In the institution of animal sacrifices, a proof exists of the revelation to Adam of certain facts of the divine will, respecting which no record is preserved, and also of his faithful transmission of it to his posterity. No natural origin of animal sacrifice can be assigned, except that which refers to the divine appointment; and that Adam had trained his family in the observance of that rite of religion is plain, from the history of Cain and Abel. It is equally fair to conclude that he instructed them in whatever else he knew respecting the character of God, and of his will. The offering of animals in sacrifice, as expiatory victims, has prevailed in every age, and among all nations; and the scriptural doctrine of acceptance by an atonement, has by this means been every where practically recognized. Here then is tradition from the very beginning, coming in to our aid, and universally, both as to place and time, directing religious services. The providence of God in securing to this rite the universality which it has obtained is very remarkable, and most unequivocally teaches the vast importance which pertains to it, as a means of instruction, and as furnishing a principle to which even the Gospel itself addresses its most direct and forcible appeals.

A similar duty would devolve upon Adam's children, and a like practice would be pursued by them, in reference to their respective families, and thus, the existing lights of revelation would shine alike on all the families of the earth. It is easy however to perceive how the truths thus transmitted would, from time to time, be liable to shades of interpretation, according to the various prejudices, and dispositions of those through whose hands it passed. Hence the necessity of frequent references to the first parent of our race, or to those with whom he was known to have immediately communicated, and hence the importance of the lengthened lives of the antediluvian patriarchs. Adam was contemporary with Methuselah for two hundred and eighty-three years, and Methuselah died only forty years before the deluge, when Noah was five hundred years old, and his three sons were grown to maturity, all of them having, probably, been acquainted with Methuselah, the connecting link between themselves and the first man.

Noah became the depository of the knowledge of the old world, and the medium of its transmission after the deluge. He lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years; and the families of mankind were of one language, and resided in the same neighborhood, until the destruction of the tower (or temple) of Babel. It is fair to conclude,

Some there undoubtedly were, who had corrupted the truth, perhaps many, and had forsaken the simplicity of the divine institutions. But there were general doctrines known to all, and outward forms of religious worship common to all. This is fully proved by the common features of all systems of idolatrous worship, both in ancient and modern times, and there is no other way by which this fact can be satisfactorily accounted for. The several sections of mankind, as they separated from the plains of Shinar, carried with them the same general knowledge of the existence and claims of God, and of the modes and forms of his worship; and upon these traditions of reve lation, as a basis, human reason founded its various systems of philosophy and religion. The departure from purity would be gradual, accidental in some cases, and retarded in others, by the ever-varying prejudices of mankind, and the changing circumstances of society. The principle of change being once admitted, it is not surprising that the inventions of men soon took the place of the institutions of God. Still, however, the great fact of his existence continued to be acknowledged, and the rite of sacrifice was, by his providence, universally preserved.

The force of the above argument is strengthened by what Sir W. Jones says concerning the book of Menu, (already quoted from,) 66 though not even pretended to have been written by him, is more ancient than the Bhagavat; but that it was composed in the first age of the world, the Brahmins would find it hard to persuade me; and the date, which has been assigned to it, does not appear in either of the two copies which I possess, or in any other, that has been collated for me; in fact the supposed date is comprized in a sense which flatly contradicts the work itself, for it was not Menu who composed the system of law, by the command of his father Brahma, but a holy messenger or demi-god, named Briga, who revealed to men what Menu had declared at the request of him and other saints or patriarchs."*

The brief records which Moses furnishes of the sojournings of the patriarchs show that for many generations after the dispersion, the ⚫ knowledge of the one true God remained in some of the principle nations of the earth. Although in the days of Moses, the Phonicians and Canaanites were overrun with idolatry and polytheism; yet, four hundred years before, when Abraham sojourned among them, no traces of idolatry are to be found, in the account given of them, in

Elsewhere Sir W. Jones identifies Menu with Noah.

the Mosaic history. But the contrary appears from what is said of Melchisedek, a king in that country, who was also a priest of the Most High God, and to whom Abraham himself paid great respect, and gave the tenth part of the spoils he had taken. Abimelech, who was also a king in Canaan, about the same time, seems to have had a knowledge of the true God, and to have been his worshiper; and the inhabitants of that country seem to have regarded Abraham as a prophet of the Most High, and a person much in the favor of God. When Abraham visited Egypt, neither Pharaoh nor the Egyptians seem to have been infected with those idolatries for which, afterwards, they were so famous. Therefore, Mr. Hume's assumption, that the first and most ancient religion of mankind was, and necessarily must have been polytheism and idolatry, and Mr. Taylor's assertion that all other religions were derived from the Hindoo mythology, are both untrue; it having been clearly proved that the first and most ancient religion of mankind was theism, or the worship of the one true God, the creator of all things.

SECTION III.

