Chapter I: On the Creator of the World (2)

If it be asked, What! was God a _solitary_ Being? Did he exist alone, before this exertion of his glorious power? Formed as we are for society, we have no conception of any satisfaction arising from a state of absolute loneliness; nor can we conceive that the Deity should rest _inactive_ from eternity, and not exert those amazing powers of which the stupendous creation proves he is amply possessed? There are some particulars naturally deducible from questions like these, which we cannot solve. We have no adequate apprehension of eternity; we are lost in the idea. And when we attempt to contemplate God existing from eternity without _cause_ or as _beginning_ to exist, we are utterly lost in the speculation; for among all the objects that come within the reach of our senses, we see nothing existing that has not had a cause to produce it. We frequently smile at children, when they ask their little simple questions, as we deem them; but we are mere children ourselves, in this profound ocean of wonder. But something very observable strikes an attentive reader in the Mosaic account of the creation, which suggests that the Deity is not a solitary Being, existing in such an absolute _unity_ as to exclude all degree of personality or communion. For אלהימ _Elohim_, as we have already observed, the very first name by which Moses calls God, being plural, shows that though he exists in an undivided unity of nature, yet in a Trinity of Persons. And this notion of a plurality, so far from being contrary to reason, is more agreeable to it than any opinion of the absolute _unity_ of the Divine nature. For conceive we only three Divine persons mutually to partake of the Divine essence or nature, to be united by the same perfect will, and to possess the same infinite powers and perfections; and all our apprehensions of the loneliness of solitary existence immediately subside; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, consummately happy in each other, have been from eternity reciprocal objects of complacence, and will remain such for ever. Let this argument be fairly and impartially considered, and the notion of a Trinity of Subsistences in a Unity of the Divine Nature, will appear far more consonant to reason, and liable to less objections, than that of mere solitary and absolute unity.[22]

[_A further consideration of the suggestion in the close of
the last paragraph._

Although nothing can be clearer than that the Divine
Essence is _one_, simple, and indivisible; _yet_ this does
not prevent it from subsisting in _personality_, i.e. _in a
plurality of persons_.

It must be carefully observed, that the plurality has
regard to the _persons_, not to the Essence. We cannot say
there is a plurality of Essences; but we can say, the Living,
Rational, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence _subsists in three
persons_. This then is the MODUS EXISTENDI of the Divine Being.

Although we are assured this is his _mode of existence_,
we do not pretend to comprehend the _nature_ of it. We may,
without any injury to the proposition, affirm, the _nature_ of
the fact is incomprehensible by _created intellect_. Yet the
fact itself is sufficiently well attested, and is not repugnant
to reason, though it is above the comprehension of reason.

It is believed by many very learned, pious, and eminent
men, that the doctrine of a _plurality of persons in the
Godhead_, can be established by an argumentation founded solely
on the acknowledged nature of the Divine Being.

The Rev. JAMES KIDD, Prof. of Oriental Languages, Marischal
College and University, Aberdeen, with the approbation of many
learned men in England, among whom is Dr. Adam Clarke, in
whose house he delivered private lectures on his manuscript,
has published a very able and satisfactory essay on this plan,
of which a brief clue to the mode of argumentation is here
attempted.

A. _The Divine Being is a necessarily existent, and an
eternally, immensely, and immutably Living, Intelligent,
Rational, Moral, Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence._

B. _The very_ LAW _of the nature of such a being, is
eternal, immense, and immutable_ ACTIVITY, ENERGY, _and_
EFFICIENCY, _exercised eternally, immensely, and immutably_,
ACCORDING TO HIS OWN NATURE.

C. _That such a being_ WAS _as necessarily existent,
perfect, and happy,_ BEFORE _creation, and providence as since;
and would forever continue as necessarily existent, perfect,
and happy, if creation and providence should cease to be_.

These three propositions are so obviously true, every
reader will readily and cordially grant them. It is proposed,
therefore, to show, from the nature of the Divine Being, _that
his Essence_ MUST _subsist in a plurality of persons_.

The proposition does not contemplate an explanation of the
_manner_ of this subsistence; nor, at present, the _number_
of persons; but the simple fact, _That_ FROM THE VERY NATURE
OF THE DIVINE BEING, HIS ESSENCE MUST SUBSIST IN PLURAL
PERSONALITY.

