parents to Colpias and Baau. As Baau is undoubtedly the fame word with Bobu in the Hebrew text, which we render void, Colpias is, with the greatest probability, fupposed to be a compound of these three Hebrew words, Kol Pi Jab, The voice of the mouth of the Lord. Thus he mentions the Lord, the Voice of the mouth of the Lord, and the Spirit. Lord Monboddo has obferved, that "at this day the doc"trine of the three persons of the deity in one substance is "an effential part of the creed of the Brahmins," and that, "they call these perfons by the fame names, that we do, "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft. The firft," he adds, “in their language is Rama, the second Vifnou, and "the third Crifna. This fact is told in a French book, "written by La Croze, entitled Hiftoire du Chriftianism "des Indes, vol. 2. book 4. p. 48. And he relates it "upon the credit of one Manuel Godhino, a Portugueze, "who was in India in the year 1663. And I have heard "the fact attested by an acquaintance of mine, who had "been many years in India +." It is undeniable that the Brahmins hold the doctrine of a Trinity, in a certain sense. The names, however, are expreffed differently by different writers. The Danish Miffionaries call the three perfons Ifuren, Wifcbtnu and Biruma. But it does not appear that the Brahmins really hold an unity of substance. For according to the writers formerly mentioned, they believe in ene fupreme God, above these three. Thus they introduce a Brahmin as faying; "We allow but one primary and "fovereign Being, and conftantly profess that the great “Triad of deities acknowledge him for their fovereign "Lord and Mafter t." As they hold, however, that these * Gale's Court. p. 2. b. 1. C. 3. Bedford's Sermons, p. 97, 98. three Conferences between the Danish Miffionaries and Malabarian Brahmins, p. 2. three were produced by him, it is probable that their Trinity is a corruption of the original doctrine. They have many inferior deities. But they affert, that they are all the vicegerents of the Triad *. And It is not meant to defend the ideas of the different heathen nations on this fubject, or to affert that they agreed with Christians in their doctrine of a Trinity. But thefe things are mentioned, to fhew that this doctrine was much older than Plato; nay, that there was fomething like a ge neral notion of a Trinity even among the Gentiles. we cannot rationally suppose that this opinion, in which nations fo remote, both as to time and fituation, agreed, could originate from mere chance. It is much more reafonable to think that it sprung from fome ancient tradition. Indeed, Proclus exprefsly declares that it was gádelns Biohoyra, “a Theology of divine tradition," or "reve"lation." Were it neceffary, it might eafily be proved, that great part of the learning of the heathen was derived, either from ancient tradition, or from revelation; and particularly, that their mythology was in general merely a corruption of facred history +. CHA P. III. Of the Perfonality afcribed to the Logos by Philo; and of the Unitarian Doctrine of Occafional Perfonality. A S the Doctor finds, even after a re-examination of Philo, that it cannot be denied that he makes the Logos a perfon, he devises a new folution of the difficulty, in his Hif * Ibid. tory † Vid. Bocharti Phaleg et Canaan, Cudworth's Intellectual System, Gale's Court of the Gentiles, Millar's Propagation of Christianity, and Banier's Mythology. tory of Early Opinions. He had formerly left the orthodox to make the most of Philo, after ftigmatising him as a Platonist. But having discovered, which is more than has been discovered in former ages, that "the Platonists them"felves proceeded no farther than to what may be called "a ftrongly figurative perfonification of the divine intel"lect;" he expects to deprive his opponents even of the little fervice that Philo might have done them. He formerly observed, that "Plato, according to Lactantius, gave "the name of a fecond God" to the Logos, "faying, The "Lord and Maker of the universe, whom we justly call "God, made a fecond God, vifible and fenfible +." However, matters are fo changed, that the Logos merely "con"ftitutes what they (the Platonifts) called the intelligible "world, or the world to be perceived by the mind, and not by the fenfes ‡." But, even on this ground, the learned