that question. (See No. 82, October 1836.) The second era of Grecian literature and religion, was that of the prophet Daniel; when the inspired writings were disseminated by the first captivity and dispersion of the Jews,-the age of the contemporary sages, Thales and Pythagoras, the Persian Zoroaster, the Indian Buddha, the Chinese Confucius, and a multitude of other philosophical reformers or innovators; and here originated the properly classic age of Greece, as to the arts, sciences, literature, and religion. As this era was preceded by the removal of the ten tribes, and, consequently, of the sacred writings, into other countries, so was the third and last era that of the propagation of Christianity, and of the mixed systems which prevailed during the three first centuries of its existence-anticipated by the Greek translation of the Scriptures,which became widely disseminated during the three centuries immediately preceding our era, and additionally prepared men's minds for the prodigious change about to occur in the ensuing three centuries. The original relations between true and false religion were in those ages either lost or overlooked, from the simple want of a comparison and condensation of the data, almost as it has been up to our own times; and hence the disputes of philosophers, and the partial concessions of the fathers, in the first ages of Christianity, before the triumphant establishment of which, the sages and their systems became annihilated. The systems of heathenism thenceforward became matter of simple inquiry, instead of a question of faith. The speculation of the subsequent ages, replaced the prejudice of the former; and the mythological cloud, although its density has long ceased to exist, has continued to float in the horizon of criticism, and its unconnected fragments to puzzle us from our very days of childhood. The conductor, which our author has so successfully applied to these scattered masses, has been in no small degree facilitated in its construction by two remarkable circumstances, which have placed paganism in its original nakedness before our eyes in this nineteenth century, and permitted the immediate collation of contemporaneous documents with the sacred records of religion. These are the recovered hieroglyphic literature of Egypt, on the one hand; and the extension of our empire over the regions of India, where paganism still flourishes in undiminished vigour, on the other. A collation of 6 The Trinity of the Gentiles. the materials thus obtained, with the oldest historical fragments of Egypt, Greece, and other countries, has directed Mr. Cory to his present conclusions on the vital question of "How much of that truth which was subsequently propagated by Christianity, had been revealed to the patriarchs of old ?" The multiplying principles of polytheism the celestial or physical, the terrestrial, the infernal, and the moral or intellectual forms of its divinities, the subdivisions of all these, and the international changes of many of them -have created difficulties in such an inquiry, which call for the concentrated efforts of a comprehensive and welldirected mind to dispel. Difficulties so grounded, however, become in such a mind, but the links of a chain which binds all nations and systems into one: and so they are treated in the investigation before us. In their primary celestial characters, the heathen divinities are the physical powers, and great objects of nature. In the terrestrial, they are the avatars of these in human form; and of such the progenitors and founders of every nation were supposed to consist. We hence find a double or treble series of gods having the same names, in agreement with the explanation supplied from the priests of Egypt by Diodorus Siculus (lib. i. c. 12, 13.) A subordinate branch of the terrestrial class were the demigods, or deified kings, heroes, and benefactors of mankind; but these were not viewed in the light of avatars. The avatars themselves were not, however, immortal. They died, and in this third state became the infernal divinities; and in countries where the worship of the inferior animals was cultivated, the animal avatars were the especial representatives of the infernal class. Here we go a little further than our author, but shall have occasion to return to the question, and to develope to our readers the methodical repetitions of these several classes under the same names, in the calendars of eastern nations. If to the classes enumerated, we add the moral or intellectual forms of the gods, the representatives of the virtues and vices, the genii of the woods and waters, of the mountains and cities; and the goddesses of the several orders · the female characters of the male divinities, imagined by a system of materialism, which substituted generation or propagation, for creation the pantheon of all nations will be complete. There are one or two fundamental points advanced by our author, which it is necessary here briefly to notice, as much depends on a right apprecia tion of them. "In his immediate celestial character the (great) god is universally held to be the sun;" that is, as the secondary or concentrated monad of the elements, as the source of light, motion, and time, and the giver of life; for the elements had primary divine characters assigned to them, as well as a primary generating monad, apart from their solar representative, as will appear further on. "In his human character, he was the great