The existence of a being, or the possession, or exercise of
any principle, passion or attribute, _implies personality_, or
individual identity, which is the same thing. The mind cannot
conceive of existence, passion, principle, or action, without
conceiving of them inhering in actually existing Essence, which
_must_ assume in the mind the idea of personality. Therefore,
_personality_ is strictly, and properly applicable to the
Divine Essence. But the doctrine of a _plural_ personality is
to be established at present.

It will be easily conceived, and readily granted, that
a being which exists necessarily, eternally, immensely,
and immutably, as a Living, Intelligent, Rational, Moral,
Benevolent, and Spiritual Essence, _must have exercised
Himself, and his perfections, necessarily, eternally,
immensely, and immutably_. This then is granted. But the mind
will readily and easily perceive, that the Divine Being could
not have exercised Himself THUS, _in the works of Creation
and Providence_. Because, it is readily admitted, there _was_
a time when Creation and Providence _began_: during a whole
eternity _beyond_ this period, there was no existence except
God Himself. Consequently, He _cannot_ have been exercised
according to his own nature and perfections, _eternally_, in
reference to Creation and Providence.

Again: He cannot have exercised his perfections
_immensely_, in reference to Creation and Providence: because,
however extensive we may conceive the empire of Creation and
Providence to be, it is not _immense_; it is actually limited,
and, therefore, could not admit of an _immense exercise of his
nature and perfections_.

It is readily granted, that the Divine Being was as
necessarily, and perfectly happy _before_ Creation and
Providence as since; and if Creation and Providence should
cease, his happiness would continue the same: hence, it
follows, necessarily, that the happiness of the Divine Being
was, is, and ever will be entirely _independent_ of Creation
and Providence.

But the happiness of any being consists, essentially,
_in the exercise of its powers and perfections according
to the law of its own nature_. And as it has been shown,
that the happiness of the Divine Being is eternal, immense,
and immutable, it follows, _He must have exercised Himself
eternally, immensely, and immutably_.

As it has been _granted_, That from the very nature of
the Divine Being, He must have been eternally, immensely,
and immutably active and happy, according to the law of his
own nature: and it has been _proven_, That He could not have
been eternally, immensely, and immutably active and happy, in
reference to Creation and Providence, it follows, necessarily,
that the _means_ and _principles_ of these eternal, immense,
and immutable activity and happiness, _must exist_ IN HIS OWN
CONSTITUTION, _and be exercised entirely_ WITHIN _Himself_.

This conclusion cannot be denied, granting the premises in
the propositions A. B. C. in reference to the Divine Being.
It remains to be proven, That such principles, and means
of eternal, immense and immutable activity and happiness
_cannot_ be conceived of in the constitution of the Divine
Being, _without conceiving his essence to subsist in plural
personality_.

The consideration simply of the nature and eternal activity
of the Divine Being would establish the idea of _plural
personality_ in his Essence: because the mind cannot conceive,
that the same single being can be both _agent_ and _object,
in reference to the same action_. And as it has been proven,
that _previous_ to the existence of Creation and Providence,
God existed eternally _alone_, consequently, no possible form
of existence but Himself, and yet he was eternally, immensely,
and immutably active and happy; it will follow irresistibly,
that _there must be a plurality in his single Essence_; and the
mind naturally assumes, this plurality is _personal_; as it
cannot conceive of activity, and happiness without conceiving
them to belong to person, or persons. And as action implies
both _agent_, and an _object_ distinct from the agent; and
there being no such agent, or object existing _without_ the
Divine Being, it must be infered, that these agent and object,
concerned in the eternal activity and happiness of his nature,
must exist _inherently, eternally, immensely, and immutably_
WITHIN _Himself_.

Thus we are COMPELLED to admit a plurality of persons in
the Divine Essence.

It will be recollected, the Divine Being has not only
exercised Himself eternally, but also _immensely_, according
to the law of his own nature and perfections: i.e. He has
necessarily, and eternally exercised Himself to the extent of
his nature and perfections. This will be readily admitted when
we reflect, that unless we admit the exercise of the nature
and perfections of God _to their full extent_, we must admit
a _redundancy_ in the Divine Nature, and perfections, which
would be manifestly absurd, as it would _imply imperfection_.
For it would imply (if we may dare say so) that there is an
_efficiency_, or _ability_ in the Divine Being, which He
has never exercised to its full extent; and in proportion
to the _deficiency_ in the exercise, we must conclude this
_efficiency_ or ability is _useless_, which would be repugnant
to the true idea of the Divine Being.

