bow down in lowly adoration, and worship the image or person of his fellow-man, appears passing strange. But that he should stoop to ascribe Divinity to a brute, and prostrate himself in religious reverence before it, seems too much for belief. Yet so it was, and in Heathen lands is even now. What could have originated such gratuitous debasement and profanation? This question has been frequently asked both in ancient and modern times, but has seldom obtained a satisfactory solution. The obscurity which rested on this subject in respect of the learned among the Heathen, we may see finely illustrated in the false and foolish answers which they vainly offered.

One reason assigned for this practice, according to Diodorus Siculus, is, that the gods, in the early ages of the world, being in fear of the numbers and wickedness of mankind, assumed the form of animals, in order to avoid their cruelty and oppression; but that, having afterward brought the world under their government, the gods decreed that the forms under which they had obtained security should be regarded with religious veneration. A second reason assigned is, that the ancient inhabitants of Egypt, having suffered many defeats from their enemies in consequence of confusion and want of discipline in their army, devised the plan of carrying standards, and for this purpose selected the figures of animals. These serving as a rallying-point for the several divisions of the troops, they obtained a victory, and ever afterward treated these figures with religious respect. A third reason given is, that this worship arose out of gratitude for the benefits conferred by them on mankind. But when it is remembered that the lion and the eagle were prominent in the early stages of animal-worship, this answer will sink down to a level with the preceding. Other notions, equally ridiculous and absurd, have been handed down to us; but this diversity of opinion, and this laboured effort to devise any plausible origin for so strange a practice, only prove the darkness which rested on the subject. Porphyry, who though a clever writer was a bitter enemy to revelation, has inadvertently on this point given us an important sugges

tion. In propounding his theory on this subject, he attributes the origin of animal-worship to the operation of the principle that the Deity permeates other beings, as well as man; that, in fact, "nearly the same spiritual essence pervades all the tribes of living creatures.” On this account, he adds, "in fashioning images of the gods, they have adopted the forms of all animals; sometimes joining the human figure with those of beasts; at others, combining the shapes of men and of birds," &c.*

It is always important in investigations of this kind to distinguish between fact and philosophical speculation. In this instance the learned Heathen, I have no doubt, gives us an important fact, namely, that animal-worship originated in a practice, which had grown up, of combining portions of the figures of animals, or of birds, with parts of the human figure. If we may rely on this statement, which is open to no reasonable doubt, we find that, unlike almost every other part of Heathen idolatry, the worship of animals was not the first form of this error. The veneration of images preceded that of the real animals. Nor were these images representations of complete animal forms, but of compound figures, exhibiting different combinations of the cherubic elements,-man, lion, ox, and eagle.

Here, then, we have an account of the origin of animalworship which meets all the difficulties of the case. The cherubic figures, we are sure, were copied in the sculptures of the ancients in almost every diversity of form and combination. These, like the teraphim of the Hebrews, became, in process of time, objects of superstitious regard, and ultimately of idolatrous reverence. The next step produced images of animals, as meriting similar devotion; and living brutes succeeded as objects of worship.

Beneath this depth of human abasement, folly, and sin, there is yet a lower deep. Men not only condescended to worship brute beasts, and birds, and creeping things: they proceeded even to reverence and adore the different parts

*PORPHYRIUS De Abstin. lib. iv. cap. 9.

of inanimate creation. Reference has been already made to the causes which led to an early reception of the false dogma of an endless succession of worlds. This opinion, however, when once accepted, induced a belief of the principle involved in it, namely, the eternity of matter: and, eternity being clearly recognised as a Divine attribute, the entire natural creation was regarded as Divine; and both notions were extensively propagated. In the progress of this error, however, the speculative perversity of the men who, professing to be wise, sank into such folly, encountered a serious difficulty. Whilst admitting the eternity of matter, they could not repudiate the eternity of the Great Father, the belief of whose re-appearance, at the commencement of each cycle of the world's existence, lay at the foundation of the whole system of error. But then, they found themselves stumbling between the idea of two eternals,-one occasionally, and at great intervals of time, appearing in human form, the other infinitely diversified throughout the whole material world.