father of mankind; but he may not only be identified with Noah, but with Adam likewise. The one was looked upon as the re-appearance of the other, and both as incarnations of the deity." We should rather say that Adam and Noah were held to be avatars of the primary and secondary monads above-mentioned, than re-appearances of the same divine form. Besides, the histories of the creation of the first and and of the deluge. second origin of man founded. It is certain that in the Egyptian, Phoenician, and Indian systems, they were not clearly separated. This is also the case with the Chinese; while Varro declares that all was "unknown" to the Greeks and Romans anterior to the great cataclysm. were con Mr. Cory proceeds to state, in succession, the mythological systeins of the Hindus, the Greeks, the Orphic philosophers, the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Sidonians, the Tyrians, the Edessenes, the Chaldæans, the Persians, the Chinese, and ultra-Gangetic nations; the Germans, the Scandinavians, the Laplanders, the Druids, and the Peruvians; and in these, respectively, he clearly discovers the original elementary monad, with a triad of divinities proceeding from this stem: this being obviously the only way in which the generative principles of materialism, founded on the cosmogonic type, and perhaps glancing at the mystical generation of the second person (for we find nothing in heathenism without a prototype, however widely removed from the truth), permitted of the great fundamental doctrine of a Trinity in Unity being represented. In the majority of these cases, the results depend either on contemporary records, or on the authority of original and very ancient writers; whereas, in the others, the same system prevailed too widely separated for collusion, and in ages long after the rest had succumbed to Christianity. There cannot be more conclusive data on which to found an argument. Let us here remark, that we should rather the Egyptian and Phoenician systems had appeared as separate members, than as one and the same; although the junction is natural, were the question to be illustrated an isolated one. The Phoenician commentaries of Sanchoniatho on the Hermaic, or Egyptian system, clearly supply the link between the latter and the Orphic. The Ivu, or ether, the Pothos, and the Môt of the Phonician, are, as our author has proved, equivalent to the Kneph, Phtha, and Khem of the Egyptian; and equally represent the Ericapaus, Pothos, and Metis of the Orphic. The generations of Sanchoniatho, besides, possess an Asiatic character, which could not have been derived wholly from the same source with the Egyptian system; and his names are, in a great degree, to be found in the Greek mythology. The information contained in his history seems to have descended through Isiris (Cadmus ?), the brother of Cna, or Phoenix (Cory's Anc. Frag., 2d edit., p. 16); and the Orphic system, there can be little doubt, was derived, and further altered, from data brought into Greece by the same Isiris, or Cadmus. With reference to the systems of Egypt and India, which have recently been so much elucidated, it has been suggested by a respectable writer, in observations on Mr. Cory's work * (which we notice in consequence of so little having hitherto appeared on the question treated of), that "these two links want obviously a third, or possibly more, for connexion with each other; if, indeed, they be connected." But, the disunion here complained of is precisely what we want. Do we seek for connexion in the rays of the sun, after their departure from that luminary? The cases are altogether similar. An established connexion between the Egyptian and Indian systems, would determine the origin of one from the other (as in the case of Phoenicia and Greece, just adduced), and hence weaken the main argument, inevitable from systems, differing in every thing, their fundamental principle excepted, and thus establishing a common centre of radiation, whatsoever alterations and corruptions are proper to either. We do not look for many such independent instances, because the affinities of languages, and every thing else, tend to prove that mankind at first radiated into three great families, whose subdivisions will present affinities not to be found in the original branches. It is evident that the more widely the systems of these shall be found to differ, the more complete and satisfactory will be the result. In Egypt and India, we expect to find distinct corruptions, peculiar to the races of Ham and Japhet. The same writer replies to our author's general deduction, already quoted: "There is no evidence that it (the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity) was known universally. Arabia offers none, much as has been preserved of its former state. The proofs in Peru we have hinted at as questionable. In Mexico, none exist, so far as we can see. But setting aside all this, How comes it that the Jews, the sole records of the Deity's real system, retain no such evidence?" We answer, that every contemporary, or original Gentile record (heathen Arabia offers none under this head, unless we except undeciphered inscriptions), so far as extant and understood, preserves the fact, as already insisted on. This is of itself all that the argument demands. But, the same fact is known to have descended in several widely separated countries, to modern ages-in the overpowering case of Hindostan, to the present moment; and, even if lost by some, in which an indication of a universal original principle might be expected, ought it not rather to strike us with astonishment that so many have retained it, and that so much proof, that may be deemed almost superfluous, remains-that there should exist modern contemporary evidence speaking the language of the contem *See Literary Gazette, July 22, 1837. 