It is therefore, _proven_, That the Divine Being
necessarily exercised Himself _immensely_, because his nature,
and perfections are immense. But it will be readily perceived,
this could not be done in the works of Creation and Providence:
because, however vast they may be, they are not _immense_:
and, therefore, could not admit of the immense exercise of his
nature and perfections to their full extent: from which it
must follow, inevitably, _That the immense exercise of his own
nature and perfections must be_ WITHIN _Himself_.

As it has already been proven above, that this internal
exercise in the Divine Essence necessarily implies _plurality_
in the Godhead; so now also, is it proven, that the admission
of such plurality is the only view competent to show _HOW_
the Divine Being could have exercised his own nature and
perfections _immensely_, as the attribute of immensity
appertains to God only.

As it is granted, that the Divine Being was necessarily as
happy _before_ Creation and Providence as since, and would
continue so, should Creation and Providence cease; of course
his happiness consists in the exercise of his own nature and
perfections according to their own law. But, in order that the
Divine Being should be eternally, immensely, and immutably
happy, the WHOLE of the Divine Nature and perfections must
be exercised eternally, immensely, and immutably. But if we
divest the Divine Essence of its plural personality, we cannot
conceive that some of the divine perfections can be exercised
at all. For example: the divine goodness, love, wisdom,
intelligence, and all his _moral_ perfections. We surely cannot
say, He manifests his goodness to Himself; or exercises his
love towards Himself; or employs his wisdom in understanding
Himself; all of which ideas are obviously absurd. But so
soon as we admit the idea of a plural personality, or the
subsistence of the Divine Essence in a plurality of persons,
we can conceive the moral perfections exercised in Himself,
between the persons of the Godhead. This is the only ground on
which we can conceive of his eternal, immense, and immutable
happiness. For we can readily conceive of the distinct persons
in the Divine Essence, _communicating mutually_ to each other
the _whole_ of the divine moral perfections; and thus conceive
of the perfect and independent happiness of God.

The only remaining view of this subject would be this:
the activity, energy, and influence of the Divine Being can
only regard Creation and Providence. But as there was a _past
eternity before_ Creation and Providence began, in which the
Divine Being existed, He must be considered as having been
_inactive_, _solitary_, and _unconscious_; (because there
cannot be consciousness where there is not action,) the whole
and every part of which view is derogatory to the acknowledged
character of God. How much more reasonable is it to conceive
the Divine Essence to subsist in a plurality of persons, and
thus to conceive, _consistently_, of the eternal, immense, and
immutable activity and happiness of the Divine Being?

_Thus we see, that what the Scriptures declare concerning
the plurality of persons in the Divine Essence_, CANNOT BE
OTHERWISE, AS IS DEMONSTRATED ABOVE, FROM THE NECESSARY NATURE
OF THE GLORIOUS DIVINITY.

The demonstration might be extended to each of the divine
perfections, and the same result would be obtained. The above
remarks are a mere clue to the argument which is possible, and
satisfactory; founded on the necessary nature of Jehovah.

The key to the whole demonstration is this:

1. The Divine Being, from his very and necessary nature,
must be eternally, immensely, and immutably active.

2. He must be eternally, immensely, and immutably happy.

3. In order to be eternally, immensely, and immutably
active and happy, He must be exercised to the whole extent of
his nature and perfections, eternally, immensely, and immutably.

4. That such an exercise of his nature and perfections, in
an eternal, immense, and immutable manner, cannot be, in regard
to Creation and Providence; because, Creation and Providence
are not eternal, immense, and immutable.

5. As there was not any thing _before_ Creation and
Providence, but God Himself, it must follow, necessarily, that
the eternal, immense, and immutable activity and happiness of
the Divine Being were WITHIN _Himself entirely_.

