On this point we cannot be too jealous-we cannot go beyond the requirements of our Bible-for the honour of our God. It was idolatry which, as a master-evil, blasted, and withered, and ruined the ancient world, despite all its learning, genius, arts, and arms: and it can only be by a general and devoted fidelity to the truth on the part of Christians that the kingdoms of this world can ever "become the kingdoms of our God and of his Christ."

NOTES.

A, page 5.-Antediluvian Idolatry.

THE idolatry of the antediluvians is not only taught in the traditions preserved by Maimonides; the Assumption of Enoch" also says, that this patriarch "prejudged both the worshippers and makers of idols and images, in his commination against them." The apocryphal character of this book is fully admitted; but it must be remembered that it was regarded by Tertullian with so much respect, that he thought it, with other authorities extant in his time, decisive on the subject of which this passage speaks. In addition to this, we must call attention to the interpretation, given in a preceding volume, of Gen. iv. 26. ("Patriarchal Age," pp. 195-197.) In connexion with the observations referred to, it may be remarked that this text was not read by the Hebrew scribes, "Men profanely calling on the name of the Lord," as Kimchi and other Hebrew scribes render it. With which reading "That was the age in the days of which they began to err, and made themselves idols," (py idola, errores,) "and called their idols by the name of the word of the Lord." (See PAULUS FAGIUS in loc. OWEN On Images, p. 21.)

חוא ורא :the Jerusalem Targum agrees

An argument to the same effect has been drawn from the language used by Moses, when writing on the subject of antediluvian wickedness. In Gen. vi. 12 we are told, "God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt" (nn). The same term is used in this and the following verse three times to specify the evil of this age. It is worthy of observation, that Moses in many other places uses this word as descriptive of idolatrous practices. When speaking of the defection of the people in the case of the golden calf, he says, using the same word, "They have corrupted themselves." (Exod. xxxii. 7.) It is again used in the same sense, Deut. iv. 25: "And shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image." Deut. xxxi. 29, and xxxii. 5, may be also cited as additional instances; thus affording strong presumptive evidence that the great corruption of the antediluvian age consisted of idolatry. This conclusion is supported by Arabian traditions. The Koran makes the existence of antediluvian idolatry an article of faith. (Chapter lxxi.) It is taught that in the days of Noah five false deities, Wadd, Sowa, Yaghuth, Yauk, and Nesr, were generally adored, and that this wickedness occasioned the Deluge. (See also SALE'S Preliminary Dissertation, sect. i.)

Nor must it be forgotten that the earliest Gentile writer, Sanchoniatho, details various particulars which unite to sustain the authority of these traditions. He ascribes the introduction of the worship of the sun to the second generation, intimating that Cain himself indulged in this practice. Of the fifth generation from the first man this writer says, They "consecrated two pillars to fire and wind, and worshipped them, and poured out upon them the blood of the wild beasts taken in hunting: and when these men were dead, those that remained consecrated to them rods, and worshipped the pillars, and held anniversary feasts in honour of them." Again, in the eighth generation we are told that Chysor, who during his life had “exercised himself in words and charms and divinations," was after his death "worshipped as a god." Thus does every available source of information confirm the opinion that idolatry was introduced before the Flood.

B, page 8.-Was the Doctrine of the Trinity known to the early

Patriarchs?

There is scarcely any question which can be propounded respecting the religion of mankind in remote antiquity of more deep and general interest and importance than this. Reference has already been made to this subject, ("Patriarchal Age," pp. 314-320,) when reasons were assigned for believing that the assertion of this doctrine having been held by the disciples of Plato, is not to be relied upon, and that the notions which prevailed among the Platonists arose rather from the prevalence of idolatrous triads among Heathen nations than from "any Divinely revealed knowledge of the true nature of the Divine hypostasis." Thus far a careful and extended subsequent examination of the subject has served to confirm the views previously advanced. If, however, this language is construed not merely to apply to the origination of the Platonic dogmas, but to deny the fact of any Divinely revealed knowledge on this doctrine having been communicated to the early patriarchs, then I must be allowed to say that in this sense it does not express the opinions which a careful and more mature investigation of the evidence bearing on this subject has fully established in my mind. On the contrary, there does not at present occur to me any reasonable cause for doubt that the doctrine of the Trinity made one of the important religious revelations to the first men, and that it, in connexion with the doctrine of the incarnation, (respecting which also some knowledge was communicated,) led to the worship of human nature, and the adoration of the three sons of each Great Father as a sacred triad. This gave a distinctive colouring to the whole system of Heathen idolatry. It must not, however, from thence be inferred that Plato possessed a knowledge of this doctrine. This philosopher, in fact, never taught the existence of "three subsistences in one Divine essence. Consequently Cudworth is compelled to say, “We freely acknowledge, that as this Divine Cabala was but little understood by many of those who entertained it among the Pagans, so was it by divers of them much depraved and adulterated also. For, first, the Pagans universally called their trinity a trinity of gods, τὸν πρῶτον, τὸν δεύτερον, and τρίτον θεόν, the first, the second,' and the 'third god;' as the more philosophical among them called it also 'a trinity of causes,' and 'a trinity of principles,' and

