remark that in each of these three figures we have three letters, but which become one, so that each Hence τplas figure is a trinity, or three in one. may also be explained by three one, that is, "the three one,” “the triple one;" and when we give to the s in as its form of n, we can understand this explanation still more clearly, since trias then becomes tri-oin, that is, "three one." The radical part of trinitas, trinité, and trinity, which is trin, is still the same word, since this is equal to tri-in, or three one. In all these instances allusion is visibly made to the three characters in the figure of the sun, and which so evidently indicate one and Be, that the word they compose, namely, is, is even still employed in Greek to signify one and Be, in order to show that between these three ideas, being, one, and three, there is no difference. But we must remember, that the first of these three characters, ɛis, stands in apposition to the other two, and hence it is by itself, when thus placed, s, equal to three; and as the other two (s) are the same as IV, in which two letters we have male and female, or man and woman, and their Creator, so is this little sign also the same as IV, and such is the trinity.

But here, when otherwise considered, the word for trinity means father, son, and God. Thus IV means "the first life," or "father," and it is the same as ip (the radical part of pater and père), and also as if, the radical part of father. And when we remark that V is the same as n, we see that IV is equal to in, which means one, between which

meaning and that of son there can be no difference in any language. Hence when we also consider that IV signifies still the Divinity, we see plainly how these two letters, which are composed of three ones, signify father, son, and God; and in which, though there be apparently three persons, there cannot, after all, be more than one. For, as I have already observed, they are named in precisely the same way, and are shown to be precisely equal, and as precise equality cannot exist between several things, it is evident that these persons cannot make more than one.

We have seen that the words, Ghost, Gast, and Geist, mean the father, son, and God: in the Latin word spiritus we have still the same three. It is to be analysed thus, us-is-ip-ir-it, of which the literal meaning is, “the son," "the first being, God." Here is is for eis or ois, and ip ir is the same as father or père, and the word it is for God; so that spiritus, when thus analysed, means, altogether, "the son is the father, and God." The French word esprit does not differ from spiritus but by its wanting the article us at the end. The es in this word is for eis, and the pr for père; as to the it it is here as in the other words. I have in another part of this work given several other explanations of spiritus, spirit, and esprit, but even others may still be given of them, and all be equally correct.

How extraordinary, in all languages, this word being is! I I say in all languages, because I am sure there is but one language in the world, and that

however we find this word in Greek, Latin, French, and English, so must it be with all people. And what are we hence to infer? Why that there was a happy time when all men had but one belief, and that it was only when they first lost the meaning of their words that they became divided amongst themselves. Then what a great misfortune visited the earth when men knew no longer what they said! What disunion, and hatred, and bloodshed, have grown out of this single evil! The word Trinity alone, which is one of the greatest antiquity, and which no human being can have understood since at least several thousand years, must, in cruel times, have cost millions their lives, and, judging from the excited inquiry it has ever created, it must have also filled madhouses with its pretended expounders.

I have not yet accounted for the ing in being otherwise than by saying it signifies the thing, so that the whole word being means "the thing be." As ing stands here in apposition to be, it follows that it must be equal to be in meaning, so that to know one of these words critically is to know the other. But ing, when analysed, becomes in-ig, in which we have still two words in apposition to each other, and, consequently, of equal meaning, so that they inay be reduced to one.

In order to see how the n in the word in is equal to the g in ig, we must remember that an I is equal to an O, and that, consequently, the two parts of g have the same value we allow to the two parts of n, which is composed of i and i. We may even

remark, that the little sign, not greater in size than a comma, which is to be seen projecting from the right side of the first o of the g, has been taken from the under o of this letter, since we may perceive, by looking closely at the latter, which was anciently made thus, g, that it is not a complete o, as it wants near the top of its left side a very slight portion of its circle, just as much as the upper o has projecting from the top of its right side. Hence when we restore to the second o of g this portion of which it has been deprived, we shall have in this letter g an o and an o, that is, a one and a one joined together, just as we have a one and a one joined together in the letter n. Thus we see how in and ig are precisely equal. From knowing this, it is evident that we have only one of these words to consider; and when we adopt in, we perceive, since this word is equal to IV or to IO, that ing is reduced to the same form to which anim has been also reduced. And what are we hence to infer? Why that ing means also "the trinity," "the Divinity," แ truth," &c.; and as all the words and letters in the world may be so reduced, that they have all, when followed up to their birth, the same great meaning. When we find two words, like in-ig, standing thus in apposition to each other, we are, in order to understand them more easily, to consider one of them as an article to the other. Then the in in in-ig may be rendered by the, and the ig by the word thing, or one. As the in in ing may

66

eternity,"

be rendered equal to several other letters, such as B, W, M, &c., it follows that ing may become such words as big, wig, mig, &c., which three words might, with great propriety, serve as names for the Divinity; and there are probably languages in which they fill this office; for they all mean, "great," "high," or "first life;" or they simply mean," the first thing." It may make a thoughtless reader smile to hear that such a trivial word as wig could have the powerful meaning here assigned it; yet it will be found, I have no doubt, to have a similar meaning in all languages. But when we analyse such a word, we are to allow to, that is, belonging to, to be understood thus, w-ig," the thing (to) the high or first one," that is, " to the head:" for this word means also, "the high one," "the first one," "the great one," or "the Divinity."

Even a hat, which may be thus analysed, w-oit, must be a name for the Divinity in some language or other, for it literally means, "life high," as we might see more clearly had the i been dropped, for we should then have ot, instead of oit, which is the same as haut (high). Nor does a hat differ in the slightest degree from wit, which means, "life to the head," or "to God," or "life above." But the most trivial words can be shown to have these double meanings. Thus, an oyster literally means, "the sun being," that is "the being," or "the thing the sun;" for, analysed, it is, ois-être, so that the meaning is, "the thing in form like the sun," because either of its two shells is made like an O, which is