6. As it is impossible for the human intellect to conceive,
that a being can be both _agent_ and _object, in the same
action_, and the activity of the Divine Being has been shown to
have been within Himself entirely; it follows, THAT THE DIVINE
ESSENCE MUST HAVE SUBSISTED ETERNALLY, IMMENSELY, AND IMMUTABLY
IN A PLURALITY.

7. And as the mind is _forced_ to admit a _plurality_ in
the Divine Essence, it naturally, and necessarily assumes
PERSONS for this plurality; and thus concludes, _There must
be a plurality of persons in the Godhead as the Scriptures
declare._

From the foregoing elements of the argument, it will be
very easy to observe, if a _plurality_ must be admitted, there
is no objection in the mind to admit it is _triple_; and
hence, as the substance of the Divine Essence has been shown
to exist necessarily in a plurality, the mind conceives a
_triple plurality_, as easy as any other, and thus conceives
the reasonableness of the doctrine of the _Trinity in Unity_.

The most successful argument against this conclusion is
this: _It is impossible to conceive how three can be one_.
This is admitted, _when the objects designated by_ “three”
_are the same as the object designated by_ “one.” But this is
not the case in the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. The term
_Trinity_ applies to the _persons_ in which the Divine Essence
subsists, and _not_ to the essence itself. So the term _Unity_
applies to the _Essence only_, and _not_ to the persons. This
simple distinction removes the whole force of the objection.

The Unitarians, therefore, do us wrong when they say, _we
believe three are one_. And Trinitarians do themselves wrong
when they say, _to the three one God_: because, it is not true
that there is a “three one God.” But it is a glorious truth,
THAT THE DIVINE ESSENCE SUBSISTS IN THREE PERSONS, ETERNALLY,
IMMENSELY, AND IMMUTABLY.

It is very natural to suppose, that God imparted a
knowledge of Himself to our first parents in Paradise. The
Scriptures clearly support this supposition. This knowledge
would, of course, include the doctrine of the Trinity; and we
cannot admit for a moment, that so important a doctrine as the
plurality of persons in the Godhead, could have been wholly
lost by mankind, though it might become obscured. Accordingly
we find the traditionary remains of this doctrine throughout
the Old World.

“The Hindoos” says M. Sonerat, “adore _three_ principal
Deities, Brouma, Schiven, and Vichenou, who are still but
_one_; which kind of Trinity is there called Trimurti, and
signifies the re-union of those powers. The generality of
Indians at present, adore only one of these three divinities;
but some learned men, beside this worship, also address their
prayers to the three united. The representation of them is to
be seen in many pagodas, under that of human figures with three
heads, which on the coast of Orissa, they call Sariharabrama,
on the Coromandel coast, Trimourti,” &c.

This account of M. Sonerat is very pertinent, and is
confirmed by Dr. Buchanan who made extensive researches in that
country. See his _Star in the East_.

The same tradition is found in China. “Among the ancient
Chinese characters” says Dr. A. Clarke, “which have been
preserved, we find the following Δ like the Greek _delta_.
According to the Chinese dictionary _Kang-hi_, this character
signifies _union_. According to _Choueouen_, a celebrated work,
Δ is _three united in one_. The Lieou-chou-tsing-hoen, which is
a rational and learned explanation of ancient characters, says;
“Δ signifies intimate union, harmony, the chief good of man, of
the heaven, and of the earth; it is the union of three.”

Lao-tse says; “He who is as visible, and yet cannot be
seen, is denominated _lieou_; he who can be heard, and yet
speaks not to the ears, _hi_; he who is tangible, and yet
cannot be felt, is named _ouei_: in vain do you consult your
senses about these _three_; your reason alone can discourse of
them, and it will tell you they are but one,” &c.

One of the missionaries at Peking, who wrote the letters from
which I have made the above extracts, takes it for granted,
“that the mystery of the _Trinity_ was known among the ancient
Chinese, and that the character Δ was its symbol.” _Dr. A.
Clarke, on the 1st chap. John’s Gospel._

The existence of this same tradition in China is conveyed
to us through another channel. “It was the leading feature in
_Lao-Kiun’s_ system of philosophical theology, and a sentence
which he continually repeated as the foundation of all true
wisdom, that TAO, the eternal reason, produced ONE; _one_
produced TWO; _two_ produced THREE; and THREE produced all
things.” _Le Compt’s Memoirs of China_.