sometimes 'a trinity of opificers.' Thus is this Cabala of the trinity styled in Proclus, Tv тpiŵv Deŵv wapádoσis, 'the tradition of the three gods."" (CUDWORTH'S "Intellectual System," vol. ii. p. 314.)

If, therefore, we apply the results of modern research into oriental countries and religious doctrines to the data collected by Cudworth, the result will be, that, instead of believing with that eminent man that "this mystery was gradually imparted to the world, and that first but sparingly to the Hebrews themselves, either in their written or oral Cabala," (CUDWORTH, vol. ii. p. 314,) we shall find reason for concluding that some distinct intimation of the triune nature was given to man at the beginning,—a knowledge which was maintained in the Hebrew church, increased by successive revelation, and finally perfected by the discoveries of the gospel: while, on the other hand, the Gentiles, although receiving the tradition, prior to the general Dispersion, with sufficient distinctness to impress a character upon all their idolatrous systems, nevertheless in process of time lost sight of the true nature of the doctrine, and at the period of the birth of Christ were destitute of all sound knowledge on the subject.

It is too much to ask the reader to receive our ipse dixit on this important case; nor will space allow our citing the wide range of evidence which has led us to this conclusion. In these circumstances a very brief abstract must be supplied.

The learned Dr. Allix has elaborately argued, (" Reflections," chap. xviii.,) that Moses, in the Book of Genesis, mentioned nothing but what was then generally known. If this proposition had been satisfactorily established, the case would have been settled, as it is an undoubted fact that Moses in this book uses language which clearly teaches a plurality of persons in the Divine Nature; and, when the promise of the incarnation, and the mention of the "Word of the Lord" as a person, are considered, is such as could scarcely be used by those who were ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity. But even if this proposition is not fully sustained, there yet remains sufficient evidence that some important measure of knowledge on this subject was communicated, either to the first man, (which is most probable,) or to the early patriarchs.

This will be seen if it be remembered that there exists ample reason for believing that Moses compiled the beginning of the Book of Genesis from pre-existent records; ("Patriarchal Age," pp. 77-80;) and that these contain the allusions to a Divine plurality to which reference has been made. The knowledge of this doctrine which these passages display, cannot, therefore, be ascribed to revelations made to Moses, but to some age long prior to the date of his writing. But then it must be recollected that Moses, while writing for the purpose of rooting out of the minds of men all notion of polytheism, yet transcribes these singular solecisms in language, "In the beginning," (bara Elohim) "the Gods, created." He might have said, Jehovah bara, or Eloah bara, and thus have used a singular noun as the name of Deity. Instead of this, however, he transcribes this plural appellation of God thirty times in the history of the Creation. But then this plural noun is used in connexion with (bara) a singular verb, thus clearly indicating that this Divine plurality is one God. Nor is it to be supposed that this was a peculiarity of manner or style of writing used by Moses; for

in other places he uses the singular Eloah, (Deut. xxxii. 15, 17,) and frequently connects the plural Elohim with plural verbs and adjectives. (Gen. xx. 13, &c. ; xxxv. 10, &c.) This conclusion is supported, and the knowledge of the triune personalities rendered still more probable, by the language used in other parts of the Book of Genesis. We are told (xv. 1) "that 'the Word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.' Here the Word of the Lord is the speaker: "The Word came, saying.' A mere word may be spoken or said; but a personal Word only can say, 'I am thy shield.' The pronoun ‘I' refers to the whole phrase, 'The Word of Jehovah ;' and if a personal Word be not understood, no person at all is mentioned by whom this message is conveyed, and whom Abram, in reply, invokes as 'Lord God.'" (WATSON'S Works, vol. x. p. 268.) Again, Gen. xix. 24: "Then the LORD" (Jehovah) "rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD" (Jehovah) "out of heaven." We have here the visible Jehovah, who had talked with Abraham, raining the storm of vengeance from another Jehovah out of heaven, and who was therefore invisible. Thus two Jehovahs are expressly mentioned: "The LORD rained from the LORD." This lan guage proves that a plurality of persons in the Deity was known to the writer of the Book of Genesis; and that one of them held the peculiar relation or title of "the Word of Jehovah:" and the manner in which this information is communicated demonstrates that the persons spoken of, who lived long before Moses, were familiar with this language.

