783 
God of nature ts One*.”” The diftinc- 
“ion is natural, and the remark, in the. 
main, agrees with fal. While fear and 
ignorance people the univerfe with 
imaginary divinities, philofophy, con- 
templating the relation of caufes and 
effects, and the eftablifhed harmony of 
the univerfe, infers the exiftence of one 
intelligent and powerful Agent. It 
might, at firft view, feem clear, that the 
dilirihution of Antifthenes muft exhauf 
the fubjeét, and that every believer in 
divinity muft either be a monotheift or a 
polytheift. In the theological hiftory of 
the world, it has, however, ftrangely 
happened, that a third clafs has arifen, 
which has endeavoured to unite the 
apparently contrary ideas of unity and 
plurality, and have held, that the deity 
is, at the fame time, both one and many. 
nd this paradoxical opinion has not 
becn the diitinguithing tenet of a fingle 
my ftical feét, among whom confufion of 
tatelleét might ve expected to accompany 
wildnefs of fancy, but the common 
belief of profound philofophers, and 
fearned theologians, through a long fuc- 
ecfhon of ages. 
Whence has a notion which, appa- 
rently, confounds all our numerical ideas, 
fprung ? By what means has it obtained, 
and preferved, fuch general and lafting 
eredit ? Is it poflible to account for its 
rife and diffemination, by a natural 
procefs? Or, muft we be compelled to 
admit the improbable fuppofition, that 
the eternal Power has interrupted the 
-eftablithed order of the univerfe, to com- 
municate, toa part of the inhabitants of 
this globe, information concerning -him- 
felf, which it is, after all, impoffible that 
they fhould underftand ? The enquiry is 
curious; and the conneétion which has 
been long eftablifhed between this doc- 
trine and the ftate of religion, and even 
of civil fociety, renders it important. 
Traces of the notion of plurality in 
the divire nature are, unqueftionably, 
to be found in the moft ancient records 
and monuments of the oriental nations. 
In Hindooftan, which claims the honour 
of being the cradle of fcience—a claim 
which modern inveftigation feems to 
confirm—this notion has been co-eval 
with the earlieft inftitutions of which 
accounts are preferved. From the facred 
books of the Hindoos, in which their 
ancient laws, hiftory, and fables are pre- 
ferved, and which are admitted by Sir 
William Jones, Mr. Dow, and others, 
RIT LC LCL IL 
* Cic, de Nat. Deor. BY, ¢. 13. 
The Enquirer. No. XIV. 
[Sept. 
n 
who have made accurate enquiry upo 
the {pot, to be fome of the oldeft writings 
in the world, it is indifputably certain, 
that this people, in very remote anti- 
quity, were poffefled of the doétrine of 
one fupreme deity, and entertained 
fublime conceptions of his attributes and 
providence. Abflragtion has never pro- 
duced more pure and refined ideas of 
the firft fource df being ; imagination 
has never exhibited his perfeCtions and 
operations in richer colouring than are to 
be found in various parts of thefe 
writings. The abftraét, metaphyfical 
terms, under which the deity is deferibed, 
renders it highly probable, that -the 
Hindoo Brachimans, in the earlieft period 
of which any record remains, , were 
believers in the fimple unity of the 
dtvine nature. In communicating reli- 
gious notions to the people, they, how- 
ever, found it neceffary to clothe them 
with metaphors and allegories. The 
one eternal Deity they exhibited under 
three diftinét charaéters, as creator, 
preferver, and deftroyer: under the fir 
of thefe charaéters they gave him the 
name of Brahma; under the fecond, 
that of Vithnou ; under the third, that 
of Sheva. The operations of Deity 
thus diftinguifhed, the great Operator 
himf{elf foon came to be’ contemplated 
and worfhipped as three diftin& perfons. 
Concerning each perfon allegorical fables 
were, in abundance, iffued from the rich 
ftore-houfe ‘of oriental fancy: thefe 
fables gave rife to numerous ceremonies ; 
each divine perfon had his appropriate 
feét; among thefe fects violent quarrels 
arofe, in which the worfhippers of 
Vifhnou and Sheva united againft thofe 
of Brahma, and defeated them; the 
worfhip of Brahma was deftroyed, his 
temples overturned, and his feét diffoly- 
ed. Since this revolution, which is faid 
to have happened 5000 years-ago, the 
Hindoos have-been divided into twe 
leading feéts, the followers of Vifhnou, 
and thofe of Sheva; and Brahma has 
had no temples, nor any diftinét worhhip, 
except that the Brahmins, on account of 
their fuppofed origin, addrefs their 
morning prayers to him, and in honour 
of him perform certain ceremonies ; ftill, 
however, through the pericd of thefe 
changes, the remembrance of the origin 
of thefe divinities was preferved, and 
Brahma, Vifhnou, and Sheva, continued 
to be worfhipped as a triple divinity, or 
trinity, under the name of Trimourti, or 
‘Tritvam, denoting the re-union of the 
three powers. The reprefentation of 
the 
a 