Traditions of this doctrine are found also in Chaldea
and Persia indeed throughout the East; from whence all agree
they were imported, through Phœnicia, into Egypt, and thence
into Greece. The great and original sources of information
being in the neighborhood of the Euphrates, where the _first
post-diluvian_ families resided; and the mighty intellects
which were to influence the world, by the materials which
were drawn from thence, being in Greece, the consequence
was, we find the Grecian philosophers travelling _up_ the
streams of knowledge to the fountains, and thence returning to
enlighten the world by the results of their researches. For
example: Pythagoras, Plato, and others visited Egypt first,
thence to Phœnicia, and thence to Chaldea, and the East, from
whence they undoubtedly drew their theology. (Nor should it
be forgotten that _their_ philosophy was _theological_.) The
concurrent testimony of history establishes this fact. The
consequence of all this is, the doctrine of the Trinity was
known to the Greek philosophers, who preserved it to the world
in their incomparable writings, a collateral testimony of the
authenticity of the Scripture doctrine. For this opinion we
have the highest authority in the republic of letters.

“It is said that the first Christians borrowed their notion
of a Triune God from the later Platonists; and that we hear not
of a Trinity in the church till converts were made from the
school of Alexandria. But if this be the case we may properly
ask, _Whence had those Platonists the doctrine?_

“It is not surely so simple, or so obvious as to have
occurred to the reasoning mind of a pagan philosopher;
or if it be, _why do Unitarians suppose it to involve a
contradiction?_--The Platonic and Pythagorean Trinities
never could have occurred to the mind of him, who, merely
from the works of creation, endeavored to discover the being
and attributes of God; and therefore as those philosophers
travelled into Egypt and the East in quest of knowledge, it
appears to us in the highest degree probable, that they picked
up this mysterious and sublime doctrine in those regions where
it had been handed down as a dogma from the remotest ages,
and where we know science was not taught systematically, but
detailed in collections of sententious maxims, and traditionary
opinions. If this be so we cannot doubt but that the pagan
trinities had their origin in some primeval revelation. Nothing
else indeed can account for a doctrine so remote from human
imagination, and of which we find vestiges in the sacred books
of almost every civilized people of antiquity. The corrupt
state in which it is viewed in the writings of Plato and
others, is the natural consequence of its descent through
a long course of oral tradition. The Trinity of Platonism
therefore, instead of being an objection, lends, in our
opinion, no feeble support to the Christian doctrine, since it
affords almost a complete proof of that doctrine having made
a part of the first revelation to man.” _Ency. Brit. Art._
THEOLOGY.

“Some have indeed pretended, that the _Trinity_, which
is commonly called _Platonic_, was a fiction of the later
Platonists, unknown to the founder of the school: but any
person who will take the trouble to study the writings of Plato
will find _abundant evidence that he really asserted_ A TRIAD
OF DIVINE HYPOSTASES, _all concerned in the formation, and
government of the world_.” _Ency. Brit. Art._ PLATONISM.

“Pythagoras, though inferior to Plato in reputation, and
lived before him, held the same doctrine, and derived it from
the same sources. He visited Egypt, Persia, Chaldea, &c, and
thence returned to Greece.” _Ency. Brit. Art._ PYTHAGORAS.

These quotations are directly from the Encyclopedia
Britannica, than which no authority can be better. I might
increase the quotations to the same effect from Dr. Oglevie,
the learned Cudworth and others, were it necessary. The above
is thought sufficient to establish the fact, _That the doctrine
of a Trinity in Unity was once prevalent in the Pagan world,
and that remains and traditions of it are yet abundant through
all the East, where the revelations of God were made to
mankind_.]

If it be asked, “Why did God conceal himself from eternity till within six thousand years; for, according to Divine revelation, it is not yet so long since the world was made?” I answer, God is at perfect liberty to do what he pleases, to do it when he pleases, and to give no account of the reasons of his conduct. If he had pleased to create the world as many millions of years sooner, as there have been days since its creation, the same question might have been asked, Why did he not create the world sooner, and thereby discover himself? For the longest time that can be imagined is just as nothing in comparison with eternity. If God had pleased, he might have concealed his existence and perfections to all eternity, or, in other words, never have made any thing. Seeing therefore it was only of his sovereign pleasure that he made creatures, to whom he might manifest himself, surely he had a right to fix on the time for doing it. We are sure he is infinitely wise, and consequently all his works are done in the fittest time, and best manner.