gentleman cannot agree with himself. For in the courfe of forty-eight pages he quits his fecond theory, and returns to the firft; because he finds it more fuitable to his prefent purpose. This is to fhew that the Christian fathers" obftinately held to the "doctrine of Chrift being nothing more than the Logos, or "the proper reafon, wisdom, or power, of the Father;" left they should feem to the lower people to introduce another God. He contrafts their conduct with that of the Platonifts. They, he fays, "had no difficulty at all on this ac"count, as they had no meafures to keep with unitarians, "but rather wished to ftand well with those who held a "multiplicity of Gods. They, therefore, never pretended "to believe that their three principles were one, or refolva"ble into one §." Here he is fo certain of the fact, that he affigns a reason for it. Vol. ii. p. 2. But Hift. of Corrupt. vol. i. p. 29. § Ibid. p. 48, 49. three were produced by him, it is probable that their Trinity is a corruption of the original doctrine. They have many inferior deities. But they affert, that they are all the vicegerents of the Triad *. It is not meant to defend the ideas of the different heathen nations on this fubject, or to affert that they agreed with Christians in their doctrine of a Trinity. But thefe things are mentioned, to fhew that this doctrine was much older than Plato; nay, that there was fomething like a general notion of a Trinity even among the Gentiles. And we cannot rationally fuppofe that this opinion, in which nations fo remote, both as to time and fituation, agreed, could originate from mere chance. It is much more reafonable to think that it fprung from fome ancient tradition. Indeed, Proclus exprefsly declares that it was gádelns Dioλoyiα, “a Theology of divine tradition," or "reve"lation." Were it neceffary, it might eafily be proved, that great part of the learning of the heathen was derived, either from ancient tradition, or from revelation; and particularly, that their mythology was in general merely a corruption of facred history +. CHA P. III. Of the Perfonality afcribed to the Logos by Philo; and of the Unitarian Doctrine of Occafional Perfonality. As the Doctor finds, even after a re-examination of Philo, that it cannot be denied that he makes the Logos a perfon, he devises a new folution of the difficulty, in his Hif * Ibid. tory Vid. Bocharti Phaleg et Canaan, Cudworth's Intellectual System, Gale's Court of the Gentiles, Millar's Propagation of Christianity, and Banier's Mythology. tory of Early Opinions. He had formerly left the orthodox to make the most of Philo, after stigmatifing him as a Platonist. But having difcovered, which is more than has been discovered in former ages, that "the Platonists them"felves proceeded no farther than to what may be called "a ftrongly figurative perfonification of the divine intel"lect;" he expects to deprive his opponents even of the little fervice that Philo might have done them. He formerly observed, that "Plato, according to Lactantius, gave "the name of a fecond God" to the Logos, "faying, The "Lord and Maker of the univerfe, whom we justly call "God, made a fecond God, vifible and fenfible +." However, matters are so changed, that the Logos merely “ con"ftitutes what they (the Platonifts) called the intelligible "world, or the world to be perceived by the mind, and 'not by the fenfes ‡.” But, even on this ground, the learned gentleman cannot agree with himself. For in the course of forty-eight pages he quits his fecond theory, and returns to the first; because he finds it more fuitable to his prefent purpose. This is to fhew that the Christian fathers "obftinately held to the "doctrine of Chrift being nothing more than the Logos, or "the proper reason, wisdom, or power, of the Father;" left they should feem to the lower people to introduce another God. He contrafts their conduct with that of the Platonifts. They, he fays, "had no difficulty at all on this account, as they had no measures to keep with unitarians, "but rather wished to ftand well with those who held a "multiplicity of Gods. They, therefore, never pretended "to believe that their three principles were one, or refolva"ble into one §." Here he is fo certain of the fact, that be affigns a reafon for it. 66 Vol. ii. p. 2. But Hift. of Corrupt. vol. i. p. 29. § Ibid. p. 48, 49. |