This difficulty was solved, or rather the Gordian knot cut, by supposing the first of these to represent the mind or soul-the second, the material body-of the world. "As it was observed that man consisted of two parts intimately associated, the circumstance was analogically extended to the world at large. The spirit of man for a season animated a body and, when that body was worn out, and its component particles were resolved into their original substance, the spirit occupied another tenement, and again, at a stated interval, quitted it for a new one. In a similar manner, the intellectual Great Father for a season animated his body the world: and when that body at each great catastrophe was resolved into the primeval crude matter out of which it had been formed, the soul soon formed to itself another body in a new world, which it again occupied, and again quitted, at the close of the new period."*

Thus the foundation was laid for the most extended sys

*FABER'S "Pagan Idolatry," vol. i. p. 163.

tem of idolatry, in which every part of nature might be regarded as Divine. The modifications of this notion, and the inferences derived from it, were numberless. This mystic union of spirit and matter was frequently exhibited under the notion of a conjugal union, in which the pervading spirit is spoken of as the Great Father, and the material world as the Great Mother. Another representation exhibited the heavenly bodies as embodiments, or residences, of the pervading and ruling spirit; whilst the terrestrial world was regarded as the body of the universal deity.

Another modification of this error, which arose afterwards, taught that the intellectual principle was light and goodness, and the material principle darkness and evil. And thus was exhibited the idea of two independent and rival deities; one, the patron of purity and light; the other, of evil and darkness. It can scarcely be doubted that this latter inflexion of the error was greatly modified under the influence of a tradition respecting the grand tempter and the fallen angels.

Thus, by these several means, the great elements of a universal idolatry were established in the world. If it had been judged necessary, the several particulars which have been noticed might have been amply sustained by learned references but the best, as well as the most ample and convincing, proof which can be given in their support will be afforded by the various developements of them which will be found in the chapters exhibiting in detail the religion of the several nations which have to come under our notice. Enough has been said to indicate, in outline at least, the more prominent of those speculations by which men, even while knowing the true God, and "professing themselves to be wise, became fools."

In proceeding to notice the object and character of idolatry, it may be first observed, that, regarded in the united light of reason and scripture, it stands before us as a grand effort to defeat or neutralize the great scheme of redemption. I freely confess, I know of no subject that has been treated so unworthily as this. According to established usage, the

youth in our best schools-the readers of our most erudite manuals and educational works-are all introduced to an acquaintance with this subject as a curious developement of human ingenuity and speculation,-as a science mainly consisting of the actions, character, and worship of certain imaginary mythological personages. With these it is thought an accomplishment to have some acquaintance; and no one can doubt that this is essential to any intelligent study of classic authors. But does all this present to the mind any consistent idea of the object and character of idolatry? We teach the rising generation, and all inquiring minds, the great elements of man's primeval history, from the sacred record. They are instructed respecting man's innocency and temptation, his expulsion from Paradise, and the promise of a Redeemer. But when they are called to study the history of our race, to mark the progress of a fearful moral and mental deterioration, which covered the world with gross darkness, and rendered the isolation of the elected Hebrew people necessary to the maintenance of the knowledge of God in the world, all this fearful system of error and evil is exhibited as totally unconnected with spiritual agencies and moral ends. Is this reasonable or consistent? Is it not certain that the same agency which effected the fall, and thus spoiled the purity, of man, induced the whole scheme of idolatry, in order to defeat the promised redemption, and to frustrate the purpose of God in the promised mission of his Son? Can there be a

doubt in any reasonable mind on this important point? Evidence from scripture has been briefly adduced, and might be extended: but this is not necessary; the whole tenor of holy writ is decidedly in favour of my argument. I wish, however, to call more particular attention to one important point,-the worship of the serpent.

That the malign foe should repeat his assault on human happiness after the promise of redemption, is not wonderful. That he should have persevered in his aggression, might be inferred from his subtilty and malice. But it will scarcely be believed, that even Satan should not only