God made the world, not because he needed the praise or service of creatures to add to his blessedness; for he who is self-existent must necessarily be infinitely perfect and absolutely independent; and would always have remained the same happy Being, enjoying his own excellencies and perfections, had no creature ever been made. But it was for the manifesting of his own glorious attributes, and communicating happiness to creatures capable of it, that he, in the beginning, created this magnificent fabric of the heavens and the earth, with all things therein, whether visible or invisible, animate or inanimate, material substances or immaterial spirits. For he created beings of different ranks and powers, to whom he might manifest himself, or communicate his goodness. Some of these were pure intellectual spirits, fit for the felicity and employments of the heavenly state, to stand in his immediate presence, and execute his righteous commands: but these were created before the solar system; for the angels, those “sons of God,” called “morning stars,” were present, and sung together for joy, when “the foundations” of this world were laid. Others he formed out of the earth, with life, sense, and instinct, but destitute of reason, designing them to be subservient to the necessities or conveniences of a higher order of beings. Besides these he created other beings of a middle rank, partaking of an earthly part, fashioned with infinite skill and art, of exquisite symmetry, and adorned with great external beauty; and of a spiritual part akin to angels, and but little inferior to them, being in their constitution a compound of the animal and angelic natures.

It is not by reason alone then, or the light of heathen philosophy, but “through faith,” in the infallible testimony of Divine revelation, “we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” The sun, moon, stars, and earth, which we see, were not made of matter which had existed from eternity, as some of the heathen philosophers supposed, but of what God created anterior to the formation of those wonderful orbs. The word κατηρτισθαι, _framed_, signifies not only to _make_ or _produce_ simply, but properly _to place_ or _set in joint_ the parts of any body or machine in their right order. Accordingly Plato says, that in making the world, God proceeded with the exactness of a geometrician, arranging every thing in complete symmetry. All this was done by the _word_ of God, which is not to be understood of any articulate sound, but of the simple act of his own will; he willed the universe, with all its variety of furniture, into existence. And this is a matter of _faith_, to be believed; not to be known by mere reason; for reason, without faith, can apprehend a formation of things from matter previously made ready.

A pious expositor very justly observes, By faith assenting to Divine revelation, and not by reason we understand the truth and wonders, the reasons and causes, the manner and end, of the creation of the world. Reason indeed tells us that there was a creation, consequently a Creator; but reason without Divine revelation could never have discovered the circumstances and manner of the creation, which wholly depended upon the will of God. Reason could never have known them, if God had not in his word first revealed them. Reason may propound the question, How was the world made, and all things therein? But revelation must resolve it.

“Oh Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honor and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved for ever. Thou coveredst it with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.” Such is the sublime language of Divine revelation!

* * * * *

Footnotes - Chapter I

[1] As the name _Jehovah_, in the Hebrew consists of four
letters, so for the most part the name of the supreme Being
does in all languages. Thus among the Persians, the name is
Σορυ; among the Arabians, _Alla_; among the Assyrians, _Adad_;
among the Egyptians, Θωυθ or Θευθ with the Grecians, Θεος; the
Latins, _Deus_; the French, _Dieu_; the Spaniards, _Dios_; the
Italians, _Idio_; and with the Germans, _Gott_.

The name _Jehovah_ is written differently. Sanchoniathon
writes it _Jevo_; Diodorus the Sicilian, Macrobius, Clemens
Alexandrinus, Jerome, and Origen, _Jao_; Epiphanius, Theodoret,
and the Samaritans, _Jabé_ or _Jave_: we find likewise _Jahoh_,
_Javo_, _Jaou_, _Jaod_. Lewis Capellus is for _Javo_; Drusius
for _Javé_; Mercer for _Jehevah_: Hottinger _Jehra_. The Moors
call their God _Juba_, whom some believe to be _Jehovah_.
The Latins probably took their _Juvis_ or _Jovis Pater_ from
_Jehovah_. It is certain that these four letters may likewise
be expressed by _Javo_, _Jaho_, _Jaon_, _Jevo_, _Javé_,
_Jehvah_, &c. Mussulmen frequently use the name _Hu_, or
_Hou_, which has almost the same signification as _Jehovah_,
i.e. _He who is_. But the great name of God is _Allah_, which
they pronounce often, and have great confidence in. Among the
Arabians, and all Mahometans the name _Allah_ corresponds with
the _Elohim_ and _Adonai_ of the Hebrews, and even that of
_Jehovah_. See Calmet’s Dictionary.