IF the first and oldest religion of mankind, was the worship of one God, or self-existent and invisible Spirit, who created and governs the universe, the inquiry now is; is Jehovah that being? When it will be ascertained whether the facts detailed by the writers of the Old Testament did occur, that question will be answered. But in order to a correct decision on their credibility it will be necessary, first, to consider the STYLE of the writings in question, a proper understanding of which will prevent the inquirer after truth from being led astray, by the misapprehensions or misrepresentations of the Infidel. For example: Mr. Olmsted says, of the writer of the book of Genesis; "His God must have been corporeal." "His notion was that God must have been a very great man." His reason for this inference is, that Moses says, 66 God created man in his own image." The same inference is often drawn from the fact that, in the scriptures, we read of the arms of God, his ears, his eyes, his nostrils, &c. But a proper understanding of the style in which the scriptures were written, it is believed, will convince every candid mind of the fallacy and absurdity of all such objections.

The STYLE of the writings of the Old Testament is figurative and

assemblage of metaphors, but a symbolical mode of writing which embellishes and dignifies historical truth.

To be understood by man, that which treats of God, or any communication made by God to him, must necessarily be conveyed through human language, and by the use of figures. The figures used must be suited to the capacities of those to whom the communication is made, and they must be drawn from objects with which they are familiar.

As the metallurgic workman by his skill and perseverance, separates the pure silver from the dross in which it is imbedded, so our faculties must be exercised in separating the actual substance of divine communication from that which is necessarily human, the forms of language, and the condescending methods of comparison, by which God brings spiritual and divine realities within the sphere of our narrow comprehensions. The matter is divine, but the vehicle is human.

We have no intuitive knowledge of the nature, attributes, purposes, and acts of the Infinite Spirit. We have no possible means of receiving knowledge, though communicated from its own divine fountain, except through the medium of RESEMBLANCES to objects of our own thoughts, or of sensible perception by our own organs. We can form no conception of the divine nature as infinite intellect, PURE MIND, but by reflecting upon, and drawing conclusions from our own consciousness, and the operations of our own minds. We gain our notion of the eternity of God by adding the notion of infinity to our perception of the flow of time. By our touch and our sight we arrive at the ideas of motion, and resistance, and impulse; and by reflecting on the lesson thus taught, we rise to the notion of effects and causes. We look and feel around, we lay hold of bodies extraneous to ourselves, and we discover certain states and alterations of states following upon certain conditions of tangible and visible things; we then rise to a wider survey of the visible world around us, and we see a vast number of changes taking place, upon a scale of great magnitude; and at last our feeble minds, having acquired the idea of power, we transfer it, with the highest increase of form, to our conceptions of the infinite and eternal Deity; and we call our new idea Omnipotence. In a similar way, we form conceptions of justice and kindnes, from the action of parental and infantile feelings, and from the mental phenomena which we experience inwardly, and the actions of our fellow beings observed outwardly: to these conceptions we also annex the qualities of infinity and eternity, and thus we gain some notion of the MORAL

attributes of the Supreme Majesty, his holiness and benignity. But how faint are our best conceptions!

From this general statement certain important consequences follow. 1. All the methods of representation that may be employed to convey notions of the Deity to the mind of man, must of absolute necessity, be desinged to produce only analogical or comparative ideas, and must be adapted to that end. If we may so speak, they are pictures which stand in the place of spiritual realities; but the realities themselves belong to the INACCESSIBle light.

2. The materials of such comparison must be different, according to the varying states of mental improvement in which different minds. are found. Let it for a moment be supposed, that it had pleased God to grant an immediate revelation to the Athenians, in the age of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and for their use; we may believe that in such a case, the communication would have been expressed in the terms and phrases to which they had habituated themselves, and 'moulded upon a system of references to the natural scenery around them, to their modes and action in social life, and to their current notions upon all other subjects. Not only would the diction have been pure Greek, but the figures, the allusions and illustrations, of whatever kind, would also have been Attic. The Hebraized style, which was adapted to the people of Israel, would have failed to convey just sentiments to the men of Greece; for, though it would not have been absolutely unintelligible, the collateral ideas would have been misapprehended, false bye-notions would have insinuated themselves, and the principal sentiments, to inculcate which was the object of the whole process, would have been grievously distorted. Or, had the favor of a positive revelation been given to the ancient Britons, or to the Indians of this continent, it would have been clothed in another dress of representative imagery; and described in other and very different forms of speech.

Yet in such case, and under every variety that could occur, the enucleating of the representations, if it were fairly accomplished, would bring out the same truths, and the practical benefit of piety and virtue resulting from each mode; for the classes of mankind to which each was adapted, would be the same if improved with equal fidelity.

3. The earliest revelations which God was pleased to grant to man, must have been conveyed by representations of the character which has been described; they must have been composed of materials