no means legitimate. The separation among the tribes which bore the name of Brachmen on account of their doctrines, may have existed before the conquests of Alexander, and yet have taken a different bias after the introduction of Grecian philosophy by means of the Greek Bactrian Empire. Therefore three hundred years after Alexander Strabo terms the antagonists of the Brahmins" contentiosum genus." However interesting such historical investigations are in themselves, and in relation to the various religious conceptions that may thus be traced to their primary source, they are yet altogether irrelevant as regards the main object of this research, viz., whether the primary names of God did not contain clearly and distinctly the monotheistic notion. We maintain this to have been the case, although we admit, at the same time, that Science has yet much to perform. But as men begin to understand that ancient history and Geography as well as Geology are no matters of religious Faith, which admits fully and adequately of all positive knowledge, it may be hoped that the investigators,-when no longer restrained by Theology, that maintains such research to be an offence against God,-will strike out boldly in new directions.

The traditional history of the Western tribes would require several volumes to be treated of adequately. But unfortunately our views being at variance with the usual distribution of the current of emigration, we should launch out into a subject altogether distinct from the one we are treating. This divergency relates principally to the adopted rule even admitted by the latest writers (see de Brotonne on the Emigrations of Ancient Peoples and Nations), of supposing Celts, Teutons, and Sclavonians to have followed each other in successive apparition, in primary ages, because from the time of

Herodotus such has been the tide of emigration. These authors admit indeed of the Pelasgians and Iberians as having preceded the Celts, Teutons, and Sclaves, and as having with the Tusci preceded all others into Greece and Italy. The connection of the Helleni with the Pelasgians is too well known to admit of a distinction, especially since the lineage is proved ethnologically to have been identical between all the IndoEuropean or Himalaya-Caucasian tribes termed ancient Celts, Teutons, and Sclaves. The more ancient worshipped Hermèz, or Djaus-piter or Jao-piter, who was the God of the Helleni and Graii, though Bel or Apol was, as the God of Light, the highest divinity according to the Dorians. (See O. Müller.)

We shall point out rapidly a few matters of fact, which may fortify at least our doubts respecting the truth of the usual accounts given by historians, even admitting that the term Scythian was applied anciently to Celt, Teuton, and Sclave, as well as to the Pelasgians, although Pinkerton maintains that the Teutons alone were Pelasgians, or Scythians, thus making the Kimbers or Cambrian Britons Teutons. Our opinion is that no real distinction existed in the primitive ages; for the first tribes that inhabited Italy before all history, the Osci, the Volsci, the Marsi, and other Sabin tribes, appear equally Sclavi as Teuton or even Tchoud or Finn. De Brotonne points to the Celts dwelling as it were in the outskirts of the large and wide territories inhabited by their rivals and conquerors, the Teutons. But those outskirts or Celtic territories are not those that appear to contain the descendants of the primary inhabitants of Europe. The Lucumon, or Lokman, or the high chief of the Italian tribes in the most ancient time, is now the name of the mayors of the forgotten tribes of Finnland. The chiefs of the Scythian Calmouk

VOL. II.-20

hordes are still the Tarchons and Archins (Tarquin. Archons), and the prophets or magicians of these tribes are still termed Telgoems (Telchines).

Coeval with these Scythian or Sclavic tribes appear Iberians, or primitive races, evidently Teuton or speaking idioms connected with the Indo-Zend tongues. Men-fra or Min-vra, the great Goddess, whose name as Minerva is so well known, was the great female deity of the Sabins, and the name was transmitted by them to the Etruscans. (Micale.) Now the fact that the tribes which preceded the latter in Italy employed the term Fra or Frau to designate the female divinity (Min, Men, Mens, Mind), proves them to have been of Teutonic race. The Gauls of Italy appear even in the first days of Rome to have been Teutons, or to have spoken a tongue equally understood by both Celt and Teut. Brennus, the well-known Chief of the Gauls, if pronounced in Cambrian and Teuton mode, is Prinz or Prince; and even in far more modern time the Brenns, or Prins of the Gaelic tribes, as the O'Brians, &c., are evidently the same. The Boii, or Gauls of Upper Italy, are well known to have settled in Germany as the Baiern or Bavarians, and the same tribes had settlements in Gaul, from whence so many followed the second chief Brennus into Greece, and of whom great numbers settled in Asia, where they formed, two centuries before Christ, the territory named Gallatia. There the Tollstoi-Boii (fiercest or bravest) were the chief or predominating tribes, and the same tribes were at one time on the point of conquering all Asia, during the wars that arose between the lieutenants of Alexander the Great, after the death of that Prince.

We had prepared all the necessary documents respecting these highly interesting points of European early history, in the hopes of imparting a local interest

to the dry research of names, but in fact they have appeared to us irrelevant. We must therefore be content with pointing out in the primary terms of Her. mèz, Djauspiter, and Minerva, the evident traces of Eastern origin, and of the monotheistic idea, still to be traced in the very names of the gods that Idolatry worshipped. Fro and Fra (Phro, Phra), as Spirit or Deity, constitute, we have seen, the great link between the East and West.

OF THE INNATE IDEA OF GOD.

ALL that we have sought to establish in what has been said respecting Monotheism, is merely the traditional fact of the Monotheistic idea being stamped in all the most primary terms which we possess. Still we are willing to abandon that traditional ground as inadequate, and to seek in the very nature of Man the proof which may be found wanting in Tradition and History. It may appear impertinent after all that has been said on the great subject of the philosophical proofs, either arising à priori in the mind, or developed à posteriori by men of such intellectual capacity as Descartes, Bacon, Leibnitz, Hobbes, &c., &c., not omitting Samuel Clarke and the many hundred others,—it may appear idle to broach the topic again. All former metaphysical notions have been proved worthless by Kant, and the à posteriori notions of causation and design substituted therefor. Those who maintain the d priori or impulsive appearance in the mind of causation and purpose, would conceive the proof to be one of those proceeding from elementary, primary belief. Still, Causation, and purpose or intelligent design, although