[2] Dr. A. Clarke on Exod. xxxiv, 6, 7.

[3] Philo-Biblius seems to intimate, that the God of the
Phœnicians was anciently called by the name _Jehovah_; and that
_Jevo_, _Javo_, more recently used by them, is a corruption of
it; for it is said, that Jerombalus who supplied Sanchoniathon
with materials for his Phœnician history, was a priest of the
God Jevo. Euseb. Præp. Evang. lib. i. c. 9.

[4] “On the front of the famous temple of Apollo, at
Delphos, was graven the Greek word Ει (which signifies _thou
art_, being the second person singular of the verb εἰμὶ.) The
learned among the Philosophers labored long to discover its
meaning, each giving his own opinion; but could not find it
out, until Plutarch (who travelled into Egypt and Greece for
instruction in ancient sciences and other things) meeting with
that passage in the writings of Moses, where God manifested
himself by saying, I AM THAT I AM; he was struck with it, and
having it explained to him, he then conceived the true and
exalted sense of the word Ει, engraved on the front of the
temple. It implied, as it were, an admonition to those who were
about to enter the temple, to worship God, who is the only
self-existent Being in the universe.” Creighton’s Enquiry into
the Origin of True Religion, p. 21. Second Edition.

On a temple dedicated to Neitha, at Sais, the chief town
in Lower Egypt, was this inscription: “I am whatever is, or
has been, or will be, and no mortal has hitherto drawn aside
my veil; my offspring is the sun.” It appears highly probable
that the ancient Egyptians acknowledged an active as well
as a passive principle in nature, and, as Plutarch asserts,
worshipped τῳ πρώτῳ Θεῳ, the supreme Deity. Enfield’s History
of Philosophy, vol. i. p. 76, 77.

[5] Norris on Reason and Religion. Contemp. i.

[6] Allix’s Judgment of the Jewish Church against the
Unitarians, p. 116. Edit. 1699. See also p. 119. Simpson’s
Apology for the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 379, 380.

[7] Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai, in Zoar, on the sixth section
of Leviticus. See Ainsworth’s Annotations on the place.

[8] Demonstration of the Messias, Part iii. p, 170, 171.
Edit. 1700.

[9] Jones on the Trinity, chap. iii. sect. 1.

[10] Allix. p. 132.

[11] Gen. i, 26; iii, 22; xi, 7; xx, 13; xxxi, 53; xxxv,
7; Deut. iv, 7; v, 23; Josh. xxiv, 19; 1 Sam. iv, 8; 2 Sam.
vii, 23; Psal. lviii, 12; Isai. vi, 8; Jer. x, 10; xxiii, 36;
See Prov. ix, 10; xxx, 3; Psal. cxlix, 2; Eccl. v, 7; xii, 1:
Job v, 1; Isai. vi, 3; liv, 5; Hos. xi, 12, or xii, 1; Mal.
i,6; Dan. vii, 18, 22, 25; Hebrew Lexicon, p. 19. Edit. 1811.
See also Mr. Parkhurst’s pamphlet against Dr. Priestly and Mr.
Wakefield, p. 3-9, and p. 148, &c.

[12] Ridley’s Eight Discourses, p. 79.

[13] See Allix’s Judgment of the Jewish Church, p. 118.

[14] Professor Kidd’s Essay on the Doctrine of the Trinity,
p. 452.

[15] Jones on the Trinity.

[16] Ganganelli’s Letters.

[17] Rev. Hugh Knox’s Sermons.

[18] Gray’s Key to the Old Testament.

[19] M. Pascal’s Thoughts.

[20] See Gray’s Key, Notes, p. 82-83.

[21] See Sturm. vol. iv. p. 266.

[22] Christian’s Magazine, vol. ii, p. 97, 98.

* * * * *