8 66 porary records of 3000 years' standing? We have inserted this passage, be- nor Greek wanted a stumbling-block, * speaks a common source, unless, wit Our time, space, and inclination, The tabular view of the triads, with which we conclude this chapter, will prepare the reader to accompany us, and will be found useful for reference. The purpose is to afford a general, rather than a critically exact idea, either of our author's results, or of the national systems on which they The same argument applies to the triplicities of the Jewish Cabalists. Their claim, as original data, is precisely as good as that of the sons of the patriarchs. „becoment notice on Mr. Cory's Chronological Inquiry (Literary Gazette, are founded; yet such a one as will help to clear up obscurities in both. As regards the former, we have found it necessary, in some measure, to invert the order of Mr. Cory's detail, by placing the Egyptian triads before the Orphic and the later Greek, which were derived from the Egyptian; and as this derivation was obviously through the Phoenician system, we have separated the latter from the Egyptian, with which our author has united it, and placed the Phoenician triad between the Egyptian and the Orphic. The Syrian, Sidonian, Tyrian, and Edessene triads, which are obviously of the same class, and which, while furnishing the radical character of triplicity, do not so fully identify themselves with the other systems, we give in their place, according to our author; the Chaldaic follows in its natural place, immediately preceding the Persian. The true Chaldaic system is, however, more exactly represented by the Persian, which was derived from it; as is evident from the description of Eudemus, cited by Damascius (Anc. Frag., 2d edit., p. 318), and confirmed by the general consent of antiquity. As regards the national systems of the Hindus, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks, and Persians, which offer many common characteristics, there are difficulties which render any but a very general idea, impossible in the tabular form. These arise from the frequent amalgamations and transpositions of the rank or office of the divinities, and of their physical or material, and their metaphysical, or moral, or ideal characters; as well as of the colours in which they are represented, and of the sacred animals, which are their vahans, or bearers, or companions, and symbols. There is, besides, a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical, or moral and ideal triads, which determines them to have been separate forms of the divinities; and which, had it been perceived by the author, would have relieved the subject of much of its difficulty, and have rendered a more methodical tabular statement admissible. It likewise augments the beauty and force of the whole argument. The distinction in question, which it would have been premature to explain here, will be found established and eluci dated in the subsequent pages of our analysis. Let it be noticed, that where a line is drawn across the Indian and Egyptian columns of our table, the intention is to separate the names which belong respectively to the physical and moral (or intellectual) triads, which, as above, were not confounded, but assumed to be coexistent. It may be well here to remark that the Hindu, the Egyptian, and the Persian systems, appear to present us with three distinct streams of corrupted religion, flowing from a common source; and these we are disposed, as already intimated, to refer to the Japhetic, Chametic, and Semitic lines of the Gentile posterity of Noah. We have already seen that the Phoenician, the Orphic, and the later Greek systems, flow directly from the Egyptian; while the Syrian, the Sidonian, and the Tyrian triads, are probably of the same family, if not of the same immediate descent. The Pythagorean system descended from this family; and with the monad, dyad, and triad of that system, the Chinese and others eastwards of India appear to connect themselves, in agreement with the synchronous origin of all these, under Pythagoras, Confucius, Bhuddha, &c.; this being the age of partial reformation, occasioned by the dissemination of the sacred Jewish books, at the period of the captivity, as already noticed. The Chaldæan system-that of the idolatrous forefathers of Abraham (Gen. xi. 28-31; Josh. xxiv. 2)—must be viewed as an elder branch of the same stem with the Persian, which also belongs to the age of Pythagoras; while we may, perhaps, securely refer the Scandinavian, and the rest westwards of Greece and Italy, to the same stem with the Hindu system, in correspondence with philological classification of nations. We shall thus have a great periethnic tree of the corruptions of the religion of the patriarchs, resolving itself into three grand branches, which ultimately resolve themselves into one common stem, springing from the corrupted trinity of the Scythismus, or first apostasy from the patriarchal church, which ancient writers agree in referring to the period when mankind dwelt together on the plains of Shinar. HERMOGENES. |