As decisive evidence on this latter point we may refer to the words used by Abraham to the king of Gerar: "When God caused me to wander," &c. (Gen. xx. 13.) In the original it is, "When" □ (Elohim) "the Gods caused," &c. Jacob uses similar language, Gen. xxxv. 7: "Jacob built an altar, and called the place" ' “El-Beth-el, because there God" (in the original, □›ñ3× Elohim, "Gods ") "appeared unto him." These passages, regarded in their connexion and scope, will be sufficient to prove that a Trinity, or at least a plurality, of persons in the Deity was known to the early patriarchs, and probably even from the beginning. The opinions formed under the guidance of this evidence are greatly strengthened by the fact that important information was communicated to the first pair immediately after the Fall respecting the incarnation and redemption through a Mediator: and throughout all ancient idolatry we find this information blended with ideas of a Trinity, forming the leading elements of every system.

It is, indeed, "generally agreed among divines that Adam in the state of perfection knew God in Trinity and Unity." (DE GOL'S "Vindication," p. 105.) Epiphanius is most positive on this point; and Jerome, Justin, Irenæus, Tertullian, and many others, entertained and defended the same opinion. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude, that some knowledge of a Trinity was communicated to the early patriarchs, and probably to Adam, either in his state of innocence, or immediately after the Fall.

C, page 9.-The Worship of Man.

FEW perversions of the truth by the corrupt imagination of fallen man are more strange, in their nature and results, than that of worshipping some

of his own race.

That an intelligent and rational creature should ascribe Divine honour and power to one of the same species, seems an unaccountable folly. Yet when it is examined, like every other wicked aberration of the human mind, it is found to arise from a perversion of truth. The revelations of Paradise, in their use or abuse, coloured and formed the religions doctrines of mankind in all after-ages. The primitive promise, that the Seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent, was evidently understood, not only so far as to form a solid foundation for human hope, but also to some extent as it respected the means by which the deliverance was to be effected. On one particular there can be no doubt, namely, that the promised Redeemer would be an incarnation of Deity.

It is difficult to conceive how such an idea as this could have obtained a place in the human mind, had it not been revealed. This topic has not received the attention which it merits. An incorporation of the Divine with human nature! All analogy, and all reason, are against it. Yet we find this notion not simply propounded by any particular class of philosophers, but generally pervading the Heathen world.

It is, however, the manner and connexion in which this singular sentiment is found amongst all Heathen nations, which so lucidly indicates its origin. In a preceding volume, the principal sacred persons of Heathen mythology are clearly identified with traditions of Paradise. ("Patriarchal Age," pp. 155-157.) But if Apollo, Chrishna, Hercules, Orpheus, Thor, and others, derived their religious and mythological character from corrupted primitive tradition, how clearly this shows that we have here the leading

idea of the adoration of human nature!

In all these instances it was believed that an union of the Divine and the human natures existed; an union the most intimate and natural which the perverted reason of man could comprehend. On this basis was reared every kind of profane presumption, political and religious. Alexander, when greatly pressed for time, thought it expedient to traverse Egypt, and cross the desert, in order to have his Divine paternity attested by the oracle,-believing this necessary to his success; while to this day the head of the Scythian church claims the character of God incarnate. Numerous examples of a similar kind, in every age and country, might be adduced, ("Patriarchal Age," pp. 393-395,) showing that the original and ruling idea in all this assumption was the promised Incarnation. It seemed, indeed, to have been an admitted fact, that a claim to the character of the Incarnate One was essential alike to universal sovereignty and human adoration. The sovereigns of Babylon united both these claims, and led the way in this career of insane folly and awful guilt. Hence the word of inspiration has said, "Babylon is a golden cup. The Gentiles have drunk thereof. Therefore are the Gentiles mad."

Nor is it wonderful that such notions should have pervaded the Heathen world, when we find the expectation of the Incarnation so strongly asserted by our first parents, and remember that, under Satanic influence, almost every element of primitive truth was perverted in Heathen idolatry.

It may be doubted whether we attach sufficient importance to the perfect humanity which was evinced in the earliest manifestations of the Word of